Before I begin I would like to state that I am completely neutral when it comes to the Israeli Palestinian conflict.
With the events currently taking place in Gaza, Israeli Palestinian conflict is a hot topic. I would like to look at the issue from a different perspective. I would instead like to identify the claim the Palestinians have to the land, how the land has changed hands over time and how the very idea of a state of Palestine was conceived.
Nationalities and borders and boundaries are relatively new concepts in terms of human history. I consider myself English because there has been around 1000 or so years of English kings, language and culture in the region now known as England. The word England came about through a Germanic tribe the Angles, naming it ‘Angle-land’. So should Germans have a claim to the land of England? Similarly if you go even further back the Celts originally from France migrated to England, then uninhabited, so should the French have a claim? I find this fascinating, especially in terms of the current Palestine-Israeli situation so I did some research on it and hope to bring some issues to light.
The word Palestine comes from the ‘Philistine’ and originally denoted the coastal region what we now know as Gaza, a tiny strip of land along the coastline. The Philistines were a people of Greco-Turkish origin who were invaders from across the sea. The name was used by their ancient neighbours, in Egyptian ‘Purusati’, Assyrian ‘Palastu’ and in the Hebrew Bible as ‘Peleshet’. In the Christian Bible as ’Palestina’’. In the revised version as Philista, in the New Testament any variant of the word Palestine does not appear at all.
The Philistines like I said before occupied a very small stretch of coast. As they were sea traders they rarely ventured inland at all. From about 1200BC the area was ruled by successive Jewish Kings. The Jews called the land ‘Eretz Israel’ meaning ‘the land of Israel’. However the concept of nations was not yet part of the human psyche. Most of Israel was divided into small villages and tribes but were ruled under by Jewish Kings.
It was in Roman times that the term Palestine was again called into normal usage. Until then the land was referred to as the kingdom of Judea although there were Muslim Arabs living there too. It was part of the Roman Empire and was known as Judea. As punishment for frequent revolts the Emperor Hadrian made a determined attempt to stamp out the embers of Jewish nationhood and statehood. In what is now known as the Diaspora the Judeans were expelled from the region in 135AD. The Roman Empire also controlled neighbouring Syria. Judea was thus renamed Syria-Palestine.
After the Romans the Arab Middle Eastern Caliphate controlled the region from around 640AD. Since the time of the Romans the term Palestine had continued in usage. The Romans have divided Palestine into Palestine I,II and III for administrative purposes. This was kept by the new caliphate and remained the same right up the Middle Ages. Then between 1095 to 1272 the crusades occurred. In this time the land changed between Islam and Christian many times, being called the Holy Kingdom by the latter.
After the crusades the region was held under the control of the Ottoman Turkish Empire from 1299AD to 1923AD. In this time period the term Palestine was not used and that entire area was known simply as Syria. However during the Renaissance, the rediscovering of the classical period meant that the term Palestine was used in the Christian world, although it was still officially Syria.
Then in 1923 after WW1 the newly formed League of Nations gave the land to Britain to rule over as its mandate. The French ruled over neighbouring Syria. The British mandate covered the land we now know as Jordan and Palestine. The name remained that way until 1947. Just before the UN resolution the British set up Trans Jordan. With the outbreak of the war between the Jews and the Palestinians the UN drew up temporary ceasefire lines, of which neither military agreed to cross. The Palestinians agreed to this on the grounds that it was only temporary, but since then no new agreement has been formulated. Gaza itself was recently returned to Palestine in negotiations in the Oslo peace meeting in 1993.
So based on that information do the Palestinians have a justified claim to the land considering how many times it has changed hands? Do they have any more of a claim than the Israelis? How far back do you go to the find the ‘rightful’ inhabitants? Technically the Philistines were first so should it be given to the Turks and the Greeks? What constitutes a nation, was there a consistent shared culture and language of Palestine?
So based on that information do the Palestinians have a justified claim to the land considering how many times it has changed hands?
I think delving into history is a good way to ignore current realities. I honestly couldn’t give a damn who owned the land 2,000 or even 100 years ago; this does not excuse the ejection of a population today. There is no excuse for putting the Palestinian people through such suffering because of conflicting land claims.
Like I said I am completely neutral. I do belive that what is happening at the moment in Gaza is a disgrace but then again looking back the Palestinians have done some terrible things to. I was just interested in Palestine as an entity, as to when the idea of Palestine came about.
looking back the Palestinians have done some terrible things to.
Again, history does not justify the present. I don’t think there is ever a good reason to punish children for what their forefathers may or may not have done.
I am not using it as a reason to justify the currrent actions of the Israelis, but I am just saying both sides have done wrong and it is important to retain historical perspective on the issue.
What I find most interesting is how under the Arab Muslim Caliphate Jews were treated better than they were at any other time in history, and yet now they are sworn enemies of arabs and muslims.
I suggest we nuke the ‘holy land’, wait 200 years, and start over in the ‘barrens’. Both the jews and the arabs do NOTDESERVE the land anymore. Nuke them with 24 hour warning, let them both scurry like the vermin they are.
I think that it is also over the top to call them vermin, whilst some may be, it is the same in England or America or any other country. There is always bad and good people.
That might also be considered racist.
So what do we do, keep letting them butcher each other back and forth for eternity?
The stalemate needs to be stopped somehow. Clearly diplomacy does not work in a blood feud. They are like two pit bulls locked in combat biting each other with locked jaws – you need to beat their head in with a strong stick to stop them.
I am not being racist. I am tired of hearing about this conflict. Oil and water do not mix, no matter how many years you shake the container.
Fine I will take back the vermin comment for the majority of the people on either side. But there are some vermin on both sides who crave battle and blood.
So what do we do, keep letting them butcher each other back and forth for eternity?
You claim the problem is an unending cycle of violence. You then propose violence as a solution. You are thinking in the same way as the “vermin” you rail against.
If you want a solution, how about the west actually holds Israel to account for its war crimes? If they do not recieve unilateral support, they will not be so quick to start conflict left and right. They can only do so without fear because they know they will recieve unwavering support from America.
You mean like Egypt and Saudi Arabia? Making new allies is easy too; stop invading random countries and don’t falsely accuse other countries of things they haven’t done.
You mean like Egypt and Saudi Arabia? Making new allies is easy too; stop invading random countries and don’t falsely accuse other countries of things they haven’t done.
I am not trying to justify it, but their main excuse is that they like to support democracy in the middle east, albeit very hypocritical when they support the Saudis for their oil, who are far from democratic.
You mean like Egypt and Saudi Arabia? Making new allies is easy too; stop invading random countries and don’t falsely accuse other countries of things they haven’t done.
I am not trying to justify it, but their main excuse is that they like to support democracy in the middle east, albeit very hypocritical when they support the Saudis for their oil, who are far from democratic.
The funniest part of that is the best example of democracy in the Middle East is Lebanon. We sure went to great lengths to ensure they have weathered well (sarcasm).
I live in Israel, so you can consider me a valid opinion for this thread. I wanted to get this one across, I’m seeing too much hate to specific sides in this conflict, and I believe people should try to maintain a more balanced perspective, especially if they don’t whitness this conflict firsthand.
First, let me say that I am In no way patriotic, I don’t like my country one bit, I rarely stand and honor the anthem and the flag if I have the choice (I go to a military air-force academy, so it’s not that often that I do) but I believe that their actions in this war are justified. Let me explain why:
First, let me reply to some of the posts I’ve seen here:
“I suggest we nuke the ‘holy land’.” < Vanguarde
I suggest we nuke your own country first, as a little test of sorts, I’m sure you won’t mind, you seem to be very enthusiastic of this concept.
“There is no excuse for putting the Palestinian people through such suffering because of conflicting land claims.” < This one by SaintAjora
The conflict is not at all related to land, the Palestines will definitely keep the land they already have, the problem is that they want more land than they’ve been given. Heck, they’d throw us into the sea if they could. Our forces recently went in to protect our own citizens; A retaliation to their missiles, hopefully to eliminate some of the assailants and scare them. I don’t know if you’ve seen this on the news, maybe it’s not important enough for you, but both sides have been firing at civilian clusters, not just Israel. In fact, the IDF is taking great precaution when assaulting such areas, and they send sanitary help when and where they can, usually immediately. Our troops are forbidden from killing any Palestine unless he is a target (a member of the Hamas), if he was attacking our own civilians, or if it was in self defence, wheres the Hamas just fire their missiles anywhere they can. I would also like to add that the Hamas is using their civilians as meat shields. A good example is that the head of the Hamas is deliberately hiding under a hospital (which is just plain wicked), as do other members of the Hamas. In fact, most of them are hiding near civilians, sometimes in their homes, sometimes even threatening to kill them if they refuse to cooperate.
“If you want a solution, how about the west actually holds Israel to account for its war crimes?” < by SaintAjora
How about we hold both sides in account? This is not black and white. I don’t like the way you’re thinking, try looking at it in a more neutral perspective, please.
If you consider killing a civilian of the opposite side a war crime, that the Palastines have obviously committed it as well. Also, our prisons are packed with captured enemies, while they have numerous kidnapped soldiers. We exchange them at a rate of about 1:150, as in, for every prisoner they return, we release over a hundred or theirs, who will probably just go about and keep doing whatever it is we caught them for.
Don’t think we’re bombing them because we like doing it, we do it to protect ourselves.
We have suffered less casualties in this war because we were better protected and instructed. To my knowledge, the Hamas didn’t bother protecting his civilians.
The fact that we have to attack them to protect ourselves if saddening, but it’s an understandable action: If you had to chose between your own friends and family or some other people you don’t know, and who probably want you dead anyway, I’d be extremely impressed (and confused) if you would pick the latter.
Our president (or one of the former prime ministers, I can’t really remember who it was) said once that: “We are truly sorry, but we do not regret protecting ourselves.” I agree with this.
Don’t even think for a moment that this war was unfair because our army is more advanced than theirs. If they had the advantage, they would use it as well, and to a far worse extent, I believe.
The city where I live, Be’er Sheva, was at their line of fire when they began firing missiles at our towns from inside the Gaza strip, so I got to live this weird reality where we have to rush to the missile shelter at 2 AM in less than 45 seconds. Some missiles were very close, we could hear powerful blasts, and our windows would shake, sometime shatter if the missile was close enough. One hit an empty kindergarten sometime at night when the whole thing had just begun. Thank god it wasn’t in the morning when the building was occupied, or it could have been very tragic.
I relatively had it easy; The town of Sderot (some 35 kilometers west of me) has been taking fire for about 8 years now, I only had to live with it for a month or so, they have been dealing with this crap for way too long.
So before you go ahead and judge us for retaliating for eight years worth of missiles, think just how long you could stand this sort of thing happening in your county, to your family and friends.
Don’t get me wrong, I do sympathize with the Palestines, I understand why they want their lands back, but all our lands were either given to us by the UN, or conquered in wars that our neighbours started, and which we return if it is necessary for a truce… As we did with Egypt, for example.
The problem is that these guys (i.e the Hamas) don’t want permanent truce and peace, they want to kick us out. They’ve been breaking all of our temporary truces, and I have no doubt that they will break the one we’ve just recently established as well.
I live in Israel, so you can consider me a valid opinion for this thread.
It doesn’t work that way, but let’s go.
Heck, they’d throw us into the sea if they could.
You mean like Israel is doing to the Palestinians. This bullshit rhetoric needs to go, Israel always plays the victim.
Our forces recently went in to protect our own citizens
Another bullshit claim. The hostilities were initiated by Israel in response to a smuggling tunnel.
Our troops are forbidden from killing any Palestine unless he is a target (a member of the Hamas), if he was attacking our own civilians, or if it was in self defence, wheres the Hamas just fire their missiles anywhere they can.
Totally Israeli self defense. Do I need to shoot off a list of hundreds of examples showing how wrong you are, or will one suffice?
How about we hold both sides in account?
Already stated that, and right now Israel is bearing the burden of responsibility for its most recent actions. Don’t even start a line of reasoning that has nothing to do with the incidents in question.
Don’t think we’re bombing them because we like doing it, we do it to protect ourselves.
From women and children with rocks? Please. Israel broke the ceasefire that Hamas was actually sticking to, don’t play the defense card when you are initiating hostilities.
Anyway I addressed many of the key points here and here.
@ chainsaw555 I agree that some people should try and get a more balanced view of the conflict, as historically, over the past 50 years I believe Israel and Palestine have been as bad as each other.
However as to the current situation I believe the Israelis are totally in the wrong here and agree with Saint Ajora on his points to do with the Gaza crisis. If any other country other than Israel was doing this they would be condemned, look at Russia’s relatively recent incursion into Georgia, they used far less brutal methods, yet due to the bias of the press and western administrations they were condemned far more.
@chainsaw555 you have basically said that the Israelis have been as humanitarian as possible. There have been numerous counts of atrocities in the region. The use of phosphorous on civilian areas, the bombing of UN schools used as refugee camps, the shelling of buildings filled with civilians told by the IDF to shelter there. Watching the BBC news at the beginning of Jan and it showed a childrens hospital in Egypt where casualties were taken. There were children in comas with 2 bullets in their head, from the angle of the wound coming from behind, shooting children in the back whilst running away is not self defence.
I consider myself neutral iwith the conflict overall, but the recent events I am strongly sympathetic to the Palestinians. The stupid thing about it, is that the IDF’s actions have only consolidated Hamas’ position in the long term. The irony is that the Israelis are acting just as the Nazis did in WW2. Blockading an ethnic group into a tiny area and shelling them, Warsaw ghetto anyone?
“It doesn’t’t work that way, but let’s go.”
Should I assume it does if you live on the other side of the world and have never witnessed it firsthand?
“There were children in comas with 2 bullets in their head.”
I know of this and it’s shocking; unfortunately some soldiers make this conflict personal (possibly because they’ve lost someone in a war), and since there is no efficient way to supervise them when the combat takes place they think they can go nuts.
This is forbidden, soldiers caught doing this sick stuff are punished.
“a smuggling tunnel”
The smuggling tunnel is used to transport weapons, among other things. You know what they use those weapons for, right?
“Totally Israeli self defense. Do I need to shoot off a list of hundreds of examples showing how wrong you are, or will one suffice?”
Everyone is wrong. Both sides shoot first, then ask questions. No one seems to understand that in a war a lot of people on both sides have personal experiences of their friends dying by the enemy, you’d go berserk too if all of your friends were killed. I’m not trying to justify the actions of either side, but what I’m saying is that this sort of things exist in wars, the only way to fix it is to stop the hostilities entirely. I’d like to remind you that both sides are taught to hate each other from a very young age, so good luck with that.
“Blockading an ethnic group into a tiny area and shelling them”
Those are the bounds the UN gave Israel and Palestine, probably to leave the palestines with access to the Mediterranean sea.
I think they had a larger area, but It must have been conquered.
Also, no one is locking them inside, they can pass the borders as long as they’re not criminals or happen to be carrying anything illegal. Lots of people from the Gaza strip work in Israel at day and return to their homes at night. They could settle inside Israel if they wanted to, but they won’t.
But yeah, it does ironically resemble the ghetto.
I’m starting to agree, at least partially, with some of the replies above. My earlier post was biased, I guess, it’s easy to see the things the way you want to, and the media isn’t helping much… The media I’m exposed to is biased toward “our” side, while the ones you’re watching is probably biased toward the other side.
I think we should stop listing the wrongs and rights of each side, as this could go on forever. The two sides need to compromise, but it seems that the Palestines aren’t willing to do that.
and since there is no efficient way to supervise them when the combat takes place they think they can go nuts.
This is forbidden, soldiers caught doing this sick stuff are punished.
There are ways to supervise soldiers such as this. I doubt they will be punished.
Those are the bounds the UN gave Israel and Palestine, probably to leave the palestines with access to the Mediterranean sea.
The bounds given were only supposed to be temporary. They were given by the UN during a ceasefire on a purely military basis, both sides agreed on the basis they were temporary but since then they have not been changed.
Also, no one is locking them inside, they can pass the borders as long as they’re not criminals or happen to carrying anything illegal.
It is well documented that the Palestinians are blockaded in Gaza. There is a massive concrete wall in some parts. it wasnt exactly built there for nothing.
The media I’m exposed to is biased toward “our” side, while the ones you’re watching is probably biased toward the other side.
The BBC that I watch actually didnt broadcast an appeal for Palestinians in Gaza (cvontraversially) to retain their impartiality. Then again I can’t claim to speak for Americans. If anything American news is probably more biased towards Israel than most other countries I would assume due to the political/military alliance. Still it doesn’t take a genius to see a lot of what the IDF is doing at the moment is wrong.
My earlier post was biased, I guess, it’s easy to see the things the way you want to
When you or your family have suffered bereavement or you live in a warzone it is very difficult to retain an impartial view. The Greek side of my family mostly hate the Turks and the Macedonians so I am no stranger to that kind of bias.
The two sides need to compromise, but it seems that the Palestines aren’t willing to do that.
To be fair at different points in history it has been the other way round. Before Hamas were in power and non violent Fatah represented the Palestinians the Israelis were unwilling to negotiate. One side has to be patient enough to continually hold out the hand of peace until the other is willing to accept it too otherwise this could go on and on.
