General Question

hTownDude's avatar

Websites that explain the fundamental issues concerning Israel, Palestine, the West Bank, Gaza, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc?

Asked by hTownDude (178 points ) December 29th, 2008

What is the most simple way to explain the fundamentals of the Israel and Palestine conflict?

It’s obviously a complex issue and I am having a hard time piecing everything together. Any websites that attempt to clarify things? Kind of like an “Israel-Palestinian Conflict for Dummies”? My google skills are only leading me to websites that further complicate things and make it harder to follow than it already is.

Edit: THIS IS NOT A DEBATE ABOUT THE CONFLICT, I AM JUST LOOKING FOR RESOURCES THAT WILL MAKE IT EASIER TO UNDERSTAND.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

8 Answers

seVen's avatar

Maybe try the simple English wikipedia and/or www.NewsVine.mobi

laureth's avatar

There’s always the Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is always the first place I think of when I want “for dummies” style information. (No offense.)

tessa's avatar

I like Aljazeera, they have a short documentary history of Israel, here is the first part, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQQoChOPAzQ
you can find the second part after the first I suppose.
Despite Aljazeera being an arab news network, they are free from government censorship and have very unbiased open view.
Otherwise it is a complex issue and needs a lot of reading. There are a lot of documentaries you can watch. But you need more than one of everything to get each side’s story.

Jack79's avatar

Look. There were these guys called the Jews who didn’t live in Palestine, but came from there and wanted to go back. Nobody cared. Then there was a guy called Hitler who killed half of them and so everyone felt sorry for the other half and let them go back and make a country. But then the people who’d been living there all this time didn’t like it. So the Jews started killing them off to make them stop complaining. And America sold weapons to both sides to make money :)

Zen's avatar

But first, a word from our hostage.

eupatorium's avatar

This is a really old question, but in case you are interested
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/history/
And Aljazeera is, indeed, one of the freest sources.. free from influence as @tessa said

Kafka's avatar

There is this book that you can find at a university library, or on google books called the Fundamental Principles of International Law. It goes into some depth on fundamental issues that have created conflicts, it touches on politics and how the global community has reacted/responded. I only recommend this resource if you are looking to explore into great depth the subject. As the book is a text book for courses in Political Science. Still, it is very thorough and easy to understand.

zenele's avatar

Obama and Netanyahu: Worlds Apart on Israel
Thursday, August 12, 2010 10:20 AM
By: George Will

JERUSALEM — Two photographs adorn the office of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Together they illuminate a portentous fact: No two leaders of democracies are less alike — in life experiences, temperaments and political philosophies — than Netanyahu, the former commando and fierce nationalist, and Barack Obama, the former professor and post-nationalist.

One photograph is of Theodor Herzl, born 150 years ago. Dismayed by the eruption of anti-Semitism in France during the Dreyfus Affair at the end of the 19th century, Herzl became Zionism’s founding father. Long before the Holocaust, he concluded that Jews could find safety only in a national homeland.

The other photograph is of Winston Churchill, who considered himself “one of the authors” of Britain’s embrace of Zionism. The Balfour Declaration of 1917 stated: “His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.” Beginning in 1923, Britain would govern Palestine under a League of Nations mandate.

Netanyahu, his focus firmly on Iran, honors Churchill because he did not flinch from facts about gathering storms. Obama returned to the British Embassy in Washington the bust of Churchill that was in the Oval Office when he got there.

Obama’s 2009 speech in Cairo, courting the Arab world, may have had measurable benefits, although the metric proving this remains mysterious. The speech — made during a trip when Obama visited Cairo and Riyadh but not here — certainly subtracted from his standing in Israel. In it, he acknowledged Israel as, in part, a response to Jewish suffering in the Holocaust.

Then, with what many Israelis considered a deeply offensive exercise of moral equivalence, he said: “On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people — Muslims and Christians — have suffered in pursuit of a homeland.”

“On the other hand”? “I,” says Moshe Yaalon, “was shocked by the Cairo speech,” which he thinks proved that “this White House is very different.” Yaalon, former head of military intelligence and chief of the general staff, currently strategic affairs minister, tartly asks, “If Palestinians are victims, who are the victimizers?”

The Cairo speech came 10 months after Obama’s Berlin speech in which he declared himself a “citizen of the world.” That was an oxymoronic boast, given that citizenship connotes allegiance to a particular polity, its laws and political processes. But the boast resonated in Europe.

The European Union was born from the flight of Europe’s elites from what terrifies them — Europeans. The first Thirty Years’ War ended in 1648 with the Peace of Westphalia, which ratified the system of nation-states. The second Thirty Years’ War, which ended in 1945, convinced European elites that the continent’s nearly fatal disease was nationalism, the cure for which must be the steady attenuation of nationalities. Hence the high value placed on “pooling” sovereignty, never mind the cost in diminished self-government.

Israel, with its deep sense of nationhood, is beyond unintelligible to such Europeans; it is a stench in their nostrils. Transnational progressivism is, as much as welfare state social democracy, an element of European politics that American progressives will emulate as much as American politics will permit.

It is perverse that the European Union, a semi-fictional political entity, serves — with the United States, the reliably anti-Israel U.N., and Russia — as part of the “quartet” that supposedly will broker peace in our time between Israel and the Palestinians.

Arguably the most left-wing administration in American history is trying to knead and soften the most right-wing coalition in Israel’s history. The former shows no understanding of the latter, which thinks it understands the former all too well.

The prime minister honors Churchill, who spoke of “the confirmed unteachability of mankind.” Nevertheless, a display case in Netanyahu’s office could teach the Obama administration something about this leader. It contains a small signet stone that was part of a ring found near the Western Wall. It is about 2,800 years old — 200 years younger than Jerusalem’s role as the Jewish people’s capital. The ring was the seal of a Jewish official, whose name is inscribed on it: Netanyahu.

No one is less a transnational progressive, less a post-nationalist, than Benjamin Netanyahu, whose first name [Binyamin] is that of a son of Jacob, who lived perhaps 4,000 years ago. Netanyahu, who no one ever called cuddly, once said to a U.S. diplomat 10 words that should warn U.S. policymakers who hope to make Netanyahu malleable: “You live in Chevy Chase. Don’t play with our future.”

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther