Palestinian-Israeli Crisis

[WIGGUM]

I know this sounds ridiculous, but I'm a little hazy as to what all the hub-bub is about in the Middle East even though I've heard about it since I was born. This is what I know.

The Israelis are Jewish, and the Palestinians are Muslims. There is obviously religious friction there, but what does it all boil down to? I also know that there are claims to Holy Lands that both parties feel they have a right to, but when did this all start, and what's at the very core of this arguement?

[C K Dexter Haven]

Sigh. There's no way to do a short answer to this. And my answer will necessarily generalize a great deal.

The majority of the hostility began after World War II, when waves of Jewish immigrants (the refugees from Europe) started to come to what was then Palestine. There was already a sizeable Jewish community there, and had been continuously since about 1200 BC, along with a steady stream of Jewish immigrants. There were periods of waves of immigration, for example, in the 1890s and early 1900s.

Palestine was under British "mandate" (read: control) as part of the World War I peace arrangements. The British never tried to smooth relations between the Jews and Arabs, but often did their best to stir them up. It was not Britain's finest hour.

The Jews viewed themselves as pioneers, tilling the soil that the Arabs had left idle. The Jews purchased land from the Arabs, at exorbitant price; the Arabs thought they had the best end of the bargain, huge payments for worthless land. As the Jews fertilized and irrigated the land, and built modern cities, the Arabs had second thoughts; the land was now much more valuable than when the Jews had bought it.

In 1948, the United Nations agreed to partition the area into two states, a Jewish state (Israel) and an Arab state (Palestine). The map was a complex of little bits and pieces, so that the Jewish state would have many disconnected pieces.

The Arab nations surrounding the area tried to wipe out the nascent Jewish state, and launched their armies. They urged the Palestinians to flee (to avoid the massacre) as the Arab armies "pushed the Jews into the sea." The Arabs viewed the war as one of extermination of the Jews. Then, when all the Jews were gone, the Palestinians would gloriously return and claim all the land, the buildings, the wealth of the dead Jews. So, along with religious hatred, we add sheer greed.

Most Palestinians believed their Arab brothers, and fled. The Israelis urged the Palestinians to stay, to work together to make the new nation(s) viable, and many Palestinians did.

The war was a miraculous success for the vastly outnumbered Jews, who David-vs-Goliathed the Arab armies. The state of Israel then was a unified country instead of several little islands in a Palestinian sea. (Yes, the land was taken in battle.) The Palestinians who remained became Israeli citizens, and generally speaking did quite well. (Yes, there was some discrimination against them, although it was illegal under Israeli law.)

The Palestinian refugees languished in camps in territory that had been seized by Jordan. (Yes, Jordan used the opportunity of the war to seize territory for itself rather than help the Palestinians.) The Palestinian state never came into being. The Arab nations gave almost no aid to the refugees; they preferred refugees as a symbol rather than working towards resettlement.

Jerusalem was a divided city, controlled half by Israel, half by Jordan. Sites that were holy to Jews (like the Western Wall, the remains of the Temple from 70 AD) were forbidden for Jews to visit.

There were several other efforts by the Arab nations to destroy Israel, notably in 1956, 1967, and 1971. The Arab states never recognized Israel as an independent nation, and most of them still do not today.

In 1967, the Arab nations launched a war against Israel -- the famous Six Day War. The Arabs were not only defeated, but massively defeated. Only U.N. political intervention stopped Israel from capturing Damascus, and probably Cairo. The Israeli army conquered the West Bank (including all Jerusalem) from Jordan, the Golen Heights from Syria, and the Sinai peninsula from Egypt.

At this point, several things happened. First, the Israeli government made the holy sites in Jerusalem accessible to ALL religions, and unified Jerusalem. Second, Israel had a major bargaining chip -- large hunks of conquered land. Third, the Arabs decided that the Palestinian refugees were a good rallying point, and started to use them as propoganda: oppressed Palestinian refugees and land seized in military conquest was a more sympathetic version than greed and religious hatred.

The PLO, led by Yassir Arafat (and others), thought that blowing up passenger planes was a way of calling the world's attention to the plight of the Palestinians. (Current airport security and all that bother arose in response to Mr Arafat's terrorism.)

There was a lot of double talk. The hard-line Palestinians talked about getting their land back, as though they meant the land seized by Israel in 1967, but they in fact meant ALL of the territory, including ALL of Israel.

In the late 1970s, Egypt negotiated a peace with Israel. Israel gave Egypt back the Sinai, and in return Egypt recognized Israel's right to exist. There has been commercial exchange as well. There was hope that the other Arab states would join in, but such hope never materialized, although I believe there is now a peace treaty between Israel and Jordan.

The Arabs found that rallying around the poor displaced Palestinians, fighting for their own country, got a far more sympathetic press in the U.S. than did their terrorist activities.

Hence the current problem and mistrust. The Israelis would very much like to believe that the Palestinians are looking only for their own territory, and would recognized the independence of Israel. However, there is a long history of suspicion that the hard-line Palestinians (backed by the other Arab nations, notice how quickly Iran and Iraq have yelled their support) want to take over ALL of Israel.

OK, that's my perspective. I'm obviously fairly biased, but I have tried to present the Palestinian side as well. They view themselves as oppressed by Israel, although many will admit that they have been badly abused and used by their Arab brethren.

Two other comments:

(1) Mr Arafat has never hesitated to use children as martyrs to his cause. Putting children and teens in the front lines is nothing new to him; it's a lot easier, in fact, to persuade teens that they are serving a glorious cause by dying on behalf of blah blah. Not just throwing stones and Molotov cocktails, mind you; a few years ago, there were several bombs on passenger buses in Israel -- young kids carried them, willing suicides (martyrs in their own eyes) who blow up innocent civilians. (In the eyes of the hard-line Palestinians, no Jews are "innocent" since they occupy Palestinan "homeland.")

(2) Even if there were good will on both sides, the situation is very difficult. There are Arab/Palestinian communities scattered throughout the area. I've seen a map, it's a mess. Imagine a city, with these three or four square blocks under one government, and those three or four adjacent blocks under another government; with little islands controlled by one government surrounded by territory controlled by the other. How do you run an effective police force if you can't get to an area without going through passport control? How do you manage a mail service or road repair or schools when every few blocks are under control of one country, then the other? So the problems are enormous, even if there were good will.

Hope that helps.

[Earl Snake-Hips Tucker]

Dex has done an admirable job (as usual) of summing up the situation. Here is another thread with some more info:


http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=5990

[Sofa King]

I predict Great Debate in five moves.

Until then, I would point out one technicality, and one additional fact which may be relevant.

First, the 1967 war actually began with a preemptive strike by the Israeli air force. They had good information as to how and when Syria, Jordan, and Egypt were going to attack, and they launched their own counterstrike in advance of the Arab assault. As a result, they caught the air forces of all three Arab nations deployed on the airfields, wasted 'em, and had time to crater the runway at Cairo International that evening. It remains the greatest feat of any air force, any time. CK is not incorrect in his treatment, but that technicality comes up often enough that it might as well be addressed now.

My additional fact is that the PLO and Arafat have remained almost perfectly in keeping with their 1974 phased plan (http://www.nedernet.nl/~likoed/govern26.html) for the destruction (http://www.netaxs.com/~iris/plophase.htm) of Israel. That plan called for the creation of a Palestinian state on any territory relinquished by Israel. That territory was to then be used as a base of operations to destabilize the Israeli state, and to provoke an all-out war between Israel and all of its neighbors. When viewed in that light, it is difficult to view the recent unrest with anything less than healthy suspicion.

[Earl Snake-Hips Tucker]

That plan called for the creation of a Palestinian state on any territory relinquished by Israel.

Hey, wasn't this done after the 1948 war? The Palestinian state was called "Jordan."

[barbitu8]

Yes, Dex did a great job in summarizing a very complicated position. Years ago many people of Mideast descent commented to me that they don't have anything against the Jews here, but the Jews in Israel took their land away from them. They were apparently referring to the fact that the Arabs living in the designated state of Israel left, but their leaving was voluntary. Yet they continue to blame the Israelites for taking their land.

I believe, and I know I'll be corrected if I'm wrong, that a tent in the PLO charter is the elimination of the state of Israel. I know that that provision remained in their charter until very recently, and may still be in it, inspite of Arafat's promise to expunge it. Which brings me to my belief in the whole affair. I know that this is not the OP and may better belong to Great Debates, but I believe that Arafat has no intention of a peace treaty with Israel. Barak offered numerous concessions in the last attempt and Arafat adamantly wanted it all, not just concessions. He has repeatedly stated he wants peace and seeks compromise, a peace treaty, etc., but his actions have been contra. The present unpleasantness has been his doing, using Sharon's visit to the Mount as a pretense. Sure Sharon should not have gone, and Barak should not have given him permission to go, although they were within their rights. It is the same thing as the former Tunnel business. Why do these Israelis do these things? Sharon, of course, doesn't want a peace treaty either. And Barak could not refuse permission without allegations of prejudice, so he was in a dilemma. But they must have known that these actions would be used as a pretense for violence, authorized by Arafat, although he, of course, vehemently denies that.

It is my opinion that there never will be peace without Israel giving up its right to its land. As I stated, I think this is still in the PLO covenant.

[barbitu8]

I meant, of course, a tenet, not a tent. God knows they have enough tents too. But I guess I got too intense.

[WIGGUM]

Thanks Dex. That helped a lot.

Now, it sounds like since 1967, the conflict has been basically just a skirmish here and there, followed by a peace treaty, followed by a skirmish and so on and so on and so on. What happens though when one side (The Arabs) or the other (The Israelis) decide they've had enough of these skirmishes and start kicking ass?

Who would the UN support, and would the U.S. follow their lead or would they march to the beat of their own drummer. Obviously, the U.S. has interests in the Arab nations, namely oil, but does the U.S. ethically support the cause of the Israelis? If this conflict heightens, do we have the makings of another World War or won't there be enough "players"?

[sdimbert]

Originally posted by barbitu8
I meant, of course, a tenet, not a tent. God knows they have enough tents too.

Yes, Israel has a lot of tents.

Those be some goodly tents, too! :D

[Sofa King]

mjollnir, the Jordan thing failed to work out for the Palestinians when they tried to overthrow King Hussein in the late 1960's. After that, Hussein gave up his claim to the West Bank and gradually distanced Jordan from the dispute.

You're pretty close, WIG. But I think the real turning point was the 1973 Yom Kippur War. That time, Egypt and Syria (and not Jordan, for the above stated reason) successfully pulled off an unexpected, all-out attack. They were better armed with anti-tank weapons, and things looked dim for a few days for Israel. But since everyone in Israel was home for the holidays, mobilization was achieved quickly, and within a couple of weeks, Israel was on the Egyptian side of the Suez and on the road to Damascus. The Soviets were threatening intervention, and the U.S. went to the highest DEFCON since the Cuban Missile Crisis.

After that, things cooled off somewhat--it was either that, or global meltdown. The Arabs had shown that they were tough, the Israelis were a little humbled, everyone was scared shitless, and in 1977, they got to work hashing out some real-world compromises. They have helped keep the pot from boiling over somewhat, but the prospect of total war is always out there.

[Whack-a-Mole]

WIGGUM wrote:
Who would the UN support, and would the U.S. follow their lead or would they march to the beat of their own drummer. Obviously, the U.S. has interests in the Arab nations, namely oil, but does the U.S. ethically support the cause of the Israelis? If this conflict heightens, do we have the makings of another World War or won't there be enough "players"?

The UN would noodle around and probably not get much done. Unless one side or the other did something so overt that the politicians at the UN would have no choice but to take one side or the other. Iraq invading Kuwait was just this sort of thing. Even then some countries (Iran & China to name two) abstained from voting rather than jump on the bandwagon. They couldn't support Iraq unless they wanted to look like fools but neither could they bring themselves to jump on the side of the US. The UN member states vote strictly their interests without regard for right or wrong.

As for the US you must remember that the jewish lobby in this country is quite strong with LOTS of money. A politician ignores them at their own peril. In addition, Israel has long been our friend over there. It is important that the US be seen to support Israel in this if we expect other countries to continue to stand on the front lines for us and do as we wish.

Frankly, both Israel and the Arab states need to walk lightly. Israel, as much as they might like to stomp the Palestinians into the ground, is restricted from such actions by their own history. After their treatment in WW-II they can hardly run around being the oppressor without VERY good reason.

The Arabs would likewise love to stomp Israel into the ground and have actually tried to do so. As has been mentioned they got their asses kicked BIG time, everytime, in no uncertain terms. They are not keen to try that again anytime soon.

So, both the Arabs and the Israelis need an overt action from the other to do what they really both want and that's wipe the other one out. Israel needs to be able claim they are fighting for their very survival and are in a corner with no other choices but butt kicking. The Arabs need Israel to behave so badly that no one will come to their aid when the Arabs try to drive them into the sea.

If Israel behaves badly and receive no help when (if) the Arabs attack is where you can expect to see some fireworks. If the Arabs succeed where they have failed so many times in the past then at the end any country with nukes, faced with its own extinction, is likely to let the nukes fly.

If the Arabs behave badly then it might be WW-III. The US will support Israel. We start taking over Arab nations and Russia and China and Pakistan and India get itchy not wanting the US to control the region so they jump in. After that it's a scary mess for all concerned.

So...the dance continues...

[C K Dexter Haven]

Just to correct: I believe that the Palestinian Charter has removed the clause about destroying all of Israel.

However, one still must be careful in word usage. The term "occupied territories" usually refers to the land seized by Israel during the Six Day War in 1967. However, many hard-line Palestinians use the term "occupied territories" to mean all land taken by Israel since 1948.

I got a kick out of some Palestinian propoganda, in the mid 1980s, that said that they didn't want to kill "all" the Jews, the ones who were there pre-1948 could stay.

I should also comment that I have met with and talked to Arab Israelis, including merchants and the guy who runs a small Arab museum outside Jerusalem (fascinating, documenting Arab life styles). There are plenty of Palestinians, Arab Israelis, and Jewish Israelis who know that peace and co-operation are the only routes for economic development and prosperity, and who work hard for that goal. Unfortunately, the Palestinian leadership doesn't seem to share that view.

I did not intend any of my remarks to be derogatory about the Palestinian people, who have got the short end of the stick from both sides, and are (IMO) sadly misled by Arafat and the Arab states.

[C K Dexter Haven]

One more comment: U.N. intervention in the MidEast is worthless. The U.N. does not have a military presence there, only a diplomatic one. IF (God forbid) war broke out, the war would long be over while the U.N. was still wringing its hands and "debating" what to do.

Since the General Assembly is one nation, one vote; and since the Arabs oil-rich states control many many votes, it is never surprising to find the U.N. condemning Israel.

[sdimbert]

Originally posted by CKDextHavn
Just to correct: I believe that the Palestinian Charter has removed the clause about destroying all of Israel.

Dex, check out Article 15, where it says, "The liberation of Palestine... attempts to repel the Zionist and imperialist aggression against the Arab homeland, and aims at the elimination of Zionism in Palestine."

From the PLO Charter (http://www.netaxs.com/~iris/plochart.htm):


THE PALESTINIAN NATIONAL CHARTER:
Resolutions of the Palestine National Council, July 1-17, 1968

Text of the Charter:

Article 1: Palestine is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people; it is an indivisible part of the Arab homeland, and the Palestinian people are an integral part of the Arab nation.

Article 2: Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit.

Article 3: The Palestinian Arab people possess the legal right to their homeland and have the right to determine their destiny after achieving the liberation of their country in accordance with their wishes and entirely of their own accord and will.

<snip>

Article 7: ...It is a national duty to bring up individual Palestinians in an Arab revolutionary manner. All means of information and education must be adopted in order to acquaint the Palestinian with his country in the most profound manner, both spiritual and material, that is possible. He must be prepared for the armed struggle and ready to sacrifice his wealth and his life in order to win back his homeland and bring about its liberation.

Article 8: The phase in their history, through which the Palestinian people are now living, is that of national (watani) struggle for the liberation of Palestine. Thus the conflicts among the Palestinian national forces are secondary, and should be ended for the sake of the basic conflict that exists between the forces of Zionism and of imperialism on the one hand, and the Palestinian Arab people on the other. On this basis the Palestinian masses, regardless of whether they are residing in the national homeland or in diaspora (mahajir) constitute - both their organizations and the individuals - one national front working for the retrieval of Palestine and its liberation through armed struggle.

Article 9: Armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine. Thus it is the overall strategy, not merely a tactical phase. The Palestinian Arab people assert their absolute determination and firm resolution to continue their armed struggle and to work for an armed popular revolution for the liberation of their country and their return to it. They also assert their right to normal life in Palestine and to exercise their right to self-determination and sovereignty over it.

<snip>

Article 15: The liberation of Palestine, from an Arab viewpoint, is a national (qawmi) duty and it attempts to repel the Zionist and imperialist aggression against the Arab homeland, and aims at the elimination of Zionism in Palestine. Absolute responsibility for this falls upon the Arab nation - peoples and governments - with the Arab people of Palestine in the vanguard. Accordingly, the Arab nation must mobilize all its military, human, moral, and spiritual capabilities to participate actively with the Palestinian people in the liberation of Palestine. It must, particularly in the phase of the armed Palestinian revolution, offer and furnish the Palestinian people with all possible help, and material and human support, and make available to them the means and opportunities that will enable them to continue to carry out their leading role in the armed revolution, until they liberate their homeland.

Article 16: The liberation of Palestine, from a spiritual point of view, will provide the Holy Land with an atmosphere of safety and tranquility, which in turn will safeguard the country's religious sanctuaries and guarantee freedom of worship and of visit to all, without discrimination of race, color, language, or religion. Accordingly, the people of Palestine look to all spiritual forces in the world for support.

<snip>

Article 18: The liberation of Palestine, from an international point of view, is a defensive action necessitated by the demands of self-defense. Accordingly the Palestinian people, desirous as they are of the friendship of all people, look to freedom-loving, and peace-loving states for support in order to restore their legitimate rights in Palestine, to re-establish peace and security in the country, and to enable its people to exercise national sovereignty and freedom.

Article 19: The partition of Palestine in 1947 and the establishment of the state of Israel are entirely illegal, regardless of the passage of time, because they were contrary to the will of the Palestinian people and to their natural right in their homeland, and inconsistent with the principles embodied in the Charter of the United Nations, particularly the right to self-determination.

Article 20: The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine, and everything that has been based upon them, are deemed null and void. Claims of historical or religious ties of Jews with Palestine are incompatible with the facts of history and the true conception of what constitutes statehood. Judaism, being a religion, is not an independent nationality. Nor do Jews constitute a single nation with an identity of its own; they are citizens of the states to which they belong.

Article 21: The Arab Palestinian people, expressing themselves by the armed Palestinian revolution, reject all solutions which are substitutes for the total liberation of Palestine and reject all proposals aiming at the liquidation of the Palestinian problem, or its internationalization.


It goes on... I stopped about halfway through.

Comments?

(Formatting and emphasis are, as always, mine.)

[toadspittle]

Originally posted by Jeff_42
[quote]WIGGUM wrote:
...If the Arabs succeed where they have failed so many times in the past then at the end any country with nukes, faced with its own extinction, is likely to let the nukes fly.


Just a question of clarification--Israel has nukes, right? I thought they did, but I don't recall for sure.

Also--does any Middle Eastern Arab nation have nukes? (i.e., not Pakistan)

[cmkeller]

CKDextHavn:

Beautiful summation of the whole Middle East conflict.

Just one point of correction:

The majority of the hostility began after World War II, when waves of Jewish immigrants (the refugees from Europe) started to come to what was then Palestine.

Perhaps you mean the majority of the actual physical violence, but the hostility (as in "hostile attitude") was there well before World War II. Hundreds of Jews died in Arab riots in Hebron in 1929, and in Jerusalem in 1936...the latter of which is pretty much the entirety of the Arabs' claim to the "Muslim Quarter" of Jerusalem. The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem during WWII was a very vocal Nazi sympathizer.

[Nixon]

A great debate:

Sadly, CK gives the pro-Israeli side which doesn't address the vehemence of the Palestinian uprising.

IMHO, the Palestinians look on Israel not as the ancient kingdom in the Bible but as a successor to the temporary crusader state of the Middle Ages. The Israelis are thus European invaders, who will, given time, given Muslim resolution, and Muslim strength, be driven away.

Now of course there are many Arabs (and Arab governments) that feel that this is a pipe dream but this opinion is certainly the core belief of the Hamas (a fundamentalist organizaion that is not part of the PLO and uses terror frequently), the Shite Hezbollah (closely linked to the creeps who "run" Iran), the Syrian dictatorship, the Iraqi dictatorship (both Syria and Iraq are run by tribal factions that are nominally nationalist and socialist), the Libyan dictatorship, the fundamentalists in Sudan and Afghanistan, etc. etc. And more than a few of Arafat's own people. Quite enough to keep the blood flowing.

There have been a number of bloody clashes between Jews an Palestinians this century mostly over the issue of Jewish immigration. Prior to 1948, the Jews usually ended up on the short end. Thus in 1948 war, with both sides ready to kick ass, people of any religion fled - not voluntarily - but out of legitimate fear of each respective army. Of those who stayed put, unfortunately, there were a number of incidents of indiscriminate murders - aside from the usual deaths from artillery and bombs.

To look at the decades the Palestinians spent (and spend) in refugee camps without absorption by their Arab brothers as a cynical ploy to perpetuate war with Israel is to make a fundamental mistake about the Arab "nations".

These "states" are more tribes with flags than nations, akin to most European countries before the Napoleonic wars or many parts of rural America today. There wasn't and isn't any place to absorb the Palestinians.

From 1948 to 1967 most Palestinians sat in refugee camps, subsisting on UN aid and bubbling with discontent both against Israel and their Arab neighbors. They had no chance to unseat Nasser in Egypt (Gaza is a long way from Cairo) but did try to overthrow the Jordanian Hashemite government killing the late King Hussein's father. (btw - the Hashemites are the family portrayed in Lawrence of Arabia by Alec Guinness).

Prior to 1967, the front line Arab states used the Palestinians as cannon fodder as guerilla fighters against Israel. Thus the Palestinians have had weapons for a long long time. After 1967, the process accelerated with Soviet assistance and with a willingness to extend and deepen terror activities. The PLO attempted a coup against Jordan in 1970 which was put down with ruthless efficiency by King Hussein. The PLO moved off to Lebanon, which was itself spiraling out of control as Muslims (with Syria's cynical assistance) were seeking to limit the Maronite Christians hegemony. The PLO was dislodged only in the early 1980's by an Israeli invasion - an invasion that resulted in the radicalizing (with Iran's help) of Lebanon's Shite minority towards the Hezbollah.

Decades of war (or no peace), minor resentments, the continual discrimination of Arab Israelis and West Bank Palestinians (whether Muslim, Christian or other religions) by ordinary Israelis, the use of Arab labor exclusively in low paying menial jobs (some what akin to U.S. citizens' exploitation of illegal immigrants), the movement to build Jewish settlements on expropriated Arab land, and the continual drumbeat that Israel's defeat will be both a blow to the secular corrupt West and a harbinger of a new Muslim golden age makes kids willing to fling rocks against bullets and blow themselves up in crowded buses.

Could Israel put down this revolt? Sure. It would take about 350 Israeli deaths and a several thousand Palestinian - over a number of endless years. There's no doubt that Israel and Palestine are at a crisis. Can they learn to live with each other or will this be another northern Ireland in perpetuity?

(At least the IRA isn't yet calling for the expulsion of the Protestants.)

[sailor]

CKDextHavn, your posts here are some of the most interesting I have seen. Thanks for taking the time.

I would add something as I see it which is that boths sides, Isaraelis and Palestinins have many factions ranging from doves to hawks. While Israel is a fairly coherent political entity which can abide by treaties because it does exercise efective control over its people, it seems the Palestinians are a disorderly lot with little control. So, even if Arafat would sign the peace, he has little control over the Pelestinians. The radicals just keep making it impossible and the rest cannot stop them.

The way I see it, the Israelis are willing to give territory to gain peace but they give territory and never gain peace. As you say, the radical Palestinians are used by outside forces and their own leaders who excite them into an anti-israeli frenzy.

My admiration for the Israelis grows continously. When compared to the Palestinians they are a model of political and social organization. And in their struggle with the Palestinians they always come out on top. Some people like to commiserate with the losers but I am not one of them. If you keep asking for violence and get your ass whooped every time you are a looser in my book and it serves you right. Israelis are winners and have my admiration.

[Whack-a-Mole]

toadspittle wrote:
Just a question of clarification--Israel has nukes, right? I thought they did, but I don't recall for sure.

Technically Israel is NOT a nuclear state. They are not among the declared nuclear powers of the world (which are Russia, United States, France, Great Britain, China, India and Pakistan). These are the countries that admit to having nuclear weapons.

That said Isreal is almost universally believed to possess nuclear weapons. At the very least they easily have the capability to construct some on short notice. They may not have ICBM's or citybuster hydrogen bombs but how much do they really need anyway? A few would do the trick for them.

South Africa is another state also believed to have nuclear capabilities.

The United States and Russia still have thousands of nuclear weapons. Britain, France, and China have several hundred apiece. And India, Pakistan, and Israel could deploy nuclear weapons on short notice.
Source: http://www.ucsusa.org/arms/0weapons.html

[C K Dexter Haven]

Both CMKeller and Nixon rightly point out that there is a long history of antagonism, going back to the Crusades. Yes, I intentionally said that the "majority" of the hostility -- by which I meant to draw a line in the historical sand. It's hard enough to cram an explanation down to a few paragraphs; if we go back too far, we're talking several volumes.

I appreciate Nixon's perspective. There is no question but what the Palestinian refugees got shat upon by both sides. The Arab states refused to take them in; and Israel certainly wanted nothing to do with them.

There's a fine line here, I don't want this to get tossed over into Great Debates, so I'd like to stick to the facts. I repeat, that I have great sympathy for the Palestinian people, and I have no respect whatsoever for their leaders, who are (at heart) no better than petty dictators and terrorists.

Sdimbert, thanks for quoting the Palestinian charter... Gives a different outlook on the issue, doesn't it? And makes it clear why Israel wanted nothing to do with them. Note that the Charter is from 1968; before the 1967 War, the Palestinian refugees were hidden from sight. After the 1967 War, their Arab brethren in the other Arab states decided to use the Palestinians for political purposes.

However, I was under the impression that the Charter was amended a few years ago, as part of the peace process, and that some of the more egregious clauses were dropped. Anyone have up-to-date info?

[sdimbert]

Dex,

I assumed that the charter I found was the most up-to-date. It is the first link that appears when one conducts a websearch for "PLO Charter."

[Earl Snake-Hips Tucker]

Here's what I found:


http://www.jpost.com/com/Archive/05.Jan.1999/Features/Article-21.html


Long story short: The displaced Jordanians (aka Palestinians) have been saying since 1996 that they were going to revise the charter, but it hasn't actually been done.

[Nixon]

No I disagree. Jordanians aren't Palestinians nor vice versa.

Think Hatfields and McCoys, with the McCoys ruled by a clan out of (what is now) Saudi Arabia mostly as a reward for thier work in the Arab revolt against the Turks in WWI.

The Israelis of course are the Yankees or revenuers depending on what era you're thinking about in mountain U.S. history.

Think of the anarchy called Lebanon. No majority but a collection of clans. Largest, the Sunni, are the most apolitical (as far as Lebanon goes) and not compeletely radicalized against Israel. Next are the Shiites, led by the Hezbohlah, then come the Christians, bending in the wind, and finally the Druze, also blowing this way and that. Easy of Syria to dominate but difficult to completely control.

[Shodan]

Thanks to all who are posting!

This is one of the most informative threads I have found so far. A nice thumbnail version of a cruelly complex subject.

If there are any SD'ers out there who consider themselves sympathetic to the PLO, I would very much like another viewpoint on the subject.

In the interest of getting all points of view, and not denigrating any who have posted so far.

Regards,
Shodan

[zen101]

Possible origin of tensions as expressed to me some time back by an Islamic wholesailer I used to deal with.

About eight years back I was a bead retailer (yeah beads, hippies and stuff) and I used to do a lot of business with several wholesailers from various countries in Africa and one of them was Muslim and of African and Arabic ancestry. Anyhow the topic of religeous philosophy came up one time because he needed to pray in my stockroom and borrowed a bowl of water. After he had prayed I asked him about Islam because while I had been raised in a Jewish home and was aware of the tensions I had little understanding of them. To me Arab and Hebrew are both Semites and have more in common than say Jew and Christian or Muslim and Buddhist so I never got the whole hostility thing. I mean sharing real estate seems like a simple concept.

Anyhow, what I was told is that while Muhammed was still alive and beginning to form his prophecies into a cohesive religeon him and his followers prayed towards the city of Jerusalem not the current city of Mecca. At some point Muhammed asked a group of Hebrew Rabbis and leaders of state to join him in prayer in the hopes of brotherhood in a new revalation and was rejected so flatly that he turned his back on Jerusalem toward the place from which he had come. Mecca.

It should be noted that after a search on this I have been unable to reconcile much of this information, but geographically there is not much to argue about and would explain a large tradition of hostility and lack of reconcilliation. Most of the information I have been able to obtain on this subject is very slanted either toward glorifying or villifying Islam and Muhammed. If there are any Muslim readers who are familliar with this version please respond an let me know.

My own belief on this is that like all modern hostilities this one is pretty muich a case of people in power abusing the fears and prejudice of those lacking power to maintain their own hold on the throne(s).

Israel may be the "true" home of the Jews, but I'll stay here on the west coast. It's a hell of a lot better climate and I can't believe god wants me to live anywhere where I need to keep a gas mask in the glove compartment.

zen101
D.F.A.

[Jonathan Chance]

Zen101-

I'm not a muslim...I'm a jew. But I have heard this story before from a few different sources.

I have no means of verifying it however.

[Freyr]

WIGGUM wrote:

The Israelis are Jewish, and the Palestinians are Muslims. There is obviously religious friction there, but what does it all boil down to?

One thing I've never understood is this religious friction. The best I've been able to understand is that both sides, Jews and Muslims, believe they are the proper worshippers of the One God and the others are 'simply not doing it right.'
Is it really that simple or have I missed some important point?

My apologies if I've glossed over major points of theology here, but I've never understood the antagonism between these two peoples.

Btw, thanks CKDextHavn for a great explanation of the 20th century history of land now known as Isreal.

[Kyla]

Anyhow, what I was told is that while Muhammed was still alive and beginning to form his prophecies into a cohesive religeon him and his followers prayed towards the city of Jerusalem not the current city of Mecca. At some point Muhammed asked a group of Hebrew Rabbis and leaders of state to join him in prayer in the hopes of brotherhood in a new revalation and was rejected so flatly that he turned his back on Jerusalem toward the place from which he had come. Mecca.

I have never heard this story before, and yes, I have studied Islam. This sounds like a Hadith, which is sort of the Islamic equivalent of Midrash. (Or, stories that have no biblical/qur'anical basis.) Not that this really matters - faith is faith.

Israel may be the "true" home of the Jews, but I'll stay here on the west coast. It's a hell of a lot better climate

Israel and California have near-identical climates, at least in the more populated areas. (There's plenty of desert in both places, and not many people live in either.) It's more humid on the Mediterranean coast than the Pacific Coast, but Jerusalem or the Galilee and the San Fran Bay Area have extremely similar weather. (Although it snows more in Jerusalem.)

Sorry for the little hijack, but if I had a nickel for everyone asks about living in the deserts of Israel, I'd, well, have a couple dollars, probably. :)

[C K Dexter Haven]

[hijack] Not to say there's not deserts, there, Kyla, because the Judean desert is awesome, in every sense of the word. One can understand how someone would go wandering in that desert and come back with visions of God.

To me, one of the most amazing spots in Israel is at Hebrew University, atop a small mountain, right at the dividing line between desert and fertile lands. On your left, desert and barren unimaginable. On your right, orchards and grasslands. And you imagine some prophet in Biblical times standing there, saying, "I set before you this day two paths, good and life [pointing right] and evil and death [pointing left]; choose good that you might live." Adds an enormous dimension to Biblical poetry to know the geography.

[C K Dexter Haven]

Mohammed himself was enthused by Judaism, proclaiming all Arabs to be descendents of Abraham, and calling for Jews and Christians alike to join him in a true brotherhood of man. Mohammed (like Paul) was convinced that the Jews were the natural allies of his new religion; when the Jews firmly rejected him, Mohammed turned against them. However, followingthe death of Mohammed, the hostility against the Jews (primarily a political expediency) vanished. Mohammedans of that era were more tolerant of other religions than the Romans. Many Jews helped the Mohammedeans, for example in building the city Medina. Jew and Arab lived side by side in peace during the Islamic Empire, approximately 650 - 1500 AD. There was a Jewish Golden Age during that period, generating great names in philosophy, medicine, science, mathematics, and linguistics. Quick example: Ibn Daud introduced Arabic numerals and the concept of the zero into European mathematics.

The hostility arose again during the Crusade period, but it is not the case that there has always been hostility.

[zen101]

Israel and California have near-identical climates, at least in the more populated areas. (There's plenty of desert in both places, and not many people live in either.) It's more humid on the Mediterranean coast than the Pacific Coast, but Jerusalem or the Galilee and the San Fran Bay Area have extremely similar weather. (Although it snows more in Jerusalem.)

Sorry for the little hijack, but if I had a nickel for everyone asks about living in the deserts of Israel, I'd, well, have a couple dollars, probably. :) [/B][/QUOTE]


My version if the west coast is a little cooler and greenr still. I'm an Oregonian and enjoy a climate which is more agreeable with my love of headcolds and Robotussin.

zen101
D.F.A.

[labdude]

Originally posted by Shodan

If there are any SD'ers out there who consider themselves sympathetic to the PLO, I would very much like another viewpoint on the subject.


The PLO is a political orginization that is hard to be sympathetic with. (it's hard to be sympathetic with any political organization)

The palastinian people deserve much sympathy. They are currently living much like blacks in the USA did under jim crow. The 'peace settlement' that has been much discussed recently would have set up a political system almost exactly like apartide in South Africia.

The PLO has provided some social welfare projects for the palastinian people.

It's difficult to say good things about the PLO, but it's also difficult to say good things about Isreal.

[wevets]

Originally posted by Jeff_42
That said Isreal is almost universally believed to possess nuclear weapons. At the very least they easily have the capability to construct some on short notice. They may not have ICBM's or citybuster hydrogen bombs but how much do they really need anyway? A few would do the trick for them.

South Africa is another state also believed to have nuclear capabilities.


IIRC, (and I don't have a cite for this right now) Israel and South Africa are supposed to have cooperated on the development of nuclear weapons during the '70s and '80s when they were both pariah nations. South Africa may have eliminated their nuclear capability in the early '90s, but Israel has certainly retained nukes in light of its hostile neighbors. They wouldn't be useful against the Palestinians, but if there were another Arab-Israeli war... ::shudder:: :(

[sdimbert]

Originally posted by labdude
The palastinian people deserve much sympathy. They are currently living much like blacks in the USA did under jim crow. The 'peace settlement' that has been much discussed recently would have set up a political system almost exactly like apartide in South Africia.

I can't beleive that this is true.

As far as I know, Palastinian Israelis have citizneship. They enjoy the same rights as Jewish Israelis, non-Jewish Israelis, etc.

Of course, Palastinian refugees who continue to demand succession from Israel meet with the same treatment that Southerner Successionists (black or white) did during the period preceeding the American Civil War.

Can anyone who knows more than me and labdude deliver the Straight Dope?

[edwino]

I'm not gonna joke and say that Israeli Arabs are treated equally in Israeli society than Jews. They generally stick to themselves, and their income is far, far less than the Jews per capita.

But Israeli Arabs do have full rights of travel, full human rights, and full voting rights. This alone separates them from blacks in apartheid South Africa or Jim Crow. Rabin made some great strides in trying to eliminate this bias, but I believe he was the last to directly address the issue.

The Palestinian Arabs are another story. They generally live in land which is "occupied" -- they are not citizens of anywhere, and so they don't have voting rights. I do believe, in the days before the Palestinian Authority, that they were protected under Israel's human rights laws, and they definitely (at least while borders were open, which is when there is no violence) had rights of travel.

I'm not going to get this tossed to GD (there is this thread (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=41092) over there now), but today's incident in Ramallah (where 2 captured Israeli soldiers were killed in a Palestinian police station) confirms my worst fears about the peace process. If Arafat can't control his population, even if he supports peace, he does not possess a mandate to negotiate.

[Diceman]

BREAKING NEWS! Isreal is attacking Arafat's base in retaliation for the two killings. The shit is hitting the fan right now, folks.

[Falcon]

Originally posted by wevets
IIRC, (and I don't have a cite for this right now) Israel and South Africa are supposed to have cooperated on the development of nuclear weapons during the '70s and '80s when they were both pariah nations. South Africa may have eliminated their nuclear capability in the early '90s, but Israel has certainly retained nukes in light of its hostile neighbors. They wouldn't be useful against the Palestinians, but if there were another Arab-Israeli war... ::shudder:: :(

wevets, both you and Jeff_42 are correct. Admittedly, I'm basing my knowlege of this on an International Security class I took 3 years ago. According to the nuclear theory and deployment we learned then, Israel does have nuclear weapons. IIRC, we actually included them in the acknowleged nations. Like I said, this was 3 years ago, but if they had 'em then, they sure as hell have 'em now. *sigh*

[Freyr]

One question that bothers me is; Ariel Sharon, the Likud leader, visits the Western Wall and this visit set off the original riots?

*WHY*?? How is that one man visiting the Western Wall would cause the Palestians to go crazy? It isn't like he showed up in a tank and was aiming the turret gun at the mosque that ia built on the Temple Mount.

I honestly don't see how one man, albeit hostile to the Palestians in general, could derail the peace process (which I feel has been done). All I can find in the news reports is that the Palestians feel he "defiled" the mosque by his visit here.

[sdimbert]

Freyr:
One question that bothers me is...
How is that one man visiting the Western Wall would cause the Palestians to go crazy?
[/b]

This is an excellent question.

I don't want to launch a debate, and for more on this, feel free to look at the current Great Debates Thread on this subject, but understand a few things:

1 - The claims that Sharon "swaggered" into the Mosque with am "enourmous contingent of armed guards" in a "colonial" fashion are baseless and untrue.

2 - When Sharon got into the compound he saw piles of rocks already stockpiled for the obvious purpose of throwing down onto the Kotel Plaza... before his visit.

Your question is valid; the story does not add up.

[sdimbert]

If you head to this (http://www.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/meast/10/13/mideast.violence.04/index.html) CNN news article about today's developments in the Middle East and head down to the bottom of the page, you will see a blue box (on the right) with a list of additional information. One of the links is a Timeline of the conflict in Israel, beginning in 1000 BCE and ending in the present day.

It's a good resource that speaks directly to the OP's question.

I can't link directly to it because it is a javascript link.

[plnnr]

The previous post (re: conflict stretching back to 1000 BCE) certainly doesn't give one much hope that there is ever going to be a resolution to the situation. I recall reading somewhere (isn't that always the way) that there had only been several hundred cummulative years of total peace on this planet.

[WIGGUM]

The PLO definitely has its share of extremists, but after checking out the timeline, it seems that Israeli extremists have put a kink in the peace process quite a few times themselves. I agree with an earlier post that these extremists are to blame for the breakdown of peace accord after peace accord, but you have to wonder how much is done to discourage activity like this. I can't help but think that everytime one of these lunatics pulls some suicide stunt, that Arafat is smiling on the inside, or am I totally wrong about this?

[zev_steinhardt]

Originally posted by Freyr
One question that bothers me is; Ariel Sharon, the Likud leader, visits the Western Wall and this visit set off the original riots?

*WHY*?? How is that one man visiting the Western Wall would cause the Palestians to go crazy? It isn't like he showed up in a tank and was aiming the turret gun at the mosque that ia built on the Temple Mount.

I honestly don't see how one man, albeit hostile to the Palestians in general, could derail the peace process (which I feel has been done). All I can find in the news reports is that the Palestians feel he "defiled" the mosque by his visit here.

Good question, Freyr.

Bottom line, it's an excuse.

Arafat lost the upper hand when he turned down what was the very best deal he would ever get from Israel at Camp David. Everyone in the world except him (and maybe he himself knew) that he would never get a better deal. Once he turned that down, he lost a great deal of international support. So now, in order to shore up support, he uses the one weapon he has left : violence. All he needs is an excuse to set it off. If it wasn't Sharon's visit to the mount (BTW, many Jews visit the mount without rioting), it would have been something else later.

Zev Steinhardt

[Cam]

This is one of the most informative threads that I've seen yet on the straight dope, but anyway. My point...

Why does Ariel Sharon invoke such hatred among the palestinians? I'm about to quote a newspaper here, so thake this with a pinch of salt:

'For Palestinians, Mr Sharon's a special case. No one in the Israeli political establishment attracts quite the same level of hatred. He is indelibly associated with the genocidal reduction of the Palestinian refugee populations in the Shatila and Sabra camps at Beirut 18 years ago. Two thousand people died. Their descendents can be forgiven for being outraged at his brazen presence on one of their sacred sites.'

That may help...

[woolly]

CKDextHavn
I must applaud your contributions to an intensely complex issuer and the contributions and clarifications of other members make this a superb example of SDMB in action.
Thank you.

Originally posted by zev steinhardt
[B} Arafat lost the upper hand when he turned down what was the very best deal he would ever get from Israel at Camp David. Everyone in the world except him (and maybe he himself knew) that he would never get a better deal. Once he turned that down, he lost a great deal of international support. [/B]

I don't disagree with this view, but I think that both negotiating teams at Camp David were ahead of the popular opinion of their constituants. Seeing the possibility of a treaty/agreement was so close it was almost tangible, they were offering compromises that they couldn't deliver politically (I am not suggesting either side was acting in bad faith). If Arafat had signed he would have been assasinated on his return and Barak would have been politically dead in the water, if not worse (aka Rabin 1995).

I would draw an uneasy parallel with Michael Collins signing the treaty that brought the Irish Free State into being in 1921.

At this point in the cycle the moderates are not in charge of the agenda. I know of no answers nor can offer any placebos.

I have sympathy for the situation of the Palestinian people, though none with their leadership's methods. The Kurdish people in northern Iraq are in a similarly invidious position, though they don't get the same international attention (probably because they haven't adapted terrorism) and are less likely to achieve their objectives of a homeland.

[Zor]

sdimbert's timeline can be seen directly here (http://www.cnn.com/interactive/specials/0007/mideast.time/frameset.exclude.html)...

[capacitor]

wooly, Turkey will disagree with you about the Kurds. Wanting to create a state from what is now part- Turley, part-Iraq, the Kurdish Workers' Party(PKK), based in southern Turkey, have deployed several terroristic attacks against Turkey and the government.

[woolly]

Originally posted by capacitor
Turkey will disagree with you about the Kurds. Wanting to create a state from what is now part- Turley, part-Iraq, the Kurdish Workers' Party(PKK), based in southern Turkey, have deployed several terroristic attacks against Turkey and the government.

I'll take your point capacitor.
A similar example to the PKK might be the Basque movement whose activities IIRC are almost exclusively internal to Spain.

[Collounsbury]

Originally posted by CKDextHavn
Mohammedans

May be picky, but the best adjective is Muslim or Moslem as most Muslims take Mohammedan to be offensive.

Other item: Note palestinians are Christian (in various flavors) as well as Muslim.

[C K Dexter Haven]

I was using the term "Mohammedan" to refer to the first generation, the immediate followers of Mohammed, sort of before it became Islam. Sorry if that subtlety was lost, certainly no offense was intended to modern day Muslims.

Also, I go out on a limb here with a prediction. I've seen this too often in the last 18 years or so not to wonder.

Karl Marx got lots of stuff wrong, but I think he got one idea right: that economics underlies most of history. It is way too obviously to the economic advantage of both Israel and the Palestinians to have peace in a setting that is economically advantageous to both sides. I therefore suggest that the current difficulties are part of a MidEast bargaining posture, like haggling over the price of a rug in a Middle East bazaar. This tactic has been tried (mostly by Arafat, I admit) time and again, storming out of meetings, letting loose terrorists and rioters.

I don't mean to understate the seriousness of what's happening now -- this is not as simple as yelling, "My children will starve if I accept anything less than 100 dinars!" But there is, IMHO, a certain analogy. It's brinkmanship diplomacy; the shopkeeper runs the risk that the customer will just leave without any purchase, but neither Arafat nor Israel can allow that. So it's threat and counter threat -- with loss of life along the way -- but I don't think it will lead to war (however much Iran or Iraq may try to incite war). I think the bargaining process involves two steps forward, one step back, in a deadly dance of haggling.

The mindset of the overwhelming majority of Israelis (regardless of what you read in the sensational press) is that peace must happen. I have to believe the mindset of most Palestinians is the same. And that eventually, economic improvement for both sides will direct the process.

[barbitu8]

Originally posted by Mjollnir
http://www.jpost.com/com/Archive/05.Jan.1999/Features/Article-21.html


Long story short: The displaced Jordanians (aka Palestinians) have been saying since 1996 that they were going to revise the charter, but it hasn't actually been done.

This is an old thread, but I read in yesterday's local paper that it was the anniversary in 1996 when the PLO voted to annul clauses callng for Israel's destruction. Today's paper states that today is the anniversary of the day in 1996 when Israel's governing Labor Party abandoned its longstanding opposition to a Palestinian state because the PLO annulled the clauses calling for its destruction.

So, what is the status? The above link is out of date and doesn't work.

[Earl Snake-Hips Tucker]

The PLO Charter has not changed

The "vote" cited was to give the Palestinian National Council the legal authority to change it. As of this moment--five years later--this has not been done.

The clause calling for the "elimination for the Zionist presence" remains.

Much more succinct than the Wannsee Protocol. . .

[Tamerlane]

A few not at all profound comments/clarifications/disjointed ramblings:

Nixon: Re:Lebanon - I largely agree with your comments. The old "quasi-feudal" structure of Lebanon WAS starting to breakdown in the 60's and early 70's among the educated elite in cosmopolitan centers such as Beirut. But you're quite correct in that since the civil war of the 70's it has reverted pretty badly, with much of the educated class that could flee, doing so. But I think your demographics are slightly off...

The largest group, population-wise is now the Shi'ite community and has been since at least the late 80's. Their radicalization has had to do with several factors:
1.) Pre-1980 - They were traditionally the poorest and most politically ( and socially ) marginalized community in Lebanon, mostly living ( at the time ) in the rural, underdeveloped South-East, "far" from the traditional economic/political centers of the coast. Generally they were disregarded by the other factions as the "poor trash" of the state, despite ( in part because of? ) the fact that a high birth-rate eventually turned them into the largest demographic group. Also they were somewhat less feudal, which odd as it may sound, probably contributed to their marginalization - They lacked the "clannish" organization of their compeititors. Their first militia was Amal, which was vaguely socialistic in ideology and interested primarily in redressing the disenfranchisement they felt. It was a large, but poorly financed ( and armed ) group that was mostly a minor player in the fighting.
2.)Post-1980
a.) Being centered mostly in the South, they took the brunt of the Israeli occupation ( not necessarily the initial campaign ). Also...
b.) The Iranian revolution in 1979 introduced a new paradigm, both in ideolgy, and later in resources. As a result Hezbollah was formed with Iranian encouragement and funds( and some tacit Syrian approval ). Originally a tiny terrorist organization, they more and more began to usurp the role of popular militia from the more secular Amal ( not without some shooting ), especially after 1982. Given an constant recruiting aid in the Israeli occupation of the south, an ideological edge by the new rising tide of radical Islamism which has increasing displaced the old socialist ideal in the radical sectors of the Arab world, and a constant source of funds from Iran - They largely succeeded. They are probably the single most dominant militia force ( at least in terms of international pull ) in Lebanon today.

The Maronite Christian's ( or at least Christians as a whole ) are perhaps still the second largest group ( and still quite feudal ). The Sunni's are a close third, maybe second ( a little less feudal and traditionally a bit "leftist", at least in the Nasserist sense ). The Druse are fourth ( and very feudal ), powerful because of their social cohesiveness and well-fortified central location.

Re: Syria vis a vis Lebanon - Hate to say it, but I think the Syrians have a point. Lebanon is about as artificial as you can get and was carved from Syria as a result of French bigotry and bias towards the ( then ) Maronite majority of Lebanon. Not that this fact absolves Syria of their more egregious behavior, of course.

Re: Jews in Muhammed's day - Just a tiny factoid - Quite a few Arab tribes and clans, especially in the northwest of the penninsula were, in fact, Jewish by religion. Many converted. Others resisted fiercely and were eventually overcome/absorbed. Otherwise C K Dexter Haven's points are well-taken.

Re: Jordan - It is now ( and has been since the '70's ) a majority Palestinian state. This is a result of the annexation of the West Bank in 1948. Even though that territory was subsequently lost in 1967, by then the demographic shift was already pronounced in the rest of Jordan. Unfortunately for the Hashemite's, their base of power as a royal dynasty is the old tribal loyalty of the Bedouin Arab population, now a minority. Attempts to maintain royal authrity by concentrating military power in the hands of the Bedouins is eroding. This accounts for the at times seemingly bizarrely schizophrenic foreign policy of Jordan. There is a real need at times ( at least a perceived one ) to kow-tow to some of the more politically radical elements in Jordanian society.

Re: Assesing blame in the current mess in Israel - Plenty to go around, starting with the British who made contradictory promises to "both sides" in WW I. No one's hands are clean IMO and that includes the Israeli's. Not that anyone here has claimed otherwise.

Re: Solutions in Israel - I am pessimistic :( . IMHO there is no possibility of an economically viable ( and therefore politically stable ) Palestine sans Israel. The only solution I see ( "I" as in IMHO, I don't claim this is fact - just an additional qualification to prevent me from being snarled at :D ) is a cantonized, but tightly interlocked confederation of sorts including all of Israel/Palestine. But there is not the political will for this on either side at this point, in my estimation.

Anybody ever wonder what would have happened if the early Zionists had decided to settle for Western Argentina instead, as in one early proposal?

- Tamerlane

[Abe]

posted by Sailor
My admiration for the Israelis grows continously. When compared to the Palestinians they are a model of political and social organization. And in their struggle with the Palestinians they always come out on top. Some people like to commiserate with the losers but I am not one of them. If you keep asking for violence and get your ass whooped every time you are a looser in my book and it serves you right. Israelis are winners and have my admiration.

These are the kind of ignorant statements that can make up the minds of the uninformed public when they have nothing better or as simple to go on. I find what Sailor says above absolutely deplorable. Sailor also made these highly intellectual comments about the Palestinians:

(from http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=41523)
IMHO the Palestinians are not only an unruly lot but very foolish because, as has been pointed out, the lose to the Israelis every time. I predict they will get whooped once again which will just fuel their spirit of martyrdom. Not only are they a disorganized, unruly lot, they are losers and they will lose.
.....
The jews built the country, built a modern and disciplined army. All the Palestinians can do is throw rocks and not even in an orderly manner. They will get whooped again and again. They are losers. Martyrdom is for losers.

Sailor, if you have nothing better to contribute, please cease your blabbing before you bring pile bias on the people who read this thread to learn rather than air illogical opinions.

On a similar topic, I detect a strong bias towards Israel on this board. It takes two to tango: the Israeli forces and government are as guilty as the Palestinian mobs. The notable difference is that the Israelis are organized while the Palestinians have no comparable organization or resources.

One of the finest and best-equipped military forces in the world against small bands of rock-throwing men and boys? That could be why even the USA, with its very powerful Jewish lobby and Jewish communications machinery, has condemned the excessive violence towards Palestinians in recent times. As Kofi Annan said of the situation, "you do not fight against public sentiment with tanks".

There are some on this board who would depict the Palestinians as terrorists. Those people have a point, although it is a point far from simple since it is not always clear from what level terrorism is coming from, nor what it is (angry funeral mob or orchestrated revolt?). The charges or terrorism are just as easily applied to Israel, which has destroyed housing, planted bombs, launched attacks against civilians, and carried out assassinations against Palestinians. The essential difference between the two strategies is organization. I have no more sympathy for the Israeli powers than I have for the Palestinian mobs--in fact, I find the actions of Israeli forces to be inexcusable, because they are ordered by people who would supposedly know better.

I think Dex's summary, although detailed and informative, is somewhat biased towards Israel. That is not to say it's an incorrect account, but on reading it I feel as if a portion of half the story--the Palestinian side--is missing. It is extremely rare to hear all sides of such an issue, which is why blanket statements such as "Palestinians are losers" are not only foolish, but irresponsible and damaging as well.

Abe