(no subject)
I honestly don't know a great deal about the Israel/Palestine conflict, in a historical context. I've read through the wikipedia entry on Israel to try to prime myself, but it yielded little that I didn't already know. One's stance on this conflict seems to be "important" in terms of one's political stance in the modern era, though, so one ought to have an opinion.
From what I can tell, the 'conflict' is based on, essentially, one thing: religion. Specifically, disagreements over entitlement/ownership of specific locales (Jerusalem being key among them) between Jews and Arabs. If religious disagreement were not an issue, there seems to be little reason for the conflict to exist at all. Jews and Arabs (terms that, without religion, would actually mean nothing) of the region could live harmoniously together as one state.
So, ultimately, how can I take a side on this issue? If it really is a religious conflict, as it appears to be, then both parties are in the wrong: they're disputing over something utterly pointless. If it's about who's entitled to "own" the land, it's a matter of diplomatic ineptitutde that they don't recognize that they'd do better to just be part of a single unified state, rather than trying to quibble over who owns what. Technically, in this instance, it would seem to be the Jews in the wrong, given that the Arabs were "there first."
However, the Jews have set themselves up better, either by circumstance or deliberately. They have a stronger infastructure, a seemingly resilient government, a well-oiled military, and seem to have a reasonable degree of political freedom. Ideally, the two sides would just shut the hell up about their fantasy religious garbage and recognize that working together would benefit everyone.
But I suppose that's too much to ask.
From what I can tell, the 'conflict' is based on, essentially, one thing: religion. Specifically, disagreements over entitlement/ownership of specific locales (Jerusalem being key among them) between Jews and Arabs. If religious disagreement were not an issue, there seems to be little reason for the conflict to exist at all. Jews and Arabs (terms that, without religion, would actually mean nothing) of the region could live harmoniously together as one state.
So, ultimately, how can I take a side on this issue? If it really is a religious conflict, as it appears to be, then both parties are in the wrong: they're disputing over something utterly pointless. If it's about who's entitled to "own" the land, it's a matter of diplomatic ineptitutde that they don't recognize that they'd do better to just be part of a single unified state, rather than trying to quibble over who owns what. Technically, in this instance, it would seem to be the Jews in the wrong, given that the Arabs were "there first."
However, the Jews have set themselves up better, either by circumstance or deliberately. They have a stronger infastructure, a seemingly resilient government, a well-oiled military, and seem to have a reasonable degree of political freedom. Ideally, the two sides would just shut the hell up about their fantasy religious garbage and recognize that working together would benefit everyone.
But I suppose that's too much to ask.