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?
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.
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
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 for the destruction 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.
Hey, wasn’t this done after the 1948 war? The Palestinian state was called “Jordan.”
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.
I meant, of course, a tenet, not a tent. God knows they have enough tents too. But I guess I got too intense.
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”?
Yes, Israel has a lot of tents.
Those be some goodly tents, too! 
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.
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…
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.
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.
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:
It goes on… I stopped about halfway through.
Comments?
(Formatting and emphasis are, as always, mine.)
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Jeff_42 *
**
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)
CKDextHavn:
Beautiful summation of the whole Middle East conflict.
Just one point of correction:
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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?