My belief is that both sides are, in their own way, in the wrong. Further, I believe that while the State of Israel was created by western powers, the Palestinian people have occupied the area, albeit without a soverign nation to call their own, for centuries. As of such, I believe that Israel is in the wrong to take that land, which by right of blood belongs to the people of Palestine. The people of Palestine insist on using uncooth, unfair, and bloody techniques in attempts to assert themselves, which is also quite wrong. I approve of their actions no more than I approve of those of Israel - however - as I have previously stated, the people of Palestine are woefully poor and have cause to be desparate. Israel has not been kind in their dealings with the Palestinian people, and they are clearly the ones who are in power. The Palestinian people are being oppressed, and as of such are lashing out with violence. The Israeli government is equally and more violent, with no similar set of excuses. It is my further belief that the Palestinian people deserve their own soverign nation, and that upon its creation, the conflict may not end, but will undoubtedly be quelled. For the Intifada to end, the Palestinian people must have resolve.
The preceding comments are my beliefs, which will not be swayed, and are not intended to sway the beliefs of others. I encourage all of you to research the topic extensively, both sides of it, and formulate your own opinion. I am not here to tell you what to think, and I applaud those of you who are as committed to your beliefs as I - I ask only that you respect that this is not a black and white - good v. evil - conflict. I do not think that the people of Palestine are inherently good, or that those of Israel are inherently evil, merely that Israel happens to be, entirely understandably, I might add, in the wrong.
As far as the UN resolutions, some are of the security council and thus binding, the others are merely statements made by the GA.
As far as my opinion of the UN, I believe that it is a woefully outdated organization, one which is an anachronism from immediately post WWII. The security council’s permanent members, composed of the victors of WWII, those being France, the U.K., the U.S., the U.S.S.R, whose seat is now held by the Russian Federation, and China, are no longer necessarily appropriate to be the core of the Security Council. Sure, there are another ten seats that rotate through membership, but the five permanent members of the security council hold the most power. A substantive decision requires the approval of all five permanent members, thus giving absolute veto power to the five - which I do not agree with for myriad reasons that I believe should be apparant. I believe that the stated ideals of the UN are laudable, but not often enough upheld. The UN has consistently failed to act in the times of greatest need, such as the horrific inaction taken during the Bosnia - Herzegovnia crisis, and the similar inaction during the crisis of 1994 in Rwanda, both of which yielded horrific results and shamed the UN to its very core. There are many options for UN reform, but I believe that most critical is a reworking of the Security Council.
And…I’m spent. This is my summer. I want to blend. I’m done with this topic. I spend my years writing hundreds of pages on these topics. Political Science with a focus in International Relations is my life, and I’m taking a break from my life. I’m going to make something neat and post it in the WIP forum, so that I can hear nice things!
Thanks for the discussion all. I applaud your resolve - don’t ever let anyone take it from you.
