Before I learned anything about the ongoing war between Israel and Palestine, my opinion of the conflict shadowed political lines. In the 1990's, as a liberal leaning individual, I mirrored President Clinton’s cooperation with Ezer Weizman, Israel's President, sympathizing with Israel’s plight. However, with a change in leadership came a shift in opinion, where my lack of respect for President Bush influenced my foreign policy doctrine. When I saw images of President Bush making speeches to keeping America’s commitment to Israel strong, I revisited my loyalty to the team I was backing, and in my new mindset, I found reasons to believe the Palestinians could be as much of a victim as the Israelis could be aggressors. Confronted with biased media from both camps of a divided nation, my confusion over choosing sides evolved into a general apathy for the situation at large, disconnected from the tragic reality that human lives were invested in this situation.
Currently, in the light of President Obama’s conciliatory speech at the 2011 American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), and observing the backlash from critics, my apathy has been replaced with a desire to obtain a balanced view of the situation, which I hope will provide a methodology with which to weigh arguments. Unfortunately, as a resolution to the conflict is long off, and because discussions on history have the advantage of hindsight, all I am able to offer are criticisms.
Currently, in the light of President Obama’s conciliatory speech at the 2011 American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), and observing the backlash from critics, my apathy has been replaced with a desire to obtain a balanced view of the situation, which I hope will provide a methodology with which to weigh arguments. Unfortunately, as a resolution to the conflict is long off, and because discussions on history have the advantage of hindsight, all I am able to offer are criticisms.
 |
| Image: InterCarto.com |
There are those who believe that the Jews have a right to the land they currently control, as well as other tracts east of the Jordan River, supported by a historical precedent in the region. While this could be true, the timescales with which we can support this argument are vast to the point of questionability. Jewish history in the controversial area begins with the exodus from Egypt in 13th century BC, when the Jews conquered large tracts of land from the Canaanites on both sides of the Jordan River, from as far north as the Sea of Galilee, to as far south as the Dead Sea. Here, they established themselves and created a kingdom, which, along with enduring civil war, was conquered periodically throughout the ages. During times of foreign rule, depending on the conquerors, Jews were either treated well or as third class citizens, and many times, Jews left the land in hope of finding greener pastures. Only until the late 19th century did immigration back to Palestine develop substantially, and mirrored the development of the Zionist movement. So, in this very brief history of the Jewish people, support for Jewish historical precedence depends on when we qualify the start of history, where only after Jewish settlement of the region can we say that the Jews have the “right” to their land. However, as I am sure our Native American friends already know, this same argument falls flat when observe through larger historical frames. Thus, by engineering the timescales over which we analyze, we can come to a variety of conclusions, some of which support the Israeli cause, while others do not.
Arguments are equally suspicious from the opposite side of the spectrum. One particular argument made by Palestinians is that the Jewish people, over the course of the last century, have been displacing the native population by force and against the will of the people. To address this, we need to speak to how the Jewish people came to establish themselves, once again, in the region during the late 1800’s. Before significant immigration began, a substantial number of Jews lived in Eastern Europe and Russia. When anti-Semitism started rearing its ugly head, Jewish leaders began to think of ways to combat this movement. Conservative, orthodox leaders believed that God would eventually deliver the Jewish people back to their homeland, and that any attempt to alter this “God will provide” relationship by relocating under self determinism was heretical. Thus, these individuals adopted a “wait and see” stance. Others, however, believed that the Jewish people should assimilate with the particular culture in which they found themselves. By becoming more like the locals, it was argued, the Jews could assuage the anti-Semites.
Ironically, it was in the middle between these two “extremes” that Zionist thought began. Zionists believed that the only way to avoid persecution and mistreatment of their people was to establish a state for Jewish refuge. The most historically meaningful location for this refuge was in Palestine, where Zionists believed that their claim to this land was ordained by God. Even so, other locations were considered as well. Interestingly, during the search for this refuge at the turn of the 20th century, there was a push to establish a state in Uganda as a temporary holding ground for fleeing Jews, until a state in Palestine could be established under legitimacy provided by foreign countries, especially Britain. The proposal was met with harsh resistance, and in the end, Jewish leadership remained committed to Palestine and began raising funds to purchase land in the disputed region. Large parcels of land, most of which were of poor quality and in need substantial terraforming, were purchased at inflated prices from Arab owners, many of whom actually lived in other areas such as Egypt and maintained their holdings using Arab tenants. Not surprisingly, conflict arose when Arab tenants were removed from their homes post purchase, in many cases, without being informed beforehand. Thus, speaking to the argument at hand, it is apparent that in the majority of cases, the Jews obtained land through legal channels, and that the source of this particular conflict can be attributed to the owners who sold their land without regard to the lives of the affected individuals. It’s important to note that not everyone was against the arrival of the Jews. Before World War I, there was often cooperation between the two peoples as both were weary of the military, technological, and economic power Europeans wielded. Interestinglyronically, the success of the Jews in firmly establishing themselves in Palestine was significantly dependent upon their relationship with the British government before and after World War I.
Ironically, it was in the middle between these two “extremes” that Zionist thought began. Zionists believed that the only way to avoid persecution and mistreatment of their people was to establish a state for Jewish refuge. The most historically meaningful location for this refuge was in Palestine, where Zionists believed that their claim to this land was ordained by God. Even so, other locations were considered as well. Interestingly, during the search for this refuge at the turn of the 20th century, there was a push to establish a state in Uganda as a temporary holding ground for fleeing Jews, until a state in Palestine could be established under legitimacy provided by foreign countries, especially Britain. The proposal was met with harsh resistance, and in the end, Jewish leadership remained committed to Palestine and began raising funds to purchase land in the disputed region. Large parcels of land, most of which were of poor quality and in need substantial terraforming, were purchased at inflated prices from Arab owners, many of whom actually lived in other areas such as Egypt and maintained their holdings using Arab tenants. Not surprisingly, conflict arose when Arab tenants were removed from their homes post purchase, in many cases, without being informed beforehand. Thus, speaking to the argument at hand, it is apparent that in the majority of cases, the Jews obtained land through legal channels, and that the source of this particular conflict can be attributed to the owners who sold their land without regard to the lives of the affected individuals. It’s important to note that not everyone was against the arrival of the Jews. Before World War I, there was often cooperation between the two peoples as both were weary of the military, technological, and economic power Europeans wielded. Interestinglyronically, the success of the Jews in firmly establishing themselves in Palestine was significantly dependent upon their relationship with the British government before and after World War I.
There are too many arguments and questionable justifications for war to confront and analyze in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In addition, it is always easier to criticize and dictate opinions from the outside, while those inside, with loved ones dying and distrust building day to day, struggle to find mantras and opinions which are able to maintain self esteem and put suffering and death into greater perspective. And yet, because the United States has a significant sphere of influence between the Western powers in the Middle East, it’s important for the American public to realize that there are always other, equally valid interpretations to those we accept as accurate. Thus, at the risk of sounding cliché, we need to keep our minds open, our judgments pending, our understanding thorough, and our compassion high, in order to make the right decisions, especially when lives are literally on the line.
No comments:
Post a Comment