you'd be surprised at how many people believe the opposite.
I was taught in my K-6th grade Jewish day school never to trust Arabs and I've been a member of Hillel at 2 different Universities in 2 different states both of which had members with some very low opinions of Palestinians.
Funny thing. A while back I've been looking in some old schoolbooks of a second cousin/friend of mine. He used to live in Kuwait until he was 10 years old or something. As I was flipping the pages I noticed a black spot. Those pages in that particular chapter contained nothing but flags and the countries it belonged to. On further inspection, the black spot i saw was the Israelian flag blackened with a magic marker. I've asked my second cousin if he did this, he said his school did. , especially when you take account that this was an International school. Kids of all races and religions attend these schools, and yet the school did not recognize Israel as a country.
as far as I know this goes on a lot. Its really depressing. Instilling hate for others at a young age pretty much insures the fighting will continue generation after genereation. I was pretty much brought along this path. My saving grace was questioning why I was being taught this.
For those that think I'm defending a side in this argument I'm not. I am of the belief that the palestinians and the Jews deserve their own country. I am also of the belief that they are of one people and whether they ever decide to intergrate countries or not they should still allow open discussion and diplomacy on all levels from pre-school to the government to the senior citizen homes.
-TMB
My brothers arguments come down to killing Palestinians is ok because they are not really human.
Once I was given a a roommate who was Lebanese Christian. We exchanged our basic background. I said I have no problem with him being Lebanese, I hope you have no problem with me being Jewish. He replied "Sorry, it was the way I was raised".
That same year I made friends with a an Egytian Muslim. We read Josefis. All this was at Oklahoma State Tech in Okmulgee.
PS. By the way... I'm an arab and from the point of view of the arabs (and muslims) I know, it's not jews and judaism that is problem, but the Zionist policies of Israel as a state.
If it's Israel's policies that are the problem, why are there Muslim/Arab related conflicts also going on right now in Sudan, Nigeria, Algeria, Afghanistan, Indonesia, Kosovo(Albanian KLA), "India/Pakistan(Kashmir)" and Iran???
Sorry Rock, but NONE of those are really related. To name just a few.
India-Pakistan is due to the fact that they use to be one country than broke apart and have argued over the boundary. Indian Muslims are a HUGE part of India's population. It's not Hindus vs Muslims, although there are extremist groups on both sides that argue that. Pakistan claims that Kashmere is there's, has gone to war a couple times and lost. Since they are so outnumbered by India, they've turned to using radical Islamist groups and insurgent attacks to pressure India.
Algeria doesn't really have problems now, but during the 90s they had a huge insurgency because the Islamist party won the elections and the military stepped in and had a coup leading to a very, very bloody civil war that had spill over with terrorist acts in France. That's pretty much over now. That was secularists vs fundamentalists.
Afghanistan is a very VERY low level insurgency that only recently just stepped up with suicide bombings. That's former government vs new government. The larger problem in Afghanistan is the fact that it's back to being the largest heroine producer in the world and that outside of Kabul the country's run by warlords. It's not really the Taliban or al Qaeda that are problems there.
These conflicts exist not because of Israel and not because they're Muslims either.
PS. By the way... I'm an arab and from the point of view of the arabs (and muslims) I know, it's not jews and judaism that is problem, but the Zionist policies of Israel as a state.
If it's Israel's policies that are the problem, why are there Muslim/Arab related conflicts also going on right now in Sudan, Nigeria, Algeria, Afghanistan, Indonesia, Kosovo(Albanian KLA), "India/Pakistan(Kashmir)" and Iran???
I'm not sure of your point here? It doesn't appear to related to this discussion or my post. I was trying to make it clear that generally speaking it is the state of Israel and not jews or judaism that is the focus of a lot of resentment in the Arab world.
By listing conflicts involving muslims or arabs surely you are not trying to say they are fighting because "that's what muslims do"? I sincerely hope not.
With regards to your question, you'd be better off asking why there are conflicts going on the world over, regardless of who is fighting in them.
I'm not saying that "that's what Muslims do" but I am saying that "that's what Muslims are doing"...
Here we go again.
Yeah, remember WWII, WWI, the civil wars in El Salvador, Guatemala, insurgencies in Argentina, Brazil, the 100 years war, the 7 years war, the U.S. Revolutionary War, the French Revolution, the American Revolution, the U.S. Civil War, the Mexican Revolution, etc. etc. Damn, all those Christians do is fight fight fight.
India-Pakistan is due to the fact that they use to be one country than broke apart and have argued over the boundary. Indian Muslims are a HUGE part of India's population. It's not Hindus vs Muslims, although there are extremist groups on both sides that argue that. Pakistan claims that Kashmere is there's, has gone to war a couple times and lost. Since they are so outnumbered by India, they've turned to using radical Islamist groups and insurgent attacks to pressure India.
Quite right, JW - in the case of India, imagine if you took all the countries in South America for instance and forced them to become one country as previous ruling incarnations did and consolidated by British rule; the country isn't homogeneous by any stretch of the imagination and the differing languages and regional cultures attest to this - now then look @ 1947 and Partition when the country was divided into Pakistan, India herself (and Bangladesh - formerly East Pakistan - '71) - families along different religious tracts were separated to the zone that best suited the religious orientation... Muslims in India comprise 10 % of the overall population - that's approximately 110 million - it's not a minor subpopulation... In addition to the problem of Kashmir, there are territorial disputes b/w Bangladesh and India @ the far boundary of West Bengal as well as occasional insurgents from the NE corridor, above the tea growing region in and around Assam: that particular conflict involves no Muslims whatsoever... The border conflicts aren't determined by religious denomination, moreso the old standard tried and true contention over territory - it just so happens that there exists a religious divide b/w these 2 countries... To couch it in such terminology is specious[/b] @ best...
Afghanistan is a very VERY low level insurgency that only recently just stepped up with suicide bombings. That's former government vs new government. The larger problem in Afghanistan is the fact that it's back to being the largest heroine producer in the world and that outside of Kabul the country's run by warlords. It's not really the Taliban or al Qaeda that are problems there.
Poppy growing is still the most lucrative trade going in Afghanistan - when Karzai himself needs bodyguards and is constant peril, it's a power struggle not determined by religion, but b/c of sectarian overtones...
Attempting to use these examples to fit the original argument is counterproductive and speaks moreso of looking to embellish a claim through spurious means...
Since I don't know much about this ....(and i know this will be hard to answer, so just give the basics)
What exactly does Palestine want?
What does Israel want?
Is it the same as what the people want?
Thanks.. I'll check back.
I'm really not an expert on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but I'll give this a short go.
If you checked many public opinion polls in recent years I think you'd find that most Palestinians and Israelis would like to have a 2 state solution, an Israeli state and a Palestinian state living next to each other. It's achieving that goal that is the problem.
For quite a while there were a lot of Israeli politicians, especially on the right like the Likud that believed in a "Greater Israel." That basically was expanding Israel into the Occupied Terroritories through settlements. There were a lot of motivations for this. For example, the lack for space and costs of living in Israel proper, expanding for religious reasons (i.e. Israel should expand to its Biblical preportions), expansionist politics (we won the terroritory it's ours), etc. The 2 Intifadah's pretty much killed that idea.
Israeli politics is incredibly divided and it hasn't helped that one of the main political parties, Labor, has basically turned to crap, but the main political leaders today are mostly concerned about security - ending terrorist attacks. They tried negotiatiating with Fatah and Araft during the Clinton administration and had actually come to an agreement for an end to everything when Arafat backed out at the very last minute and things disintigrated to crap again. After that they've basically gone back to the view that there's no one to legitimately negotiate with on the Palestinian side so they do things unilaterally such as pulling out of Gaza as Sharon recently did. They also carry out targeted assassinations of Hamas leaders and terrorists, and while they talk about trying to not kill innocents, they haven't really done this in practice. There's plenty of cases where they've shot missiles at cars and entire apartment buildings filled with civilians to get one man.
On the Palestinian side you've got even more divisions and chaos. Fatah recognized Israel a long time ago and carried out a series of negotiations, but Araft basically nixed everything each time. After he died there was a huge power vacuum of leadership that still hasn't been filled. You've also got Hamas, the Islamist group, as the main opposition that doesn't recognize Israel and supports terrorism. They just won a 3/4 majority in recent Palestinian elections. Fatah, which ran the Palestinian Authority, was suppose to reign in the terrorists and Hamas and return to the negotiating table but has never been able to do that because 1) they don't have the forces to do it, 2) they don't want to do it because terrorism is the only real leverage they have against Israel. Not only that but Fatah and the Palestinian Authority is hugely corrupt. They siphone off all kinds of foreign aid into their own pockets and many Palestinians live in utter crap and poverty.
Under Bush, the U.S. has given up on negotiating despite all the public pronouncements about Bush is the 1st and only President to call for a Palestinian state. 1st the Bush administration didn't want to do anything that Clinton did. 2nd in the 1st term a lot of the neoconservaives in Cheney's office and the Pentagon were very pro-Israel and they had much more sway then Powell and the State Department there were more pro-negotiating. 3rd after 9/11 they see Israel fighting terrorism so support whatever Israel does.
So while much of the Israeli and Palestinian public would like the same thing, there's a huge lack of leadership to get things done. The Palestinians can't get their shit together, the U.S. doesn't want to pressure anyone and get things together, so Israel carries out its own unilateral policies.
I know there are a couple people who are much more up on Israeli politics than I am so they can probably make a lot of corrections and additions to what I've just outlined.
Since I don't know much about this ....(and i know this will be hard to answer, so just give the basics)
What exactly does Palestine want?
What does Israel want?
Is it the same as what the people want?
Thanks.. I'll check back.
The people want peace and prosperity and independence.
The Palestinian people want an independent and prosperous Palestine.
Israeli people want a secure Israel.
One problem with agreeing on a 2 state solution is drawing boundaries. Everyone wants Jerusalem, one of the most important cities for all three of the monotheistic religions.
A larger country where everyone would be free and equal is currently incomprehensible. Our American ideal is not well understood in other cultures, and only barely in ours.
A big problem with negotiating a peace is that the partys come to the table agreeing that all they want is a country to live in. Then the Palestinians want "the right of return". Then Israel wants to keep West Bank settlements. Things fall apart long before Jerusalem is discussed.
The problem has gone on for so long and been so bitter that neither side can the view the as having a legitimate right to anything.
A just settlement is out there but will take the kind of peacemakers of the world has only seen a few a times.
Everyone wants Jerusalem, one of the most important cities for all three of the monotheistic religions.
One more thing and then I promise to try to dead this thread.
It's tempting to draw paralellels: Israelis want this/Palestinians want this too.
Jerusalem is an issue that does not liken itself to parallel.
Jerusalem is more important to Jews than to anyone else. Period. It's simplistic and erroneous to say that Jerusalem is equally important to all three monotheistic religions.
Jerusalem has been the focus of Jewish yearning and prayer for millenia. It is mentioned countless times in the Bible. It was the capital of the Jewish kingdom, the site of the Jewish temple, the focus of many Jewish prayers, and Jews continue to pray in the direction of Jerusalem until this day.
Jerusalem has never played more than a secondary role in Islam. I invite anyone on this board to do their homework on the importance of Jerusalem to Islam. It's minor. Jerusalem's importance to Islam over the years has been dictated mainly by Israel's claims to it as its capital. It's purely political.
Jerusalem is not mentioned once in the Koran. It was not visited by one notable Muslim leader in the years that it was occupied by Jordan before Israel re-captured it in the Six Day War. It was historically a backwater of the Muslim world, Mecca and Medina being the principle foci of Muslim attention.
Only since Israel has re-established its rights over the city have Muslims begun claiming Jerusalem as some important religious cite.
Is it a major Palestinian population center? A cultural and commercial hub for Palestinians? Sure. But in no way does it's significance to Palestinians rival its significance to Jews.
This must be taken into account in any discussion of the final status of Jerusalem.
ugh jesus christ. 12 pages of this when there are far more dire and important crises going on all over the world. Africa is awash in war, famine and disease. Sex Trafficing in Eastern Europe and Southeast asia. Rampant crime and kidnapping in latin america, fascist take over of this country without anyone even noticing, on and on and on, and yet we get this... 12 pages devoted to bickering endlessly about an ugly little strip of land ruled by two sides that can't amounnt to anything more than being stubborn little children. I feel sorry for the civilians on both sides, most of whom want nothing more that to live quiet, peaceful and fruitful lives. Unfortuately the sad fact is, the leaders of both sides have brought all their troubles on themselves. And why 12 pages of talking youselves in circles? Because, like it or not, we're all still owned by this:
Is it a major Palestinian population center? A cultural and commercial hub for Palestinians? Sure. But in no way does it's significance to Palestinians rival its significance to Jews.
This must be taken into account in any discussion of the final status of Jerusalem.
But...aren't there always people who "were there first" and who can claim something as theirs based on historical (or religious) arguments that are in their mind more significant than the next man's? Where does this logic lead?
Comments
There is only one path to peace.
Justice is the only path peace.
Dan
My brothers arguments come down to killing Palestinians is ok because they are not really human.
Once I was given a a roommate who was Lebanese Christian. We exchanged our basic background. I said I have no problem with him being Lebanese, I hope you have no problem with me being Jewish. He replied "Sorry, it was the way I was raised".
That same year I made friends with a an Egytian Muslim. We read Josefis. All this was at Oklahoma State Tech in Okmulgee.
Dan
Yeah, but whose justice?
Sorry Rock, but NONE of those are really related. To name just a few.
India-Pakistan is due to the fact that they use to be one country than broke apart and have argued over the boundary. Indian Muslims are a HUGE part of India's population. It's not Hindus vs Muslims, although there are extremist groups on both sides that argue that. Pakistan claims that Kashmere is there's, has gone to war a couple times and lost. Since they are so outnumbered by India, they've turned to using radical Islamist groups and insurgent attacks to pressure India.
Algeria doesn't really have problems now, but during the 90s they had a huge insurgency because the Islamist party won the elections and the military stepped in and had a coup leading to a very, very bloody civil war that had spill over with terrorist acts in France. That's pretty much over now. That was secularists vs fundamentalists.
Afghanistan is a very VERY low level insurgency that only recently just stepped up with suicide bombings. That's former government vs new government. The larger problem in Afghanistan is the fact that it's back to being the largest heroine producer in the world and that outside of Kabul the country's run by warlords. It's not really the Taliban or al Qaeda that are problems there.
These conflicts exist not because of Israel and not because they're Muslims either.
Here we go again.
Yeah, remember WWII, WWI, the civil wars in El Salvador, Guatemala, insurgencies in Argentina, Brazil, the 100 years war, the 7 years war, the U.S. Revolutionary War, the French Revolution, the American Revolution, the U.S. Civil War, the Mexican Revolution, etc. etc. Damn, all those Christians do is fight fight fight.
What exactly does Palestine want?
What does Israel want?
Is it the same as what the people want?
Thanks.. I'll check back.
Quite right, JW - in the case of India, imagine if you took all the countries in South America for instance and forced them to become one country as previous ruling incarnations did and consolidated by British rule; the country isn't homogeneous by any stretch of the imagination and the differing languages and regional cultures attest to this - now then look @ 1947 and Partition when the country was divided into Pakistan, India herself (and Bangladesh - formerly East Pakistan - '71) - families along different religious tracts were separated to the zone that best suited the religious orientation... Muslims in India comprise 10 % of the overall population - that's approximately 110 million - it's not a minor subpopulation... In addition to the problem of Kashmir, there are territorial disputes b/w Bangladesh and India @ the far boundary of West Bengal as well as occasional insurgents from the NE corridor, above the tea growing region in and around Assam: that particular conflict involves no Muslims whatsoever... The border conflicts aren't determined by religious denomination, moreso the old standard tried and true contention over territory - it just so happens that there exists a religious divide b/w these 2 countries... To couch it in such terminology is specious[/b] @ best...
Afghanistan is a very VERY low level insurgency that only recently just stepped up with suicide bombings. That's former government vs new government. The larger problem in Afghanistan is the fact that it's back to being the largest heroine producer in the world and that outside of Kabul the country's run by warlords. It's not really the Taliban or al Qaeda that are problems there.
Poppy growing is still the most lucrative trade going in Afghanistan - when Karzai himself needs bodyguards and is constant peril, it's a power struggle not determined by religion, but b/c of sectarian overtones...
Attempting to use these examples to fit the original argument is counterproductive and speaks moreso of looking to embellish a claim through spurious means...
I'm really not an expert on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but I'll give this a short go.
If you checked many public opinion polls in recent years I think you'd find that most Palestinians and Israelis would like to have a 2 state solution, an Israeli state and a Palestinian state living next to each other. It's achieving that goal that is the problem.
For quite a while there were a lot of Israeli politicians, especially on the right like the Likud that believed in a "Greater Israel." That basically was expanding Israel into the Occupied Terroritories through settlements. There were a lot of motivations for this. For example, the lack for space and costs of living in Israel proper, expanding for religious reasons (i.e. Israel should expand to its Biblical preportions), expansionist politics (we won the terroritory it's ours), etc. The 2 Intifadah's pretty much killed that idea.
Israeli politics is incredibly divided and it hasn't helped that one of the main political parties, Labor, has basically turned to crap, but the main political leaders today are mostly concerned about security - ending terrorist attacks. They tried negotiatiating with Fatah and Araft during the Clinton administration and had actually come to an agreement for an end to everything when Arafat backed out at the very last minute and things disintigrated to crap again. After that they've basically gone back to the view that there's no one to legitimately negotiate with on the Palestinian side so they do things unilaterally such as pulling out of Gaza as Sharon recently did. They also carry out targeted assassinations of Hamas leaders and terrorists, and while they talk about trying to not kill innocents, they haven't really done this in practice. There's plenty of cases where they've shot missiles at cars and entire apartment buildings filled with civilians to get one man.
On the Palestinian side you've got even more divisions and chaos. Fatah recognized Israel a long time ago and carried out a series of negotiations, but Araft basically nixed everything each time. After he died there was a huge power vacuum of leadership that still hasn't been filled. You've also got Hamas, the Islamist group, as the main opposition that doesn't recognize Israel and supports terrorism. They just won a 3/4 majority in recent Palestinian elections. Fatah, which ran the Palestinian Authority, was suppose to reign in the terrorists and Hamas and return to the negotiating table but has never been able to do that because 1) they don't have the forces to do it, 2) they don't want to do it because terrorism is the only real leverage they have against Israel. Not only that but Fatah and the Palestinian Authority is hugely corrupt. They siphone off all kinds of foreign aid into their own pockets and many Palestinians live in utter crap and poverty.
Under Bush, the U.S. has given up on negotiating despite all the public pronouncements about Bush is the 1st and only President to call for a Palestinian state. 1st the Bush administration didn't want to do anything that Clinton did. 2nd in the 1st term a lot of the neoconservaives in Cheney's office and the Pentagon were very pro-Israel and they had much more sway then Powell and the State Department there were more pro-negotiating. 3rd after 9/11 they see Israel fighting terrorism so support whatever Israel does.
So while much of the Israeli and Palestinian public would like the same thing, there's a huge lack of leadership to get things done. The Palestinians can't get their shit together, the U.S. doesn't want to pressure anyone and get things together, so Israel carries out its own unilateral policies.
I know there are a couple people who are much more up on Israeli politics than I am so they can probably make a lot of corrections and additions to what I've just outlined.
Everyone's!
The people want peace and prosperity and independence.
The Palestinian people want an independent and prosperous Palestine.
Israeli people want a secure Israel.
One problem with agreeing on a 2 state solution is drawing boundaries. Everyone wants Jerusalem, one of the most important cities for all three of the monotheistic religions.
A larger country where everyone would be free and equal is currently incomprehensible. Our American ideal is not well understood in other cultures, and only barely in ours.
A big problem with negotiating a peace is that the partys come to the table agreeing that all they want is a country to live in. Then the Palestinians want "the right of return". Then Israel wants to keep West Bank settlements. Things fall apart long before Jerusalem is discussed.
The problem has gone on for so long and been so bitter that neither side can the view the as having a legitimate right to anything.
A just settlement is out there but will take the kind of peacemakers of the world has only seen a few a times.
Dan
One more thing and then I promise to try to dead this thread.
It's tempting to draw paralellels: Israelis want this/Palestinians want this too.
Jerusalem is an issue that does not liken itself to parallel.
Jerusalem is more important to Jews than to anyone else. Period. It's simplistic and erroneous to say that Jerusalem is equally important to all three monotheistic religions.
Jerusalem has been the focus of Jewish yearning and prayer for millenia. It is mentioned countless times in the Bible. It was the capital of the Jewish kingdom, the site of the Jewish temple, the focus of many Jewish prayers, and Jews continue to pray in the direction of Jerusalem until this day.
Jerusalem has never played more than a secondary role in Islam. I invite anyone on this board to do their homework on the importance of Jerusalem to Islam. It's minor. Jerusalem's importance to Islam over the years has been dictated mainly by Israel's claims to it as its capital. It's purely political.
Jerusalem is not mentioned once in the Koran. It was not visited by one notable Muslim leader in the years that it was occupied by Jordan before Israel re-captured it in the Six Day War. It was historically a backwater of the Muslim world, Mecca and Medina being the principle foci of Muslim attention.
Only since Israel has re-established its rights over the city have Muslims begun claiming Jerusalem as some important religious cite.
Is it a major Palestinian population center? A cultural and commercial hub for Palestinians? Sure. But in no way does it's significance to Palestinians rival its significance to Jews.
This must be taken into account in any discussion of the final status of Jerusalem.
But...aren't there always people who "were there first" and who can claim something as theirs based on historical (or religious) arguments that are in their mind more significant than the next man's? Where does this logic lead?