When I read Akhila’s e-mail about the possible opportunity to do a guest post about Being the Change, the first thing that came to mind was Palestine. I am a political blogger and a political individual, I will spare you all a fiery one-sided rant about who should be in the dock at The Hague and instead focus on why I think people need to wake up to this conflict.

I am constantly surprised when people are confronted with the question of Israel and Palestine, their responses to it and the utter changes that come across people’s faces when the conflict is given mention. People that are normally well-educated, socially and politically motivated and not in the least bit apathetic suddenly descend into a blathering mess of umms, errs and ‘why can’t they all just get along’-type cliches. The misconceptions about this conflict are staggering. People somehow imagine something like the flawed cartoon above, two crazed peoples butting heads until oblivion. The idea that this conflict exists because Jews and Muslims have always hated each other, or because the land has been hotly contested for thousands of years or because there must be something in the water make about as much sense as ‘they hate our freedom’ being touted as the reason for 9/11. Ie. not much at all.

In reality, the conflict’s roots can be traced to no earlier than the late 19th century, when the Zionist movement began and immigration of European Jews to what was then Ottoman-controlled Palestine gathered pace, and the modern phase began when the State of Israel was declared in 1948. The conflict has always been one over land, over national self-determination and over political power. The religious element was only injected later to whip up support on both sides. Whatever Qur’anic verses you may have heard lambasting Jews specifically, for example, are shady at best, and have only been seriously invoked recently. And while anti-semitism has long been a scourge globally, specifically anti-semitic political movements, such as al-Qaeda, and political figures, such as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, are recent additions that have come about in reaction to the political situation.

The “Palestinians” and their supposed Arab friends, as far as the conflict goes, are far from a monolithic entity. Within Palestine itself, there are two widely divergent and conflicting dominant political movements, of the Western/Israeli-supported Fatah (currently rather unpopular locally) that rules the West Bank and represents the Palestinian Authority, and the Western/Israeli-shunned Hamas that governs Gaza.

If I was to try to even barely sum up in dot points the main events of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or the wider Arab-Israeli conflict which is inextricably linked, I would fill up pages and pages of Akhila’s precious web real estate and possibly bore many of you (it’s not something you could ever hope to understand in one sitting). We’re talking about a conflict that is roughly 150 years old, and yet entire university subjects are devoted to it as part of undergraduate degrees.

I am unashamedly pro-Palestinian in my personal stance. I do not see this is a two-sided issue. I see that there is a dominant military power and a group of state-less people with no nation and no clear avenue to self-determination. Israel keeps the West Bank under occupation, bisecting its land with checkpoints and ever-growing settlements, and making daily life and economy very difficult for the locals indeed. And while Israel pulled out of Gaza in 2005 (a unilateral decision made for political considerations, not out of the goodness of their hearts, I assure you), it has turned the strip into an open-air prison, imposing a crippling land & sea blockade that keeps Gazans in abject poverty, lacking stable power, food and medication. I condemn Hamas’ constant rocket fire into Israel as deplorable, targeting civilians always is, but the population of Gaza did not deserve to lose 1400 of its number (mostly civilian) to a 3 week blitz known as Operation Cast Lead either. My opinion happens to be shared by several more prominent intellectuals than myself, and on Gaza specifically, has been confirmed by a recent UN fact-finding commission into the Gaza offensive which uncovered war crimes committed by both sides. Our hope is that one day the international community will see this for what it is: an apartheid comparable in scope to that of South Africa, not a namby-pamby two-sided game of ‘oh why don’t they just get along’

Well I had to rant a little… but what I truly encourage you to do is to educate yourselves on this conflict, starting form wikipedia, media, bloggers, intellectuals, wherever you’re comfy, and encompassing as many varied opinions as possible. If you need suggestions, feel free to hit me up via the avenues listed below in my bio.

Don’t get me wrong, I know the world has plenty of other problems. There’s Darfur, there’s Myanmar, there’s North Korea, there’s the Congo, there’s a whole lot of other places and people with issues incredibly deep and suffering that cannot be quantified or truly compared. But if you want to understand the widely disparate geographical area roughly termed the Middle East (the borders of which have never been agreed upon), from Morocco to Pakistan and further, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict holds the key.

Not only is this conflict one of the great moral questions of our time but without understanding this conflict, you will never understand the region, or its politics. And thus fail to understand a region that, apart from being an emerging market economically, polarises politicans, foreign policy wonks, pundits and intellectuals the world over. We saw the importance of the Middle East on 9/11 as we were glued in horror to our television screens, we saw it during the oil shocks and in global trade patterns, costly wars in Iraq & Afghanistan, and that’s just the last 20 years. The importance of this region in global politics today cannot be denied, and neither can the issue at its core: that of Israel and Palestine.

The Changemaker

Alex Lobov is a final year undergraduate student at the University of Melbourne in Australia, majoring in Spanish, Japanese and Accounting. Interested in literature, coffee, fashion, good food and beautiful things. Bored of the politics of his native Australia, he enjoys the never-a-dull-moment nature of Middle Eastern politics. After travelling throughout the region he still harks back to the cliched-but-fantastic shawarma & shisha of the Persian Gulf and beyond. Connect with him over at his blog dedicated to Middle Eastern Politics, The Zeitgeist Politics, his personal blog or his twitter @alexlobov.

  • Share/Save/Bookmark

Related posts:

  1. ICC might investigate Gaza
  2. The Be the Change series comes to an end…
  3. Be the change: I’m not a youth leader, by Mandy Siu
  4. Be the change: Activism is for everyone, by Dollface
  5. Be the change: Small Step - Big Change, by Wendy Lee

  • raimazlan
    good job, a well written post on a chapter essential for any international relations or political sciences book.
    this issue is not 150 years old. it has a long history this land is consider to sacred for all three major religions i.e. Muslims, Jews, and Christians. therefore this fact made this land a battle field for years. it has been under the shadow of invasions and conquerors. every chapter must come to an end and there is no exception with this one. who ever invades who ever starts the battle it is human who suffers. people must think beyond their political and racial goals and gift peace to the humanity and humans of the region.
  • Thanks raimazlan,
    I disagree with you on your point about the conflict's age. The region has seen previous confclits sure, but so has plenty of the world. Europe has seen lots of conflict over a long time, for example, but if Greece were to attack Iran tomorrow, we wouldn't consider it a resumption of Alexander the Great sacking Persepolis. This conflict is young, it started with the Zionist movement and any conflict that occurred previous to that was unrelated entirely.
  • Interesting write up! Having studied I.R as my first degree with special focus on Middle East, I think I'm well versed in this area. You have point in saying that people should educate themselves about this conflict. I'm of the opinion that the reason why there is no solution (or at least working towards a tangible solution) is due to finger-pointing and stance-taking. Choosing sides is not and will never be the solution to this conflict. In fact, it stagnates/worsens the sitution and prevents peace from ever taking a firm hold. Both sides have erred and there is nothing like who erred more, esp. if we are to find solution. I once met a young Isreali woman who told me that the reason why she does not have kids (and will never have one) is because she does not want to bring a child into a world of chaos and conflict. The past is there to act as a reminder of what can happen when we refuse to see beyond the cause. It should not be a benchmark for future; taking sides enables the past to be THE benchmark instead of a reminder. The point is this: we have to think about the future especially future generations. So while I agree we should educate ourselves about this conflict, I also believe this 'education' should be non-partisan. We owe this to future generations and it the only way for OUR generation TO BE THE CHANGE.
  • I have two questions for you MsAmaka,

    1. At what point do we decide that a situation is not a two-sided conflict but a one-sided issue? Would you agree that the situation in Darfur is one-sided for example? Or that South African apartheid was one-sided? Or that the Rwandan genocide was one-sided? Or that the Holocaust was one-sided? In all of these cases, we immediately point the finger and condemn the wrongdoer. Of course I am not saying that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is necessarily at all like these other issues I've mentioned. But according to my reading of history, I believe this situation to be a clearly one-sided issue of oppression.

    2. If we do, indeed, take this to be a two-sided conflict. Should we absolve both parties of responsibility and allow them to act with impunity because we refuse to point fingers or blame? No, I believe that condemnation is given where it is due and if one-sided's aggression/oppression should be clearly outweighing the other's then it should be stated to be so.

    Akhila's quote from Martin Luther King on the sideboard is pertinent in this case, let me reproduce it:

    "He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it." - Martin Luther King, Jr.

    If something evil is going on, we need to speak out and that may involve pointing a finger and taking a stance. Otherwise we do nothing and acquiesce.
  • In response to your questions

    1. I never said the conflict is one-sided. I'm simply against taking sides. Taking sides will get us nowhere. We need solution(s) to this problem and taking sides will not achieve that. What it will achieve is each side counting lists of atrocities against the other. There are people that need housing, hospitals, schools and other basic amenities. It is not only about educating ourselves of this conflict but working towards finding a lasting solution. It is about creating change in the mindset of people and that cannot be achieved by taking sides. Peace, I believe, is a common thread that holds us together and that should be what we should strive to achieve/create in the M.E. And peace cannot be achieved if we take side with one or the other warring party.

    2. Yes, this is a two sides conflict but I ask you, why do we need to educate our selves of this conflict. It seems to me (and I might be wrong) that you are proposing studying this conflict just so we can throw rocks at the evil side? Peace, which brings hope overcomes hostility. I do not think arguing for the peace and refusing to be drawn to the side of one or the other warring party means I'm passively accepting what is wrongfully going on. Choosing the way of peace, which involves non-partisan response to this conflict, DOES not involve allowing any side to act with impunity. In fact taking sides already nulls your objectivity of this conflict. For justice (which you strongly advocate) to be served in this situation requires for this conflict to be viewed and analyzed without bias or prejudice. And this is why justice is blind. Like I said, both side have erred and they need to be accountable for their actions. But taking sides effectively nulls the spirit of peace we are trying to achieve. Yes, we can condemn (and by that I mean condemnation of the conflict itself) but that is as far as we can go.


    "You shall do no injustice in court. You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor."
  • I think you misunderstood my comment. I was asking you at what point in a conflict do we judge it to be one-sided. History has judged atrocities such as South African apartheid, the Rwandan genocide, the Holocaust and Darfur to be one-sided. Why are these conflicts considered to be one-sided, yet you consider Israel-Palestine to be two-sided?
  • The Holocaust and Darfur are genocides - the systematic extermination of one
    group, especially based on ethnicity and religion. It's clearly
    distinguished from a war in which both sides have arms to protect
    themselves. I don't think you can necessarily equate the two -- you can't
    really argue to take Hitler's side in any possible way! In Israel and
    Palestine, both sides have arms. That makes it much different from genocide.
    And it makes it 2 sided.
  • I would disagree. Israel may not be systematically murdering Palestinians, like in the above two conflicts, but it is targeting them for their ethnicity and religion only, for no other reason. And the process under which it is doing so is leading to pain, suffering and defeat. The blockade of Gaza for example, no idea when that'll be lifted.
    I'm not sure if you're aware but Israel has even admitted that they're enacting collective punishment. Have you heard of the Dahiya doctrine? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dahiya_doctrine

    "There would be no mercy shown "when it comes to hitting the national infrastructure of a state that, in practice, is controlled by Hizbullah... In practical terms, the Palestinians in Gaza are all Khaled Mashaal, the Lebanese are all Nasrallah, and the Iranians are all Ahmadinejad."

    (If you need any more proof that Israel is engaged in murder in Gaza, there's also the Goldstone Report).

    Therein lies the point. The Palestinians in Gaza are not all Khaled Meshaal and they don't actually have weapons. They are civilians, non-combatants. That's why the fact that the people who are supposedly on their side, Hamas, are firing crappy rockets doesn't change the fact that the they are being targetted and killed. Hamas is not defending them, as you say, it's making things worse. But does that make it ok to punish them for it?

    This case *is* different to the Holocaust and Darfur, but not *that* different, it is still a one-sided rampage that claimed 1400 lives, mostly women & children in Gaza in 3 weeks.

    Hitler thought that Jews were the root of all evil and tried to exterminate them. So yeah that's clearly insane. But similarly, assuming all Palestinians are Khaled Meshaal and should be killed, is also kind of insane, no?
  • Casual reader
    "I condemn Hamas’ constant rocket fire into Israel as deplorable, targeting civilians always is...."

    But if the principle of reciprocity is considered, Hamas' action might not be quite as condemnable. After all, Israel is indiscriminately torturing millions of Palestinians in both the fragments of Palestinian Territory.

    I think Israel's actions should be condemned more than those of the Palestinians.
  • For me personally, two wrongs don't make a right, I consider targetting civillians to be morally reprehensible, nor do I believe that the Qassams help the Palestinian/Gazan cause in any way. To me, the principle of reciprocity applies in military combat, but if the other side is committing a war crime and targetting civilians, that doesn't make it ok to reciprocate that war crime.
  • Yes, I definitely agree. Two wrongs can never make a right, and surely both sides are to blame. To advocate a two-state solution or to support Palestine does not mean we can completely absolve Hamas for what they have done - it doesn't mean blindly supporting them. I agree with Alex when he says that it doesn't make it okay for violence to occur, no matter who does it.
  • Rabayl
    I wouldn't call it the biggest moral question of our time but definitely one that demands global attention and commitment towards (an already existing) resolution. Kudos for saying the needful!
  • OK, I usually refrain from posting on political subjects, but I will make an exception.

    Rather than choosing sides and write pages full of arguments, I will add a few sentences as a father of 2 small children living in Tel Aviv, who hopes that by the time they are 18 don't have to go into the army.

    The situation is a bit more complicated than a moral who is right, who is wrong debate. It is very difficult to find a solution, because on both sides there is a wide political spectrum of views. A side effect of democracy is that it is harder to sort things out between countries, then let's say kings in the middle ages.

    That's the long-term problem.

    Now to the short-term: extremists will make it very hard to implement an agreement (assume you manage to find one), they might still try to pursue their beliefs (violently) despite the will of the majority

    If you add the 2 up, you get to the status quo of today. Everyone (on both sides) here is probably just trying to do as if things were normal (sort of like an ostrich)

    Sorry for not being able to provide a solution here.
  • Thanks for the comment Jan,

    Firstly, what makes this issue political for you? The fact that there are two very vocal sides? Because, technically, any issue is political. Part of my frustration with this issue is that people are all too happy to condemn Bashir of Sudan or the Chinese because they have no real voice or are not interested in shoring up their argument, but these issues are also political. I mean they involve politicians, global politics, international relations, the UN, etc., do they not?

    Secondly, I agree that the situation is complicated and that there are no two sides. As you mentioned, within Israel there are numerous political parties and opinions and numerous ideologies being expressed. Similarly so within Palestine, there are the two major competing ideologies of Fatah & Hamas. But when you boil it down to the impact these policies are having on human beings, the moral question is unavoidable. I've mentioned the blockade of Gaza & the immorality of keeping a people state-less, invading their homes, kicking them off their land, etc. These are all things that happen on a regular basis, their questionable morality cannot be ignored, even if they come from a complex political system. The death of just one child raises questions of morality.

    What if we removed the political parties and all the competing ideologies, voices and politicians and just concentrated on what we think would be best? Perhaps we might not agree but we would at least have a clearer understanding of what our personal stance is. Through the development of that, we can join the debate and play a productive role in its resolution.

    I totally understand why it's tempting to have the ostrich mentality, both when you're in the zone, like yourself, or when you're outside it, like myself. But I think it's important to address these questions as the rational human beings we are, with courage and determination.
  • Hi Alex, thank you so much for your post! It was very enlightening, and I certainly learned a lot from reading it. Thanks for bringing light to this important issue and providing much needed historical perspective.

    I think a lot of people I know who are personally passionate about this cause are so because of some personal relationship with it - usually due to cultural/religious background. Most Americans who care about it at least are from that region. I think that a lot of other people, myself included, simply don't get too involved in talking about it or learning about the conflict in great detail because we're scared of being embroiled in such debate from both sides. Honestly I don't know too much about Israel & Palestine's long history, but at the same time the idea of sitting down and really thinking about it is frightening because I almost don't want to take sides. It is SUCH a polarizing issue. I understand where you're coming from, and I wish more people, myself included can think like that!

    I especially like your statement that this is an apartheid happening before our eyes, not just something where two sides can't get along.

    Why do you think more politicians, leaders, etc aren't seeing it this way? What solutions do you advocate - a two state solution?
  • Akhila, you're right that a lot of those that are passionate about it do have a personal emotional connection for some reason, perhaps due to background and religion. But that only serves to further show us how the conflict is perceived, as an unsolvable quagmire for themselves to sort out. This is hardly fair. For example, if African Americans were still campaigning for their rights, would you stay out of it because you are neither part of the white opposition or an African American? Or would your common American-ness mean it was also your fight? We need to recognise that we are all humans first and members of nation-states second, thus our brothers and sisters in Israel & Palestine deserve our attention.

    Further, I feel part of the reason why people don't get involved in the issue is due to its perceived two-sided nature. But the issue of China and Tibet also has two sides, for example. Iran Election also had two sides. These issues just *seem* a lot clearer for us, and therefore a softer target to aim our condemnation at. It seems people have far less trouble throwing their weight around issues where they are less likely to be challenged on their opinion, such as Darfur or Congo or Myanmar. These are important issues but it's important to have the courage to stand up for what you believe, even if it's controversial, and to not shy away from an issue because of its controversy.

    And I think therein lies the crux of why politicians/leaders aren't changing the status quo on the conflict. Being a pol-sci student, you'd be aware of realism as a paradigm for which we view International Relations. I'm a firm believer that realism explains much of what we see in global politics. Politicians are out there for themselves, their constituencies and their nation-states. If you haven't read Walt & Mearsheimer's book on the power of the Israel Lobby in the US, you should, that'll give you an idea of why Obama is hamstrung.

    I personally advocate a two state solution along pre-67 borders (settlers must either live as Palestinians or leave) with no automatic right of return for Palestinians to Israel. I believe the Palestinian state should have equal right to arms as the Israeli one and that East Jerusalem should be its capital. I also think there should be a road/rail link between the West Bank and Gaza that is policed internationally, at least at the beginning. All those things are open for debate, of course, which I'm happy to engage in with anyone over twitter, at my blog or email...
  • No, I totally agree with you. It's not fair, but honestly if you look around it's what happens. The interesting thing is that, if you think about it- throughout history, it has always been (thus far) the oppressed who are fighting for their own rights against the oppressor. Other than the abolitionist movement in Britain, this is probably the first time a widespread movement across the world is occurring: we, the oppressors, are actually bending backwards to fight for the oppressed's rights. It's interesting!

    I agree. People need to get more educated about the issue and then do something about it. It's definitely taking the way out to say that it's too complex, and that we don't want to take sides. We have to overcome that fear and dive headfirst into learning about it.
blog comments powered by Disqus