Click on the links below (YouTube) for succinct and informative overviews of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict's origins and early years...
Part 1 (Antisemitism and Zionism)
Part 2 (Palestine and the Ottomans)
What are your thoughts/reactions about these videos? Do you think they are reasonably objective? Why or why not?
3 comments:
The videos give a good insight as to what what happening with the antisemitism and Zionism in the 19th century, as well as a depiction of the more modern issues at hand via the photos in the introduction to part 1. The Jews have been one of the most hated peoples in the last two centuries just from the bank-owning capabilities, for not having converted two millennium ago, and from the act of being different.
Though were the videos objective? Not so sure. The entire time, all I could think was, "Poor Jews;" objective viewpoints have objective responses.
Shaun
There is a saying that goes around and it’s like this: If the Arab states disarm, there would be peace; if Israel disarms, there would be no Israel. Israel is faced with a lot of really crappy choices. They can incorporate the West Bank, historical Judea and Samaria, and continue to more or less occupy these territories and be hated by its Arab and Muslim people and most of the world. They can withdraw like they did in Lebanon, Gaza, the Sinai into a basically indefensible position and hope that the IDF can hold against another inevitable Arab attack. Already the Egyptian army is moving heavy weapons, such as artillery and tanks into the Sinai in violation of the treaty. That’s not a very enticing option for obvious reasons; having done that several times in the past, they know that these areas will be militarized and used as a platform for offensive operations against them. Or they could relocate the Jewish State somewhere else, say, Alaska or Patagonia. But the chances are that the neighbors in their new homeland would hate them too and soon want them gone. Why does the West Bank have to be Judenrein?
Having read some the book, I want to put in a plug for Neil Caplan’s text as the class text. While it is very difficult, even impossible, to be completely objective, it is possible to be inclusive in the sense of including divergent opinions. His attempt to systematize and represent all of the narratives, historical and religious, and to include all of the counter arguments is admirable, and so far he seems to be doing a good job of it. It certainly has helped me to obtain a clearer understanding of the conflict. Cognitive dissonance is a good thing. Which reminds me of a joke, which I believe will shed a little light on our task:
Two guys are having a dispute–over what it is not important to know. So they decide to go to the village Rabbi to put the matter before him to judge. So the first guy gives his version of the case while the Rabbi listens intently. After considering the matter carefully the Rabbi says, “You are right!”
Then the next guy proceeds to tell his version of events, which is decidedly different from the first guy’s. With the same careful attention and deliberation, the Rabbi pronounces, “You are right!”
“Now wait a minute,” busts in the Rabbi’s wife (she’s obviously a woman who speaks her mind and has read her Aristotle), “They can’t both be right!”
“You’re right!” says the Rabbi.
Good (okay, semi-good) joke, Ben! Thanks for the initial feedback on the textbook. Thoughts from anybody else??
pdk
Post a Comment