- Joined
- May 24, 2007
- Messages
- 73,113
- Likes
- 10,942
- Points
- 113
It's obviously a complex situation with no black and white answers.
There are few actual palestinians. There are few jews there whose families were there before the late 1800s or so.
There have been mass migrations of both Arab and Jew to that area for many decades. To say one side or the other has some right to the land makes no sense. Consider most Jews migrated there during pogroms in Russia late 1800s and then a massive wave in the 1930s and 1940s due to the genocide in Europe. For every Jew that migrated, Egyptians or Syrians (etc.) migrated.
Think about it. Yassir Arafat was the head of the PLO for all those years, a Nobel Prize winner... He wasn't a Palestinian, he was an Egyptian!
I tend to favor Israel in this whole mess for quite a few reasons. They wouldn't be militaristic if they had their choice, they've explored every humane (and a few inhumane) option to get along with its neighbors. It's pretty clear that if they wanted there to be no Palestinians, there wouldn't be (but at great cost). Israel is highly civilized and a modern nation. The region needs that sort of thing, and the world benefits from the work of Israelis more than they consider on the face of it - especially high tech stuff. Then there's the obvious - they have so little land and there's so much land all around them that people who don't want to live there can settle - where's the beef, really? The land they started with was bought legitimately from the landowners. They're respectful of women and even of Arabs - there are Arabs in the Israeli government, etc.
It isn't all that simple, but a few Reasoned reasons.
On the flip side, it's painfully obvious that if the Palestinians spent their money on schools and medicine instead of bombs, they'd be far better off.
There are few actual palestinians. There are few jews there whose families were there before the late 1800s or so.
There have been mass migrations of both Arab and Jew to that area for many decades. To say one side or the other has some right to the land makes no sense. Consider most Jews migrated there during pogroms in Russia late 1800s and then a massive wave in the 1930s and 1940s due to the genocide in Europe. For every Jew that migrated, Egyptians or Syrians (etc.) migrated.
Think about it. Yassir Arafat was the head of the PLO for all those years, a Nobel Prize winner... He wasn't a Palestinian, he was an Egyptian!
I tend to favor Israel in this whole mess for quite a few reasons. They wouldn't be militaristic if they had their choice, they've explored every humane (and a few inhumane) option to get along with its neighbors. It's pretty clear that if they wanted there to be no Palestinians, there wouldn't be (but at great cost). Israel is highly civilized and a modern nation. The region needs that sort of thing, and the world benefits from the work of Israelis more than they consider on the face of it - especially high tech stuff. Then there's the obvious - they have so little land and there's so much land all around them that people who don't want to live there can settle - where's the beef, really? The land they started with was bought legitimately from the landowners. They're respectful of women and even of Arabs - there are Arabs in the Israeli government, etc.
It isn't all that simple, but a few Reasoned reasons.
On the flip side, it's painfully obvious that if the Palestinians spent their money on schools and medicine instead of bombs, they'd be far better off.