Topic: 7 Things to Consider Before Choosing Sides in the Middle East Conflict (Read 2488 times)

1.) He says “Muslims have woken up around the world.” Which implies that they were, relatively speaking, asleep before Operation Protective Edge started when it came to the Israeli-Palestinian issue? That doesn’t really track given how pervasive the issue of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is in not only Arab and Islamic politics, but also in core Arab and to a lesser extent Islamic identity. This conflict, more than any other existing conflict in the world, has had a very large social impact on the Middle East and it remains a core concept in both pan-Arabic, anti-colonial / nationalistic, and Salafi Jihadi overarching ideological structures.

And no, I don’t think it is just about the numbers. It never has been. It started off as a matter of nationalism vs. western colonialism which has been a very pungent sector of discourse and mobilization for large parts of the world (pretty much every place that was once a European colony). Even in strongly independent countries concerns of neo-colonialism are a constant theme when it comes to developing states and their relations with larger powers. The big difference here is that Palestine has never been allowed / achieved its independence. As far as the nationalism and colonialism debate goes, it is the last unsettled vestige of western colonialism in the Middle East and Africa.

Things like the genocide in Darfur, the ISIS activity in Iraq, and the civil war in Syria are all more bloody, but with the exception perhaps of Darfur, none have been as long lasting. There is also another critical piece to the puzzle that goes along with the colonial and nationalism theme, and that is that none of the other listed examples are seen as imported conflicts from the West the way that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is. Syria, the ISIS, Darfur, etc are all horrible, but they are all internal conflicts largely perpetuated by internal actors. We’ve seen these differences in discourse reaction before with the Gulf War and how outraged and divisive the notion of western troops intervening was and especially how divisive stationing US troops on Saudi soil was relative to the initial conflict.

I also find his remarks of anti-Semitism driving the conflict to be a bit off in terms of the conflicts history. Rising anti-Semitism tends to be a side effect of the conflict, which, while it can and has reinforced said conflict, it isn’t the core driver of it; and never has been. The Arab uprising against the Turks that set the playing field for Arab nationalist interaction with Russian Jewish refugees had little to do with religion, and much more to do with ethnicity and regional identities.

Calling you out on ignoring the realities of current international relations isn't avoiding the issue. But I will answer your educational question with one of my own (which directly addresses yours) can you tell me the details of the Arab Peace Initiative that all of the countries that you have mentioned have voiced support for? Those textbooks exist because conflict persists, not the other way around.

And I would challenge you to prove it with an analysis of the peace process. I know you can't because I am familiar enough with it to know that the only faction in power in favor of peace is a Palestinian one (the PA under Abbas in the West Bank).

You're avoiding the issue here. Can you tell me what the various arabic schools teach their children about the proper Israeli borders? Bearing in mind I have several friends who either have children, or used to have children in schools in Kuwait, Oman, Lebanon, Iran, and Iraq, and UAE.

I wouldn't call the Palestinians chiefly responsible, but close to equally.

Mainstream Hamas?


I wouldn't call the Palestinians chiefly responsible, but close to equally.

You're avoiding the issue here. Can you tell me what the various arabic schools teach their children about the proper Israeli borders? Bearing in mind I have several friends who either have children, or used to have children in schools in Kuwait, Oman, Lebanon, Iran, and Iraq, and UAE.

Actually, it depends on the eventual destruction of Israel, as the more violent muslims in the area will never stop until Israel is gone, and the majority of the population, while not being willing to participate in something like that, are more than happy to look the other way.

I realize you disagree. But you are under the impression that Israel is the only one, or mostly in the wrong. You are incorrect, imo.

Do you really find any of the mainstream Palestinian statehood demands to be unreasonable? They are all legal, and all consistent with our expressed international ideology of human rights.

Not solely, but chiefly.

This stopped being a valid excuse for Israel long ago, it has a good working relationship with both the Egyptian government and Jordan, and Lebanon poses very little to no real threat to it. The "Israel is surrounded by enemies!" argument is antiquated and approaching racist levels (to be honest) in this day and age, as though Arabs have to be enemies of Jews. That isn't true in the least.

So you can have a problem with it, but it seems many people from the area who are more interested in making something of their lives, and raising a family without this kind of violence disagree with you.

And I've always had a problem with people overcomplicating the issue. My opinions tend to get formed from people I know from the area. As far as I can tell, anyone from Israel, Gaza, West Bank has told me exactly what I said. Each one feels their position is slightly better, but the overwhelming majority feel that the people who stay and fight continuously want to fight, and want to let hatred run their lives. One of these people even spent a fair amount of time in an Israeli prison, and was in government during the Arafat years. He doesn't like the Israelis, and he feels they are more in the wrong, but his opinion remains that both sides are crazy. I know several Israelis that have a different perspective on who is more wrong, but when asked, they just throw up their hands and say they're all nuts.

So you can have a problem with it, but it seems many people from the area who are more interested in making something of their lives, and raising a family without this kind of violence disagree with you.

I actually disagree strongly. Palestinians don't deserve to live under the conditions that they are kept under through the occupation. No population deserves that, it goes against our very purported principles as a nation and as a culture and as a global community to be OK with what Israel is doing in the West Bank and Gaza. I don't want to see the US pullout at all, I want to see it use its close relationship with Israel to pressure it into actually being a partner for peace.

An independent Palestinian state based on 1967 borders doesn't in any way depend on a genocide of anyone. Meanwhile A Jewish Israel with permanent occupation and eventual absorption of the territories does depend on either the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian population, or apartheid. We honestly saw colonies under European rule where the population of the controlled territory was treated MUCH better than how Israel currently treats the Palestinians. It is unjustifiable; plain and simple.

Trying to say the Palestinians or Israelis are solely at fault is just silly and counter productive. Militarily Israel is more at fault simply because they have a far superior military. Culturally, Palestinians and the larger arab world is more at fault. As in, check out the Israeli borders on all maps in middle eastern schools.

I've always had a problem with this kind of stance. I've heard a lot of people make such comments before and they always seem like cop outs to me; some vague attempt to appear 'balanced' or 'moderate'. But such a stance rarely has any real depth to it. such catch alls don't work in this issue (they rarely do in conflict in general). Just like the "it's both sides" argument. It's very clearly more one side than the others here when it comes to barriers to peace. There is also more than two sides, so the breaking of the conflict into only two pieces I find shallow in general.

As Umair127 mentioned, it needs to be properly discussed, and the consequences need to be clearly laid out...mostly for the benefit of the Israelis/Palestinians, who will not be happy with that outcome.

Trying to say the Palestinians or Israelis are solely at fault is just silly and counter productive.

Neither side can really win without a complete genocide, and that will reap it's own problems.

I also agree the best answer is for the US to gradually withdraw, leaving the status quo in place, and letting both sides know they deserve each other. Neither side can really win without a complete genocide, and that will reap it's own problems. As Umair127 mentioned, it needs to be properly discussed, and the consequences need to be clearly laid out...mostly for the benefit of the Israelis/Palestinians, who will not be happy with that outcome.