I have watched it and found it to be very informative.
The only thing I don't like about it is some of the language that is used. Particularly the use of the term "occupied territory" for the West Bank and Gaza. Prior to 1967, the West Bank was part of Jordan, and Gaza was part of Egypt.
Neither Egypt nor Jordan wanted the parcels of land returned after the war. Based on what happened on the ground, these are conquered territories, still populated by the ancestors of the people living there prior to 1973. These people didn't leave the area and move into more secure territory in Egypt or Jordan, and neither of those nations seemed particularly concerned about them or their status.
In the days before the UN, the lines on the map would have been redrawn, like when the US defeated Mexico and took over the Western US, or when the USSR conquered so many territories and incorporated them into the Country, or the case of Tibet, which considered itself a sovereign nation, until it was invaded in the mid 50's by China. No one calls Tibet occupied territory, and there are no protests about the treatment of the Tibetan people, which makes what the Israeli's do to the Palestinians pale in comparison.
Palestine was the name the British gave to what is now Israel. There never really was a country named Palestine, it was an occupied British protectorate/colony. (As was much of the middle east after Britain took the territory from the Ottomans after WW1)
Most countries have a history, either ethnic or historically based. There are a lot of tribal people who have been wiped out in the history of the world. But countries created on paper- that's something pretty new as a concept and a reality, and I'm not sure that's a good idea.
War is what draws boundaries, and treaties come afterward as the winner and the looser come to an arrangement. Or at least that's the way that it had been until the UN came along.
The West Bank and Gaza seem to want to become a country and a large part of the rest of the world seems to think that is a good idea. Yet since 1973 when Israel was attacked on the Holiest day of the year in Judaism, there has been no stability or sound rule of law in those areas. The government was largely comprised of terrorists (As was Israel's from the perspective of the British) who became whores- pretending to represent their people, but pocketing a great percentage of the money donated by Europe and the Muslim countries.
Is Palestine a viable state- that is can the people there be organized into a functioning society with the rule of law, a productive economy and relative peace and stability. It's a reasonable question considering the history of the area.
Without the UN and without the heavy donations to the area, what is called Palestine would have collapsed long ago. I wonder if it will ever be able to stand on it's own. It's one thing to take claim to land, and quite another to maintain control and stability over it. Being a terrorist or a freedom fighter is one thing, but to become a statesman capable of running a country without using the threat of violence to maintain control is quite another.
Zimbabwe and South Africa come to mind as places that were once peacefull and prosperous, (although very repressive towards the indigenous people) and part of the world's economy. Today, they are both political basket cases, very dependent on external support to function, and in the case of Zimbabwe a country that is about to implode.
In the good old days a strong country would invade Zimbabwe and conquer it. Today no-one even seems to think about the plight of the people there, but the suffering is far worse there than anywhere else except Dafur and some parts of Somalia.
The problem with language is that it shapes thought- occupied territory sounds bad. Like someone is oppressing someone else. There are people in Mexico called Mexicans who feel they are being oppressed by their government. There are Chinese in Tibet who feel they are being oppressed by their government. There are lots of people in the middle east besides the Palestinians who have a bone to pick- the Kurds who used to have a territory of their own, but has been carved up into Turkey, Iran and Iraq. No one calls parts of Turkey or Iran occupied territory! And, then there is Armenia, which is not a country anymore, but a incorporated state in Russia, also not an occupied territory.
So, as I said I had a problem with the language used. But there is a lot of good information in their. However, in my mind, none of them are God's warriors. God said Thou Shalt Not Kill, and that is a commandment that Jews, Muslims and Christians are supposed to observe, but very few of those in this peace seem to observe. How can you be a Warrior for God, if you don't follow his laws?
