So I think I have a basic grip on this conflict, the modern times at least, it’s basically a back and fro attacks of Israel and Palestine military, about who the territory of Gaza Strip and West Bank.
But who the most legitimate claim to those lands? The region is called Palestine, and Israeli only settled there after the second world war after the land was “assigned” to them. So am I right to presume that Palestinians are the native people of this land, and the State of Israel is just trying to get rid of them?
You must log in or register to comment.
The tricky thing is that if you go back as far as the Israelis want to, there’s no difference between them and the Palestinians. They’re both descendant groups of the people that were in the area at the time, as well as people those groups encountered later on.
My own hot take is that it’s a small chunk of rock and dirt that predates all of us, and maybe we should just share it fairly equally on a person-by-person basis. Pretty much all the Israelis would object to that, though, and some of the Palestinians. So, the blood flows.
Not a hot take at all, my friend. 100% agree with this. You will have white Americans claiming it’s their land and refuse entry to Mexicans, but if you go back couple of hundreds years ago, they were the “aliens”/immigrants. Same in Australia or Canada and many other places. No matter who claims the land right now, you can go back in history and find out they are not the actual natives.
Except maybe the Khoi-San of the Kalahari desert in southern Africa. For whatever reason nobody is talking about putting them in charge.
Sadly, most of the population here and worldwide either doesn’t understand this take or disagrees with it, so it kind of is hot.
The more I look into this conflict, the more I go back and forth on my position lmao. Essentially, yes, you have it right. However, you’re trivializing the post WW2 mandate for Israel. The entire world was carved up post WW2, and I don’t think it’s correct to say that this particular mandate should be reneged. If you look at it objectively, there was a ton of land transfer post WW2, so you’ll have to argue why Israel in particular should be repossessed.
Practicality-wise, Israel is a fairly progressive country that upholds LGBT rights, religious freedom (mostly), has a democratic government, etc. Palestine on its own would be just like any other Arab state and would not be as pro-human rights.
Sure, so the Palestinians, not matter if they are suited to rule this land, but they are the native people on it? Meaning, they were living there before Israelis were relocated there?
I’m just trying to put in perspective, if a whole nation would be moved onto my homeland, and from now on it wouldn’t be my homeland, but theirs. Is that how it worked?
The thing is, the land itself is not the issue, there is enough land there. Rather, both parties have vastly different political ideals (and religions) and the people from neighbouring countries heavily disagree with Isreals politics.
After WW2, Great Britain gave most of the land to the surrounding countries (as far as I understand) but reserved some land for what is now known as Israel for Jews to be able to form a state. However, this did not sit well with the overwhelmingly muslim countries around it.
Good to know: Whether Palestine is a country depends on who you ask. Most countries in North America, Central/Western Europe and Oceania (Australia etc.) DONT consider Palestina a country while countries in South America, Africa and Asia overwhelmingly DO recognize it as a country (there are exceptions).
“If a whole nation would be moved into my homeland, and from now on it wouldn’t be my homeland”
Yes, this is your ELI5. Majorities come and go. Governments come and go. I’ll give you two examples right next door to Israel:
-
Egypt was a dynastic system, then Geek, then Roman, then Christian nation then an Arab nation beginning in the 7th century. During each of the periods, a particular ethnicity did exactly the above: they moved in and became the majority. There was a point where it was overwhelmingly correct to call Egypt any one of the above after dynastic rule concluded. Today, Egypt is a Muslim majority country, but if for some reason christians poured in (the British kindof started to do this in the early 19th-20th century in the protectorate period) it would, at some point, become christian.
-
Constantinople was a Christian capitol city for centuries until the Ottoman conquest in 1453. The city was renamed Instanbul in 1928, but wasn’t recognized as such until a year later in 1929.
The takeaway from all this is that land changes hands in various ways. It’s the point at which the definition of a land changes that is sometimes controversial until a kind of revolution takes place.
Interesting point!
In your opinion, who is at wrong in this conflict? Or would you say both sides are right to some extent and there is no “fair” outcome?
Who do you side with?
My personal opinion is that both sides are in the wrong here. Israel is overstepping its borders, but Palestine is not controlling Gaza and isn’t exactly cracking down on the extremism or defending their borders. Israel is taking advantage of the weak, poorly organized, poorly administered Palestinian (and Syrian!) land by annexing small plots slowly over time.
If you talk to Palestinians, they want to return Palestine and its lands to a Muslim country. They have an overall nationalistic view that I don’t find conducive to peace or overall benefit to everyday people.
As a general idea, I’m all for self determination, but I’m also for the rule of plurality. Because of that, and Israel’s general secular liberal principals (not in the modern American definition of the term), I side with Israel.
My genuine gut feeling is to benefit the most amount of people possible, and thus support the side that more closely adheres to the declaration of human rights.
-
Simply determining which group is the single “native” people to that area is difficult. So many groups have inhabited, controlled, and fought over the region for millennia.
I agree with Horsey. The more I read about the conflict, and the farther back I go in history, the messier it all gets. I will be amazed if someone can write up a good ELI5 on this particular topic.
I don’t think that’s actually a fair comparison. Palestinians had nothing to do with the treatment of European Jews in WW2, and we gave them a claimed “holy land” from others? Let’s be honest for a second, Israel has the same claim as British Occupied Palestine, in that the peoples actually living there have no say over their land claims and are getting killed in their own homes and in the streets by occupiers. Palestinians deserve to have land and life.
Its not that simple because more than the land, the religion is the problem. Neighbouring countries have an issue with that, which goes far beyond a claim of land. Its less of an “We want that land so we can live there” and more of an “We want those jewish people out of here”.
Israel even offered them land (as part of the two-state-solution which the Hammas stopped in the end) but that is not what they want.
Why do you think neighbouring countries, who themselves own land that was originally part of Palestine would attack Israel to claim land for… what really? For Palestine? A country that doesnt even exist anymore?
It has nothing to do with Palestine’s role in the conflict. It has to do with postwar Britain’s unbelievable power to redraw boarders at a whim. While I don’t agree with the way they were drawn, I don’t think it’s morally correct to cherrypick which borders to redraw. Whether it’s fair or not, postwar Britain made choices that we all live with today. Unfortunately for Palestine, that meant that they were subject to the whim of a global superpower, which is why they lost their land and why Israel exists today.
