Aw crap, I'm a conservative...

My cousin says some of those guys livin' on the edge are like Israeli crazy hillbilly rednecks. 13 kids, two teeth in their head and automatic weapons.

 

Yeah, it's pretty wild.
The sad part is that there is some Israeli law that children under a certain age, maybe it is 12 or 10?, can't be prosecuted, and so they are used to carry out attacks against Palestinians. I mean, the IDF would never stop them anyways, but still.

 

Israeli redneck privilege at its finest.

 

"Send them young's out there to set a few Claymores, there, Avraham-Bob, and see if little Tzufit-Sue is big enough to use the Mosin Nagant 1891/30 yet"

So both sides use kids? ~sigh~

 

Which is why my Grandfather always thought it was a bad idea to stick so many Jews in once place (nods vigorously).
Durn, he and my Zionist Aunt could have some arguments....(waxs nostalgic)

 

Are you KIDDING me? You deny reality in everything you say. You NEVER talk about the Israelis. You blame the Palestinians COMPLETELY. You never say 'Israel has to do this', you think that everything depends on the Palestinians, which is complete and utter bullshit.

Can I ask some questions?
A) How old are you?
B) Have you gone to university?
C) If so, what was your major?
D) Have you taken any formal education pertinent to the conflict?

If the answers led up to a yes on D, how the hell can you possibly believe what you say? You realize that you are the only voice that puts out your argument (besides radical Zionists with their heads in the dirt and the far right in my nation and perhaps even yours)? No credible scholar shares your belief that Israel does everything right and would be perfectly able to provide an equitable resolution if only the evil Palestinians ceased. Because it is so black and white it isn't even funny, just scary.

Kk!

And the reason Druze don't perform acts of terror is because they are treated quite differently by the Israelis and not subject to the same conditions. I explained why Christians are unlikely to (shear lack of numbers and the fact that Hamas, the major outlet of Palestinian militancy, espouses an Islamist ideology). You also are, once again, painting an incredibly inaccurate picture when it comes to Israeli Arabs. Contrary to what you say, life isn't fantastic for them. They are frequently held at checkpoints where Israelis are not, they are not allowed to buy or lease land held by the Jewish National Fund (land frequently stolen from Palestinians) as it is explicitly stated that it is only for Jews, they are frequently denied building and construction permits, imposed heavier jail sentences (this reported from the University of Haifa), have access to less benefits due to not joining the IDF (which Haredis are still allowed through the subsidies the government provides them), and much much more. Do not act like life for Israeli Arabs is no different than that from other Israelis, because that is an outright lie and they are still discriminated against on multiple levels, and in effect, second class citizens.

No, you actually did. You did so when you talked of Jordanian actions as if they were reflective of Palestinians (talking about what the Jordanians did with Jewish holy sites, as if that is a crime worse than murdering thousands of civilians). You did when you questioned why Palestinians weren't absorbed into their surrounding Arab neighbors (espousing a Pan-Arab view instead of viewing the Palestinians as a distinct population that their neighbors may not want. Similar would be if you expressed Spaniards to be absorbed by Portugal and France, cause, hey, they're related).

As for your bit about Islamic feudalism, please. Do you know what the concept of the ummah is, the Muslim community? The purpose of the caliphates? Islam overwhelmingly preaches unity, and this again shows just how much you know absolutely nothing of what you're talking about, just the fact that you hate Muslims (and yes, the disgusting language you use in regards to them demonstrates this quite clearly).

I know you are too thick to absorb what I write, but I already explained why Druze (who are treated quite well by Israel) and Christians (who lacks numbers, especially when you consider what a small fraction of the total population even commits terrorist attacks, are a dwindling population, and are excluded from the Islamic nature of the most prominent Palestinian militant faction Hamas) aren't involved in terrorist attacks. Furthermore, IT ISN'T A RELIGIOUS CONFLICT, it's about territory, and everyone knows this. What is at the core of the conflict? The fact that Palestinians reject the Israeli take over of their land. You are, once more, the only person that espouses the view that this is a religious conflict. It is not. Yes, Hamas is Islamist. I already explained that desperate conditions promote radicalization and encourage people to hold on to religion and ascriptive ties. This is simply a fact of political science. You are an imbecile if you deny this.

Khalid Mish'al: We will not sell our people or principles for foreign aid | World news | The Guardian

By one of the top officials of Hamas. What does it say? NOT A RELIGIOUS CONFLICT. Stop distorting the truth so you can spew you bigotry.

Do you know anything about Jewish and Middle Eastern history? Jews were treated MUCH better under Islamic rule than they were in Europe. They had the 'People of the Book' status and there were no expulsions like in the wonderful Christian nations of Spain, England, etc. Most Sephardic Jews actually fled to the Ottoman Empire. No, I am not saying that Jews were never attacked in Islamic lands, but by far and large most people knowledgeable about the topic accept that Jews were treated much better in the Muslim World than pre late 19th Europe.

For you to say that Islamic supremacism is at the center of this conflict is frankly the stupidest thing I may have ever heard about this issue, something I have never heard from anyone but yourself and perhaps SirElliot, and flat out wrong.

That isn't freedom of religion though. Land is reserved exclusively for Jews. That actively discriminates against all other religious groups. Intermarriage between religions and even among certain Jews is barred. Secular Jews are drafted yet Orthodox can escape this. Food that isn't kosher cannot be imported. Christians are frequently harassed and discriminated against and nothing is done. That is NOT freedom from religion (what you stated), and it doesn't 'further jewish religion', it discriminates and allows religion to interrupt daily life and impede individuals while giving others an edge. Once again, you are just flat out wrong and talking out of your ass.

I already addressed the hijab bit. To the Turks, that threatens their secular nature, but I don't see so. To me, that is freedom of religious expression. You realize that in your country, in mine, people have that right? Why is it imposing shariah now? Because it is in Turkey that women now CAN wear hijabs? It isn't 'women must wear', it is that they can. I don't agree with the Supreme Court's ruling, and you simply don't understand that Turks are perhaps the most secular nation and quite over sensitive about this issue. Furthermore, nothing that you claimed is happening has made any progress as of yet, and I sense that you are just looking for things to support your argument. Turkey is as secular as ever, and the AKP advocates religion about a third as much as Republicans in the US.

No, I never said that. I was explaining why Palestinian refugees weren't absorbed and why the Jews were. It isn't because Israel was more sympathetic and the Muslims less so (once again, you are showing collectivist thinking in assuming that Muslims would do anything for other Muslims, even though they weren't prepared or able to do so when they already had trouble handling their own citizens), it was because both courses of actions fit and were necessitated by circumstances.

I never said that the Jewish refugees wanted to, I know the vast majority had no choice.

...*sigh*. I already explained to you why their 'fellow muslim arabs' (once again, you are showing your belief in Pan-Arabism that the vast majority of Arabs do NOT believe in and that has only been used as a tool in the 50s and 60s by Arab govts to further their own goals, like Gamal Nasser's ambitions to expand his rule) didn't absorb the Palestinian refugees: these nations were poor enough, riddled with unemployment, and in no conditions to deal with an influx of impoverished peasants coming into the nation with no capital. Furthermore, allowing them to remain refugees allowed these nations to continue to point at them and say 'Look what Israel did', a useful political tool.

So, I found out that Israel needed those immigrants and the Arab governments didn't want them, couldn't take them, and could use them as a tool. Frankly, you're wrong. The answer isn't in the refugees. If so, please state why so I could explain how you are oh so wrong again (oh, and can you please fucking read what I write and actually take it in? This is the second time I had to explain why Arab refugees weren't absorbed, specifically to YOU).

No, I AM presenting arguments. I am still calling you a bigot, but I know that I am presenting arguments. You, however, are not. You claim that I am caught in the black and white, but you are whitewashing Israel's role in the conflict and refuse to acknowledge their culpability in the issue at all.

You go to the easy little explanation for Palestinian militancy as being due to their being Muslims. You refuse to acknowledge (even when I explain to you) the multiple factors that encourage this. You won't acknowledge that Israel is starving the Gaza Strip, that it denies the occupied territories the right to maintain a functioning economy, that it allows settlers to attack and ruin Palestinian crops, that it restricts freedom of movement and thus exacerbates the issues of unemployment, that it impedes the ability for Palestinians to get medical attention, that it makes life impossible for university students and that checkpoints impedes daily life. You won't acknowledge any of these things, you haven't in a single post. It is unrealistic, completely transparent, and guess what? Everyone sees this. Everyone can tell clear as day that you are simply not credible because you refuse to acknowledge what the reality of the situation is: that there is a lot of grey area. No, in every single post, you blame everything completely on the Palestinians, highlighted in your two little questions (what happens if the Palestinians concede/what happens if the Israelis concede).

You are wrong- again.

I already explained this, but Israel's policy of collective punishment will not promote a change in Palestinian leadership. You keep asserting that it is up to Palestinians to change the course of the situation. You won't accept the fact that Israeli policies only serve to further the horrific conditions that increase desperation and radicalization and leads to more Palestinians turning to militancy.

Let's see if this can be more easily worded for you:

Israeli policies are fuel.
The furnace is Hamas and Palestinian terror attacks.
Until Israel stops putting fuel into furnace, furnace burns.
When Israel stops providing fuel, furnace goes out.

Israel has a role to play in this. If they promote economic development, increasing living conditions in the occupied territories, and promote open dialogue, it is possible for Hamas to diminish. But punishment NEVER eradicates such factions. Look at the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Look at the Taliban. You can't kill them. If we could, they would have been gone long ago. You have to eliminate the factors that promote them and sustain them (poverty, desperation, and oppression). You simply can't acknowledge this simple truth.

Right. I don't get sick at all by Islamic terrorism. Every time I hear about a bombing in Baghdad, I put on a smile.

Seriously?

El oh el.

There is so much funny in here I don't know where to start.

FGC is not limited to Islam. Ethiopian Jews do it. Non-muslim African cultures do it. Ancient Egyptians did it. And guess what? MY GENITALS ARE MUTILATED. I'm a Jew and they mutilated my penis. Is that okay?

Women being treated like cattle? Oh god, what an unheard of thing! After all, women have been treated so well by everyone else. Wait, what is that book on my shelf? The Subjection of Women? Huh? Women have been treated like shit by virtually every society in the world? Hm, what does my Torah have to say about this:

'Deuteronomy 22:28-29 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives'.

Wow. Rape a virgin, pay up, and you get to marry her.

Killing critics? Oh, who would do such a thing? Oh, hai Catholic Church!

Treating of non-Muslims as second class citizens? That is horrible. My great uncle that escaped Nazi Germany after witnessing his wife and daughter burn in a crematorium would never have heard of religious minorities being treated in such a manner. And the United States would never stand for such a thing...except when Jews were banned from immigration and turned away...and when my mother had tests purposely on Jewish holidays in school...

Gays being killed? Oh my god. This would never happen in wonderful white Christian Europe! No, there Alan Turing was forced to take female hormones in the 50s because he was gay. (Seriously, stfu about homophobia, it is rampant everywhere and gays are discriminated against and violence is promoted against us EVERYWHERE. Even in the United States. Trust me, I know more about this than you ever would)

You realize that everything you stated is present in other religions. Misogyny is rampant in Christianity and Judaism, genital mutilation is mandated in Judaism, gays are killed by everyone and condemned by everyone, Christians have treated everyone else like crap for centuries and Jews are doing that today in Israel, and killing of critics is a universal practice that knows not religion or ideology.

Every religion, especially Christianity and Judaism, orders submission. Christianity mandates to it's followers absolute obedience or they burn forever in Hell. Judaism compels absolute obedience and submission as well. That is just a universal aspect of religion (oh, and good for you, you know what Islam means, so does everyone else who ever took 9th grade history ).

At it's core, religion is no different at all than Christianity or Judaism (and it makes sense, since they all share common ancestry). They all order total submission 'or else', and arbitrarily condemn groups (such as women, gays, adulterers, and critics and unbelievers), and all support horrific violence and have been used in supporting such.

I realize that Palestinians today support Hamas. That doesn't mean it is inherent to their nature. You simply don't understand that correlation is not causation. I have explained that numerous factors support this, and if they were reversed, this would not be the case. Look at Palestinians in the United States, and all the other Muslims in the U.S. you claim are naturally compelled to commit terror. How many native born terrorists have we had? Not many. In fact, I would say that by far the United States has produced ten times as many Christian terrorists (which isn't all too many) than domestic born Muslim terrorists. In fact, the only real case I can think of is Nidal Hassan (was that his name, or was it Hassan Nidal? Don't feel like looking it up). The fact is, if Muslims were automatically terrorists like you assert, the United States should have had many more domestic terrorists. We do not. It is because we don't have the factors that have encouraged terrorism. But instead of actually thinking, you just say 'No, Islam causes it'.

Again, you are flat out lying. That was NOT autonomy. The Gaza Strip was still riddled with security checks, denied freedom of movement, denied coastal water rights, denied permission for a seaport, had their airport closed and subsequently blown up when it was never used for malign purposes, denied access to medical treatment, and BLOCKADED. First of all, that is not autonomy, they were still at the complete mercy (of which there was little) of the Israelis. Second of all, that type of what you call 'autonomy' means nothing when they are still subjected to horrific living conditions that further ferment desperation, radicalization, and militancy.

Stop whitewashing, it is seriously a dick move.

...Ugh. You truly know nothing you are talking about.

Nobody wants Gaza. Egypt wouldn't take it back. It doesn't want the land, which has little to no resources, and it doesn't want the impoverished people there to deal with when it already can't provide for it's own population. As for the West Bank to Jordan, that wouldn't solve the problem. You don't think anything through. The Palestinians don't want to be Jordanians, and the Jordanians don't want any more Palestinians.

B - L - A - C - K S - E - P - T - E - M - B - E - R.

God, is it that hard to understand? Once again, you show how you really just lump all Arabs together in your mind. The situation wouldn't be resolved.

Nobody is advocating for the Golan Heights to be given to the Palestinians. Your bit about Jerusalem is once again off but whatever.

While Jordan would do that, as it did with it's Palestinian refugees before, the transfer you are talking about with Gaza and the West Bank just wouldn't happen or work. What you don't get is that Jordan and Egypt don't want and wouldn't accept this. But you clearly know nothing about the conflict so I'm not really shocked you don't know that either.

The majority of the Palestinians aren't religious bigots like you are making them to be, and that is not what they so dearly want. Once again, you are inserting a religious element to the conflict which isn't present. But how am I surprised, when you are as arrogant as to believe that you, the only voice that calls this conflict religious, are right and the only one right amongst a sea of wrong experts and people that actually know what they're talking about.

Jesus why did I waste my time like that again. Oh well. Point is, once again you demonstrated complete ignorance and just flat out bigotry. Why I ever said I respect you, idk.

I hope you can let go of your vile hatred one day and stop pretending that Israel is a little angel and that the Palestinians have no legitimacy in their plight of malnourishment and suffering (funny, you don't even mention how 1800 Palestinians were killed in the last five years, and only 120 Israelis. Yet Israel has NO crimes. It was COMPLETELY justified in killing all those Palestinians).

Bah. Grow up and realize that humanity is more important that advancing your agenda.

 

No, you didn't say it does everything right. It's called reading between the lines. You don't say ANYTHING that condemns Israel. Thus, in the argument you present, you entirely blame the Palestinians, which is not realistic and a black and white picture in an entirely inappropriate circumstance.
I already explained how Israel doesn't have freedom of and from religion, and because you clearly skipped my explanation in your response, I can only venture to guess that you are just trying to ignore what you cannot justify. Calling Israel a modern 21st century state is also misleading- you are leaving out how it is probably the single most condemned state by the international community. Is that whole world full of Jew haters? NO, the fact is that there is a reason that it is repeatedly called out. What could it be? Disgusting human rights abuses and war crimes.

That isn't a legitimate argument. First of all, Hezbollah isn't representative of Palestinians. Second, I've already expressed how Hamas is harmful to the Palestinians, and that they have to be replaced as one of the major factions. I already said how Palestinians need new leadership, but that won't come until conditions improve. Whenever I say this, you have no response. You deny the reality that horrific conditions and oppression fuels these factions. You have no credibility.

Well, Lebanon does have freedom of and from religion and it's religious minorities aren't persecuted, nor apostates. However, that is irrelevant to the issue. Once more, you Pan-Arabism is showing.
It is not at all hard to believe that a fledgling Palestinian state, overseen by the UN and NGOs, can become a functioning and free democracy. You have no way of knowing otherwise. You assume because 'all the other Arabs' have had these problems that so will the Palestinians. That argument, supported by nothing, just holds no merit.

Israel has lots of propaganda of it's own. I read of towns where students were explicitly told not to intermarry outside their community. Israeli textbooks have been criticized for painting Arabs as violent and murderous. The word 'Nakba', as you should know the Palestinian term for the tragedy that became their existence after the Israeli War of Independence, has been banned from being mentioned in textbooks, which is completely wrong and gives students a one sided opinion.
Furthermore, you have to stop using Islamist wrong. Islamist means that the platform is based on Islam. Egypt is not Islamist. Lebanon is not Islamist (in fact, if you knew anything, religious minorities are 'protected' in that seats are reserved proportionally for all religious communities). And yes, their propaganda is disgustingly racist. You know what else was? Propaganda from the United States during World War II. I don't know if you've ever seen it, but Asians are depicted in disgusting racial caricatures and outright vilified. But we have moved past this, and you know what? The Arab states agreed for peace with Israel if an equitable solution was reached. This can be found in paper and with minimal research. You have no argument.

No. I never excused terrorism. Not once. What I said was that terrorism shouldn't then be used as an excuse for collective punishment against the Palestinian people or murdering innocent civilians (which you advocate, because who can tell the 'good ones' from the 'bad ones', and disgustingly, that is a paraphrase of what you yourself had said). I tried to explain WHY they resort to terrorism (desperate conditions, a crippled economy halted by Israeli measures and blockade, among the lowest standard of livings in the world, a pandemic of malnutrition, which all ferments radicalization and militancy as they simply have no outlet for hope), because you must understand that to know how to resolve the conflict and how to lessen support for Hamas. As I've said, you can't kill these groups. If so, it would have happened long ago. You have to eliminate the factors that support them. You are too thick headed to realize this, and I've noticed that not once have you ever responded to this reality when I have written, so I believe you acknowledge the validity of this but are too stubborn to say 'I don't have the answer', and thus disregard it altogether.

They WILL accept it. That is the thing. Have you HEARD of the Arab Peace Initiative put forth by the Arab League? It isn't even radical, it is the same thing the United States and the whole world is telling Israel to do. You time and time again demonstrate a complete ignorance of the topic (which makes sense, if you were a philosophy major, why would you know about political science or Middle Eastern politics), and that would be okay if you didn't still claim to have all the answers, which is a simplistic 'blame it on Islam'.

That is so fucking warped.
There has been much Hindu terrorism- Abhinav Bharat in Malegoan Bombing, the 2009 Mangalore attack by the Sir Ram Sena, Shiv Sena and their multiple attacks (including attacking the film Fire and venues where it was screened, and the viewers). The Anti-Sikh riots where thousands were killed after the assassination of India Gandhi. The 2002 Gujarat riots. Jesus fucking Christ, I can go on.

You have NO legitimacy. Even when it comes to India, you are complete liar. How do you expect ANYONE to take you seriously?

And Kashmir? THAT IS DISPUTED TERRITORY. Do you not get that India and Pakistan only have existed some sixty years, so the partition had no formula? It is even mostly Muslim! And guess what, China wants it too! The fact that Pakistan wants Kashmir has nothing at all to do with Islamic supremacism you bigot, and everyone can see that clear as day. I can't even believe you even SAID that. This just proves what a joke you are.

This is so fucking wrong.
I'm ignoring the Jews bit, because that has been this thread.

You are completely wrong with your depiction of the situation in South Asia. There has been rampant Hindu violence and thousands if not millions have died from it. The Partition was a tragedy, but it is an outright lie to blame the events that transpired completely on the Muslims of India. If you knew fucking ANYTHING, Jinnah even said professed that Hindus and Muslims were brothers and should live side by side, until the situation deteriorated to the point where the momentum simply could not be stopped. And for you to blame what happened completely on the Muslims shows how fucking stupid you are in that you are completely leaving out Sikhs, who also engaged in horrific violence and had their own ambitions for their own state. The fact is that the partition was a tragedy where every community had blood on it's hands, and you in your ignorance are completely distorting the truth (shock there huh?).
I can't say anything for the rest, but how the hell is the Uyghur unrest in the PRC any different than that of the Tibetans? The Uyghurs had an independent nation that was INVADED by the PRC and Mao (lovely how you simplify these things to 'Muslims attack Chinamen', 'Muslims attack Hindus', without giving ANY historical framework), and oppressed in the same manner as the Tibetans. There is NOT a history of Uyghur terrorism, there have been INCREDIBLY sporadic incidents, possibly even five, much less than abortion clinic murders in the United States (yet do you call Christians terrorists? Of course not! You're a bigot!). It is not religious at all, it is a struggle for the right of self determination after a people were invaded. Do you recall how four Uyghur detainees from Guantanamo Bay were released, and given asylum in Switzerland and Palau? Yeah, that happened because the US government acknowledged the fact, along with Switzerland and most of the international community, that they had no place there and that the PRC was simply labeling innocent people as terrorists like their REGIME does.

Do you feel proud of yourself? Do you feel proud when you just post lies after lies after lies? You have no merit. And hey, if you respond, RESPOND TO THIS.

Truth? Go look at the above responses I just made and talk about denial.

That's unfortunate. Most educated people have more integrity to completely give one sided pictures of complex conflicts, or to flat out lie (a la Hindus vs Muslims, Uyghurs vs. the PRC).

Seriously, you need to grow up.

 

JPST 250
14 May 2009

Searching for Peace in Israel and Palestine​

The media portrayal and gripping horror of Israel's most recent “offensive” into the Gaza Strip has left many people, including myself, grappling for answers. My continued question which has been raised time and time again is simply, what is fueling such a bloody, complex, and ongoing conflict? In searching for a source to use as mode of vicarious experience to delve into this conflict, I came across a film by Landrum Bolling entitled “Searching for Peace in the Middle East.” After viewing the film, I realized it compassionately, strikingly, and accurately represents the Palestinian/Israeli conflict in a concise manner.
Immediately the size of Israel and Palestine, or lack thereof, becomes apparent. Combined Israeli and Palestinian populations number around 10 million individuals. Dwarfed in size by the rest of the Middle East, yet this conflict always seems to come to the forefront of conversations concerning peace in the region. The film cited that unrest in Israel and Palestine not only threatens peace in the Middle East, but in fact threatens the peace of the entire world. When one understands that the city of Jerusalem is a hub for the three Abrahamic Religions, framing the conflict become more visible.
Apart from clashing along religious and ethnic lines, the film states that at the core of this issue is the struggle over the land. In 1949 the State of Israel was created. Just under three fourths of historic Palestine was partitioned to give the Jewish People a home land. Arab populations were given a chunk of land west of the River Jordan and the Gaza Strip. This partition, essentially a land grab, set the stage for later conflict. In 1967 the Six Days War broke out and ever since Palestine has been under increasing Israeli military occupation. Israel states that there is no viable alternative to military occupation because if they did not, and do not continue, to act with preemptive defensive strategies they would be eradicated. The Jewish people's struggle through the genocide of the Holocaust, never distant from Israeli conscience, remains a constant reminder of their plight.
Among the greatest visible actions of the Israeli's to secure their “defense” and assert dominance is the “Separation Barrier.” It is a thirty foot high wall constructed of solid concrete that snakes its way through Palestine. When finished the Wall will be over 400 miles long. Already the Wall has encircled biblical towns such as Jericho, Hebron, and Bethlehem, creating virtual prisons. It cuts of neighborhoods from the rest of their communities, families from the rest of their relatives, and contributes greatly to the non-contiguity of Palestine. The wall threatens Palestinian villagers' and farmers' way of life. The construction of the wall leads to uprooting of olive trees, the main staple of the Palestinian economy. Checkpoints through the wall become more than an annoyance to Palestinian people they are used as a scare tactic, as a tool for humiliation, and most importantly as a mode of oppression. The Wall is more than a physical barrier it is a psychological barrier which is symbolic to the Palestinian people of Israeli unwillingness to broker peace.
Another visible assertion of Israeli dominance over Palestinians is that of housing demolition and subsequent Jewish settlement construction within the West Bank and Gaza. Many Palestinian homes are demolished by the Israeli Government under the pretense of not being built with the proper permits. Ironically many of these homes were constructed well before the State of Israel was created in 1949. The housing settlements that are built are scattered all throughout the West Bank. “Israeli Only” roads and highways link the housing settlements to provide contiguity for Jewish Settlers, yet are constructed with little thought given to Palestinian populations that they directly affect.
Some Israelis believe that living on this land is an assertion of their “God given” right through promises made to Abraham, Moses, and other prophets. Many Zionists see the ongoing struggle as redemption of land which is rightfully theirs. Gary Cooperber, an Israeli citizen and Jewish settler in the West Bank stated this in the film, “The Bible clearly promises this land to Abraham and his descendants.” One problem this argument faces is that both Arab Christians and Muslims assert lineage back to Abraham as well.
Many Palestinians are forced into a refugee lifestyle in Palestine as well as in neighboring countries such as Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon. This lifestyle coupled with poverty, unemployment, and above all resentment at the unrelenting Israeli occupation has encouraged violence. The daily oppression that Palestinians experience as a result of the Israeli occupation drives some to religious extremism. Many young people embrace the message that nothing can change Israeli policy, except armed resistance because all they have known for their lives has been oppression and occupation.

A Brief History of Israel and Palestine: Conflict in Focus​

Attempting to frame such a complex, enduring, and bloody conflict cannot be fully attained without scrutiny through the lens of history. Facets of contrasting religious beliefs, clashes of ethnicity, differing socioeconomic factions, political dissidence, and corrupt foreign interest have all contributed vastly to the history of Israel and Palestine. Consequently, these all play a vital contextual role in understanding today's ongoing conflict.
The conflict between Palestinian Arabs and Jews has its roots in the turn of the twentieth century. It has essentially been a struggle over land primarily, not necessarily religious differences. Jewish claims to the region are based on biblical claims that the land was promised to them by Abraham, their ancestor. Palestinian Arabs claim the land as their own because they have occupied the region for hundreds of years and had demographically more people living there. Palestinian Arabs reject claims to the land by Jewish persons on the basis of biblical claim because they feel it has not standing in the modern era, and that their biblical claim is just as valid as Jewish claim to the land, due to Abraham's son Ishmael.
A particularly important concept to discuss in conjunction with the conflict is the concept of Zionism. Zionism is a Jewish theory, plan, or movement that arose in the late 19th century in response to growing anti-Semitism in Europe, which sought to establish a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Modern Zionism is concerned with the support and development of the state of Israel. The logical place for Jews to gather was Palestine, because it was the site of Jewish origin. At the turn of the 20th century Palestine was under Ottoman control. By the outbreak of World War I there were 60,000 Jews living in Palestine, and 33,000 of those had recently immigrated. Also at this time there were over 600,000 Palestinian Arabs living in Palestine. At this time Jewish population centers were around biblical cities and Palestinians occupied the vast majority of the land. [1] There were however ever increasing numbers of Jewish settlers looking for a homeland in Palestine.
During World War I in 1915 and 1916 the British promised Arab leaders that if there was an Arab revolt to overthrow the Ottomans in Palestine, they would create an independent Arab State in Palestine. The overthrow was successful and Britain gained control over Palestine. However Britain had other promises to keep as well. The Balfour Declaration (November 2, 1917) decreed, according to the Encyclopedia Britannica, that Britain was supporting “the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.” This was of course problematic because Britain had promised an independent Arab State to be established in Palestine. Following WWI Britain convinced the League of Nations to grant them control of the region. Following this newfound power Britain created British Mandate Palestine.
This was a very contentious time for the entire region. Karen Armstrong in her book Jerusalem: One City Three Faiths writes this about British mandate Palestine and the situation in the surrounding region:
“At first the British and the French established mandates and protectorates in the Near East [Following WWI], but, one by one, new Arab states and kingdoms began to appear: Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, and Iraq. Other things being equal, Palestine would probably also have become an independent state, and Jerusalem, might well have been its capital. But this did not happen. During the period of British Mandate the Zionists were able to establish themselves in the country and create a Jewish State.”


British Mandate Palestine continued all the way through World War II. After Hitler's rise in 1933 there was a huge wave of Jewish immigrants to Palestine that wished to purchase land and live in Palestine. Throughout the 1920s and into the 1930s there were clashes over land between Jewish Settlers and Palestinian farmers.
By the end of World War II there were escalating tensions between Zionist militias, the British Army, and Palestinian Arabs. Britain was forced to relinquish the fate of Palestine to the newly formed UN, in hopes that they could solve the conflict. By this time waves of Jewish settlers had come to Palestine. According to the Middle East Research Project, “At the end of 1946, 1,269,000 Arabs and 608,000 Jews resided within the borders of Mandate Palestine. Jews had acquired by purchase 6 to 8 percent of the total land area of Palestine amounting to about 20 percent of the arable land.” So you can see that there was a massive influx of Jewish settlers to an area that had historically, for hundreds of years, been predominantly Arab. The changing demographics of the country spurred much conflict and laid the foundation for the conflict that was going to come.
On November 29, 1947, the UN General Assembly voted to partition Palestine into two states, one would be Jewish and the other one would be Arab. The UN partition plan divided the country in such a way that each state would retain most of its people, but some Jewish settlements would be within the proposed Palestinian state and many Palestinians would be living in part of the Jewish state. The area that was given to the Jewish state would be slightly larger than the Palestinian state (56 percent and 43 percent of Palestine, respectively) even though the population of the country was still predominantly Arab. According to the UN partition plan, Jerusalem and Bethlehem weren't given to either the Jewish State or given to the Palestinian State, but they were to be shared as international cities.
In this plan the Jewish state gained much land on the coastal plain of Palestine, because, at this time, that was where the majority of Jewish persons lived. In addition to that, much of southern Palestine was allotted to the Jewish people as well as an area around Galilee. The proposed Arab state would be composed of a small coastal region (now known as the Gaza Strip), what we now see as the West Bank, and a highland region. Neither side was very satisfied with the proposition, because both had to make sacrifices. Neither proposed state would be contiguous; many Arabs rejected the plan because a minority group of settlers (the Jewish people) comprised only 1/3 of the population, yet, under the partition plan, would own over half of the land.
The contentious debate over the status of partitioning Palestine came to a head in May of 1948, when Britain lifted its mandate on Palestine and left the region. When this occurred Zionists within Israel unveiled the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel. After this occurred, full scale war broke out in Palestine. Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq all invaded Palestine but were defeated by the superior military training and weaponry support of the Israelis. This war caused a massive influx of Jewish settlers to Israel, and a massive number of Palestinian Arabs were displaced from their lands and homes by the Israeli army. According to MideastWeb.org 726,000 Palestinians were displaced as a result of the 1948 war, thus creating the refugee problem in Israel and Palestine. After the war was over Egypt occupied the region known as the Gaza Strip today, and Jordan occupied East Jerusalem and the West Bank. The independent Arab state that the Palestinians had been promised was never established. The 1949 armistice agreement gave Israel control of 77% of the land of what had once been Palestine, occupied by Palestinian Arabs.
Escalating tensions created an arms race in Israel and Palestine respectively. 1956 Israel joined with Britain and France to attack Egypt over its nationalization of the Suez Canal. In June 1967, following the Suez crisis, in which the leader of Egypt essentially blocked Israel access to the canal, Israel launched an offensive airstrike on Egyptian Airfields. The rationale cited by Israel for their preemptive military action was that Egypt was arming insurgents in the Gaza Strip and amassing forces on the Sinai Peninsula, which Israel viewed as a threat to their security. The outcome of this war left 300,000 Palestinians displaced and an additional 200,000 Jewish settlers, began living on captured Palestinian lands. Israel had seized the Gaza Strip, the Sinai Peninsula, the West Bank of the Jordan River (including East Jerusalem), and the Golan Heights. Overall, Israel's territory threefold, including about massive amounts of Arabs placed under Israel's direct control in the newly captured territories.
Following the war the UN Security Council issued a resolution that decreed “a just settlement of the refugee problem.” However, to this day the majority of Palestinian refugees who have been displaced as a result of Arab and Israeli conflicts have not been allowed to return to their homes and land, conversely many have not been offered or granted citizenship in their host countries. Since 1967 Israel has occupied and oppressed all of what was supposed to be devoted to a two state solution as per the 1947 UN plan, and has increased settlements within land supposedly granted to Palestinians following the Six Day War.
In 1993, Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) signed a Declaration of Principles (the ''Oslo Agreement'') which was supposed to bring about a time during which Israel would begin to withdraw its forces and transfer some authority in parts of the West Bank and Gaza to an elected Palestinian government.
The West Bank was split into three areas. The first area which is where the majority of the Palestinian population lives and the Palestinian authority deals with civil affairs and internal security. Israel was supposed to be given the duty of security outside of the West Bank and Gaza however in another part on the Oslo Accords Israel was given basically authority over everything Palestinian. They could use this authority to override the Palestinian Authority. This is the precarious state that we find ourselves in now. Israel has control over all of Palestine and has used its authority to commit sweeping human rights violations, oppression, repression, and continues its land grab of the little bit of Palestine that Arabs do continue inhabit.
Media: Israeli and Palestinian Conflict Concerning the Wall
The news coverage that the United States receives is virtually the only source of information most Americans have to frame the Israeli and Palestinian conflict. For this reason, it becomes increasingly important to understand the dynamics in media that control our perception of this struggle. In a controversy as divisive and complex as this, it is difficult to place one issue at the core or forefront the conflict, however, one physical, psychological, and political barrier has become the face of the Israeli occupation and the bane of Palestinians struggle for self-determination; the Wall. One must beg the question, how balanced is the media coverage surrounding the Israeli Separation Barrier and who or what affects what we know concerning it?
Yitzhak Rabin was the first Israeli Prime Minister to express any sort of interest in construction of some sort of barrier separating Palestinians from Israelis. Rabin stated this in 1994 concerning his position:
“We have to decide on separation as a philosophy. There has to be a clear border. Without demarcating the lines, whoever wants to swallow 1.8 million Arabs will just bring greater support for Hamas. This path must lead to a separation, though not according to the borders prior to 1967. We want to reach a separation between us and them. We do not want a majority of the Jewish residents of the state of Israel, 98% of whom live within the borders of sovereign Israel, including a united Jerusalem, to be subject to terrorism.”
While the stated purpose of this Wall is defensive in nature, there is an underlying tone of disdain and contempt in Rabin's words for the Palestinian people, evident by Rabin trying to associate Palestinians, and indeed Arab people in general, with terrorism. From this, Rabin portrays a message of dichotomy to the Palestinian people, a message of separation, and a message of repression. What message do Americans receive concerning the Wall and how does it differ from the reality on the ground, from what Palestinians and Israelis alike, encounter?
The Washington Post is a fairly mainstream media source which supplies thousands of Americans with their news, so critically analyzing an article from such a source is extremely valuable in understanding US media coverage of the Wall. The Washington Post on July 26th, 2003 released an article called “Bush Criticizes Israeli Fence; Abbas Reminded of Need to Fight Terror.” Here, in an excerpt of text from the article, you can see that language surrounding the Wall was chosen quite carefully:
"President Bush criticized Israel's efforts to build a fence separating Palestinians and Israelis on the West Bank yesterday, saying it is 'a problem' that makes it 'very difficult to develop confidence between the Palestinians and Israel' The decision by the Bush administration to press the fence issue appears to have taken the Israeli government by surprise. The fence, which is a high concrete wall in some areas and an electronic wire fence elsewhere, has emerged as a key concern for Palestinians, who contend that Israel is using the fence to draw the contours of a Palestinian state that would be limited to 45 percent of the West Bank territory. But the fence is not formally mentioned in the U.S.-backed peace plan known as the road map, which is supposed to guide negotiations."
It is clear that the Washington Post had serious censorship surrounding the language with which they chose to address the issue of the Wall. At least they chose to mention that there are concrete and fencing sections, but so many crucial facts surrounding the implementation of the Wall are left out. The underlying motivation is to portray the Wall as a less heinous and ultimately acceptable security solution.
The Washington Post fails to mention the path of the (at the time) proposed “fence”, how it contributes to the noncontiguity of the Palestinian state, the immense loss of infrastructure to the Palestinians, land grabbing, and the sociological and psychological impacts of such a barrier. Why? Because to do so would be detrimental to America media portrayal of the Wall. The US media engine, in conjunction with lobbyists and government officials, do not want to implicate US tax dollars in funding a state that violates international laws.
In an article called “Palestinians: A Genocidal People” from FrontPageMag.com David Horowitz, whom I would consider an extremely conservative columnist on this and most other issues, skirts around the question of the Wall or mentioning its construction by reiterating the need for security in Israel because the Palestinian people are inherently genocidal and are being indoctrinated to hate Israel. He says that Palestinian school children are being told that the state of Israel has no right to exist and that Israel and “Zionist Gangs” stole land from the Palestinian people. The language in this article is astonishingly grim toward Palestinians. It seeks to dehumanize them and paint them as innately flawed individuals by using words like “hateful”, “genocidal”, “illogical”, and “Palestinian terror.” Once people see others in a dehumanizing light as portrayed by this media outlet, it is much more easy to accept solutions to conflict that involve violence rather than non-violent action. In short, conservative media paves a road for perceptions that support violent and sweeping actions against the Palestinian people because they are lumped together with the “genocidal terrorists” they “support.”
CommonDreams.org is a progressive media outlet that attempts to be a voice for change in the United States. Their portrayal of the Wall is much more in sync with what my own personal experiences in Palestine can attest to and what my research has uncovered. Common Dreams on February 27th, 2009 published an article entitled “Trapped Between the Wall and the Green Line” which delves into some of the less reported fallout due to the separation barrier, how the Wall truly affects Palestinians, and how the Wall is used by Israelis.
Common dreams points out flaws in the implementation of the rhetoric surrounding the “security purposes” of the wall. It notes how “the Israelis of use security as a pretext for both a massive land grab for the benefit of illegal Israeli settlements, and continual human rights abuses.” The article demonstrates how warped US coverage of this particular issue within the Palestinian and Israeli conflict truly is. Common Dreams reports how the Wall encroaches past the Green Line established in 1967 to perpetuate land grabs and to continue building settlements within Palestine.
This is crucial because if Americans knew that Israelis have plenty of places within the State of Israel to build housing settlements, they would not believe the guise of the Wall being used for security purposes. A government, under international law, cannot move its citizens to occupied territory to settle, which is exactly what Israel is doing, but it is using the Wall to remap borders previously established, so that the Wall looks legitimate to American eyes. The Wall cannot be used to take land to settle on, and then be cited as a source of defense for settlers living on it.
Common Dreams points out the harsh economic realities for Palestinians, who must cope with the Wall. Farmers lose their land and their olive groves. Literally tens of thousands of olive trees were uprooted to complete the separation barrier. When these trees are not replanted in Israel for their own economic gain, they are simply burned. Some Palestinians life's work has been crushed by the construction of the Wall and Common Dreams is one of the only media outlets I could find that depicts this in a more straightforward and earnest way.

Current Reality: Social, Political, and Economic Situation Today​

The current reality on the ground in Palestine is the culmination of years of occupation, oppression, repression, and grievous human rights violations. I traveled to both the West Bank and Israel proper in May of 2006. During that time the blatant suffocation of the Palestinian people was quite obvious. I witnessed refugees in camps that seemed more like ghettos and prisons, farmers that were unable to travel to their lands to work, crowded checkpoints bottlenecking and humiliating innocent civilians, and a gaping physical reality of the Israeli occupation; the Wall. The future of the conflict is hard to ascertain but from recent events that have unfolded, coupled with my personal experiences on the ground, I feel that the peace process is in the hands of the United States and in the hands of the world, via communicating to Israel, through means of political, economic, and social isolation, that the continued occupation must end and that a just, viable solution to the conflict must be negotiated.
The ease with which I slid through checkpoints and the Wall was appalling compared to the way Palestinians were being treated in their own country. I flashed my American passport and was waved through with no difficulty. I had to ask myself, was this because Israelis were aware that my tax dollars, in the form of billions of dollars of foreign aid and military aid, fund their way of life, their occupation? At one specific instance I remember boarding a tour bus to go up to the Galilee for a day. At a checkpoint the bus was stopped and boarded by Israeli Defense Forces. The IDF boarder security guards joked with all the passengers on the bus, wanting to know what America was like, and where we were from. I can attest to the fact that every Palestinian I spoke to did not receive similar treatment.
According to the Humanitarian Monitor in February of 2009 there have been important developments made in internal movement and access within the West Bank. Most of these developments contribute to the easing of Palestinian movement in specific areas, particularly for vehicles, but have preserved and entrenched existing Israeli restrictions and mechanisms of control for the benefit of Israeli settlements. The report had this to say about the future of the checkpoints:
“It is becoming apparent that the checkpoint and obstacles, which Israeli authorities justified from the beginning of the second Intifada (September 2000) as a temporary military response to violent confrontations and attacks on Israeli civilians, is evolving into a more permanent system of control that is steadily reducing the space available for Palestinian growth and movement for the benefit of the increasing Israeli settler population.”
Clearly the report paints a grim picture for the future of Palestinians living under the occupation. As the report indicates, the checkpoints will be used as a platform for continued control and restriction of Palestinian self-determination, until the world community puts pressure on Israel to cease its settlement of Palestinian territories and withdraw occupational forces.
Another example of the social inequality I witnessed due to the checkpoints imposed by Israelis occurred one night during the peace conference I attended in Bethlehem. The peace conference had scheduled an ethnic Palestinian dance troupe from Ramallah to come perform for us in Bethlehem and share a cultural exchange and dialogue. The dancers ranged in age from eight to fifteen. Ramallah is normally about 25 to 40 minute driving distance from Bethlehem.
The performance start time was three hours later than anticipated because the dance troupe could not pass easily through the checkpoint, even with adequate and up to date documentation. Their costumes and possessions were all searched and they assured us that this was something that did not happen out of the blue, but rather that they had experienced similar treatment for most of their lives. It almost seemed as though they had become complacent with the repression because they felt helpless and could not improve their situation.
Near the end of my trip I witnessed something I had been dreading to see during my time in Palestine. We travelled to Dheisheh Refugee Camp, which is located just south of Bethlehem in the West Bank. It occupies an area of around 1.5 square kilometers and now houses over twelve thousand registered refugees according to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency. This was a camp that was established following the 1948 creation of the State of Israel and was supposed to be a temporary solution for the problem of some 3,400 refugees. Yet, there are still Palestinians living within its boundaries and expanding its population.
Our group met with the Palestinian director of the refugee camp, in his home within the camp. The buildings were all haphazardly constructed and the layout of the camp echoed with screams of desperation from the Palestinian people around every corner. The streets, no wider than five to six feet had sewage present in some areas and construction materials were ever piling up. Since the refugees had nowhere to expand outside existing boarders, they were forced to expand upward by building on top of already existing structures. The director of the camp informed us that he himself was born within this camp in 1955 and had left its boarders only a few times in his life. It was simply unimaginable to me to see a fifty year old man, who had not travelled outside an area of 1.5 square kilometers more than three times in his life. I was 16 at the time, and had flown halfway around the world to visit, it just didn't seem right. The United Nations website for UNRWA concerning Palestine (UNRWA) confirms my personal experience with the Dheisheh refugee camp:
“Palestine refugees are persons whose normal place of residence was Palestine between June 1946 and May 1948, who lost both their homes and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict. UNRWA's definition of a refugee also covers the descendants through the male line of persons who became refugees in 1948. The number of registered Palestine refugees has subsequently grown from 914,000 in 1950 to more than 4.6 million in 2008, and continues to rise due to natural population growth. The camps were established in the aftermath of the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, to accommodate a new wave of displaced persons. Socio-economic conditions in the camps are generally poor with a high population density, cramped living conditions and inadequate basic infrastructure such as roads and sewers.”
The current reality of refugees living within Palestine, and those refugees scattered around the world, must be addressed if a sustainable road to peace will be achieved. The refugee crisis has displaced literally millions of persons and will continue to be an obstacle to peace if nothing is changed.
Before returning to Tel-Aviv to fly back to the United States, we were to meet with official from the Israeli Committee Against Housing Demolitions (ICAHD). They took us to nearby homes in Jerusalem, which had been slated for demolition in the days, weeks, and months before. According to ICAHD at least one home, on average, within the West Bank has been demolished every day since 1967. Families are often notified only fifteen to thirty minutes before their home is to be demolished. It is a demoralizing blow to see a bulldozer show up outside Palestinians' homes only to destroy any semblance of humanity the family once had. The most common offense cited by Israeli Officials is that the dwellings were not built with proper permits.
ICAHD has a wealth of information concerning housing demolitions and their legality under international law. ICHAD stated the following concerning Palestinian housing demolitions and subsequent Israeli housing settlements being built:
“Under the Fourth Geneva Convention Occupying Powers are prohibited from destroying property or employing collective punishment. Article 53 reads: “Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons…is prohibited." Under this provision the practice of demolishing Palestinian houses is banned, as is the wholesale destruction of the Palestinian infrastructure. Under article 49 of the 4th Geneva Convention Israel is prohibited from establishing settlements: "The Occupying Power shall not transfer parts of its own civilian population into territories it occupies"
According to ICAHD, since 1967, 18,000 houses Palestinian homes have been demolished in the Occupied Territories. Israel's policy of house demolitions seeks to further to confine, constrain, and repress Palestinians into small enclaves, leaving most of the land free for Israeli settlement. ICAHD officials, through the experience of a Palestinian family shared with us the reality of housing demolitions, as they affect individual persons and families. This particular family was aware that it was necessary for them to obtain a permit to construct their home, but to obtain the permit they needed to travel to West Jerusalem. The family attempted to pass through the security checkpoint nearest to the office at which they needed to obtain their permit from. They were denied because they did not have adequate security access to pass through the Wall. They were informed that they needed to travel to a different Palestinian city to obtain an updated security clearance. The family then attempted to travel to the city, which they were told by Israeli Border Officials to go to, but they were stopped again before they could leave the city due to inadequate security clearance. They were literally walled in by an occupying force in the city they were both born in and whose families had lived in for centuries. This processes is used as a circular way to oppress and dishearten the Palestinian people and it still continues today as a current social and political reality of the country.
The demographics surrounding the economic and social problems in Palestine help us to better put into focus the conflict and deepen our understanding of the social, political, and economic situation in Israel and Palestine today.
According to the CIA world fact book over 2.4 million people live within the West Bank. An additional 200,000 Israeli settlers lived within the West Bank as of 2008. In the Gaza Strip there are almost 1.5 million people, and as of today there are not occupied Israeli settlements within Gaza. The birthrate in the West Bank in 2008 was 25.9 per 1000 individuals in the population. In the Gaza Strip the birthrate was closer to 39 per 1000 individuals in the population. In the West Bank and the Gaza Strip infant mortality rates were both around 18 individuals per 1,000 live births. The life expectancy in both Gaza and the West Bank was found to be 72 years of age when the sexes were combined. Over 60 percent of people in the West Bank live below the poverty line, and I could not find updated statistics of poverty levels after Israel's most recent offensive into Gaza but older figures indicated statistics in the West Bank were comparable, but could be significantly higher now due to loss of infrastructure. The total population of the West Bank ad Gaza by age 15 has a literacy rate of 91 percent, higher even than the United States.
Again according to the CIA World Fact Book there are 7,373,000 individuals who live in Israel. This figure included 270,000 settlers in the West Bank, 200,000 in East Jerusalem and 20,000 in the Golan Heights. It also included 250,000 Arabs who hold Israeli citizenship. There are on average 20.8 births per 1,000 individuals in the population and 6.18 deaths per 1,000 individuals. The total life expectancy of all Israelis is 79.5 years. Over 95% of the population is literate by age 15. According to a National Insurance Institute study done in 2004 over twenty percent of Israelis are poverty stricken and on in three children go to bed hungry at night, I however have not been able to validate these figures with a second source.
The inescapable reality of the situation is that the political and socioeconomic power wielded by Israel over Palestine is crushing. The poverty and humanitarian crisis within Palestine is still unimaginable to me, even after witnessing it with my own eyes. Many Palestinians do not have access to adequate hospitalization or medical needs, simply because they do not have security access and are further tormented by Israeli Officials. The oppression by the Israelis is crushing the Palestinian people and unless something is done to improve the situation, we may witness the death of a culturally vibrant and rich people in our lifetime. The current reality of the situation cannot be ignored any longer and cannot be hindered by western governments citing lingering security concerns from within Palestine as motivation for inaction. The current reality is far too grave for inaction, and must be met with swift and uplifting aid to the Palestinian's right to self-determination.

Human Rights: Palestine​

The occupation of the West Bank and Gaza by the State of Israel has lead to many perpetrations of violence. Coupled with the illegal occupation, numerous and grievous human rights violations by Israel have been committed against Palestinian combatants but disproportionately against Palestinian civilians. The most recent example of such violence, as a result of the occupation, leading to a humanitarian crisis, was Israel's offensive into Gaza in 2008 and into 2009. Literally hundreds of civilians were killed, many of them children. Amnesty international had this to say in a press release from March 16, 2009 about the aftermath of the conflict:
“A group of 16 of the world's leading war crimes investigators and judges - backed by Amnesty International - has urged the United Nations to launch a full inquiry into alleged gross violations of the laws of war committed by both sides during the recent conflict in Gaza and southern Israel.”
The report goes on to say that a letter was sent to the UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon entitled “Find the Truth About Gaza War”. Among those who signed the document were, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson and judge Richard Goldstone, formerly Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda. They all, in signing this letter, believe that gross human rights violations were committed against Gazans during the offensive. The documentation for these human rights violations runs deep. Kenneth Roth of Human Rights Watch says that inappropriate weapons were used in the Gazan conflict, including white phosphorous and 155mm shells. Human Rights Watch reports that white phosphorous was used over Gaza City and refugee camps in Gaza.
White phosphorous is used as an incendiary and has burned civilian buildings, while claiming to be aimed at militant structures. When white phosphorous comes into contact with human skin it can produce extensive second and third degree burns, which is contributed to by the element's tendency to stick to skin and continue burning. The absorption of phosphorous into the body can also lead to kidney, heart, and liver damage or multiple organ failure. The inhalation of smoke can also cause problems because it irritates the mucosous membranes of the respiratory system. If near enough to the source of emission of smoke, it can even result in death.
According to an interview from CNN of Kenneth Roth (Human Rights Watch) the 155mm shells can be detrimental to heavily populated regions such as Gaza City because their lethal perimeter extends to near 100 meters in any direction from impact, and the casualty perimeter extends to 300 meters in any direction. Marc Garlasco, a senior military analyst for Human Rights Watch had this to say about the use of 155mm shells:
“Firing 155mm shells into the center of Gaza City, whatever the target, will likely cause horrific civilian casualties. By using this weapon in such circumstances, Israel is committing indiscriminate attacks in violation of the laws of war.”
Beyond the most recent conflict in Gaza, flagrant human rights abuses have been occurring for the entirety of the occupation. Extrajudicial killings have been occurring for the entirety of the occupation and the Palestinian Center for Human Rights has documented fact sheets containing information on extrajudicial killings from the year 2000 onward. The Palestinian Center for Human Rights has this to say on the State of Israel's regard for international law and its application:
“Israel has its own self-serving interpretation of international law – Israel has never accepted the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the OPT [Occupied Palestinian Territories] and thus has not complied with the stipulated regime of protection for the civilian population living under occupation. Such obligations include protection against deportation, transfers and evacuation (Article 49), obligation to facilitate the functioning of education facilities for children (Article 50), protection against excessive destruction of civilian property (Article 53) and the obligation of ensuring food and medical supplies and maintaining
medical services (Articles 55 & 56).
When I was in the West Bank in 2006 the humanitarian crisis was quite visible throughout the region. Lush rolling grassy lawns could be seen in settlements, while Palestinians struggle for basic water resources and they have to pay more for the water resources than their Israeli counterparts. The non-contiguity of the Palestinian state contributed greatly to the humanitarian crisis as well. As a result of the Wall being constructed, thousands of people have been displaced from their homes and their livelihood. People in Gaza are often referred to as members of the world's largest open-air prison because they are stripped of their humanity so effectively. Israel cuts off international aid to Gaza (Macaroni scandal anyone?), fuel resources, and does not allow trade to take place. In the West Bank hundreds of homes are destroyed to make way for Israeli settlements. Women die in childbirth trying to pass through the Wall to get to the nearest hospital, but they do not have the correct papers and often die before ever leaving the checkpoint.
The situation is beyond anything the international community can ignore. It is encouraging to see that international human rights advocates are looking to this most recent conflict in Gaza as a possible catalyst for action to be taken against Israel in the form of war crimes prosecution. The hearts of Palestinian people have been crying out for decades for the world to wake up to the reality of oppression that affects them every single day.

Greater Justice​

The most difficult aspect of understanding the Palestinian and Israeli conflict, and understanding all the dynamics and facets surrounding it, is how to resolve it. The majority of citizens of both Israel and Palestine desire peace and want to work toward a sustainable solution to the conflict. Many proposals have been brought forward about how to achieve a just and sustainable peace. The most popular solution, which has been advocated for by the Israeli peace movement and by the Palestinian people and leadership, is a two-state solution. This is believed by many to be the only way to assure stability in the region, two “real” independent states coexisting side by side. Some have gone as far to say that eventually the two states should join in a bi-national federation, and further to join neighboring countries such as Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Egypt in a Middle East Union.
The two-state solution to the conflict is currently the favored solution by Palestinian leadership because it takes into account the Palestinian people's right to self determination, but also recognizes that there are two distinct national groups sharing the same space and that requires separate states. If Israel was to end the Occupation in all currently occupied territories and give control of those territories back completely to the Palestinian people, Palestinians would receive only 22%[2] of historic Palestine. Under this solution generally Jerusalem is to be a shared city and an international capitol for both the Palestinians and Israelis. Jeff Halper in his book Obstacles to Peace lays out six fundamental conditions that must be met for the two-state solution to be minimally acceptable.
There must be viability of the created Palestinian state. Even if this state is diminished from its historic state, it must have full sovereignty, control of its boarders and resources, territorial contiguity, and the state must be viable enough to address the refugee issue that has resulted from the Occupation.
There must also be a legitimate end to the Occupation. This means that not only are the boarders and territorial areas solved, but Israel must end its gripping control over the Palestinian people. This means pulling out all security checkpoints and troops within the agreed upon Palestinian State. This also means that the Wall must be dismantled in areas where it infringes upon the Palestinian State. Ideally no separation barrier would be necessary in the proposed solution but at the very least Israel would have to move the Wall to inside of its own boarders, most likely to the 1948/1967 green line. Also with an end to the occupation comes an end to the discontinuity of the Palestinian State. Palestinians must enjoy an infrastructure that allows them to move freely about their state and also allows unrestricted travel back and forth between Gaza and the West Bank.
The two-state solution must also have evolutionary potential, meaning that many Palestinians see a time when Israel and Palestine could cooperate together peacefully and be economic partners and even join into a confederation with each other and also Jordan. This evolutionary potential is generally not favored by Israelis, many Israelis feel that a signing of the two-state solution would be an end and nothing further needs to be discussed. The problem is that wider peace and stability in the Middle East cannot be achieved by simply addressing the issue in Israel and Palestine. There are issues of refugees, security, water, and economic development that are all regional in scope and all depend on evolutionary potential of the two-state solution producing cooperative and improved relations between Israel and Palestine.
The issue of refugees must be addressed if the two-state solution were adopted. According to Jeff Halper in Obstacles to Peace eighty percent of Palestinians are refugees. The sustainable peace the two-state solution hopes to achieve will not only come with cosmetic and technical changes. The refugee issue is a major justice component in the peace process. The acknowledgment of injustice by an occupying, repressive, and oppressive government is extremely important for the morale and humanity of the people. It is just as important as formal reparations because it acknowledges the suffering of the Palestinian people. For the refugee issue to be addressed in a just manner Israel must do three things. First they must recognize that the refugees have a right to return to their homeland and Israelis cannot wield veto power about who gets to return and who doesn't. Every Palestinian refugee throughout the world should feel welcome in a newly created Palestinian State and should find a home. Second, Israel must acknowledge that it had a role in creating the refugee problem. It must recognize that this is necessary for the healing process and peace process to continue. Finally Israel must also allow the actual return process of refugees to take place, and if refugees do not wish to return some set of agreed upon compensation and reparation terms must be negotiated.
There must also be regional focus surrounding the two-state solution. Many problems which are currently at the heart of the Occupation, such as water, security, land, food, refugees, and economic development are fundamentally regional issues and need to be treated as such. Ultimately, Israel must become a regional partner in the Middle East if it genuinely desires peace and stability.
Finally Israel's legitimate security concerns must be addressed as well. The problem that the peace process is currently encountering is that Israel's view of security encompasses many aspects of control that it denies Palestinians the viability of a state. Lingering security concerns cannot be used as justification to continue the Occupation either. Addressing Israel's legitimate security concerns include protecting innocent Israeli citizens from rogue persons bent on revenge, and ensuring that the region feels that Israel has a right to exist, if and only if Israel is a partner in the region desiring to live in peace too.
I feel that the two-state solution is the most just and equitable solution to the conflict. It is also the solution that has the most potential to bring stability to the region, if all the above constraints are met and addressed adequately and acceptably for all parties concerned. The question now is what can we do to address this issue to help bring about the greater justice of a two state solution?
We can work to educate others on the issue by reframing the conflict away from the spin the media in the West and in the United States has created. This educational reframing fundamentally requires us to note that Israel is the stronger party in the conflict, not the victim as Israel wishes to portray. The Occupation must no longer be looked at as a defensive policy but rather as a pro-active policy used by Israel to gain control of more land and more resources and to suffocate a people. This is evident by the settlements, the infrastructure of the highway systems, land expropriation, and the massive housing demolitions. The issue is not of security as much as it is about Israeli expansion.
Also, members of the international civil society (that's us) need to mobilize. We need to form grassroots organizing surrounding this issue and become advocates for change by talking to people in positions of leadership and influence. Many people in positions of power understand legitimate problems with the conflict, so the problem concerning them is not so much education, but rather influencing policy change.
One solid way that people can make a difference is by putting into place a series and campaign of sanctions. Sanctions, divestment, and boycotts are legitimately at the disposal of everyone! We can make a difference by understanding where our money is flowing and refusing to allow it to be used for injustice. Sanctions and divestments are among the most powerful tools in the international community's arsenal. If the United States were to cut off military aid to Israel and split the amount of foreign aid they give to Israel every year with Palestine. Tremendous leaps and bounds would be made in the peace process because Israel would no longer have the backing of the most dominating country in the world. Individual churches, schools, and businesses have already considered divestment as an option and many are currently divesting funds from Israel. The policy is simple and effective, as it was used in South Africa during apartheid quite smoothly.
My hand in trying to produce peace in the region is by supporting olive farmer cooperatives in the West Bank and importing their olive oil into the United States at fair trade prices. The organization is called Import Peace, and grew out of the vision of a fellow member of my trip for an organization that promoted peace through sharing the rich culture of Palestine with the US through olive oil and olive soap. The proceeds from each bottle benefit a Christian hospital in Gaza and benefit a program called Tree's for Life which seeks to replant olive trees in the West Bank that have been destroyed or uprooted due to the construction of the Wall and due to the Occupation. I do not know whether I will be able to have a substantial impact on the region or even on Palestine, but doing my part in trying to bring about peace to the people of Palestine has become my life's work. With God's help, maybe someday Israelis and Palestinians will both be living in just, equitable, societies with peace abounding, salaam and shalom finally as one.

​

​

​

​

Works Cited ​

Armstrong, Karen. Jerusalem One City, Three Faiths. New York City: Ballantine Books, 2005.
"Balfour Declaration (United Kingdom [1917]) -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia." Encyclopedia - Britannica Online Encyclopedia. 14 May 2009 <http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/50162/Balfour-Declaration>.
Beinin, Joel. "Palestine, Israel and the Arab-Israeli Conflict: A Primer - Table of COntents." MERIP - Middle East Research and Information Project. 10 Mar. 2009 <http://www.merip.org/palestine-israel_primer/toc-pal-isr-primer.html>.
"Brief History of of Palestine, Israel and the Israeli Palestinian Conflict (Arab-Israeli conflict, Middle East Conflict)." Middle East: MidEastWeb. 14 May 2009 <http://www.mideastweb.org/briefhistory.htm#Geography%20and%20Early%20History>.
Chomsky, Noam. Chomsky.info : The Noam Chomsky Website. Oct. 1997. Z Magizine. 1 Apr. 2009 <http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199710--.him>.
Horowitz, David. "PMW Media Impact." Palestinian Media Watch - Homepage. 28 Feb. 2007. Frontpagemag.com. 7 Apr. 2009 <http://www.pmw.org.il/getresults/media/i213958.html>.
ICAHD. Israeli Committee Against Housing Demolitions. 12 May 2009 <http://www.icahd.org/eng/>.
"Israel: Stop Shelling Crowded Gaza City | Human Rights Watch." Home | Human Rights Watch. 16 Jan. 2009. Human Rights Watch. 25 Apr. 2009

[1] The Middle East Research Project (Middle East Report)

[2] Obstacles to Peace by Jeff Halper Page 83

 

I can dig what you're saying bro. I hate mainstream liberalism, I hate the Democratic Party wayyyy more than most of my rightist friends.

 

zylark, what would you do if a canadian mounty knocked on your door and told you that you have 30 minutes to leave your home?

 

Punch him in the face. He is no mounty. He didn't say "eh"

 

Dude, I quit. I don't feel like dedicating hours of my time to this anymore. It's not worth it.

 

You may find it easier to admit he is right.

Mainly because he is, for the most part, right.

EDIT: it's also important to recognize that the violent laws appearing in Deut. make clear that they are for a specific place and a specifictime and not universal laws that apply to all people for all times. Which is why even the most Orthodox of Jews don't practice many of those laws, because the text itself makes clear that the laws were connected to a specific historical period.

 

No, because he isn't right. He was wrong about a lot of things.

Off the top of my head, that the Gaza Strip goes back to Egypt. Egypt wouldn't take it back. It doesn't matter if Israel said 'Here, free', it just wouldn't take it. He's so wrong for acting like that is a possible scenario. I've explained why he is wrong, and I'm not continuing this because I've already responded to everything he has said, in this thread or another. It's just not worth my time to keep this going (seriously, how much time have BOTH of us put into these stupid threads? And for what? Just so we infuriate each other more? I just don't care that much).

 

Sir Elliot is right.. The things they teach in schools in the middle east is nothing but hate for the Jews.. they teach them at a very younf age that Israel stole their land and they must be punished. Should israel be "bulldozing" houses no, but why shouldn't they be able build in their own capital? And the leader of hezbollah has said that basically their mission isn't accomplished until "every jew is off the earth" now that seems to be pretty hateful to me.. And liberals take the side of palestinians and radical muslims all of the time.. shit Eric Holder won't even admit that RADICAL islam doesn't play a part in the terrorist attacks.. And that's absolutely absurd! The left needs to do some soul searching and think about and educate themselves on who they support and why, and what they stand for.. For the most part, the majority of people i have met who are educated in politcs and other world matters are conservatives or right wingers.. because they understand that government does way more harm than good for the people.. Everything the government gets its hands on turns to shit..

 

i agree with you zylark, that groups like hamas and hezbollah hate jews. but thats not what i was arguing. i was simply saying that i understand why they are able to lure so many into their hatred.

now i have a little tale for you to prove my point.

once upon a time, there was a village called grasscity. they were a peaceful people. they enjoyed cannabis and music and many other things. they never caused any problems.

one day, LEOland invaded. they killed hundreds and made them leave their homes. A young blade who watched his father get gunned down had nowhere to go. a group who promised him a place to stay, a family enviroment, "education", and most of all, a chance to get back at the LEOs.

while the little blade was their, he was brainwashed and taught to hate everyone who is not a blade.

the end.

i think forcing anybody to leave their home is wrong, weather they are jews or arabs.
and i also think that the common arab is not hell bent on drinking the blood of every semite on the face of the planet.