Israel and Palestine

C1ay · February 1, 2006

Think about how endless family feuds start. What comes to mind is how Huck Finn is told the story of the one between the family that he was a guest of and their neighbours. Of course, in the Palestinian case there are more than two countries involved.

And here lies the opportunity to get on topic with a new thread.

In the Palestinian case I actually see their point of view to some extent but disagree with the methods of factions like Hamas. I think more people might also see my point of view if more Palestinians denounced the actions of Hamas and got the discussion back on track.

I personally am not convinced that it was appropriate for the United Nations to divide a nation via a UN resolution to create a new state. If Iraq were under UN administration today I would not agree with the UN deciding to divide it into Sunni and Shiite states. Just because the government of Iraq was toppled should not deny the people of Iraq to rebuild their government while keeping their nation whole if that is what they want to do. I would feel that this decision should be left to the people of Iraq.

The Palestinians to this day do not have a seperate, recognized state even though UN Resolution 181 specified:

Independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem, set forth in Part III of this Plan, shall come into existence in Palestine two months after the evacuation of the armed forces of the mandatory Power has been completed but in any case not later than 1 October 1948. The boundaries of the Arab State, the Jewish State, and the City of Jerusalem shall be as described in Parts II and III below. (emphasis mine)

Was it OK for the UN to divide Palestine regardless of the desires of the indigenous people there? Is the feeling of injustice claimed by those people valid? Have the provisions of UN Resolution 181 been met? What does everyone else think?

Tormod · February 1, 2006

No, it was not okay. It was a case of the UN simply occupying foreign land and giving it away to someone who needed it.

I think the endless warfare in the area shows that it was not a wise idea.

Boerseun · February 1, 2006

Everyone is going all hoo-hah about the Palistinian refugees, and how terrible their plight must be.

Ever asked yourself why the heck they are refugees in the first place?

IrishEyes · February 1, 2006

Everyone is going all hoo-hah about the Palistinian refugees, and how terrible their plight must be.

Ever asked yourself why the heck they are refugees in the first place?

Hoo-hah, huh? Interesting choice of words.

I really have a hard time with the Israel/Palestine debate. I think if most people are honest, they do as well.

When is a country a country? When they are at peace, or when the invading force becomes the occupying force? Or when the occupying force becomes an established government?

What was it before it was Israel? Was it Palestine? Was the land taken from the Israelis? By whom? If it was taken from them, was it still theirs? If not, then why was it given back? If it was still theirs, then why did it have to be given back?

Sorry if this seems to be dragging this off-topic. That is truly not my intent. I just have a very difficult time trying to figure out that situation. One day, it seems an injustice was done to the Palestinians. Another day, to the Israelis. And that's not even touching the UN's role. Where the heck do they get the right to take and divide a land? Oh yeah, the world, by virtue of the participation of each of the member countries, gave them that right. Right? Aaagh. I'm going to take a nap!

JAX · February 1, 2006

Doesn't it depend on how far back in time you are willing to look? Whose was it first? I don't think that two peoples with such contrasting religious views can be expected to coexist so closely under the best of circumstances. To say nothing of their utter lack of usable real estate.

Who is going to give what to whom? While we're at it should we give Alaska back to the Russians? North Dakota to the Souix? I've got a neighbor who claims to be a direct decendent of Julius Caesar and he wants England and most of Europe back. The point is,... unless you are on Easter Island,... you are living on what was once someone elses country and it was taken from them against their will. Survival of the fittest my friends. It's not pretty but it is real. We take what we can and keep it 'till someone stronger takes it from us.

Hopefully someday our "global community" will evolve to meet the needs of everyone, but with an ever expanding population and ever shrinking natural resources there will likely always be some left out. I say everyone stay out of it, let the Isreali's and Palestinians figure it out on there own. The U S and the Arabs have accomplished nothing positive in 50 plus years, ever heard the word "Futility"?

IrishEyes · February 1, 2006

The point is,... unless you are on Easter Island,... you are living on what was once someone elses country and it was taken from them against their will.

I totally agree with this. I've tried to make this point as well.

I'm not sure about the whole "just leave 'em alone and let them sort it out themselves" idea though. At what point do other countries step in and try to help? Ever? While it seems a simplistically logical (or logically simplistic?) solution, I can't imagine it working to the satisfaction of many.

If there was a fight, would the winner be the winner, or just a tyrant? That's what it really boils down to for me. If they were left to their own devices, would the rest of the world be content to abide by the outcome?

Somehow, I seriously doubt it.

C1ay · February 1, 2006

Doesn't it depend on how far back in time you are willing to look? Whose was it first?

Does it matter? UN Resolution 181 said, "Independent Arab and Jewish States ... shall come into existence in Palestine ... not later than 1 October 1948."

As best as I can tell the independant Arab State is still non-existent even though the supposed UN deadline for it's creation passed more than 50 years ago.

JAX · February 2, 2006

As best as I can tell the independant Arab State is still non-existent even though the supposed UN deadline for it's creation passed more than 50 years ago.

You're correct, it does not. Was the UN correct in trying to force this? No matter who gets the land a large portion of the world will think it a tragedy, a large portion will think it just,... and most will not know about it or give a damned. My personal hope is that the Palestinians get their state, but the religious war will wage on as long as these two peoples are together. I can't see them reconciling their differences anytime soon.

Qfwfq · February 2, 2006

From experience elsewhere, I fear this thread could end up very, very bad.

I've had a few hardly busy days lately but the lull is ending. I'll have to unravel some tricky stuff, even using graph theory, figure if it's woth it to implement Dijkstra's algoritm, Dial's implementation or find some simpler approximation ar what. So, I'm making an effort to refrain from replying to opinions posted so far and your only hope for it to remain a discussion between people more or less of the same camp. The greatest risk :hihi: is if you get some participants of the opposite camp and also some Israeli Jews. There are even metropolitan legends about the history of Zionism so it's hard to claim objectivity. Have fun.... :lol:

sebbysteiny · May 29, 2006

I have been thinking about that very point for a while.

What gives one nation a right to land?

This question has been debated by philosophy students the world over. Here are my thoughts. I will begin by mentioning all the possible historic events and arguments that MIGHT effect any just settlement.

The Palestinians say that they used to 'own' all of 'Historic Palestine'. However, there were many Jewish residents too. At some points in history, the Jews were the majority, while at others, it was the Palestinians. Right now, it is about 50-50. Further complicating matters is that many places in the West Bank contain Jewish shrines that somehow appear to get desecrated everytime Palestinians take responsibility. Also, whilst it is true that many of the Jewish Palestinians at the time immigrated to Palestine, they were not doing so to take land, but were claiming assylem from a world which persecuted them everywhere else. The fact that there was a large Jewish community already in Palestine made it a perfect place to go. Further, many Muslim Palestinians are also immigrants including Yasser Arafat who was born Egyptian. There are nevertheless more Palestinians in the region. Lets now add that the Arab / Palestinian side declared a war to annihilate Israel three times and lost three times. We could also add that the Palestinians never have had a state before, since the West Bank was owned by Jorden and Gaza by Egypt before 1967. However, both countries have renounced their claims over the land. Also, Israel now have settlements that have existed for over 40 years in the West bank. Palestinian Jews (who became Israelis in 1948) also owned some towns in the West bank but were massacred by Arab armies. Some Palestinian muslims stayed behind the Jewish Palestinian lines (now Israelis) and became Israeli arabs. However, Israeli arabs do not want to renounce their citizenship to Israel. Any claim Palestinians have to Israeli Arab towns must be balenced by the human rights issues that arise when you, against their will, forceably remove citizenship of a minority and force them to become citizens of another state. Lets also not forget the UN resolutions, which either call for a negotiated solution or have not been accepted by either side.

I'm sure I may have missed hundreds of factors that may effect land claims, but these I believe are a good sample. I think it can be seen that trying to go through history and pick out the important facts and translate them into an exact land claim is a foolish exercise. It's like trying to add balance out apples with bananas to guess who will win the world cup. Further, history is not even one sided. Whilst, if you go back, say 80 years, history appears to favour the Palestinians, go back 40 years, 150 years or even 2000 years, it favours the Israelis. The Palestinians also often talk about 'justice'. But what is 'Justice'. 'Justice' is only justice for one side and there is very little conceptual difference between 'Justice' and 'revenge'. Sometimes, 'Justice' is used to try to perform the impossible and turn back the historical clock to a time that favoured the Palestinians. However, after WW1 (when the allies put outragous surrender terms on Germany in the name of 'justice') the world has learned that notions of 'justice' have very little part to play in peace making.

I believe the solution to this is to totally ignore and avoid this kind of thinking altogether. Who did what to who when and why makes no difference outside academic discussion.

To get an answer, instead, I believe one should concentrate on the ONE part of history that REALLY matters: today.

Right now, there are 7 million Israelis (with 1 million Israeli Arabs, 6 million Jewish Israelis), and about 6 million Palestinians. The Palestinians are in the horrible and untenable position of being a people without a state and a government to look after them and protect them. This has to change.

However, at the same time, the 6 million Jewish Israelis in the region, all believe in a Western Democratic culture involving the rule of law and freedom, especially freedom of speech, twinged with a slight Jewish element (eg Kosher food in most restaurants). The 6 million Palestinians (and 1 million Israeli Arabs) believe in a Muslim style government where any criticism against Islam should be highly punished and where anything contradictory to Islam, including gay rights, are confronted by mobs. These two cultures are FUNDAMENTALLY different and could NEVER co-exist in the same system of government.

Before 1948, the Jewish and Muslim Palestinians did live in effectively one state. However, all that happend by forcing these incompatable cultures together was bloodshed and war.

Now we can add the millions of people called 'Palestinian refugees' all trying to get Israeli citizenship and are left out to dry by their Arab host countries by denying them work.

The only way that both peoples can live together in peace is for there to be TWO DIFFERENT VIABLE states, ONE JEWISH and ONE PALESTINIAN. My conclusion is not particuarlly startling, but anything contradicting this is nothing more than an obsticle to peace. From this simple premise, the nature of any eventual middle East settlement becomes clear. There must be one viable Palestinian state which includes almost all of the Palestinian population centres and sufficient resources and territorial contegruity for a viable state to arise. The Palestinian refugees must mostly be resettled in the Palestinian state, not Israel, because allowing millions of decendants of refugees to become Israeli citizens would disrupt the demographic balance of Israel destroying the entire point of having a two state solution. Israeli arab towns must also remain Israeli because of the human rights implications of expelling a minority against their will from a state. Therefore, unless Israeli arabs agree to change citizenship, Israel must remain at least the size of it's 1967 borders.

I admit, this is not a whole solution. It doesn't say anything about the status of Jerusalum (particularly the Al Aqusa Mosque) or which settlements Israel can keep save that any settlement that dissrupts the territorial congruity to the point that a Palestinain state ceases to be viable must be dismantled. However, it has allocated 90% of the land to either side and it deals with the Palestinian demand for the 'right of return' for decendants of Palestinian refugees entirely. All I can say about the outstanding issues is that one needs to consider religous sensitivities, demographic praticalities and inventive compromises with the main purpose being to get both sides living together in peace rather than appeasing either sides notions of 'Justice' or history.

Seb

sebbysteiny · June 4, 2006

I personally am not convinced that it was appropriate for the United Nations to divide a nation via a UN resolution to create a new state.

Maybe I could try and convince you.

In 1947, there were essentially two main types of Palestinains: Jewish Palestinians and Muslim Palestinians. The Jewish Palestinians and the Muslim Palestinians, however, had very different beliefs about what they wanted for a state. Infact, their cultures were so incompatible that bloodshed and terror on both sides had been growing and growing since the 1930's.

As well as 'Palestine' being a nation of a split people, it was never actually a nation in the first place. It was a piece of land that fell into British rule when the ottoman empire collapsed after the 1st world war. Britain had tried for years to stop the fighting using all kinds of tactics, but in 1947, things were getting so bad that they went to the UN for help, and the UN saw that the only solution was to split the land into two states: one for each people.

A similar solution was proposed for India and Pakistan, and while the solution wasn't perfect (as those 2 countries have been in at best a cold peace and sometimes a very hot war) it has stopped the much bloodier carnage of a brutal civil war.

However, the Palestinian Muslim side together with the whole Arab world did not accept the UN suggestion and declared a war to annihilate the Jewish Palestinians from the region: a war somehow they lost. An armistice was declared wherever the lines of the armies were on one particular day in 1948 and that is the 1948 borders aka the green line. Along these borders, the Jewish Palestinians declared an independant state called 'Israel' and henseforth the Jewish Palestinians were called Israelis. The Muslim Palestinians were later renamed also (in the 1970's) to simply Palestinians.

I have heard many Palestinian supporters argue that 'they have given up 70% of historic Palestine'. This seems to me to be an historical fudge in which they conveniently forget that the Palestinians in 1947 included those that are now called Israels to try and suggest that only one of the peoples (the Muslim Palestinians) owned all the land when infact the land has always had two peoples living in and owning the land.

C1ay · June 4, 2006

and the UN saw that the only solution was to split the land into two states: one for each people.

That the UN, aka outsiders, saw this does not make it right though. Should the U.N. today divide Iraq into Shiite and Sunni countries? I think not. Dividing people because of their differences is not diplomacy and serves to further highlight their differences in the end. OTOH, peoples with such polarized religious differences may never be human enough to live together and division could be the only choice to preserve their races ;) Maybe mankind will learn a lesson from the whole affair about religion and the evil intolerance of others that it fosters.....

sebbysteiny · June 4, 2006

You make a good point. In Iraq, dividing it is a negative thing. In India / Pakastan, it was a positive thing.

So what is it that makes dividing one piece of land good while dividing another bad?

Perhaps Ghandi might be of assistance. He hated the idea of dividing India, but reluctantly decided to accept it since he saw that the Hindus and the Muslims could not live together under the same system of government. It is regarded to have been teh right thing to do, since there have been comparitively few deaths and now, 60 years later, there looks like prospects for peace.

However, in Iraq, the people have lived together for years and were there to be any dividing of Iraq, it may make matters worse, not better. This is because 1) an independant kurdish region could prevoke a war with Turkey and Iran. 2) the Sunni areas have no oil and would end up with almost no resourses and probably a failed state and terrorist haven. 3) An independant Shia region could turn into an Iranian puppet against the will of the people. 4) Dividing Iraq would destroy a proud nation which would incite Arab opinion even further against the West.

These problems mean that Iraqis have no choice but to live together. If you think about it, there is no reason why they can't live together since they all have essentially the same cultural values.

Israel and Palestine is a different case entirely. There is no way that either Zionism or Western democracy can co-exist with Political Islam. Thus the Israeli people and the Palestinian people will never get along unless both peoples are allowed to rule over themselves. This requires two states, not 1.

You criticise the UN for 'seeing' the problems. The UN has every right to investigate problems and suggest solutions. This is it's raison d'etre. However, there is no single perfect solution for every problem. In 1947, things were getting so bad that either there would be a large war (which there was in the end), or both sides could accept some kind of land sharing agreement.

This raises another point. Although the UN suggested a peace plan, it did not effect anything that happened in the region for it was rejected by the Arab side. Instead, they chose war and lost. Both sides took many casualties and the Jewish Palestinians had many communities massacred. After the war, they declared an independant state of Israel. Further, many Arabs (60 years ago) fled the region.

Now what would you do if you were the UN now? The war could not be undone and Israel had declared independance and the Jewish Palestininians now called Israels would rather be annihilated than lose their independance, and the Arab side and the Muslim Palestinians wanted nothing more than to wipe out the Jewish state its inhabitants from the continent.

What the UN actually did was pass a resolution calling for a negotiated peace and a 'just' solution to the refugees. It never said anything about what that peace should be nor what a 'just' solution to the refugees entails.

In effect, it was simply saying "guys, sort out this problem on your own, but do it peacefully". I don't think the UN could have done anything else.

sebbysteiny · June 4, 2006