Lately it seems that the Gaza Conflict is on everybody's mind, quite understandably, but there is precious little productive dialog between the two sides.
I often engage in conversation with people who hold different views from mine. I think that's what responsible voters do in a democracy. In addition, I learn more not only about the opposing side, but often my own side in such conversations. And answering questions requires me to examine, clarify, and sometimes change my beliefs and opinions.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said that you're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. However, one of the reason that genuine dialog and finding a solution to the Gaza conflict are so elusive is because the two sides can agree on very few facts thanks to the perfection of propaganda campaigns featuring selective recall, rewriting of history, and the constant repeating of lies (or to use the current euphemistic term "not fact-based").[tag]
Thus, attempting to have a discussion of "facts" does not solve anything because there is little agreement on a common set of facts. Without a common basis of facts, any discussion will be unproductive and usually devolves into a shouting match as often seen on TV, thus polarizing the sides even more.
For more understanding about the connection between money and war, read about Smedley Butler, and read his excellent - and sadly timeless - free booklet on-line called War Is A Racket, which you can find here: http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html
I've found that asking questions can be a more productive approach to discussion because answering well-crafted questions requires examination of beliefs instead of responding with prepared sound bites.
Here are some questions to ask.
QUESTION 1 - What should have been done (and what should be done now) with the many thousands of Palestinians who had lived on their land for centuries when the State of Israel was founded?
How is forcing them off their ancestral land and into refugee camps any different from what we did to the Native Americans in the 1800's (other than the time period) which is now almost universally regarded as genocide? Both situations feature intimidation, killing, and the taking of land.
Even though there is much controversy as to whether the Palestinians left voluntarily (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_1948_Palestinian_exodus), a number of even Israeli and IDF sources say that the exodus was primarily involuntary but due to the deliberate actions of the Israelis. Rich Forer's book covers this in detail.
But let's assume for the moment that the myth of voluntary (without any threat or intimidation) exodus is predominantly correct. How does that change anything? I can understand some people leaving to escape a war zone, but when the active conflict is over, why should they not be able to go back to their home, orchards, and fields, and continue their life from where they left off? Why should Israel have rights to the land on which the Palestinians had been living for hundreds of years?
Reports indicate that over 1 million Iraqis have fled their homes in northern Iraq. By leaving "voluntarily" in the face of the intimidation and brutality of ISIS, have they given up their rights to return to their homes?
QUESTION 2 - By what right does Israel continue to take over more Palestinian land, and continue to bulldoze Palestinian homes and orchards and build settlements in the territories that were declared to be Palestinian by the UN in 1948?
The entire rest of the world (even the US) has declared the settlements to be illegal, yet Israel continues to take more land. US leaders are all apparently too intimidated to stand up to Israel to force them to stop their illegal expansion. We continue to send them massive amounts of money and equipment. Again, how is that expansion different from the genocide and forced migrations perpetrated by the US on the Native Americans?
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).