One topic that was noticeably absent from the debate last night was the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, which is currently in a phase of escalation as Israeli armored vehicles begin to surround Gaza in an operation dubbed "Days of Penitence":
Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz had ordered troops to "exact a price" from the militants, security officials said, after a Hamas rocket killed two children, ages 2 and 4, in an Israeli border town.Hundreds of troops, backed by tanks and helicopters, have been operating in northern Gaza since Wednesday, but more soldiers were expected to move into the area in coming hours.
...
On Thursday, 28 Palestinians were killed and 139 wounded, most of them in Jebaliya. It was the highest single-day toll in fighting in 30 months. In violence elsewhere in Gaza that day, two Israeli soldiers and a settler were killed by Palestinian fire.
And so the cycle continues. The debate proved exactly how disengaged the US is in this matter, despite the fact that the conflict is a primary source of American hatred and helps fuel a global holy war focussed on punishing Israel and its closest ally. Certainly weapons proliferation is a highly important topic, but so is this — the United States must redouble its efforts to bring about some sort of compromise in this situation for it may be the only way to repair an image that has been tainted in a highly volatile region.
More at Digital Dissent.
Article comments
1 - Dana Huff
As a teacher at a Jewish high school, this is an issue near and dear to me. Thank you for bringing it to the forefront.
2 - Hal Pawluk
That surprised me, too, but then I got thinking about it and decided that neither candidate wanted to get into it and look either anti-Israeli or anti-Arab.
Bummer, because it's serious.
3 - Vic
Hal,
I agree. Neither candidate wanted to alienate potential voters.
Unfortunately I don't believe there can be a peaceful resolution to the Israeli-Arab conflict no matter what. It really is a Hatfield/McCoy blood fued. When Israel took over the Palestinian lands, other Arab countries purposely did not take in or absorb the Palestinians because they wanted to continue the conflict. Despite what some may want us to believe, this does not just go back to the 60's or the 40's... the roots of this conflict go back centuries.
I don't know how this will end, but it won't be pretty, not by a longshot.
Vic
4 - Hal Pawluk
A case could be made that it goes back to 1798, when Napoleon arrived in Egypt.
Until then, a process of dissolution of the Arab millennium and take over by the Persian and Turkish empires was working its way through the corridors of history.
But Napoleon began the Western subjugation of the Muslim world and nothing has been the same since.
The biggest change, arguably, was the imposition of the concept of "nation states" on the Middle East by the British and French with the creation of artificial (to the Muslim mind) entities like Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Palestine, etc.
As for terrorism in the Middle East, you could say it started with Lawrence of Arabia, or Israeli's bombing British offices in 1947 or take your pick of any action before or after either of those ...
It ain't easy, folks.
However, I would settle for a stand-off along the lines of what's happening in Ireland now as a beginning.
A good beginning to some sort of resolution would be to get rid of Arafat and Sharon.
Another would be for America to try to broker an honest deal between the two sides.
Ireland was conquered by Henry II around 1200, though, and the terrorist bombing was still going on a few years ago. What hope for Israel, Palestine and Iraq?
5 - Vic
It goes back far beyond Napolean. This did not all start with the subjugation of Muslim countries, it started hundreds of years prior to the with Islam's subjugation of other countries.
It's hard-wired into the religion.
I'm with you on the last sentence of your post, though.
Vic
6 - Hal Pawluk
Can you tell me how you see the Palestinian/Israeli battle starting then, Vic, or point me at another source?
7 - Vic
Hal,
I've never been much into history, until very recently, so I'm hazy on details. The facts of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict are well known... the relocation of Jews to the area after WWII and the displacement of the Palestinians, and the decades of stress that followed, culminating in the war in which Israel cleaned the clocks of it's adversaries.
To me the key in all this is the complicity of Muslim countries over the history of this conflict in keeping the fires stoked. When the Palestinian territories were vastly reduced (or eliminated? correct me here) instead of absorbing and helping the Palestinians, the Arab countries refused to take refugees in order to keep them and all Muslims furiously angry at Israel.
This could have been diffused long ago, and again (perhaps) recently when they were close to an agreement but a weak Arafat gutted the peace process. The core issue is one of hatred of what they refer to as "people of the book" which are Jews and Christians. They are to be tolerated if willing to live in dhimmitude (a lowly, second class citizen status, completely subserviant to Muslims), or if they convert. Otherwise the options are slavery or death. So even if any peace is attained at some point, it will be fragile at best.
Having said all that, the source of all this angst is not really the Palestine situation... that to me is simply an excuse for radicals to act, something to which they can point and say "See? This is why we do what we do." It is the fundamentalist concept of Jihad going back to the creation of the religion. Jihad is what allowed Islam to spread like wildfire 1,000 years ago: Conversion through war. It was convert, become a slave, or (most likely) be killed. Everyone talks about how evil the Christian Crusades were (and I'm not saying they weren't), but what almost no one seems to know is that they were in response to the violent and forced spread of Islam and an attempt to beat it back.
Check out this A&E documentary which although it's mainly about our search for Osama, gives a decent summary of what led up to the events of today.
Also, "Onward Muslim Soldiers" is a book that anyone who debates our military action (on either side) should read.
Vic
8 - JR
Vic: The facts of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict are well known... the relocation of Jews to the area after WWII...
Um... maybe the facts are not as well known as you think.
The core issue is one of hatred of what they refer to as "people of the book" which are Jews and Christians.
I don't know, I reckon if I had been forced out of my home by mortar shells and expelled from my native land at gunpoint, religion wouldn't really be the "core issue" in my hatred for the people who did it to me.
Jews, Christians and Muslims seem to have been getting along well enough before the Europeans showed up again. I agree with Hal, the modern conflict dates back to Napolean and Britain's need to protect their route to India. Barbara Tuchman covered this ground in Bible and Sword.
9 - Dana Huff
When have Jews, Christians, and Muslims ever gotten along? Few Jews lived in the area prior to the re-establishment of Israel after WWII -- this was during the diaspora that followed the destruction of the Temple (I think in 70 CE, but I would have to check my facts). There have been years of holy war during which people of all three sides have been victims of pogroms and genocide (though, to be fair, Jews and Muslims moreso than Christians). I personally think it's not possible for this issue to be resolved peacefully. In fact, I don't think even a war would resolve it. No wars up until this date have done so.
10 - SFC Ski
Actually, the fact that Jews had been buying Palestinian land prior to WWII should not be ignored, this is one of the biggest reasons many JEws settled in that area after WWII, and in large part the reason that Israel was recognized as a state in 1948.
The issue and history of this conflict is much larger than anyone can address in a post or a comment, unless all of us who are interested put more effort into self-educating we will each bring up a small point, never really addressing the whole of the issue.
Israel will have to take a much firmer stand in removing settlers, which could happen, adn the PA would have to deal with its terrorists, which is not likely to happen. I won't say the situation is hopeless, but It will require a lot of factors to be addressed before real progress can bbe made.
11 - Hal Pawluk
Along with maintaining the trade route to India, the Balfour Declaration creating Palestine in 1917 was also motivated by Christian Zionists.
It wasn't that they particularly cared for Jews (cf. "anti-Semitism" and "pogroms"over the last couple of hundred years) but that they believed in the need for the biblical land of Zion.
And see where that got us.
12 - Vic
Um... maybe the facts are not as well known as you think.
Maybe you're right.
Jews, Christians and Muslims seem to have been getting along well enough before the Europeans showed up again.
Not in any country where Islam was the dominating religion/government. There has been a whitewashing (Mac, am I being racist with that term?) of the historical coexistance of these religions. It is widely accepted that in Muslim Spain up until 1492 these three religions coexisted in harmony. That is revisionist history B.S. Jews and Christians lived as second class citizens with very few rights and in fear.
This is still going on today (and by today I include prior to 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq) in Palestine, Syria, Pakistan and elsewhere.
Vic