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

Israel VS Gaza?

Scroll to see replies

Original post by thunder_chunky


Apart from that the other chairs are already owned and have people sitting in them as well. And that people tend to have somewhat greater attachment to their home than to a beach chair.
Original post by Free Kurdistan

What should happen:

Gaza > Egypt

Jerusalem > Israel + 50 mile buffer zone

Land swaps so the settlements are pulled down

Palestinians cede right of return in return for Palestinian citizenship

Leaving the Palestinian State with... The West Bank? :confused:


As someone else said, neither Egypt nor Gaza supports Gaza's incorporation into Egypt, so that's just silly.


You can't claim someone else's post in biased then counter it with a biased post yourself.
Original post by Callous Twits
Leaving the Palestinian State with... The West Bank? :confused:


As someone else said, neither Egypt nor Gaza supports Gaza's incorporation into Egypt, so that's just silly.


You can't claim someone else's post in biased then counter it with a biased post yourself.


If they didn't like the 1969 borders shouldn't have gone 2 war m8
Original post by Free Kurdistan
If they didn't like the 1969 borders shouldn't have gone 2 war m8

1967*


and as a student of international law i can tell you that a state can't acquire territory through the use of force m8 (even if that use of force is (supposedly) in self defence)
Original post by Callous Twits
1967*


and as a student of international law i can tell you that a state can't acquire territory through the use of force m8 (even if that use of force is (supposedly) in self defence)


I'm typing with my left hand, it;s not what you think


if people really cared about international law i.e. not disposing a people after military victory, something would have been done about Turks in Cyprus
Original post by Xelfrost
:israel:

But seriously, just return to the 67 borders and leave each other alone, even if the Palestinians wanted to start a full scale war Israel can just play defensively. No needs for more bloodshed.

Edit: Oh and make Jerusalem it's own thing so that neither nation has an excuse to start a fight over it.


Hamas (and anybody else in Palestine in all likelihood) would not accept 1967 borders. They will only settle for no Israel. Their position has always been extremely clear on this.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Free Kurdistan

if people really cared about international law i.e. not disposing a people after military victory, something would have been done about Turks in Cyprus

dont change the subject :erm:


but turkey's occupation of cyprus is also viewed as illegal under international law, just as israel's occupation of the palestinian territories is (the west bank, gaza strip and east jerusalem).
Original post by KimKallstrom
Hamas (and likely anybody else in Palestine in all likelihood) would not accept 1967 borders.

they share that with israel, then

Mr Netanyahu said those borders, which existed before the 1967 Middle East war, were "indefensible".


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-13465133
Original post by Callous Twits
dont change the subject :erm:


but turkey's occupation of cyprus is also viewed as illegal under international law, just as israel's occupation of the palestinian territories is (the west bank, gaza strip and east jerusalem).


You make me feel like a black man in America, I know I'm a naughty man, but can you at least apply the law to us equally rather than arresting a brother for jaywalking and kicking him half to death in the cells and when you ignore whitey for doing the same thing

Original post by KimKallstrom
Hamas (and likely anybody else in Palestine in all likelihood) would not accept 1967 borders. They will only settle for no Israel. Their position has always been extremely clear on this.


Fatah and the PLO have long accepted the 1967 borders. Hamas has de facto accepted the borders, though wouldn't recognise Israel as part of the deal like Fatah will.
Original post by Free Kurdistan
I know I'm a naughty man

dont play the victim card, its unbecoming.
Original post by Callous Twits
dont play the victim card, its unbecoming.


I do not deny it is illegal, what I find very strange is how you yourself and others take such an issue with this occupation, but what about Putin's occupation of Crimea?

How can laws be taken seriously if they only apply is some cases?
Original post by Free Kurdistan
I do not deny it is illegal, what I find very strange is how you yourself and others take such an issue with this occupation, but what about Putin's occupation of Crimea?

How can laws be taken seriously if they only apply is some cases?


Where has anyone said they don't apply? It was affirmed that they do indeed apply in Cyprus.
Original post by Camoron
Apart from the 40s that is false data and more of the terrorist propaganda machine


It's all correct, though it doesn't state that the first refers to land owned as property, and the latter three to political sovereignty over land.
Original post by Free Kurdistan
I do not deny it is illegal, what I find very strange is how you yourself and others take such an issue with this occupation, but what about Putin's occupation of Crimea?

What I find very strange is how you are the first to call out someone mentioning Christianity to detract from criticism of Islam, yet you do the equivalent here with Crimea/Israel.


This is a thread about Israel/Palestine, so mentioning Crimea etc just serves to deflect from criticism of Israel's actions (and you see this in any Israel/Palestine debates all the time - 'North Korea/Saudi Arabia/Iran are far worse leave Israel alone' ) .


How can laws be taken seriously if they only apply is some cases?

In case you hadn't noticed, Russia is under heavy sanctions by the West and has been subject to numerous UN Resolutions condemning their actions in Crimea, and if they didn't have a seat on the UNSC the measures taken against them would be even stricter.


Yet Israel remains un-sanctioned and is actually given billions of dollars purely for military purposes from the US and Germany (the latter in the form of nuclear submarines, non-proliferation FTW). So, FWIW, I totally agree that the rules of international law should be applied equally and that this isn't currently the case!
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by anarchism101
Where has anyone said they don't apply? It was affirmed that they do indeed apply in Cyprus.


I meant in terms of the political agenda, when Obama was elected he expressed a specific hope for a two state solution he has not achieved that.


I agree this is partly Netanyahu's fault, since he refuses to do any sort of deal and this is something he is at fault for, but why is this a huge legacy building issue of every Western politician when solving other illegal occupations is not?
Original post by Free Kurdistan
I meant in terms of the political agenda, when Obama was elected he expressed a specific hope for a two state solution he has not achieved that.


I agree this is partly Netanyahu's fault, since he refuses to do any sort of deal and this is something he is at fault for, but why is this a huge legacy building issue of every Western politician when solving other illegal occupations is not?


Length of the conflict, plus it's become a cause celebre, as South Africa was, and Bosnia briefly was. You could give plenty of 'why was X seen as more important than Y' examples.
Original post by Sciatic
The Ottomans did not sack Constantinople.
yes, and the US never landed on the moon

http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/constantinople.htm
Original post by Callous Twits
What I find very strange is how you are the first to call out someone mentioning Christianity to detract from criticism of Islam, yet you do the equivalent here with Crimea/Israel.




It was a relevant point, in part because Christianity has had it's dose of mocking for the past 50 or so years and partly because the average Christian dgaf

Original post by Callous Twits
This is a thread about Israel/Palestine, so mentioning Crimea etc just serves to deflect from criticism of Israel's actions (and you see this in any Israel/Palestine debates all the time - 'North Korea/Saudi Arabia/Iran are far worse leave Israel alone' ) .


For me it's more a concern of public reaction, as a parallel example I don't actually think Saudi Arabia is a moral place at all, but a couple of months ago, huge numbers of bored middle class Europeans following their spiritual king, Owen Jones suddenly decided it was time for a crusade against the head of global terrorism, even though most of them probably didn't even know what a salafi was this time last year.

Original post by Callous Twits
In case you hadn't noticed, Russia is under heavy sanctions by the West and has been subject to numerous UN Resolutions condemning their actions in Crimea, and if they didn't have a seat on the UNSC the measures taken against them would be even stricter.


Yet Israel remains un-sanctioned and is actually given billions of dollars purely for military purposes from the US and Germany (the latter in the form of nuclear submarines, non-proliferation FTW).



The last bit I do accept, the West clearly has a massive agenda against the Russians and destabilising Assad was quite clearly a part of this, but again, I don't think this reflects what the average Brit feels about the Russians, rather a lot seem to think Putin is a hero.
Original post by anarchism101
Length of the conflict, plus it's become a cause celebre, as South Africa was, and Bosnia briefly was. You could give plenty of 'why was X seen as more important than Y' examples.


This is my point and it's pathetic.

If it were given the same weight as every other illegal occupation, I would take no issue, in fact I would agree since it is clearly illegal, but I cannot stand the starbucks drinking, mac using, keffiyeh wearing class who turn it into their little vanity project.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by TheArtofProtest
Where's the precursor cartoon where the Israeli put a gun to the Palestinian's head and told him to get the **** out of the chair?


Original post by Mathemagicien
I also have issues with this cartoon

To be more accurate, the Palestinian should be hiding behind a group of children, throwing rockets at the Israeli


Great response.

Original post by Sciatic
Not only is the Zionist usurper occupying the Palestinian rightful "chair", he has the guts to alter its name. The Palestinian only fault was to allow the Zionist to sit.

Whinge, whinge, zionism whinge whinge.

Original post by anarchism101
Apart from that the other chairs are already owned and have people sitting in them as well. And that people tend to have somewhat greater attachment to their home than to a beach chair.


Doesn't stop them sitting in those chairs. Or sitting on the laps of the people sitting on those chairs rather than trying to muscle in on the chair belonging rightfully to the chosen people.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you