I seek a fair/unbiased review of the Israel/Arab conflict. Does it exist?

Question

Everything I've ever read includes bias for one side or another. Perhaps an unbiased historical view is impossible. I may have to settle for an ALMOST unbiased view. Even that is hard to find. Any help out there?

Here is an example of my delemma in actual practice:
With my fellow Veterans for Peace, and a contingency of Iraq Veterans Against the War, I started out at the head of the Line of March….up Market street yesterday, just after noon. As a Vietnam Vet and a strong advocate for peace since my anti war activism with Vietnam Vets Against the War since the early Seventies, I had every right to be there. But I dropped out of the march after only two blocks. I dropped out when our contingency of vets were asked (by the A.N.S.W.E.R. organizers), to step to the side to make way for a new contingency at the head of the parade. “Fall in”, we were told, behind the banner and contingency screaming for an END to the OCCUPATION OF PALESTINE by ISRAEL. As it happens, I am a gentile, but that is where I dropped out of the Line of March. Nor am I an Israel apologist. I have serious complaints about the behavior and policies of the Government of Israel and their heavy-handed treatment of Palestinians in their legitimate struggle for equality, rights, and a State. But that is a WHOLE different, and vastly more complex issue, and it is certainly not the reason I came to march. On Sunday, I came to march for one cause and one cause only; that being to end the US occupation of Iraq and to stop the slaughter there. I’m not the only one to drop out. In earlier peace marches, I enjoyed great camaraderie with many of my Jewish friends. I couldn’t find them there. Before I returned to my home, I stood on the sideline and watch the entire parade go by. In earlier marches I was always moved by the contingency of grizzled old Survivor Jews carrying their blue flags with the white star of David and the traditional JEWS FOR PEACE signs. Some of them wore their sleeves rolled up so that on close inspection, one could still see their Nazi concentration camp numbers still tattooed to their wrinkled forearms. Perhaps they’ve all died out, or can no longer march in a parade for peace. Perhaps, like me, they have dropped out to make a point. Focus! First, end our illegal war against Iraq. Then work ceaselessly, for a just Roadmap to Peace in the entire middle east.

Answer 1

http://www.palestinefacts.org

Answer 2

First and formost this thing started 4000 years ago with Ishmael and Isaac.
The Arab people are taught by thier Governments that the Jews want to restore all thier borders so their Massiah will come. Their old border consists of Jordan.
After Rome took Isreal and then it fell after a botched revolution. The European Nations strove to take back Isreal. That was pretty much a botch as well. After the great war, the Brits carved up the Middle East into small countries. The Jews took back Isreal in the Mid 60's and took more land in the early 70's. It was from this point where the Arabs became suspicious that they will take more. I used to be a big supporter until they started moving into the reservations they made for the Palistinians. It would be the same as if the Armicans started moving into the Hopi Nation land or the Navajo. They decided it wasn't a good idea anymore (thank God) and started to move out. While I was in Iraq, I saw many signs showing a dove with a knife through it. The people and the soldiers were being told that it is Isreal who stops peace but it seems to me that it isn't Isrealis who are blowing things up. They seem to only respond to terror and they do it well. They get a lot of criticized for their answer to terror because it makes a lot of collateral damage but it seems to keep regular decent people from following the terrorists into doing the same thing.

Answer 3

I think you have fallen into a trap of most anti-war demonstrators. When you go to so-called "peace" marches you will find it is in fact a loose coalition of groups that hate the USA, Iraq or no Iraq. The march was sponsored by an organization called "A.n.s.w.e.r" which is a Marxist-Leninist umbrella group. Thus you are going to get all kinds of causes: anti-gun, anti-racism, anti-Christian, environmental blah, blah, blah. That is why I would Never once consider marching with the likes of these folk. Why? You can judge a man by the company he keeps and that goes for organizations too.

On the other hand pro-Israel lobby groups would have you believe that being sympathetic to the plight of Palestinians or lacking in support for Israel is tantamount to being anti-Semitic, pro-Hitler, and pro-terrorist. Leading the charge is holocaust survivor Eli Wiesel.

In any event I am glad you followed your conscinece and not the party line and went home. That says more about your conviction than if you would have continued the march. Good for you!

Answer 4

The land of Canaan should be split in half. The northern half would be Palestine and the southern half Israel.

Both side would be disarmed, by force if necessary.

In the middle occupying Jerusalem would be the new U.N. HQ with a corridor that divides these lands from the Mediterranean to the Red Sea.

Stationed there should be 300,000 man multi-national Rapid Reaction Force capable of delivering a serious smack down to ANYONE in the region that acts out of line.

This solution creates peace in the region and gets the U.N. out of New York .

Answer 5

I'd suggest that a largely unbiased historical view might be found, but that we'll need to wait until we can get a historical perspective on what's happening now. Chou En Lai was asked back in the sixties what he thought of the French Revolution, and answered that he thought it was 'too soon to tell". While not taking it to that extreme, my guess is that we'd need perhaps fifty years 'looking back' at current events to begin to see all of the angles fairly and clearly.

Historians get 'blamed' for 'having it easy' in that they operate with 20-20 hindsight. On the other hand they have to exercise great patience in 'getting round to looking at things' (and for bits of hidden information to come out in the open), and the longer they wait the more they have to 'dig' to get at the truth, or something close to it.

One (almost) last point. The 'players' in the conflict don't all see it in the same light, and some change their views over time. Essentially there is no Israeli or US or Palestinian consensus on what has happened, is happening, should happen. The proper role of 'history' at this stage is to make sure that all of those perspectives are captured so that they are preserved for future study. The biggest problem in looking at these issues is the tendency for all of the differing perspectives to get distilled down to just one or two. This might make it easier to write high school essays about the subject, but it means that it is harder for us to understand the motives and hopes of folk caught up in the process, some of whom become historically very significant.

It follows on from this that you could end up writing (or reading) several 'valid' histories seen from these different perspectives. The ultimate history would be a blending of these perspectives (Zionism, the Cold War, Petroleum politics just to name a few).

I sympathize that it's hard to arrange an organized protest without it being hijacked by various 'interest' groups. I don't say that there's no place for passion in the world (even if it's folks that I disagree with - it'd be a dull world if we all saw things the same way), but when you hitch your own passion to other folk's then you sometimes get hitched to all sorts of baggage they're carrying. Protest parades aren't for folk who have nuanced views of the world.

One solution comes from history, in medieval times it was necessary to communicate ones 'allegiance' fairly clearly so that they'd be visible from sufficient distance that you (and your friends and enemies) could decide whether to prepare the vat of boiling oil, or put the kettle on. So folk would have heraldic symbols that would be made up of components that would give a very nuanced picture of where that person 'stood' in the complicated web of Medieval European politics. The modern analogy is the 'tags' people attach to their identities in Wiki, virtually inventing their own 'interest groups' and declaring their membership of them. So in your case you'd 'invent' a category (for example 'Veteran's for Nuclear War' - or '..Disarmament' - or '..Non Proliferation') and then (perhaps literally) wear that 'badge'. Any normal (complicated) person could probably summon up their political/social position under 10 or 15 such 'headings'. A kind of 'protest' equivalent to campaign ribbons.

Answer 6

There is no aggressor/victim - both sides are evil and wrong. Both believe in nonsense religions that are completely fictional and they are killing each other in the name of their religions. That is why its so hard for you to find a third party view of the conflict...because both sides are wrong. If there was a right and a wrong, that is when you find lots of unbiased third party viewpoints (i.e. vietnam war, south african apartheid, segregation in US, slavery, etc. have tons of info).

The world aint perfect and its being run by people barely as intelligent as monkeys. Israel is just as evil as the Palestinians, and Palestinians are just as evil as Israel.

Answer 7

I've found the best way to get an unbiased view is to examine both biased sides. It is obvious that if both sides are opposed to each other, yet each's story agrees on certain things, then those things must be true.

Answer 8

Sorry mate, but the way you describe your point of view on the world makes it plain that you will not be able to recognise an "unbiased view", even if it bites you on the backside

Answer 9

Although ur question is so long i can't read it all...but ....both sides have thier extremes... and both sides are right in some sides while the other is right in another sides so its hard to judge ....such a case ...

Answer 10

No such an unbiased review does not exist.