Seen the first version of Occupation 101 and the revisions (including this one). It doesn't present counter arguments (or a balance), but rather presses one side of the story without presenting how the conflict could've been averted many times from the mandate period to the present. It ignores the context of the conflicts and from the beginning tries to tie together conflict zones simply by drawing a weak correlation to violence and various uprisings.
The issue I have here is that the groups in power, be it the PLO or Hamas, from secular to Islamists, cannot be correlated to the conflict zones of the past, from Ireland to India to Algeria. PLO and Hamas have done everything in their power to prevent any sort of resolution to this conflict via compromise and concessions. The other conflict zones given as examples all have to do with a foreign power occupying said land as an extension of their empire (ie French and British colonization) and the resulting uprising and claim for independence. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict stems from previous wars between Israel and its Arab neighbors, whereby only two of the Arab countries involved in these wars have signed non-belligerency agreements, and the people displaced during the war (of which only one side has been actively resettled), namely the Palestinians, have not been actively resettled and used as a political and extorsion ploy for billions in humanitarian aid. The 'uprising'/'resistence' are a result of this lack of resolution to this conflict following the 3 major wars. So its a bit backwards to correlate this to other conflict zones.
So all in all, the lack of resolution to this conflict has stemmed, predominantly in my eyes, from a irresponsible PA government, one devoid of corruption on one end, and unmoving Islamist influence on the other, both of which are exploiting their own people for extorting aid from the international community.
This is just to start this off. I would advise though that one doesn't simply rely on an imbalanced sensationalist documentary that presents the story without the other without other material. I've read many of the counter arguments, even from the more extreme fringes of both the right and left. I advise you to do the same.
