Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

There's An Anti-Israeli sentiment On TSR

Announcements Posted on
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chindits)
    In short, I wouldn't worry about it because in the main you're dealing with know-nothing, middle class ideologues who usually grow out of it as they get older and wiser.
    I'm pretty sure most people who are actually anti-Israel know a lot more about it than you do. I'm also pretty sure any Pro-Israel guy knows absolutely nothing about Israel. It's also funny how you say middleclass. Are the upperclass to arrogant or something to give a damn, or is it that they don't give a damn because it is only the working class and poor that are ever affected by worldwide issues that our f****** up governments decide to get involved in.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrHayden)
    ... Because Israel is a state that officially endorses the systematic displacement of civilians from the land they grew up in for the sake of political and religious ideology? Seems like a pretty good reason to begrudge them to me...
    Religious ideology is their excuse alright but... well the Torah says they aren't allowed in Israel until a prophet returns. So them being in Israel is pretty hypocritical and anti-semetic in its own right. Their 'religious' cause is a load of bull****.
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I don't think there is tbh. I think it's a mixed bag. I think there are those whose sympathies lie with Palestine and those who side with Israel.

    I personally am pro Israel, and someday want to travel round the country. That doesn't mean I approve of everything they do, but I definitely see the Israeli perspective and sympathise with it.
    • 14 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrHayden)
    Please enlighten me as to this history? I'm not saying that you're wrong (well, I am), but having studied this situation a few years ago the only history of the Palestinians in the relevant past is that they sat about in Palestine, doing Arab stuff, until the British turned up after the war and said "this land belongs to these Jewish people now", to which their response was "wait, what?"
    Then they got shot at for quite some time, then Israel built a massive wall separating the land that they had taken from the Arabs completely from the land that they had taken from the Arabs mostly, as a definition of their chosen (and illegal) boundary. Then they allowed their citizens to cross that border freely and start inhabiting whichever poor Arab's house they fancied.

    But yeah, I'm sure the Israeli cause is just, and I'm sure the history of Palestine means they deserve all they're getting! Please now tell me what exactly that history is.
    Utterly absurd. The British never did that. The Balfour Declaration is often misquoted by the pro-Palestine mob as saying that the British supported a Jewish state. In fact, it only stated Britain's support for a 'Jewish homeland'. Even Anton La Guardia - who's pro-Palestine - wrote that the British only ever supported the Jewish people and not the formation of a Jewish state. In fact, the British specifically tried to stop the formation of the Jewish state by trying to control Jewish immigration to Mandatory Palestine.

    In 1922, the British actually tried to establish some kind of autonomy in Palestine, by trying to set up an advisory council. The Jewish people even accepted the idea of a Palestinian Constitution, and a ruling authority with an Arab majority. But guess who rejected it! The Arabs!

    Let's fast-forward to 1947 now. The UN passed Resolution 181, which advocated partitioning. It was accepted by the Jewish population, but not by the Arabs. So basically, they rejected in 1947 the two-state solution they cry about not being allowed now. Now the Arabs had rejected even the idea of a two-state solution, what were the Yishuv meant to do, apart from establish a Jewish state?
    • 16 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tufc)
    Utterly absurd. The British never did that. The Balfour Declaration is often misquoted by the pro-Palestine mob as saying that the British supported a Jewish state. In fact, it only stated Britain's support for a 'Jewish homeland'. Even Anton La Guardia - who's pro-Palestine - wrote that the British only ever supported the Jewish people and not the formation of a Jewish state. In fact, the British specifically tried to stop the formation of the Jewish state by trying to control Jewish immigration to Mandatory Palestine.

    In 1922, the British actually tried to establish some kind of autonomy in Palestine, by trying to set up an advisory council. The Jewish people even accepted the idea of a Palestinian Constitution, and a ruling authority with an Arab majority. But guess who rejected it! The Arabs!

    Let's fast-forward to 1947 now. The UN passed Resolution 181, which advocated partitioning. It was accepted by the Jewish population, but not by the Arabs. So basically, they rejected in 1947 the two-state solution they cry about not being allowed now. Now the Arabs had rejected even the idea of a two-state solution, what were the Yishuv meant to do, apart from establish a Jewish state?
    How do you differentiate a Jewish "state" and "homeland"? There were plenty of lands that the Jews could have called home already - if the agreement was just about Jews having a safe place to call home why could they not have just lived in countries that were already there and happy to have them? The only reason they were aided to move to Palestine en masse with British ships was because it was a move to establish their own state. If they didn't want an independent state they could simply have stayed put - nobody was persecuting them after Naziism had been crushed to a degree that would necessitate mass migration.

    What is it exactly that entitled the Jewish population to a political position in Palestine? I am sure that in 1922 the proposition was something along the lines of including the Jewish population in Palestinian politics. What earned them that? What, other than religious fanaticism, entitled them to a place in Palestine?
    Agreed, in 47 they rejected the idea of a 2 state solution, and quite bloody rightly! What possible reason would the entire Arab population of Palestine have for saying to a bunch of immigrants "Ok, sure! You can have a massive area of our country for yourselves! That's fine with us!"
    If a bunch of people turned up in Britain and said "right, we will have everything south of the Thames but it's ok 'cause you can keep the rest", would you accept the "2 state solution"? Of course not! You'd say "bugger off, that isn't yours!"

    I'm not going to debate this further, I have better things to do.
    • 14 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by user1-4)
    I'm pretty sure most people who are actually anti-Israel know a lot more about it than you do. I'm also pretty sure any Pro-Israel guy knows absolutely nothing about Israel. It's also funny how you say middleclass. Are the upperclass to arrogant or something to give a damn, or is it that they don't give a damn because it is only the working class and poor that are ever affected by worldwide issues that our f****** up governments decide to get involved in.
    I'm pro-Israel, and I've read 6 books on the topic, and written an 8,000 word essay on it...
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tufc)
    I'm pro-Israel, and I've read 6 books on the topic, and written an 8,000 word essay on it...
    Yet strange you still haven't replied back to me discussing the Zionist entity?

    If you are reading the book that I recommended to you, then I'll let you finish it and then you can get back to me...

    EDIT: Having looked at the post you were replying to, it seems you are still peddling the same myths as when we last discussed the topic.
    • 14 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrHayden)
    How do you differentiate a Jewish "state" and "homeland"? There were plenty of lands that the Jews could have called home already - if the agreement was just about Jews having a safe place to call home why could they not have just lived in countries that were already there and happy to have them? The only reason they were aided to move to Palestine en masse with British ships was because it was a move to establish their own state. If they didn't want an independent state they could simply have stayed put - nobody was persecuting them after Naziism had been crushed to a degree that would necessitate mass migration.
    A Jewish state = a state run by Jews, for Jews
    A Jewish homeland = a place where Jews can live free of persecution in whatever governmental framework.

    And the issue is that over 700,000 Jews were already living in Israel by the Declaration of Independence in 1948. As explained by numerous authors on the subject, the 5 Aliyahs between 1882 and 1936 weren't due to any Zionist aim: they were due to anti-Semitism in Europe, such as the Kishinev Pogrom, and the rise of the Nazis in Germany - 210,000 Jews immigrated to Mandatory Palestine in between 1931 and 1936 - the biggest number of any period. So your claim about the mass migration after the defeat of Nazism is wrong, as the most dramatic period of migration was before the defeat of the Nazis.


    What is it exactly that entitled the Jewish population to a political position in Palestine? I am sure that in 1922 the proposition was something along the lines of including the Jewish population in Palestinian politics. What earned them that? What, other than religious fanaticism, entitled them to a place in Palestine?
    Were they not entitled to democratic representation then? Perhaps no Muslim who comes to Britain should be allowed to vote.


    Agreed, in 47 they rejected the idea of a 2 state solution, and quite bloody rightly! What possible reason would the entire Arab population of Palestine have for saying to a bunch of immigrants "Ok, sure! You can have a massive area of our country for yourselves! That's fine with us!"
    If a bunch of people turned up in Britain and said "right, we will have everything south of the Thames but it's ok 'cause you can keep the rest", would you accept the "2 state solution"? Of course not! You'd say "bugger off, that isn't yours!"

    I'm not going to debate this further, I have better things to do.
    Your point about the Thames quite simply isn't valid. In 1922, the Arabs rejected a system that would have kept the country united under the Arab flag, but would have allowed the Jews to run for office - a democratic system. If the Arabs weren't prepared to let the Jews have any democratic rights in a unified country, what other solutions were there? The Arabs wanted a system where they controlled the entire land, and Jews had fewer democratic rights. They had to either allow the Jews to have democratic rights, [b]OR]/b] agree to partitioning. They did neither.

    And people usually stop debating when they've lost the argument.
    • 14 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by squishy123)
    Yet strange you still haven't replied back to me discussing the Zionist entity?

    If you are reading the book that I recommended to you, then I'll let you finish it and then you can get back to me...

    EDIT: Having looked at the post you were replying to, it seems you are still peddling the same myths as when we last discussed the topic.
    I stopped arguing with you because your argument was entirely incoherent - you weren't establishing any consistent line of argument, preferring instead to just pick out various injustices which suited your vague 'HERP DERP TERRORIST STATE' theme.
    • 16 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    *sigh*
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tufc)
    I stopped arguing with you because your argument was entirely incoherent - you weren't establishing any consistent line of argument, preferring instead to just pick out various injustices which suited your vague 'HERP DERP TERRORIST STATE' theme.
    Or was it that it was making you seriously reconsider your line of thinking?
    • 30 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Surely there is a point after which this stops being a question/conversation actually about the student room and more the topic of Israel and Palestine.

    Therefore at what point will this thread get moved?
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tufc)
    Utterly absurd. The British never did that. The Balfour Declaration is often misquoted by the pro-Palestine mob as saying that the British supported a Jewish state. In fact, it only stated Britain's support for a 'Jewish homeland'. Even Anton La Guardia - who's pro-Palestine - wrote that the British only ever supported the Jewish people and not the formation of a Jewish state. In fact, the British specifically tried to stop the formation of the Jewish state by trying to control Jewish immigration to Mandatory Palestine.

    In 1922, the British actually tried to establish some kind of autonomy in Palestine, by trying to set up an advisory council. The Jewish people even accepted the idea of a Palestinian Constitution, and a ruling authority with an Arab majority. But guess who rejected it! The Arabs!

    Let's fast-forward to 1947 now. The UN passed Resolution 181, which advocated partitioning. It was accepted by the Jewish population, but not by the Arabs. So basically, they rejected in 1947 the two-state solution they cry about not being allowed now. Now the Arabs had rejected even the idea of a two-state solution, what were the Yishuv meant to do, apart from establish a Jewish state?
    Why should the Arabs have to agree to a two state solution? Nobody else wishes to give up their land to the Jews. I don't see Britain or America offering any piece of land to the jews so why should the Arabs have to? Seems like you people have double standards.
    Also before you say any 'jewish homeland' thing the Torah states that they can ONLY return to Israel once their prophet returns. So Jewishly speaking Israel right now has got nothing to do with any jews. SO every Israeli that calls upon any religious argument is a hypocrite who has no idea what he is talking about.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    It's fascinating to see liberal students condemn Israel's treatment of Palestinians, yet no one gives a damn about, let's say - China's treatment of Tibetans. And the UK does far more business with China than with Israel.
    • 64 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Debates go here: http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/show....php?t=1554633

    :bigsmile:
Updated: May 3, 2012
New on TSR

Student crowdfunds degree

Graduate raises £26,000 online for Masters course

Article updates
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.