I would like to understand the Israeli / Palastine conflict

Now that writing all that has clarified so much in my mind I think that Germany has a huge resposibility to sort this out.

By allying with the Ottoman Empire into WW1, Germany's defeat brought about the collapse of that empire and destabilised the whole region.

By perpetrating the Holocaust the Germans made Jewish nationalism inevitable after the war.

The modern Germany is, perhaps, best placed now to acknowledge this responsibility and attempt to bring the two sides to negotiate. US and UK involvement in negotiations is not considered neutral enough.

A settlement has to include the means for the Palestinians to be economically viable as a state with water resources guaranteed and ports of its own.

You also have to take into account the position of the British after WW2. We had won the war but were on our knees economically. We had our own shattered infrastructure to rebuild, an NHS to set up - and the US called in its debt. The debt was renegotiated but the US left the UK utterly broke. That war debt wasn't paid off until Gordon Brown was Chancellor.

There were bids for independance by parts of the Empire, notably India and, later, Malaysia. The, largely conscript and much decreased, British army was at full stretch and couldn't continue to 'hold' Palestine so long as the Suez Canal was secure and the oil was coming in. It was impossible politically to continue to justify the deaths of National Service boys in Palestine.

If the Israelis had stayed within their original borders and conceded sufficient rights to the indigenous Palestinians within those borders there was a chance for a peaceful settlement. After 1967 that chance was lost.

You can only lay some blame at Britain's door and the British, understandably, had/have very mixed feelings on the matter.

During WW1 the impetus was to oust the Turks who were Germany's allies. Having done so, they didn't really take Jewish claims into account. It wasn't then a Jewish region.

After WW2 the dilemma was far worse because of the shock at the liberation of the concentration camps. So many Jews just didn't want to stay in Europe and the survivors therefore were hard to deny. No one wanted to exacerbate their suffering - and there was guilt because the discovery of the death camps wasn't entirely a surprise. It had been pretty clear since the 30s that they were being hounded to death. I quizzed my dad on this at one time. He was nothing special during the war but he said everyone was aware of the plight of the Jews - it was the details that got to everyone afterwards, the sheer ruthlessness involved.

The infant Israel began with a much goodwill, therefore, as well as financial/political support from Jews in UK and the US.

It was the events of 1967 and after that brought it home that the Israelis were capable of perpetrating a similar persecution on the Palestinians - and that the Palestinians were capable of ruthless terrorism in return.

If anyone is to blame it is the Nazis in the 20th C as well as successive Russian pogroms against the Jews in the 19th and 20th Cs.

There is a timeline from the BBC here that seems to stick to the facts - click on a year to find out what happened.

Oh dear.
You're not very good at this winning hearts & minds lark are you glasnost?
even Newwave made an effort to acknowledge it's not black/white, (nearly damaged herself in the process though )

"There has been terrible injustice and violence from both sides and I can't see a satisfactory solution. One has to be found though because the failure to broker a lasting peace will always provide fuel for extremism." I'll sign up to that

more from the historians/gegraphers/economists/well-informed persons? this is an intersting thread, I'm learning

It's still Britain's fault ultimately.

You cannot equate the victims (Palestinians) with the perpetrators (Israelis).

I might have mixed up east and west banks!

I don't have any particular axe to grind. There has been terrible injustice and violence from both sides and I can't see a satisfactory solution. One has to be found though because the failure to broker a lasting peace will always provide fuel for extremism.

mellowfruitfulness has the gist of it. Impossible to do much more without writing a large tome!

But it goes back even further than that. The Jews left/ were forced out in Roman times after a failed rebellion and destruction of the temple. They 'wandered' for centuries - the Diaspora - and were rejected from several countries and persecuted. they always regarded Palestine as 'theirs'.

Meanwhile, after a thousand years or so the area became part of the Ottoman (Turkish) Empire and remained so until the British kicked the Ottomans out in WW1. (See Lawrence of Arabia).

Some Jews went back then but the Brits had been allied to the various Arab tribes who had helped against the Turks and it all became a mess.

It got messier after WW2 when the concentration camps were liberated and the survivors of the Holocaust were determined to make a state of their own. The British tried to hold them back but they resorted to terror tactics against the British and it was impossible to keep the two sides apart. (The Promise shows this very well indeed.)

A poor settlement left Jerusalem partitioned and and Israeli state on the east bank of the Jordan river as well as a couple of excellent seaports. The Palestinians either fled or were pushed into the west bank.

In 1967 the Israelis went to war and in six days took the Sinae from Egypt and the west bank too. Israel had now hugely expanded and flexed its muscles, shown that it had a very powerful military and, most importantly, now had all the water because it controlled both banks of the Jordan.

Palestinians also resorted to terror tactics and the Israelis carried out appalling reprisals in refugee camps in Beirut.

Now the Israelis have all the best land, the water resources and military power whereas the Palestinians are penned up in barren land (two separate bits) with no access to port facilities.

Unfortunately there seems to be no basis for dialogue, no room for forgiveness and no chance of controlling the hardliners on either side. Both sides believe the land is theirs.

It's a religious and political conflict but it's also very much to do with control of economic resources.

Snorbs has it right but if I may add:

The Zionists ignore every UN resolution and the USA supports them by using their UN veto.

They have attempted to turn Ghaza into a concentration camp including denying medical aid and the right to leave to the inhabitants. Inflicted the last military attack (operation Cast Lead) which included shelling hospitals and schools. Illegally built the "security wall" and annexed more Palestinian land.

Hamas and the PLO have played into the Zionists hands with their actions but they are seen by their people as freedom fighters not terrorists.

Blame on both sides but far more on the Zionist side.

Think I agree with Snorbs.

As far as I know, this is the story. Are you sitting comfortably?

The Palestinians were quietly cultivating their gardens in Palestine. At the end of the war there were lots of Jews who needed somewhere to live. A (still) colonial power, not a million miles away decided to dump the Jews in a land that was already populated. (And there were other reasons why the area was chosen, of course).

Now, everyone felt sorry for the Jews and surely everyone agreed they needed somewhere to live. But instead of coexisting peacefully, both the Israeli Jews and the Palestinians started blowing each other up. This was made worse by secret backing of the Israeli Jews by the US and UK and the open backing of the Palestinians by the Arab bloc.

Also, nowadays the Jews seem to be building more and more houses and taking up more and more land. Plus they are heavily armed and have nuclear power, while the Palestinians are poorer and live like second-class citizens.

I don't know whose fault it is, or who I feel most sorry for. I really don't have an agenda. But until the leaders of both sides dig themselves out of their entrenched positions and sit down and talk about it, they will continue to kill each other.

I think this is more or less accurate, but if anyone has another take on it, please say your piece!

Wikipedia's coverage of it isn't too bad for a general overview. Here is a good place to start but there are lots and lots of links for more detail.

Inevitably it's not entirely unbiased but I've never seen a single unbiased history of the subject. Both sides have their own interpretations of history and events and it is those interpretations that are the driving force behind an awful lot of the conflict. And don't forget that all this is taking place in the wider context of both middle-eastern politics and global politics.

Declaration of interest - I think both sides have behaved appallingly. The atrocities committed by the PLO, Hamas etc are impossible to ignore. But on balance the combination of the sheer body-count of dead Palestinians, the blatantly illegal annexation of land, and the creation of what is effectively a state of apartheid, mean that my sympathies tend to lie more towards the Palestinian cause than the Israeli one.

And IME, anyone who says "My only agenda is the truth" is full of crap

We are all here to learn.

I am not here to be fed crap by a person with an unstated agenda however, and WEndy does not deserve that either.

Annie - I can't be arsed with the usual crap from twerps so managed to get in at post 2!

At least there might be a range of sensible opinions with reasons and interests stated.

Wendy

here's the wiki article

but you should read the discussion page. It's basically a health warning which says this is the biggest can of worms you can imagine, and there are NO neutral opinions on it.

I'm serious in that you should read lots of stuff, weigh it up in your own mind, and question, question, question all the time. Why? is the word you must have in your head. Do not reach any conclusions without being prepared to change your mind many times, over many a long year.

Ignore facile posters like glasnost. You are honest enough to say "I don't know", so don't agree with the first thing that someone like that comes up with just because they have a fixed idea in their heads.

Wow. I've seen this question brought up before and it usually gets filled pretty quickly by people who feel strongly for one side or the other. But this one is just weird! WTF are you all on about!?!

i watched 'the promise' on channel 4 the other day, sort of made it understandable

Ha I really am ignorant...... When I hear it discussed......

Someone give a proper answer!! I want to know too! I always feel so ignorant when I here it discussed.

oh? my opinion? more orders?

ok

1. you appear to have no sense of humour
2. you appear to have little self knowledge and perception of how you may appear to others
3. "whatevs" is probably better in this context than "whatever" which is a bit weak 4)here are some brilliant russian military hats for you, lots of important gold braid, right up your street I should think

Whatever, give an opinion instead of deriding others. LOL.

er, it means that you are currently a source of great amusement

this site may help you if you have any further problems with internet abbreviations

What DOES that mean?