The following is an excerpt from a thread I participated in on a great little community site. You may not be able to understand some of it because it references previous posts in the thread, but that effect should be negligable.
To start, any source on the conflicts in Israel WILL BE BIASED. The arguments of Clavis, Lefen and Stump lead into one of my strongest beliefs about the “Israel Problem” and two possible solutions to this problem.
The “problem” of the creation of the state Israel goes back much much further than the post WWII UN decision to give the Jewish people a state. “Israel” is a “Holy Land” to three major world religions: Judaism, Christianity and Islam. This little piece of land has been fought over for literally thousands of years as a result of these three religious claims to the land and because of the fertility of that land and its prime placement in the Mediterranean.
Stump, the Ottoman Empire was a Muslim empire and it did rule over the area that is now known as Israel.
Lefen, I have been to Israel and the Muslim population there is far from “brutalized”. There are areas that are primarily Muslim and areas that are Jewish. Yes, the stateless “Palestinians” are marginalized, but they have chosen to protest in a violent manner instead of following the path of Gandhi and passive aggression. I understand their anger, but I disagree with their methods.
Clavis, you have no idea what most Muslims are like. Have you ever visited a Muslim theocracy? If so then I am very surprised that you would even hint at such a horrible idea. Your beliefs about Muslims are poorly formed at best. One could just as easily replace “crazy ass Christians that hate Jews and Muslims” with your comment about “jew/christian hating Muslims”. Fundamentalists (read, extremists) are a problem for every major religion even Jews. I lived in Saudi Arabia for ten years and have seen great acts of kindness in that theocracy as well as great acts of, for lack of a better word, “evil”. However, I have visited other Muslim states such as Turkey, where minarets and steeples rise side by side, with no problems at all. Also, if you have ever studied anything about the Koran, you’d know that all people of the Jewish faith that existed before Muhammad’s “revelation” are considered to be MUSLIMS. Also note that the Koran states that Jesus (usually mentioned as “the son of Mary”) was a great prophet. The Koran is a book much like the Bible or the Tanak, which can be interpreted in various ways. Getting rid of Muslims is not the answer. You would just promote Christians to the rank of “craziest fundamentalists around”. Remember the Oklahoma bombing was perpetrated by a WHITE AMERICAN CHRISTIAN. I believe that the real problem as far as religion goes are the fundamentalists not the average people of faith.
Lefen, I do agree that the current Israeli conflict is not as simple as Jews vs. Terrorists. It all goes back to the LAND that is now called “Israel”.
For lack of a better solution to the “Israel Problem”, I suggest that the UN create a neutral state in Israel’s place. Of course the UN would actually have to have power or usefulness at any level, to do this for it to work. If the Holy Land for three different religions is occupied by any one of the three religions there will always be conflict.
The only other solution I can think of is to just completely obliterate all that is considered holy in that area, a well placed nuclear missile would do well, the fallout alone would keep the land inhabitable for at least hundreds of years. This act would have to be done by someone, or country, that is willing to be destroyed itself, and cannot be seen as one religion against another. North Korea might be a good candidate for this. They are not viewed as a religious state and they are demonized in almost every country around the world. China and Russia would quickly dissosociate themselves from North Korea if they perpetrated this act without any reason or provocation. This way there is no more holy land. No one could occupy it and the conflicts over that little piece of land would cease.
However, this is really just a corollary of the post WWII idea (mostly brought about in the areas that had been completely destroyed) that the most beautiful solution to the “human problem” would be a complete nuclear destruction of the entire planet.
I have yet to hear any better or more viable proposition.