This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- I think i'm losing a friendship because of the Israel-Palestine conflict
- Epq on Palestine
- I am an Israeli - AMA
- Anyone else not get boycotting brands or even countries trend?
- how could anyone be pro-israel?
- Writing about personal politics in Personal Statement
- I am half russian, half israeli, ask me anything.
- [Official thread] Hamas-Israel Conflict
- Is SOAS good for IR?
- Will World War 3 happen soon?
- Is Israel winning
- 50,000 women in Gaza are pregnant.
- USA bombing Syria
- Study BA Politics or BA International Relations at SOAS?
- Friend harassing me over my Palestine views
- Soas vs Queen Mary for International relations and politics
- MA International Relations
- Opinions on geopolitical?
- MyTutor is anti-Palestinian?
- My very rude Islam teacher
The Israel-Palestine Conflict Mk.III
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Horsedobbin
I'm puzzled by your questions.
Do you somehow believe that the 1947 partition plan was agreed and put into practice?
What division of land "similar to the 1947 Partition Plan " are you talking about?
Do you somehow believe that the 1947 partition plan was agreed and put into practice?
What division of land "similar to the 1947 Partition Plan " are you talking about?
Why were the borders of Israel, when it was recognised, similar to the 1947 Partition Plan if the Partition Plan was rejected by the Arabs?
Why use the same plan, albeit with minor differences, to draw cement the borders of the newly recognised Jewish State?
Original post by tsr1269
Why were the borders of Israel, when it was recognised, similar to the 1947 Partition Plan if the Partition Plan was rejected by the Arabs?
Why use the same plan, albeit with minor differences, to draw cement the borders of the newly recognised Jewish State?
Why use the same plan, albeit with minor differences, to draw cement the borders of the newly recognised Jewish State?
UN Resolution 181 laid out the borders for the Partition Plan of 1947.
The borders of the newly recognised Jewish state were established following the defeat of the attacking Arab armies of Jordan, Syria , Egypt and Iraq in 1948. The same plan wasn't used in 1948.
Original post by Horsedobbin
UN Resolution 181 laid out the borders for the Partition Plan of 1947.
The borders of the newly recognised Jewish state were established following the defeat of the attacking Arab armies of Jordan, Syria , Egypt and Iraq in 1948. The same plan wasn't used in 1948.
The borders of the newly recognised Jewish state were established following the defeat of the attacking Arab armies of Jordan, Syria , Egypt and Iraq in 1948. The same plan wasn't used in 1948.
Did you not see the term "similar" used in my post?
Original post by Horsedobbin
Also,for example, your reference to the Arab Peasants' revolt of 1834 doesn't make sense.
The revolt was to do with opposition to conscription into the Egyptian army. Most Arabs in the area regarded themselves as subjects of the Ottoman Empire, not "Palestinians".
The revolt was to do with opposition to conscription into the Egyptian army. Most Arabs in the area regarded themselves as subjects of the Ottoman Empire, not "Palestinians".
Yes, the nationalist narrative, as with most nationalist narratives, is not true and the traditions of resistance movements they like to draw on were often not nationalist-based. Doesn't diminish the resistance movements though.
And as I said to lppm, I was using the term 'Palestinian' simply to mean 'Arab from Palestine', not to imply a conscious distinct identity.
Original post by tsr1269
Did you not see the term "similar" used in my post?
If you have a link to any other "similar" map that was published at the time, please post it.
Original post by anarchism101
Yes, the nationalist narrative, as with most nationalist narratives, is not true and the traditions of resistance movements they like to draw on were often not nationalist-based. Doesn't diminish the resistance movements though.
And as I said to lppm, I was using the term 'Palestinian' simply to mean 'Arab from Palestine', not to imply a conscious distinct identity.
And as I said to lppm, I was using the term 'Palestinian' simply to mean 'Arab from Palestine', not to imply a conscious distinct identity.
So at the time, to which we are referring, the Arab residents of that part of the Ottoman Empire regarded themselves as "Arabs from Palestine" and not as subjects of the Ottoman Empire, according to you. Is that what you mean?
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by Horsedobbin
So at the time, to which we are referring, the Arab residents of that part of the Ottoman Empire regarded themselves as "Arabs from Palestine" and not as subjects of the Ottoman Empire, according to you. Is that what you mean?
No, I meant nothing about how they regarded themselves in terms of national identity.
Original post by Horsedobbin
If you have a link to any other "similar" map that was published at the time, please post it.
Clear as day.
Original post by tsr1269
Clear as day.
Clear as day.
In your mind.
Original post by Horsedobbin
In your mind.
Not in your mind?
Original post by tsr1269
Not in your mind?
I think you need to explain what point you are trying to make.
There was an armed conflict in the area with several Arab armies attacking the new state of Israel. The attacking armies lost the war, and if they had not lost the state of Israel would not have continued to exist anywhere in the area. So what is your point about the maps ?? The map of 1949 would not have looked as it did had the arab armies not attacked Israel.
Original post by Horsedobbin
I think you need to explain what point you are trying to make.
There was an armed conflict in the area with several Arab armies attacking the new state of Israel. The attacking armies lost the war, and if they had not lost the state of Israel would not have continued to exist anywhere in the area. So what is your point about the maps ?? The map of 1949 would not have looked as it did had the arab armies not attacked Israel.
There was an armed conflict in the area with several Arab armies attacking the new state of Israel. The attacking armies lost the war, and if they had not lost the state of Israel would not have continued to exist anywhere in the area. So what is your point about the maps ?? The map of 1949 would not have looked as it did had the arab armies not attacked Israel.
My question has remained the same:
Why are the 1949 Israeli borders similar to that of the 1947 Partition Plan?
Original post by tsr1269
My question has remained the same:
Why are the 1949 Israeli borders similar to that of the 1947 Partition Plan?
Why are the 1949 Israeli borders similar to that of the 1947 Partition Plan?
I don't understand your question.
The partition plan borders are clearly different than the 1949 Israeli borders.
The areas allocated to Arabs are no longer in the 1949 map. I have just explained the reason for that.
Original post by Horsedobbin
I don't understand your question.
The partition plan borders are clearly different than the 1949 Israeli borders.
The areas allocated to Arabs are no longer in the 1949 map. I have just explained the reason for that.
The partition plan borders are clearly different than the 1949 Israeli borders.
The areas allocated to Arabs are no longer in the 1949 map. I have just explained the reason for that.
We are going around in circles. I have maintained that they are "similar". Look at the map, for pete's sake.
You see the majority of the features in the maps are the same.
I can't believe I'm actually
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by tsr1269
We are going around in circles. I have maintained that they are "similar". Look at the map, for pete's sake.
You see the majority of the features in the maps are the same.
I can't believe I'm actually have to explain a picture...
You see the majority of the features in the maps are the same.
I can't believe I'm actually have to explain a picture...
The borders of the areas designated for Arabs are not present in the 1949 map, for reasons I have given.
Otherwise, I agree that the maps are similar, but wouldn't you expect that, given that were no catastrophic floods or major geological changes in the short period between the two maps?
Original post by Horsedobbin
The borders of the areas designated for Arabs are not present in the 1949 map, for reasons I have given.
Otherwise, I agree that the maps are similar, but wouldn't you expect that, given that were no catastrophic floods or major geological changes in the short period between the two maps?
Otherwise, I agree that the maps are similar, but wouldn't you expect that, given that were no catastrophic floods or major geological changes in the short period between the two maps?
Why are you talking about floods and geological changes?
My point was that even if the Arabs/Palestinians had accepted the Partition Plan, they would still be in the same position in 1949, relatively speaking. So regardless of what the Palestinians/Arabs did, the Partition Plan was but a formality. The borders, give or take a few miles, were going to be drawn similar to the Partition Plan of 1947 so it doesn't matter whether the Palestinians/Arabs rejected it or not, it was going to be implemented anyway.
The vote of 1947 was in other words, an "illusion"...
Original post by tsr1269
Why are you talking about floods and geological changes?
My point was that even if the Arabs/Palestinians had accepted the Partition Plan, they would still be in the same position in 1949, relatively speaking. So regardless of what the Palestinians/Arabs did, the Partition Plan was but a formality. The borders, give or take a few miles, were going to be drawn similar to the Partition Plan of 1947 so it doesn't matter whether the Palestinians/Arabs rejected it or not, it was going to be implemented anyway.
The vote of 1947 was in other words, an "illusion"...
My point was that even if the Arabs/Palestinians had accepted the Partition Plan, they would still be in the same position in 1949, relatively speaking. So regardless of what the Palestinians/Arabs did, the Partition Plan was but a formality. The borders, give or take a few miles, were going to be drawn similar to the Partition Plan of 1947 so it doesn't matter whether the Palestinians/Arabs rejected it or not, it was going to be implemented anyway.
The vote of 1947 was in other words, an "illusion"...
I'm really not sure what you mean.
If the Arabs/Palestinians has accepted the Partition Plan of 1947, isn't it reasonable to think that there would have been peace as Arab armies ( assuming Iraq, Syria , Jordan etc had also "accepted" the plan) would not have started an armed conflict?
Original post by Horsedobbin
I'm really not sure what you mean.
If the Arabs/Palestinians has accepted the Partition Plan of 1947, isn't it reasonable to think that there would have been peace as Arab armies ( assuming Iraq, Syria , Jordan etc had also "accepted" the plan) would not have started an armed conflict?
If the Arabs/Palestinians has accepted the Partition Plan of 1947, isn't it reasonable to think that there would have been peace as Arab armies ( assuming Iraq, Syria , Jordan etc had also "accepted" the plan) would not have started an armed conflict?
Regardless, they still ended up in the same position.
What was the point of the 1947 Partition Plan vote if they had already decided where the borders would be give or take a few miles?
Go on all you Isreali defenders. Defend this.
Their names are Jawhar Nasser Jawhar, 19, and Adam Abd al-Raouf Halabiya, 17. They were once soccer players in the West Bank. Now they are never going to play sports again. Jawhar and Adam were on their way home from a training session in the Faisal al-Husseini Stadium on January 31 when Israeli forces fired upon them as they approached a checkpoint. After being shot repeatedly, they were mauled by checkpoint dogs and then beaten. Ten bullets were put into Jawhar’s feet. Adam took one bullet in each foot. After being transferred from a hospital in Ramallah to King Hussein Medical Center in Amman, they received the news that soccer would no longer be a part of their futures. (Israel’s border patrol maintains that the two young men were about to throw a bomb.)
This is only the latest instance of the targeting of Palestinian soccer players by the Israeli army and security forces. Death, injury or imprisonment has been a reality for several members of the Palestinian national team over the last five years. Just imagine if members of Spain’s top-flight World Cup team had been jailed, shot or killed by another country and imagine the international media outrage that would ensue. Imagine if prospective youth players for Brazil were shot in the feet by the military of another nation. But, tragically, these events along the checkpoints have received little attention on the sports page or beyond.
Much has been written about the psychological effect this kind of targeting has on the occupied territories. Sports represent escape, joy and community, and the Palestinian national soccer team, for a people without a recognized nation, is a source of tremendous pride. To attack the players is to attack the hope that the national team will ever truly have a home.
The Palestinian national football team, which formed in 1998, is currently ranked 144th in the world by the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA). They have never been higher than 115th. As Chairman of the Palestinian Football Association Jibril al-Rajoub commented bluntly, the problems are rooted in “the occupation’s insistence on destroying Palestinian sport.”
Over the last year, in response to this systematic targeting of Palestinian soccer, al-Rajoub has attempted to assemble forces to give Israel the ultimate sanction and, as he said, “demand the expulsion of Israel from FIFA and the International Olympic Committee.” Al-Rajoub claims the support of Jordan, Qatar, Iran, Oman, Algiers and Tunisia in favor of this move, and promises more countries, with an opportunity at a regional March 14 meeting of Arab states, to organize more support. He has also pledged to make the resolution formal when all the member nations of FIFA meet in Brazil.
Qatar’s place in this, as host of the 2022 World Cup, deserves particular scrutiny. As the first Arab state to host the tournament, they are under fire for the hundreds of construction deaths of Nepalese workers occurring on their watch. As the volume on these concerns rises, Qatar needs all the support in FIFA that they can assemble. Whether they eventually see the path to that support as one that involves confronting or accommodating Israel, will be fascinating to see.
As for Sepp Blatter, he clearly recognizes that there is a problem in the treatment of Palestinian athletes by the Israeli state. Over the last year, he has sought to mediate this issue by convening a committee of Israeli and Palestinian authorities to see if they can come to some kind of agreement about easing the checkpoints and restrictions that keep Palestinian athletes from leaving (and trainers, consultants and coaches from entering) the West Bank and Gaza. Yet al-Rajoub sees no progress. As he said, “This is the way the Israelis are behaving and I see no sign that they have recharged their mental batteries. There is no change on the ground. We are a full FIFA member and have the same rights as all other members.”
The shooting into the feet of Jawhar and Adam has taken a delicate situation and made it an impossible one. Sporting institutions like FIFA and the IOC are always wary about drawing lines in the sand when it comes to the conduct of member nations. But the deliberate targeting of players is seen, even in the corridors of power, as impossible to ignore. As long as Israel subjects Palestinian athletes to detention and violence, their seat at the table of international sports will be never be short of precarious.
http://www.thenation.com/blog/178642/after-latest-incident-israels-future-fifa-uncertain#
Their names are Jawhar Nasser Jawhar, 19, and Adam Abd al-Raouf Halabiya, 17. They were once soccer players in the West Bank. Now they are never going to play sports again. Jawhar and Adam were on their way home from a training session in the Faisal al-Husseini Stadium on January 31 when Israeli forces fired upon them as they approached a checkpoint. After being shot repeatedly, they were mauled by checkpoint dogs and then beaten. Ten bullets were put into Jawhar’s feet. Adam took one bullet in each foot. After being transferred from a hospital in Ramallah to King Hussein Medical Center in Amman, they received the news that soccer would no longer be a part of their futures. (Israel’s border patrol maintains that the two young men were about to throw a bomb.)
This is only the latest instance of the targeting of Palestinian soccer players by the Israeli army and security forces. Death, injury or imprisonment has been a reality for several members of the Palestinian national team over the last five years. Just imagine if members of Spain’s top-flight World Cup team had been jailed, shot or killed by another country and imagine the international media outrage that would ensue. Imagine if prospective youth players for Brazil were shot in the feet by the military of another nation. But, tragically, these events along the checkpoints have received little attention on the sports page or beyond.
Much has been written about the psychological effect this kind of targeting has on the occupied territories. Sports represent escape, joy and community, and the Palestinian national soccer team, for a people without a recognized nation, is a source of tremendous pride. To attack the players is to attack the hope that the national team will ever truly have a home.
The Palestinian national football team, which formed in 1998, is currently ranked 144th in the world by the Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA). They have never been higher than 115th. As Chairman of the Palestinian Football Association Jibril al-Rajoub commented bluntly, the problems are rooted in “the occupation’s insistence on destroying Palestinian sport.”
Over the last year, in response to this systematic targeting of Palestinian soccer, al-Rajoub has attempted to assemble forces to give Israel the ultimate sanction and, as he said, “demand the expulsion of Israel from FIFA and the International Olympic Committee.” Al-Rajoub claims the support of Jordan, Qatar, Iran, Oman, Algiers and Tunisia in favor of this move, and promises more countries, with an opportunity at a regional March 14 meeting of Arab states, to organize more support. He has also pledged to make the resolution formal when all the member nations of FIFA meet in Brazil.
Qatar’s place in this, as host of the 2022 World Cup, deserves particular scrutiny. As the first Arab state to host the tournament, they are under fire for the hundreds of construction deaths of Nepalese workers occurring on their watch. As the volume on these concerns rises, Qatar needs all the support in FIFA that they can assemble. Whether they eventually see the path to that support as one that involves confronting or accommodating Israel, will be fascinating to see.
As for Sepp Blatter, he clearly recognizes that there is a problem in the treatment of Palestinian athletes by the Israeli state. Over the last year, he has sought to mediate this issue by convening a committee of Israeli and Palestinian authorities to see if they can come to some kind of agreement about easing the checkpoints and restrictions that keep Palestinian athletes from leaving (and trainers, consultants and coaches from entering) the West Bank and Gaza. Yet al-Rajoub sees no progress. As he said, “This is the way the Israelis are behaving and I see no sign that they have recharged their mental batteries. There is no change on the ground. We are a full FIFA member and have the same rights as all other members.”
The shooting into the feet of Jawhar and Adam has taken a delicate situation and made it an impossible one. Sporting institutions like FIFA and the IOC are always wary about drawing lines in the sand when it comes to the conduct of member nations. But the deliberate targeting of players is seen, even in the corridors of power, as impossible to ignore. As long as Israel subjects Palestinian athletes to detention and violence, their seat at the table of international sports will be never be short of precarious.
http://www.thenation.com/blog/178642/after-latest-incident-israels-future-fifa-uncertain#
Is this still going on? 
Related discussions
- I think i'm losing a friendship because of the Israel-Palestine conflict
- Epq on Palestine
- I am an Israeli - AMA
- Anyone else not get boycotting brands or even countries trend?
- how could anyone be pro-israel?
- Writing about personal politics in Personal Statement
- I am half russian, half israeli, ask me anything.
- [Official thread] Hamas-Israel Conflict
- Is SOAS good for IR?
- Will World War 3 happen soon?
- Is Israel winning
- 50,000 women in Gaza are pregnant.
- USA bombing Syria
- Study BA Politics or BA International Relations at SOAS?
- Friend harassing me over my Palestine views
- Soas vs Queen Mary for International relations and politics
- MA International Relations
- Opinions on geopolitical?
- MyTutor is anti-Palestinian?
- My very rude Islam teacher
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
