East Jerusalem: Hamas MP detained by Israel Watch

Bismarck
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#21
Report 12 years ago
#21
(Original post by Agent Smith)
If most Londoners already sympathised, I'd be asking why it hadn't joined already. Self-determination, remember?
Didn't you say that it was up to the entire country to decide whether any area should be able to secede? A vast majority of Israelis think eastern Jerusalem is a part of Israel.

(Original post by BirchyGreen)
Or millions of Jews flooding into Palestine.
Or millions of Arabs flooding into Palestine. While we're at it, I say we kick out those damn Angles and Saxons who colonized Britania.
0
reply
Agent Smith
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#22
Report Thread starter 12 years ago
#22
I didn't think I said that. I bumbled around for a bit and concluded that it was in fact very hard to decide whether the entire country or just the immediately relevant bit should be consulted.

Whose territory is East Jerusalem according to the Oslo Accords, or whatever the most recent agreement was?
0
reply
Bismarck
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#23
Report 12 years ago
#23
(Original post by Agent Smith)
I didn't think I said that. I bumbled around for a bit and concluded that it was in fact very hard to decide whether the entire country or just the immediately relevant bit should be consulted.

Whose territory is East Jerusalem according to the Oslo Accords, or whatever the most recent agreement was?
No, you didn't. That would contradict your position on allowing the Basques to secede.

I think the agreement was to decide the future status at a future date. According to Israeli law, Israel has annexed and controls eastern Jerusalem.
0
reply
Agent Smith
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#24
Report Thread starter 12 years ago
#24
Well, Israeli law would say that. In cases of disputed territory, it is pointless to only accept the views one side of the dispute. That would be like Britain saying "under British law we own Gibraltar" and ignoring Spanish claims to the contrary under the pretext that they don't count, because they're not British law. I'm not sure if this is actually the case with Gibraltar, I'm just using a hypothetical example.

In any case, doesn't Israeli law also have some provision for freedom of speech - where this does not obviously promote violence? In which case any Israeli attempt to simply gag politics in East Jerusalem is illegal under their very own laws.

Self-determination. Well. Possibly my personal confusion over the issue has affected my responses in discussion. I support the right in principle for any group to govern itself. Basques, Palestinians, Kurds, whatever. But this rather vague and theoretical stance runs into practical problems, because these self-governing territories have to come from somewhere, and you can't gratuitously take land away from OTHER groups who have just the same right to it as anyone else. On the other hand, the only prior claim these groups have is a "we were here first" one, which isn't terribly strong. So and self-determination process faces two apparently insurmountable problems. Firstly, how to create a fair and reasonable sample space for any referendum, and secondly, how to act on its results in a fair manner to all parties.
0
reply
Bismarck
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#25
Report 12 years ago
#25
(Original post by Agent Smith)
Well, Israeli law would say that. In cases of disputed territory, it is pointless to only accept the views one side of the dispute. That would be like Britain saying "under British law we own Gibraltar" and ignoring Spanish claims to the contrary under the pretext that they don't count, because they're not British law. I'm not sure if this is actually the case with Gibraltar, I'm just using a hypothetical example.

In any case, doesn't Israeli law also have some provision for freedom of speech - where this does not obviously promote violence? In which case any Israeli attempt to simply gag politics in East Jerusalem is illegal under their very own laws.
Israel has an independent judiciary which has defied the government on numerous occassions (including with regard to where the Security Fence is built). The fact that it has upheld this ban suggests that it doesn't contradict the Israeli Common Law.
0
reply
Longshoredrift80
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#26
Report 12 years ago
#26
(Original post by Agent Smith)
Whose territory is East Jerusalem according to the Oslo Accords, or whatever the most recent agreement was?
See, the very fact that you refer to it like that "East Jerusalem" is already a propaganda victory for the palestinians. There is no East and West Jerusalem, for millennia Jerusalem has been one single, undivided city. The only time it was ever divided in to eastern and western segments was 1948/9 - 1967 during which time Israel controlled the West and Jordan the East according to the fairly arbitrary armistice lines of the War of Independence. Israel did not invent the claim that Jerusalem is an eternal indivisible city, it was precisely that for thousands of years and only not like that for 18, there is no legitimate right for 'palestinians' to claim the eastern section, the city was not split under the division.
0
reply
Agent Smith
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#27
Report Thread starter 12 years ago
#27
(Original post by Bismarck)
Israel has an independent judiciary which has defied the government on numerous occassions (including with regard to where the Security Fence is built). The fact that it has upheld this ban suggests that it doesn't contradict the Israeli Common Law.
Is that essentially an Israeli equivalent of the Law Lords, at least in function - someone to stop the government breaking the law?
0
reply
Agent Smith
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#28
Report Thread starter 12 years ago
#28
(Original post by JonathanH)
See, the very fact that you refer to it like that "East Jerusalem" is already a propaganda victory for the palestinians. There is no East and West Jerusalem, for millennia Jerusalem has been one single, undivided city. The only time it was ever divided in to eastern and western segments was 1948/9 - 1967 during which time Israel controlled the West and Jordan the East according to the fairly arbitrary armistice lines of the War of Independence. Israel did not invent the claim that Jerusalem is an eternal indivisible city, it was precisely that for thousands of years and only not like that for 18, there is no legitimate right for 'palestinians' to claim the eastern section, the city was not split under the division.
I was simply using the term I found in the report. There's been no "propaganda victory" over my brain, as far as I'm aware, and if the term is erroneous I'm happy to stop using it. Except, of course, in cases where geographical precision is needed - as in the phrase "north London". But that's different.
0
reply
Vienna
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#29
Report 12 years ago
#29
(Original post by Agent Smith)
I was simply using the term I found in the report. There's been no "propaganda victory" over my brain, as far as I'm aware, and if the term is erroneous I'm happy to stop using it. Except, of course, in cases where geographical precision is needed - as in the phrase "north London". But that's different.
Indeed, east Jerusalem is perfectly valid. East Jerusalem is politically charged.
0
reply
Bismarck
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#30
Report 12 years ago
#30
(Original post by Agent Smith)
Is that essentially an Israeli equivalent of the Law Lords, at least in function - someone to stop the government breaking the law?
More like the Israeli version of the Supreme Court, though it's far less politicized than the American version. In principle, it's supposed to make sure the government doesn't violate Israel's unwritten constitution (kind of like yours).
0
reply
Agent Smith
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#31
Report Thread starter 12 years ago
#31
Oh, yes. I knew Israel and Britain are about the only (possibly THE only) countries without a written constitution. Does anybody know WHY it's not written down?
0
reply
Agent Smith
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#32
Report Thread starter 12 years ago
#32
(Original post by Vienna)
Indeed, east Jerusalem is perfectly valid. East Jerusalem is politically charged.
Like "west Germany" and "West Germany". Point taken.
0
reply
cuth
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#33
Report 12 years ago
#33
Good
0
reply
Longshoredrift80
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#34
Report 12 years ago
#34
(Original post by Agent Smith)
Like "west Germany" and "West Germany". Point taken.
That was the point I was trying to make, sorry if it wasn't clear.
0
reply
Agent Smith
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#35
Report Thread starter 12 years ago
#35
Oh, OK then.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Brexit: Given the chance now, would you vote leave or remain?

Remain (1069)
79.01%
Leave (284)
20.99%

Watched Threads

View All