I feel like I’ve been kind of in the loop for most of the headlines regarding this confrontation. Yet somehow I can’t find it within myself to actually care about either side. It seems like both are lead by genocidal parties, hell bent on indoctrinating their populace into hating the other side. Yet at the same time people are able to discern which state is the good one. And some going so far as to believe that one state might even be right over the other.

So far from what I’ve read and heard, it seems that overall Isreal is just more successful militarily and is encroaching on Palestinian land, and is exhibiting control over some of it. Is that the reason why one might support Palestine? Is it the fact that Isreal has more direct power in the region and thus can easily execute its will a problematic issue for some? From what I can see, both sides have caused massive civilian casualties and neither side wants a two state solution, so neither of those reasons can be a contributing factor to side picking, right? That being said, I can’t find a reason for supporting Isreal, so does Palestine win out by default? But what of the people that support Isreal, do they do that purely because they’re an American ally? Is any of this side taking have anything to do with the insertion of Jews into the region? What is expected to be done outside of a two state solution or genocide by those taking sides?

I have a lot of questions, and I obviously don’t expect all of them to be answered in a single post. So maybe focusing on the elements you’re highly informed on would be helpful and then I can kind of piece together the details. Thank you in advance!

  • dfyx@lemmy.helios42.de
    161·
    6 months ago

    This whole thing is a major political problem that has been brewing pretty much since World War II. I’m by far not an expert so I might get some details wrong but I’ll try.

    During the war, millions of Jews fled from the Nazis and the Allies were wondering what to do with all those refugees. One option was British-occupied Palestine. The reasoning was that it geographically coincided with ancient Isreael, the Jewish homeland. The problem is that it had been inhabited by Muslims for over 1300 years so obviously the Arab population wasn’t too happy about giving up the region their families had lived in for generations just because some western colonial power had decided to give it to some refugees.

    The plan was to split Palestine into two states - Palestine and Israel - with Jerusalem as a neutral zone under control of the United Nations. Because of the unstable situation - including terrorist attacks against the British administration - this was never fully implemented. The state of Isreael was officially founded in 1948 but there was never any formal agreement on who controls which parts of the region. The Arabs got driven from their homes and only kept the West Bank and the Gaza Strip but were obviously never happy about that. (Edit: please see correction by @Sprawlie@lemmy.world below. The situation is even more complicated) While the general population would probably be okay with just being left in peace, there are radical groups like Hamas who want to take back what was taken from them by the British and Israel.

    On the other hand, nobody who lives in Israel today was involved 80 years ago when the British decided on their plan. These people were born in Israel and have lived there all their lives. So in a way, both sides just want to keep their homes. There have been several proposals for how we could solve this, including an official two states solution that would regulate the borders (obviously not favored by Palestine), a single state solution (forcing two groups who have been fighting each other for 80 years could be tricky) and reverting everything the British decided and kicking out the Jewish population (obviously not favored by Israel). There just is no good solution and so the situation in the area is heating up more and more. From their own perspectives, both sides have good reasons for what they’re doing though the way they’re doing it is obviously not acceptable.

    (Edit: corrected 1400 to 1300. Math is hard)

    • Sprawlie@lemmy.world
      93·
      6 months ago

      The state of Isreael was officially founded in 1948 but there was never any formal agreement on who controls which parts of the region. The Arabs got driven from their homes and only kept the West Bank and the Gaza Strip but were obviously never happy about that.

      This is one place I just want to offer some correction:

      There was a formal agreement between UN/West and the Jewish people who occupied the areas that were to become Israel. The British Mandate of Palestine had a sizeable Jewish population already which is why it was also favoured.

      It was the Arab nations who completely disagreed and said “NO” to the partition plans. Under which a large portion of the southern half of Israel would become Palestine-Jordan. (Jordan was originally intended to be the Palestinian/muslim portion). The WestBank was accepted as Jordanian in this agreement, as well as Gaza ownership was by Egypt. Israel would originally honour those borders.

      Once the British Mandated ended and Israel formed, All the surrounding Arab nations attacked Israel immediately, Calling for all Muslims within the Israel land to leave Israel and fight against it. Israel won this war annexing the entirety of Israel instead.

      Israel would not actually take Gaza or the West Bank until later wars. They took West Bank from Jordan; Gaza and the Sinai from Egypt. They would later return Sinai to Egypt as part of Peace treaty, but Egypt did not want Gaza due their own history with the Palestinian’s of the region.

      As for the Muslim’s who stayed in Israel after its forming? They’re citizens and have full vote/power/rights as every single other Israeli citizen. Since Israel is a democracy with a fairly secular government (even if it’s currently ran by right wing terrorists).

        • Sprawlie@lemmy.world
          3·
          6 months ago

          The situation is even more complicated) While the general population would probably be okay with just being left in peace, there are radical groups like Hamas who want to take back what was taken from them by the British and Israel.

          As you said in your edit, the situation is extremely complicated, because it involved groups that are historically opposed for generations, if not centuries.

      • dfyx@lemmy.helios42.de
        3·
        6 months ago

        Thank you for the nice words. I just felt like with all the discussion of who did what in the last few years, people are forgetting why Israel and Palestine are fighting in the first place.

        Of course there is a lot more to this. For example the fact that Jerusalem is considered a sacred place by three different major religions and so the question who controls it is not only political but also symbolic. It was literally the (official) reason for the crusades during the middle ages. In that way, a neutral Jerusalem might have actually been a good idea. Though of course we don’t know what other problems that would have caused.

        • Sprawlie@lemmy.world
          5·
          6 months ago

          A Neutral UN city not directly ran by Israel or Palestine would likely have settled a lot of tensions. Firstly, Israel couldn’t claim it their capital, which has been a major pain point for decades now. Something Trump further inflamed by moving the US Consulate to Israel in it.

          If it were made a place where all religions of all type are allowed in all parts as a historical landmark, maybe there’d be a peaceful place where the three Bbrahamic religions could actually find common ground.

          Instead they created a religious McGuffin to fight over.