After hours of reading up on the Palestinian conflict, I find myself sympathizing more with the Israelis than before. Am I in the wrong for doing so?

[ManuelKomnenos]

I wasn't sure whether to put this in the Ethos, Academy, Mudpit or history forum, but I hope that this is the right place.

Let me first state that my position is and always has been that the conflict between Israel and Palestine is a messy thing from a moral standpoint and that there are no knights in shining armor fighting a valiant struggle against an evil enemy, but rather thousands of anecdotes that sometimes leave the Israelis in the right, and sometimes the Palestinians.

But after hours of reading about the conflict I find myself sympathizing more and more with the Israelis. At least to the point where I can say that Israel has an unfair reputation. The most important points in the narrative, the way I have read it, is the following: the Jews first settled legally in Palestine. Buying soil the Arabs didn’t want at a ridiculously high price. There seems to be nothing racist or colonialist about Zionism at this point, even though all sides have its douche bags. The general idea seems to have been peaceful coexistence. In one instance, all Jews are encouraged to ignore Arab provocations to avoid further polarization. An Egyptian chronicler also writes that Jewish immigration should be encouraged, as they are an industrious and intelligent people. And both sides could prosper from living together there.

Even though massacres have been known to happen on both sides. It seems to me to have been the Arabs that started killing and pillaging Jews; and not on any reasonable grounds, but because of rumors and conceit. This was in the twenties and I guess you could say that the Arabs were no worse than other people at this point, but it doesn’t make it any less bigoted.

Then there is the fact that the Arabs instigated the entire war that started the refugee problem. Maybe they felt overruled by Jewish interests, but it doesn’t seem to me like they ever gave the peaceful solutions in the UN a chance. It doesn’t appear clear what the Palestinians actually wanted, but it seems to be the same unrealistic and bigoted demands that we see today, with the state of Israel not existing at all, and Jews, if allowed to live there at all, having to live in a Muslim society where the Arab is the master race, which is quite the contrast to the relative free society of Israel, where Muslims with citizenship have equal rights with the Jews, despite challenging Israeli sovereignty. Then there is the fact that other minorities are protected in Israel. One could imagine how gays would be treated in a free Palestine.

Lastly there is the point of intention. Charles Fried, a Harvard law professor has some interesting view on ethics that I think are relevant for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He says that the most important moral distinction is not how much good or bad your actions cause, but rather if your intentions are good or bad. Now anyone would of course say that their intentions are the best, but in the case of this conflict there is a pretty clear distinction. The IDF does not want and does not try to kill civilians, whereas Hamas tries and wants to kill civilians. One might say that Hamas has no other choice, because their military is weak, but if your only option is to kill civilians, and sacrifice civilians, then you have no moral grounds to wage war at all. Charles Fried also says that even if your intentions are good, that does not mean that you can cause all kinds of havoc with a healthy conscious. In war, for example, any legal intention, like bombing an arms factory, must be carefully weighed against the number of civilians killed in such an action. And he says that if the number is too high, the action is clearly wrong, despite your best intentions. This is where the IDF seems to be clearly in the wrong today. But at the same time, they are fighting an enemy that seems to have no moral scruples at all, and if it is true that Hamas protects itself by always surrounding itself with woman and children, for the purpose of a propaganda war, it becomes even more of a moral quagmire for the IDF. It doesn’t always make their actions right, but it makes it even more difficult for people living safely in Europe to fully condemn their actions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Israel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Fried

[Aodh Mor]

Which war are you referring to that the Arab's instigated, because I've done quite a lot of reading around this for university papers and I was wondering if you're referring to the violence in 1947...

It would be great if you could be more specific of what you're talking about - eg. the Egyptian chronicler - Who? When? What were his political affiliations? Where did he write it?

As to Charles Fried's work on ethics, frankly I've always found this argument of 'good intentions outweighing bad actions' as a very dangerous idea - it could easily be used as an ethical argument to defend war crimes - eg. The treatment of Japanese U.S citizens during WWII. It's kind of a 21st century version of Machiavellian ethics - actually, it's more extreme, since Machiavelli says that violence and cruelty should only be used when there is no other option available.

As to your title question, of course you shouldn't feel bad - you've engaged with the subject, done independent research and formed an opinion based on the evidence and not your personal perspective, a laudable set of actions!

[ManuelKomnenos]

Yes of course. I have plowed through so many Wikipedia-articles, and neglected to save them for future reference. As for Arabs starting the violence I am referring to the revolts of 29 and 36. As for Arabs instigating the war that caused the refugee problem I was referring to the war of 48, when Israel was attacked by it's neighboring countries. It is not stated clearly who started the violence of 47, but it is stated that:

"In July 1947 the UNSCOP visited Palestine and met with Jewish and Zionist delegations. The Arab Higher Committee boycotted the meetings."

And after the decision had been made:

"In the immediate aftermath of the General Assembly's vote on the Partition plan, the explosions of joy among the Jewish community were counterbalanced by the expression of discontent among the Arab community. Soon after, violence broke out and became more and more prevalent."

Which in my mind is a sabotage of a possible peaceful outcome. My point is not that Israel didn't contribute to the refugee problem, but the war that caused it was avoidable and not Israels decision. Seen in light of the violence that preceded it, it is however not a huge mystery why the refugees were not invited to return, even though it might have been a horrible decision, in hindsight.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Israel

Sadly, I have been unable to relocate the Wikipedia-article where I read about the newspaper chronicler in Egypt, who wrote around the turn of the last century, so it might not have been a sentiment supported by the majority, but I think it is far more important that the Arabs sold the land voluntarily at this point. I understand your criticism of Fried's idead of intention. But I seem to remember quite clearly that he writes that breaking the Geneva Conventions is not allowed, despite your intentions. Of course, it may still be used to justify war crimes, but in the event of Israel and Palestine I still believe that the distinction between targeting civilians and targeting combatants is quite important from a moral perspective.

EDIT: There are also plenty of examples of Israel breaking the Geneva Conventions (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/637293.stm), which is clearly wrong, but they also have a public committee against torture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_...ture_in_Israel) and a large liberal population that does not condone with Israels war crimes. I have been unable to find any equivalent on the Palestine side.

[Aodh Mor]

Okay, I thought you were referring to 68' and 72', because 28 and 36 were far more complicated. The pre-WWII history is very complicated - remember that the Palestinian leadership was select BY the british, and they were being told that they had no national identity, what you have to realise is that those rebellions need to be understood in the historical context of Palestine during the British Mandate, and with the Balfour Declaration there.

I'll give you this advice, use Wikipedia as a starter but don't trust it, try to read academic articles from BOTH sides, cos they tend to all be biased. Try Reading Joe Sacco's Graphic Novel 'Palestine' and Said's book 'The Question of Palestine' for a Palestinian sided argument. Sami Adwan and Dan Bar-On's 'Learning the Other's Narrative'. For the Israeli side, you want to read Zionists, but really interesting literature comes from Post-Zionist literature, which are Israeli Jews criticising Zionism, I can't remember any names to my shame but they have some really interesting ideas on Israel as a Secular Democracy.

As the war of 1947, you have to realise that literal, control of the land was being taken from the Palestinians, who had been given a leader by the British during the inter-war period only to find that they were being forgotten about in the guilt that followed the holocaust - the partition treaty would never have been agreed to - in the way that partition in Ireland caused similar violence.

[Kissaki]

I remember when I was a kid, I got told many times that "he started it" was not a valid argument. But it seems there are different rules when it comes to politics

[John ''True Grit'' Wayne]

The Muslims in the Middle East hate each other.Sunni-Shia.They also hate infidels in the West who do not follow Allah and see them as ignorant and less deserving of life.
Now you throw Jewish people into the Middle East and ALL Muslims decide to turn on them as it is their way to hate.Islam is the religion of hate.

[nce_wht_guy]

The Muslims in the Middle East hate each other.Sunni-Shia.They also hate infidels in the West who do not follow Allah and see them as ignorant and less deserving of life.
Now you throw Jewish people into the Middle East and ALL Muslims decide to turn on them as it is their way to hate.Islam is the religion of hate.

Then maybe the ing morons should learn there lesson and go the hell back to where ever they came from? I love the way people pretend that a (false) makes a bit of difference.

[SuperTechmarine]

The Muslims in the Middle East hate each other.Sunni-Shia.They also hate infidels in the West who do not follow Allah and see them as ignorant and less deserving of life.
Now you throw Jewish people into the Middle East and ALL Muslims decide to turn on them as it is their way to hate.Islam is the religion of hate.

Cool story, bro.

[Denny Crane!]

I hate to massively simplify a large wall of text but I think its worth noting that for millenia everyone has been trying to from a great height on the jewish race and basically wanting them exterminated. If ever there was a group of people who felt justifiably paranoid because everyone was out to get them and acting like dickheads because of it then it is the jews.

[Irishman]

It all goes back to the 40s when a Jewish state was imposed upon a Muslim area. Israel is a scar left from the age of imperialism. I have little sympathy for the state or its right to exist. Of course, that is the STATE, not the Jewish people.

[sumskilz]

Israel is a scar left from the age of imperialism.

Imperialism played a role obviously in Britain carving up the place, but the reason so many Jews went there is entirely different.

[Irishman]

Imperialism played a role obviously in Britain carving up the place, but the reason so many Jews went there is entirely different.

Oh I completely understand that Jews feel a religious and historical link to Israel, but their actual historical claim to the land is dubious at best, especially considering the length of time since their occupation of the land.

The reality is that in 1945 the Jews were a minority in every province in mandatory Palestine. They now make up an 80% majority of Israel. Where do you think all the Muslims went? They were largely forced from their homes in a massive ethnic cleansing.

Maybe the creation of the state was wrong but there is over 1000 years of backstory and I can sypathise with them doing anything they can at any expense no matter what to secure their future.

Agreed, I just cant blame the Muslims for fighting for their land and homes. (not that I support terrorism, I agree with the cause, not the methods)

[sumskilz]

Oh I completely understand that Jews feel a religious and historical link to Israel, but their actual historical claim to the land is dubious at best, especially considering the length of time since their occupation of the land.

The reality is that in 1945 the Jews were a minority in every province in mandatory Palestine. They now make up an 80% majority of Israel. Where do you think all the Muslims went? They were largely forced from their homes in a massive ethnic cleansing.

I should have been more clear. I meant they went there because they weren't safe where they came from and nowhere else would take them (at least not that many of them). Every major Aliyah was spurred by anti-Semitism elsewhere.

[Irishman]

I should have been more clear. I meant they went there because they weren't safe where they came from and nowhere else would take them (at least not that many of them). Every major Aliyah was spurred by anti-Semitism elsewhere.

That's true. Though the reason they chose Israel is largely a claim to rightful ownership of the land stemming from the Torah. The Jewish situation in America, for example, was far better than even their situation in early Israel, but they wanted a Jewish nation in the land they believed was given to them by God.

My problem isn't necessarily with their choice to establish a state, it is where they chose the state and why they chose that location.

[Denny Crane!]

It all goes back to the 40s when a Jewish state was imposed upon a Muslim area. Israel is a scar left from the age of imperialism. I have little sympathy for the state or its right to exist. Of course, that is the STATE, not the Jewish people.

Maybe the creation of the state was wrong but there is over 1000 years of backstory and I can sypathise with them doing anything they can at any expense no matter what to secure their future.

[Blaze86420]

Maybe the creation of the state was wrong but there is over 1000 years of backstory and I can sypathise with them doing anything they can at any expense no matter what to secure their future.

Really? Any expense? Does that include war, ethnic cleansing, or even genocide?

[Habelo]

Didnt they shoot ing missiles against the Isrealies?
If they are to retarded to understand consequences then why in hell would anyone feel sorry for them?

[Col. Tartleton]

By the same logic that Israel is Imperialism there shouldn't be a Poland.

[Irishman]

By the same logic that Israel is Imperialism there shouldn't be a Poland.

I'm not very well acquainted with the modern history of the Eastern Bloc countries. Care to explain this? I don't see the analogy.

[Col. Tartleton]

I'm not very well acquainted with the modern history of the Eastern Bloc countries. Care to explain this? I don't see the analogy.

Well Poland was formed after WW1 from parts of the Central Powers Polish regions. Then it was destroyed by the Axis forces in collusion with the Soviets. Then it was reformed after WW2.

Transjordania was formed after WW1 from parts of the Ottoman Empire and administered by the British Empire. Then Jordan separated from Transjordania as an Arab Muslim monarchy and that left the Palestine to be a Jewish Republic in the eyes of the Jews living there. That is what happened in the aftermath of WW2.

They're both results of the World Wars. Not Imperialism.

There have been Poles in Poland for centuries and there have been Jews in Palestine for millenniums.