The Student Room Group

Scroll to see replies

Reply 320
Original post by physicsphysics91
Israel, give me 1 good thing Palestine has contributed to humanity? (protip: you cant).


It's a bit unfair to ask this question considering that this is not even a state; you cannot compare it to Israel.
Original post by Josb
I think that every Arab state with a significant number of Palestinians must recognise Israel, not just Syria - which currently cannot do that anyway.


That would only add Lebanon - while there are large Palestinian populations in some other countries, the bulk are often not registered refugees.

Saudi also expected Israel to accommodate the Palestinian refugees.


It made no specific demands, it just called for "a just solution".

Also, what other states 'should' do as a matter of international diplomacy is a rather different matter to the question of a peace deal.

I don't think it is a reasonable claim. Palestine is already full and cannot have much more new inhabitants. Arab states will have to make efforts integrating them.


If Israel is too crowded and can't accomodate much more population increase, then first it ought to repeal the Law of Return which obliges it to theoretically accomodate every Jew in the world should they ask for it.
Original post by anarchism101
It made no specific demands, it just called for "a just solution".

It made - referencing U.N. General Assembly Resolution 194.
Original post by Foo.mp3
Yup, but appear to have confused such efforts for a biased argument, on this occasion perhaps you forgot yourself

Good to know :smile:

Sometimes moreso, sometimes not

How are we to be judged if not by the extent to which we follow the message and example of JC? Never forget your virtue, our actions define us

Similar(ly sensible) assessment


Very well
Original post by Foo.mp3
Very well, what, madam? :curious:

P.S. Relatedly, this might be worth a watch


The advice you gave

Shukran
Original post by Foo.mp3
Yes, what about it? :cute:


I will endeavour to act according to the teachings of Christ and not judge fellow human beings for their wrong doings
Original post by Foo.mp3
..to act more closely in accordance with the message and example of Christ and not to be so quick to judge others, going forward, daddy* :smile:


Yes daddy but just secretly hate on the inside without saying a word
Original post by Foo.mp3
Hate is the preserve of the weak, the wounded, and the darn right small minded vs. love, of the vibrant, the reborn, and the remarkably righteous


I know but it's a part of human nature,unfortunately and humans are weak and imperfect
Original post by Foo.mp3
Hate is the preserve of the weak, the wounded, and the darn right small minded vs. love, of the vibrant, the reborn, and the remarkably righteous


True haha. The darn, small minded, right wing
Original post by Multiculturalism
True haha. The darn, small minded, right wing


Israel heading even further right with Yisrael Beiteinu joining the government and Avigdor Lieberman as Defence Minister.

Personally, I think we're going to hit a break point soon. Increasingly, it's only Netanyahu which is keeping Israel nominally tied to the peace process - his cabinet and party are increasingly packed with people who are explicitly against it. If Israel's next PM explicitly comes out against continuing the peace process, what will the Americans do?
Original post by anarchism101
If Israel's next PM explicitly comes out against continuing the peace process, what will the Americans do?


Nothing, as per usual. It's political suicide in America to even mildly criticise Israel, though I imagine some empty platitudes will not go undeployed.
Reply 332
Original post by anarchism101
Israel heading even further right with Yisrael Beiteinu joining the government and Avigdor Lieberman as Defence Minister.

Personally, I think we're going to hit a break point soon. Increasingly, it's only Netanyahu which is keeping Israel nominally tied to the peace process - his cabinet and party are increasingly packed with people who are explicitly against it. If Israel's next PM explicitly comes out against continuing the peace process, what will the Americans do?

Clinton has said she won't do anything. Trump has said he wanted to stop spending so much money on foreign states, so theoretically he could cut the military aid to Israel, but I doubt it.

Israel is looking more and more isolated, depending almost completely on the USA.
Original post by Hydeman
Nothing, as per usual. It's political suicide in America to even mildly criticise Israel, though I imagine some empty platitudes will not go undeployed.


There's a difference between strongly siding with Israel and giving it unconditional support in everything it does, regardless of consequences. With the exception of hard-right Republicans, US politics does the former. It's hardly a secret that the Obama administration is pretty annoyed and frustrated with Netanyahu. They see him as too much of a loose cannon.

The US favours the peace process because it keeps things quiet and keeps US allies in the region like Jordan, Egypt, and most crucially of all Saudi Arabia, content. Plus it would be an international embarassment for the US, who have committed themselves to the peace process at least nominally, if Israel explicitly rejected and terminated it and got away with it.
Original post by anarchism101
There's a difference between strongly siding with Israel and giving it unconditional support in everything it does, regardless of consequences. With the exception of hard-right Republicans, US politics does the former. It's hardly a secret that the Obama administration is pretty annoyed and frustrated with Netanyahu. They see him as too much of a loose cannon.

The US favours the peace process because it keeps things quiet and keeps US allies in the region like Jordan, Egypt, and most crucially of all Saudi Arabia, content. Plus it would be an international embarassment for the US, who have committed themselves to the peace process at least nominally, if Israel explicitly rejected and terminated it and got away with it.


It's no secret, but it is the case that the Obama administration has been mauled by the Republicans (and right-leaning sections of the media and electorate) for even that.

I do understand the difference; I just don't think that either position has dissimilar outcomes in practice. International embarrassment or not, no U.S. politician hoping to be re-elected will publicly profess anything less than near-unconditional support for Israel, whatever their private reservations.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Josb
Clinton has said she won't do anything. Trump has said he wanted to stop spending so much money on foreign states, so theoretically he could cut the military aid to Israel, but I doubt it.

Israel is looking more and more isolated, depending almost completely on the USA.


I genuinely think the US is getting more reluctant though. I don't expect it to suddenly change sides or stop defending Israel at the UN, but I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes more half-hearted and passive rather than active support.

Also, increasingly there's a shift going on among pro-Israel constituencies in the US. Traditionally the most pro-Israel segment of American society was, unsurprisingly, the American Jewish community, who, generally speaking are moderates who vote Democrat. While they still support Israel, increasingly they're becoming less vocal and enthusiastic about it - enthusiastic pro-Israel activism is becoming more and more the domain of the evangelicals and other hard-right conservative groups.
Reply 336
Original post by anarchism101
I genuinely think the US is getting more reluctant though. I don't expect it to suddenly change sides or stop defending Israel at the UN, but I wouldn't be surprised if it becomes more half-hearted and passive rather than active support.


It won't change anything concretely as long as the military aid keeps arriving.
Original post by Josb
It won't change anything concretely as long as the military aid keeps arriving.


Israel doesn't particularly need military aid, just as South Africa didn't. It has a more powerful army than it needs already. Its primary need from the US is diplomatic protection, including the US keeping the other Arab states quiet. To a lesser extent it benefits from US intelligence support, and economic relations could potentially become an issue further down the line but they're not really a problem now.
Reply 338
Original post by anarchism101
Israel doesn't particularly need military aid, just as South Africa didn't. It has a more powerful army than it needs already. Its primary need from the US is diplomatic protection, including the US keeping the other Arab states quiet. To a lesser extent it benefits from US intelligence support, and economic relations could potentially become an issue further down the line but they're not really a problem now.


They need the American aid if they want to start an offensive, like against Gaza. They have more than enough planes and tanks, but they don't have that much ammo and fuel.

The situation will however remain very calm for them for the next years as: (a) Saudi Arabia has started a disastrous war in Yemen (b) Syria, Hezbollah and Iran are kept busy in Syria (c) Egypt is now firmly following the USA since Sisi's coup (d) the USA are in presidential campaign atm, and the next president will be less critical of Israel than Obama.

Israeli are taking advantage of this situation to completely bury the peace process by filling the West Bank with settlements. They will never say it of course, but this is their plan since at least a decade.

The return of Lieberman is bad news, it means that a new massive plan of settlements is on the way.
Reply 339
Israel is a genocidal rogue state, what more can be said?

Latest