Humanities desk
< January 30	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	February 1 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 31

Israel-Palestinian Conflict

I know I should just read the articles relating to these topics but I do want to know the gist of how the current situation and power dynamics came to be and I find it quite difficult to pinpoint the causal relationship between events and decisions taken by the belligerents involved considering how complicated everything about this is.

Are Israel's current policies towards Palestinians only for the sake of its own security due to the latter's insistence on refusal to recognize Israel's existence and support of violent terrorist organizations namely Hamas and PLO? Or is it the other way around, that the Palestinians only want to live in peace and only support terrorists or embrace those organizations' genocidal ideologies only because of Israel's policies of collective punishment towards them? 70.95.44.93 (talk) 13:07, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See Clusterfuck for a comprehensive answer. Also, False dichotomy. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:15, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which one started first though? Israel's policies of punishing Palestinians that many have referred to as "apartheid" or Palestinians' use and support of genocidal terrorism? 70.95.44.93 (talk) 13:27, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are millions of Palestinians and millions of Israelis each with a wide diversity of viewpoints, and speaking in broad generalizations about either group is likely to lead you to oversimplified and incorrect conclusions. --Jayron 32 14:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is true but, all types of policies of a government or an organization and changes made to them have to have a starting point or date somewhere. That is all I am asking in addition to whether or not the general Palestinian population hate Jews or support/tolerate the terrorist organizations that claim to represent them from the start before Israel did anything to them. Many people who oppose Israel's occupation and policies have argued that it was Israel's harsh policies that turn Palestinians into terrorism to begin with and I want to find out how valid this argument is. 70.95.44.93 (talk) 15:06, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's called the "look what you made me do" argument. <-Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots-> 15:17, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your use of the loaded term "terrorist organization" to describe Hamas and the PLO shows where you're coming from on this issue. Your "question" is really an invitation to debate masquerading as a question, and we don't do debate here. See International positions on the nature of Hamas. --Viennese Waltz 15:38, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also the OP should maybe note that a terrorist organisation for person A can be a resistance movement for person B. For example they should always remember that the French resistance during WWII occupation of France, was as far as the Germans were concerned, a terrorist organisation. Which word was right, the Allies' "resistant" or the Germans' word "terrorist"? Just because your government calls some organisation "terrorist" doesn't mean anything more than: "My government doesn't like it when they kill someone". --Lgriot (talk) 16:29, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

La resistance killed Nazi troops, Palestinian terrorist organizations (PTOs?) explode the biggest, nailiest bomb they can wear in the biggest crowd of Jewish civilians they can find and don't even care if they kill or reduce the limb count of little kids and pregnant women and a Brazilian who was probably just in Jerusalem for the Christian stuff. Blowing up even 1 Israeli civilian is a war crime no matter how much you feel the natural reaction to Israel occupying your land a generation before you were born and turning it 1st world is to explode a pizzeria of mostly women and children by killing yourself in the middle of the most fun years of life. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:39, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sagittarian Milky Way, and now they inflate baloons and send it over into Israel indiscriminately targeting civilians. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:21, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why list the horrible actions of only one side? Why not bring up massacres of civilians by Israeli forces too? Also, I do believe Palestinians have asked for precision guidance weapons so they can target the IDF rather than firing off their poor quality weapons. I mean if all we knew was what you wrote than one would think most civilian causalities were Israeli when of course they are mostly Palestinian. 2607:FEA8:1DE0:40BC:A8DC:9126:7594:6195 (talk) 04:34, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not going to play your games. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 06:39, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for using such a controversial term although I have seen some who condemn Israel literally say "Israel's policies encourage Palestinians to become terrorists". Anyway, please use the fact that many Palestinians still openly use/support/tolerate violence and targeting of civilians as well as refuse to acknowledge Israel's existence instead of the label "terrorist". 70.95.44.93 (talk) 16:52, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Former Israeli PM Ehud barak did state that were he born a Palestinian he too would have likely joined a Palestinian "terrorist" group. Also the idea that Palestine doesn't recognize Israel isn't true; they have been reiterating recognition since the Oslo I accords despite Israel not recognizing them in return. What they do not recognize is that Israel is a state for only Jewish people. 2607:FEA8:1DE0:40BC:19F6:B2FC:9B95:D469 (talk) 02:56, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2607:FEA8:1DE0:40BC:19F6:B2FC:9B95:D469, the Hebron Massacre was in 1929, long before Israel became a state. The PLO was founded before the Six-Day war. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 03:22, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, until at least 1973 (or in some respects even as late as 1982) it was the "Arab-Israeli conflict", not the "Israeli-Palestinian conflict" -- Israel and the Arab states fought a number of wars, in which Palestinian Arabs were then mainly bystanders. Second, it's possible to simultaneously recognize both that the Palestinian Arabs found themselves in a difficult historical situation, and also that many of their responses to this situation were unfortunately unhelpful to themselves overall, and in the end ultimately self-destructive. For example, they have a continual tendency to scornfully spurn and reject the peace plan of the day, until the situation shifts and what they had previously rejected now starts to look good in the rear-view mirror. For example, they rejected the UN partition plan in 1947-1948, but this suddenly started to look good in retrospect when the 1949-1950 armistice lines were finalized. Then during 1949-1967 they scornfully rejected the armistice lines as any basis for a peace settlement, until those started to look good after the 6-day War of 1967. Etc. etc. ad nauseam basically down to the present. Another unendearing Palestinian Arab characteristic is they don't apply morality to themselves in their "struggle", so there's no tactic they would consider ethically off-limits, no depths to which they wouldn't sink, in order to strike a blow against Israelis/Jews -- see Hindawi affair, Sbarro restaurant suicide bombing, the lasting cult of Dalal Mughrabi, etc. etc. ad nauseam. AnonMoos (talk) 16:10, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How can there be this many "answers" to "how did it start" and nobody mentions Zionism? 135.84.167.41 (talk) 16:28, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which, in turn, was a logical and natural response to antisemitism. We can play this game all day, going back to the Big Bang. --Jayron 32 17:25, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. You can't. The Palestinians were not travelling to Germany, Poland, and Russia to fight with Jewish people. The current conflict between Palestine and Israel began when Jewish people quickly moved back en masse. It didn't begin with the big bang. 135.84.167.41 (talk) 17:35, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let's leave out the Arab states for a second especially when they have not been at war with Israel for decades while Egypt and Jordan already gave up. I am more concerned with the actions of the Palestinians themselves and how they relate to Israel's policies, whether or not the latter have caused the former to "sink" so low or vice versa. 70.95.44.93 (talk) 19:00, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If we are just looking at the last few decades then it boils down to Israel demanding Palestinian land including East Jerusalem, most settlements, and the Jordan valley and that Palestine then also have limited sovereignty and on the other side Palestine believing the Right of conquest to have lost before Israel even existed, so why should they give more land. 2607:FEA8:1DE0:40BC:19F6:B2FC:9B95:D469 (talk) 03:26, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's like the Bizarro World version of Gandhi or Martin Luther King Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:39, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read. Ideally, you need to read stuff that's biased both ways, because everything is biased. You won't develop a proper understanding of a complex and long embedded tragic conflict that messes up lives on both sides by asking some strangers their opinions on the internet. Even more pertinently, this is a reference desk, so please don't come here asking us not to point you to references. You need to read. I know I said that already, but it was such a good point, it was worth repeating. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC) Credit to Red Dwarf for the joke. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:09, 4 February 2020 (UTC) .[reply]

As of 10 years ago, one side (your choice) was obviously totally wrong, and the other side just as obviously 100% right. But, go back 20 years and it was the other way around. Repeat every decade, then every century, until it becomes clear. DOR (HK) (talk) 17:30, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Modern painting of a woman with a shopping cart in royal residence

I'm making an example in a slide and I can't find the painting I remember seeing. I was doing a tour of royal homes in England. In one is a large painting of a woman standing next to a shopping cart. I've been searching for an image of the painting (or at least the name of the painting or artist). But, I can't find anything. I assume it is popular if it is hanging in the main hall of a royal residence. I could be wrong. 135.84.167.41 (talk) 17:14, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Was it This one? --Jayron 32 17:27, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but no. It was an example of hyperrealism, so it is rather modern. 135.84.167.41 (talk) 17:36, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Was it Duane Hanson's Supermarket Shopper? --Jayron 32 17:46, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. Thanks for searching. I will outdent with as much description as I can remember, but at 70, my memory is not dependable. 135.84.167.41 (talk) 17:51, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The painting is handing in one of the royal residences. The wall is covered in old paintings of old dead people. So, it is striking. It is a young woman in a t-shirt that I remember being a royal jack print. She has a cigarette in one hand I think. Her foot is propped on a shopping cart. Inside the cart is some junk. I remember there being a television in it. Mainly, I remember it being very out of place. The tour guide said who painted it (a name I would never remember) and said it was hyperrealism. I remember Googling that term afterward. I don't see the difference between photorealism and hyperrealism. So, I can just say that it looks like a photograph, but it is a large painting. 135.84.167.41 (talk) 17:51, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If I assume your memory is off, it could be "Brittania" by Mitch Griffiths. It is at the Althorp house in Northamptonshire. It is a woman. Her foot is on a stroller, not a shopping cart. She is carrying a CCTV camera, not a television. Further, it is not a "royal" residence, but it was Lady Diana's home. 97.82.165.112 (talk) 20:09, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a link to the picture in question, from the artist's website: [1]. Xuxl (talk) 20:36, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's gotta be it. Excellent intuition and knowledge, 97.82! ---Sluzzelin talk 21:31, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. That is it. I was way off. Thanks. I have just enough time to add it into my slide deck for an example of out-of-place ideas. 135.84.167.41 (talk) 12:51, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]