The Jewish perspective of: The Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

The Jewish perspective of: The Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Topic: Arab bank case settlement
May 23, 2019 / By Marylu
Question: Ok, I'm a Jewish and Latina and I've been dealing with this a lot lately, because I live in a predominately Arab neighborhood. I want to know what others (Jewish and Israeli) think of the Israeli Palestinian conflict? What is going on currently, what should happen and where it is going in the future? I've already heard the other side, so please limit this to the Israeli viewpoint. I really need the help... serious answers only!! This is very important. Todah!!
Best Answer

Best Answers: The Jewish perspective of: The Israeli-Palestinian conflict?

Lara Lara | 6 days ago
Daily we hear assertions that Israel is occupying Palestinian land. Even the New York Times reports without comment or clarification that Israeli troops ”ventured into the Palestinian territories“ or that Arab militants are upset because Israel is ”building settlements on Palestinian land.“ This is, of course, propaganda of the first order, since there is no such thing as Palestinian land, and to use that phrase is to promote a blatantly political — anti-Israel — agenda. Yet like so many lies, the myth of Palestinian territory seems to gather adherents and the patina of respectability the more it is repeated. Israel has never taken land from the Palestinians, and the Palestinians have no legal claim to Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) or Gaza. (That's not to say that the Palestinians shouldn't have land or even a state, but only that such land or state must be the product of negotiations with Israel and not a foregone conclusion before such negotiations begin and certainly not a justification for terrorism.) By Lawrence Auster, There is a myth hanging over all discussion of the Palestinian problem: the myth that this land was "Arab" land taken from its native inhabitants by invading Jews. Whatever may be the correct solution to the problems of the Middle East, let's get a few things straight: 1. As a strictly legal matter, the Jews didn't take Palestine from the Arabs; they took it from the British, who exercised sovereign authority in Palestine under a League of Nations mandate for thirty years prior to Israel's declaration of independence in 1948. And the British don't want it back.2. If you consider the British illegitimate usurpers, fine. In that case, this territory is not Arab land but Turkish land, a province of the Ottoman Empire for hundreds of years until the British wrested it from them during the Great War in 1917. And the Turks don't want it back.3. If you look back earlier in history than the Ottoman Turks, who took over Palestine over in 1517, you find it under the sovereignty of the yet another empire not indigenous to Palestine: the Mamluks, who were Turkish and Circassian slave-soldiers headquartered in Egypt. And the Mamluks don't even exist any more, so they can't want it back. So, going back 800 years, there's no particularly clear chain of title that makes Israel's title to the land inferior to that of any of the previous owners. Who were, continuing backward:--The Mamluks, already mentioned, who in 1250 took Palestine over from:--The Ayyubi dynasty, the descendants of Saladin, the Kurdish Muslim leader who in 1187 took Jerusalem and most of Palestine from:--The European Christian Crusaders, who in 1099 conquered Palestine from:--The Seljuk Turks, who ruled Palestine in the name of:--The Abbasid Caliphate of Baghdad, which in 750 took over the sovereignty of the entire Near East from:--The Umayyad Caliphate of Damascus, which in 661 inherited control of the Islamic lands from:--The Arabs of Arabia, who in the first flush of Islamic expansion conquered Palestine in 638 from:--The Byzantines, who (nice people—perhaps it should go to them?) didn't conquer the Levant, but, upon the division of the Roman Empire in 395, inherited Palestine from:--The Romans, who in 63 B.C. took it over from:--The last Jewish kingdom, which during the Maccabean rebellion from 168 to 140 B.C. won control of the land from:--The Hellenistic Greeks, who under Alexander the Great in 333 B.C. conquered the Near East from:--The Persian empire, which under Cyrus the Great in 639 B.C. freed Jerusalem and Judah from:--The Babylonian empire, which under Nebuchadnezzar in 586 B.C. took Jerusalem and Judah from:--The Jews, meaning the people of the Kingdom of Judah, who, in their earlier incarnation as the Israelites, seized the land in the 12th and 13th centuries B.C. from:--The Canaanites, who had inhabited the land for thousands of years before they were dispossessed by the Israelites. As the foregoing suggests, any Arab claim to sovereignty based on inherited historical control will not stand up. Arabs are not native to Palestine, but are native to Arabia, which is called Arab-ia for the breathtakingly simple reason that it is the historic home of the Arabs. The territories comprising all other "Arab" states outside the Arabian peninsula—including Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, Tunisia, and Algeria, as well as the entity now formally under the Palestinian Authority—were originally non-Arab nations that were conquered by the Muslim Arabs when they spread out from the Arabian peninsula in the first great wave of jihad in the 7th century, defeating, mass-murdering, enslaving, dispossessing, converting, or reducing to the lowly status of dhimmitude millions of Christians and Jews and destroying their ancient and flourishing civilizations. Prior to being Christian, of course, these lands had even more ancient histories. Pharaonic Egypt, for example, was not an Arab country through its 3,000 year history. The recent assertion by the Palestinian Arabs that they are descended from the ancient Canaanites whom the ancient Hebrews displaced is absurd in light of the archeological evidence. There is no record of the Canaanites surviving their destruction in ancient times. History records literally hundreds of ancient peoples that no longer exist. The Arab claim to be descended from Canaanites is an invention that came after the 1964 founding of the Palestine Liberation Organization, the same crew who today deny that there was ever a Jewish temple in Jerusalem. Prior to 1964 there was no "Palestinian" people and no "Palestinian" claim to Palestine; the Arab nations who sought to overrun and destroy Israel in 1948 planned to divide up the territory amongst themselves. Let us also remember that prior to the founding of the state of Israel in 1948, the name "Palestinian" referred to the Jews of Palestine. In any case, today's "Palestine," meaning the West Bank and Gaza, is, like most of the world, inhabited by people who are not descendants of the first human society to inhabit that territory. This is true not only of recently settled countries like the United States and Argentina, where European settlers took the land from the indigenous inhabitants several hundred years ago, but also of ancient nations like Japan, whose current Mongoloid inhabitants displaced a primitive people, the Ainu, eons ago. Major "native" tribes of South Africa, like the Zulu, are actually invaders from the north who arrived in the 17th century. India's caste system reflects waves of fair- skinned Aryan invaders who arrived in that country in the second millennium B.C. One could go on and on. The only nations that have perfect continuity between their earliest known human inhabitants and their populations of the present day are Iceland, parts of China, and a few Pacific islands. The Chinese case is complicated by the fact that the great antiquity of Chinese civilization has largely erased the traces of whatever societies preceded it, making it difficult to reconstruct to what extent the expanding proto-Chinese displaced (or absorbed) the prehistoric peoples of that region. History is very sketchy in regard to the genealogies of ancient peoples. The upshot is that "aboriginalism"—the proposition that the closest descendants of the original inhabitants of a territory are the rightful owners—is not tenable in the real world. It is not clear that it would be a desirable idea even if it were tenable. Would human civilization really be better off if there had been no China, no Japan, no Greece, no Rome, no France, no England, no Ireland, no United States? Back to the Arabs: I have no problem recognizing the legitimacy of the Arabs' tenure in Palestine when they had it, from 638 to 1099, a period of 461 years out of a history lasting 5,000 years. They took Palestine by military conquest, and they lost it by conquest, to the Christian Crusaders in 1099. Of course, military occupation by itself does not determine which party rightly has sovereignty in a given territory. Can it not be said that the Arabs have sovereign rights, if not to all of Israel, then at least to the West Bank, by virtue of their majority residency in that region from the early Middle Ages to the present? To answer that question, let's look again at the historical record. Prior to 1947, as we've discussed, Palestine was administered by the British under the Palestine Mandate, the ultimate purpose of which, according to the Balfour Declaration, was the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine. In 1924 the British divided the Palestine Mandate into an Arabs-only territory east of the Jordan, which became the Kingdom of Trans-Jordan, and a greatly reduced Palestine Mandate territory west of the Jordan, which was inhabited by both Arabs and Jews. Given the fact that the Jews and Arabs were unable to coexist in one state, there had to be two states. At the same time, there were no natural borders separating the two peoples, in the way that, for example, the Brenner Pass has historically marked the division between Latin and Germanic Europe. Since the Jewish population was concentrated near the coast, the Jewish state had to start at the coast and go some distance inland. Exactly where it should have stopped, and where the Arab state should have begun, was a practical question that could have been settled in any number of peaceful ways, almost all of which the Jews would have accepted. The Jews' willingness to compromise on territory was demonstrated not only by their acquiescence in the UN's 1947 partition plan, which gave them a state with squiggly, indefensible borders, but even by their earlier acceptance of the 1937 Peel Commission partition plan, which gave them nothing more than a part of the Galilee and a tiny strip along the coast. Yet the Arab nations, refusing to accept any Jewish sovereignty in Palestine even if it was the size of a postage stamp, unanimously rejected the 1937 Peel plan, and nine years later they violently rejected the UN's partition plan as well. When the Arabs resorted to arms in order to wipe out the Jews and destroy the Jewish state, they accepted the verdict of arms. They lost that verdict in 1948, and they lost it again in 1967, when Jordan, which had annexed the West Bank in 1948 (without any objections from Palestinian Arabs that their sovereign nationhood was being violated), attacked Israel from the West Bank during the Six Day War despite Israel's urgent pleas that it stay out of the conflict. Israel in self-defense then captured the West Bank. The Arabs thus have no grounds to complain either about Israel's existence (achieved in '48) or about its expanded sovereignty from the river to the sea (achieved in '67). The Arabs have roiled the world for decades with their furious protest that their land has been "stolen" from them. One might take seriously such a statement if it came from a pacifist people such as the Tibetans, who had quietly inhabited their land for ages before it was seized by the Communist Chinese in 1950. The claim is laughable coming from the Arabs, who in the early Middle Ages conquered and reduced to slavery and penury ancient peoples and civilizations stretching from the borders of Persia to the Atlantic; who in 1947 rejected an Arab state in Palestine alongside a Jewish state and sought to obliterate the nascent Jewish state; who never called for a distinct Palestinian Arab state until the creation of the terrorist PLO in 1964—sixteen years after the founding of the state of Israel; and who to this moment continue to seek Israel's destruction, an object that would be enormously advanced by the creation of the Arab state they demand. The Arab claim to sovereign rights west of the Jordan is only humored today because of a fatal combination of world need for Arab oil, leftist Political Correctness that has cast the Israelis as "oppressors," and, of course, good old Jew-hatred. Lawrence Auster is the author of Erasing America: The Politics of the Borderless Nation.
👍 240 | 👎 6
Did you like the answer? The Jewish perspective of: The Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Share with your friends

We found more questions related to the topic: Arab bank case settlement

Lara Originally Answered: Israeli-Palestinian Conflict?
Israel is part of historical Palestine. The parts you probably are referring to are the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. If you are interested in details, I suggest you read my answer to this question for a brief and factual history of the conflict: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...

Jerri Jerri
I am not Jewish, but a staunch supporter of Israel. I have heard Pro-Palestinians argue that the land was stolen by the Jews and can agree with that. Afterall, Palestine was under British occupation, and after the war mostly American Jews saw this is an opportunity to return to the Holy Land and reestablish Israel and have an opportunity to guarentee their own self preservation, as the world stoodby and tolerated wholesale slaughter under the Nazi regime. I have heard Palestinians argue that Germany should have had to cede lands for the formation of Israel and not Palestine. I can't argue with that, in an ideal world, yes. However, when 50 years have passed nothing can make that sutiation perfectly equitable. However, the UN has reconized Israel for over 50 years and blowing up civilians will not change that or weaken Israeli resolve to protect their country. However, many countries in that region do not channel their often vast resources into education and providing long term economic stability (as the UAE has done) but rather stir up mass support among the poor and uneducated with anti-Israel rhetoric. Further, I doubt that most Palestinians want peace. I would like to think otherwise, but it should be clear to most that there representatives have not, Arafat, Hamas (and the majority that elected them), etc. Israel is further weakened because they have no great allies. Though the west loves using Israel as a buffer for anti-west fundamentalist aggression, they exert pressure on Israel to make concessions they themselves would never accept. Europe and the US agreed to basic conditions that Palestine must renounce violence on civilians, recognize the Israeli right to exist, and honor previous treaties for the peace process to continue. None of these 3 things should have ever been negotiable; Europe however, now wants Israel to move forward with the Palestinian counter-offer as a terrorist government is on the brink of implosion and has no power to negotiate. Israel must quit walking a tight rope and be less concerned with western opinion. They should continue to work towards peace with more and more of their neighbors who are willing to recognize them. Working relations with Turkey, Egypt, and hopefully down the road with the UAE, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait may help to isolate the fundamental nations amongst the Arab League. However Israel must not be forced to capitulate to the weakening resolve of the west. It is Isrealis who are conistently terrorized on their buses each morning to work, their stores and markets in the afternoons, and their restaurants on the weekends.
👍 100 | 👎 5

Flor Flor
Well I'm not Jewish so I can't speak from that perspective but I do know for a fact that I just got two more points. So, if I have the Israel-Palestinian conflict to thank for that, then I say, by all means, continue the conflict. It's important to find something positive from this question thread
👍 95 | 👎 4

Dale Dale
certainly this is a heavy subject no longer in the scope of one question. If i could ought to summurize my opinion i could say that the midsection of this conflict is that the Arabs are unwilling to compromize approximately something that's in need of throwing the jews to the sea. it particularly is, that they had by way of the final ninety years many possibilities to get an Arabic state interior of Israel, usually with extra beneficial territory than presented to the jews, yet they continually insisted to get all or no longer something. even whilst Israel replaced into based they did no longer settle for it and started all those nicely universal wars. throughout the time of all negotioations they stored being headstrong no count what replaced into presented to them. In different words they on no account and nevertheless would not settle for the extraordinary for the jews to have a jewish state in Israel. regardless of if in the international media they could declare in any different case, this is unquestionably universal that as quickly as they talk in Arabic to their people they continually say that their objective remains the total "Palestine" with Jerusalem as its capital. of direction there's an more advantageous question of what are Palestineans? As Golda as quickly as mentioned: "till now '40 8 we've been all palestineans" it particularly is to assert that there is not any such us of a of palestineans yet rahter jews and arabs, and as all of us understand the "Plaestineans" have been certainly Jordaneans or Egyptians. yet that yet another subject count. what's gonna take place? regrettably i do no longer think of issues are goin to get extra appropriate in the close to destiny. The "plaestineans" try to get as lots weapons as they are able to. They prepare their toddlers a distorted historic past and brainwash them to hate the jews. no longer something good will pop out from that. i think of it could take some extra a protracted time till now something could replace. yet i'm no longer worried. The jews have been here for 1000's of years and survived lots worse catastrophies. in spite of the undeniable fact that I do concern for us destroying Israel with our very own palms something which in step with threat occurring in the previous couple of years.
👍 90 | 👎 3

Blanch Blanch
ISrael calls for peace and wants to work with Palestine to have a two state solution. ISrael does not want war. IF The Arabs put down their weapons there will not be a war. If Israel put down their weapons they will lose Israel.
👍 85 | 👎 2

Blanch Originally Answered: Israeli/Palestinian Conflict?
you need to read a more detailed history. the Palestinians are the descendents of the tenant farmers who worked lands owned by absentee Turkish landlords. Jews began arriving in Palestine from Europe in the late 1800s as part of the Zionist movement. They bought land from the then Turkish owners up through the first world war. Thus, in 1918 when the war ended and the British took over management, there were Palestinian farmers who didn't own the land and Jewish recent immigrants who did own land. The Palestinians got limited rights to the land free from the British while Jews had to [and did] pay. Between the wars, Jewish immigration continued and under much the same policies. Both sides chafed under the British -- so much so that both mounted terrorist actions to try to force the British out [without success]. After 1945, the UN decided to divide the area into two states -- one, majority Jewish and called Israel by its people and the other called Jordan with a Hashemite King [Britain rewarded the Hashemites for their service in the First World War in helping to oust the Turks from the region. However, in the meantime, the al Saud tribe and allies had run the Hashemites out of Arabia which was to be the Hashemite Kingdom as promised by the British]. as you know, in 1948, both the Jordanian and Egyptian armies attacked the formation of Israel and both governments encouraged Palestinians to flee Israel until after their victory, when they could return [and also could claim the lands of their Jewish neighbors]. With the peace agreement [truce] of 1948, this proved impossible. Neither Jordan nor Egypt was willing to take in the peoples they'd make promises to, resulting in the West Bank and Gaza -- Palestinian areas nominally under the authority of Jordan and Egypt, respectively, but whose people were prohibited from integrating with more normal Jordanian or Egyptian society. As I read it, I blame Egypt and Jordan for the resulting mess. They've used the Palestinians as cat's paws for generations to keep pressure on Israel. Both Egypt and Jordan seized all Jewish owned properties in their nations without compensation in 1948. They passed none of this loot on to the disenfranchised Palestinians -- preferring to keep them poor and angry. This leads to my answer to your question -- Israel gets to keep for themselves as much of the area as they wish. They won the truce in 1948. They've won all the wars since. As the losers, the Egyptians and Jordanians should have had to take in the Palestinians -- their clients whom they wronged.

If you have your own answer to the question arab bank case settlement, then you can write your own version, using the form below for an extended answer.