Topic: Ask any Israel / Middle East questions

[Mooning Freddy]

For those of you who for some reason were not aware until now, I am an Israeli. Being the only Israeli on this forum is a mixed experience. On the one hand I may say I can't represent all the Israelis in my behavior, and on the other, I'm happy that I'm the only member from my country because if there were other members we'd probably get in arguments, because it's just like the old saying, where you have two Jews, you have three opinions.
I've been criticized before on this forum for being obsessed with my country and being an ignoranus or other stuff like that, and I guess I quite deserved it, so I've avoided discussing any of it. But now time has passed and I am actually interested to know what people around the world know about my country and the Palestinian - Israeli / Arab- Israeli conflicts.

The conflict is VERY complicated and some people are too quick to make judgments and take sides without knowing all the facts.
People would often ask you if you're pro-Israel or Pro-Palestine and you should know that's an extremely ignorant, almost racist presentation of the conflict, making it appear a zero-sum game and blaming it all on one side or the other, also by making all Israelis or all Palestinians appear the same.
All over the internet you have videos of "the conflict simplified" or "the conflict in brief". Those videos always present the conflict from only one point of view, never tell all the facts and are often close to propaganda.

The middle east is a complicated place. You can either try to understand it or disregard it. If you're interested in seeing the big picture, I would be willing to answer any question from a point of view that is as neutral as possible, presenting all the points of view on the subject. It is interesting to me to know what you know.

[Infinite Resignation]

Hello!

Largely but not completely, in America many are a bit ethnocentric and are somewhat ignorant of what goes on outside of our own country (which is ironic because our military goes everywhere). I have to admit I'm not really versed in the minutia either. I don't presume to know enough to be for or against either side.

There was a certain movie that was released not too long ago, and from the different views expressed about it, I saw just how deeply controversial and divided people were on the subject. Given the issues and some of the missteps and mishandling that have occurred over the years, I can see where it got to this point. It seems a painful subject for all involved.

Though it's not the same thing, our country experienced it's own painful division many years ago. That situation destroyed many lives and families, altered forever the socio-economic structure in some places, to the point that some felt reconciliation was impossible. With the help of someone with just enough power and foresight, the country healed. However, there are some who haven't forgotten and feelings still linger about it.

My take on it is this- before the events that lead to the issue existed, people on both sides were OK with one another. If peace comes, it will probably be at the expense of both sides giving something up, and it likely won't be to everyone's satisfaction.

I'd be interested to hear what you have to say about it Mooning Freddy.

[Mooning Freddy]

My take on it is this- before the events that lead to the issue existed, people on both sides were OK with one another. If peace comes, it will probably be at the expense of both sides giving something up, and it likely won't be to everyone's satisfaction.

This is true. If there's one thing that is often misleading people today about the conflict, it's the way so-called pro-Palestinian movements are repeating the same thing over and over again- that the reason of the conflict is the Israeli occupation of "the territories" i.e. Gaza and the West bank. This is misleading people into thinking the Israeli-Palestinian conflict began in 1967, when the IDF drove the forces of Jordan and Egypt out of those territories and took military control over them. This is very wrong and misleading because the events of the Six-day war were far from the source of the conflict.

The conflict began around the 1920's. It began with the very formation of the state of Israel. The history of the Zionist movement is a long and complicated one, so I'll just summarize major events: end of the 19th century, several Jewish men from the European elite start gathering and discussing the problems of Europe's Jews. On the one hand, antisemitism is widespread all across Europe, especially in the east. Or the other hand, the are deeply inspired by the modern idea of nationalism and national unity. They reach a conclusion that the Jews are a nation very much like Italians or French or Germans. They decide that the only way for the Jews to gain the respect of the nations is to unite and become more similar to the other nations. The problem? They don't have a state. The solution? Forming a state in their historical national homeland - the land of Israel, or Zion.

The land of Israel was then called Palestine, and was an Ottoman Empire periphery. It was populated by a majority of Arab peasants, and some educated Arab urban population and Ultra-Orthodox Jews. The Jews initiated first waves of immigration and purchase of lands. The lands were sold by wealthy Arab and Turkish landowners, often at the expense of the illiterate Arab peasants.

But it was not until 1918 that the conflict truly began. The Balfour declaration was a British letter of support to the Jewish cause of "building a national home in Palestine", and the British mandate over Palestine contained articles which promised to assist the Jewish cause. This was when the educated Arabs of Palestine realized what was going on. The British mandate over Palestine disregarded its Arab residents. The Jews themselves thought that (Jabotinsky) "It is just that the land of Palestine would become a Jewish state, because the Arab nation(s) have vast territories and the Jews have none". Being mostly European, the Jews declared their right for an independent state according to the principle of national self-determination which the Europeans supported. The Arab peoples, however, did not understand principles of European nationalism. Under Ottoman rule, most Arabs only acknowledged their tribes, families, cities or religious communities as organizing principles. In many Arab states, this is the case even today; but that is a different story.

Anyway, the Arab residents of Palestine realized they had to organize to stand for their rights. Hajj Amin al-Husseini, the first national Palestinian leader took action both by creating national emotions and addressing religious ones. He started using Muslim rhetoric to warn all the Arab nations about the danger of Jews taking control of places holy to Islam, and warning the peasant about the Jewish will to take their lands. This was the beginning of the Palestinian national movement and the conflict. The Arabs of Palestine initiated acts of strike, civil disobedience, murders and terrorism to frighten the Jewish immigrants and pressuring the Brits to give up their plan of building a national home for the Jews in Palestine.

Almost thirty years later, the most horrible war mankind has ever seen ends, and the Jews realize the size of slaughter of their brothers in Europe. In Palestine, violence rages worse than ever. The Arabs are trying to drive away the Brits, the Jews are torn apart between the will to end the British rule and declare independence, and the fear of the ("civil") war with the Arabs going out of control.
1947, UN offers the two state solution in order to end the violence, the Jews basically agree (a minority portion of the Zionist movements disagree), the newly-independent Arab states all reject the offer. Finally the Brits leave quite in a rush (they're exhausted after the war, and Britain itself is starving), the very same day the Jews declare independence, while Arab troops from Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Iraq and Saudi Arabia invade Israel. They invade both from realist and religious reasons. Israel is a young and weak state and the Arabs have no doubt their joint efforts would tear it to shreds. This begins "Israel's independence war" or "the first Israel-Arab war", which ends in an effective Israeli victory (Egypt and Jordan occupy Gaza and the West bank, both of them territories densely-populated by Arabs). A ceasefire is declared, but the Arab states refuse to acknowledge Israel's sovereignty or make peace.

This is the end of the first chapter. by 1949, Israel survived but is surrounded by enemies, and the Arab-Israeli conflict began. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is contained within it until 1967, since neither Israel, the Arab states, nor the Western world acknowledge the Palestinian national movement or the Palestinians as a nation. In the 60's, it all gets more complicated. But that's enough reading for now.     

[X]

UN offers the two state solution in order to end the violence

There are many people, history experts, etc. that feel this two state solution was a costly mistake. They believe that it should have been a single nation with both sides living together. It would no-doubt be violent at the beginning, but eventually as the generations go by they would have achieved a some measure of peace that has yet to be seen today in that region. Don't quote me on this cause I have no idea if I'm right or wrong. I do personally feel that if two unfriendly people are forced to dwell together for a certain time they will eventually grow to tolerate and even like each other. Many deep friendships have come about this way. They just need to get past their own egos and see what really matters.

[Mooning Freddy]

Many people today, so-called anti-Zionists and post-Zionists say the only reasonable solution to the conflict is a single, bi-national state from the sea to the river Jordan. Such as a solution today is against the will of the Israeli (Jewish) citizens and also against the will of the PLO, with practically all political parties in Israel rejecting the very thought of such an idea, all besides tiny anti-Zionist parties and some Arab ones.
But in 1947, such a solution was impossible. While both sides did not like the two-state solution and rejected it, it was a solution that could work. This is why the idea survives as a solution for the conflict until today, with the majority of states supporting it and at least the major political parties in Israel.
However, in 1947, both the Palestinian Arabs and the new Arab states of the Middle East, rejected the very idea of a Jewish state in Palestine. They saw the Jewish state building in Palestine as a European imperialist effort, and thought that if they apply enough pressure, the Jews would leave back to Europe. To the Jews that was unacceptable, especially after the Holocaust, as they finally reached the point where they had a land that was their own, with independent institutions, cities, villages, transportation, ports, everything; and they weren't willing to give it up, no matter the cost.

You see X, some people compare the Israeli- Palestinian conflict to racial conflicts like the conflict between blacks and whites in USA or South Africa. That is an ignorant and foolish comparison. Unlike the blacks in America, the Jews and Palestinians never wanted to live together, since they never considered themselves parts of the same nation. Unlike blacks and whites in USA, they did not share the same religion, the same language, the same culture, a joint history, or the most important of all, a will to live together. If you want to compare the conflict to other conflicts, it is more like the Serbian-Bosnian conflict.

This begins the second chapter. As I explained, the Arabs of Palestine and the Arab states united in an effort to eradicate Israel, but they had quite different plans about what happens when they succeed. The Palestinians wanted an independent state. The Arab leaders probably planned to divide the land of Israel between them. The war ends, the Egyptians get the Gaza Strip and impose military rule over it. The young Jordanian king Hussein, however, had different plans for the West Bank. He annexed the West Bank (in it cities like Ramallah, Bethlehem and Nablus), handed out Jordanian IDs to its resident and declared Jordan as the home of all Palestinians and himself as their ruler, in an unbreakable union of the East and West banks of river Jordan. This action of Hussein placed him in a collision course with the leaders of the Palestinian national movement, who denied his rule over the Palestinians.
Meanwhile in Israel, the Palestinian Arabs who found themselves on the Israeli side of the ceasefire border were given Israeli IDs and gradually gained equal rights according to the principles of Israel's declaration of independence. Those people came to be known as "Israeli Arabs" or Palestinian citizens of Israel. The controversial fate of Israeli Arabs continues to be a problem today. While they are excused from military service (customary in Israel), Israeli politicians often demand that they express their loyalty to Israel and stop expressing their solidarity with their brothers across the border (or stop supporting anti-Israeli movements).

At the same time, the Arab states, outraged by the defeat in the war, begin persecuting their Jewish citizens as the national conflict quickly transforms into a religious one.  As you said, Infinite Resignation, before the conflict began, the Arab states and the Jews were quite "okay" with each other. Antisemitism in the Middle East and Africa was not as bad as in Europe, and while Jews were discriminated according to Muslim law, many of them reached positions of power and lived well. This quite peaceful setting ended after the war of 1948, as waves of antisemitism spread across the Arab states, among them Morocco, Algeria, Libya, Yemen, and Iraq. Many Jews lost their possessions and were forced to flee, and most found their way to Israel, until then populated by an absolute majority of "Western" Jews from Europe. This speeded up the state's rate of growth and doubled its Jewish population. The forced exodus of "Eastern Jews" is often compared by Israel to the Palestinian refugees who fled and lost their homes during the war, as an indication that not only the Palestinians suffered the consequences of the war.

The 60's were a third chapter in the history of Israel. The world was already divided between East and West, and while Israel gained support from Britain, France and USA, the Arab states of Egypt and Jordan sided with the Soviet Union. The spirit of Arab republicanism spread across the Middle East, with charismatic dictators like Egypt's Gamal Nasser who sought to create a united secular Arab Republic, quite similar to Atatürk's modern Turkey. Even though he failed, his ideas of nationalism and republicanism (and opposition to religious fundamentalism) are probably central to the worldview of many Egyptians today.
In 1964, The Palestinian Liberation Organization, PLO, was founded and recognized by Arab states as the representative of the Palestinian nation, much to the dismay of king Hussein. Ultimately, the PLO gained enough support among the Palestinians of the East bank to attempt to take over parts of Jordan, which caused "Black September" or the Jordanian civil war in 1970.

In 1967, a crisis initiated by Nasser in Egypt and escalating clashes with Syria and Jordan raised the suspicion of Israel that the Arabs states are preparing another round of war against it. This started the Six-day-war, Israel's most successful operation, when within six days Israel drove away the Egyptian and Jordanian forces from Gaza and the West bank and occupied the Golan Hights aka The Quneitra area of Syria and the Sinai desert of Egypt.   
This ends my explanation of the third chapter of the conflict. As I said, from 1967 it all gets more complicated.

[Infinite Resignation]

The North and South during the events of the Civil War had different cultures and ideas but your right, there was some common ground between them.

Mooning Freddy what your describing is Cultural Relativism and extreme Cultural Indifference. As you said, it's not a simple thing because for you (and others) it's something you experienced, maybe first hand, something tangible and real. We have these experiences and it ties into how we see the world, it biases us. It's about marginalizing a people because they don't fit with the preset perspective or agenda. Marginalizing happens because it's easier to negate someone then see them as a person or their view as legitimate and easier to divorce yourself from the act then face the damage caused by it.

The sins of the past are a deterrent too. It makes tolerance or even forgiveness difficult, until it's hate feeding more hate. Maybe forgiveness is too high a goal to reach? Because I believe we are all entitled to a sliver of respect and decency, I'd like to think tolerance is worth pursuing. The key to tolerance is understanding and thus communication, that is ACTUAL communication and not the illusion of it- but this can only happen if the desire is there. Possibly what X mentioned is correct, not unlike the movie the Breakfast Club which is about personal identity and overcoming perception. The real question would be, is tolerance even possible? As Billy Joel would say, "We didn't start the fire".

[X]

You see X, some people compare the Israeli- Palestinian conflict to racial conflicts like the conflict between blacks and whites in USA or South Africa. That is an ignorant and foolish comparison. Unlike the blacks in America, the Jews and Palestinians never wanted to live together, since they never considered themselves parts of the same nation. Unlike blacks and whites in USA, they did not share the same religion, the same language, the same culture, a joint history, or the most important of all, a will to live together. If you want to compare the conflict to other conflicts, it is more like the Serbian-Bosnian conflict.

I have to disagree with you for this one reason alone. They do have something in common with one-another. They are both human beings. Strip everything small and nonsensical away and you have just a regular person underneath. If they threw away their bruised egos, their squabbles, their ideologies, their religious dogmatic perceptions, they would see that one big thing that is the same about everyone; the one thing that connects us all. We are all apart of the same life force.

[Mooning Freddy]

I have to disagree with you for this one reason alone. They do have something in common with one-another. They are both human beings. Strip everything small and nonsensical away and you have just a regular person underneath. If they threw away their bruised egos, their squabbles, their ideologies, their religious dogmatic perceptions, they would see that one big thing that is the same about everyone; the one thing that connects us all. We are all apart of the same life force.

Ah, you see, but that is the problem. Take away a person's culture, religion, history, world view, and what is he left with? Nothing. He is stripped of anything that defines him, everything that he holds sacred. That is what the communists wanted to do- they wanted to unite humanity, unite them by making them forget everything that is important to them. The wars in Yugoslavia in the 90's are the proof how much of a failure that was. The Communist leadership tried to unite people artificially, and failed miserably. Do not misunderstand me; I am not saying people cannot overcome their differences and live peacefully. But in order to live peacefully they need to acknowledge their differences and compromise in the face of reality. But compromise does not mean you sacrifice your identity. That is the very foundation of liberalism.
People often criticize nationalism for being a concept that divides peoples. There was a brilliant Italian politician and activist named Giuseppe Mazzini. He said- on the contrary, nationalism unites people, as it is aimed at ending the injustice of imperialism and monarchy. He said that in order for people to unite, they first need to acknowledge that they are free. They do not forget the past, they overcome it. Ultimately, that was the way for democratic peace in Europe. 
What this means in practice, is that both sides to a conflict acknowledge borders that are agreed upon.

In the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, you'd see that the meaning of it all. If you watched the speeches of the Palestinian Autonomy (which I have not yet reached in my analysis) leaders of the past ten years, they are all very similar: the Palestinian rhetoric can be summarized in one sentence- "Get the **** off my land". The Israeli rhetoric of recent years was "Alright, but first acknowledge my right for my own land". According to Israeli PM Netanyahu, that is the hardest part for the Palestinians: acknowledging the very right of existence of Jewish state on the land they consider their own.

[X]

Ah, you see, but that is the problem. Take away a person's culture, religion, history, world view, and what is he left with? Nothing. He is stripped of anything that defines him, everything that he holds sacred.

From a negative point of view such as destroying a person's unique identity then yes, it is a problem. But that's not what I was going for. The only thing that is truly real about a person is the person themselves. When I said strip away everything else I meant everything that is not real about that person; The illusions that we all hold onto; that we create for ourselves as a form of comfort. And more often the naught it's these self-created illusions that interfere with whats truly important. Everyone has that which makes them unique and it's absolutely okay. But if two waring factions ever hope to put an end to their struggles then they need to caste aside their illusions and see what's really there. To see something that they both have in common.

[Infinite Resignation]

There is a pretense here, a presumption. It's taking for granted what you know as fact- instead of seeing it for what it is and realizing the perception. Illusion's are powerful and they have the capacity to skew or destroy, this coming from my own experience. What is actually real is what has physically taken place and not in someones mind. No one is perfect, but perception can shape a person's life and that's why it's best not to assume. Ask and listen, (and who better then the source?) because communication is key. For example, an actress who tries to control her public image does not necessarily have something to hide so much as protect.

People in there day to day certainly wear masks, but this is a shallow representation. To know someone in a pure way is impossible. Our ego expression's are all different, not everyone wants to war or retaliate (I wouldn't and don't), you should never presume that. Individual reality can be seen as subjective, but you can only give someone so much credit. In the end, you should believe what you want but never mistake so called knowledge for truth or even necessarily as fact.

If there's hope for peace then it starts with respecting each others basic rights, that's the most fundamental common ground, we're all human beings after all. If someone can't do that then it's not peace there after, because not everyone wants that.

If anyone wants to communicate on this or any other subject, my PM box is open for use.