Little Joe, I would like to add a piece, hopefully without interjecting too many off the wall opinions.
First I believe the Palestinian issue is quite deep, much deeper than you for example believe. The reasons require an understanding of the recent history of the region, and comprehension of what the Zionists did to the Palestinians. What they did was brutal, and was meant to be such. Hundreds of thousands of peoples don't flee their homes and lands without a reason.
When this occurred the Palestinians were largely defenseless, even though the Zionists state otherwise. In short the Zionists were well armed and knew what they were doing. Recall too that the Zionists had reasons to be desperate, during this period. They had just nearly been wiped out.
Here is a website for further reading:
stanford.edu
You can search and easily find Jewish and Palestinian websites as well. I have read both, and even though they are slanted, I was somewhat surprised at the quality.
The current tactic of the Zionist is to not settle. They want to drag this out as long as possible. Why? Because they are establishing settlements in the occupied territories as fast as possible. When settlements are made (if ever) they will then have 'birthright' claims to assert. Essentially they want the Palestinians to just magically disappear, because they want it all.
The Palestinians on the other hand have had very poor leadership, take the bait and fall into the trap every time. The suicide bombers have done nothing other than generate a reason for the Zionists to go in and wipe out the Palestinian infrastructure. A large net loss for the Palestinians.
To understand why this might be somewhat of an Arab issue, consider if the Ruskies or French went in and captured large areas of Canada. Do you think some of us Yankees might become freedom fighters and go help out Frank? Who has rights to Canada? Is it the Canucks, or the Natives? Think about that in context as to who has rights to now Israel and the occupied territories. Maybe the rights just belong to the group with the biggest guns.
On the other hand the Arabs do use the Palestinians. No doubt. One has to realize the recent history of the region. The Arabs are a bunch of haves and have nots. Not long ago they were mostly have nots. Viola suddenly a few became rich, whilst the large majority remained poor. Since that time they have not seemingly been blessed with luck or leadership either one. One 'Arab' leader many Arabs seem to have respected was Nasser. But he is long since gone. We (Americans) thought Sadat was great. From what I understand in reality he wasn't much better than the Shah.
One also has to recall that not so long ago the Arabs were essentially in the dark ages. The Arab renaissance occurred in the European dark ages. When the Europeans went into the renaissance, the Arabs did the opposite. Not so long ago all the Arab territories were essentially occupied, and what has happened post WWII is not untypical of any society, given the circumstances. The effect of religion in my opinion is less than that of the normal money, greed and power issues.
A couple favorite movies of mine were Lawrence of Arabia and El Sid. Didn't understand either of them very well, until I knew a little more history. El Sid I believe took place near the Apex of Arab power and influence.
Changing the subject just a little Arabs do seem to have a definite pecking order. This is based on discussions with Arabs. The Palestinians may be thought of, within Arab circles, a little the way western cultures think of Jews. The Palestinians are well educated and industrious. I gather that to a certain extent no other Arab country wants them, for fear they might become too powerful.
In short the issues here are too complex it seems to me to expect resolution. There are issues that neither side seems to be willing to give in too. One issue engrained deeply with UN proposals is that of reparations, to the Palestinians. You might suspect who would get the bill for that one, if a settlement occurs.
Your comment about the Japanese kamikaze pilots is timely. I was just thinking of this the other day. In my opinion this is an indication that suicide bombers have a lot less to do with religion, and a lot more with circumstance. Think about it. Two cultures, two religions, and both generate suicide bombers. This would not seem to point to religion, but to similarity of circumstance. I discussed this at length once with an Arab friend and coworker. He thought suicide bombers a strange lot indeed, but of course he was not Palestinian.
I'll just finish with a couple other comments. I've known a fair number of Moslems, and became good friends with a few. I've also studied the religion just a little, just out of curiosity. Although I'm not enamored by it, I don't equate it to fanaticism. A fanatical Moslem might be a little like a Zionist compared to a dovish Jew.
I tend to think a significant problem in this country is that most Americans seem to only have a bar room understanding of the ME situation, amongst other ME issues. I doubt many Americans know M. Begin was the most wanted man, dead or alive, in the UK, for some years. Why? Might be because he was a terrorist, a word which has a fleeting definition, depending upon need.
I'm not trying to be political, just add a little knowledge to the situation. |
