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

Original post by tsr1269
Then please explain to me why the Mandate document is littered with the term "country"?

"The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion."

"An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine, and, subject always to the control of the Administration to assist and take part in the development of the country."

"The Administration of Palestine shall take all necessary measures to safeguard the interests of the community in connection with the development of the country, and, subject to any international obligations accepted by the Mandatory, shall have full power to provide for public ownership or control of any of the natural resources of the country or of the public works, services and utilities established or to be established therein. It shall introduce a land system appropriate to the needs of the country, having regard, among other things, to the desirability of promoting the close settlement and intensive cultivation of the land."

"The Administration may arrange with the Jewish agency mentioned in Article 4 to construct or operate, upon fair and equitable terms, any public works, services and utilities, and to develop any of the natural resources of the country, in so far as these matters are not directly undertaken by the Administration. Any such arrangements shall provide that no profits distributed by such agency, directly or indirectly, shall exceed a reasonable rate of interest on the capital, and any further profits shall be utilised by it for the benefit of the country in a manner approved by the Administration."

"The Administration of Palestine may organist on a voluntary basis the forces necessary for the preservation of peace and order, and also for the defence of the country, subject, however, to the supervision of the Mandatory, but shall not use them for purposes other than those above specified save with the consent of the Mandatory. Except for such purposes, no military, naval or air forces shall be raised or maintained by the Administration of Palestine."

"Subject as aforesaid and to the other provisions of this mandate, the Administration of Palestine may, on the advice of the Mandatory, impose such taxes and customs duties as it may consider necessary, and take such steps as it may think best to promote the development of the natural resources of the country and to safeguard the interests of the population. It may also, on the advice of the Mandatory, conclude a special customs agreement with any State the territory of which in 1914 was wholly included in Asiatic Turkey or Arabia."

"No antiquity may leave the country without an export licence from the said Department."

Please help just not me, but others as well, understand exactly what "country" it refers to in the document if not Mandatory Palestine?


Now you're just arguing semantics :facepalm2:, it was never a country in the sense that it had complete autonomy, a head of state and independence, in the same way that France, for example, does. You might even be interested to know that while the Arabs never referred to themselves as Palestinians prior to the 1960's, many Jewish people living there in the 19th century in fact did.
Original post by UniOfLife
Israel was formed out of part of the Mandate.

Now, I don't consider the Mandate to be a country but you evidently do. But the definition of "country" that you have given so far would either mean that any state formed on the West Bank would be "from part of a country" or else you agree that Israel was not formed out of part of a country.

I realise you don't want to answer questions that expose your position to ridicule but I will try again:

If a state of Palestine is created in the West Bank would that be formed "from part of a country" or not?


Now that we have cleared that up, could you inform us:

From which country would Palestine be formed out of if you stated that they are "demanding their own state from another country"?
Original post by tsr1269
Now that we have cleared that up, could you inform us:

From which country would Palestine be formed out of if you stated that they are "demanding their own state from another country"?


You are confused again dear boy. I think the Palestinians (at least those who restrict their claim to the West Bank and Gaza Strip) are asking for a state formed from land that currently is not a country. I also think that Israel was formed from land that was not a country.

I asked you whether, given that you say that Israel was formed from part of a country, you would say that the Palestinians want a state formed from part of another country.
Original post by yo radical one
Now you're just arguing semantics :facepalm2:, it was never a country in the sense that it had complete autonomy, a head of state and independence, in the same way that France, for example, does. You might even be interested to know that while the Arabs never referred to themselves as Palestinians prior to the 1960's, many Jewish people living there in the 19th century in fact did.


Why do people like you always do this? You can't substantiate a point and then you completely change the subject and resort to the oft repeated clichés?

In response to the thing about referring to themselves as Palestinians, so?
Original post by UniOfLife
You are confused again dear boy. I think the Palestinians (at least those who restrict their claim to the West Bank and Gaza Strip) are asking for a state formed from land that currently is not a country. I also think that Israel was formed from land that was not a country.

I asked you whether, given that you say that Israel was formed from part of a country, you would say that the Palestinians want a state formed from part of another country.


You don't make sense.

First you say the SS was formed out of Mandate Palestine and then you state that Palestine would be formed out of a country, just like Israel and when I ask you "Which country?", you go all silent on me.


I am waiting for the name of the "country" which you believe that Palestine would be formed out of.
Original post by ridwan12
Yes Israel is a Jewish state but it is not anti-Semitic to say you don't like Israel.


Strawman.

Israel != Judaism.

Muslim + Israel = Judaism.

When Muslims speak about Israel they mean Jews. You must not speak to many Muslims or have any understanding of the middle east if you think otherwise.
Original post by UniOfLife
OK, well, try reading my words again. Maybe take it slowly, one word at a time. Let me repeat:

I think the Palestinians are asking for a state formed from land that currently is not a country. I also think that Israel was formed from land that was not a country.

I asked you whether, given that you say that Israel was formed from part of a country, you would say that the Palestinians want a state formed from part of another country.


So if Israel was not "formed from land which was not a country", what was it formed out of?
Original post by tsr1269
So if Israel was not "formed from land which was not a country", what was it formed out of?


No, try again. Here is what I said:

I think the Palestinians are asking for a state formed from land that currently is not a country. I also think that Israel was formed from land that was not a country.

I asked you whether, given that you say that Israel was formed from part of a country, you would say that the Palestinians want a state formed from part of another country.
Original post by UniOfLife
No, try again. Here is what I said:

I think the Palestinians are asking for a state formed from land that currently is not a country. I also think that Israel was formed from land that was not a country.

I asked you whether, given that you say that Israel was formed from part of a country, you would say that the Palestinians want a state formed from part of another country.


So if it wasn't a country, then what was it?

A mandate, geopolitical entity and Norfolk/Yorkshire have been taken off the table.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Spiderman
Thanks for your response, it's much appreciated.


No problem. If you have any specific questions, I'll do my best at giving an answer.:biggrin:

As to your first point - would you say it was the Security Council that sanctioned the establishment of Israel then?

The Security Council didn't pass the partition resolution - if it had it would have been binding.

Or was it the Jewish people themselves who decided to take advantage of the power vacuum created by the receding British and declare their own independence as a separate state?


Yes, I'd say that's a fair way of describing it.
Original post by yo radical one
It had borders in the same way the Hindu Kush or Norfolk has borders, doesn't mean either of these places are countries


Or alternatively, the same way Wales has borders?
Original post by anarchism101
Or alternatively, the same way Wales has borders?


But Wales is a country :curious:
Original post by yo radical one
But Wales is a country :curious:


Exactly my point. The whole "there's never been a Palestinian state" argument is ridiculous. There's never been an independent state called Wales either, but no-one considers this a valid argument against Welsh independence.
Original post by tsr1269
But that's you supporting something "7000km" away?

So is it only you who is allowed to support something 7000km away or do you just don't like Muslims?


again , you are for some reason not able to understand straightforward points - it isnt "supporting something "7000km" away" to deal with a terrorist threat abroad. it is so however, for a corrupt uk politician to simply follow the agenda set by overseas arabs,- uk issues should be decided in the uk, not at the behest of groups abroad following islamist agendas

and as i said, but you are ignoring, i would support an action that defends against groups that threaten us. assuming that you live here too, you should also shouldnt you ?
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by Meenglishnogood
and as i said, but you are ignoring, i would support an action that defends against groups that threaten us. assuming that you live here too, you should also shouldnt you ?


But the reason they are a threat to us is because we are a threat to them. We interfere with them, bomb them, massacre them and expect them to just sit back and "take it in".
Original post by tsr1269
But the reason they are a threat to us is because we are a threat to them. We interfere with them, bomb them, massacre them and expect them to just sit back and "take it in".

You should have realised by now that Meenglishnogood treats them to be on par with IS, rather than being similar to the IRA.
Original post by Jammy Duel
You should have realised by now that Meenglishnogood treats them to be on par with IS, rather than being similar to the IRA.


Well, the IRA weren't "Islamists" so he doesn't touch them with a barge pole....:biggrin:
Original post by tsr1269
But the reason they are a threat to us is because we are a threat to them. We interfere with them, bomb them, massacre them and expect them to just sit back and "take it in".


we didnt interfere with any islamist group, until they attacked the west anyway. the west rightly has responded to islamist terrorism, there could have been no other outcome.

in respect of ISIS specifically, they would continue their march of murder rape and taking salves in the middle east whether the west existed or not. it jsut so happens they hate the west too, just like

and again even if they didnt hate the west and create terrorism there would still be a moral argument for attacking them, because islamists are abhorent people, bands of murderers and rapists, that cause problems accross the globe and are infact a stain on human civilisation
Original post by Jammy Duel
You should have realised by now that Meenglishnogood treats them to be on par with IS, rather than being similar to the IRA.


all islamists are on the same dregs level as each other (sunni ones anyway) with the same agendas and aims, and indeed tactics. islamists are the reason no resolution has been reached for palestine
Original post by Meenglishnogood
all islamists are on the same dregs level as each other (sunni ones anyway) with the same agendas and aims, and indeed tactics. islamists are the reason no resolution has been reached for palestine

So you're telling me that a group that fights for religious reasons, is likely to pose a threat to the west if they aren't dealt with properly and who commit severe crimes against humanity are no worse than those who fight for political reasons and freedom? Ok? So what's your position on the French, Russian and American revolutionaries?

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you