Take beer for example:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/InBev_brands
There are a number of goods that are actually "secret monopolies" like this. There's a central company that owns almost the entire industry, but releases its product under a multitude of brand names to give the illusion that the market actually is open to competition.
These aren't perfect since they can't be overtly monopolistic, but are largely effective. i.e., again with beer, craft beer exists but they don't have the ability to mass distribute and do not have the funds to allocate into marketing to directly compete against InBev. Instead, they aim for a niche market of beer enthusiasts who've decided to become informed and go beyond mass distribution beers.
If you go to buy glasses or sunglasses too, likely all of your frames are actually made Luxottica, despite what brand the glasses say it is.http://www.luxottica.com/en/brands/hous ... index.htmlhttp://www.luxottica.com/en/brands/lice ... index.html
Of course, with such examples you could say you can just choose not to buy. But you can imagine how bad it could become if it was something involuntary.
Like, I dunno, for the average person, that once-in-a-lifetime diamond ring? That's probably the most famous example. Diamonds really shouldn't be in demand like this, but due to the social norm you kind of have to buy them for marriage, thanks to the great marketing on the part of DeBeers.
Yet, diamonds aren't actually rare. But DeBeers, the monopoly holder of diamonds, made them valuable.
By buying up all the diamonds on the market and removing them from regular supply to artificially inflate the prices. Their business practices have shifted a bit recently, due to a few areas (China, Russia, and Canada) deciding to overturn the monopoly, but seeing how the incredible mark up still exists, it obviously hasn't actually ended the problem. Not to mention the whole needing a diamond ring thing was made up like only 100 years ago :d
Israel is both a victim and aggressor. The Palestinians (those who've been in Palestine since at least its time as a British Mandate) are mostly victims, though they did get aggressive a few times, so like Israel they aren't completely clean (but at the same time, they aren't exactly under a central government).
Not only would the Palestinians get chased out almost methodicall by the Israel military during the Arab-Israel war, the Arab states attacking Israel during that initial war in the first place was, along with eliminating Israel, also designed to annex the territories promised to Palestinians (the surrounding Arab states don't really have much sympathy for them, honestly speaking).
Both parties have been overtly aggressive in the face of moderate approaches. Half of the flak the Israelites get is because they are a living symbol of foreign intervention in the affairs of the middle east (in addition to the US military bases near Islamic holy sites such as Mecca and Medinah). And of course, the Arabs get a lot of flak now because of perceived, apparent ravenous, violent, barbarism. Or whatever.
Both have fault but both are clearly victims. On the other hand, the Arab states are generally clear aggressors. But they and the Palestinians are apples and oranges, often times.
In the end, they're all just victims suffering from what is essentially a post-colonial problem; things were fine when colonial powers were still strong and could enforce segregation or make oppression completely one-sided, but once they declined the distinctions they put into place--even fictional ones--continue to live on in the power politics.
It's also a problem of neo-colonialism, since the importance of the oil there encourages constant meddling by world powers. The Suez canal even threatened a similar debacle, and was basically averted because Eisenhower knew it wasn't worth getting in a nuclear slug match with the USSR over :P
I mean, the West really likes portraying Muslims as violent. But honestly, most of the time the west is baiting them and getting them angry practically on purpose. Or enabling atrocities. Or even just indirectly causing chaos.
As for taking Jerusalem by force, it was basically meant to be an international city controlled by the UN. But in the ensuing Arab-Israeli war, it came to be split with Jordan occupying East Jerusalem and Israel occupying the rest. In the 6 day war, Israel would occupy the rest of Jerusalem along with the West Bank.