Israel the reason for Palestinian Conflict
A recent article in the Martlet (Hamas to blame in Gaza Conflict, Jan. 29) was relatively successful in spreading more misinformation on the current conflict in Gaza. The author, Matan Levanon, conveniently left out many key facts that would render his position moot.
His basic argument was that Hamas broke the ceasefire that led to the most recent bloody conflict in the Gaza strip, which claimed the lives of some 1,300 Gaza residents (including 280 children) and wounded 4,300 others. He argues that Israel was only responding to the many rocket attacks that threaten its southern inhabitants. On the contrary, it is Israel that is to blame for breaking the ceasefire.
On the night of Nov. 4, Israeli air strikes into Gaza killed six alleged Hamas militants building tunnels to allegedly kidnap an Israeli soldier. Before this strike, the ceasefire was for the most part respected. Between June 18 and Nov. 4, rocket fire into Israel decreased 98 per cent. After Israel broke the ceasefire with its Nov. 4 raid however, rocket fire returned to to pre-truce levels.
It becomes obvious that if it was in Israel's genuine interest to keep rocket fire to a minimum, it would have done its best to maintain the ceasefire, but instead it did the opposite and engaged in a little known attack into Gaza on a night when everyone was busy watching the election of Barack Obama.
Once Hamas rockets were fired in retaliation, Israel had their excuse and went on a heavy offensive. The gears of their war machine had begun turning. Not long after, Israelis were being accused of war crimes and were publicly condemned by Amnesty International and The Red Cross.
There were allegations of illegal weapons use, such as white phosphorous (initially denied by the Israelis, until they bombed a UN school with it), the usage of which is illegal in heavily populated areas, like the Gaza strip.
UN schools were bombed, shelters were bombed, universities, ministries and anything related to infrastructure went up in smoke. Israel conveniently blamed all of this on Hamas.
On the other side there were relatively few casualties.
Stepping back from this for a bit, we need to see this latest conflict as merely another incident stemming from a much larger and more historical one. Many people wonder why countries like Iran, Syria and even groups like Hamas don't bother recognizing Israel and getting on with their day. The media, the U.S. government and Israel all denounce these groups and the leaders of these countries as extremists, terrorists, islamo-fascists, anti-Semites and so on.
Likewise, many are led to believe that Israel is the true victim here, and that they are merely trying to live peacefully but are constantly attacked by (petty) rockets from terrorist groups like Hamas and their Islamo-fascist support in Iran.
The reality could not be further from the truth. Ultimately, the Israelis are living on a land that not too long ago belonged to someone else. They are occupiers and, like every other occupation in history, they have been met with resistance.
But don't take my word for it, they've admitted it themselves.
Let us not ignore the truth among ourselves ... politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves ... The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country ... Behind the terrorism is a movement, which though primitive is not devoid of idealism and self-sacrifice, said Israel's first prime minister, David Ben Gurion, in 1938.
Occupiers can never be seen as victims of those whose land they occupy. The concept is absurd.
They can, however, suffer the retaliation that comes as a consequence of occupation, but this retaliation is ultimately of their own creation. It may seem hard to picture, but ultimately the true victims are those firing the rockets. There is a reason why rockets are fired, and why there are suicide bombers.
I have nowhere near the amount of required space to present the many quotes by high-level Israeli political figures and their supporters throughout history that contain racist and hateful things as well as the admission of acts and intents many of their followers today passionately denounce and deny. There isn't only one side in this conflict capable of hate and terrorism, but two.
The one that is most commonly portrayed as such by our media is merely a response to the other, much better hidden one.
If we do not do our own research and try and get a good understanding of the fundamental issues on both sides, then perhaps Ben Gurion's assurance to his followers in 1948 that The old will die and the young will forget will come true.
18 Comments
The Martlet has an open comments policy and will endeavour to promote healthy discussion. We strive to act as an agent of constructive social change and will remove racist, sexist, homophobic, or otherwise oppressive comments.
Leave a Comment
David Howard Feb. 14, 2009, 1:58 p.m.
Prior to the Jewish pioneers much of what is now Israel was swamp and dessert which nobody much wanted. Now it has been transformed into a beautiful country and the only democracy in the area all sorts of claims are being made in an Islamic attempt to demonize and de-legitamize the Jewish Homeland on which Jews had lived for well over 3000 years. Since 1948 hundreds of thousands of Jews who were thrown out of Arab countries and deprived of all their possessions have also settled in Israel with the help of the Jews in Israel whilst none of the Arab countries except Jordan will even allow the Palestinians to work in their countries as Israel were. It is time the Palestinian myth an Hamas lies were dismissed once and for all. D.Howard
David Howard Feb. 14, 2009, 1:58 p.m.
Prior to the Jewish pioneers much of what is now Israel was swamp and dessert which nobody much wanted. Now it has been transformed into a beautiful country and the only democracy in the area all sorts of claims are being made in an Islamic attempt to demonize and de-legitamize the Jewish Homeland on which Jews had lived for well over 3000 years. Since 1948 hundreds of thousands of Jews who were thrown out of Arab countries and deprived of all their possessions have also settled in Israel with the help of the Jews in Israel whilst none of the Arab countries except Jordan will even allow the Palestinians to work in their countries as Israel were. It is time the Palestinian myth an Hamas lies were dismissed once and for all. D.Howard
Scott Feb. 14, 2009, 6:30 p.m.
Interesting point of view David. I'm taking a history class specifically on the Arab-Israeli conflict and most of what I've read contradicts what you are saying (specifically the quality of land taken over, if said land was not being used prior to being taken over, and the amount of Jews expelled from Arab lands in 1948). Would you be able to suggest some scholarly articles or books that I could read for myself that backs up your statements?
Something we can agree on is that Jewish people have been living in the area for something along the lines of 3000 years. However, a quibble I would have with this position is that the land acquired in 1948 was not the historical land that the original Jewish population lived on 3000 years ago. That land had a dense and established Arab population by 1948. To my understanding where the roots of the current Israeli state started to grow in 1948 was historically, 3000 years ago, Arab land. The land was eventually vacated due to security concerns stemming from the nomadic Bedioun (sp?) tribes during a weak point in the Ottoman Empire. This could be interpreted as splitting hairs, but I do think its important to mention that the historic claim to 3000 years ago is a little dubious.
What makes the claim even more dubious to me, again judging by what i've been reading the past while, is that the Jewish people are ethnically related to the Palestinians. I'm sure you're familiar with the Canaanites who lived in the Israel, Gaza and I think Lebanon area around the period under discussion. I think its important to note that 3200 years ago the same people lived on the land and shared it amongst themselves.
Scott Feb. 14, 2009, 6:30 p.m.
Interesting point of view David. I'm taking a history class specifically on the Arab-Israeli conflict and most of what I've read contradicts what you are saying (specifically the quality of land taken over, if said land was not being used prior to being taken over, and the amount of Jews expelled from Arab lands in 1948). Would you be able to suggest some scholarly articles or books that I could read for myself that backs up your statements?
Something we can agree on is that Jewish people have been living in the area for something along the lines of 3000 years. However, a quibble I would have with this position is that the land acquired in 1948 was not the historical land that the original Jewish population lived on 3000 years ago. That land had a dense and established Arab population by 1948. To my understanding where the roots of the current Israeli state started to grow in 1948 was historically, 3000 years ago, Arab land. The land was eventually vacated due to security concerns stemming from the nomadic Bedioun (sp?) tribes during a weak point in the Ottoman Empire. This could be interpreted as splitting hairs, but I do think its important to mention that the historic claim to 3000 years ago is a little dubious.
What makes the claim even more dubious to me, again judging by what i've been reading the past while, is that the Jewish people are ethnically related to the Palestinians. I'm sure you're familiar with the Canaanites who lived in the Israel, Gaza and I think Lebanon area around the period under discussion. I think its important to note that 3200 years ago the same people lived on the land and shared it amongst themselves.
David Howard Feb. 15, 2009, 2:29 a.m.
Dear Scott. I understand history is being re-written in an attempt to demonize and de-legitamize the Jewish Homeland .I know there are several books written and many contradict each other but I lived in Israel from 1974 until 1980 and actually saw what was desert in 1974 transformed into Bat-Yam, a beautiful sea side resort as well as much other work to make the desert bloom. If you want to get a better idea of the situation then you would do well to go to Israel and meet the people and see some of the archeology, much of which the Arabs try to destroy as it does not support their claims. The only languages found 2000 years ago were Hebrew of different ages, Aramiac and latin as far as I know, with no trace of any Arabic until hundreds of years later. I wonder why?
David Howard Feb. 15, 2009, 2:29 a.m.
Dear Scott. I understand history is being re-written in an attempt to demonize and de-legitamize the Jewish Homeland .I know there are several books written and many contradict each other but I lived in Israel from 1974 until 1980 and actually saw what was desert in 1974 transformed into Bat-Yam, a beautiful sea side resort as well as much other work to make the desert bloom. If you want to get a better idea of the situation then you would do well to go to Israel and meet the people and see some of the archeology, much of which the Arabs try to destroy as it does not support their claims. The only languages found 2000 years ago were Hebrew of different ages, Aramiac and latin as far as I know, with no trace of any Arabic until hundreds of years later. I wonder why?
Paul D Feb. 17, 2009, 1:50 a.m.
David,
I know you mean well, but you haven't answered the question. You speak of contradicting books and articles, but you're giving no resources except the suggestion that we
go there.Don't get me wrong, I'd love to go! Honestly, it's somewhere I've always wanted to visit and see for myself, but unless you plan on paying for the plane ticket and hotel accommodations, I'll need some actual proof that comes from something financially more achievable.
Furthermore, using your
language on land logic, Canadians and Americans should pack their bags and head back to Europe. 3000 ago they weren't speaking any English around here, and then we swept in and caused a fuss resulting in an ugly part of North American history.Also, in response to the article,
It may seem hard to picture, but ultimately the true victims are those firing the rockets.I agree and disagree. I agree in terms of these people are victims of an illegal occupation and are retaliating (although my firm view is that violence always leads to more violence), but the TRUE victims are the oppressed innocent people who become collateral damage.Paul D Feb. 17, 2009, 1:50 a.m.
David,
I know you mean well, but you haven't answered the question. You speak of contradicting books and articles, but you're giving no resources except the suggestion that we
go there.Don't get me wrong, I'd love to go! Honestly, it's somewhere I've always wanted to visit and see for myself, but unless you plan on paying for the plane ticket and hotel accommodations, I'll need some actual proof that comes from something financially more achievable.
Furthermore, using your
language on land logic, Canadians and Americans should pack their bags and head back to Europe. 3000 ago they weren't speaking any English around here, and then we swept in and caused a fuss resulting in an ugly part of North American history.Also, in response to the article,
It may seem hard to picture, but ultimately the true victims are those firing the rockets.I agree and disagree. I agree in terms of these people are victims of an illegal occupation and are retaliating (although my firm view is that violence always leads to more violence), but the TRUE victims are the oppressed innocent people who become collateral damage.Matan Levanon Feb. 28, 2009, 3:41 p.m.
Dear Saeid, You say that Israel broke the cease-fire but at the same time, you say that Hamas rockets shooting decreased by 98%. So which one is it? According to YOU, Hamas never stopped shooting (98% is not a cease-fire). You might want to check some of your sources, the UN school was allegedly shot with regular mortar shells and 2 weeks ago, the UN gave a statement saying that Israel did not shoot the school but the militants that were shooting from its yard. Israel never denied the fact that it is occupying land from 1967, and this is the fundamental assumption for the peace process. I just hope that your readers, and mine, take the time and effort to research for the information that is out there, on both sides, in order to understand it better.
Matan Levanon Feb. 28, 2009, 3:41 p.m.
Dear Saeid, You say that Israel broke the cease-fire but at the same time, you say that Hamas rockets shooting decreased by 98%. So which one is it? According to YOU, Hamas never stopped shooting (98% is not a cease-fire). You might want to check some of your sources, the UN school was allegedly shot with regular mortar shells and 2 weeks ago, the UN gave a statement saying that Israel did not shoot the school but the militants that were shooting from its yard. Israel never denied the fact that it is occupying land from 1967, and this is the fundamental assumption for the peace process. I just hope that your readers, and mine, take the time and effort to research for the information that is out there, on both sides, in order to understand it better.
Steve Weatherbe Feb. 28, 2009, 10:46 p.m.
References to support David Howard's views abound in Joan Peters' From Time Immemorial.`
Steve Weatherbe Feb. 28, 2009, 10:46 p.m.
References to support David Howard's views abound in Joan Peters' From Time Immemorial.`
Saeid Nassaji March 1, 2009, 11:12 p.m.
Hi Matan,
While the ceasefire was largely effective, it was still not fully respected by BOTH sides (i.e. Israeli air strikes still occurred as well, and Hamas' demands of border crossings being opened never met). However a 98% decrease is quite significant, and definitely worth preserving, especially when Hamas leaders were threatening to punish members of their own group who did fire rockets during the ceasefire. However it has recently come to light that the Israelis were planning this latest conflict some 6 months in advance, which brings to question their motives and their reasoning as a whole. Why break a pretty decent ceasefire? And what did this latest offensive really accomplish for Israel? Aside from weakening the Palestinian population, which is clearly in the interest of Israel.
My main problem with your viewpoint is that it effectively ignores the root of the problem. It seems that the suicide bombers and the rocket launchers do what they do only out of hate, or
islamic fanaticism. This ignores the Israeli occupation, the illegal settlements, the humiliating checkpoints, the control of borders, the curfews, the demolition of Palestinian homes, The torching of crops, thewall of apartheidetc...60 minutes did a fascinating look into these issues, you can find that here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYAgyv2MKyI
It also ignores the principles upon which Israel was founded, and how even its founders did not see the Palestinians as real people. People like to say there is a lot of hate towards Israel in the middle east, perhaps because they are Jewish or for other reasons. They talk up the (misinterpreted) quotes by Ahmadenejad calling for Israel to be wiped off the map, and Hamas' determination to destroy Israel, or how both of them do not recognize Israel's right to exist. Unfortunately this is a two way street, as you will discover here: http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/palestinians.html?q=palestinians.html
Israel is often portrayed as a defensive nation, one that is always on the defense. Everything it does is always a response to something the Palestinians did, always a retaliation. I wonder how an occupier can be on the defensive when it comes to its relationship with the people whose land it occupies? Can I come and take over your house, your land and then when you throw rocks through your (now mine) window, attack you and say I'm defending myself? That I have a right to defend myself? It's absurd. More on this here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCL6WdnuNp4
Another thing your viewpoint ignores is the proportionality of this response (that in the first place is absurd, because it is a response by the occupier to the retaliation of those under occupation or the control of the occupier). During this conflict, 3 Israelis were killed as a result of rocket fire, compared to 1300 Palestinians. That is a rate of ~430 Palestinians/Israeli killed. Why? Over the last 8 years only 28 Israelis have been killed from rocket fire, 1300 lives in 22 days as a response to 28 killed in 8 years? Again, why? What if Israel actually faced a foe that was equally armed? What if in 22 days a powerful Palestinian army killed 1300 Israelis and turned a major Israeli city to rubble? What would Israel's response to that be then? Would it involve nuclear weapons? There is no restraint. And some say Iran is the biggest threat facing the world today.
Finally you ignore what some consider to be very racist double standards that are applied to Israel and are the main root of why most of the middle east despises Israel. They are:
-All parties and all “respectable” intellectuals or commentators, in order to gain access to the debate, must start by affirming “Israel’s right to exist”. But “Palestine’s right to exist” is scarcely ever mentioned. A Palestinian state, if ever it exists, will result not from a “right”, but from a negotiation, and only from a negotiation for which the Palestinians can provide the Israelis with “a responsible partner”, that is, one that recognizes as a precondition its adversary’s right to exist, without reciprocity. -Any individual of Jewish origin has the right to settle in Israel, receiving immediately full citizen’s right and financial support, but the non-Jews who were chased away in 1948 or afterwards, or their descendants, cannot return. Even within Palestine, their movements from one place to another are severely limited. -Hamas and Hezbollah must be prevented from rearming, while Israel can receive from the United States, even as a gift, all the arms it wants. -Israel is constantly celebrated as “the only democracy in the Middle East”, but the free elections of the Palestinians are considered invalid. -The Palestinians must “renounce violence”. Not Israel. -Iran must not possess nuclear weapons. Israel’s nuclear arsenal is not challenged. All these double standards rest finally on the idea that the initial colonization enterprise was legitimate, or else that it happened long ago and is not worth talking about. But both those attitudes deny the full humanity of the victims.
The problem is Israel wants its cake (land) and to eat it too (peace). And they want to do all of this without making any major concessions, be they getting rid of the above double standards or giving back the land that doesnt belong to them. They don't want Iran to have nukes, but they don't want to get rid of their own illegal ones. They don't want Hamas rocket fire, but they dont want to open up the borders (a major Hamas demand). They don't want suicide bombers, but they still want to keep building settlements. Unfortunately that's not how the world works, or at least how rational humans work, and that's why we have a conflict there.
Saeid Nassaji March 1, 2009, 11:12 p.m.
Hi Matan,
While the ceasefire was largely effective, it was still not fully respected by BOTH sides (i.e. Israeli air strikes still occurred as well, and Hamas' demands of border crossings being opened never met). However a 98% decrease is quite significant, and definitely worth preserving, especially when Hamas leaders were threatening to punish members of their own group who did fire rockets during the ceasefire. However it has recently come to light that the Israelis were planning this latest conflict some 6 months in advance, which brings to question their motives and their reasoning as a whole. Why break a pretty decent ceasefire? And what did this latest offensive really accomplish for Israel? Aside from weakening the Palestinian population, which is clearly in the interest of Israel.
My main problem with your viewpoint is that it effectively ignores the root of the problem. It seems that the suicide bombers and the rocket launchers do what they do only out of hate, or
islamic fanaticism. This ignores the Israeli occupation, the illegal settlements, the humiliating checkpoints, the control of borders, the curfews, the demolition of Palestinian homes, The torching of crops, thewall of apartheidetc...60 minutes did a fascinating look into these issues, you can find that here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYAgyv2MKyI
It also ignores the principles upon which Israel was founded, and how even its founders did not see the Palestinians as real people. People like to say there is a lot of hate towards Israel in the middle east, perhaps because they are Jewish or for other reasons. They talk up the (misinterpreted) quotes by Ahmadenejad calling for Israel to be wiped off the map, and Hamas' determination to destroy Israel, or how both of them do not recognize Israel's right to exist. Unfortunately this is a two way street, as you will discover here: http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/palestinians.html?q=palestinians.html
Israel is often portrayed as a defensive nation, one that is always on the defense. Everything it does is always a response to something the Palestinians did, always a retaliation. I wonder how an occupier can be on the defensive when it comes to its relationship with the people whose land it occupies? Can I come and take over your house, your land and then when you throw rocks through your (now mine) window, attack you and say I'm defending myself? That I have a right to defend myself? It's absurd. More on this here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCL6WdnuNp4
Another thing your viewpoint ignores is the proportionality of this response (that in the first place is absurd, because it is a response by the occupier to the retaliation of those under occupation or the control of the occupier). During this conflict, 3 Israelis were killed as a result of rocket fire, compared to 1300 Palestinians. That is a rate of ~430 Palestinians/Israeli killed. Why? Over the last 8 years only 28 Israelis have been killed from rocket fire, 1300 lives in 22 days as a response to 28 killed in 8 years? Again, why? What if Israel actually faced a foe that was equally armed? What if in 22 days a powerful Palestinian army killed 1300 Israelis and turned a major Israeli city to rubble? What would Israel's response to that be then? Would it involve nuclear weapons? There is no restraint. And some say Iran is the biggest threat facing the world today.
Finally you ignore what some consider to be very racist double standards that are applied to Israel and are the main root of why most of the middle east despises Israel. They are:
-All parties and all “respectable” intellectuals or commentators, in order to gain access to the debate, must start by affirming “Israel’s right to exist”. But “Palestine’s right to exist” is scarcely ever mentioned. A Palestinian state, if ever it exists, will result not from a “right”, but from a negotiation, and only from a negotiation for which the Palestinians can provide the Israelis with “a responsible partner”, that is, one that recognizes as a precondition its adversary’s right to exist, without reciprocity. -Any individual of Jewish origin has the right to settle in Israel, receiving immediately full citizen’s right and financial support, but the non-Jews who were chased away in 1948 or afterwards, or their descendants, cannot return. Even within Palestine, their movements from one place to another are severely limited. -Hamas and Hezbollah must be prevented from rearming, while Israel can receive from the United States, even as a gift, all the arms it wants. -Israel is constantly celebrated as “the only democracy in the Middle East”, but the free elections of the Palestinians are considered invalid. -The Palestinians must “renounce violence”. Not Israel. -Iran must not possess nuclear weapons. Israel’s nuclear arsenal is not challenged. All these double standards rest finally on the idea that the initial colonization enterprise was legitimate, or else that it happened long ago and is not worth talking about. But both those attitudes deny the full humanity of the victims.
The problem is Israel wants its cake (land) and to eat it too (peace). And they want to do all of this without making any major concessions, be they getting rid of the above double standards or giving back the land that doesnt belong to them. They don't want Iran to have nukes, but they don't want to get rid of their own illegal ones. They don't want Hamas rocket fire, but they dont want to open up the borders (a major Hamas demand). They don't want suicide bombers, but they still want to keep building settlements. Unfortunately that's not how the world works, or at least how rational humans work, and that's why we have a conflict there.
Ken MacQuarrie March 2, 2009, 9:27 p.m.
John Lennon wrote
War is over-if you want it. Isn't it as simple as that? i am not a military analyst, nor am i a historian. While it may be somewhat important to know historical issues in order to help resolve conflicts,isn't it just as important to stop killing NOW? it doesn't really matter (to me anyway) who started what or who's really to blame-the point is that human beings are being killed-kids are bieng killed-innocent people are being wiped out in vast numbers (even one is too many)! The bottom line must be that people enjoy killing-otherwise they wouldn't do it! People can talk all they want about things beingmore complicated than that;perhaps i just don't understand; i appologize for not being more understanding of the complexities of war. If theres going to be dialougue regarding war-how 'bout talking about stopping this or any other war right now rather than who is right, or who started what. If this is the way governments are going to act-then these governments should go to their rooms without any supper, and think about what they are doing-and just stop it!Ken MacQuarrie March 2, 2009, 9:27 p.m.
John Lennon wrote
War is over-if you want it. Isn't it as simple as that? i am not a military analyst, nor am i a historian. While it may be somewhat important to know historical issues in order to help resolve conflicts,isn't it just as important to stop killing NOW? it doesn't really matter (to me anyway) who started what or who's really to blame-the point is that human beings are being killed-kids are bieng killed-innocent people are being wiped out in vast numbers (even one is too many)! The bottom line must be that people enjoy killing-otherwise they wouldn't do it! People can talk all they want about things beingmore complicated than that;perhaps i just don't understand; i appologize for not being more understanding of the complexities of war. If theres going to be dialougue regarding war-how 'bout talking about stopping this or any other war right now rather than who is right, or who started what. If this is the way governments are going to act-then these governments should go to their rooms without any supper, and think about what they are doing-and just stop it!Saeid Nassaji March 5, 2009, 1:27 a.m.
Hi Ken,
Unfortunately war is often over something, be it land, natural resources or just power and control. Both sides want something, and unless they get it they're not going to stop fighting.
If you want to learn more about this particular conflict in the middle east, and to see why it is very difficult to
just stop fightingI recommend you watch: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2451908450811690589Saeid Nassaji March 5, 2009, 1:27 a.m.
Hi Ken,
Unfortunately war is often over something, be it land, natural resources or just power and control. Both sides want something, and unless they get it they're not going to stop fighting.
If you want to learn more about this particular conflict in the middle east, and to see why it is very difficult to
just stop fightingI recommend you watch: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2451908450811690589