This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- UK professor suffered discrimination due to anti-Zionist beliefs, tribunal rules
- how could anyone be pro-israel?
- Claims that a 9 year-old boy was treated poorly by staff ‘because he’s Jewish’
- Vectors proof
- Letting Go of the Past
- Edexcel gcse maths higher probability tree question - driving test
- Might help you improve grades?
- I feel guilty
- Edexcel GCSE higher tier Maths Paper 3 3H (1MA1) - 14th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Anyone know how to rearrange to make x the subject a = 4x/t - p
- I took moments from a different points to the answer and I am incorrect? A level math
- friendship advice
- Friendship struggles/issues
- 2 months until A levels - BCC to AAA
- AQA English language paper 1
- Degree certificate being held
- AP exam info not inputted correctly?
- do i need to feel bad when my bf does this?
- bf got mad at me for giving food to homeless guy
- How do I stop
What is so wrong with Zionism?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Foo.mp3
Nothing, particularly, as a concept. It's how it manifests both in the region and the wider world that is (often intensely) problematic 
For real tho
Zionism is ethno-nationalism by another name.
Original post by mojojojo101
Zionism is ethno-nationalism by another name.
Nail on the head. The difference is that Zionist ethno-nationalist arguments and claims for whatever reason seem to be treated with much more acceptance and generosity than any other ethno-nationalism.
Original post by anarchism101
Nail on the head. The difference is that Zionist ethno-nationalist arguments and claims for whatever reason seem to be treated with much more acceptance and generosity than any other ethno-nationalism.
Curious isn't it?
Even when Richard Spencer appears on Israeli TV and calls himself a 'White Zionist' the connection is still not apparent.
Original post by mojojojo101
Curious isn't it?
Even when Richard Spencer appears on Israeli TV and calls himself a 'White Zionist' the connection is still not apparent.
Even when Richard Spencer appears on Israeli TV and calls himself a 'White Zionist' the connection is still not apparent.
Well, part of the reason is that Spencer talks about "races", which is much more loaded with connotations, whereas Zionists tend to talk about "peoples" or "nations", which are much more anodyne and moderate-sounding, though they mean largely the same thing.
But yeah, it's also down to a reluctance to see Zionism through the same lens of being an ethno-nationalist movement. The contrast isn't just with white supremacists and neo-Nazis like Spencer. Look at the reaction to the ethno-nationalist movements following the break-ups Soviet Union and Yugoslavia in the 1990s. Karadžić's manifesto for a Serb ethno-state was brought up in ICTY trials as proof of his genocidal intent, for heaven's sake!
Original post by anarchism101
Well, part of the reason is that Spencer talks about "races", which is much more loaded with connotations, whereas Zionists tend to talk about "peoples" or "nations", which are much more anodyne and moderate-sounding, though they mean largely the same thing.
But yeah, it's also down to a reluctance to see Zionism through the same lens of being an ethno-nationalist movement. The contrast isn't just with white supremacists and neo-Nazis like Spencer. Look at the reaction to the ethno-nationalist movements following the break-ups Soviet Union and Yugoslavia in the 1990s. Karadžić's manifesto for a Serb ethno-state was brought up in ICTY trials as proof of his genocidal intent, for heaven's sake!
But yeah, it's also down to a reluctance to see Zionism through the same lens of being an ethno-nationalist movement. The contrast isn't just with white supremacists and neo-Nazis like Spencer. Look at the reaction to the ethno-nationalist movements following the break-ups Soviet Union and Yugoslavia in the 1990s. Karadžić's manifesto for a Serb ethno-state was brought up in ICTY trials as proof of his genocidal intent, for heaven's sake!
Antisemitism!!!!!!!!!!
Spoiler
Original post by ChaoticButterfly
Antisemitism!!!!!!!!!!
Spoiler
Appreciate the joke, though have to say I'm becoming increasingly bored by this whole thing now. It's not even political opportunism any more, it's just that people have dug themselves into this ethnic essentialist hole and can't get out of it. For example, see Howard Jacobson's NYT article last week in which he rants about Labour, and then once again tries to argue that Zionism is an essential and integral part of Jewishness.*
*A tangent about this latter point. Obviously I disagree about the mere truth value of this claim (and indeed, the judge in the 2013 UCU trial already found against it), but more importantly, I think it's dangerous. Keeping religious faith and ethnic identity (protected categories) separate from assumed political opinions (not a protected category) at an official-legal level is a much bigger cornerstone of liberal democracy than people give it credit for.
Well heres my view for what it's worth. I'm not aiming this response at anti-Zionists, because I think they are often beyond rational discussion.
1) The only independent sovereign nations to ever exist in the Land of Israel were the two ancient Jewish commonwealths, the second of which was destroyed in 70 of the common era.
2) For 3,000 years, Jews have expressed the desire to return to their ancestral homeland: at the Passover Seder, the Yom Kippur service, in daily prayer, in the blessing after meals, under the wedding canopy, on the yearly day of national mourning Tisha B'Av, and by placing Israeli soil in the coffin of their deceased.
3) Even after exile, Jews managed to keep a continual presence of Jewish communities in such cities as Jerusalem, Tzfat, Tiberias, Shechem, and Hebron.
4) Centuries before the inception of Islam, Jews were yearning to return to Israel, and the Koran itself records this in many suras (chapters), such as 17:7, 17:104, and 5:21 that tells the Jews to "enter into the Holy Land which Allah has assigned to you."
5) Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries have consciously chosen to isolate refugees as political pawns,rather than integrate them into a normalized life. As opposed to refugees in Arab countries, Israel integrated Arabs within its borders as citizens, and 1.2 million Israeli Arabs now enjoy citizenship, benefits, and governmental representation in Israel.
1) The only independent sovereign nations to ever exist in the Land of Israel were the two ancient Jewish commonwealths, the second of which was destroyed in 70 of the common era.
2) For 3,000 years, Jews have expressed the desire to return to their ancestral homeland: at the Passover Seder, the Yom Kippur service, in daily prayer, in the blessing after meals, under the wedding canopy, on the yearly day of national mourning Tisha B'Av, and by placing Israeli soil in the coffin of their deceased.
3) Even after exile, Jews managed to keep a continual presence of Jewish communities in such cities as Jerusalem, Tzfat, Tiberias, Shechem, and Hebron.
4) Centuries before the inception of Islam, Jews were yearning to return to Israel, and the Koran itself records this in many suras (chapters), such as 17:7, 17:104, and 5:21 that tells the Jews to "enter into the Holy Land which Allah has assigned to you."
5) Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries have consciously chosen to isolate refugees as political pawns,rather than integrate them into a normalized life. As opposed to refugees in Arab countries, Israel integrated Arabs within its borders as citizens, and 1.2 million Israeli Arabs now enjoy citizenship, benefits, and governmental representation in Israel.
I should note before starting here that only the last of these is actually anything to do with the modern situation. The rest is nationalist mythohistory.
A few things here:
- The large United Kingdom of Israel of David and Solomon described in the Bible most likely never existed, and is likely a later tradition.
- The Northern/Israel/Samaria and Southern/Judah Kingdoms did exist, but likely were typical Canaanite pagans. It's not until King Josiah of Judah in the late 7th Century BCE that we start to get monolatrist religion, and probably not until the Babylonian exile that something recognisably monotheist developed. Also, it should be noted here that the term "Jewish" referred initially to Judah.
- A short-lived independent Jewish state, the Hasmonean Kingdom, lost its independence in 63 BCE to Pompey's conquests. The Romans initially left local leaders in place, but gradually reduced their role over time, until the outbreak of the revolt in 66 CE. Independence was long gone before Titus captured Jerusalem in 70 CE.
- Pretty sure the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem was an independent state in the same area.
- Well, obviously not 3,000 years - obviously Jews weren't expressing the desire to return before they'd been exiled.
- "Next Year in Jerusalem" is actually a much newer tradition than people tend to assume. It doesn't start appearing in the Passover Seder until about 1400, for instance. The phrase itself goes back a few more centuries, but we're still looking at the late Dark Ages at the earliest.
- Which is really evidence that the Roman exile is less of the event it's been traditionally thought of. Yes, in the aftermath of the revolts there was a large Jewish forced exodus from the region, both in terms of Jews taken as slaves by the Romans, and refugees fleeing from the warzone. But this was what the Romans did everywhere they fought. With the exception of Jerusalem itself, there wasn't a specific policy requiring Jews to leave.
- Shechem was destroyed in 67 CE. There hasn't been a community of anyone there since. Nablus is not the same city with a different name - it is a different city, founded years after the destruction of Shechem, in a different though nearby location. Referring to Nablus as "Shechem" is a bit like referring to Baghdad as "Ctesiphon" or Tunis as "Carthage".
- Not really seeing how "O my people, enter the Holy Land which Allah has prescribed for you and do not turn back in your traces" necessarily implies the people being addressed are Jews, though perhaps I'm missing context from previous verses?
- This risks projecting our modern notions of Christianity, Judaism and Islam as fully formed and completely separate religions back into historical periods where that was much less the case. At the time of the authorship of the Koran, "Islam", in any sense we would understand the term, almost certainly did not exist. We're talking about an Abrahamic sect among Arab tribes that was still very much in its early defining phases.
- Most importantly, so what? Why should what the Koran says matter to international politics today.
Finally, something actually related to the modern situation.....
- This isn't really a like for like comparison - you're comparing the actions of a home country towards its own population to that of an asylum country towards refugees within its borders. The Palestinian Arabs who were still in Israel after the 1948 War weren't refugees from somewhere else. A state granting its population citizenship rights isn't some great generosity, it's a basic state obligation in the modern era. Those who ended up in Syria/Lebanon/etc as refugees were in a rather different situation. Those states had (and still have) no obligations to them other than asylum. The refugees' homes were the territory that was now Israel.
Original post by Flx1
1) The only independent sovereign nations to ever exist in the Land of Israel were the two ancient Jewish commonwealths, the second of which was destroyed in 70 of the common era.
1) The only independent sovereign nations to ever exist in the Land of Israel were the two ancient Jewish commonwealths, the second of which was destroyed in 70 of the common era.
A few things here:
- The large United Kingdom of Israel of David and Solomon described in the Bible most likely never existed, and is likely a later tradition.
- The Northern/Israel/Samaria and Southern/Judah Kingdoms did exist, but likely were typical Canaanite pagans. It's not until King Josiah of Judah in the late 7th Century BCE that we start to get monolatrist religion, and probably not until the Babylonian exile that something recognisably monotheist developed. Also, it should be noted here that the term "Jewish" referred initially to Judah.
- A short-lived independent Jewish state, the Hasmonean Kingdom, lost its independence in 63 BCE to Pompey's conquests. The Romans initially left local leaders in place, but gradually reduced their role over time, until the outbreak of the revolt in 66 CE. Independence was long gone before Titus captured Jerusalem in 70 CE.
- Pretty sure the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem was an independent state in the same area.
2) For 3,000 years, Jews have expressed the desire to return to their ancestral homeland: at the Passover Seder, the Yom Kippur service
- Well, obviously not 3,000 years - obviously Jews weren't expressing the desire to return before they'd been exiled.
- "Next Year in Jerusalem" is actually a much newer tradition than people tend to assume. It doesn't start appearing in the Passover Seder until about 1400, for instance. The phrase itself goes back a few more centuries, but we're still looking at the late Dark Ages at the earliest.
3) Even after exile, Jews managed to keep a continual presence of Jewish communities in such cities as Jerusalem, Tzfat, Tiberias, Shechem, and Hebron.
- Which is really evidence that the Roman exile is less of the event it's been traditionally thought of. Yes, in the aftermath of the revolts there was a large Jewish forced exodus from the region, both in terms of Jews taken as slaves by the Romans, and refugees fleeing from the warzone. But this was what the Romans did everywhere they fought. With the exception of Jerusalem itself, there wasn't a specific policy requiring Jews to leave.
- Shechem was destroyed in 67 CE. There hasn't been a community of anyone there since. Nablus is not the same city with a different name - it is a different city, founded years after the destruction of Shechem, in a different though nearby location. Referring to Nablus as "Shechem" is a bit like referring to Baghdad as "Ctesiphon" or Tunis as "Carthage".
4) Centuries before the inception of Islam, Jews were yearning to return to Israel, and the Koran itself records this in many suras (chapters), such as 17:7, 17:104, and 5:21 that tells the Jews to "enter into the Holy Land which Allah has assigned to you."
- Not really seeing how "O my people, enter the Holy Land which Allah has prescribed for you and do not turn back in your traces" necessarily implies the people being addressed are Jews, though perhaps I'm missing context from previous verses?
- This risks projecting our modern notions of Christianity, Judaism and Islam as fully formed and completely separate religions back into historical periods where that was much less the case. At the time of the authorship of the Koran, "Islam", in any sense we would understand the term, almost certainly did not exist. We're talking about an Abrahamic sect among Arab tribes that was still very much in its early defining phases.
- Most importantly, so what? Why should what the Koran says matter to international politics today.
5) Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries have consciously chosen to isolate refugees as political pawns,rather than integrate them into a normalized life. As opposed to refugees in Arab countries, Israel integrated Arabs within its borders as citizens, and 1.2 million Israeli Arabs now enjoy citizenship, benefits, and governmental representation in Israel.
Finally, something actually related to the modern situation.....
- This isn't really a like for like comparison - you're comparing the actions of a home country towards its own population to that of an asylum country towards refugees within its borders. The Palestinian Arabs who were still in Israel after the 1948 War weren't refugees from somewhere else. A state granting its population citizenship rights isn't some great generosity, it's a basic state obligation in the modern era. Those who ended up in Syria/Lebanon/etc as refugees were in a rather different situation. Those states had (and still have) no obligations to them other than asylum. The refugees' homes were the territory that was now Israel.
I have lots more facts that can be used in reference to the modern situation, however people are so caught up on "the Jewish theft of Palestine". History actually has a lot to do with all of this, as people are asking what the Jewish claim is to Israel, so of course we need to look back in history and not at modern situations? Regardless of your opinions you cannot change facts, and the facts are that Jews existed there before any take overs by the muslim faith, with recent archaeological finds to support it.
If anyones interested (either for or against) theres been a very interesting programme regarding the history of Jerusalem on BB2, really informative. Think the first episode goes off tomorrow though
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/b01852x1?suggid=b01852x1
If anyones interested (either for or against) theres been a very interesting programme regarding the history of Jerusalem on BB2, really informative. Think the first episode goes off tomorrow though
https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/b01852x1?suggid=b01852x1
Original post by Sarahsez
But Jews wanting they own country- there's nothing wrong with that, and that's what Zionism is. Just like Christians or Muslims would want they own country.
I do not agree with their occupation of Palestine, but it seems people are against Jews having their own land. Look how beautiful, successful, progressive and advanced Israel has become. Most Palestinians and Arabs would prefer to live in Israel. They would rather be citizens of Israel.77% of Arab citizens would rather live in Israel. They do not wish to live in a palestinian state.
What does that tell you?
I do not agree with their occupation of Palestine, but it seems people are against Jews having their own land. Look how beautiful, successful, progressive and advanced Israel has become. Most Palestinians and Arabs would prefer to live in Israel. They would rather be citizens of Israel.77% of Arab citizens would rather live in Israel. They do not wish to live in a palestinian state.
What does that tell you?
Uncle Sam
Original post by Flx1
I have lots more facts that can be used in reference to the modern situation, however people are so caught up on "the Jewish theft of Palestine". History actually has a lot to do with all of this, as people are asking what the Jewish claim is to Israel, so of course we need to look back in history and not at modern situations?
Actually I think the question of nationalist claims of "rightful ownership" of land (in virtually all contexts, not just here) are silly and futile. It isn't going to change that everyone in the area needs political rights within a state, which is the much more useful way of framing the question.
That said, the further you go back in making historical claims, the less relevant they are. For a whole host of reasons. International law gets less codified. The question of what is and what isn't an independent state (as well as where that state's jurisdiction ends) becomes vaguer. The historical record gets sparser. And of course
Regardless of your opinions you cannot change facts, and the facts are that Jews existed there before any take overs by the muslim faith, with recent archaeological finds to support it.
In other words, Judaism is an older religion that Islam, something we already knew - what is this meant to prove exactly?
Original post by Sarahsez
Don't most religions want they own country or state ?
Wasn't Pakistan split from India because Muslims wanted they own country and weren't being treated equally ?
Jews have suffered somuch throughout history, more than any other religion, so what if they want they own country where they can finally feel safe?
I'm not saying I agree with they occupation of Palestine, but there's nothing wrong with nationalism particularly considering how much they have suffered in the past.
Muslims and Christians against Zionism are nothing but hypocrites!
Wasn't Pakistan split from India because Muslims wanted they own country and weren't being treated equally ?
Jews have suffered somuch throughout history, more than any other religion, so what if they want they own country where they can finally feel safe?
I'm not saying I agree with they occupation of Palestine, but there's nothing wrong with nationalism particularly considering how much they have suffered in the past.
Muslims and Christians against Zionism are nothing but hypocrites!
You alluded to the problem in your post above.
Pakistan was founded due to reasons of division. To cut a long story short, the population of a nation became displaced so as to concentrate into two general groups within this same land that they had.
The problem with the case that has been mentioned (of Zion/Israel) is as follows.
Around the time of the world wars, Jews were transported to Palestine as agreed in the Balfour declaration. Jews were seen as being a population that had always been under oppression and this exaggerated (not completely false) notion was used as an irrational justification to forcibly occupy Palestine. Now, had they just lived among the Palestinians, there most likely wouldn't have been any conflict - historically, Jews often lived alongside Muslims because they were saved from Christian oppression. However, they assumed the land to be theirs - the land which had long belonged to the Palestinians was all of a sudden claimed not to be theirs on the authority of our (British) power. As a result, Palestine dwindled more and more throughout the years until Israel illegally consumed all but the two bits of land we see today. There was no war, no organised transfer of authority. The country, people's homes, were just taken and assumed to no longer be theirs. Anyone that disagrees with this or speaks out of line because of it faces government men with firearms.
The Jews were allowed to live in Jerusalem, not by the Christians, but by the Muslims after a 6 century exile. Yet the audacity of the Israelis is such that they even dishonour the agreement of the Masjid al-Aqsa at whim and prevent Muslims from praying there. This isn't just the case with the recent issue a few months ago - my friend visited Masjid al-Aqsa 2 years ago and describes how, for no reason but a display of force and oppression, Muslims were prevented from entering and so prayed to God outside on the streets.
Original post by Sarahsez
But Jews wanting they own country- there's nothing wrong with that, and that's what Zionism is. Just like Christians or Muslims would want they own country.
I do not agree with their occupation of Palestine, but it seems people are against Jews having their own land. Look how beautiful, successful, progressive and advanced Israel has become. Most Palestinians and Arabs would prefer to live in Israel. They would rather be citizens of Israel.77% of Arab citizens would rather live in Israel. They do not wish to live in a palestinian state.
What does that tell you?
I do not agree with their occupation of Palestine, but it seems people are against Jews having their own land. Look how beautiful, successful, progressive and advanced Israel has become. Most Palestinians and Arabs would prefer to live in Israel. They would rather be citizens of Israel.77% of Arab citizens would rather live in Israel. They do not wish to live in a palestinian state.
What does that tell you?
It tells me that Israel has deprived Palestine to the extent that it has taken most of the resources and inhibited the latter's progression.
Original post by OliviaRose98!
Don't you see it's wrong to take someone else's country and then claim it's yours and that the inhabitants (the Palestinians) never existed? Zionism is used to destroy the identity of Palestinians. That is what's wrong with it.
this
Original post by anarchism101
Actually I think the question of nationalist claims of "rightful ownership" of land (in virtually all contexts, not just here) are silly and futile. It isn't going to change that everyone in the area needs political rights within a state, which is the much more useful way of framing the question.
1. What you and other biased commentators think about historical connection of Jewish people to the land is irrelevant. Really important is that Jewish people kept their connection to the land and eventually created their own national state.
2. Jews don't claim "rightful ownership" of land, but rather their right to live in their national state. Usually such bias is accompanied by support of "legitimate rights of Palestinians to free their land from Zionists". There is no "Jewish land" as well as there is no "Arab land" or "Palestinian land". There is no "Kurdish land" as well, it doesn't mean that the Kurds have no right to live in their own national state.
3. There is no problem with "political rights within a state". In case of Israel all citizens, including Arabs, have equal political rights. It is not a problem for the planned Palestinian state too, because it supposed to be ethnically cleansed from Jews, like other Arab states.
(edited 6 years ago)
...
(edited 6 years ago)
I can't help but think that a lot of people are basing their opinions more on the race involved than politics. For example why are people still not jumping to the defence of Native Americans? After all it was largely Christian European settlers who came over and claimed America as their own, with Natives to this day living on reservations. The process of a Jew moving to Israel is also known as 'right of return' for a reason and I highlight the word return, meaning Jews existed in Israel long before any other religion and are returning after being forcefully moved several times.
Anti-zionists feel free to rip into my post but these are facts
G-d Bless Israel
Anti-zionists feel free to rip into my post but these are facts
G-d Bless Israel
Original post by admonit
1. What you and other biased commentators think about historical connection of Jewish people to the land is irrelevant. Really important is that Jewish people kept their connection to the land and eventually created their own national state.
No-one has a "connection" to land except in their collective imagination. The land doesn't give a damn who lives in it or rules it.
Even the early Zionist leaders didn't care enough about the land not to compromise it for other considerations. They prioritised the coastal plains because they made for better agricultural settlements, largely ignoring the inland hills which had been the centre of Biblical Israel and Judah.
2. Jews don't claim "rightful ownership" of land, but rather their right to live in their national state. Usually such bias is accompanied by support of "legitimate rights of Palestinians to free their land from Zionists". There is no "Jewish land" as well as there is no "Arab land" or "Palestinian land". There is no "Kurdish land" as well, it doesn't mean that the Kurds have no right to live in their own national state.
So no-one in Israel would ever just say "This is Jewish land"? Oh wait....
3. There is no problem with "political rights within a state". In case of Israel all citizens, including Arabs, have equal political rights. It is not a problem for the planned Palestinian state too
And this Palestinian state doesn't exist yet. Hence the problem.
because it supposed to be ethnically cleansed from Jews, like other Arab states.
[citation needed]
Indeed, the PLO have said the explicit opposite.
Original post by anarchism101
Even the early Zionist leaders didn't care enough about the land not to compromise it for other considerations. They prioritised the coastal plains because they made for better agricultural settlements, largely ignoring the inland hills which had been the centre of Biblical Israel and Judah.
Again irrelevant. The early Zionist leaders cared to build a Jewish state in Palestine. And this goal eventually was achieved, do you like it or not (certainly not).
So no-one in Israel would ever just say "This is Jewish land"? Oh wait....
no-one ever? I never said such stupidity. It looks like you invent an assertion and yourself answer it.
And this Palestinian state doesn't exist yet. Hence the problem.
The problem is Palestinian terror and hatred. Or, if you want, Palestinian hatred and terror.
Nope.
Hanan Ashrawi simply said that after the Palestinian state will be created, Palestinians will be ready to consider any applications for Palestinian citizenship according to Palestinian immigration laws. That's all. It doesn't mean that Jews will be permitted to live in the Palestinian state. But before the creation of the Palestinian state all settlements and settlers should be removed. This is one of basic demands of Palestinians. Nothing "explicit opposite".
Related discussions
- UK professor suffered discrimination due to anti-Zionist beliefs, tribunal rules
- how could anyone be pro-israel?
- Claims that a 9 year-old boy was treated poorly by staff ‘because he’s Jewish’
- Vectors proof
- Letting Go of the Past
- Edexcel gcse maths higher probability tree question - driving test
- Might help you improve grades?
- I feel guilty
- Edexcel GCSE higher tier Maths Paper 3 3H (1MA1) - 14th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Anyone know how to rearrange to make x the subject a = 4x/t - p
- I took moments from a different points to the answer and I am incorrect? A level math
- friendship advice
- Friendship struggles/issues
- 2 months until A levels - BCC to AAA
- AQA English language paper 1
- Degree certificate being held
- AP exam info not inputted correctly?
- do i need to feel bad when my bf does this?
- bf got mad at me for giving food to homeless guy
- How do I stop
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 ?
