5 ms·

This conflict has been a huge thing since the 90s. I would argue the vast majority of people in the west had an opinion on that conflict.

smitty1e 3y ago
Since 1948, when modern Israel was founded.
- sabarn01 3y ago
  since the 1880's at least. The status of palistance was the cause for the crusades so I think we need to understand there is no resolution possible.
  - __loam 3y ago
    I don't think the crusades are especially relevant to the current issues, other than they happened to happen in the same place. WWI and the defeat of the Ottomans is basically where the current situation arose from.
    - busterarm 3y ago
      The specific place is important for historical reasons and there have been migrations of Jews back to the area (after being expelled from Spain/Portugal, etc) since the 1490s. The population was small, up to about 5% of the region during the Ottomans (after heavy losses due to multiple Black Plague outbreaks), but the reason that specific area was chosen (as opposed to alternatives) was because there was already a community of Jews there. Keep in mind that the vast majority of the area was uninhabited swamps until the 1940s and huge numbers of people died from malaria every year before resettling Jews completely changed the local terrain. Look up details about the the late 1880s and the distinctions marking the difference between the Old Yishuv and New Yishuv. Political aspirations of the Old Yishuv were pretty low due to the fact that they were broke as shit and depended on handouts from abroad, whereas New Yishuv resettlers came with money and dreams.
      - sabarn01 3y ago
        Jews were a majority of Jerusalem even in 1850. Some communities have existed since roman times. Its a complicated story that doesn't start within anyone's living memory.
        busterarm 3y ago
        I largely agree but the community was pretty persecuted and dispersed from the early 5th century through basically the 1200s. The biggest problem I find with the collective understanding people have of the conflict is that people largely think nothing of note happened before 1900 but the prior history determines a ton of why later decisions were made that people attribute to the start of conflict.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
        pasabagi 3y ago
        I kind of take the opposite position. History is complicated, always. However, the basic problem of Israel and Palestine is that Palestinians either live under military law (the West Bank) or in a big prison (Gaza). That's obviously not a democratic, dignified, or otherwise morally defensible situation. Ultimately, the security needs of Israel need to be balanced against the rights of the Palestinians, and as it stands, the Palestinians have no negotiating power, so they get nothing. If politicians around the world made it clear you cannot be 'the only democracy in the middle east' while having millions of people subject to military law, I expect the Palestinians would have enough negotiating room to force some kind of reasonable settlement.
        dotancohen 3y ago
        Well then you really should look at how the West Bank came to fall under military law, and how the Gaza Strip became overpopulated with both its neighboring countries closing its borders. History is complicated, yes, but it is how we got into this situation and everybody's idea of a solution is based on their preferred version of history.
  - instaeloq 3y ago
    [flagged]

smitty1e 3y ago

Since 1948, when modern Israel was founded.

sabarn01 3y ago
since the 1880's at least. The status of palistance was the cause for the crusades so I think we need to understand there is no resolution possible.
- __loam 3y ago
  I don't think the crusades are especially relevant to the current issues, other than they happened to happen in the same place. WWI and the defeat of the Ottomans is basically where the current situation arose from.
  - busterarm 3y ago
    The specific place is important for historical reasons and there have been migrations of Jews back to the area (after being expelled from Spain/Portugal, etc) since the 1490s. The population was small, up to about 5% of the region during the Ottomans (after heavy losses due to multiple Black Plague outbreaks), but the reason that specific area was chosen (as opposed to alternatives) was because there was already a community of Jews there. Keep in mind that the vast majority of the area was uninhabited swamps until the 1940s and huge numbers of people died from malaria every year before resettling Jews completely changed the local terrain. Look up details about the the late 1880s and the distinctions marking the difference between the Old Yishuv and New Yishuv. Political aspirations of the Old Yishuv were pretty low due to the fact that they were broke as shit and depended on handouts from abroad, whereas New Yishuv resettlers came with money and dreams.
    - sabarn01 3y ago
      Jews were a majority of Jerusalem even in 1850. Some communities have existed since roman times. Its a complicated story that doesn't start within anyone's living memory.
      - busterarm 3y ago
        I largely agree but the community was pretty persecuted and dispersed from the early 5th century through basically the 1200s. The biggest problem I find with the collective understanding people have of the conflict is that people largely think nothing of note happened before 1900 but the prior history determines a ton of why later decisions were made that people attribute to the start of conflict.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
        pasabagi 3y ago
        I kind of take the opposite position. History is complicated, always. However, the basic problem of Israel and Palestine is that Palestinians either live under military law (the West Bank) or in a big prison (Gaza). That's obviously not a democratic, dignified, or otherwise morally defensible situation. Ultimately, the security needs of Israel need to be balanced against the rights of the Palestinians, and as it stands, the Palestinians have no negotiating power, so they get nothing. If politicians around the world made it clear you cannot be 'the only democracy in the middle east' while having millions of people subject to military law, I expect the Palestinians would have enough negotiating room to force some kind of reasonable settlement.
        dotancohen 3y ago
        Well then you really should look at how the West Bank came to fall under military law, and how the Gaza Strip became overpopulated with both its neighboring countries closing its borders. History is complicated, yes, but it is how we got into this situation and everybody's idea of a solution is based on their preferred version of history.
- instaeloq 3y ago
  [flagged]