My synopsis on oil in the Israeli-Arab conflict resides in this: oil has no bearing on the conflict itself, but rather the diplomatic strategy in providing support from major industrialized nations to either the arabs who have the oil (ex: russia) or the Israelis who don't have the oil (but can use bargaining chips to lower prices with peace agreements) (ex: America).
OIL IS A DIPLOMATIC WEAPON FOR OUTSIDERS- no baring to the conflict itself. SURPRISE!
Ali, Sheikh Rustum. "6: The Arab-Israeli Conflict and the Oil Weapon." Oil, Turmoil, and Islam in the Middle East . New York: Praeger, 1986. 106-136. Print.
His History of conflict
simultaneously while zionism was rising (20s,30s):
"At this time the Arab world was passing through some of its most difficult days. The French capture of Algiers in 1830 paved the way for Western domination of the Arab world. At the same time an Arab revival -- a renewed sense of language and cultural pride and a desire for self-government-was emerging. These sentiments found little sympathy with Ottoman authorities, with their predilection for centralism, and were adroitly exploited by their enemies." (pg.106-107)
OIL AS A WEAPON
"Except for the first, oil figured significantly in all Arab-Israeli wars. In 1948, Arab oil production was negligible. Iran was the major Middle East producer. Britain still had complete control of the oil supply passing through the Suez Canal. In 1956, oil shipments via the canal to Western countries were blocked. In 1967, the canal was closed indefinitely.
In 1973, Egypt and Syria launched full-scale military attacks against Israeli occupation forces. The Arab oil weapon fully came into play. There was a five-month embargo on oil shipments to the United States and the Netherlands. A partial embargo was in effect against other nations.
Although the decision would be much more serious than in 1973, most observers believe that a renewed Arab-Israeli war would precipitate a more severe oil embargo. It is also axiomatic that the United States would not permit Israel to be destroyed in a war. By the same token, Soviet support for the Arab cause cannot be assured. The Soviet Union backed out of its support of the Arab war effort in 1967. Again in 1973 it did not fulfill its announced intention to send volunteers to the Middle East as soon as the United States put its strategic forces on alert.
The two superpowers may come to terms in the new economic game now in progress in the Middle East. All nations are interested in securing oil supplies at affordable prices. By imposing an embargo the producing and exporting Arab nations turned the Middle East crisis into a global trauma. Even the communist nations and many Third World countries-the main supporters of the oil price increase -are feeling the pinch of the energy crisis.
Diplomacy has had a chance to settle the Middle East crisis, and its value is not completely lost. It can still succeed, provided the Palestinians refrain from calling for Israel's destruction and settle for a homeland on the West Bank of the Jordan River and the Gaza Strip. " (pg.110-111)
Industrial Weaknesses & Diplomacy
"The Arab-Israeli conflict has created a political climate in the Third World in support of oil price increases. Essentially, the price increases were a revolutionary attempt to seize control of the resource and radically redistribute the wealth. The political and strategic implications of the oil weapon must be seen in light of the role of the oil weapon in the struggle for political hegemony among various preindustrialized nations. The London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies examined this changing situation, concluding:
This was the first time that major industrial states had to bow to pressure from pre-industrial ones. . . . The victory upset the hierarchies of power long enjoyed, or resented, according to one's station, and opened up prospects of quite new political balances. By the same token, it was by far the biggest extension of the world's effective political arena since the Chinese Revolution. 6
The Middle East situation, with regard to the Arab-Israeli conflict, has changed little, except that under the Camp David agreement Egypt got back its land from Israel. The question now is whether the Arabs can use their petrodiplomacy bargaining power in the future. "
Thursday, January 13, 2011
A Concise History of the Middle East; Goldschmidt
So I'm back to hitting the books (literal and virtual), looking for information on oil, water, nationalism, and a well-founded root for the Middle East disaster. So far I've gotten some good sources... My notes:
Goldschmidt, Arthur. "16: the Contest for Palestine." A Concise History of the Middle East . 6th ed. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1999. 230-248. Print.
SOLID HISTORY ON THE MODERN CONFLICT
"Palestine, the "twice-promised land" as British wags used to call it." (pg. 230)
Origins of conflict:
back to Abraham and Ishmael, or much more recent? Jews and Muslims lived side-by-side for centuries, it all started during WWI, and the rise of nationalism, anti-semitism, zionism, pan-arab nationalism, and revolt. HOWEVER, "Civil wars, hijackings, assassinations, kidnappings, revolutions, invasions, and refugee problems have occurred in many Middle Eastern countries" (pg. 230) long before the Arab-Israel conflict.
Had a GREAT portion on zionism... parphrased: not all jews are zionistic (eg:Nun-Kafs; my own refference) , not all zionists are jews (eg: messianic christians waiting for the apocalypse).
" Even some Gentiles who dislike Jews support Israel, perhaps because Zionism stresses the uniqueness of Jews, as do anti-Semites (opponents of Jews), and because it opposes the assimilation of Jews into Gentile society. Likewise, anti-Zionists are not necessarily anti-Semites. Some may be pro-Arab out of sincere conviction." (pg.231)
Nationalism=NATION
"Zionism is a nationalist movement similar to Arab nationalism and other Middle Eastern nationalisms we have already studied. It may seem odd to Americans that Jews should call themselves a "nation." We never speak of a Catholic or a Methodist nation in the United States. American Jews do not view themselves as Israelis, nor do Israelis so regard them. Nevertheless, a belief prevails among all Jews-Orthodox, Conservative, Reconstructionist, Reform, and nonobservant--that they do constitute one people and that their collective survival depends on mutual support and cooperation. Even persons of Jewish ancestry who do not practice Judaism--indeed, even those who have converted to another faith--are still apt to be regarded as Jews unless they make strenuous efforts to prove they are not. Most Gentiles realize these facts, at least dimly."
Balfour Declaration
Britan, Balfour Declaration... yadaa, yadda, yadda, simultaneously gave arab support with the Muhammad correspondence letters...
Brittish Mandates (pg.239-240)
"Britain's Palestine policy seemed to go in two opposite directions. In the international arena, on the one hand, it tended to back Zionist aims because of Jewish political pressure on London and, indeed, on the League of Nations, headquartered in Geneva. In Palestine, on the other hand, British officials favored the Arabs, often influenced by concern for Muslim opinion in neighboring countries and in India. Remember that these were general tendencies, not hard-and-fast rules. When the League of Nations awarded the Palestine mandate in July 1922, it specifically charged Britain with carrying out the Balfour Declaration. In other words, Britain had to encourage Jews to migrate to Palestine and to settle there, help create the Jewish "national home," and even set up a "Jewish agency" to assist the British authorities in developing that national home, which none dared to call a "state."
The Palestine mandate could not be the same as the league's mandates for Syria and Iraq, which were to help them develop into independent states (thus requiring that they be given constitutions within a three-year period). In Syria and Iraq, everyone knew that the mandates were supposed to prepare their inhabitants to rule themselves. In Palestine, however, although most of the inhabitants at the time were Arabs, it was the Jewish national home that was to be created. The Palestine mandate called only for "self-governing institutions," with no definite deadline for their creation. The Arabs naturally suspected that the British mandate would hold them in colonial bondage until the Jews achieved a majority in Palestine and could set up their state."
Collaboration efforts with the Mufsti (Hajj Amin al-Husayni) and Britain's first civilian governor in Palestine, Sir Herbert Samuel (a prominent zionist) failed when Western wall civil war erupted over who gets to control holy site. (called the Western Wall Incident)
NAZZIIIISSSSS
"During the 1930s, Jewish-Arab relations worsened. The rise to power of Hitler and his Nazi party in Germany put the Jews in that country--numbering almost a million--in dire peril." pg.242
Arabs were angry because Jews were overflowing, America didn't want to accept the Jews, sent 'em to Palestine, again, arabs even LESS happy.. resistance broke out, British sent out political forms of action with the Peel Commission (inquiry into Arab's complaints) and White Papers (which reduced the number of Jews allowed to enter the Mandate which led to a growth in illegal immigration, and promised Arabs land) hence, further pissing off both Jews (limited their #s and somewhat folded on the Balfour Declaration) and the Arabs (postponing their independence, and STILL allowing some Jews in).
THE U,S, OF A
Well, like good 'ol America does, gets involved clamors supports for zionisim and the Jews, inconsiderate of the Arabs, because they want to make up for Hitler's sins (these are the Jews and Christian-American voters) WITHOUT raising the quota of Jews allowed into the US. So, basically making it up to the JEws without doing anything: dump them on the Arabs. Not helpful.
Civil War in Palestine
Zionist Terrorist organizations didn't help the cause by blowing british buildings up (Irgun Tzvei Le'umi (National Military Organization) and the Stern Gang).
"Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry went to Palestine in 1946 and interviewed both mandate officials and nationalist leaders. It called for a continuation of the mandate, but its most publicized recommendation was to admit 100,000 European Jewish refugees at once and to end all restrictions on Jewish land purchases. The new Labour government in Britain rejected this advice and advocated instead a federated Arab-Jewish Palestine. This satisfied no one, and the fighting worsened. Finally, Britain went before the UN General Assembly in February 1947 and admitted that it could no longer keep the mandate. Its Palestine policy was bankrupt." (pg. 245)
Goldschmidt, Arthur. "16: the Contest for Palestine." A Concise History of the Middle East . 6th ed. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1999. 230-248. Print.
SOLID HISTORY ON THE MODERN CONFLICT
"Palestine, the "twice-promised land" as British wags used to call it." (pg. 230)
Origins of conflict:
back to Abraham and Ishmael, or much more recent? Jews and Muslims lived side-by-side for centuries, it all started during WWI, and the rise of nationalism, anti-semitism, zionism, pan-arab nationalism, and revolt. HOWEVER, "Civil wars, hijackings, assassinations, kidnappings, revolutions, invasions, and refugee problems have occurred in many Middle Eastern countries" (pg. 230) long before the Arab-Israel conflict.
Had a GREAT portion on zionism... parphrased: not all jews are zionistic (eg:Nun-Kafs; my own refference) , not all zionists are jews (eg: messianic christians waiting for the apocalypse).
" Even some Gentiles who dislike Jews support Israel, perhaps because Zionism stresses the uniqueness of Jews, as do anti-Semites (opponents of Jews), and because it opposes the assimilation of Jews into Gentile society. Likewise, anti-Zionists are not necessarily anti-Semites. Some may be pro-Arab out of sincere conviction." (pg.231)
Nationalism=NATION
"Zionism is a nationalist movement similar to Arab nationalism and other Middle Eastern nationalisms we have already studied. It may seem odd to Americans that Jews should call themselves a "nation." We never speak of a Catholic or a Methodist nation in the United States. American Jews do not view themselves as Israelis, nor do Israelis so regard them. Nevertheless, a belief prevails among all Jews-Orthodox, Conservative, Reconstructionist, Reform, and nonobservant--that they do constitute one people and that their collective survival depends on mutual support and cooperation. Even persons of Jewish ancestry who do not practice Judaism--indeed, even those who have converted to another faith--are still apt to be regarded as Jews unless they make strenuous efforts to prove they are not. Most Gentiles realize these facts, at least dimly."
Balfour Declaration
Britan, Balfour Declaration... yadaa, yadda, yadda, simultaneously gave arab support with the Muhammad correspondence letters...
Brittish Mandates (pg.239-240)
"Britain's Palestine policy seemed to go in two opposite directions. In the international arena, on the one hand, it tended to back Zionist aims because of Jewish political pressure on London and, indeed, on the League of Nations, headquartered in Geneva. In Palestine, on the other hand, British officials favored the Arabs, often influenced by concern for Muslim opinion in neighboring countries and in India. Remember that these were general tendencies, not hard-and-fast rules. When the League of Nations awarded the Palestine mandate in July 1922, it specifically charged Britain with carrying out the Balfour Declaration. In other words, Britain had to encourage Jews to migrate to Palestine and to settle there, help create the Jewish "national home," and even set up a "Jewish agency" to assist the British authorities in developing that national home, which none dared to call a "state."
The Palestine mandate could not be the same as the league's mandates for Syria and Iraq, which were to help them develop into independent states (thus requiring that they be given constitutions within a three-year period). In Syria and Iraq, everyone knew that the mandates were supposed to prepare their inhabitants to rule themselves. In Palestine, however, although most of the inhabitants at the time were Arabs, it was the Jewish national home that was to be created. The Palestine mandate called only for "self-governing institutions," with no definite deadline for their creation. The Arabs naturally suspected that the British mandate would hold them in colonial bondage until the Jews achieved a majority in Palestine and could set up their state."
Collaboration efforts with the Mufsti (Hajj Amin al-Husayni) and Britain's first civilian governor in Palestine, Sir Herbert Samuel (a prominent zionist) failed when Western wall civil war erupted over who gets to control holy site. (called the Western Wall Incident)
NAZZIIIISSSSS
"During the 1930s, Jewish-Arab relations worsened. The rise to power of Hitler and his Nazi party in Germany put the Jews in that country--numbering almost a million--in dire peril." pg.242
Arabs were angry because Jews were overflowing, America didn't want to accept the Jews, sent 'em to Palestine, again, arabs even LESS happy.. resistance broke out, British sent out political forms of action with the Peel Commission (inquiry into Arab's complaints) and White Papers (which reduced the number of Jews allowed to enter the Mandate which led to a growth in illegal immigration, and promised Arabs land) hence, further pissing off both Jews (limited their #s and somewhat folded on the Balfour Declaration) and the Arabs (postponing their independence, and STILL allowing some Jews in).
THE U,S, OF A
Well, like good 'ol America does, gets involved clamors supports for zionisim and the Jews, inconsiderate of the Arabs, because they want to make up for Hitler's sins (these are the Jews and Christian-American voters) WITHOUT raising the quota of Jews allowed into the US. So, basically making it up to the JEws without doing anything: dump them on the Arabs. Not helpful.
Civil War in Palestine
Zionist Terrorist organizations didn't help the cause by blowing british buildings up (Irgun Tzvei Le'umi (National Military Organization) and the Stern Gang).
"Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry went to Palestine in 1946 and interviewed both mandate officials and nationalist leaders. It called for a continuation of the mandate, but its most publicized recommendation was to admit 100,000 European Jewish refugees at once and to end all restrictions on Jewish land purchases. The new Labour government in Britain rejected this advice and advocated instead a federated Arab-Jewish Palestine. This satisfied no one, and the fighting worsened. Finally, Britain went before the UN General Assembly in February 1947 and admitted that it could no longer keep the mandate. Its Palestine policy was bankrupt." (pg. 245)
Monday, January 10, 2011
Economy for Peace
Like usual, I speak to my friends in Israel for first hand experiences and information. But with this, I may add, I get new ideas and so progresses my thesis for my paper. I want to address the topic of this marking period: Regional Conflicts. While the last mp is for a resolution on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, I can't but help jump from conflict to resolution. And I have narrowed down what I want to study.
Here I go, 1000 words or less:
I have come to believe the entire conflict is over land and Gd. Like all good hypothesis, I thought the conflict was over resources but proved wrong. However, to prove this I want to stop looking at oil and water, and make these just a blurb for my paper. I want to get in depth into Israel's technology sector (which is the backbone of Israel's economy) and discuss the economic factions in the Middle East. As my dear friend, Ben Crane said, "Jews got short end of stick... we were stuck with the Arabs who didn't get land." And with out land, and with Gd, the conflict will always persist, that is.. until Arabs get economical equality in Eretz Yisrael. Arabs already have all the rights Jews do, and MORE*, but their economic standing leaves them impoverished and set back. We give them technology and roads and houses and schools, land will not be an issue anymore. Their villages and farms will be self-sustaining, their way of life will be preserved and in contrast with extremist philosophies. 90% of terrorists fight because they have nothing to loose and little to gain. With a good standard of living they have everything to lose and nothing to gain.
Opinions?
* the arabs who live in Israel get more rights because they get everything an Israeli Jew does, but does not need to complete service in the Israeli army, which ever Jew (and Druze- on their own request) are required to do.
Here I go, 1000 words or less:
I have come to believe the entire conflict is over land and Gd. Like all good hypothesis, I thought the conflict was over resources but proved wrong. However, to prove this I want to stop looking at oil and water, and make these just a blurb for my paper. I want to get in depth into Israel's technology sector (which is the backbone of Israel's economy) and discuss the economic factions in the Middle East. As my dear friend, Ben Crane said, "Jews got short end of stick... we were stuck with the Arabs who didn't get land." And with out land, and with Gd, the conflict will always persist, that is.. until Arabs get economical equality in Eretz Yisrael. Arabs already have all the rights Jews do, and MORE*, but their economic standing leaves them impoverished and set back. We give them technology and roads and houses and schools, land will not be an issue anymore. Their villages and farms will be self-sustaining, their way of life will be preserved and in contrast with extremist philosophies. 90% of terrorists fight because they have nothing to loose and little to gain. With a good standard of living they have everything to lose and nothing to gain.
Opinions?
* the arabs who live in Israel get more rights because they get everything an Israeli Jew does, but does not need to complete service in the Israeli army, which ever Jew (and Druze- on their own request) are required to do.
Thursday, January 6, 2011
I Pray to Gd for Land
So, as we are discussing regional conflicts, I've decided to approach the Hebrew/Arab conflict first: The State of Israel. Why does each side want "Palestine?"
Europe Leaves the Middle East 1936-1954
By: Howard M. Sachar
Pg.530 "Isn't it beautiful that today, May 15, seven arab armies are going into Palestine to redeem it from the Zionists and the West." -Arab Legion Officer
^ I found it interesting that this quote from the 1948 War (OR Israel Ind. War OR The Nakba.) It doesn't say the Jews... it doesn't say anything about religion. It only says Zionists, the people settling the land in order to create a seperate Jewish DEMOCRATIC State and something about the West. I believe this is in tandum with the beliefe Israel is an extension of imperialism, run by America and Europe- The biggest enemy to Arabs because of the Treaty of Versailles in WWII. (Explained in Earlier posts. Basically, Arab countries don't like Israel because of europe... not because of JEws. ALSO, for religious purposes such as the levels of people (Non-Muslims should be ruled UNDER Islam in "Daar al Islam" lands.)
Abdullah (Jordan) unintrested in war with Israel.. he and Golda Meir had many secret conversations of peace. He didn't care about a Jewish state as long as he got Arab villages in Palestine (namely what is now calle dthe "West Bank"), and the Jews could have the rest.
Mufti wanted independence for PAlestinieans... his goal was to drive Jews out and rule the land.
Syrians wanted northern Palestine
Lebanon, Iraq, Egypt, Saudi Arabia mostly deemed "Anttiintervinest" just helpin' out the Muslim "Cause." But they also wanted a cut of the land....
SO.. they all wanted land. But what is in the Palestiniean territory, aside from space?
Handbook of the Middle East
By: Michael G. Kort
pg.61 "Israel has virtually no Resources."
Golda Meir is quoted sayin a joke about how moses led us to the only place in the M.E. with out oil!
Minerals: bromides, potash, magnesium-> ALL from Dead Sea
Exports: 40% W. Europe, 30% N. America, 20% Far East
Major industries: Tourism, Technology (food production, medical, defense), agriculture (4% of tot. output... mostly for self-suffinciancy), Industry (plastics, petrochemicals, metal products)
pg 62- Israel suffers from pollution and over population, however it has planted 200 million trees (regenerate soil and absorbe rainwater), has 250 nature reserves, and animals have been naturally come back to the land or have been sucessfully reintroduced. Israel's efforts have renewed the land in ways that were unimaginable in 1940s.
pg.62/63- Population boom: 700,000 refugees from persectuation (Holocaust and Expulsion form Arab countries) had gotten into Israel between 1948 and 1951!
SUMMARY:
I tried to prove that the Middle East conflict was over resources (like oil, water, land, etc.) and not religion. However, like many good hypothesis, with further research it can still be proved wrong. After the resource quest, I've realized resources are the cause of incidents, but the umbrella cause is religion. Religious sites, religious rule... even withtin the State of Israel there are conflicts over the religious party (Shas) being in the Kenesset. I'll go furthur ito the incidents of resources... but it will mostly be arab-arab conflicts.
Europe Leaves the Middle East 1936-1954
By: Howard M. Sachar
Pg.530 "Isn't it beautiful that today, May 15, seven arab armies are going into Palestine to redeem it from the Zionists and the West." -Arab Legion Officer
^ I found it interesting that this quote from the 1948 War (OR Israel Ind. War OR The Nakba.) It doesn't say the Jews... it doesn't say anything about religion. It only says Zionists, the people settling the land in order to create a seperate Jewish DEMOCRATIC State and something about the West. I believe this is in tandum with the beliefe Israel is an extension of imperialism, run by America and Europe- The biggest enemy to Arabs because of the Treaty of Versailles in WWII. (Explained in Earlier posts. Basically, Arab countries don't like Israel because of europe... not because of JEws. ALSO, for religious purposes such as the levels of people (Non-Muslims should be ruled UNDER Islam in "Daar al Islam" lands.)
Abdullah (Jordan) unintrested in war with Israel.. he and Golda Meir had many secret conversations of peace. He didn't care about a Jewish state as long as he got Arab villages in Palestine (namely what is now calle dthe "West Bank"), and the Jews could have the rest.
Mufti wanted independence for PAlestinieans... his goal was to drive Jews out and rule the land.
Syrians wanted northern Palestine
Lebanon, Iraq, Egypt, Saudi Arabia mostly deemed "Anttiintervinest" just helpin' out the Muslim "Cause." But they also wanted a cut of the land....
SO.. they all wanted land. But what is in the Palestiniean territory, aside from space?
Handbook of the Middle East
By: Michael G. Kort
pg.61 "Israel has virtually no Resources."
Golda Meir is quoted sayin a joke about how moses led us to the only place in the M.E. with out oil!
Minerals: bromides, potash, magnesium-> ALL from Dead Sea
Exports: 40% W. Europe, 30% N. America, 20% Far East
Major industries: Tourism, Technology (food production, medical, defense), agriculture (4% of tot. output... mostly for self-suffinciancy), Industry (plastics, petrochemicals, metal products)
pg 62- Israel suffers from pollution and over population, however it has planted 200 million trees (regenerate soil and absorbe rainwater), has 250 nature reserves, and animals have been naturally come back to the land or have been sucessfully reintroduced. Israel's efforts have renewed the land in ways that were unimaginable in 1940s.
pg.62/63- Population boom: 700,000 refugees from persectuation (Holocaust and Expulsion form Arab countries) had gotten into Israel between 1948 and 1951!
SUMMARY:
I tried to prove that the Middle East conflict was over resources (like oil, water, land, etc.) and not religion. However, like many good hypothesis, with further research it can still be proved wrong. After the resource quest, I've realized resources are the cause of incidents, but the umbrella cause is religion. Religious sites, religious rule... even withtin the State of Israel there are conflicts over the religious party (Shas) being in the Kenesset. I'll go furthur ito the incidents of resources... but it will mostly be arab-arab conflicts.
Monday, January 3, 2011
The Lebanon Adventurer
I like posting interesting things on here, useful or not, about the Middle East... especially personal accounts. This new year's eve I met a Jewish guy also from America. He told me his incredible tale. He used to be a pro-Israel (zionist) Jew. Never religious, never overtly anti-arab. He is majoring in International business, so he decided to do a year abroad in Lebanon. He was in Lebanon the same time I was in Israel, leading to a huge variation of the "war-stories" from Lebanon and Gaza (during 2008-10). Now, he is pretty anti-Israel... but then again, it's always more complicated than just a label.
During about mid-20010, Israel went over to Lebanon in order to cut down a tree that had fallen on Israeli soil, blocking a crucial visual into hostile territory. Now, it is disputed that Israel actually went over the border to cut away at the tree, but that didn't stop what happened next. Lebanese soldiers thought Israel was invading, and Lebanon opened fire. Israel returned fire in all this mess and in the end, three lebanese soldiers, a senior Israeli officer, and a reporter had been killed. This is a perfect example how a misunderstanding lead to international hay-wire. The media spun the stories, "Israel Invaded Lebanon," or, "Lebanon opened fire on Israel." This incident showed how varied the point of view was... especially for two Jewish teens across the border. I thought Israel was right in it's return of fire. My friend did not think this was the case. He thought Israel was to blame for all five deaths.
We also discussed other issues of "invasion." Mainly Gaza in 2008/2009. Operation Cast Lead, which extended into early 2009 (two/three weeks before my arrival), was an Israeli offensive operation in order to end Hamas's mortar shell, Qassam, and Katyusha rocket attacks after the six-month cease fire had ended. During the attacks, "only" one Israeli was killed, but the panic that had erupted was more explosive than even the physical damage. The rockets were now reaching as far as Ashkelon, Kerem Shalom, and Beersheba, the furthest these rockets have ever gotten, leading to national insecurity. In order to protect the borders, Israel invaded with this Operation Cast Lead, killing almost 200 and wounding around 350 Gazans on the first incident/return bombing. Israel reported that out of the 195 deaths, about 140 were Hamas militants, leaving the other 55 civilians. By the end of the operations, 1,300 (give or take 150) Gazans died, and only 13 Israelis. Why such the variance? It's all disputed. Hamas was threatening a third intifada and continued their Operation Oil Stain sending out 30 or so more rockets, and so Israel invaded by land (Jan. 3, '09), targeting Hamas weapon stockpiles, military stations, and rocket-launching pads. Israel targeted only Hamas stations and sent out leaflets of warning civilians of their invasion. Another huge area of opaqueness was the fact that Hamas kept hiding behind civilians. There was a huge, indisputable number of Gazan civilians killed, but as hard as Israel tried to warn them and keep them out of the cross-fire, I believe that it was absurd to think that civilians will leave their homes with no where to go. Even still, Hamas set up shop in the most heavily populated areas for protection, and that's including behind/under kindergartens. On Jan. 18, Israel declared a cease-fire and on the 19, so did Hamas. But the entire Gaza War had been one extreme international mess.
So, my friend's point of view on the Gaza War was that Israel had committed war crimes because of the civilian death-toll. I cannot say I do not see his point of view, but I believe it was no war crime to secure your borders and protect your citizens. I additionally explained to him, point-blank, that I believe war is a terrible, horrific thing that only kills human life (innocent or not). But I also made it extremely clear that if people (Hamas) is hiding behind their children and killing mine, you'll be sure as anything I will kill theirs to protect my own. It's a you or me situation, and I'm not going to watch my friends and children die. We discussed both our views and concluded that war sucks and death is inevitable in it. Whether we root for the red, green, black and white flag, or the blue and white, to have war is a terrible thing. But even there, our conversation did not stop.
He told me of his new-found respect for Hamas. I heard that and nearly fell out of my seat! He then told me a rather unbelievable narration. In Lebanon, after one of those two incidents, he was kidnapped by Hamas, accused of being an Israeli spy. Now the rest of the story became a personal trial, one I do not wish to publicly share with out his permission... but I was undoubtedly horrified to learn he walked out in peace with Hamas, with a new found respect for them. And I also know it was no Stockholm Syndrome, either. Imagine that.
By the end of that conversation, I would like to think we befriended one another. We both had the same goal (peace) with two very different spins on the whole Middle-East story. So, I guess this was a story of a Jewish-American boy becoming a Palestinian/Arab sympathizer and the Jewish-American girl becoming a passionate Zionist; but more than the labels, it was about two American Jews with the same background, who became opponents based on borders during war.
During about mid-20010, Israel went over to Lebanon in order to cut down a tree that had fallen on Israeli soil, blocking a crucial visual into hostile territory. Now, it is disputed that Israel actually went over the border to cut away at the tree, but that didn't stop what happened next. Lebanese soldiers thought Israel was invading, and Lebanon opened fire. Israel returned fire in all this mess and in the end, three lebanese soldiers, a senior Israeli officer, and a reporter had been killed. This is a perfect example how a misunderstanding lead to international hay-wire. The media spun the stories, "Israel Invaded Lebanon," or, "Lebanon opened fire on Israel." This incident showed how varied the point of view was... especially for two Jewish teens across the border. I thought Israel was right in it's return of fire. My friend did not think this was the case. He thought Israel was to blame for all five deaths.
We also discussed other issues of "invasion." Mainly Gaza in 2008/2009. Operation Cast Lead, which extended into early 2009 (two/three weeks before my arrival), was an Israeli offensive operation in order to end Hamas's mortar shell, Qassam, and Katyusha rocket attacks after the six-month cease fire had ended. During the attacks, "only" one Israeli was killed, but the panic that had erupted was more explosive than even the physical damage. The rockets were now reaching as far as Ashkelon, Kerem Shalom, and Beersheba, the furthest these rockets have ever gotten, leading to national insecurity. In order to protect the borders, Israel invaded with this Operation Cast Lead, killing almost 200 and wounding around 350 Gazans on the first incident/return bombing. Israel reported that out of the 195 deaths, about 140 were Hamas militants, leaving the other 55 civilians. By the end of the operations, 1,300 (give or take 150) Gazans died, and only 13 Israelis. Why such the variance? It's all disputed. Hamas was threatening a third intifada and continued their Operation Oil Stain sending out 30 or so more rockets, and so Israel invaded by land (Jan. 3, '09), targeting Hamas weapon stockpiles, military stations, and rocket-launching pads. Israel targeted only Hamas stations and sent out leaflets of warning civilians of their invasion. Another huge area of opaqueness was the fact that Hamas kept hiding behind civilians. There was a huge, indisputable number of Gazan civilians killed, but as hard as Israel tried to warn them and keep them out of the cross-fire, I believe that it was absurd to think that civilians will leave their homes with no where to go. Even still, Hamas set up shop in the most heavily populated areas for protection, and that's including behind/under kindergartens. On Jan. 18, Israel declared a cease-fire and on the 19, so did Hamas. But the entire Gaza War had been one extreme international mess.
So, my friend's point of view on the Gaza War was that Israel had committed war crimes because of the civilian death-toll. I cannot say I do not see his point of view, but I believe it was no war crime to secure your borders and protect your citizens. I additionally explained to him, point-blank, that I believe war is a terrible, horrific thing that only kills human life (innocent or not). But I also made it extremely clear that if people (Hamas) is hiding behind their children and killing mine, you'll be sure as anything I will kill theirs to protect my own. It's a you or me situation, and I'm not going to watch my friends and children die. We discussed both our views and concluded that war sucks and death is inevitable in it. Whether we root for the red, green, black and white flag, or the blue and white, to have war is a terrible thing. But even there, our conversation did not stop.
He told me of his new-found respect for Hamas. I heard that and nearly fell out of my seat! He then told me a rather unbelievable narration. In Lebanon, after one of those two incidents, he was kidnapped by Hamas, accused of being an Israeli spy. Now the rest of the story became a personal trial, one I do not wish to publicly share with out his permission... but I was undoubtedly horrified to learn he walked out in peace with Hamas, with a new found respect for them. And I also know it was no Stockholm Syndrome, either. Imagine that.
By the end of that conversation, I would like to think we befriended one another. We both had the same goal (peace) with two very different spins on the whole Middle-East story. So, I guess this was a story of a Jewish-American boy becoming a Palestinian/Arab sympathizer and the Jewish-American girl becoming a passionate Zionist; but more than the labels, it was about two American Jews with the same background, who became opponents based on borders during war.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)