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
- how could anyone be pro-israel?
- Anyone else not get boycotting brands or even countries trend?
- Writing about personal politics in Personal Statement
- I am half russian, half israeli, ask me anything.
- Is SOAS good for IR?
- [Official thread] Hamas-Israel Conflict
- Will World War 3 happen soon?
- Friend harassing me over my Palestine views
- Is Israel winning
- 50,000 women in Gaza are pregnant.
- USA bombing Syria
- My very rude Islam teacher
- Study BA Politics or BA International Relations at SOAS?
- Soas vs Queen Mary for International relations and politics
- MA International Relations
- Opinions on geopolitical?
- Rochdale By-election: George Galloway elected as new MP
The Israel/Palestine Conflict Mk. IV
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Benjobox
Wow, jeez, you need to educate yourself on the concept of democracy. Hamas, whilst allegedly winning an election in Gaza 8 years ago, are not democratic in any sense of the word. Its about far more than claiming a victory in a dubious election, on the basis of a wicked, vicious and untruth-ridden campaign.
What is "alleged" about their election victory? Despite the best attempts by the SS and the PA to disrupt the people from casting their votes for HAMAS by engaging in shady and dirty tactics, HAMAS still won by a landslide.
How many Palestinians are there alive who lived in the Land of Israel prior to 1948? The answer is very few - and certainly trivial compared to the number of Israeli Jews who'd be forced out.
No one will be "forced out". There will be due process and matters will be settled by the court under the law.
I don't get why you are so hostile to the idea.
You're posting utter nonsense. The Jews are no more squatters than the Palestinians were, or in fact the Romans were. If we're serious about giving the land back to its 'rightful owner,' we need to go far further back..
a) The Jews conquered the Canaanite.
b) The Romans conquered the Jews.
c) The Arabs conquered the "Romans".
d) The Zionists immigrated and then demanded a state.
Which one is the "odd one out"?
Original post by HeritageofEurope
the israelis did not kidnap them and hold them for ransom and then behead them with a knife.
this is nothing alike the deaths of journalists at the hands of isis.
this is nothing alike the deaths of journalists at the hands of isis.
Original post by broscience123
Israel Killed 7 Journalists During The Gaza Massacre, Where's The Outrage?
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/middle-east/13939-palestinian-media-body-calls-for-investigation-into-israels-targeting-of-journalists-in-gaza
Everyone knows the names of James Foley and Steven Sotloff, but how many people know the names of the journalists which were killed by Israel?
https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/middle-east/13939-palestinian-media-body-calls-for-investigation-into-israels-targeting-of-journalists-in-gaza
Everyone knows the names of James Foley and Steven Sotloff, but how many people know the names of the journalists which were killed by Israel?
akhi there was outrage a great deal. and they didnt behead them with a knife or do it intentionally on video as we know. or
EU source: Gaza reconstruction aid is ‘made in Israel’
Original post by tsr1269
a) The Jews conquered the Canaanite.
b) The Romans conquered the Jews.
c) The Arabs conquered the "Romans".
d) The Zionists immigrated and then demanded a state.
Which one is the "odd one out"?
a) The Jews conquered the Canaanite.
b) The Romans conquered the Jews.
c) The Arabs conquered the "Romans".
d) The Zionists immigrated and then demanded a state.
Which one is the "odd one out"?
I detect a step missing between c and d, where the Ottomans conquered the Arabs. Then again, I guess it doesn't fit in with your objective retelling of events, so feel free to ignore this in your attempt to oversimplify history in order to forward your argument.
Original post by miavdbt
I detect a step missing between c and d, where the Ottomans conquered the Arabs. Then again, I guess it doesn't fit in with your objective retelling of events, so feel free to ignore this in your attempt to oversimplify history in order to forward your argument.
Except there is still contains that common word "conquer", so the argument still holds as it is being made.
Original post by Jammy Duel
Except there is still contains that common word "conquer", so the argument still holds as it is being made.
Yes, but the statement has been omitted with the malicious intent to make it appear as though the Arabs had control of the land at the time when its future was being decided. Not to mention the fact that the last statement is oversimplified to the point of being erroneous. Things don't happen unless someone big has some kind of interest in them.
Original post by miavdbt
I detect a step missing between c and d, where the Ottomans conquered the Arabs. Then again, I guess it doesn't fit in with your objective retelling of events, so feel free to ignore this in your attempt to oversimplify history in order to forward your argument.
Yes, I also skipped out the following:
Ancient Egyptians
Philistines
Tjekker
Assyrians
Babylonians
Persians
Ancient Greeks
Byzantium
Arabs/Ottomans*Crusaders
British
Hashemite Kingdom
Egyptians
*And if you really want to split hairs on the Arabs/Ottomans:
Umayyads
Abbasids
Seljuks
Fatimids
Ayyubids
Mamluks
Ottomans.
Oh look, it seems you thought there were 5 steps when in fact, there are at least a dozen. You are proved incorrect yet again, but hey, thanks for pointing that out...
(edited 9 years ago)
Israeli forces detail a 7 year old boy.
(edited 9 years ago)
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/israels-land-for-lives-is-theft-pure-and-simple-9705378.html :
[BRobert Fisk: And it raises an interesting precedent. If an innocent Israeli life – cruelly taken – is worth around 330 acres of land, then an innocent Palestinian life – equally cruelly taken – must surely equal the same. And if even half the 2,200 Palestinian dead of Gaza last month – and this is a conservative figure – were innocent, then the Palestinians presumably now have the right to take over 330,000 acres of Israeli land, in reality much more. But however “counter-productive” this might be, I’m sure America would not stand for it. Israel takes land, Palestinians lose land; that’s the way it works. And thus it has been since 1948, and that is how it will continue.
[BRobert Fisk: And it raises an interesting precedent. If an innocent Israeli life – cruelly taken – is worth around 330 acres of land, then an innocent Palestinian life – equally cruelly taken – must surely equal the same. And if even half the 2,200 Palestinian dead of Gaza last month – and this is a conservative figure – were innocent, then the Palestinians presumably now have the right to take over 330,000 acres of Israeli land, in reality much more. But however “counter-productive” this might be, I’m sure America would not stand for it. Israel takes land, Palestinians lose land; that’s the way it works. And thus it has been since 1948, and that is how it will continue.
The intractable problem of self-perpetuating Palestinian victimhood
If peace is ever to come to the Levant, and the Palestinians are to sort out their problems, they really must deal with the intractable minority (a substantial minority, but nevertheless a minority) within their midst who are psychologically addicted to victimhood, to playing the martyr. They gain a great deal of psychological gratification from perpetuating this situation.
It reminds me very much of a mate of mine whose girlfriend, an absolute nutcase, used to start screeching and throwing things at him, hitting him, and getting in his face saying "Hit me, you pussy". A few times he pushed her away and she fell over, injuring herself, and then she'd say "Now don't you feel like a big man" and would complain to his friends that he was abusive. Naturally he got rid of her pretty quickly, but that damaged mindset is very much reminiscent of a certain section of the Palestinian community.
The substance of this can be seen in the Palestinian failure to grasp peace and freedom when it was within their grasp. In 1948, the UN committee suggested that the Jewish-majority areas be permitted to form their own government. To a normal (not insane, not religious nut, or histrionic martyr) that sounds perfectly reasonable. Of course, they refused and with their Arab sugar daddy's, tried to murder or expel all the Jews in the Levant. They lost, and subsequently refused to make peace or accept that they do not have a right to enslave the Jews of Palestine and make them into dhimmis
In 1967, Syria and Egypt were determined to have war with Israel. They expelled the UN peacekeepers from Sinai, and then blockaded the Strait of Tiran, which Israel had specifically said it would consider an act of war. Syria and Egypt engaged Jordan as a secret ally (despite Israel begging Jordan to stay out of it). Israel concluded it wouldn't just sit around waiting for them to attack, struck first and absolutely cleaned their clocks. Few nations have suffered such pathetic and humiliating defeats as the Arabs did in 1967, and it was completely self-inflicted. Israel wouldn't even be present in the West Bank today if Jordan had not joined the Syrian-Egyptian war coalition and commenced an attack on Israel.
Despite all this, in 1968 in pursuance of UN resolution 242, Israel offered peace terms where it would withdraw from Sinai, Golan Heights, Gaza and West Bank, in exchange for peace and recognition. The Arab world unanimously refused and vowed to destroy Israel. This must be the first war in history where the total victor pleaded for peace and for terms to return the conquered land, and the defeated refused.
In the 1990s, Prime Minister Rabin managed to engage a very productive peace process with Arafat. The PLO recognised Israel's right to exist and rejected the use of terrorism. In exchange, Israel accepted the existence of legitimate Palestinian aspirations for statehood. In 1995, Prime Minister Rabin was unfortunately assassinated by an Israeli right-winger, and Shimon Peres took over. Peres, and the Israeli Labour Party generally, was determined to continue with the peace process, but Hamas could not let PLO and Israel make peace and commenced a campaign of terrible suicide bombings on buses, restaurants, in Tel Aviv, in Jerusalem. Hundreds died.
In response, the Israeli population tacked right and in the special Prime Ministerial election in 1996, Netanyahu was elected leader and one of the best chances for peace was lost. Despite all this, another chance for peace arose in the 2000s.
Ariel Sharon, a hard-right Likud man who I acknowledge was a butcher and war criminal re Sabra and Shatila, had an epiphany and realised that Israel could not continue on as it was. They had to come to a final settlement. In a highly commendable and brave political move, he left the Likud Party and started his own centrist Kadima Party, taking many Likud MKs with him, and making common cause with the Israeli Labour Party and the Israeli centre-left. As the first phase of this, he ordered the complete withdrawal from Gaza, including removing all Jewish settlers and all Israeli soldiers.
He did this at great political cost, and in fact when Israeli withdrew from Gaza in 2005, there was no blockade that the pro-Hamas terrorist sympathisers like to pretend has existed forever, and their pathetic, bitter, unlettered ignorance of history. Sharon unfortunately had a stroke, but his successor Olmert was determined to continue on with the plan to repeat this in the West Bank (on different terms).
Olmert went to Abu Mazen in 2008 and offered him an astonishing deal, the likes of which the Palestinians had never seen before and might never see again. Condi Rice quote "couldn't believe her eyes" at how advantageous it was to the Palestinians. It involved Israeli withdrawal from 94% of the West Bank, all settlers would be moved into the largest settlement blocks in the remaining 6%, while Palestine would be compensated with an equivalent amount of land from within the 1967 borders. Palestine would have sovereignty over the Jerusalem holy sites, there would be no Israeli military presence in the Jordan Valley and Palestine would be made contiguous through an underground highway linking Gaza and the West Bank.
Extraordinarily, Abu Mazen didn't even deign to respond to Olmert's offer. He thought he would get a better deal under the next US president. And many think Abu Mazen does not want the Israeli's to leave anyway, as he relies on them to remain in power in some ways.
Looking at all those opportunities where the Palestinians could have had their own state, in 1948, in 1968, in the 1990s, in the 2000s, it is very clear the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. Of course, deluded far-leftists and terrorist sympathisers will conclude that the reason there's an occupation of Palestine is because Israeli Jews are fundamentally bad people, they are evil and they enjoy having to control and be responsible for the lives of millions of aliens. These unlettered fools truly believe that Israel enjoys the occupation and wants to keep doing it forever, despite all the historical evidence to the contrary (though being historical, they wouldn't be familiar with it because they usually have the memory of a goldfish historically speaking... they don't even remember as recentlyas 2005).
So there you have it. Palestinian self-perpetuation of victimhood. Some of Palestine's leaders do it for cynical reasons of self-enrichment, and some (like Hamas, and a significant portion of the population) are like that girlfriend of my mate, who get off psychologically on victimhood, on seeing the dead bodies and the rubble and saying, "You see! You see! The Israelis are monsters and we are morally pure, helpless, victims"
If peace is ever to come to the Levant, and the Palestinians are to sort out their problems, they really must deal with the intractable minority (a substantial minority, but nevertheless a minority) within their midst who are psychologically addicted to victimhood, to playing the martyr. They gain a great deal of psychological gratification from perpetuating this situation.
It reminds me very much of a mate of mine whose girlfriend, an absolute nutcase, used to start screeching and throwing things at him, hitting him, and getting in his face saying "Hit me, you pussy". A few times he pushed her away and she fell over, injuring herself, and then she'd say "Now don't you feel like a big man" and would complain to his friends that he was abusive. Naturally he got rid of her pretty quickly, but that damaged mindset is very much reminiscent of a certain section of the Palestinian community.
The substance of this can be seen in the Palestinian failure to grasp peace and freedom when it was within their grasp. In 1948, the UN committee suggested that the Jewish-majority areas be permitted to form their own government. To a normal (not insane, not religious nut, or histrionic martyr) that sounds perfectly reasonable. Of course, they refused and with their Arab sugar daddy's, tried to murder or expel all the Jews in the Levant. They lost, and subsequently refused to make peace or accept that they do not have a right to enslave the Jews of Palestine and make them into dhimmis
In 1967, Syria and Egypt were determined to have war with Israel. They expelled the UN peacekeepers from Sinai, and then blockaded the Strait of Tiran, which Israel had specifically said it would consider an act of war. Syria and Egypt engaged Jordan as a secret ally (despite Israel begging Jordan to stay out of it). Israel concluded it wouldn't just sit around waiting for them to attack, struck first and absolutely cleaned their clocks. Few nations have suffered such pathetic and humiliating defeats as the Arabs did in 1967, and it was completely self-inflicted. Israel wouldn't even be present in the West Bank today if Jordan had not joined the Syrian-Egyptian war coalition and commenced an attack on Israel.
Despite all this, in 1968 in pursuance of UN resolution 242, Israel offered peace terms where it would withdraw from Sinai, Golan Heights, Gaza and West Bank, in exchange for peace and recognition. The Arab world unanimously refused and vowed to destroy Israel. This must be the first war in history where the total victor pleaded for peace and for terms to return the conquered land, and the defeated refused.
In the 1990s, Prime Minister Rabin managed to engage a very productive peace process with Arafat. The PLO recognised Israel's right to exist and rejected the use of terrorism. In exchange, Israel accepted the existence of legitimate Palestinian aspirations for statehood. In 1995, Prime Minister Rabin was unfortunately assassinated by an Israeli right-winger, and Shimon Peres took over. Peres, and the Israeli Labour Party generally, was determined to continue with the peace process, but Hamas could not let PLO and Israel make peace and commenced a campaign of terrible suicide bombings on buses, restaurants, in Tel Aviv, in Jerusalem. Hundreds died.
In response, the Israeli population tacked right and in the special Prime Ministerial election in 1996, Netanyahu was elected leader and one of the best chances for peace was lost. Despite all this, another chance for peace arose in the 2000s.
Ariel Sharon, a hard-right Likud man who I acknowledge was a butcher and war criminal re Sabra and Shatila, had an epiphany and realised that Israel could not continue on as it was. They had to come to a final settlement. In a highly commendable and brave political move, he left the Likud Party and started his own centrist Kadima Party, taking many Likud MKs with him, and making common cause with the Israeli Labour Party and the Israeli centre-left. As the first phase of this, he ordered the complete withdrawal from Gaza, including removing all Jewish settlers and all Israeli soldiers.
He did this at great political cost, and in fact when Israeli withdrew from Gaza in 2005, there was no blockade that the pro-Hamas terrorist sympathisers like to pretend has existed forever, and their pathetic, bitter, unlettered ignorance of history. Sharon unfortunately had a stroke, but his successor Olmert was determined to continue on with the plan to repeat this in the West Bank (on different terms).
Olmert went to Abu Mazen in 2008 and offered him an astonishing deal, the likes of which the Palestinians had never seen before and might never see again. Condi Rice quote "couldn't believe her eyes" at how advantageous it was to the Palestinians. It involved Israeli withdrawal from 94% of the West Bank, all settlers would be moved into the largest settlement blocks in the remaining 6%, while Palestine would be compensated with an equivalent amount of land from within the 1967 borders. Palestine would have sovereignty over the Jerusalem holy sites, there would be no Israeli military presence in the Jordan Valley and Palestine would be made contiguous through an underground highway linking Gaza and the West Bank.
Extraordinarily, Abu Mazen didn't even deign to respond to Olmert's offer. He thought he would get a better deal under the next US president. And many think Abu Mazen does not want the Israeli's to leave anyway, as he relies on them to remain in power in some ways.
Looking at all those opportunities where the Palestinians could have had their own state, in 1948, in 1968, in the 1990s, in the 2000s, it is very clear the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. Of course, deluded far-leftists and terrorist sympathisers will conclude that the reason there's an occupation of Palestine is because Israeli Jews are fundamentally bad people, they are evil and they enjoy having to control and be responsible for the lives of millions of aliens. These unlettered fools truly believe that Israel enjoys the occupation and wants to keep doing it forever, despite all the historical evidence to the contrary (though being historical, they wouldn't be familiar with it because they usually have the memory of a goldfish historically speaking... they don't even remember as recentlyas 2005).
So there you have it. Palestinian self-perpetuation of victimhood. Some of Palestine's leaders do it for cynical reasons of self-enrichment, and some (like Hamas, and a significant portion of the population) are like that girlfriend of my mate, who get off psychologically on victimhood, on seeing the dead bodies and the rubble and saying, "You see! You see! The Israelis are monsters and we are morally pure, helpless, victims"
Original post by HeavyTeddy
Israel takes land, Palestinians lose land; that’s the way it works
And Israel will keep annexing land until the occupation ends and they have their own state.
They could have had their own state and avoided occupation in 1948. They could have ensured the occupation was only a year or two long by accepting UN resolution 242 in 1968. They could have restrained Hamas and ensured Peres and Arafat were able to complete the peace process in the mid-90s. They could have accepted the Olmert peace deal.
But every time the Palestinians face an opportunity to end the occupation, they bottle it and find some excuse not to do it. Sad.
Original post by tsr1269
a) The Jews conquered the Canaanite.
b) The Romans conquered the Jews.
c) The Arabs conquered the "Romans".
d) The Zionists immigrated and then demanded a state.
Which one is the "odd one out"?
a) The Jews conquered the Canaanite.
b) The Romans conquered the Jews.
c) The Arabs conquered the "Romans".
d) The Zionists immigrated and then demanded a state.
Which one is the "odd one out"?
D, because you used different language when each stage should be described the same, otherwise you are just confusing yourself. D should read
d) The Jews conquered the Arabs
So we're really just returning to the status quo ante that you admit existed in A. Simples
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by young_guns
D, because you used different language when each stage should be described the same, otherwise you are just confusing yourself. D should read
d) The Zionists conquered the Arabs
Simples
d) The Zionists conquered the Arabs
Simples
Who did the Arabs conquer?
Original post by tsr1269
Who did the Arabs conquer?
The Arabs conquered the Byzantine Levant, and those campaigns were complete by around 640 AD.
Pretty embarrassing that you don't know basic Islamic history
Original post by tsr1269
Who did the Arabs conquer?
You're a fan of Dieudonne M'bala M'bala, right?
Original post by young_guns
The Arabs conquered the Byzantine Levant, and those campaigns were complete by around 640 AD.
Pretty embarrassing that you don't know basic Islamic history
Pretty embarrassing that you don't know basic Islamic history
So then when did the Brits arrive on the scene and who did they "conquer"? I suppose the Brits were the illegal immigrants?
Cause that's strange, I don't see them there now...
Original post by young_guns
You're a fan of Dieudonne M'bala M'bala, right?
Had to type his name in google...
Is it morally and ethically wrong that Israel's advancement in the West Bank is Dwarfed by the likes of Scottish independence, England Euro qualification, EU issues and Russia?
Original post by tsr1269
So then when did the Brits arrive on the scene and who did they "conquer"? I suppose the Brits were the illegal immigrants?
Cause that's strange, I don't see them there now...
Cause that's strange, I don't see them there now...
Are you trying to change the subject? You asked "Who did the Arabs conquer?", implying you were unaware that the Arabs weren't the original inhabitants of Palestine.
The real question is, why were you not aware of this? Given you spend every single day of your life on this thread, given you are so obsessed with this subject (despite being unwilling to be anything other than an armchair general, no plans for ever putting your own life at risk for the cause), why are you so lacking in basic historical knowledge of Palestine?
Original post by tsr1269
Had to type his name in google...
Had to type his name in google...
Oh really? You should look up some of his material, you and he seem to have a lot in common. I think you'd really enjoy his stuff, his style is right up your alley
I genuinely think you would enjoy his stuff.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by young_guns
Are you trying to change the subject? You asked "Who did the Arabs conquer?", implying you were unaware that the Arabs weren't the original inhabitants of Palestine.
You haven't heard of a rhetorical question?
You see, the above is a rhetorical question. Perhaps as you seem slow to understand, I shall put a rolling eyes emoticon at the end of my sarcastic/rhetorical points.
The real question is, why were you not aware of this? Given you spend every single day of your life on this thread, given you are so obsessed with this subject (despite being unwilling to be anything other than an armchair general, no plans for ever putting your own life at risk for the cause), why are you so lacking in basic historical knowledge of Palestine?
So it turns out that the Zionists did immigrate and then demanded a state. I'm glad we agree.
Original post by young_guns
Oh really? You should look up some of his material, you and he seem to have a lot in common. I think you'd really enjoy his stuff, his style is right up your alley
I genuinely think you would enjoy his stuff.
I genuinely think you would enjoy his stuff.
Well, one can only give a good recommendation if one has experienced it and liked it himself so because you like his stuff, I shall look to see if I also have similar tastes to you, okay?
Related discussions
- I think i'm losing a friendship because of the Israel-Palestine conflict
- Epq on Palestine
- I am an Israeli - AMA
- how could anyone be pro-israel?
- Anyone else not get boycotting brands or even countries trend?
- Writing about personal politics in Personal Statement
- I am half russian, half israeli, ask me anything.
- Is SOAS good for IR?
- [Official thread] Hamas-Israel Conflict
- Will World War 3 happen soon?
- Friend harassing me over my Palestine views
- Is Israel winning
- 50,000 women in Gaza are pregnant.
- USA bombing Syria
- My very rude Islam teacher
- Study BA Politics or BA International Relations at SOAS?
- Soas vs Queen Mary for International relations and politics
- MA International Relations
- Opinions on geopolitical?
- Rochdale By-election: George Galloway elected as new MP
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days 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 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days 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 ?
