Well I found a cite. Only it’s not a source I would ever read, or much less trust:)
Ok, the only thing I can find is from Pravda.
Since I don’t remember ever casually reading Pravda, and I do occasionally read The Jeruslaem Post, I am going to assume I read the original report from over there. I tried to find it over there (trust me, I TRIED), but their search function is down.
Considering the cite I’m offering, I understand if this point is going to be left undecided and up in the air.
Actually, throughout history, Jews and Muslims have gotten along just fine. The greatest period of prosperity in the Jewish People’s 2000 year exile was in Spain under the Caliphs; over the past 1000 years, Jews in Morroco, Iraq, Iran and elsewhere in the Muslim world have lived as well as their counterparts in Europe, if not better.
You see, thr conflict in the Middle East is not a religious conflict - it’s a political one. Its an insanely convoluted mess of history, ethnic rivalry, money, land, resentment, oil, water, political philosophy, drugs, and paranoia. Sure, religion is a factor, but it was made so after the fact by a certain class of religious people who insert religion into anything. For example, I seem to remember an American Cold-War era phrase - “Godless Commies”. was the Cold War about religion?
Hell, you could say the same about the English and the Irish; the English and the Germans; the Turks and the Greeks; the Chinese and the Japanese; the Iranians and the Iraqis. Most countries don’t have the luxury the U.S. has - the luxury of choosing enemies from far away.
Besides, I wouldn’t say that Israeli and Arab cultures are very similar; I feel more at home in New York than I do in Nazereth. And Judaism is as close to Islam as Christianity is - only in a very general sense. Joel:
Don’t go around calling a Morrocan Jew “European” - he’ll kick your ass (don’t even look in an Iraqi Jew’s direction).
And oh yeah, the Holocaust was definitly the greatest thing that ever happened to the Jews! Sigh…
Must - escape - the Joellogic.
Badz Maru:
There isn’t exactly peace, either. The situation with the Palestinians is in some sort of a twilight zone - you can’t go all out like in a war, but you’re not policing your own populace here. the Palestinians consider themselves a seperate entity from the State of Israel, a people held by force, and they’re right. They’re what you get when you win a war.
Israeli troops are not trained to treat a rock as a lethal attack - unless they’ve changed the regs in the 5 years since I got out, and neglected to tell me on all the times I done rsesrve duty. IDF soldiers are trained to shoot when their live are threatened - when they are being targeted by gunmen shooting from withing a crowd; when someone is trying to drop a refridgerator on them from a rooftop; when a squad of eight is faced with a crowd of 500, armed with rocks, slingshots, lead pipes and machetes, moving in to kill. After what happened in November, no Israeli has any doubts what will happen to him if a mob gets their hands on him.
Besides, in other nations, the police had been suppressing riots by their own people. That isn’t the case here. In the Seattle riots, how many rioters were trying to kill the cops?
Collunsbury
Kif challek? Tell me, how is the “Arab street” reacting to yesterday’s elections?
Well, Morocco did apply for membership of the European Union a few years ago. They were turned down, predictably, on the grounds that they weren’t in Europe; but you have to admire their pluck.
I think the current deadlock between the Isrealis and Palestinians can be explained by the fact that Israel is a democracy and the PLO is an autocracy. The politicians in Israel are dependent on the voters while the politicians in the PLO are dependent on their own strenght for power. Thus the incentives are for the Isreali politicians is to please the voters and for the PLO to strenghten their own power. The Israeli people want peace without giving up too much so the Isreali politicians have to walk that line. However, the PLO has no incentive for peace, they have made enourmous gains in the peace process and if there is peace, no more peace process. Also they do not have to answer to voters but instead must beware of extremist who might assasinate them if they make concessions.
So you have a cycle: violence by the Palestinians, negotiations to end the violence, concessions by Israel, agreements are signed, Israel politicians say we have brought peace, PLO politicians say we are closer to winning our struggle, PLO incites palestinians to violence, violence by Palestinians, and so it goes.
I don’t think peace is likely until the Palestinian leadership has an incentive for peace.
I think the question is mistaken in that it assumes that the GOAL of these parties is peaceful coexistence. That presumes maturity and humanity on the part of the parties involved.
After the holocaust, the Jews who ended up in what is now Israel determined to found a Jewish state that would forever act as a homeland for the Jews and provide the political strength to (hopefully) counter future persecutions and pogroms. This was certainly understandable.
But note that the goal here is to have a JEWISH state: One in which the government, culture, and society are firmly dominated by Jews. Although Israel prides itself on being a democracy, the goal of a state dominated by a particular ethnicity is clearly at odds with what Americans assume to be the civil liberties that go along with democracy, especially in a country that was literally almost half composed of Arab moslems.
The moslems themselves did not overlook this irony, and indeed spent a long time protesting the fact that they were reduced to second class citizens in their own land. Having no stake in Israel as a nation, and no foreseeable change on the board, they took the route of demanding their land back.
[digression]By the way dz, you seem to see the value of Palestinians to Israel as that of “labor”. Are they fit for nothing better? The mind goes back to America in the fifties when blacks were confined to jobs like ditch-digging, messengers, janitorial work, “domestics”, etc. This indeed seems to be analogous to the way Palestinians are viewed by Israelis. “If it weren’t for a few troublemakers, those people would be perfectly content with doing the sort of work they’re suited for, instead of agitating for more.” Of course, unlike (most) American blacks, the Palestinians haven’t tried to reform Israel, choosing instead to try to overthrow the whole thing.[/digression]
My solution: Give the Palestinians a greater stake, economically, culturally, and politically in Israel. Self-interest would create a more peaceful, unified society as Palestinians came to depend on the nation of Israel for the realization of their life ambitions, and Jews came to depend on the Palestinians as a source of strength. In time - who knows? the Palestinians might even develop a sense of national loyalty to Israel; of course, the Jews would have to give up the idea of Israel as a Jewish state, and the Palestinians would have to give up their resentments and bigotries, but a little maturity would benefit everybody.
Of course I’m just a naive American - every Israeli or Palestinian I’ve suggested this to has told me that I can’t really understand the situation, because we have nothing like it in the U.S. (seriously!). Lord knows, we have no disaffected minorities in this country. Surely we have had no successes that, while incomplete, could serve as heuristic for others with similar problems! But no, the Israeli Jews/Arab moslems (depending who I’m talking to) aren’t like other people - they are evil and spiteful just for the heck of it.
The actual solution of these two childish, self-centered, petty, silly peoples? Divide the miniscule territory they have, separate the populations as much as possible, and go on sniping at each other and weakening each other into the foreseeable future.
Bottom line:
Why can’t the Israelis and Palestinians get along?
Who cares, anymore. Just keep it the hell away from the rest of us.
YES it was, except for the mad IRA / any nutter with a gun.
I live in England and have actually met Irish people who have moved here from Northern Ireland and say things such as ‘they are all fanatics you know !, i mean, they should grow up’… honest !
[sub](Which is exactly the parallel I wanted you to draw. I have heard many Jewish Israelis who seem to unable to express themselves properly in English because they aren’t familiar with the word “uppity.” But I’m playing stupid here, so while I may have opinions on this whole matter, I am ALSO trying to get some real input.)[/sub]
The closest thing to a perfect solution, if…
My sick-and-tired avatar would agree, except, with several Mid-East countries possessing weapons of mass destruction, they can’t keep it as far away from us as I might like.
Bikheir. Ah, let me say that “unenthusiastically” does not quite capture the reaction. But then frankly since the intifada opened up again, any glimmers of warmer feelings died away. Still Sharon is not the most popular fellow…
I’m wondering if there is any feeling among the Palestinians (not that they’d admit it) that Sharon’s victory is something they brought upon themselves. If they hadn’t exploded in violence over such a trivial provocation, the Israelis wouldn’t have reacted by electing such a hard-liner.
Just to back up what Alessan said: the Arab-Israeli conflict is a conflict between Arabs and Israelis, not Jews and Moslems. Just because most on the Israeli side are Jewish (don’t forget the Druze), and most on the Arab/Palestinian side are Muslim (don’t forget the Palestinian Christians and Samaritans), doesn’t mean that the conflict is inherently religious.
It is an explicit requirement of Islam that Muslims respect “People of the Book” - Christians and Jews. They are not considered unbelievers under Islam.