Can someone point me to an unbiased website where I can read about the causes/history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?
Encyclopedia do ya?
http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/section/israel_history.asp
http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/section/palestin_history.asp
http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/section/zionism_thebalfourdeclarationandsettlementinpalestine.asp
http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/a/arafaty1.asp
There’s no such thing as an “unbiased” website.
You’re working under the assumption that there is an underlying “truth” to the situation. I become more and more convinced that there is no such beast. There is the Israeli version and there is the Palestinian version, and there is no fully objective reality.
I happen to think the Palestinian version has considerably more distortion and propaganda and war-mongering hatred, but that’s just my perspective.
Technically, I guess you’re correct, but by the same token, nothing is really unbiased right? Everything written, spoken, or communicated passes through the filter of the teller/writer.
The above sites were helpful, but I remember reading somewhere that after the David Peace accords, Israel did not live up to the agreements and took land that were past the boundaried signed upon. I think the UN resolutions state that Israel should cease occupation of those territories.
Is this correct? Can anyone point out a place that explains this?
I don’t have a site off-hand, but what you are referring to is the continuing development of land Israel already had. The David peace accord was that Israel would not make any new settlements. Israel’s argument has been that these are not new settlements since they were planned before the accord.
. . . and Sharon said to Arafat: “Will you be my Palenstine?” and Arafat said: “Keep your hands to yourself; I’m not that kind of terrorist”.
Thanks for the info barbitu8.
I know there are several UN resolutions that Israel is ignoring. Does anyone know what the resolutions dictate?
I have found a lot of archive stories on http://news.bbc.co.uk both impartial and informative. It’s free to search, plus they also have FAQs on various things etc.
But like C K points out - it’s hard to pin down “truth” in this situation. Both sides put out lies and misunderstandings and propaganda, both sides put out truth and fact. I think the best you can do is read as much as possible, keep your own mind open, and try to form some general overview.
At root, I have never given up on the idea that “there is an absolute truth” in everything and that things are - and should be - black and white. I am not a relativist.
But nowhere more than this situation is the shades-of-grey approach appropriate. And what is the actual truth might not even be relevant - let alone helpful - in the long term, and in solving the problem. Compromise rather than condemnation is needed, IMO.
How can you know that Israel is “ignoring” the resolutions if you don’t know what the resolutions are? 
Because I read it. But the resolutions were only referred to by their ID numbers. I don’t know the substance of them.
UN Security Council Resolution 194, which was a condition of Israel’s acceptance to the UN, states that refugees from Palestine should be allowed to return to their homes or should be compensated (by Israel).
UNSC Res. 242 (1967) states that Israel shall withdraw armed forces from occupied territories.
UNSC Res. 338 (1974), which was a reaffirmation of 242, outlines a “land for peace” plan.
There are more recent ones too, such as that passed on March 30, 2002 which called for the withdrawal of Israel’s troops from Palestinian and for a cease-fire of both sides. BTW the US voted yes for that one.
Although the UN is a good source for information, beware that its actions are not without bias as well. The five permanent member countries (US, UK, France, Russia and China) have veto power in the Security Council, which stymies resolutions which challenge their national interests. In December 2001 the United States vetoed a United Nations Security Council resolution to send an international peacekeeping force to the region. Since 1967, the US has vetoed 25 resolutions dealing with Israel and Palestine, usually along with a negative vote or abstension from Israel.
Thanks Ms. Fisk.
Can you define what an ‘occupied territory’ is?
Yes I can. But first, excuse the misinformation, Res. 338 was passed in 1973, not 1974, as a result of the Yom Kippur War of that year.
Many sources leave “occupied territory” undefined. One of the criticisms of Res. 242 and 338 is that they are ambiguous, which may have been politically necessary to get them passed but which cause problems of subsequent interpretation and enforcement. See the text of Res 242 for yourself (http://www.un.org/documents/sc/res/1967/s67r242e.pdf).
“Occupied territory” usually refers to territory that by right belongs to Palestine but that Israel maintains a military presence. Although some consider Israeli (civilian) settlements within Palestine’s borders to be occupied as well. Settlements themselves are often not included in the definition of occupied territory, but settlements are often accompanied by armed forces, ostensibly to defend the civilians.
The international borders of Palestine (West Bank and the Gaza Strip) are defined by the armistice cease-fire lines in effect on June 4, 1967 (after the Six-Day War of 1967). These are the borders that Res 242 recognizes.
Besides UN resolutions, there is also the Oslo Accords of 1993 (aka Declaration of Principles, for text see http://www.iap.org/oslo.htm), which outlines plans for the self-governing of Palestine and security measures for both countries’ borders. These are the accords that were signed by both parties on the lawn of the White House, and that Sharon is accused of reneging, I think he has even been quoted as saying that what the former prime minister Yitzhak Rabin did has no bearing on his current policies.
To be fair, it must be mentioned that many resolutions and agreements call for civilian security within each states borders, and neither side has upheld this.
OK, so if Israel pulls out of the occupied territories, will this lessen the violence and attacks? BTW, if the territories belong to Palestine, why is Israel maintaining a military presence there? Can’t they relocate their citizens? Seems to me that the Israelis are the ‘bad guys’ in this respect.
It depends upon the definition of “occupied.” If all the settlements within the Palestinian area is vacated, where are all those Jews going to go? The population of Israel has increased from 600,000 in 1948 to IIRC 4 million now. The military presence in the settlements has been explained. The actual military occupation has occured to ferret out the militants. Israel has gone into Palestinian cities in the same way we went into Afghan, with this exception: Israel never bombed Palestine. Israel’s policy is to minimize civilian casualties, which it has, despite what Palestinian propaganda wants you to believe.
BTW, there are no “bad guys” except for Arafat and the Palestinian organizations that organize the suicide attacks.
I agree, if you’re correct the number of people currently in those areas make migation very difficult and even maybe prohibitive if they wish to remain in Israel.
However, Israel must’ve seen this coming a few years back (the population growth). Why not cede the lands that weren’t theirs before the population became a hindering factor?
Bullshit. Taking someone else’s land and refusing to vacate it–or supporting that policy–makes you a bad guy. No justice, no peace.
Some theories:
The current violence in the region, particularly the spate of suicide bombings committed by Palestinian militants that began in October 2000 is a result partly of increased settlement activity, a reaction to Sharon’s visit to al-Aqsa Mosque in October and the election of the right-wing extremist in February 2001. Since Sharon took office, 34 new settlements have been established. This is about the same number (40 built, 10 later dismantled) established from 1993-1999. That is, settlements have been built at twice the previous rate since Sharon took office. Theories on the new violence include Palestinians’ dislike for Sharon and his policies–he has been characterized as a war criminal (most notably because of his role in the massacres at Sabra and Shatilla refugee camps in Lebanon 1982) and not just by Palestinians. If there were no new settlements, we would see fewer suicide bombings.
I have been told that Israel maintains a military presence in Palestine in order to protect its own territory from attacks from other Arab nations, specifically Jordan. At least, this is how it started out. And on the east side of the West Bank is a large fresh water resource that Israel wants control of–that is where many of its settlements besides those surrounding Jerusalem are. Control of Jerusalem is a big reason for settlements too. Some think that Israel is trying to appropriate all the land and resources of the area and just wants to get rid of all the Palestinians, send them to Jordan and Lebanon. This is one of the more extreme views, but one that you could nonetheless find support for among quotes by Israeli officials.
This is a really complex situation. Don’t take my word for it. There are much more authoritative sources which I suggest you check out if you want to know more.
A History of the Modern Middle East by William Cleveland is a good source to start with if you want some historical background. As for recent issues I would look at some “biased” sites like the one for the State of Israel and the http://electronicintifada.net/new.html and others, including non-American news sources. Also look at http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/isrlindx.htm
Neither of which is unbiased, though. My opinion is that the more information you have, the better. Look at all manner of sites and sort through the bias yourself.
And careful when you characterize any side as the “bad guys.” Both sides have valid claims and their own faults.
ice1000,
You asked for some facts. The problem (as others have indicated) is that, while we can give ya facts, they rarely come without some sort of lens, or interpretation. Good luck.
You said:
**
First of all, here’s a point to consider: What would the World think of a Nation that didn’t allow members of a specific minority to live within its borders? Any realistic peace settlement would inevitably permit Jews who preferred to live outside the State of Israel under Palestinian authority to live in the West Bank — just as Arabs today live in Israel. So, what do the Arabs want? They want Israel to disband the “Settlements” and move the Jews off of “their land.” Then, once peace is restored, do they plan on not allowing those Jews to move back in?
Just a thought that occured to me.
Anyway, you asked for information about UN Resolutions. Check out:
[ol]
[li]Res. 181[/li][li]Res. 242[/li][li]Res. 338[/li][li]Res. 425[/li][/ol]
The site I’m pointing you to, Myths & Facts is a respected resource of uncluttered information on the Middle East published by the Near East Report. Enjoy.
Currently, Arafat’s compund is getting attacked in retaliation for the recent suicide bombings? Why?
Does Arafat explicitly back these attacks? If he doesn’t, wouldn’t that be similar to Mexico attacking the White House if some wacko fringe element sttacked Mexico and our President wasn’t able to locate them?
I don’t think that holding Arafat personally responsible for what some militants do won’t really solve anything. Taking it to it’s logical conclusion, will killing Arafat solve anything anyways? That is the aim of attacking the compund right?