7 Things to Consider Before Choosing Sides in the Middle East Conflict

[umair127]

I also agree the best answer is for the US to gradually withdraw, leaving the status quo in place, and letting both sides know they deserve each other. Neither side can really win without a complete genocide, and that will reap it's own problems. As Umair127 mentioned, it needs to be properly discussed, and the consequences need to be clearly laid out...mostly for the benefit of the Israelis/Palestinians, who will not be happy with that outcome.

I actually disagree strongly. Palestinians don't deserve to live under the conditions that they are kept under through the occupation. No population deserves that, it goes against our very purported principles as a nation and as a culture and as a global community to be OK with what Israel is doing in the West Bank and Gaza. I don't want to see the US pullout at all, I want to see it use its close relationship with Israel to pressure it into actually being a partner for peace.

[Rigon]

Trying to say the Palestinians or Israelis are solely at fault is just silly and counter productive. Militarily Israel is more at fault simply because they have a far superior military. Culturally, Palestinians and the larger arab world is more at fault. As in, check out the Israeli borders on all maps in middle eastern schools.

[umair127]

Neither side can really win without a complete genocide, and that will reap it's own problems.

An independent Palestinian state based on 1967 borders doesn't in any way depend on a genocide of anyone. Meanwhile A Jewish Israel with permanent occupation and eventual absorption of the territories does depend on either the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian population, or apartheid. We honestly saw colonies under European rule where the population of the controlled territory was treated MUCH better than how Israel currently treats the Palestinians. It is unjustifiable; plain and simple.

[umair127]

As Umair127 mentioned, it needs to be properly discussed, and the consequences need to be clearly laid out...mostly for the benefit of the Israelis/Palestinians, who will not be happy with that outcome.

Do you really find any of the mainstream Palestinian statehood demands to be unreasonable? They are all legal, and all consistent with our expressed international ideology of human rights.

Trying to say the Palestinians or Israelis are solely at fault is just silly and counter productive.

Not solely, but chiefly.

[Rigon]

This is why I don't really have a side in that conflict. I see both sides as crazy, religious/cultural fanatics that would rather die than come to a rational compromise. The ones that remain there are nuts. They live to propagate the hatred.

I've always had a problem with this kind of stance. I've heard a lot of people make such comments before and they always seem like cop outs to me; some vague attempt to appear 'balanced' or 'moderate'. But such a stance rarely has any real depth to it. such catch alls don't work in this issue (they rarely do in conflict in general). Just like the "it's both sides" argument. It's very clearly more one side than the others here when it comes to barriers to peace. There is also more than two sides, so the breaking of the conflict into only two pieces I find shallow in general.

And I've always had a problem with people overcomplicating the issue. My opinions tend to get formed from people I know from the area. As far as I can tell, anyone from Israel, Gaza, West Bank has told me exactly what I said. Each one feels their position is slightly better, but the overwhelming majority feel that the people who stay and fight continuously want to fight, and want to let hatred run their lives. One of these people even spent a fair amount of time in an Israeli prison, and was in government during the Arafat years. He doesn't like the Israelis, and he feels they are more in the wrong, but his opinion remains that both sides are crazy. I know several Israelis that have a different perspective on who is more wrong, but when asked, they just throw up their hands and say they're all nuts.

So you can have a problem with it, but it seems many people from the area who are more interested in making something of their lives, and raising a family without this kind of violence disagree with you.

[umair127]

Trying to say the Palestinians or Israelis are solely at fault is just silly and counter productive. Militarily Israel is more at fault simply because they have a far superior military. Culturally, Palestinians and the larger arab world is more at fault. As in, check out the Israeli borders on all maps in middle eastern schools.

This stopped being a valid excuse for Israel long ago, it has a good working relationship with both the Egyptian government and Jordan, and Lebanon poses very little to no real threat to it. The "Israel is surrounded by enemies!" argument is antiquated and approaching racist levels (to be honest) in this day and age, as though Arabs have to be enemies of Jews. That isn't true in the least.

[Rigon]

I actually disagree strongly. Palestinians don't deserve to live under the conditions that they are kept under through the occupation. No population deserves that, it goes against our very purported principles as a nation and as a culture and as a global community to be OK with what Israel is doing in the West Bank and Gaza. I don't want to see the US pullout at all, I want to see it use its close relationship with Israel to pressure it into actually being a partner for peace.

I realize you disagree. But you are under the impression that Israel is the only one, or mostly in the wrong. You are incorrect, imo.

An independent Palestinian state based on 1967 borders doesn't in any way depend on a genocide of anyone. Meanwhile A Jewish Israel with permanent occupation and eventual absorption of the territories does depend on either the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian population, or apartheid. We honestly saw colonies under European rule where the population of the controlled territory was treated MUCH better than how Israel currently treats the Palestinians. It is unjustifiable; plain and simple.

Actually, it depends on the eventual destruction of Israel, as the more violent muslims in the area will never stop until Israel is gone, and the majority of the population, while not being willing to participate in something like that, are more than happy to look the other way.

[umair127]

This is why I don't really have a side in that conflict. I see both sides as crazy, religious/cultural fanatics that would rather die than come to a rational compromise. The ones that remain there are nuts. They live to propagate the hatred.

I've always had a problem with this kind of stance. I've heard a lot of people make such comments before and they always seem like cop outs to me; some vague attempt to appear 'balanced' or 'moderate'. But such a stance rarely has any real depth to it. such catch alls don't work in this issue (they rarely do in conflict in general). Just like the "it's both sides" argument. It's very clearly more one side than the others here when it comes to barriers to peace. There is also more than two sides, so the breaking of the conflict into only two pieces I find shallow in general.

And I've always had a problem with people overcomplicating the issue. My opinions tend to get formed from people I know from the area. As far as I can tell, anyone from Israel, Gaza, West Bank has told me exactly what I said. Each one feels their position is slightly better, but the overwhelming majority feel that the people who stay and fight continuously want to fight, and want to let hatred run their lives. One of these people even spent a fair amount of time in an Israeli prison, and was in government during the Arafat years. He doesn't like the Israelis, and he feels they are more in the wrong, but his opinion remains that both sides are crazy. I know several Israelis that have a different perspective on who is more wrong, but when asked, they just throw up their hands and say they're all nuts.

So you can have a problem with it, but it seems many people from the area who are more interested in making something of their lives, and raising a family without this kind of violence disagree with you.

It isn't over complicating the issue to actually talk about the major issues (which is all I really do). Just take a look at the settler violence issue that is a big deal in terms of human rights and security in the West Bank that you didn't even know existed until I posted evidence of it in the other thread. That is important. How can you say with such confidence that "it is both sides (roughly equally)" when you don't even know some of what is happening on the ground? That being said, I think you're much more well versed in the conflict than the average American.

The simple fact here is that Israel has declared war on other countries for seeking to engage in similar activities that it does to the Palestinians every single day (like the water crisis) Those aren't "overcomplications" those are major issues and vital for understanding the conflict. Trying to dismiss something that Israel has used as a justification for war in the past as a "minor issue" isn't very appropriate.

[umair127]

So you can have a problem with it, but it seems many people from the area who are more interested in making something of their lives, and raising a family without this kind of violence disagree with you.

Which you admit that you base simply on anecdotal evidence. I have that too. I also though, have a working knowledge of the details of everyday life and the benefit of a coupling of that knowledge with an outside perspective that is unattached to either ethnic or religious group. I'd also point out that Jews and Palestinians are not immune from falling into the same trap. I routinely speak to people from countries engaged in conflict that have very poor understanding of said conflict. Just take a look at many northern Nigerians who will tell you that the CIA is running Boko Haram in a campaign to discredit Islam, or in Saudi Arabia where you might learn that Jews were behind 9/11. Listening to locals is important, but you also need to supplement that with other sources and more detailed study.

[tsoPANos]

1)OP calm down.
2)Read this. http://www.globalresearch.ca/over-300-survivors-and-descendants-of-survivors-of-victims-of-the-nazi-genocide-condemn-israels-assault-on-gaza/5396244

3) There is NO justification for this.
Killing people because a 3000 year old book says so is far beyond accepted idiocy levels.

PLEASE RESPECT THE FACT the we got you out from these https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_concentration_camps
Also
I don't understand why being anti-Semitic is any different than being anti-Insert_any_nation_here !!!!

[Rigon]

Do you really find any of the mainstream Palestinian statehood demands to be unreasonable? They are all legal, and all consistent with our expressed international ideology of human rights.

Mainstream Hamas?

Not solely, but chiefly.

I wouldn't call the Palestinians chiefly responsible, but close to equally.

This stopped being a valid excuse for Israel long ago, it has a good working relationship with both the Egyptian government and Jordan, and Lebanon poses very little to no real threat to it. The "Israel is surrounded by enemies!" argument is antiquated and approaching racist levels (to be honest) in this day and age, as though Arabs have to be enemies of Jews. That isn't true in the least.

You're avoiding the issue here. Can you tell me what the various arabic schools teach their children about the proper Israeli borders? Bearing in mind I have several friends who either have children, or used to have children in schools in Kuwait, Oman, Lebanon, Iran, and Iraq, and UAE.

[umair127]

I realize you disagree. But you are under the impression that Israel is the only one, or mostly in the wrong. You are incorrect, imo.

And yet there are no details here. You never address the plain fact that Israel has never lived up to a single one of its peace plan promises and has left the primary Palestinian faction under Abbas sitting alone at the peace table for years. at least the "Palestinian side's" primary faction is interested in a two state solution which is far more than can be said about Netanyahu's administration. Trying to treat them with equal culpability is simply doesn't work.

[umair127]

Actually, it depends on the eventual destruction of Israel, as the more violent muslims in the area will never stop until Israel is gone, and the majority of the population, while not being willing to participate in something like that, are more than happy to look the other way.

The Abbas government's ability to control violence in the West Bank completely disagrees with the picture that you are painting. People also used to say the same thing about Jordan which turned out to be utterly untrue (same with Egypt).

[umair127]

Do you really find any of the mainstream Palestinian statehood demands to be unreasonable? They are all legal, and all consistent with our expressed international ideology of human rights.

Mainstream Hamas?

Not solely, but chiefly.

I wouldn't call the Palestinians chiefly responsible, but close to equally.

This stopped being a valid excuse for Israel long ago, it has a good working relationship with both the Egyptian government and Jordan, and Lebanon poses very little to no real threat to it. The "Israel is surrounded by enemies!" argument is antiquated and approaching racist levels (to be honest) in this day and age, as though Arabs have to be enemies of Jews. That isn't true in the least.

You're avoiding the issue here. Can you tell me what the various arabic schools teach their children about the proper Israeli borders? Bearing in mind I have several friends who either have children, or used to have children in schools in Kuwait, Oman, Lebanon, Iran, and Iraq, and UAE.

And this is simply rather dishonest on two fronts:

1.) The Hamas party charter is not mainstream Palestinian belief, trying to equate Hamas with all Palestinians or even a majority of them is inappropriate.

2.) Hamas as a terrorist organization, has actually done far more to moderate itself than conservative Israelis have on the issue of the conflict. It even ran on a two state solution platform in 2006 and dropped its call for the destruction of Israel, so you are not only misrepresenting the flexibility within Hamas political stances in your attempted rebuttal, you are blatantly ignoring the platform upon which they campaigned during the elections and Hamas' ability to end violence when it tries to (just look at the entire year of 2013). All more than Netanyahu's administration can boast which has little to no support for a two state solution, no willingness to live up to peace plan promises, and a complete inability 9or rather unwillingness) to curb settler violence which has risen over the years.

[umair127]

I wouldn't call the Palestinians chiefly responsible, but close to equally.

And I would challenge you to prove it with an analysis of the peace process. I know you can't because I am familiar enough with it to know that the only faction in power in favor of peace is a Palestinian one (the PA under Abbas in the West Bank).

[umair127]

You're avoiding the issue here. Can you tell me what the various arabic schools teach their children about the proper Israeli borders? Bearing in mind I have several friends who either have children, or used to have children in schools in Kuwait, Oman, Lebanon, Iran, and Iraq, and UAE.

Calling you out on ignoring the realities of current international relations isn't avoiding the issue. But I will answer your educational question with one of my own (which directly addresses yours) can you tell me the details of the Arab Peace Initiative that all of the countries that you have mentioned have voiced support for? Those textbooks exist because conflict persists, not the other way around.

[Rigon]

I wouldn't call the Palestinians chiefly responsible, but close to equally.

And I would challenge you to prove it with an analysis of the peace process. I know you can't because I am familiar enough with it to know that the only faction in power in favor of peace is a Palestinian one (the PA under Abbas in the West Bank).

I don't pretend to have the depth of information you do. However, while having information is useful, it's only worthwhile if applied with real world experience of just how underhanded people in positions of power can be. And in that department, what I see from you is more of a philosophical perspective that causes you to weight the information you have into a collage that puts one side in a better light than perhaps they should be. In order for me to build that kind of knowledge base, I would have to spend more time on it than I have available. So I count on you to have the historical data that I pick and choose through, but I bear in mind that you are still more ideological than you need to be in order to be dispassionate on the subject. Which is great for me. I enjoy listening as much as anything. As far as addressing that Israel has not lived up to it's agreements? I don't question that at all, so there is nothing to address as far as I can see. Israel manipulating the situation to take advantage of fringe group attacks? Absolutely. Those three kids were a good example, but I don't see a way to effectively throw that back at Israel.

[sana8410]

How about if alien arachnids invaded israel and gaza ?

Would there be a little more cohesion between the otherwise warring tribes in tackling the alien threat to all human life ?

Or would Israel offer the gazans as human sacrifices to the new arachnid overlords and vice versa ?

[Rigon]

You're avoiding the issue here. Can you tell me what the various arabic schools teach their children about the proper Israeli borders? Bearing in mind I have several friends who either have children, or used to have children in schools in Kuwait, Oman, Lebanon, Iran, and Iraq, and UAE.

Calling you out on ignoring the realities of current international relations isn't avoiding the issue. But I will answer your educational question with one of my own (which directly addresses yours) can you tell me the details of the Arab Peace Initiative that all of the countries that you have mentioned have voiced support for? Those textbooks exist because conflict persists, not the other way around.

Those textbooks have always existed, though. It has never changed.

Half the time I make posts indicating what I believe is the general opinion of people in the US. They aren't particularly my perspective. But they indicate the hurdle that the Palestinians have to get over in terms of public opinion. Take Rand Paul. He likely wants to end most foreign aid for the time being. I think it's probably a good long term strategy, but as soon as people understood he meant Israel too, people went batshit insane. That is a terrible knee jerk reaction by people.

[Equilux]

1. Why is everything so much worse when there are Jews involved?

1.) He says “Muslims have woken up around the world.” Which implies that they were, relatively speaking, asleep before Operation Protective Edge started when it came to the Israeli-Palestinian issue? That doesn’t really track given how pervasive the issue of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is in not only Arab and Islamic politics, but also in core Arab and to a lesser extent Islamic identity. This conflict, more than any other existing conflict in the world, has had a very large social impact on the Middle East and it remains a core concept in both pan-Arabic, anti-colonial / nationalistic, and Salafi Jihadi overarching ideological structures.

And no, I don’t think it is just about the numbers. It never has been. It started off as a matter of nationalism vs. western colonialism which has been a very pungent sector of discourse and mobilization for large parts of the world (pretty much every place that was once a European colony). Even in strongly independent countries concerns of neo-colonialism are a constant theme when it comes to developing states and their relations with larger powers. The big difference here is that Palestine has never been allowed / achieved its independence. As far as the nationalism and colonialism debate goes, it is the last unsettled vestige of western colonialism in the Middle East and Africa.

Things like the genocide in Darfur, the ISIS activity in Iraq, and the civil war in Syria are all more bloody, but with the exception perhaps of Darfur, none have been as long lasting. There is also another critical piece to the puzzle that goes along with the colonial and nationalism theme, and that is that none of the other listed examples are seen as imported conflicts from the West the way that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is. Syria, the ISIS, Darfur, etc are all horrible, but they are all internal conflicts largely perpetuated by internal actors. We’ve seen these differences in discourse reaction before with the Gulf War and how outraged and divisive the notion of western troops intervening was and especially how divisive stationing US troops on Saudi soil was relative to the initial conflict.

I also find his remarks of anti-Semitism driving the conflict to be a bit off in terms of the conflicts history. Rising anti-Semitism tends to be a side effect of the conflict, which, while it can and has reinforced said conflict, it isn’t the core driver of it; and never has been. The Arab uprising against the Turks that set the playing field for Arab nationalist interaction with Russian Jewish refugees had little to do with religion, and much more to do with ethnicity and regional identities.

Thanks for your elaborate replies! You seem to have a firm grasp of the many many factors that are at play in this conflict. I will keep an eye out for more posts of yours