Hamas o/t

[Omegstrat6]

I do know a fair bit. For instance there has never been a country called Palestine in the whole of history. My understanding is the Romans gave the area the name Palestina. After they left the name pretty much disappeared.

Before Roman times there was a kingdom of Israel and a kingdom of Judah.

Then after WWI along come us good old Brits ever ready to get involved and not knowing what else to call this area of numerous tribes that had never had a national identity we now had a mandate to rule and revived the name Palestine. (Emphasis that is my understanding and if anyone knows differently I am all ears)

Can I ask a question. Is there anyone who believes that Israel didn't exist and there was a state of Palestine it would be any more stable than the basket cases that are in the area now? Hamas in Gaza is Sunni and Hezbollahi n Lebanon is Shia and they don't exactly see eye to eye. The destruction of Israel is about all they agree on. And then you have Fatah on the West Bank. The reason the Arabs lost in 1947 when they had overwhelming advantages is they spent as much time fighting amongst themselves as they did Jews. I envisage another Syria or Lebanon.

I have visited Israel and spent time in Arab towns, the West Bank and Jerusalem only a few months after there had been 'trouble' What surprised me was how everyone got on. In Jerusalem we moved from Christian to Jewish to Arab quarter as did the locals without any checks.

It needs Regis' Rabbi and a Palestinian with the vision of Arafat for peace to have any chance. Meanwhile the extremists on both sides just get more extreme!

Unlike yourself, I've never had the benefit of visiting the region but have done a reasonable amount of reading around it and whilst I certainly can't claim any expertise on the subject, what you've written pretty much matches my own understanding.

I totally agree with you that, had the state of Israel not been created, there would still have been conflicts in the area between different factions and plenty of evidence to support this when you look at many countries today in the Middle East. For some bizarre reason, too many in the West seem to lump all Muslims together, ignoring the differences and frictions between Sunni and Shia for example. Surely that's a bit like lumping all Christians together-they might generally get along far better now than they once did but there is a long history of conflict between Roman Catholics and Protestants for example.

As ever, the British Empire had its role in helping sow the seeds of future conflict in the region although the history of Jerusalem itself is convoluted enough as it is! I think that, post WW2, the Americans have more than played their part too. With the country pretty much exhausted, Churchill was keen for Truman to take over the mantle of protecting Western interests in the region, especially from the newly powerful Soviets. The amount of money the US has poured into the growing state of Israel over the years since is quite staggering.

There did seem a point in time when the changing attitudes of younger generations on both sides seemed to suggest that Israelis and Palestinians could live more peacefully together but very sadly things haven't worked out and, as you say, extremists on both sides have grown more extreme. Echoes Kett's earlier post-the majority of ordinary people would likely just want to get on with their lives and rub along but it's the few who want power and influence who drive things and make things worse by exploiting divisions for their own political or religious ends.