<p>Laylah, it’s no biggie really since you’re being cool about it.</p>
<p>LOL, your first paragraph reminds me of the justificatory “Let-him-who-is-without-sin-cast-the-first-stone” defensive demeanor, which involves recklessly accusing one’s criti(s) of faultfinding to avoid admitting guilt. I reject this behavior and find it cowardly. I wholeheartedly agree with you that it’s also obfuscating.</p>
<p>We don’t disagree that ideologies do get affected by living conditions, do we? However, the P/I conflict won’t be resolved, not even partially, by simply improving the living conditions of either group.</p>
<p>also, your username is sooo cool, btw. my dearest friend who’s planning on stealing my name for his future son, just named his first child Layla, she is 4 months now, though he doesn’t like to get ‘laylan’ at all (Layla in Arabic also means an elation one gets especially drinking wine, in addition to the commonly known meaning). </p>
<p>Had you read Qays and Layla aka Majnun Layla (driven mad by Layla)? A great story if you can find a good translation (i don’t think there are many anyway)</p>
<hr>
<p>Drosselmeier and everybody, I really dont want the conflict to end by turning things to glass, though it seems to be heading that route. It would be…hmm, interesting/unusual to observe such a progress as I wasn’t yet around in 1945.</p>
<p>And to explicitly answer the question of the title of this thread:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>No one, including Hamas, denies Israel the right to exist, but <em>where</em>? Hungary or Paletine?</p></li>
<li><p>Should the Palestinians accept Israel’s existence on “their falesteeni” land it’s because they were forced to do so, which I don’t think could be done.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Why should we value what the plaestinians accept or reject anyway?</p>
<p>I don’t think we can really compare the slaves to the Jews to the Palestinians. The treatments of the groups, and their culturally driven responses to oppression differ radically. Why did the slaves in Haiti cause one of the bloodiest revolts in the history of the Western Hemisphere, while in South Carolina slaves nearly outnumbered or equaled whites in number, but caused no revolt on the Haitian level? I think it is because one group endured treatment that was different enough to permit a different response. Were you and I tied together, for example, knowing our oppressor was about to harm our families, we would naturally plot together to destroy the oppressor, even if it meant sacrificing our own lives. Indeed I would work to destroy the oppressor even if I knew I would perish and you carry onward. On the other hand should a slight change of fate cause me to be chained to someone else, say a German-speaking Nazi, then cohesion would be instantly ruptured because I do not speak German. Moreover, I cannot trust a Nazi, and would therefore suspect the Nazi at my back would kill me at the first opportunity. I would think myself without a choice except but to kill my immediate oppressor, even while plotting to next kill the Nazi. Unfortunately, the mere fact I would have to plan in this way would weaken me. It would mean the oppressor would have a better chance of surviving. Ultimately, my revolt in this latter case is not likely to be effective. The point I am trying to make is that different groups have endured different circumstances so that they did not have the same responses to oppression. All oppression is not equal.</p>
<p>I think to have a more productive attempt at resolving the Middle East conflict, we need first to find an antidote to the poison that has seeped for decades into the metaphorical well of that region. I do not think any of the current players have what it takes to find this antidote. I did not think Clinton had it. I do not think any of the upcoming players have it because they appear to approach the problem in the same ways we see being played out here on this thread. Everyone has to stake a claim and defend it to the death, which simply creates more poison.</p>
<p>I think the first thing that needs to take place is a negotiation over the past. The parties involved need to come to a consensus interpretation, even a rough consensus, of history. It might help if representatives on the Palestinian side can be prepped about the reality of Israel so that they can understand Israel’s concerns and desires. Israel, for example, wants to first and foremost continue its existence. Any interpretation of history that seeks to justify a destruction of Israel would understandably be denied. Once the Palestinian side can see why this is the case, and understand the rationale for it (i.e. it is contrary to nature to destroy innocent life, even though much innocent life was destroyed to cause the current circumstance), they may be prone to seek a more unvarnished interpretation of history. Israel might likewise be more prone to seek an unvarnished interpretation, one that plainly describes the events that now cause others so much anguish. Once a consensus is reached, perhaps the parties can move to handling the present reality in view of the consensus. Some material concession may be necessary, at least to show earnestness. Nevertheless it may not be possible for Israel to make certain other concessions while also maintaining national security (which fact goes back to the requirement to maintain Israel’s existence). The main issue is to get the parties responsible for harm to understand they have a duty to work with their victims to resolve the claims that the harm has created. On the other hand, Palestinians must understand that certain things cannot be undone, and that therefore they have as much a duty to forgive a fixed past as Israel has a duty to express a sincere wish to change the unchangeable.</p>
<p>None of this can take place unless the poison is first eliminated. No matter the solution, Palestinian issues will not be resolved unless they sense a fundamental effort being made to interpret history in such a way that the harm they sense is fairly and directly addressed.</p>
<p>Just to set the historical record start there has NEVER been a Palestinian state in the middle east. Before Israel there was a British Mandate over conquered Ottoman territory and before the Ottoman’s there were various other foreign rulers including crusader states, Byzantines and Romans. In fact the last indiginously ruled independent state in the region was the Jewish kingdom which was conquered and eventually destroyed by the Romans. What the Palestinians want is not the right to return but the right to continue squating in somebody elses house.</p>
<p>From my understanding, the Palestinians (and Higherlead, there absolutely was an indigenous population living there pre 1948, although they were not called “Palestinians”…to deny that is really to deny history), see themselves as only the victims. They believe their resistance, in the form of terrorism, is justified, and that all wrongs have been incurred against them, not that they have any responsibility whatsoever in the restrictions on their lives currently.</p>
<p>So, I agree with Drosselmeier, that finding a common way to interpret the history is extremely important. The Palestininans want and need validation that they were wronged, and they need restitution or reparations for their losses. The Israelis need validation of their security concerns, and the understanding that their state is a reality.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, I am a bit pessimistic, and don’t see that happening. There needs to be stronger leadership on both sides, and a will to make peace happen. I suspect the area will be turned to glass first, or demographics will eventually make a Jewish state an impossibility. Neither possibility speaks well to any meaningful or positive change in the foreseeable future.</p>
Odd concept that anyone should need to be “prepped” on this concept, but isn’t this exactly what the demand that Palestinians recognize israel’s right to exist (in Israel, not Hungary) implies? And wouldn’t this require that Hamas repudiate their charter, which explicitly denies this right (see post #5)?
Yes or no answer please.</p>
<p>“and Higherlead, there absolutely was an indigenous population living there pre 1948”</p>
<p>You are right and a significant chunk of it had always been Jewish but there was no indiginously ruled state - at least not since the Romans conquered the region. Then of course the Arabs eventually invaded the region and their invasion was of course a lot more legitimate than anyone else invasion right? That means it belongs to them. After all it says in the Koran that you never give territory back to the kafir.</p>
<p>It is certainly possible to make the case that the Palestinians have no legitimate claim to the land now under dispute, should we apply a ‘Might Makes Right’ spoils system to the issue. Under Might Makes Right, Palestinians have no legitimate claims because any claim they may have had was erased by “Palestine’s” conquerors. But if we wish to apply a philosophy that takes into consideration all the relevant and significant facts of the situation, including the effective and perceived rights of people, then it seems to me we need to acknowledge that people had been living in the land for long periods of times, that they had invested themselves, establishing livelihoods and traditions there, and that they felt the land was their home.</p>
<p>[I</a> said earlier](<a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showpost.php?p=3779990&postcount=29]I”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/showpost.php?p=3779990&postcount=29) that I believe Israel has a right to exist even in its current place, and I base my opinion on some of the facts mentioned by higherlead, facts that took place long before 1948, and that are still terribly influential today. But I also know not every group thinks of land ownership and ‘states’ in the same way we tend to think of them. Many are nomadic, or arrange themselves in permanent, loosely affiliated, but autonomous settlements. Who is to say the establishment of a ‘state’ in a certain region has greater moral significance than the establishment of some cultural tradition among a small, even nomadic, group of people? If we are to ease the tensions between the different approaches on these issues, we need to develop interpretations of history that take them all into account, and that join them into some sort of consensus. This is very difficult to do. But I don’t think it is impossible. I personally think this is why historians are vital to a civilized future.</p>
<p>The problem we tend to run into is that too many people are intellectually dishonest about the facts that affect people. It is rare, in a common discussion on ethnic conflict, for people to refer to hundreds, even thousands of years of history, despite that ancient history is often still as active upon us as if it had occurred yesterday. Children, right here in America, are being circumcised at this very minute, due to events that took place thousands of years ago. Many people reading this post, have, uh, been very much influenced by this history. Yet, if we aren’t outright revising history for selfish ends, we selfishly dismiss it with the words ‘get over it already! It happened over a hundred years ago!’, as if history loses its power with time. None of this creates good faith between conflicting parties.</p>
<p><strong>historians are vital to a civilized future.</strong></p>
<p><strong>Yet, if we aren’t outright revising history for selfish ends, we selfishly dismiss it with the words ‘get over it already! It happened over a hundred years ago!’, as if history loses its power with time.</strong></p>
<p><strong>It is certainly possible to make the case that the Palestinians have no legitimate claim to the land now under dispute, should we apply a ‘Might Makes Right’ spoils system to the issue.</strong></p>
<p>My turn to take my hat off Thank you Drosselmeier!</p>
<p>It’s not so much whether a Jewish state was formed in the last century, but HOW it was done.</p>
<p>And let’s not forget - there were also Jewish undergorund groups such as the Irgun and Lehi which were labeled as terrorist organizations (but I’m sure many look upon them as “freedom fighters”).</p>
<p>And when the Nazis came and stole every single thing my grandparents ever had, including their home, what were there reperations? $5000 from the German government, 40 years later. Big whoop. And guess what? They needed to relocate, or be killed, and so they did. And they got over it, because there simply was no other alternative. What happened to them, and millions of other dispossessed or brutalized people throughout history is horrific. But they moved on, as most civilized people do, because there isn’t another alternative.</p>
<p>That’s the point. Whether or not the Palestinians believe they have a legitimate claim to the whole of their former land, there is now another people living there. So, they can whine and complain and suicide bomb for the next 50 years, or plan to turn the ME to glass…or they can settle down and decide how to make a state. Their actions at the moment certainly do not reflect a people who are anxious to have that happen.</p>
<p>Wrong. I do, Mini. One of my best friend’s husband is Palestinian, like born in a refugee camp. They came to dinner one night, with his brother (living in England for awhile, but back in Gaza). The brother sat at our table and said he denies the Holocaust. It made for an interesting dinner. :)</p>
<p>I probably know more than most Americans. And I have spent hundreds and hundreds of hours discussing this exact issue with my friend, her H and his friends. I have quite a lot of insight into the Palestinian thinking on the matter.</p>
<p>LOL. I cant resist this: Allmusic I can you see on the edge of your seat with both hands errected on the table with a fork in one hand and a knife in the other, and the brother is also doing the same while both of you were “dinner-conversing” No one was hurt?</p>
<p>He didn’t announce it just like that…it dribbled in through parts of the conversation. My friend said later (when I asked her) that her BIL does not acknowledge the Holocaust, but it is a political message, not a statement of reality, since he is a well educated man. Apparently, many well educated people hold this “view”, from a purely political, not rational POV.</p>
<p>But no fork poking. We talked about movies and travel too! ;)</p>
Thank you Drosselmeier!</p>