Ferguson

As you are hopefully aware, there's a lot of discussion going on right now about the events in Ferguson, Missouri.  I've read a fair amount about it, though most of it from websites and articles that avoid moderation like a Congressman.  I've also read plenty of emotional facebook rants, sprinkled with profanity, taking positions at opposite ends of the spectrum.  From all of my reading, I have come to one conclusion: I don't care what your position on the issue is, just please, for crying out loud, be intelligent about it.

I can't stand reading these articles where Michael Brown is portrayed as a gentle giant, just on his way to visit his dear grandmother one afternoon before heading off to college the next week.  He assaulted a police officer after robbing a liquor store.  I'm not saying he was a bad person, or even that he deserved what happened.  I'm not even touching those issues right now.  What bothers me is when some people ignore information that doesn't agree with their stance.  I think it's dishonest.

Another thing that bothers me is ignoring the larger issues entirely.  This case has brought up a lot of legitimate discussions that need to be had about things like police militarization, gun violence, attitudes towards police, and racial profiling.  These are really important issues, and they need to be addressed if we want to improve society.  But some people refuse to acknowledge that these are issues simply because they don't think this case represents those issues.  They say that the officer was justified, and race/violence/other issues had nothing to do with it.  I don't know if that's true, but even if it is, even if race had nothing to do with it, it's still a legitimate issue.  On the other hand, it really bothers me when people posted, following the announcement that the officer would not be indicted, things like "Another case of the justice system failing us," and similar things.  The American media and people have a real problem: they assume guilt.  They assume they know whether or not someone is guilty, and once they've made up their minds, nothing will change them.  We don't know exactly what happened, and we don't know (and I don't think we can know) the degree to which the officer is responsible.  We cannot assume someone's guilt.  One of the foundational principles of our justice system is "Innocent until proven guilty."

So, before I descend from my soap box, I urge you to think and be intelligent when you express your opinions and when you read others' opinions.  Kind of the same points I wanted to make in my post about the Arab-Israeli conflict.  Please be intelligent.  The world needs more people willing to stand in the middle and look at all views critically without getting carried away by emotion.
And now I'm stepping off the box.

The Arab-Israeli Conflict: A Basic Introduction

Image source: CNN.com

Summary:
Here's my main point, if you don't feel like reading everything: be an intelligent, unbiased, thoughtful consumer of media.

The Nitty-Gritty:
For those who'd like to better understand, let me begin:
I am absolutely not an expert on this region of the world nor of the conflict which has raged there for so long.  However, I have studied it a little more than most people, I think.  And though there is a lot I don't know, I know enough to think that what I do know may help you.  Allow me to explain the situation:

The Current Conflict:
A couple months ago three Israeli teenagers were kidnapped and later found dead in Gaza (Palestinian land under Israeli control).  Then a Palestinian (Arab) teenager was found burned and killed near Jerusalem.  Hamas, a very extreme political party holding power in Gaza, and Israel began exchanging fire.  Israel sent in ground troops after a while to destroy tunnels used by Hamas militants to cross into Israel.  Cease-fire agreements have been made and broken willy-nilly.  Casualties have been terribly high in Gaza (nearing 1200, last I knew), and very low in Israel (below 100).

Why people are upset:

• Israeli fire has hit three U.N. schools and shelters in Gaza.  As indicated by the casualty numbers, many are concerned that Israel is targeting civilians.
• Hamas refuses to negotiate unless Israel lifts the blockade on Gaza.  Hamas is also accused of using civilians as human shields (not literally--this just means that they do not have an organized military presence the way we think of it; the combatants are out among the civilians).

Most people in America side with Israel, saying that Israel has the right to defend itself.  Hamas has declared in no uncertain terms that it wants Israel done away with.  Also, the Palestinians in Gaza are largely Muslim, and most Americans are biased against Muslims.  Because America is a Christian country by and large, many Americans feel a certain affinity for Israel as home to the Holy Land.  One of the most important things to understand is that the situation is NOT simple.  It is not black and white, with one side wrong and one side right.

Background Information You Need:

Israel was created by the United Nations after World War II as a homeland for the Jews of Europe.  That sounds really nice, especially considering what the Jews went through in World War II.  However, the land that Britain (then in control of much of the Middle East) unilaterally decided would become Israel already had people living in it: the Palestinians.  There had been no independent Jewish state there since the Romans took control in the first century BC.  What does that mean?  Israel is occupying Palestine.  That, put very simply, is why the Arabs are always upset with Israel.  (Note: US support of Israel is one of the biggest causes of the hate directed at the US from some people in the Middle East and around the world.)  They don't want Israel to exist because it is a symbol of their occupation and displacement.  Imagine if the United States decided to carve out a chunk of Mexico for itself, and started sending US citizens to live there and push out the Mexicans.  How happy would those Mexicans be?  This information is often too conveniently left out of explanations that favor Israel.

But the situation is still more complicated.  Think of the United States again.  We displaced a lot of Native Americans early in our history.  Slavery existed for the first century of America's existence.  Do you feel responsible for that?  Of course not.  You didn't do anything wrong.  You weren't there.  In the 75 years since Israel was created, its demographic has changed.  Those that immigrated are dying, and new generations are born--generations that have grown up in Israel.  They are not at fault for the circumstances into which they are born.  Do you think that makes the Palestinians any happier that they are still homeless?  Absolutely not.  It doesn't help that the Israelis have continuously pushed the Arabs farther out to create new settlements for their citizens.

Conclusion?

So, is Israel justified in its attacks?  It certainly can be seen as self-defense.  They want those tunnels destroyed because terrorists use them to attack Israel.  Hamas has basically vowed to destroy Israel.  No one likes being attacked or destroyed.  Does that justify their seemingly indiscriminate bombings of Gaza?

Is Palestine justified in its attacks?  I don't know, were the American revolutionaries justified in attacking the British redcoats?  They want their homes back.  Does that justify the acts of terror that have been perpetrated against Israel?

I hope you can see that the situation is just too complicated (and I have simplified things as best I can), and cannot be resolved easily.  You can't please everyone.  Someone will always be, probably justifiably, very upset.  What's the solution?  Don't judge hastily.  Don't believe everything you hear--most sources are VERY biased in one direction or the other.  Always consider the source of the information you get.  Stick up when you hear someone oversimplifying.  Help other people understand better.  Remember that the agendas of the governments and individuals in power do not always represent the views of the people.  Each Arab and each Israeli is a child of God.  He weeps over such conflicts that destroy both physically and spiritually the lives of many involved in them.  Acts of unkindness and evil are wrong, no matter who perpetrates them (and both sides have long lists of offenses).  This is where I step off of my soap box.  I think I've made my point.  But I do want to include some examples of things you might hear or see.  If you'd like to understand even better, read on.  Please comment if you have any questions or points you'd like to make.

More Information:

Here is a video that many are saying accurately explains the conflict.  It doesn't.  If you watch it, please think about what you are listening to--it's an excellent example of oversimplification.  I'll add some notes of my own below that may help.

• 00:38 Concerning his explanation with the peace sign: Considering the short explanation I gave, why do you think Palestinians and other Arabs do not recognize the right of Israel to have their own state?  I think their objection is that the Israeli state is in their state.
• 00:57 His explanation of the creation of the state of Israel:  He says they split the land into an Israeli and a Palestinian state.  This sounds fair.  Until you remember that it all belonged to the Palestinians.  Is it a surprise that no Arab countries accepted this decision?
• 2:53 "All the Palestinians have ever had to do": In other words, all they have to do is accept defeat?  Accept being occupied?
• 3:05  You mean the Palestinians wanted more than 95% of a small portion of their land back?
• 4:10 Oversimplification is the name of the game with his final question.  Let's say a bully steals your lunch money.  You want it back.  He offers ten cents back.  You reject it.  It's yours, and you want it all.  Someone poses the question:  If you stopped asking for your money back tomorrow, what would happen? (The bully is fine with it.  He got your money.)  If the bully stopped bullying tomorrow, what would happen? (You still want your money back.)  I realize the bully analogy is a vast oversimplification, but I think it is effective in helping you think about things from the other point of view.
• 4:55 Again, there is a big oversimplification problem here.  Look at the dates of the three Jewish states.  The second ends in 63 BC.  The third starts nearly two millenia later in 1947.  He seems to be implying that no one lived there in between, and that the land was just empty and waiting for the Jews to come back.

Here is a video unfortunate in its accuracy of the history of the region.

The region has been highly contested throughout its history.  This video reminds us that "ownership" of land is itself a very complicated thing.  Who is to say who owns what?  Is it the people who owned it millenia ago?  Centuries ago?  Decades ago?

BBC, generally a reputable news source, has a good explanation that I skimmed over.  It's informative, and seems pretty fair.

BBC News: Gaza-Israeli Conflict

This article is pretty short, but listen to the clip near the top of the page.  They talk to informed experts on both sides of the issue, and both make excellent points.  It's thirteen and a half minutes long.  Towards the very end they play clips of comments from callers.  Some make great points, others seem woefully uninformed.

Examining the Deep Divisions of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

I realize that most of what I have said sounds very pro-Palestinian.  That's because I feel like the prevailing opinions are blindly in favor of Israel, and I think it is very important to consider both sides.  I'm still trying to figure out what my personal beliefs are, but one thing is absolutely sure: it's complicated.