# Palestinian Motivations in the Middle East **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 31, 2000, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/palestinian-motivations-in-the-middle-east/39087 "2000-10-31T15:27:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![sdimbert](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sdimbert/32/20204_2.png) [@sdimbert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sdimbert)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2000, 3:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/palestinian-motivations-in-the-middle-east/39087/1 "2000-10-31T15:27:18Z")
In a [related thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=43755), I got into a snag trying to discuss the motivations of the Palestinian people currently causing trouble in the Middle East. There I could not make myself understood and ended up in a silly argument with those who know more than I do. That discussion wandered away from the point I wanted to make, so I will try again here, in a fresh thread. It seems obvious to me that the idea that the Palestinians want to make peace with the Israelis is ludicrous one, one which current events clearly demonstrate to be false. I can understand how world opinion differs from mine - most people believe that the Palestinians are fighting a noble fight because that is what they are supposed to believe. The media is fueling that sentiment, exactly as Arafat wants. Please read the following: > [@](#): > > **PALESTINIAN SERMON** > _Palestinian Television continued over the weekend to re-broadcast excerpts from a Friday sermon in the Zayed bin Sultan Aal Nahyan mosque in Gaza. Translation supplied by The Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI):_ > > "…O brother believers, the criminals, the terrorists are the Jews, who have butchered our children, orphaned them, widowed our women and desecrated our holy places and sacred sites. They are the terrorists. They are the ones who must be butchered and killed… The cost and the dowry of this bride, the dowry of this paradise, is that we fight in the path of Allah, and kill and be killed. > > “…The Jews are the allies of the Christians, and the Christians are the allies of the Jews… The enmity between the Jews and the Christians is deep, but all of them are in agreement against… those who say, ‘There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is his messenger,’ that is they are against you, O Muslims. > > “Even if an agreement of Gaza is signed, we shall not forget Haifa, and Acre, and the Galilee, and Jaffa, and the Triangle and the Negev, and the rest of our cities and villages. It is only a matter of time… Have no mercy on the Jews, no matter where they are, in any country. Fight them, wherever you are. Wherever you meet them, kill them. Wherever you are, kill those Jews and those Americans who are like them!” \*\* What if an American minority leader preached those things about the American government? No, actually, you don’t need to change anything to feel threatened: Re-read the last paragraph and consider it in the wake of the USS Cole. Why don’t most people see Arafat for what he is (in the words of Elie Wiesel): “ignorant, devious and unworthy of trust”? ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2000, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/palestinian-motivations-in-the-middle-east/39087/2 "2000-10-31T16:27:22Z")
I think it’s because Arafat does not represent all Palestinians - although that’s what he and many others want you to believe. To paint all Palestinians with the same brush would be …ummm… ignorant. There is a good number of arabs living peacefully and successfully withing Israel’s borders and who oppose the violence as strongly as their peace minded jewish neighbours. On the other hand, I am encouraged that Israel has not taken stronger and more severe measures in this conflict. This is a matter of internal conflict for me as a jew, of course. I want to see Israel take much more severe and decisive steps in order to bring the conflict to a quicker resolution but at the same time, I don’t want Israel to be seen as the agressor or to be judged as reacting out of proportion. It’s a fine line. I applaud the restraint they have shown thus far. As for Arafat, I agree, he is not qualified to lead peace negotiations. Yet, he is the chosen representative of the Palestinian people involved in this conflict. They could refuse to negotiate peace with Arafat and the arabs but they cannot tell them who their leader ought to be. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2000, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/palestinian-motivations-in-the-middle-east/39087/3 "2000-10-31T18:27:50Z")
**sdimbert:** _It seems obvious to me that the idea that the Palestinians want to make peace with the Israelis is ludicrous one, one which current events clearly demonstrate to be false._ **sdimbert** , I have the same problem with this statement that I did with your remarks in the other thread. Namely, you seem to be assuming that because many Palestinians demonstrate excessive hostility towards Israel, therefore there is no merit in any of the Palestinian demands and their **only** goal is the destruction of Israel. I think that’s an extremely weak piece of reasoning, and you don’t seem to be able to produce any justification for it other than repeated assertions that many Palestinians are excessively hostile towards Israel. It’s evident that this conclusion seems “obvious” to you, but you haven’t adequately supported it with logic or data. Of course, the Muslim sermon you cited is deplorably inflammatory and aggressive. But we mustn’t forget that there’s been a good deal of that sort of sentiment on **both** sides. From a [1999 article:](http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0199/9901078.html) > [@](#): > > A cover story in The Jerusalem Report (Sept. 28, 1998) noted that in West Bank settlements and elsewhere on “the radical fringes of the right, violent talk is more common than it’s been at any time since the murder of Yitzhak Rabin—whose assassin used…twisted citations from holy books to justify bloodshed…The growing sense that the government will soon agree to turn another 13 percent of the West Bank over to Palestinian rule is intensifying the feeling of abandonment that has set off extremist Jewish violence in the past. Recent weeks have provided numerous warning signs that desperation—and readiness for desperate action—are increasing: extremists accusing (Israeli) President Ezer Weizman of treason and Defense Minister Yitzhak Mordechai of murder; simmering violence against Arabs in the Hebron area; threats to shoot soldiers.” […] > > Shortly before Rabin’s assassination, acts of violence by religious zealots had been increasing. In September, 1995 Jewish settlers stormed a Palestinian girls school in Hebron, beat its headmistress, and injured at least four pupils. A municipal spokesman said: “The school is about 20 yards from a Jewish settlement. Some settlers attacked the headmistress, and even the little girls there, with bottles and pipes.” > > In another incident in September, five armed men in Israeli army uniforms, some of them masked, terrorized Halhoul, an Arab village on the West Bank, forcing their way into private houses and interrogating the Palestinians they met. They shot one young man to death as his father watched, bound at the hands and helpless to intercede. Responsibility for the killing was claimed by Eyal, a spinoff of the late Meir Kahane’s Kach movement. […] > > The similarities between Jewish extremists who oppose the peace process and Islamic fundamentalists who share their goal are striking. Just as Muslim militants murdered Egyptian President Anwar Sadat for making peace, and just as Islamic terrorists are now trying through violence to end the peace process, so Jewish extremists are doing exactly the same thing. They are mirror images of one another. Hateful bigoted rhetoric and acts of terrorism are of course abominable, but they are hardly unique to the Palestinian side in this case. And they **definitely** do not automatically delegitimize the aims and desires of **all** Palestinians, any more than Eyal terrorism automatically delegitimizes the Jewish state. There are definitely a lot of problems on both sides in the current negotiations, and the Palestinians are much to blame for the present hostilities. But to my mind, at least, you have not succeeded in demonstrating that the “Palestinian motivations” are **solely** negative and destructive and that therefore their claims can fairly be ignored. ---
**Author:** ![sdimbert](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sdimbert/32/20204_2.png) [@sdimbert](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sdimbert)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2000, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/palestinian-motivations-in-the-middle-east/39087/4 "2000-10-31T20:27:21Z")
_I know that this is an absurdly long post - It just kept coming out. Do me a favor and read it… let’s take it one step at a time._ **Kimstu** : Coupla’ things: **First:** > [@](#): > > **…you seem to be assuming that because many Palestinians demonstrate excessive hostility towards Israel, therefore there is no merit in any of the Palestinian demands and their only goal is the destruction of Israel.** Yassar Arafat is the accepted representative of the “Palestinian People.” The PLO, which Arafat used to run (if he isn’t still - I’m not sure), says in its charter that its aim is the destruction of Israel. Yassar Arafat and his PA Police Force do nothing to stop Palestinian rioting. In fact, many claim they aid and abet it, both by not prosecuting the criminals who riot and by arming and deploying rioters and Tanzim. You are correct. Not all Palestinians “demonostrate excessive hostility towards Israel.” Just the ones in charge. **Second:** I am confused. You say that I assert two things: [list=1] [li]…there is no merit in any of the Palestinian demands…[/li][li][The Palestinians’] only goal is the destruction of Israel[/li][/list=1] You are correct - I believe both of those things to be true. But, when you say: > [@](#): > > **…you don’t seem to be able to produce any justification for it other than repeated assertions that many Palestinians are excessively hostile towards Israel. It’s evident that this conclusion seems “obvious” to you, but you haven’t adequately supported it with logic or data.** Which “conclusion” is the “it” to which you refer? **Third:** > [@](#): > > \*\* > Of course, the Muslim sermon you cited is deplorably inflammatory and aggressive. But we mustn’t forget that there’s been a good deal of that sort of sentiment on **both** sides… > \*\* The article you quoted from says: > [@](#): > > The similarities between Jewish extremists who oppose the peace process and Islamic fundamentalists who share their goal are striking. So are the differences between the **reactions** by the Israeli Government and the Palestinian Authority. I’m surprised that the article didn’t mention Baruch Goldstein. Remember him? Religious wacko who shot up all those Arabs in Ma’Arat HaMachpela in Chevron? The difference is that all of the people responsible for the deplorable acts are recognized by the Israeli Governement as **criminals**. The PA is not recognizing rioters and terrorists as such; as a matter of fact, they keep _releasing_ known terrorists from prison to assist the Tanzim. **Finally** : Look. Of course I do not believe that all Palestinians are bad people. That sort of generalization is never true. I do, however, believe a number of general ideas to be accurate: [ul] [li]“The swift and virtually complete failure of the Mideast process after seven years of painstaking negotiations underscores that while Israel was seeking to create a state (Palestinian) peacefully, the Palestinians were seeking to replace one — Israel — violently” ([_The Jewish Week_](http://www.thejewishweek.com/jwcurr.exe?0010278) Editorial, Oct. 27, 2000).[/li][li]“Those of us who reject hatred and fanaticism as options and who consider peace as the noblest of efforts finally recognize Yasir Arafat for what he is: ignorant, devious and unworthy of trust” (Elie Wiesel, speaking on October 12, 2000).[/li][li]“Israel’s “partner” teaches its school children to hate Jews and preaches to obliterate the Jewish state in its recent approved curriculum. Over 80% of the Palestinians, according to Palestinian polls, reject introducing in their books statements showing the acceptance of Israel” (Prof. Efraim Inbar, Director of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies at Bar-Ilan Unversity, [FrontPageMagazine.com](http://FrontPageMagazine.com), October 23).[/li][li]“Arafat has almost a perfect record of violating each one of the agreements he has signed”(ibid).[/li][li]"…a key aspect to the Mideast struggle today is the manipulation of media to influence public opinion" (Rabbi Shraga Simmons, [Aish.com](http://Aish.com), October 18).[/li][/ul] I’m going to stop there. I am continually frustrated by every aspect of the current conflict in the Middle East, but my deepest despair stems from the inability of reasonable, enlightened, objective people to see the truth of what is happening. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2000, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/palestinian-motivations-in-the-middle-east/39087/5 "2000-10-31T21:32:07Z")
**sdimbert:** \*I am confused. You say that I assert two things: 1…there is no merit in any of the Palestinian demands… 2.[The Palestinians’] only goal is the destruction of Israel You are correct - I believe both of those things to be true. But, when you say: “…you don’t seem to be able to produce any justification for it other than repeated assertions that many Palestinians are excessively hostile towards Israel. It’s evident that this conclusion seems `obvious’ to you, but you haven’t adequately supported it with logic or data.” Which “conclusion” is the “it” to which you refer? \* Both combined: as I originally put it, “you seem to be assuming that because many Palestinians demonstrate excessive hostility towards Israel, therefore there is no merit in any of the Palestinian demands and their only goal is the destruction of Israel.” It seemed to me that you were concluding that both those claims followed from Palestinian opposition to Israel’s existence. Now, it seems to me, you’ve added some more support based on opposition to Israel among Palestinian leadership. But I still do not see how you get from that, or from **any** amount of unreasonable and unjustifiable Palestinian opposition to Israel, the conclusion that **all** Palestinian demands are equally unreasonable. Are you arguing that nobody should recognize Palestinian claims to autonomy until they officially recognize Israel’s claim to autonomy? It would be nice if they did, but I think we have to be realistic here. We didn’t apply those standards (no recognition for you unless you’re prepared to accept officially the existence of the neighbors whose territory you’re now claiming) to territorial disputes in the former Yugoslavia, for instance. It seems to me that no matter how the Palestinians (some Palestinians, top Palestinians, any Palestinians) feel about the existence of Israel, they have by modern political criteria a reasonable claim to an autonomous state. I think the best way to undermine their less reasonable anti-Israel objectives is to establish that state. It’s being subject to an alien government and denied full suffrage or political autonomy which makes Palestinians sympathetic figures in the eyes of many. When they too are a recognized nation with national rights and responsibilities, their hostility towards Israel will be more easily identifiable as aggression rather than part of a freedom struggle. And like Israel’s other neighbors, they will either have to put up or shut up; and if they choose to start something, it will be clear that it’s aggression rather than retaliation (assuming Israel doesn’t start something first, of course). I think a footing of official equality in the comity of nations is the only chance for real coexistence between Israelis and Palestinians and other Arabs, though I bet that even with that footing it will take a couple of centuries or more to get there. Your alternative, on the other hand—continue to ignore the demands of the Palestinians because their anti-Israel hostility proves they are not to be trusted—just seems like a recipe for continued tension and ever-increasing belligerence. It’s a holding pattern, and one that the non-extremists on both sides are thoroughly sick of. Israel has, as far as I can see, only two genuinely realistic choices with respect to the Palestinians: either wipe them out and take the consequences, or negotiate with them as a fellow nation, unpleasant and unsettling (pun, ha-ha) though that prospect is. I don’t think that I’m the one who’s unable “to see the truth of what is happening” in this case. ---
**Author:** ![Danielinthewolvesden](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ce7236/32.png) [@Danielinthewolvesden](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Danielinthewolvesden)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2000, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/palestinian-motivations-in-the-middle-east/39087/6 "2000-10-31T23:29:28Z")
The Palestinians, as a PEOPLE are mostly ok, decent hard-working folks. But they have allowed as their leaders- a terrorist organization, led by a terrrorist. The 1st mistake Isreal made was agreeing to ever sit down & negotiate with terrorists- that never leads anywhwere productive. (Note the Brits are making the same foolish mistake). Arafat & his crew are sub-human baby-killing thugs. He should be taken out and shot, and then they should hold the trial. On the other hand, the Palestinians have made SOME reasonable “demands”- and the Isrealis were willing to grant those- and even some not-so-reasonable. But as soon as Arafat saw that peace was possibly at hand- and he would be out of a job (there is no reason to keep a terrorist as your leader when you are not doing terrorist stuff anymore- in fact it is a real bad idea. Ofttimes they are killed)- he rejected a GREAT offer by the isrealis & demanded unreasonable things, that he KNEW (because they flat out said as much) would not be granted. What is the use of goping to a “peace summit” whne you knwo you “non-negotable unreasonable demand” will not be met? Arafat went there with a lie on his lips, and bad faith in his heart. Now, Sdim, my brother, do not let your totally justifed hatred of Arafat & his crew of terrorist thugs spill over into a hatred of the Palestinians as a whole. The PEOPLE have some justified grievances (which, the Israeli govet is willing to grant). The people probably do not hate the Isrealis any more than the Isrealis hate them. The problem is the leaders of the Palestinains. True, the people are partly to blame as they “selected” those leaders- but do you really think those 'elections" were fair? ---
**Author:** ![edwino](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@edwino](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/edwino)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2000, 12:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/palestinian-motivations-in-the-middle-east/39087/7 "2000-11-01T00:47:21Z")
On November 15th, Arafat is going to declare a nation. This will fix nothing. Some settlements, which are over the 1967 borders, are now cities of nearly 100,000 people. The suburbs east of Jerusalem sprawl for miles. Israel has given back pretty much all it can afford. With the declaration of a new state, Israel will be forced to grab up land that it needs for defense, like settlements along the Jordan River and any settlements reasonably close to the 1967 borders. Isolated settlements will be cut off. Hebron is going to be a nightmare. So the Palestinian governement will still have a bargaining chip. They will point to the settlements and demand one-to-one land exchanges (part of what Barak offered when Arafat was still considered a potential partner for peace). Even if they get these, they will demand East Jerusalem (again, it has been on the table). Even if they get the Arab neighborhoods in East Jerusalem and a capitol in Al-Quds, they will demand full autonomy over Temple Mount. That is the breaking point for the Israelis. It isn’t going to happen… I have no predjudice against the Palestinian people. I believe that a peaceful state of Palestine could easily become amongst the most prosperous in the Middle East, at first with tourism and feeding the Israeli labor market. They already have infrastructure, and guaranteed trading partners in Israel and Jordan. But it keeps coming back to Arafat and the Palestinian leadership. I consider myself pro-peace and pro-human rights, but I can’t get rid of the idea that Arafat and gang will keep the rioting up as they keep crying “Israeli occupation.” It all keeps coming back to the 1996 (3 years after Oslo!) speech that Arafat made about peace treaties as the first step in undermining a lasting peace. It all keeps coming back to the PLO charter. It all keeps coming back to the hatred of the Jews taught in West Bank schools, preached in Jerusalem mosques, and fomented in Lebanese refugee camps. ---
**Author:** ![edwino](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@edwino](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/edwino)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2000, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/palestinian-motivations-in-the-middle-east/39087/8 "2000-11-01T00:51:12Z")
> [@](#): > > …peace treaties as the first step in undermining a lasting peace. …peace treaties as the first step in undermining Israel. Unfortunately, the appropriate cite for this I believe comes from that awful Farah article. I will retract it if I cannot find a more credible source. ---
**Author:** ![edwino](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@edwino](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/edwino)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2000, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/palestinian-motivations-in-the-middle-east/39087/9 "2000-11-01T01:17:51Z")
Sorry to post 3 in a row. Here is a link. [Quotes from the Palestinian leadership.] ([http://www.iris.org.il/quotes.htm](http://www.iris.org.il/quotes.htm)) From an Israeli site. I know that some of these may be out of context. Many are from religious extremists. But I betcha most aren’t. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2000, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/palestinian-motivations-in-the-middle-east/39087/10 "2000-11-01T15:50:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Kimstu \* > It seems to me that no matter how the Palestinians (some Palestinians, top Palestinians, any Palestinians) feel about the existence of Israel, they have by modern political criteria a reasonable claim to an autonomous state. I’m not sure I agree with that statement or perhaps I don’t fully understand the practical and political facts that support it. Also, why are the same land demands not being made of Jordan, Lebanon and Egypt? Surely we all agree that not every Palestinian making the claim for Israel’s land is actually from Israel proper. Many of them are actually from Jordan and Lebanon as were their parents and grandparents. I have heard this first hand from a self proclaimed Palestinian co-worker of mine. He admited that his family as well as his wife’s were from Jordan but he called himself a Palestinian and claimed he had a legitimate right to live on Israeli soil if he so chose without having to submit to Israel’s laws and authority. His claim is simply that he is “from the area” where as many of the Jews now living is Israel are from Europe and America. He is not alone in this kind of thinking. There is a very large group of like minded Arabs in Toronto who feel just as he does and are politically vocal about these beliefs. So why must Israel submit to the autonomy demands of these people by giving up their own land when the very Arab nations that are the source of these Palestinians are not even asked to make the same sacrifice. Why the double standard if not for reasons of anti-semitism in it’s purest form? And if that’s really the bottom line of these demands, why give in to them at all, much less negotiate? ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2000, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/palestinian-motivations-in-the-middle-east/39087/11 "2000-11-01T16:58:41Z")
**QuickSilver:** \*Also, why are the same land demands not being made of Jordan, Lebanon and Egypt? \* As I understand it, it’s because the British colonial area that was being argued over by Arabs, Jews, and Europeans prior to 1947, with respect to formation of a Jewish state, was Palestine; that is, the region that’s now Israel (and the territories), not Jordan or Lebanon (and certainly not Egypt!). It’s the Israeli lands that many Arabs are claiming were unfairly taken away from them by the Western powers, so those lands (or at least part of them) are what they want. A piece of Egypt would not really be considered equivalent. _Surely we all agree that not every Palestinian making the claim for Israel’s land is actually from Israel proper. Many of them are actually from Jordan and Lebanon as were their parents and grandparents._ True; and I don’t understand why Jordanians and Lebanese would want to call themselves Palestinians rather than Jordanians and Lebanese. But I don’t think that it logically follows from that that there aren’t any “real” Palestinians. \*why give in to them at all, much less negotiate? \* Because as I said, there seems to be only one genuinely effective alternative. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2000, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/palestinian-motivations-in-the-middle-east/39087/12 "2000-11-01T18:04:06Z")
Alas, we will not reach the logical conclusion of this debate because there seems to be far too many layers of opinions and opinions masquerading as facts. Yes, it’s true that Palestine, once controlled by the British, housed indigenous people most of whom were Arabs and a few of whom were Jews. It’s equally true that the borders of Palestine were fairly nebulous even to the indigent population as Jordan’s borders were just as nebulous. Lebanon was a French colony and I’m not certain how hard the borders where drawn either with respect to Palestine. But you’ve got to wonder why the Palestinians and the Arab neighbours seemed to get along better with such exploiters as their colonial masters. After all, neither the English or the French were known to be worshipers of Allah. Seems they got their ire up only when the land was given to the jews through a political process endorsed by much of the civilized world. Undoubtedly a large part of the problem lays in the fact that Arabs were not given a choice in the matter. But the area was mostly dessert and very sparsely populated. Certainly not anywhere near in number to the amount of Arabs calling themselves Palestinians at this time. Also, I don’t recall any declaration that compelled the indigent Arab population to move out of the area to make room for the immigrating Jews. I believe they were all welcome to stay. It’s the propaganda and political stance of the neighbouring Arab nations that compelled the indigenous Arabs to abandon their own homes, combine with the military Arab forces building up on Israel’s borders to attack a fledgeling nation in an attempt to push it’s Jewish citizenry into the sea. It’s the self imposed displacement of Palestinian Arabs which left them homeless pawns, at the mercy of every Islamic hardline cleric and terrorist. It’s hard to imagine a group of people more ignorant about how to best rectify their situation through peaceful means. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2000, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/palestinian-motivations-in-the-middle-east/39087/13 "2000-11-01T18:56:13Z")
**QuickSilver:** \*But you’ve got to wonder why the Palestinians and the Arab neighbours seemed to get along better with such exploiters as their colonial masters. After all, neither the English or the French were known to be worshipers of Allah. Seems they got their ire up only when the land was given to the jews through a political process endorsed by much of the civilized world. \* Huh? What about the “Arab Uprising” against the British in 1936, for example? The Palestinians were hardly complacent about their status as a European colony prior to the partition and formation of a Jewish state; I don’t think you can argue that it was solely anti-Jewish feeling that made them belligerent. \*Also, I don’t recall any declaration that compelled the indigent Arab population to move out of the area to make room for the immigrating Jews. I believe they were all welcome to stay. \* Well, just to give more specific background about the events I think are crucial, here’s an overview from [a UMichigan site](http://www.umich.edu/~iinet/cmenas/outreach/StudyUnits/israeli-palestinian_conflict/studentlesson3.html#Partition): > [@](#): > > In November 1947 the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 181, partitioning Palestine into two states, one Jewish (Israel), one Arab (Palestine) with an international enclave in the Jerusalem area, including Bethlehem. Arabs opposed this decision for four reasons: First, 66% of the population was Arab, and Jews held only 6% of the land. Second, Palestinians questioned the legality of Resolution 181 since the British Mandate specified that the opinions of the inhabitants must be taken into account in any decisions. Since 2/3 of the people in Palestine were Arabs, they maintained that the creation of a “Jewish” state against the will of the Arab majority could not be legal. Third, neighboring independent Arab states feared that Israel would be an agent of powerful Western nations that would use it to dominate the region. Finally, Muslims and many Christians (the Catholic Church most prominently) felt that the significance of Palestine and Jerusalem to all three faiths–Judaism, Christianity, and Islam–should be respected. > > When the dust settled in January 1949 a Jewish state was in place but the Palestinian Arab state had been stillborn. The declaration of a Jewish state in May 1948 sparked a war. This > war was made worse by the determination of Arab leaders to keep Palestine united and to resist a Jewish state, and by the determination of Israelis to expand the size of their state to include part of the proposed Palestinian state. > > Three things happened to the Palestinian state. 1) During the fighting Israel captured much of the territory assigned to the Arab state by the UN. The part captured by Israel is today considered part of Israel by most of the world community. 2) Jordan took control of that section of the Arab state called the West Bank. In 1949, Jordan annexed the West Bank and granted full citizenship to the Palestinians therein. While some Palestinians agreed to this arrangement, others were so offended that they became bitter enemies of the Jordanian ruling family. One militant Palestinian assassinated King Abdullah in 1951 and militant Palestinian groups conducted an uprising against King Hussein in 1970. (We will see soon that the West Bank was captured by Israel in 1967 and is today called the Occupied Territories or Occupied Palestine). 3) A small part of Palestinian territory (the Gaza Strip) was held by Egypt. Egypt never annexed Gaza. Israel captured it in 1967. Today it is part of the Occupied Territories. […] > > The events of 1947-48 created a serious refugee problem. Based on Resolution 181 the Arab state would have 725,000 Arabs and 20,000 Jews; the Jewish state 498,000 Jews and > 407,000 Arabs and the international zone (Jerusalem and environs) 100,000 Jews and 105,000 Arabs. In fact, the result was quite different. Not only did Israel end up with 77% > of the land of Mandatory Palestine but by the January 1949 Armistice, there had been a major population shift. > > Of the Palestinians living in what is now Israel proper on January 1, 1948, approximately 85% were refugees by December 31. Most ended up in Jordan, Gaza or the West Bank, Lebanon, Syria, or Kuwait. (During 1948 the population of Jordan more than doubled to 850,000; Jordan also acquired the West Bank which had 400,000 more Palestinians, many also refugees). The UN quickly set up United Nations Relief and Works Agency > (UNRWA) to support the refugees. UNRWA settled them into temporary refugee camps in which many live even today. They were certain they could return as soon as the fighting stopped, especially since the UN passed Resolution 194 asserting their right either to return or to be compensated for their loss. Once the refugees realized their return was not imminent, many refused to leave the camps since they did not want to be assimilated into other Arab nations. Also leaving might disrupt social ties, since often villages or families moved en masse into a camp. > > In Jordan, all Palestinians received full citizenship. This made Jordan the only Arab country to grant across-the-board citizenship to Palestinians. (Lebanon granted it to many 1948 > refugees although not to later refugees. Some Palestinians also obtained citizenship in Syria, Iraq, and elsewhere.) Palestinians today are very prominent in Jordanian business and government. Because they are among the most educated people in the Arab world, they have achieved prominence and success in many countries. The Palestinians have been a > great economic asset to Jordan. > > Today in Jordan perhaps 60% of the 3.5 million citizens are of Palestinian origin (20% of the Palestinians live in refugee camps). In Lebanon, 10% of the population or 400,000 are Palestinian. In the West Bank about 40% are refugees and in tiny Gaza the figure approaches 90%. (A refugee is defined as someone who lived inside Israel before partition and is not allowed by Israel to return. The children and grandchildren of refugees also have refugee status.) So these are what I see as the major issues: 1. The Palestinians wanted the colonial powers out. They did not want the British or other Westerners to continue making decisions about the territory of Palestine, whether that involved controlling it themselves or setting up a Jewish state there. I quite agree that anti-Jewish feeling among Arabs played a role in this, but I don’t agree that it was the sole motive for Arab hostility. 2. The Arabs felt that Resolution 181 was, even according to the colonial Mandate, a violation of their autonomy. As you said, part of the problem is that they didn’t have a choice in the matter. 3. The Arab states went to war when Israel was declared a nation over their objections. With hindsight, I personally think that this was both greedy and foolish; it should have been clear to the Arabs that the Western powers were really serious about this one, and also that it was a high-stakes issue of providing a refuge for people who really needed one. Still, the late 1940’s were a time of massive decolonization and perhaps it seemed plausible to the Arabs that if attacked vigorously enough, the Westerners and their new satellite really would just go away. Bad call. 4. As a result of the war, and subsequent wars, the originally intended partition went into stasis. Both the other Arab states (particularly Jordan and Lebanon) and Israel were more concerned with the expansion and stability of their own control than with securing Palestinian autonomy, although both offered (variously limited) citizenship options to Palestinian refugees instead. Many Palestinians thus saw themselves at odds with both Israel and its Arab neighbors, and demanded an autonomous state independent of both. 5. The question of who has a “right” to the lands that Resolution 181 gave to the Arab state is still not unanimously resolved. Israelis say that they won the disputed territories fairly from enemies in wartime and now have a right to determine their disposal. Some Palestinians say that the disputed territories belong to Mandatory Palestine as per the original resolution and are illegitimately occupied by Israel; some others say that the whole partition scheme was illegitimate in the first place and Israel has no right to be there at all. 6. In the meantime, hundreds of thousands of people are still living in “temporary” refugee camps under military rule. The whole situation is a hell of a mess and there is no solution that is going to satisfy all parties. But I maintain that the current status quo can’t continue indefinitely, and that refusing to negotiate with the Palestinians until they renounce their hostility towards Israel is completely impractical. I’m sorry if you feel that this discussion has been plagued by “opinions masquerading as facts”; personally, I have tried to be very careful to separate assertions that AFAIK are factual from remarks that are just my opinion, and I would be happy to be corrected if I’ve drawn the line wrong anywhere. It’s true that this subject is one on which emotion and insinuation easily replace objective analysis, but I think I’ve actually been resisting that tendency better than you and **sdimbert** have. ---
**Author:** ![QuickSilver](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/quicksilver/32/7832_2.png) [@QuickSilver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/QuickSilver)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2000, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/palestinian-motivations-in-the-middle-east/39087/14 "2000-11-01T20:42:14Z")
My appologies. I did not mean to imply that I felt you presented _your_ opinions as facts. I can see how you would interpret it that way though from my prior post. It was a mis-statement on my part. Well, lots to chew on in your last post. I’ll educate myself further as I digest its contents. Thanks for taking the time to post it. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2000, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/palestinian-motivations-in-the-middle-east/39087/15 "2000-11-01T20:56:56Z")
Thanks **QS** , sorry if I got snippy with you. ---
**Author:** ![soulsling](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@soulsling](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/soulsling)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2000, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/palestinian-motivations-in-the-middle-east/39087/16 "2000-11-01T23:49:47Z")
I feel that a very important fact is missing here. The Jews occupied that land around 3,300 years ago. Throughout history, the Jews have been pushed around, kicked out of thier lands, and forced to assimilate within cultures around the world to the point where they lost a homeland. I’m not talking bible or OT here, I’m talking history. There was not claim by the Palestinians until 1967 that any land of “thiers” was “occupied”. This, 20 years after Israel had already declared itself a state, a nation, and was approved and accepted as such. Just as well, we don’t find Jewish uprisings in Yemen, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Syria, or Saudi Arabia, where there are plenty of Jewish settlements. I have a question of my own. Why were the Palestinian refugees refused by the sorrounding Arab nations if they felt so strongly a need to support thier “brothers”? I am not implying in any way that the Palestinians don’t deserve a homeland, nor that things were fair concerning Israels claiming statehood in thier eyes. Though I do believe it was necessary for the Jews to do so, considering thier past. Why did Arafat reject an offer of statehood? Why don’t the other Arab nations lend a hand in “giving up land for peace”? If one wants peace, giving up land isn’t the way to getting it. Simply being peaceful is. I believe the Palestinians as a whole are being misled by thier leaders, and treated unfairly, by thier leaders, and neighboring Arab states, not by Israel. I will agree, as in all places, with all people, there are extremists that cause violence, but the Palestinian nation as a whole is reacting violently in this case. I have been to Israel many times, and have a lot of family there. Hebron used to be a peaceful place, Palestinians and Jews got along fine, and enjoyed the city together very well. Why suddenly do they turn on thier neighbors now? Things like that only tell me that the common Palestinian can’t think for themselves, but instead, find it easier to throw themselves into the line of fire needlesly at the command of thier leaders in the name of a god we all supposedly share, in the name of a nation they had the chance at having but refused, without giving thought to the fact that perhaps something is amiss, and that things really can be worked out peacefully. Arafat doesn’t want peace. That is obvious. It’s plain from his past, and his current actions. The Palestinians deserve better than that, and the Israelis, the Jews, shouldn’t be subjected to having to be forced to fire back on children being misled and tought to hate others. It hurts them as well. Since when are stones thrown not deadly? Since when are molotov cocktails not serious weapons? Rubber coated steel bullets aren’t the preferred choice by most nations, but Israel maintains a hope that they needn’t harm as many as they could with real ammunition. Thier hope to deter violence only seems futile at this point, and I wouldn’t put it past them to cease being so kind soon. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2000, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/palestinian-motivations-in-the-middle-east/39087/17 "2000-11-02T01:19:46Z")
**soulsling:** \*The Jews occupied that land around 3,300 years ago. \* Well, the Native Americans occupied most of North America until much more recently than that. Are we going to give it back to them? I do recognize the strength and sincerity of Israelis’ feelings for the land of their ancestors, but if we used “how things used to be three millennia ago” as our guide to geopolitical decisions, we’d all be in a hell of a mess. \*There was not claim by the Palestinians until 1967 that any land of “thiers” was “occupied”. \* This I don’t understand. As mentioned in the cite I gave above, many Palestinians and other Arabs have considered that “their” land was “occupied” right from the get-go; that’s what they went to war about in 1947, for heaven’s sake. And Article 2 of the 1964 Palestinian Liberation Organization charter states quite clearly: “Palestine with its boundaries at the time of the British Mandate is a regional indivisible unit.” I think that this was an unwise line to draw in the sand, but it certainly counts as a pre-1967 Palestinian claim to “their” land. \*I have a question of my own. Why were the Palestinian refugees refused by the sorrounding Arab nations if they felt so strongly a need to support thier “brothers”? \* First, as the above cite mentions, many Palestinians were indeed granted citizenship by other Arab nations. Secondly, many people (including many of the refugees themselves) felt that the rightful place for the Palestinians was Palestine, rather than moving them into other Arab lands. Thirdly, as the above cite also notes, refugees caused alarming population pressure: Jordan, which was the most liberal in its offers of refuge and citizenship, had its population more than double in 1948. Fourthly, as I pointed out, in many cases the goal of expanding and maintaining control of territory for the other nations outweighed solidarity on the issue of Palestinian survival. \*Why did Arafat reject an offer of statehood? \* Which offer are you talking about? The 1988 PLO “Declaration of Independence”, which supersedes the 1964 Charter, does in fact “accept UN Resolution 181 and the partition of Palestine, accept Israel as a permanent and legitimate state, and renounce terrorism.” There are numerous reasons—some reasonable, some not—why various subsequent statehood negotiations have fallen through; you’ll have to get more specific about dates and conditions for me to know exactly which proposal you mean. \*Why don’t the other Arab nations lend a hand in “giving up land for peace”? \* As I noted above, it’s because they and the Palestinians say that it is territories currently occupied by **Israel** , not Jordan or Lebanon or Syria, that rightfully belong to the Palestinians, so it is Israel who should give up the land. ---
**Author:** ![soulsling](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@soulsling](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/soulsling)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2000, 6:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/palestinian-motivations-in-the-middle-east/39087/18 "2000-11-02T06:29:40Z")
**Kimstu** , _Well, the Native Americans occupied most of North America until much more recently than that. Are we going to give it back to them? I do recognize the strength and sincerity of Israelis’ feelings for the land of their ancestors, but if we used “how things used to be three millennia ago” as our guide to geopolitical decisions, we’d all be in a hell of a mess._ This works both ways. Why give any land at all to the Palestinians then? Especially since they refuse anything unless its all of it. The U.S.A. was wrong, and very well should have given back land a long time ago, and should most certainly have made much better reparations than they did, but Israel never went on all out attacks for no reason other than to clear the land of Palestinians to pave way for more Israelis. There’s no call to go on three millenia of history to back up Israels claim to the land they are in, just the fact that when Israel was as tiny as they were, smaller than even the state of New Jersey, they defeated, and took land from **5** attacking/offensive nations. Land won in war, that was later used to make peace. I still disagree that giving up land is a way to make peace. If Arafat wanted peace, he would have peace. The west bank and Gaza was offered to him, minus Jerusalem, as a state he could make a nation of, He refused it, and in doing so, showed the world he wasn’t ready for peace, and had no intention of peace, but instead wants the eradication of Israel completely. This, when there were Jews on that land, way before the immigration of Jews escaping yet another Nation trying to destroy all Jews in existence. _First, as the above cite mentions, many Palestinians were indeed granted citizenship by other Arab nations._ No, they were granted access to refugee camps, not integrated or absorbed into the Arab countries bordering Israel. Mostly by thier own decree…(i]Once the refugees realized their return was not imminent, many refused to leave the camps since they did not want to be assimilated into other Arab nations. Also leaving might disrupt social ties, since often villages or families moved en masse into a camp.\*) as you’ve stated. _As I noted above, it’s because they and the Palestinians say that it is territories currently occupied by Israel, not Jordan or Lebanon or Syria, that rightfully belong to the Palestinians, so it is Israel who should give up the land._ Territories won in wars in which Israel defended themselves against all bordering Arab countries. Territories that Israel, after defeating enemies bent on the destruction of Israel, agreed to give up some of in order to help the further the peace process, with exeption to land that would insure the future security of Israel against such untrustworthy nations. Still some points that will continue to cause much distrust over Palestinian claims to land you claim was thiers to begin with. There was as you had mentioned, an Arab state, and a Jewish state divided by the UN. This was foolish on the UNs part, I agree, in that they really screwed that one up. But that still shows a Jewish occupation of land in that region, that wasn’t entirely Palestinian, so in what way was it “thiers”? There are **EIGHT** seperate Arab nations, and only **ONE** Jewish nation. The P.L.O. charter still calls for the destruction of Israel, an organization which Arafat led. Arafat is claiming Jerusalem as the capital to be of Palestine and the Palestinians, meanwhile, never in the history of the world was it ever the capital of any other than the Jews, nor while even Jordan was in control of the entire West Bank, did they attempt ever to creat anything more of it than considering it another city. AND, other than A mention of the city being visited by A religious leader of Islam, it is never mentioned again. While among the Jews, it has been always, will always be, and very clearly has been known to be, the holiest of cities among them. While the Israelis have maintained control of all these “territories”, they have respected, preserved, and made accesible all “holy” sites, whether holy to the Jews, Christians, or Muslims. Under Jordanian rule, and as was proved again by the recent actions of Palestinian mobs, “holy” sites were desecrated, not respected, and denied access to all faiths other than thier own. **Kimstu** , give me a break. The Native American argument is old, and not related. There were Jews on that land prior to the entire ordeal, otherwise, there wouldn’t be a charter dividing up Jewish and Arab states in the land the UN called Palestine at the time. The Arabs there considered themselves Palestinians only after 1967. Where else have the Arabs ever been pushed and forced into? Shall I mention the Bolshevik (sp?) revolution in Russia? How many Jews had to leave and end up in Shanghai in China. Then the Japanese came… Or perhaps those refused by Australia, the U.K., France, Switzerland… Even the states wouldn’t take any at one point. Israel was the only choice. I find it disheartening that a culture that claims such zealous faith in Islam, a religion that clearly abhors violence, would consider Jihad (which mostly misunderstood by westerners to mean only a holy war, but isn’t) reason to start violence against Israel for trying to find peace on this planet at all. This is a debate very hard to avoid inserting opinion on. I will agree that I have mentioned several of my own, and I’m not ashamed. This is a serious issue. The OP is about the motivation of the Palestinians in this conflict. I believe much of it, as I mentioned earlier, is due to propoganda (used constantly against the Jews all the time throughout history) used by Arafat, the P.L.O., and several other Arab nations in the area. Also, I attribute this to the horrible leadership of the Palestinians, the misguided mis-education given to them and the controlled media in the Arab states. There are many Arabs in Israel who want this to end. There are many Israelis afraid they will have to go to war. War isn’t necessary, Peace is readily available, as is land. But Arafat wants to continue out of spite, otherwise, why would he make claims on Jerusalem, a city never mentioned once in the Koran, never once before claimed a capital by the Palestinians. This is proof enough to me that peace is not a goal of the Palestinians. This sacriligious twisting of words and faith of Islam is despicable IMO, and should have nothing to do with making peace, but alas, such is the way of the mid-east. I certainly do hope either the Palestinians wake up and realize they can have lots of the land they want back easily if they overthrow Arafat and really sit down an intelligent leader who’s not so manipulative and low class at the table with Israel. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [November 4, 2000, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/palestinian-motivations-in-the-middle-east/39087/19 "2000-11-04T02:45:45Z")
**soulsling:** _Why give any land at all to the Palestinians then?_ Because, as I keep saying, it’s a better solution than the alternatives. My point about the Native Americans was simply that arguing from ancient history to decide who has the better “right” to territory is not very useful when it comes to practical issues of what should be done with the territory now. _I still disagree that giving up land is a way to make peace. If Arafat wanted peace, he would have peace._ Very true, but he probably would never have land. I have nothing good to say about terrorism and all the violence of the intifada, but neither do I really believe that Israel would have seriously considered the two-state solution if the Palestinians hadn’t been seen as an actual physical threat to security. _The west bank and Gaza was offered to him, minus Jerusalem, as a state he could make a nation of, He refused it, and in doing so, showed the world he wasn’t ready for peace, and had no intention of peace, but instead wants the eradication of Israel completely._ This is that same hasty conclusion I was querying **sdimbert** about back at the start of this thread: namely, that because the Palestinian goals and motivations are questionable, it **must** be true that what they’re **really** after (or at least in Arafat’s own case) is the total eradication of Israel. Did you look at the information about the 1988 PLO “Declaration of Independence” that I referenced in my last post? It says quite clearly that “The Palestine National Council, in the name of God, and in the name of the Palestinian Arab people, hereby proclaims the establishment of the State of Palestine on our Palestinian territory with its capital Jerusalem.” (The same document also officially recognizes the existence of Israel.) Given this official commitment on the part of the PLO, you can see why an offer of territory that didn’t include having Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital might be rejected as unacceptable. Mind you, I am not saying that Arafat is indeed a trustworthy leader or a reliable negotiator, or that he personally doesn’t harbor enmity towards Israel: I have no idea what he’s thinking. What I am saying is that if you look at the facts, there are lots of historical and political reasons for the Palestinians’ behavior: it is not a logical necessity to conclude that the only possible explanation of it is a blind antagonistic dedication to wiping out Israel. [replying to me] \*First, as the above cite mentions, many Palestinians were indeed granted citizenship by other Arab nations. No, they were granted access to refugee camps, not integrated or absorbed into the Arab countries bordering Israel.\* **soulsling** , what part of the following statement, from the source I cited above: > [@](#): > > In Jordan, all Palestinians received full citizenship. This made Jordan the only Arab country to grant across-the-board citizenship to Palestinians. (Lebanon granted it to many 1948 refugees although not to later refugees.) do you either not understand or not accept? Many Palestinians are indeed living as non-citizens in refugee camps in various countries in the Middle East, but **many were granted citizenship**. Type “Jordanian citizenship for Palestinian refugees”, for example, into any search engine and you will find hundreds of documents confirming that statement. We will not get anywhere at all with this discussion if we can’t even agree on such elementary facts. It’s true that many such citizens of Palestinian descent still consider themselves “Palestinians,” even if they or their parents were born elsewhere, and want to move back to the places that they consider their ancestral homes; so in that sense they’re not fully “integrated or absorbed” into other Arab countries. But they **do** have citizen status there. _Still some points that will continue to cause much distrust over Palestinian claims to land you claim was thiers to begin with._ Again, **soulsling** , you are going to have to be a little more careful about the accuracy of your remarks. If you read my posts, you will see that I am **not** making any claims about whom the land belongs to. I am just trying to provide some historical perspective and factual data about what the **Palestinians** and others in this conflict are saying and doing. For me to say that many Palestinians believe that the 1947 partition was illegitimate is not to say that I agree with them. \*But that still shows a Jewish occupation of land in that region, that wasn’t entirely Palestinian, so in what way was it “thiers”? \* **Many Arabs said** (not me personally, you’ll notice) that the 1947 partition was illegitimate because of reasons that I’ve already quoted above, e.g., that: > [@](#): > > First, 66% of the population was Arab, and Jews held only 6% of the land. Second, Palestinians questioned the legality of Resolution 181 since the British Mandate specified that the opinions of the inhabitants must be taken into account in any decisions. Since 2/3 of the people in Palestine were Arabs, they maintained that the creation of a “Jewish” state against the will of the Arab majority could not be legal. In other words, they felt that former British Palestine was an Arab country, although one with a sizeable Jewish minority, and a specifically Jewish state should not have been created in it without Arab consent. \*There are EIGHT seperate Arab nations, and only ONE Jewish nation. \* True. What’s your point? \*The P.L.O. charter still calls for the destruction of Israel, an organization which Arafat led. \* Yes, it does. But I’ve pointed out before this that the 1964 PLO charter is superseded by the 1988 “Declaration of Independence,” also issued by the PLO, which **does** recognize Israel. I wish you’d look at information I provide before you just repeat the partial truths you already know! _Arafat is claiming Jerusalem as the capital to be of Palestine and the Palestinians, meanwhile, never in the history of the world was it ever the capital of any other than the Jews_ Again, true. Again, what’s your point? This is the unsatisfactory “argument from antiquity” again. By that reasoning, we could say that since the Christians captured Jerusalem in war and ruled it for a hundred years and more, and it’s a holy city to them, it should be given back to them (and of course, that is what many fundamentalist Protestants believe will happen eventually, after all the Jews are converted). \*AND, other than A mention of the city being visited by A religious leader of Islam, it is never mentioned again. \* Your point is not very clear, but I think you’re talking about the importance of Jerusalem to Muslims being ultimately based on the tradition of Muhammad’s journey to the Dome of the Rock, whence he ascended to heaven and talked with God. Although it’s quite true that Jerusalem is much more prominent in the Bible than in the Qur’an, that hardly means that it isn’t still a very important Muslim holy site. (After all, Rome is mentioned hardly at all—and not very flatteringly—in the Christian New Testament, but we wouldn’t expect the Pope to move out of Vatican City if a group of Jupiter-worshippers claimed it on the grounds that Rome is much more important in their ancient tradition than in the Catholics’.) There are indeed centuries of Islamic tradition based in Jerusalem and its mosques and shrines. It really seems unlikely to me that Palestinians are demanding jurisdiction over Jerusalem merely to annoy the Jews. Personally, I like the suggestion discussed in this week’s American Prospect, in which a number of authorities and diplomats are discussing whether much of Jerusalem could simply be placed under “divine jurisdiction”: certain holy sites would be still controlled by representatives of their faiths, but much of the city would be formally declared to be owned and administered by God. There are a lot of issues still to be worked out, of course—how would God collect on parking violations, for example? :)—but it sounds to me like both a valuable face-saver for all sides and a worthwhile recognition that this area really is too important to too many people to make administering it via any one political entity a practical solution. _This is a debate very hard to avoid inserting opinion on. I will agree that I have mentioned several of my own, and I’m not ashamed._ I don’t think honestly held opinions are anything to be ashamed of, and as I noted, I’m not averse to stating my own. All I want to do, if possible, is to try to keep opinions from totally overwhelming logic and facts. ---
**Author:** ![longjohn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/65b543/32.png) [@longjohn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/longjohn)\ **Post date:** [November 7, 2000, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/palestinian-motivations-in-the-middle-east/39087/20 "2000-11-07T18:48:43Z")
Why is Arafat’s request for international observers and/or peacekeeping forces being so stridently refused by the Israelis? I might accept that this is merely another “lie on his lips” to quote Danielinthewolvesden, but i’d want more evidence than his assertion. It might well be a stalling or misdirection tactic, even so why will Barak not even countenance the move? Surely he should welcome a chance to demonstrate unequivocally that it is the Palestinians who provoke his soldiers into the actions he feels are justified. One reason that occurs to me is that international observers might see a different picture to that portrayed by his administration, or am i being naive? - god knows that’s happened before. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/palestinian-motivations-in-the-middle-east/39087.md?page=2)