The Israel-Palestine conflict: a brief, simple history --- (VIDEO by VOX)

  • beachcomber96

    Posts: 84

    Feb 07, 2018 2:17 AM GMT
    This seems to be a hot topic on these forums

    Here's a video with concise, unbiased history summation regarding border division and explanation of the Israel-Palestine conflict. For the benefit of those who don't know.

    The Israel-Palestine conflict: a brief, simple history
  • mwolverine

    Posts: 5339

    Feb 08, 2018 8:12 AM GMT
    It misfires on several points that aren't even controversial:

    1. While it's true that on the ground today the conflict is territorial and not religious, that ignores that there is a religious component to it. Were it just political, there wouldn't be a uniform coalition of all Muslim countries on one said rather than the other (though this has now started to change). There's also a Christian component on the other side among Evangelicals (but traditionally this is much less of a factor).

    2. It omits that "under Ottoman rule for centuries" (1517-1717) there was no "Palestine" district or ethnicity.
    It was a nebulous area, akin to the American "midwest".

    "Palestine" is the Greek/Latin-European name for Eretz Yisrael, the Jewish homeland - and early 20th century Arab denials of the existence of "Palestine".

    3. "Lived generally in peace" can also be said about the American south during slavery.
    Jews and Christians under Muslim rule were effectively 2nd class citizens (if that) - dhimmis.
    An Apartheid system where non-Muslims couldn't even testify in courts when they were falsely accused.
    European involvement began when European powers intervened on behalf of different minorities.
    For example, the French on behalf of Maronite Christians in Lebanon.

    There is a reason that across vast Muslim empires over 1,300 years we get the same handful of "examples" of "tolerance".
    These brief periods were exceptions and generally ended disastrously for the Jews (e.g. the Granada community being massacred).
    Likewise in "Palestine", where Jews suffered massacres in the 17th, 19th and early 20th centuries.
    Travelers would note the oppression suffered by the Jews (in contrast to life in Europe!).
    The British Consul in Jerusalem recorded pages of such events.

    4. "First more people in the region were developing a sense of being not just ethnic Arabs but Palestinians, a distinct ethnic identity".

    How could such an identity be defined prior to the post WW I borders?
    Virtually all scholars agree that this movement originated in the 1920s and as a reaction to Zionism.
    And it underwent different phases between the 1920s (when these Arabs wanted to be included as part of Arab Syria rather than independent) and today (which is largely a post 1967 and post 1987 phase).

    The Palestine Paradox

    The Emergence Of Palestinian Arab Nationalism In The Mid-To-Late 20th Century

    5. "Zionism, which said that Judaism was not just a religion".

    The view that Jews are only a religion is modern - and is an Anti-semitic rather than Jewish view.
    Zionism has existed for at least 2,500 years, originating "by the Rivers of Babylon" if not before.
    Jews are an ethnoreligious group. Judaism is the "tribal" religion of the Jewish people/nation.

    Modern Zionism arose in the late 19th century as a solution to a 2,000 year old yearning. Not as some new concept.

    Judaism Is The Religion Of The Jewish People.
    (Judaism Is A Religion, Jews Are An Ethnic Group)

    6. "The British Mandate for Palestine" included Trans-Jordanian (eastern) Palestine, which was severed in 1923.
    (The map at the 1:20 mark only shows about half of what became western Mandate Palestine. And has a "1940" vs 1948 typo.)

    7. "tensions between Arabs and Jews grew". Just as they do when blacks move into white neighborhoods, right?

    8. "both sides committed acts of violence". Uh huh. As the Haycraft commission concluded following such violence:

    || The racial strife was begun by the Arabs, and rapidly developed into a conflict of great violence between Arabs and Jews, in which the Arab majority, who were generally the aggressors, inflicted most of the casualties.

    || When the disturbance had once begun an already acute anti-Jewish feeling extended it into an anti-Jewish riot. A large part of the Moslem and Christian communities condoned it, although they did not encourage violence. While certain of the educated Arabs appear to have incited the mob

    || The [Arab] police were, with few exceptions, half-trained and inefficient, in many cases indifferent, and in some cases leaders or participators in violence.

    || In these raids there were few Jewish and many Arab casualties, chiefly on account of the intervention of the military.

    So maybe we should include the British in the "cycle of violence", too?

    9. As a result of the Arab violence "by the 1930s the British began limiting Jewish immigration".
    In violation of the Mandate Document:

    || shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.

    10. But no restriction was placed on Arab immigration.
    British police figures showed that 95% of illegal immigrants apprehended were not Jews but Arabs.
    Only in 1938 (39?) did the British build a wall to prevent infiltration from Lebanon.
    That same year they started counting Arabs entering western Palestine from Trans-Jordanian Palestine as immigrants.
    Meaning for the first 2 (of 3) decades of the Mandate these weren't even tracked.

    11. "Jewish militias formed to fight both the local Arabs and to resist British rule".

    While a small splinter group believed in retaliating against Arab violence, the primary Jewish "militia" (the Haganah) was formed to defend Jewish communities from Arab attacks.

    12. The video completely skips over the Arab violence from 1936-1939, you know, "to resist British rule" and kill Jews.

    13. "Then came the Holocaust [Graphic: "1941-1945"]... leading many more Jews to flee Europe for British Palestine".

    The British, due to Arab pressure, had already closed the gates as of May 1st, 1939. That's 2 years before the mass murder began in earnest. Precisely because Germany had been unable to export the Jews anywhere, their "Final Solution" was to exterminate them.

    14. The majority of the 700,000 Arab refugees fled their homes without ever seeing a Jewish/Israeli soldier to "expel" them.
    Note that most remained in what could have become Arab Palestine.
    Making them "internally displaced" rather than "refugees" per se.
    Their descendants in neighboring countries certainly aren't refugees.

    1947-1948: Arabs reject compromise and attack Israel

    15. Oddly there is no mention of the nearly 1 million Jewish refugees.
    Not from Europe, but those kicked out of Arab/Muslim countries.

    16. Or the fact that there were scores of millions of refugees in the 1940s.
    In Europe, in the Middle East, in South Asia and the Far East.
    All were resettled, none had a so-called "right of return".
  • mwolverine

    Posts: 5339

    Feb 08, 2018 8:13 AM GMT
    17. What propelled Arafat and the PLO to make peace wasn't because it was "obviously necessary" but because by supporting Saddam in the Gulf War Arafat alienated his Gulf sponsors and financiers and painted himself into a corner.

    18. "Extremists on both sides". Yes, except that on the Israeli side they are on the fringe, whereas on the Palestinian Arab side they account for 35-65% of the population... including those in power.

    19. "Negotiations drag on for years... Camp David comes up empty". In part because, to quote Clinton, Arafat "said no to everything". In 25 years since Madrid/Oslo [never mind the half century before that], the Palestinian Arabs have presented exactly one counter-offer - and immediately pulled it when Israel began considering it.

    If you were a bona fide victim of "apartheid", "ethnic cleansing", "land theft", "starvation", "massacres" let alone "genocide", would you reject out-of-hand a compromise that only gave you 99.5%?