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 Shqiptare
Apart from the fact that quite a lot of Serbs, and others, did move into Bosnia and other places during the communist period (Radovan Karadžić was originally from Montenegro for example, and Bosnian Vice President Ejup Ganić and Chief of Staff Sefer Halilović are from Serbia), your parallel dosen't really stand because Serbs originally had their own national state in Serbia. But the Jews have no national state but Israel, and there was no realistic alternative for the fulfilment of their national aspirations.


But I wasn't talking about 'fulfilment of national aspirations', just guarantee of rights and protection from discrimination. For which I fail to see why the presence or lack thereof of a majority nation-state for a particular group changes the condition of the parts of that group who are a minority in a different nation-state.
Original post by PrincessAnna
How is it anti semitic, when its true.


Posted from TSR Mobile


I used to become sad when I would hear antisemitic conspiracy theories, now I smile because I don't know a single antisemite who isn't a chavtastic, low IQ'ed potential inbred who will never amount to anything in life.
Original post by yo radical one
I used to become sad when I would hear antisemitic conspiracy theories, now I smile because I don't know a single antisemite who isn't a chavtastic, low IQ'ed potential inbred who will never amount to anything in life.


weirdbeard2.jpg

he shoots he scores !!

:borat:
Some zionist jews like to call people anti semetic when people criticize them and support muslims but the true meaning of being anti semetic is discrimination against ARABS as well. Look up the word semite.
Original post by the bear
weirdbeard2.jpg

he shoots he scores !!

:borat:


Mashallah brudda bear
Original post by yo radical one
Mashallah brudda bear


:five:
To any who don't see Zionism as essentially a settler-colonising mission:

"Any native people – its all the same whether they are civilized or savage – views their country as their national home, of which they will always be the complete masters. They will not voluntarily allow, not only a new master, but even a new partner. And so it is for the Arabs. Compromisers in our midst attempt to convince us that the Arabs are some kind of fools who can be tricked by a softened formulation of our goals, or a tribe of money grubbers who will abandon their birth right to Palestine for cultural and economic gains. I flatly reject this assessment of the Palestinian Arabs. Culturally they are 500 years behind us, spiritually they do not have our endurance or our strength of will, but this exhausts all of the internal differences. We can talk as much as we want about our good intentions; but they understand as well as we what is not good for them. They look upon Palestine with the same instinctive love and true fervor that any Aztec looked upon his Mexico or any Sioux looked upon his prairie. To think that the Arabs will voluntarily consent to the realization of Zionism in return for the cultural and economic benefits we can bestow on them is infantile. This childish fantasy of our “Arabo-philes” comes from some kind of contempt for the Arab people, of some kind of unfounded view of this race as a rabble ready to be bribed in order to sell out their homeland for a railroad network.

This view is absolutely groundless. Individual Arabs may perhaps be bought off but this hardly means that all the Arabs in Eretz Israel are willing to sell a patriotism that not even Papuans will trade. Every indigenous people will resist alien settlers as long as they see any hope of ridding themselves of the danger of foreign settlement.

That is what the Arabs in Palestine are doing, and what they will persist in doing as long as there remains a solitary spark of hope that they will be able to prevent the transformation of “Palestine” into the “Land of Israel”.....

Thus we conclude that we cannot promise anything to the Arabs of the Land of Israel or the Arab countries. Their voluntary agreement is out of the question. Hence those who hold that an agreement with the natives is an essential condition for Zionism can now say “no” and depart from Zionism. Zionist colonization, even the most restricted, must either be terminated or carried out in defiance of the will of the native population. This colonization can, therefore, continue and develop only under the protection of a force independent of the local population – an iron wall which the native population cannot break through. This is, in toto, our policy towards the Arabs. To formulate it any other way would only be hypocrisy."
- Ze'ev Jabotinsky
Original post by Aj12
Please use this thread for any discussion related to the Israel-Palestinian conflict.

Previous thread: Mk III


Peace peace for all mankind.
Original post by anarchism101
To any who don't see Zionism as essentially a settler-colonising mission
- Ze'ev Jabotinsky


You seem to be confused. Jabotinsky was not the creator of Zionism. In fact, mainstream Zionists of Ben Gurion etc fought armed battles against Irgun. Irgun was declared a terrorist organisation by the 1946 Zionist Congress

You are absolutely clueless when it comes to the history of Israel and Zionism
'palestinian' cleric talks about conquering Rome, Washington and London.

[video="youtube;klGWgHfvjAM"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klGWgHfvjAM[/video]


This is what is taught to the so-called 'palestinians'. Makes you want to give them a state :rolleyes:
Original post by Historyfrenchfan
Some zionist jews like to call people anti semetic when people criticize them and support muslims but the true meaning of being anti semetic is discrimination against ARABS as well. Look up the word semite.


No it doesn't. The term anti-Semitism refers specifically to Jews, however hard racists wished that it didn't. The term "semitic" itself is an outdated racial and linguistic term.


http://blog.ninapaley.com/2012/10/01/this-land-is-mine/
Original post by ExcitedPup
You seem to be confused. Jabotinsky was not the creator of Zionism.


Fine, here's Theodor Herzl on the early Zionist colonies:
"Important experiments in colonization have been made, though on the mistaken principle of a gradual infiltration of Jews. An infiltration is bound to end badly. It continues till the inevitable moment when the native population feels itself threatened, and forces the government to stop a further influx of Jews. Immigration is consequently futile unless we have the sovereign right to continue such immigration.”

Different views of the Palestinians, and so different methods proposed, but ultimately the same characterisation of the situation.

In fact, mainstream Zionists of Ben Gurion etc fought armed battles against Irgun.


At times, yes. At other times they fought alongside them. And eventually Irgun was incorporated into the IDF. Jabotinsky's followers under Begin of course later became Herut and eventually Likud.

Most importantly, I really don't see how Jabotinsky and the Revisionists' differences from the Labor Zionists like Ben Gurion detract from the Jabotinsky's assessment of the situation as a colonialist one.
Original post by anarchism101
Fine, here's Theodor Herzl

Do you think Jewish refugees from Baghdad and Cairo are European colonists?

Labor Zionists like Ben Gurion


If the Arabs had accepted the UNSCOP petition, what would be the injustice?
It seems that Israel is planning a bomb attack on Palestinian Muslims: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Jzt0A6wDDg
Original post by ExcitedPup
Do you think Jewish refugees from Baghdad and Cairo are European colonists?


Interesting question. The closest analogy I can think of is that of free black Americans in the US in the 19th Century (though it's by no means a perfect one, and I'm not saying they're the same). In both cases, people who had largely become part of a colonial settler society against their will, who had been subject to some process of Europeanisation to make them culturally more like the dominant European settler population, but they could never be 'Europeans' as such (just as an aside, you brought up the 'European' aspect of colonisation here, not me). Largely they were/are not really protagonists in the colonial mission, largely inhabiting areas already successfully colonised by the European settlers, though occasionally they also willingly partake in the further colonisation of more contentious areas (the American West and the West Bank respectively).

With respect to Israel, though, this is largely an irrelevant question prior to 1948.

If the Arabs had accepted the UNSCOP petition, what would be the injustice?


That the independence and self-determination of the Palestinian Arabs was compromised, and in the case of ~500,000 of them (those left outside the Arab state under the partition proposal), and Palestine partitioned in a rather patchwork way, for the sake of a settler population, a large part of whom had just arrived.

That, in hindsight, partition may have been a lesser evil than the Nakba does not make it right.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by anarchism101
Interesting question.

Which you failed to answer, and in doing so offered a pretty specious analogy which didn't actually follow (or resemble anything factual).

What should the Mizrahi Jews (from whom a majority of Israelis are descended) do? These people were not only born in Israel, but they are of Middle Eastern origin. Are you going to force them to go back to Baghdad?

That the independence and self-determination of the Palestinian Arabs was compromised, and in the case of ~500,000 of them


But there would be a Palestinian state.

But please, very specifically, outline what is the injustice to those 500,000 who are in the Israeli areas, with full voting rights, in the property their forefathers have always lived in etc.

What is the injustice to them?
Original post by TabulaSmaragdina
It seems that Israel is planning a bomb attack on Palestinian Muslims: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Jzt0A6wDDg


:lol: Wtf was that conspiracy crap?
Original post by ExcitedPup
Which you failed to answer, and in doing so offered a pretty specious analogy which didn't actually follow (or resemble anything factual).


The answer is complex and can't be answered with a simple yes or no. They're not European, no, but in a considerable sense they are culturally Europeanised by the more dominant European settler population. They form part of the colonial-settler society, but mostly (though some have) have not participated in the actual process of colonisation.

What should the Mizrahi Jews (from whom a majority of Israelis are descended) do? These people were not only born in Israel, but they are of Middle Eastern origin. Are you going to force them to go back to Baghdad?


No, just as I wouldn't tell Afrikaners to 'go back' to the Netherlands, Anglo-Australians to 'go back' to Britain, etc.

Also, as I've said before, the proportion of Mizrahi Jews depends how you measure it. Yes, it's true that a majority of Israeli Jews are of at least partial Middle Eastern or North African descent, but a majority of Israeli Jews are also of at least partial European descent - as some have mixed ancestry.

But there would be a Palestinian state.


There'd be a Palestinian state if it consisted of say, Nablus and nothing else. Would that be just?

But please, very specifically, outline what is the injustice to those 500,000 who are in the Israeli areas, with full voting rights, in the property their forefathers have always lived in etc.

What is the injustice to them?


Denial of their right to self-determination, as I said. Or to turn the question around, what would have been the injustice to the Jews if they had been a minority with full voting rights in an independent state of Palestine (federal or unitary)?
Original post by anarchism101
The answer is complex and can't be answered with a simple yes or no. They're not European, no, but in a considerable sense they are culturally Europeanised


You speak with personal knowledge of Mizrahi culture and custom, do you? Why don't you give us some examples of how Mizrahi are culturally Europeanised?

a majority of Israeli Jews are also of at least partial European descent - as some have mixed ancestry.


Citation please.

There'd be a Palestinian state if it consisted of say, Nablus and nothing else. Would that be just?


You seem to be confused. The UNSCOP proposal assigned 45% of the country to the Palestinian state, and in fact considering about 1/3rd of the Israeli area was the Negev desert, the Arabs got more like 55% of the country.

How is that "just Nablus"?

Denial of their right to self-determination, as I said.


Self-determination isn't an individual right, it's a collective right, and one which the Palestinians would have exercised under the 1947 partition.

So I ask again, what injustice has been done to a Palestinian living in the Israeli area with full voting rights? This is a question you people can never answer without veering into race supremacist areas

Or to turn the question around


Because you're incapable of answering it?

what would have been the injustice to the Jews if they had been a minority with full voting rights in an independent state of Palestine (federal or unitary)?


Because unlike in the partition scenario, where both groups get to have a self-determining state, in the unitary state only the Palestinians have their self-determining state where they are a majority.

The whole point of Israel is to have one place on earth where Jews are a majority, so that if there is another Holocaust there is a place where they can flee. Your position is that, while the Arab Muslims have majorities in every other state in the Middle East, it's completely unreasonable that Middle Eastern Jews (and native Palestinian Jews) should have their own self-determining state on 1% of the land of the Middle East.

And again, you can never explain what actual injustice has been done to an individual Palestinian living in an Israel assigned area? There would also be a Palestinian state so you cannot claim his people have not exercised their right to a self-determining state. What oppression is he experiencing?

The answer is none. The answer is that you have right-wing reactionary views that say that it is an injustice for a Muslim to have to live under a Jewish government. That is the fundamental objection against the Jewish state ab initio, and it is bigoted and anti-semitic.

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you