Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

The Israel/Palestine Conflict Mk. IV Watch

Announcements
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cake_lover)
    I'm not a fan of the Israeli government as I feel they don't show signs of wanting peace alongside Palestine. I also dislike Hamas and their aggressive style, I'd rather two new leaders for both states to come to a peaceful solution (two state solution?) but that's just me.

    I'm a human first and hate seeing conflict like this.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    That's the naive attitude I took before I read up on the history of the region. I see exactly why the Israeli government (and public) has turned against the prospect of an independent Palestinian state, especially since seeing what happened to Gaza.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by QE2)
    Very reasonable. There's clearly hope for you yet!

    Rather condescending, as if you're the judge of opinions sitting on the high throne.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IdeasForLife)
    I acknowledged they do exist. When the Palestinian conflict is mentioned it's normally been referred as a Muslim/Jewish issue, and so I stuck to the main parties. If you have a problem with this then I suggest you write a letter to major media networks and such.
    Actually, it's a tyranny vs. democracy issue more than anything else.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheGrinningSkull)
    Rather condescending, as if you're the judge of opinions sitting on the high throne.
    Seriously, my throne isn't particularly high.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Yep, I hate most illegal things..
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    It's more or less the idea that the Jews inhabited a land that did not once belong to them in the first instance. They believed God promised it to them when in fact it was the land of Muslims (think Ottomans and prior to that). But then all the killings started in 1947 when Israel was established without no consent from the Palestinians and in 1948 when the Jews decided to have the land for themselves and banished the Palestinians. That's when riot broke out and since then, the dispute has not been settled.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    To start with, I don't even believe there exist such a state as 'Israel'. If anything its Palestine who has been taken over by those to whom Palestinians once gave shelter to out of sympathy and humanity.

    To answer the question, no. Being a Muslim, I don't hate Jews or anything. In fact, I can't. Islam tells me to be nice to all the humans. Rather its just that I dislike those who create trouble risking not only national but also international peace. Now such people can be either the ISIS or even the extremist Jews.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Achaea)
    You implied that they don't exist.
    Chill.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    And you know that How? Were you there? Do you realize that cars marked PRESS were deliberately attacked, or are you just another apologist for Israeli genocide.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HeritageofEurope)
    the israelis did not kidnap them and hold them for ransom and then behead them with a knife.
    this is nothing alike the deaths of journalists at the hands of isis.
    Why compare? They killed them end of. No one likes to admit when Israelis do something bad
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ganhad)
    akhi there was outrage a great deal. and they didnt behead them with a knife or do it intentionally on video as we know. or
    Just because it wasn't on video, doesn't mean it didn't happen. Why the **** is everyone on this thread supporting Israelis. They killed a load of Palestinians, but no one cares because they were innocent MUSLIMS.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by maymuyt)
    It's more or less the idea that the Jews inhabited a land that did not once belong to them in the first instance. They believed God promised it to them when in fact it was the land of Muslims (think Ottomans and prior to that). But then all the killings started in 1947 when Israel was established without no consent from the Palestinians and in 1948 when the Jews decided to have the land for themselves and banished the Palestinians. That's when riot broke out and since then, the dispute has not been settled.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    You don't actually know the history of the region, do you?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mercedes7)
    Just because it wasn't on video, doesn't mean it didn't happen. Why the **** is everyone on this thread supporting Israelis. They killed a load of Palestinians, but no one cares because they were innocent MUSLIMS.
    Too many know about too little regarding the Palestinians, it's not necessarily their fault but nor is it excusable. **** happens.

    If anyone's curious my stance is that, I do not support Israel, nor Hamas, but I do support Palestine and if Hamas is the Palestinian majority source of support and resistance against Israeli oppression then I do not oppose its fight against Israel, if you can call it that.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ki Yung Na)
    If anyone's curious my stance is that, I do not support Israel, nor Hamas, but I do support Palestine and if Hamas is the Palestinian majority source of support and resistance against Israeli oppression then I do not oppose its fight against Israel, if you can call it that.
    North Korea is resisting against Western imperalist ideals so I guess it'd be ok for them to launch 15,000+ rockets and build 30 tunnels into South Korea designed to murder civilians. Logic, eh?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alexgr97)
    North Korea is resisting against Western imperalist ideals so I guess it'd be ok for them to launch 15,000+ rockets and build 30 tunnels into South Korea designed to murder civilians. Logic, eh?
    Very different situations; how can you refer to logic after comparing very different situations as if they're the same? "Logic Eh?"

    Whatever N. Korea does is neither here nor there to this situation; they are not being attacked neither their land taken by some foreign oppressor. Look at the title please, maybe I should report your ridiculous post of irrelevance?

    Also if you care so much about my opinion, go do some thorough research on the conflict's two sides and the conflict itself (Hint it's referred to here as the Israel/Palestine conflict) then reread my second paragraph in the earlier post and try make sense of it.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ki Yung Na)
    land taken by some foreign oppressor.
    What land is this then, eh? When did this "occupation" start?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mercedes7)
    Just because it wasn't on video, doesn't mean it didn't happen. Why the **** is everyone on this thread supporting Israelis. They killed a load of Palestinians, but no one cares because they were innocent MUSLIMS.
    Due to TSR's popularity, it's quite likely that there's heavy JIDF presence in this thread.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by felamaslen)
    Well I don't claim that the West didn't make mistakes in the cold war, I only claim that it was on the right side - the side for democracy - much as it was in the second world war.
    As I said before, not going into the Cold War for now.

    But what about in the 1940s, when Israel was actually created?
    The point being discussed was not about the 1940s. The quote you were initially responding to was this:

    (Original post by DaveSmith99)
    Before the Zionist movement there was a tiny, tiny handful of Jews in Palestine, the population was almost entirely Muslim Arab's with a small group of Arab Christians
    If you want to talk about the 1940s, sure, but that's not what the point was about.

    Anyway I'd like to move on from all this bloodline bull****, since the reason I support Israel's side in the war is because I support democracy against tyranny, not because I'm a Zionist of any kind. I want the rest of the middle east to become more like Israel, but by that I don't mean for it to become Jewish.
    So, would you support forcibly removing the bulk of the population of Iran or Saudi Arabia and repopulating the area with a different population as long as the new population formed a democratic system?

    Instead of going back to Europe and the middle east, from which they were expelled or fled as refugees, the Jews built a functioning and prosperous and free state where they were.
    Whatever the relative merits, that was their choice. The Palestinians were never offered that choice.

    And furthermore, for many European Jews it wasn't the case that they were expelled, went to Palestine, and then chose not to go back, it was that they chose to leave in the first place (admittedly, some were forced out, like many Russian Jews in the early 20th Century. Like I said, it's a mixed bag). There was nothing stopping French or Polish Holocaust survivors from going back to France or Poland rather than moving to Palestine.

    That's what the Palestinians should do in Gaza and the West Bank, rather than carrying on with the pointless and destructive dream of removing Israel from the map.
    There are Palestinian refugees outside the Palestinian territories as well, and in fact they're generally the ones being referred to when we talk about the right of return.

    Yep, the Palestinians should build what they can in the land they have. That doesn't mean they should consider their dispossession just, or that they should give up hope of having something more.

    As an analogy, take Bosnia. For many Bosniaks, returning to and taking back the homes robbed from them by the Serbs through brutal ethnic cleansing in the 1990s is an unrealistic dream that they know they'll probably never see. But that does not and should not stop them voicing that their dispossession was a complete injustice, and that rightfully (even though it may not be practically possible) those areas should be theirs again. The Palestinian case is similar in this regard.

    Also, the PLO have accepted the principle of a state in the West Bank and Gaza and renounced all other claims. Even Hamas have de facto accepted it.

    The PA or whoever else runs Palestine has a responsibility to punish those who engage in terrorism against Israel. But since the people running Palestine have engaged in, and continue (in Gaza) to engage in terrorism against Israel themselves, this will never happen, which is why Israel resorts to things like the divisive wall.
    Pot calling kettle here. Did Israel ever punish those who commit terrorism against the Palestinians in the 1940s? Nope, instead they incorporated the terrorist groups into the IDF and made the former terrorists like Begin and Shamir Prime Ministers.

    It doesn't really matter to me what the truth is in this, if any. See my point above.
    And see my point above about moving the populations of Iran or Saudi Arabia.

    It's not that easy to see. They never had a state before, and here were two previously oppressed groups who were being offered by the UN a peaceful two state solution on a plate. Israel gladly accepted. The Palestinians should have too.
    There's never been an independent Welsh state either. However, if Welsh independence suddenly became a popular cause, something tells me the Welsh wouldn't gladly accept only getting half of Wales because the other half was being given to some other just-arrived population.

    And the leaders of what would become Israel did not 'gladly accept'. Two of the three groups that would form the IDF, Irgun and Lehi, outright rejected the plan. Even on the part of the Jewish Agency, there's a lot to suggest it was merely a tactical, insincere 'acceptance', only due to their expectation that the Palestinians would reject it. At best, it was a reluctant acceptance.

    Multiple offers of a state
    First, a comment about 'concessions' and the negotiations in general; it should be noted that this is a two-way process. The Palestinians (and the surrounding Arab states as well) make offers as well, and the Israelis reject them. For example, the Arab Peace Initiative (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Peace_Initiative).

    As for the Israeli proposals themselves, at Camp David in 2000, the 'state' the Palestinians were offered proposed carving up the West Bank into three separated chunks.

    A contiguous, viable Palestinian state was proposed by Olmert in 2008 (there were other issues, but it was something to work with) - and Olmert's government subsequently fell apart as his coalition partners refused to endorse such a proposal, eventually leading to Olmert's resignation.

    the Oslo accords
    A far greater concession on the PLO side - they recognised Israel and renounced violent means (a huge concession, considering that without the First Intifada, the PLO wouldn't have even managed to win the little they got at Oslo). Israel did neither the other way round (nor did they even freeze settlement expansion).

    giving independence to Gaza all come to mind.
    'Independence'? Even the hardline pro-Israelis don't usually claim that's what Gaza is. For a start, Gaza is a geographical entity, not a legal one - Gaza and the West Bank are both simply different geographical parts of the Palestinian Territories - Gaza can no more be considered separately legally 'unoccupied' or 'independent' than Jericho or Ramallah can. Furthermore, independence would mean controlling their own air and maritime space, and their own borders.

    In addition, the Israeli disengagement from Gaza was more pragmatic than anything else - the settlements had become too expensive, and it served as a justification to expand into the West Bank more.


    Well clearly it hasn't tried to expand. The only times it has expanded
    Yeah, try again.

    is when it has been at war with hostile third parties, such as Syria when it took the Golan heights. It was always content with its small strip of land.
    At war with third parties hostile due to Israeli attacks on them or their allies, largely. For example, why was Israel at war with Syria? Because Israel had attacked Israel's ally Egypt.

    Also, hostility is not a basis for expansion - quite the opposite, expansion through conquest is illegal in international law. If Israeli takeover of territory was purely out of war necessity, it would have administered the taken territories similarly to the Allied occupations of Germany and Japan, for example. Instead it annexed chunks (all the land taken in the 1948 War, East Jerusalem in 1967, plus Golan in all but name) and started settlement programs in the other parts, which it officially considers not parts of another country which are temporarily occupied pending a peace agreement, but parts of the 'Land of Israel' which simply can't be fully incorporated right now.

    Nevertheless, it wasn't over half of the land. Israel accepted a two state solution which gave it significantly less than half of the remaining land with Jordan cut off, IIRC.
    You're ignoring my point. Cisjordan (for want of a better term for the area) was not the 'remaining land' - it was the only land. Transjordan had been excluded from the land eligible for a 'Jewish national home' from the start.

    Besides this point is largely moot considering your initial claim that Israel was in some sense entitled to more than the territory given to then in the 1947 (and so was 'giving up' territory) was debunked.

    I was using a more narrow definition of the middle east, i.e. the Levant, where Israel is. So, Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon etc.
    OK, let's talk about that then. It's true, these states in their current borders are largely British and French creations. But there's a qualitative difference between these and Israel. They were created by drawing borders and creating institutions for already-present populations. Israel was almost the other way around - borders were drawn for an area which would include a 'Jewish national home' - later increased to a Jewish state - and then Jews were subsequently brought in to be the new population.


    Some states have a right to exist, while others should be aggressed upon in some circumstances (e.g. Nazi Germany, the USSR). The states which have a right to exist are principally the liberal democracies, of which Israel was and is a member.
    Setting all other problems with this aside for the moment, you're conflating the right of particular governments or governmental systems to rule states with the right to exist of those states themselves. In other words, whether the Nazis had a right to rule Germany is a fundamentally different question to that of whether Germany had a right to exist as a separate state.

    Are you arguing that Palestinians in Palestine should all be given Israeli citizenship? I'd be fine with that since it would end their oppression under PA and Hamas rule, but I don't think that's what they want.
    The Israelis are the bigger objectors to such an idea; the result of that would put the ratio of Jews to Arabs at virtually 1:1. The most likely consequence of that would be the reforming of Israel as an officially binational state of both Jews and Arabs, rather than just of Jews, and the Law of Return would have to either be abolished or reformed so as to include the Nakba refugees and their descendants.


    was using it in a figurative sense - i.e. anywhere in the middle east and Arab world, i.e. in close proximity. Also, Iraq (from where many Jews emigrated) could be called "the other side of the river Jordan", just about.
    Just in case this isn't the attempt at a saving throw that it looks like, I'll just say that this doesn't invalidate DaveSmith99's claim, as Jews from the Middle East and North Africa who went to Israel largely went after the creation of Israel, and had little if any involvement in the formulation of Zionism and its subsequent activities.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    It seems that Israel has now taken to murdering politicians for the crime of protesting against theft and apartheid.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DaveSmith99)
    It seems that Israel has now taken to murdering politicians for the crime of protesting against theft and apartheid.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    It seems you've resorted to posting nonsense.

    The convicted terrorist who killed two young Israelis in a 1979 bombing, had a history of health problems and died of a heart attack



    Hope he suffered before dying for what this terrorist did to two young lives and probably more.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: January 8, 2017
  • 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.

  • Poll
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
    Useful resources
  • 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.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.