The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

The Israel/Palestine Conflict Mk. IV

Scroll to see replies

Israel craves legitimacy? Why? What difference does it make to Israel whether or not Palestinian people accept its existence? Israel is powerful enough not to care about its reputation.

It is the Palestinians who would benefit (not the Israelis) from a peace agreement, whereby they can start to rebuild their nation and improve quality of life there, without the fear of bombardment and destruction.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/10973141/Israeli-military-foils-attack-from-Gaza-tunnel.html

This is the enemy Israel has to deal with. And we should sympathise with Hamas because Israel refuses it's demands?

The Palestinian people are stuck in the crossfire between a very big rock, and a very hard place. Yet to suggest Israel should become soft, and to allow itself to be pummelled by rocks, just so the people of Palestine can breath easy, is both childish and outlandish.
Original post by Elie Bergman
Israel craves legitimacy? Why? What difference does it make to Israel whether or not Palestinian people accept its existence? Israel is powerful enough not to care about its reputation.

It is the Palestinians who would benefit (not the Israelis) from a peace agreement, whereby they can start to rebuild their nation and improve quality of life there, without the fear of bombardment and destruction.


Israel craves legitimacy. That is why before any peace road map can take place, Israel sets down preconditions such as "recognition of Israel"...

It wants recognition from the Palestinians that it belongs there because as long as the Palestinians do not recognize it, Israel will never truly be a state regardless of the international opinion.
Ok. Because a signature on a piece of paper really guarantees the safety of a nation?

Ever heard of Ukraine? Or was it Russia? I forget.
Original post by Elie Bergman
Ok. Because a signature on a piece of paper really guarantees the safety of a nation?

Ever heard of Ukraine? Or was it Russia? I forget.


If the Ukraine lays down it's weapons, then it is tacit to accepting that Crimea and all those other areas are now part of Russia.

That is why there is conflict there as well.

Ultimately, Israel craves acceptance from the people they are subjugating to oppression.
I don't think you understand this.

Palestine as it is right now, is no serious threat to Israel. A pest, sure, but does not endanger the very survival of Israel at present.

A unified and independent Palestine, with an army and a military regime, would on the other hand, be a massive danger to Israel.

This is why it is a bad idea to create a FULLY INDEPENDENT Palestinian state.

A state that is heavily surveyed and controlled by Israel (a non-state essentially. Only sovereign in name) could perhaps exist. This is the best the Palestinians can realistically hope for. Of course though, who expects Hamas to be realistic?
Original post by itsmyname
What has that got to do with the topic at hand? You seem to waffle around making no real point. After frivolously going back and forth with you, you tell me I should've deciphered you meant the above from these posts from you;

you obviously havent bothered to follow the entire conversation back, otherwise youd follow the relevance of the comment you quoted. the biggest issue with the palestinain issue ( as with eprhaps other muslim-land conflicts) is the islamist one. once you slap islam onto any agenda, you muddy it. if this were simply a matter of one country persecuting another population im sure world opinion (inc usa) would be united) but when you have islamists who get involved, terorrism, islamic propaganda and agenda etc, then people can see an argument form the israeli side too
Original post by tsr1269
Well, it is a little difficult to do that if you are blockaded and there are severe restrictions on imports (Pasta was banned until the US told told them that they were being ludicrous). Furthermore, when the Israeli's withhold tax receipts from the PA because they wanted a unity government and carry out airstrikes when they don't get their own way, one would be forgiven for thinking Israel is not intent on destroying the hope of a Palestinian State.

If you look at the requests of the Palestinians (reproduced below), which one do you actually disagree with:


1.

The withdrawal of Israeli military tanks from the border fence area to a distance that enables Gaza farmers to access their fields and tend them freely.

2.

Freeing all Palestinian prisoners detained after the abduction and killing of three Israeli teenagers in the southern West Bank including those who were freed as part of Gilad Shalit prisoner swap. This precondition also includes softening procedures against all prisoners in Israeli custody.

3.

An end to the siege on the coastal enclave and the reopening of all border crossings.

4.

The opening of Gaza's international seaport under UN monitoring.

5.

An increase in Gaza fishing zone to 10 nautical miles and an increase in the size of permissible fishing boats.

6.

International monitoring of the Rafah crossing into Egypt.

7.

Closing Gaza airspace to Israeli aircraft.

8.

Permission to Gaza resident to be allowed to visit Jerusalem and pray in the al-Aqsa Mosque.

9.

No interference in Palestinian internal affairs including political arrangements and the reconciliation agreement and all its consequences.

10.

Re-establishment of the Gaza industrial zone.



All things being equal, I would not find much disagreement. However I sympathise with Israel's stance, given that the people running Gaza are intent on destroying Israel and creating an Islamic state in its place. Obviously if the Palestinians were aiming to set up a liberal democracy to live peacefully alongside Israel, then I would be on their side. (I am on the side of any individual Palestinian who wishes to accomplish this admirable goal, but I am not on the side of the PLO, Hamas or any other of the popular "resistance" movements that have arisen).

I see the outcome of the Israeli pull-out as evidence that doing more appeasement and negotiation will get nowhere until Hamas becomes an obscurity (as well as Islamic Jihad etc.). I see the unity government as evidence that Fatah are no better than Hamas.
why are people protesting outside the bbc ??

they have reported it fairly
Original post by felamaslen
All things being equal, I would not find much disagreement. However I sympathise with Israel's stance, given that the people running Gaza are intent on destroying Israel and creating an Islamic state in its place. Obviously if the Palestinians were aiming to set up a liberal democracy to live peacefully alongside Israel, then I would be on their side. (I am on the side of any individual Palestinian who wishes to accomplish this admirable goal, but I am not on the side of the PLO, Hamas or any other of the popular "resistance" movements that have arisen).

I see the outcome of the Israeli pull-out as evidence that doing more appeasement and negotiation will get nowhere until Hamas becomes an obscurity (as well as Islamic Jihad etc.). I see the unity government as evidence that Fatah are no better than Hamas.


What are your thoughts on the Likud Charter and their unequivocal stance to deny the Palestinians a State as well as all increasing settlement buildings in the WB and Jerusalem being the capital of only Israel?
Original post by tsr1269
What are your thoughts on the Likud Charter and their unequivocal stance to deny the Palestinians a State as well as all increasing settlement buildings in the WB and Jerusalem being the capital of only Israel?


I believe that the settlement building ought to be stopped and any future liberal democratic Palestinian state, however unlikely, should share Jerusalem as its capital. However, that is not on the table right now. I do not support the creation of any tyrannical Palestinian state. The settlements are an obstacle to peace, and Israel should do far more to stop the radical Zionist settlers, but they don't represent the core issue of the conflict, which is liberal democracy (or lack of), and the wish to destroy Israel.

How do I know that the settlements are a red herring? Because removing all settlers from Gaza, by force, did absolutely nothing.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by felamaslen
I believe that the settlement building ought to be stopped and any future liberal democratic Palestinian state, however unlikely, should share Jerusalem as its capital. However, that is not on the table right now. I do not support the creation of any tyrannical Palestinian state. The settlements are an obstacle to peace, and Israel should do far more to stop the radical Zionist settlers, but they don't represent the core issue of the conflict, which is liberal democracy (or lack of).


a) Should all the settlements be destroyed?

b) What about Likud's stance to never accept a Palestinians a state regardless of who is in charge?
Original post by tsr1269
a) Should all the settlements be destroyed?

b) What about Likud's stance to never accept a Palestinians a state regardless of who is in charge?


I don't believe anything should be destroyed for the sake of it, although people living in settlements could be evicted if necessary - however this would have to occur after a fundamental shift in the nature of the Palestinian resistance movement.

I disagree with Likud's closed-minded stance, of course, although I don't blame them for having it, given past events.
Original post by felamaslen
I don't believe anything should be destroyed for the sake of it, although people living in settlements could be evicted if necessary - however this would have to occur after a fundamental shift in the nature of the Palestinian resistance movement.


And what form will this "change" manifest itself as?

I disagree with Likud's closed-minded stance, of course, although I don't blame them for having it, given past events.


So Likud's Charter is justified whilst the HAMAS Charter isn't?
Original post by tsr1269
And what form will this "change" manifest itself as?


A change towards liberal democracy, and away from tribal fascist leadership.

So Likud's Charter is justified whilst the HAMAS Charter isn't?


I never said that Likud's charter is justified, but at least they're not a genocidal organisation and at least they don't want to create a totalitarian state anywhere.
Original post by felamaslen
A change towards liberal democracy, and away from tribal fascist leadership.


So they would have to give up their armed struggle?

I never said that Likud's charter is justified, but at least they're not a genocidal organisation and at least they don't want to create a totalitarian state anywhere.


Could you clarify whether:

a) Likud's Charter is justified.

b) How HAMAS is a "genocidal organisation"?
Original post by Elie Bergman
I don't think you understand this.

Palestine as it is right now, is no serious threat to Israel. A pest, sure, but does not endanger the very survival of Israel at present.

A unified and independent Palestine, with an army and a military regime, would on the other hand, be a massive danger to Israel.

This is why it is a bad idea to create a FULLY INDEPENDENT Palestinian state.

A state that is heavily surveyed and controlled by Israel (a non-state essentially. Only sovereign in name) could perhaps exist. This is the best the Palestinians can realistically hope for. Of course though, who expects Hamas to be realistic?


Tell me, why are HAMAS a danger to Israel? What possible reason could HAMAS have for the destruction of Israel?
Original post by tsr1269
So they would have to give up their armed struggle?


No. If a new movement for a democratic, liberal Palestinian state arose, and became popular, I would support it against the Israeli occupation of the West Bank. I already oppose the occupation, but I can only support a resistance movement if it targets the Israeli military (rather than civilians) and is aiming to set up a liberal democracy, rather than a tyranny.

Could you clarify whether:

a) Likud's Charter is justified.

b) How HAMAS is a "genocidal organisation"?


Is Likud's charter justified? No. Is it a major issue? No.

Hamas wishes to destroy Israel, and have repeatedly made it clear that they would like to see all the Jews dead.
Original post by felamaslen
No. If a new movement for a democratic, liberal Palestinian state arose, and became popular, I would support it against the Israeli occupation of the West Bank. I already oppose the occupation, but I can only support a resistance movement if it targets the Israeli military (rather than civilians) and is aiming to set up a liberal democracy, rather than a tyranny.


I believe HAMAS targets the military, does it not?

Is Likud's charter justified? No. Is it a major issue? No.


It is. It is what the current government of Israel takes it's inspiration and positions from. If they are saying that there will be no Palestinian State, regardless of whether it is tyrannical or a liberal, then there is no question of a Palestinian State ever existing.

Hamas wishes to destroy Israel, and have repeatedly made it clear that they would like to see all the Jews dead.


HAMAS has called for the destruction of the State of Israel, in their Charter, not Jews.
Original post by tsr1269
Tell me, why are HAMAS a danger to Israel? What possible reason could HAMAS have for the destruction of Israel?


Islamic fundamentalism is a danger to us all.

Hamas has a global Jihad ideology like Al Qaeda and the other offshoots of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Israel is seen as a spanner in the works of the caliphate and "pure Islamic lands".

Other minorities have been chased out. The Christians have been left with just a few pockets here and there.

Mahmoud al-Zahar, one of the founders of Hamas told Jeremy Bowen in an interview a few years ago that "Islam is coming for Europe and there's nothing you can do about it"

The 'palestinians' see themselves as the epicentre of this. Israel is hated by the majority of Muslims not because of the conflict with 'palestinians' (after all, the Arab world in general hates the 'palestinians) it's because Israel is a barrier to their contiguous caliphate plans.

This is why I don't believe land for peace will work. It has never worked when Israel has tried it. The 'palestinians' (or 'Arabs' as they were back then) were killing Jewish villagers 100 years ago. Long before Israel, settlements, occupation or blockades.

It's Islamic fundamentalism that this is about.

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you