Comments on: What are they fighting about now?

Question: What are they fighting about now?

anonpeon — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 14:07:19 -0800

Why is Israel and Palestine so important on the world stage?

Every time there's a flare up with these two countries, the news covers it almost 24/7. Why is this conflict and/or countries considered so important?

By: JJ86

JJ86 — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 14:17:56 -0800

In the world overall? I don't think it's all that important. It's important news in the US because of the huge number of Jews living here and vice versa. Not to mention the fact that Israel is one of the more stable countries in the middle east from a US standpoint.

By: trey

trey — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 14:20:27 -0800

The Middle East supplies a large amount of oil to the rest of the world. Conflicts between Israel and its neighbors always have the potential to spread into regional conflicts. Additionally, America and Israel have a "special relationship" such that any conflict in which Israel is involved has the potential to be one in which America is involved.

By: SpecialK

SpecialK — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 14:24:01 -0800

Also, many military and diplomatic thinktanks see the next global or large regional conflict beginning in this area, as the issues tend to be very polarizing.

By: mullingitover

mullingitover — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 14:24:05 -0800

Objectively: Jerusalem is home to sacred sites of Islam, Christianity, and Judaism. The Western Wall, Church of the Holy Sepulchre and Al-Aqsa Mosque are all located there. Beyond that, the region as a whole is believed by a small but well-armed group of people to be their god-given property. Meanwhile, numerous other, less heavily armed people disagree vehemently. A group of christians believe that the region is destined to be the site of a cataclysmic doomsday battle. There are also breathtaking atrocities committed by many which is always fodder for the media.

In a nutshell, it gets press because it's a target-rich environment for news stories.

By: Marquis

Marquis — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 14:28:06 -0800

It's also sort of cumulative. Britain was responsible for its creation, it was the site of a bunch of Cold War positioning, and Western countries have been heavily involved in peace talks (etc) for decades now. By this time a large proportion of news-readers are invested in the story and curious about further developments.

By: ibmcginty

ibmcginty — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 14:31:35 -0800

Just to add a bit of a frame to what others have already said, Jerusalem has been one of the most prominent cities in the Western mind, for millennia.

Sri Lanka has loads of suicide bombings, and way more deaths, but Sri Lanka is not the birthplace of 3 major world religions. Nor are there very many prominent Sri Lankans in the West.

Also, many Muslims regard the plight of the Palestinians as the central, most important, most humiliating and unjust thing going on in the world today. The West cares a little bit what Muslims think because many Muslim areas are rich in oil. Without oil, of course, most of the Middle East would capture the imagination and attention of the Western media exactly as much as sub-Saharan Africa does today.

By: Nugget

Nugget — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 14:48:32 -0800

In the world overall? I don't think it's all that important.

It's been incredibly important from a world perspective for a number of years and will continue to be so.

The current problems have arisen because Palestinian factions captured an Israeli soldier and Israels response was to increase their military presence in the area and then launch attacks.

Another two soldiers were then captured and, with the Palestinians launching rocket attacks into Israel, the Israeli attacks became more severe. That's it simplified.

You need to recognise that the region is a melting pot of cultures, religions and ideologies, all of which have been in constant conflict with one another for a significant number of years.

Any rise in tension - and this is developing into a major crisis - impacts on all countries within the region due to the reasons mentioned above. And on preview, ibmcginty sums it up nicely: no other area has given birth to three world religions. Or has plentiful oil reserves.

The BBC has a Lebanon timeline which you might find useful.

By: russilwvong

russilwvong — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 14:55:19 -0800

It's an example of E. H. Carr's observation that the grievances of the powerful--the Arab and Muslim world, in this case--get more attention than the grievances of the weak. Compare the Palestinians to the Tibetans, for example.

I would suggest that Western guilt over the Holocaust is also a factor. (European Jews couldn't emigrate from Europe during the 1930s because other countries wouldn't accept them. A dramatic example: the voyage of the S. S. St. Louis.)

ibmcginty: The West cares a little bit what Muslims think because many Muslim areas are rich in oil.

More than a little bit. As well they should, because it's a potent weapon. See the 1973 oil crisis. The members of the EEC had been unable to achieve a common policy during the first month of the Yom Kippur War. The Community finally issued a statement on 6 November, after the embargo and price rises had begun; widely seen as pro-Arab, this statement supported the Franco-British line on the war and OPEC duly lifted its embargo from all members of the EEC.

By: jasper411

jasper411 — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 15:18:38 -0800

JJ86 says......the huge number of Jews living here...

There are about 6.2 million Jews living in the US, which equates to approximately 2.2% of the population. That's opposed to about 133 million Christian Church adherents, which works out to about 47.4% of the population.

Not sure where the adjective "huge" comes from here...

By: fatllama

fatllama — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 15:22:38 -0800

At least one of the two nations is believed to have nuclear weapons.

By: justkevin

justkevin — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 15:28:27 -0800

Looking at the English version of various foreign news pages, the Israel/Palestine conflict is getting coverage, but not to the level it is in The West:

Times of India (World News page)

China Daily

The Moscow Times

By: luriete

luriete — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 15:36:00 -0800

Jasper, the adjective huge is quite logical if used to describe the proportion of Jews worldwide. Yes, a huge number of the world's Jews live here in the US.

By: Izzmeister

Izzmeister — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 15:36:19 -0800

Because Israel is the only democracy in the middle east, and a staunch american ally.

By: Izzmeister

Izzmeister — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 15:39:25 -0800

Israel has always been seen as the center of the world (military conflicts throughout the ages, as well as the center where many believe human history began.)

By: kirkaracha

kirkaracha — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 15:51:18 -0800

American support for Israel was a motive for some of the people involved in the September 11 attacks, including Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and Mohamed Atta, and was also a motive for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Osama bin Laden cited US support for Israel in his 1998 fatwa calling for war against the US. Israel is the top recipient of US foreign aid.

Also, Florida and New York have a lot of electoral votes. New York is the second-largest Jewish population center in the world after Tel Aviv.

By: Izzmeister

Izzmeister — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 15:53:46 -0800

... florida's climate is similar to Israels (which is why alot of Israelis settele there)

By: frogan

frogan — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 15:57:17 -0800

Palestinians are Arabs, who hate the Israelis. Arabs have oil. Ergo, it's important because the guys holding the strings on the world oil supply spend their time and energy futzing with Israel. Whenever there's a dust-up, it sends shockwaves through the world via the oil supply.

By: scalefree

scalefree — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 16:06:26 -0800

I'm not surprised that China Daily has more coverage of the Mumbai bombings than Israel, they are neighbors after all. And the Moscow Times is understandably focused on the upcoming G8 Summit. But the Times of India seems to have rather a lot of coverage of Israel/Palestine/Lebannon all things considered. I think you're seeing what you want to see.

By: oaf

oaf — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 16:15:20 -0800

There are about 6.2 million Jews living in the US

There are about 5.3 million Jews living in Israel. That's how the American population is huge.

By: baylink

baylink — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 16:50:20 -0800

Sidetrip: has anyone ever *seriously* real-world evaluated the peace proposal Tom Clancy made up for his book? (I think it was in Executive Orders.)

Would something like that play in the Real World?

By: parmanparman

parmanparman — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 17:00:23 -0800

I wonder what we will think of Israel when the last survivor of the Holocaust has passed away.

By: sien

sien — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 17:10:03 -0800

Israel is an incredibly unique state.

Is there any other state that has been resurrected after 2000 years?

Also, is there any other state that can get away with attacking two of it's neighbour like Israel is currently doing?

Is there anything similar in the rest of the world?

By: UbuRoivas

UbuRoivas — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 17:18:30 -0800

America sends around 1/3 of its total foreign aid to Israel. Keeping the conflict on the front pages is a kind of advertisement justifying this aid, which otherwise could be spent saving people in the third world from preventable deaths.

Because Israel is the only democracy in the middle east

Not quite true. Off the top of my head, Turkey is democratic, as is Egypt, at least nominally. Even Iran has democratic elections, although the constitution there means that there is a tension
between the elected president & the mullahs, with the latter having the upper hand.

and a staunch american ally

Well, they would be, wouldn't they? They know on which side their bread is buttered. All that cash & military hardware, gratis! All of that protection from UN resolutions! You would think that Israel must be sucking America's cock, but it's actually the other way around.

By: languagehat

languagehat — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 17:20:25 -0800

Many of these answers ignore the fact that prior to 1967, there was comparatively little coverage, despite the fact that Israel was the only democracy, there were a lot of Jews in the U.S., the Middle East was full of oil, &c &c.

The current problems have arisen because Palestinian factions captured an Israeli soldier and Israels response was to increase their military presence in the area and then launch attacks.
Another two soldiers were then captured and, with the Palestinians launching rocket attacks into Israel, the Israeli attacks became more severe. That's it simplified.

So what? The question is, why do people outside Israel care so much? Three soldiers have been captured, huh? Go look at how many people were killed in India—by terrorists, not by some boring bus plunge or plane crash—and then tell me the coverage is a rational response to objective facts.

By: trey

trey — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 17:26:52 -0800

Lebanon is also democratic -- one of the reasons this situation is so untenable is because of the weak (but democratic) government there.

By: russilwvong

russilwvong — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 17:30:04 -0800

languagehat: --prior to 1967, there was comparatively little coverage--

Any references? (I believe you, I'd just like more details.) I would have thought that the 1956 war and the rise of Nasser would have resulted in a significant amount of coverage.

By: UbuRoivas

UbuRoivas — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 17:59:47 -0800

The question is, why do people outside Israel care so much?

Perhaps begging the question there. Who says they care so much? Media coverage does not necessarily imply public interest.

By: bim

bim — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 18:00:56 -0800

Perhaps it's the prime example (in modern times) of the "clash of civilizations" as described by Samuel Huntington -- an interesting book regardless of whether you agree or disagree with him.

By: IndigoJones

IndigoJones — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 18:11:56 -0800

In American democracy, Big Issues and policy decisions (sugar price supports that enrich a cartel, for a less volatile example, or local school board budgets) are decided by the determined minority. American Jewry has a sense of history and is understandably determined. The current attitude of many Christians is a plus. If there were as many assimilated and determined, say, Darfurians in this country, we migh well be discussing a different geo-political area.

Also, highlighting the plight of the Palestinians is a good way to distract one's own population of have-not from their not having.

I suppose the longevity of this situation creates its own weary fascination. I was restoring an old house a few years ago and pulled out a newpaper from 1957. Headlines were all about tension between Egypt and Israel. Plus ca change and all that.

But you did say world stage. Europe has its own reasons, and I've used up too much space already. As to Asia- does it really rate much on the local meia there? Anyone?

(I've read elsewhere that Jerusalem was until relatively recently (crusades notwithstanding) not that big a deal to the Muslim world, compared to Mecca, Medina, and Baghdad. Any thoughts or footnotes on that?)

By: IndigoJones

IndigoJones — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 18:12:57 -0800

local media, sorry

By: Afroblanco

Afroblanco — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 18:53:48 -0800

If there were no oil in the middle east, we would care about it as much as we care about, say, the entire continent of Africa, where worse shit happens every day but never makes it onto the news.

By: felix betachat

felix betachat — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 18:59:29 -0800

Three soldiers have been captured, huh? Go look at how many people were killed in India—by terrorists, not by some boring bus plunge or plane crash—and then tell me the coverage is a rational response to objective facts.

languagehat: the coverage is proportionate to Israel's response to both those kidnappings and the near constant barrage of missle fire from Lebanon and Gaza. A major American ally is facing a two-front, likely coordinated, attack from three separate terror organizations.

Bus or plane crashes are one-offs. Tragic, but limited in scope. This situation is in flux and is arguably the most dangerous moment in the recent history of the Middle East. Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah are trying to test the mettle of Olmert and Peretz. The outcome of this conflict affects us all and hence, is being heavily covered by the American news media.

By: inigo2

inigo2 — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 19:15:52 -0800

Also, is there any other state that can get away with attacking two of it's neighbour like Israel is currently doing?

A lot of countries fight back when they're attacked first.

By: Asparagirl

Asparagirl — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 19:50:41 -0800

(I've read elsewhere that Jerusalem was until relatively recently (crusades notwithstanding) not that big a deal to the Muslim world, compared to Mecca, Medina, and Baghdad. Any thoughts or footnotes on that?)

Correct. Jersualem is not mentioned in the Koran at all. Here's Daniel Pipes' take on the history of the city from July 2000, though obviously I need to stress the caveat that he's about as big a Zionist as they come.

By: Asparagirl

Asparagirl — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 19:51:43 -0800

...if I misspell thee, O Jerusalem...

By: weston

weston — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 20:05:06 -0800

the coverage is proportionate to Israel's response to both those kidnappings and the near constant barrage of missle fire from Lebanon and Gaza. A major American ally is facing a two-front, likely coordinated, attack from three separate terror organizations.

I think languagehat's got a good point. Israel may be a close ally and their response may be huge, but India's just huge, period. Their sheer mass almost makes global repercussions from events there inevitable. Not to mention they also have long standing conflicts with Islamists, and are a nuclear power. How India and its population responds could be absolutely huge, yet I've heard little about it.

By: scalefree

scalefree — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 20:58:11 -0800

Jersualem is not mentioned in the Koran at all.

Jerusalem is not named in the Koran, but most Muslims believe it's mentioned in it:

Sura 17:1: "Glory be to Him, who carried His servant by night from al-Masjid al-Haram (the Holy Mosque) to al-Masjid al-Aqsa (the farthest mosque), the precincts of which we have blessed."

"The farthest mosque" is widely believed to refer to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. The Holy Mosque is in Mecca.

By: frogan

frogan — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 21:25:01 -0800

Sidetrip: has anyone ever *seriously* real-world evaluated the peace proposal Tom Clancy made up for his book?

That was in The Sum of All Fears. For the people on the thread, the idea was that a highly updated version of the Swiss Guards would literally be hired as unbiased third party to essentially take over Jerusalem and run it as an independent city-state, like the Vatican is a city-state, and keep the peace for all parties.

I don't know if anyone's tried. I highly doubt it would fly for even a moment in the real world. Nobody's interested in peace, only control.

By: gsteff

gsteff — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 21:27:43 -0800

Israel is an incredibly unique state.

<theelementsofstyle>Arrrgh!</theelementsofstyle>

Its likely a self-perpetuating phenomenon. The Senate gets more coverage than the House because there's fewer Senators, so people recognize them more easily and are more interested them. Israel has had a pretty busy few decades, and so Americans are more familiar with its background, and more willing to tune into a tv segment on it.

By: bshort

bshort — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 21:38:40 -0800

Re: The Tom Clancy Thing

I can't imagine that would work without Israel giving up sovereignity in what is their capital city.

What would Israel really have to gain from that? Unless the US stopped acting as their UN bitch, they would have exactly zero motivation to hand over power to anyone else.

By: UbuRoivas

UbuRoivas — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 22:44:46 -0800

I can't imagine that would work without Israel giving up sovereignity in what is their capital city.

What's Tel Aviv got to do with it? The Tom Clancy "plan" was apparently for Jerusalem.

Apart from that, the Palestinians were displaced from their entire country. Sharing a city might be nice, but they really want their country back, no?

By: forwebsites

forwebsites — Thu, 13 Jul 2006 22:51:31 -0800

Because Israel is the only democracy in the middle east

There are many others.. Turkey, Egypt. For the record even Lebanon is a democracy, and a US-backed democracy at that.

Palestinians are Arabs, who hate the Israelis
Almost 15% of Israel's populations are Arabs too. They are called Israeli Arabs. And they comprise of Muslims, Christians, and Druze. Theirs is a unique set of problems within the broader Israel-Palestine conflict since their roots are Arabic, but they are fully native Israeli citizens.., yet they get step-motherly treatment from Israel (like don't get drafted in army, their schools/towns get less funding etc.). Some of them identify themselves closer to the Palestinians than Israel.

I think one of the major reasons why the world cares about it, is that three of the popular Abrahamic religions, Islam, Christianity and Judaism share history/culture and land in that region. Whatever conflict happens there invariably gets everyone interested. This is the historic reason.

Add to that the modern geo-political situation, Middle east oil, US-Israel friendship, Jews & Arabs not seeing each other eye to eye, and MiddleEast in general being antiWest (or West being anti-MiddleEast..whichever way you want to frame it), Jews controlling the NY stock mkt (or atleast that being the popular perception, since I am not sure how far is that true?) and you've got a melting pot of conflicts.

If someone in that region sneezes, the world catches a flu.

By: PenDevil

PenDevil — Fri, 14 Jul 2006 01:54:54 -0800

forwebsites: Minor correction, Druze do get drafted into the Army. They were initially exempt but the Druze community actually demanded they be drafted.

By: By The Grace of God

By The Grace of God — Fri, 14 Jul 2006 02:01:09 -0800

Interestingly, lots of people engaged in actual peacemaking there are engaged because they think peace is so achievable there! This may or may not be true, but the reason people THINK this is because they find it easy to relate to Israelis and Palestinians.
And Palestinians and Israelis find it easy to relate to us in the West. Jerusalem has the most NGOs of any city of the world, and Palestinians and Israelis both create their own NGOs and manage the funding agenda - neither is a passive recipient of aid. Both sides are highly educated and literate and communicate easily to Westerners in ways that we understand.
Many people think that if we can JUST MAKE PEACE (this tantalising peace that is always on the cusp of being achieved) we can solve so many other problems of the world, such as Arab and Muslim negative sentiment against the West, oil trading issues, and anti-Semitism. Whether it's true or not is up for debate, but that's what people think.
People also see this crisis as a model for other crises in the world. These people think the crisis is difficult, not easy, and say that if we can solve this one we can solve the other crises in the world.

By: IndigoJones

IndigoJones — Fri, 14 Jul 2006 05:13:31 -0800

(Thank you, Asparagirl.)

By: KimG

KimG — Fri, 14 Jul 2006 05:16:33 -0800

By: scalefree

scalefree — Fri, 14 Jul 2006 05:20:46 -0800

There are many others.. Turkey, Egypt. For the record even Lebanon is a democracy,

Turkey passes muster, but Egypt is not a democracy & Lebanon barely is, now that Syria's gotten out of there.

By: scalefree

scalefree — Fri, 14 Jul 2006 06:06:14 -0800

I feel I should say more about Lebanon since it looks like it's the key to the current conflict. Although Lebanon is no longer occupied by either Syria or Israel, the central government is still too weak to exert control over the whole country. Hezbollah, a Shiite Islamic organization with roots in Iran & Syria, effectively controls much of southern Lebanon. Although they started out as pretty much a purely terroristic group they've grown into a full-spectrum militia, political & social welfare movement as well. It's a lot like the way Northern Ireland was not too long ago, with Hezbollah playing the role of both IRA & Sein Fein & Syria as England. But like I said, Lebanon is not strong enough militarily to kick Hezbollah out, which is what the Israeli air strikes are meant to encourage. And they can't very well ask Syria or Iran (or God forbid Israel) for help with it either, because they'll just end up occupied again, which they're just done celebrating the end of. It's a pretty pickle & I don't see an obvious answer.

By: bshort

bshort — Fri, 14 Jul 2006 06:50:04 -0800

I wonder what would happen if a party in Mexico got elected with the specific aim of destroying it's northern neighbor, then after some time, it briefly invaded the northern neighbor and captured two border guards and threatened to kill them, if not all Mexican prisoners were freed.

Another analogy would be if that happened with an Indian Reservation, since it's not like the Palestinians have their own state.

By: languagehat

languagehat — Fri, 14 Jul 2006 07:29:56 -0800

Any references?

No, sorry, just my memory—I was reading the papers all through the '60s and that's how I remember it.

I would have thought that the 1956 war and the rise of Nasser would have resulted in a significant amount of coverage.

They did, but neither of them is particularly relevant. The '56 war was a major-power confrontation over the Suez Canal, and the rise of Nasser had nothing to do with Israel, it was about Egypt and Britain.

Bus or plane crashes are one-offs. Tragic, but limited in scope.

Your reading skills need work. My point was that the India bombings were not bus or plane crashes.

I've read elsewhere that Jerusalem was until relatively recently (crusades notwithstanding) not that big a deal to the Muslim world, compared to Mecca, Medina, and Baghdad. Any thoughts or footnotes on that?

No, that's wrong. Jerusalem has always been of major importance to Islam; in fact, for a period in the seventh century (CE, the first century AH) Muslims prayed toward Jerusalem rather than Mecca. I'm sure some people will get offended at what I'm about to say, but it's the truth: there is a group of scholars so dedicated to the cause of Israel that they twist history to make Arabs look bad, and Daniel Pipes (quoted by Asparagirl) is a charter member. "Consider the source" is an important injunction in any circumstance, but it's absolutely vital when dealing with the Middle East.

By: forwebsites

forwebsites — Fri, 14 Jul 2006 10:30:45 -0800

PenDevil: thx for that correction. The wikipedia link says that they(IA) are now allowed to voluntarily join the army (they still don't get drafted automatically). Maybe it's different for the Druze. I am not too updated on the current situation. It's certainly possible that certain groups within IA would've have fought and gotten some rights for them. There's already talk of affirmative action for Israeli Arabs due to years of neglect/discrimination in their own state.

It's surprising how in this mess of Israel-Palestine conflict (which is always seen as Jews/Arabs or West/Islam conflict), such a big problem remains unsolved. I think it'd be an absolute suckage to be an Israeli Arab Christian at this pt of time. You get neglected from all sides. The Palestinians (or Muslim world) don't care abt you since you are Christian. Israel doesn't care about you bcoz you are Arabs, not Jews. And the rest of the world doesn't even know that people like you exist.

By: General Zubon

General Zubon — Fri, 14 Jul 2006 10:38:12 -0800

So ... basically, then: oil and religion.

IMO, the world would be such a peaceful place without a dependency on either.

By: forwebsites

forwebsites — Fri, 14 Jul 2006 10:50:01 -0800

languagehat: agree with you. Not only muslims prayed towards jerusalem, the Al Aqsa mosque is considered to be the third holy site after Mecca and Medina. Both Israel and Palestine claim ownership of the site. Not sure under whose control it is currently (?)

By: scalefree

scalefree — Fri, 14 Jul 2006 11:27:44 -0800

Not only muslims prayed towards jerusalem, the Al Aqsa mosque is considered to be the third holy site after Mecca and Medina. Both Israel and Palestine claim ownership of the site. Not sure under whose control it is currently (?)

It's under the control of an Islamic endowment called the Waqf. In Islam you can declare property waqf & it's set aside for religious purposes & no longer subject to normal rules of ownership & inheritance, but rather a whole new set of rules instead. There's a specific administration that handles the al-Aqsa Waqf.

By: scalefree

scalefree — Fri, 14 Jul 2006 11:41:45 -0800

And under an agreement between Israel & Palestine, no Jews are allowed on the Temple Mount at all. Ariel Sharon famously breached that when he toured some excavations under the Mount & set off one of the intifadas, & every year a group of Zionists called the Temple Mount Faithful approach the Mount & try to start rebuilding the Temple, but get turned away by Israeli security forces. They spend the rest of the year producing authentic Temple equipment to furnish the Temple with once they succeed. One of the big stumbling blocks is they need a herd of red heifers they can sacrifice & use the blood & ashes of to sprinkle over things, which are apparently really diffcult to come by.

By: IndigoJones

IndigoJones — Sun, 16 Jul 2006 11:54:31 -0800

Reason I ask. Thank you, Languagehat.