Дебаты

Дебаты Israel/Palestine

Cinders posted on Nov 24, 2007 at 11:21PM
I was browsing link and really wanted to point out some of the statistics on their front page, along with a few comments of my own, in order to incite a discussion because this is an issue I feel hasn't been discussed enough here.

Statistics

119 Israeli children have been killed by Palestinians and 971 Palestinian children have been killed by Israelis since September 29, 2000.

1,027 Israelis and at least 4,345 Palestinians have been killed since September 29, 2000.

7,633 Israelis and 31,531 Palestinians have been injured since September 29, 2000.

Comments

***The following comment is invalid, but is being preserved for posterity***: I feel that when I voice these statistics, I always have to remind people that-- while accurate-- we should remember that Israel is in the minority, so these statistics aren't as surprising as they may initially seem. For example, if in a sample of ten people, three were men, seven were women, and five were shot and killed, it would be more likely that more women were killed then men. This does not, however, diminish the significance of these numbers. The fact of the matter is that people are dying. I'll discuss my thoughts on US involvement after the following statistics.

Statistics

The U.S. gives more than $7,023,288 per day to the Israeli government and military and gives no money to the Palestinians.

Israel has been targeted by at least 65 UN resolutions and the Palestinians have been targeted by none.

1 Israeli is being held prisoner by Palestinians, while 10,756 Palestinians are currently imprisoned by Israel.

0 Israeli homes have been demolished by Palestinians and 4,170 Palestinian homes have been demolished by Israel since September 29, 2000.

The Israeli unemployment rate is 9%, while the Palestinian unemployment is estimated at 40%.

Israel currently has 223 Jewish-only settlements and ‘outposts’ built on confiscated Palestinian land. Palestinians do not have any settlements on Israeli land.

Comments

***This comment is also invalid***: Now, as stated above, while the death toll is heavily weighted towards the Palestinian side, we must remember that the Palestinian population is much larger than the Israeli population. This by no means diminishes the significance of their deaths. However, one should find it a bit odd that Israel-- the minority-- is exacting such totalitarian military control over the majority, and with help from the United States government.

***This comment IS VERY VALID***: The US's interest in maintaining allies with Israel is purely for the US's benefits, and not in the interest of peace.

The US is sending monetary and military aid to a power that is already link

And that is a fact that cannot be skewed or misinterpreted.

Questions? Comments? Thoughts? Rebuttals?
last edited on May 09, 2008 at 08:09AM

Дебаты 12 Ответы

Click here to write a response...
Больше года Cinders said…
*Bump*

Anyone want to discuss this with me?
Больше года blisslikethis said…
:S.. this isn't a topic i feel all that comfortable debating, but i'll give it a shot.

i definitely agree with you about the involvement of the US. i honestly don't see any good coming out of their involvement, and with all the time and money they're pouring into this conflict, they could be doing better things with it.

i'm not sure where you're getting your statistics, but Israel actually has a 67% majority (as of Jan 07).. and taking that into account does make those statistics seem surprising.
last edited Больше года
Больше года Cinders said…
Ah, really?

Well then, Palestinians USED to be in the majority. I guess that's outdated then (I discussed this in a class 2003, where I got it from a text book written in 2001).
Больше года blisslikethis said…
that's very odd, because they haven't been since about 1948.
Больше года Cinders said…
Then I guess the textbook was flawed. Or maybe it was propaganda. I prefer conspiracy theories to typos.
Больше года tessajanuary said…
We discussed this issue in a class of mine a couple of years ago, but I do think that I'm not as fully informed about this topic as I possibly should be, so if I make any factual errors or offend anyone, I apologize.

That being said, I agree with you that the statistics seem very skewed. Personally, I think that both the Palestinians and the Israelis have valid claims to the land. One of the biggest problems in my opinion is that there is a mentality in the conflict that only ONE of the two sides can control the land. This stems partially from the fact that there is so little of it. In a country about the size of Massachusetts, two major ethnic groups do not have much room to "share" the space, or at least come to a mutually beneficial agreement.

The Israelis, now in control of the country, and with the backing of as you said "one of the most powerful militaries in the world", have no intention of giving up part of the land they are already in control of and believe is rightfully theirs.

Fighting against the huge power of the Israelis, the Palestinians have to resort to terrorist-type tactics to even get noticed. This, of course, doesn't make the Israeli government any more willing to acknowledge the Palestinians.

I think that there is a long way to go before a mutually acceptable peace agreement can be reached.
Больше года blisslikethis said…
i completely agree. just looking at a demographic map of Israel shows you how complicated this issue is.
Больше года Cinders said…
Just to support bliss's corrections, according to the graph on link the population of Jews in the area was a 50.7 percent majority in 2005.
last edited Больше года
Больше года Gstine said…
I think this is a difficult issue to start a debate with because, for a number of reasons, very few Americans are even willing to take a stance on this.

The first and most obvious reason is that most people don't know much about the issue. It's hard to even get unbiased information on it because of our own government's involvement with the Israelis.

The second is that it's one of those debates that a lot of people don't want to touch because it's a racial issue. Worse than that, it's an issue that involves two racial minorities (Jews and Arabs). Most racial issues in the US boil down to white vs. everyone else, making it slightly easier to take a side. With the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, it's difficult... scratch that, impossible to choose a side without being viewed as racist in some way.

Finally, as has been pointed out before, it's simply a very complicated issue. Does Israel have the right to kick people out of their homes in order to take back land that had been taken from them in the first place? Good luck coming up with an answer to that. Think about it this way: The Native Americans get together and decide they need their own nation with a centralized government. The UN backs them. Then, they decide they want the land that was stolen from them 150 years ago, the land of their ancestors. The UN continues to back them. So, we (and by "we", I'm specifically referring to Americans), have to leave our homes and go elsewhere.

Who's in the right?
Больше года harold said…
Wow, that's pretty cool, Gstine. I was thinking of a similar case, having to do with East Germany. Disclaimer: I myself have been indirectly involved in a dispute along these lines. I'd like to think I don't have a lot of bias, but I'm probably too close to it to be objective. That said...

Depending on your age and/or awareness of recent European history, you'll remember that Europe was embroiled in the Second World War from 1939 - 1945. By 1945, Germany was pretty much bankrupt from conducting the war on multiple fronts. The Soviet army invaded from Poland/Russia and then occupied the country (as well as most of eastern Europe) according to the plans laid out by the US, UK and the USSR at the Yalta conference earlier that year. Those who were able to do so fled the country to avoid the massacre at Soviet hands. For the next 44 years, Soviet citizens settled in occupied Germany. Depending on the age and enthusiasm of the people in question, this could amount to either two or three whole generations living on the land, claiming it as their own.

Then, in 1989, the Berlin wall came down and within a few years, Germany was legally united once more (social unity has taken much longer). The families that had fled their homes during the war returned to find their lands and houses (if they were still standing) occupied by generations of other families, who naturally felt that the land belonged to them. In this real-world example (which is over a much shorter period - easily within one person's lifetime - than either the hypothetical Native American case - between one and three centuries - or the real case of Israel/Palestine - thousands of years), it's still ambiguous to me. Who is in the right in claiming the land as theirs? The people living on the land, or the people with the prior claim? Is there a time required before an occupier becomes legitimate owner, or is a factually verifiable prior claim always valid?

That would be my entry for an actual debate topic related to this discussion. What do you think?

(edit: added some emphatic text formatting)
last edited Больше года
Больше года harold said…
Thinking about it for a while longer, I realize that my question, while interesting, isn't all that related to Cinders' original post. I think it's an easy mistake to get into, and one that is very common when considering Israel and Palestine: we get stuck on the more legal issues (prior claims, rights to the land), when I don't think that's really what Cinders is interested in, given her copious statistics of injury and death. What I believe the question that Cinders may be coy about actually asking is (the generalization from the specific is mine): Is there any situation in which a country's government is justified in oppressing a segment of its country's population? We could get into social, ethnic or religious particulars, but I think the question will always boil down to that one: is there any justification for a government to oppress (conduct war on, imprison indefinitely, seize possessions, destroy homes, kill) its own citizenry?

(edit: corrected a verb tense problem)
last edited Больше года
Больше года Cinders said…
Indeed.

My "official" stance on the Israel-Palestine issue is that each side needs to recognize and respect the other and then come to a conclusion. Neither side is entitled to the land more than the other, because regardless of who was promised what first, the fact of the matter is that it's been so long that everyone considers the land their home, and they don't want to leave just because someone tells them that they don't belong there. I think that the education in the area needs to improve in order to occupy young people, and that the US should pull it's aid from Israel (and yes, I mean that entirely).

HOWEVER, my stance on the perception of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is often one of frustration, with pro-Palestinian leanings. It frustrates me that the US government continues to support the oppression of the Palestinian people, who in all honesty have just as much of a right to be there as the Israelis. I am also bothered by the skewed view of the conflict that the American media portrays. I am also irritated by the fact that if you don't support Israel, it must mean you are anti-Semitic. Because it doesn't.

I think that the actions of the Israeli army is just as harmful-- if not more harmful as its actions are supported by a super power-- as the actions of Hamas fighters.

So in answer to your question, harold: No. A big, big no.
Cookies help us bring you Fanpop. By using Fanpop, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More Got It!