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

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yo radical one)
    What locals?


    The Palestinian people is less than 70 years old, there were no "Palestinians" when Britain captured the land.

    But hey, I'm still waiting for the Arabs to move out of Syria and Lebanon and return the land to it's rightful Christian owners. I don't actually want these things to happen, but it's what goes through my mind every time I hear someone say that Israel has no right to exist.
    What History book have you been reading? From the early 1900s there was a populace consisted of roughly several hundred thousands of Palestinians, of which roughly 80% were non Jewish. When Britain captured Palestine this too was the case demographically.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    HAMAS controls the Gaza Strip which is now in effect in secession from the rest of the Palestinian territories. The Gaza Strip is also the location of almost all the military power of the Palestinian territories. So the people whose military and police forces would have to back any agreement refuse to recognise, not Israel's current borders, but any Israeli borders. This makes the whole discussion of an equitable and peaceful settlement moot.

    I suggest therefore that this isn't about creating an equitable and peaceful settlement. It's about legitimising HAMAS by anointing it as a state actor rather than a terrorist militia.
    Hamas are part of the Palestinian Unity government and, if an agreement were reached, would have to accept the two-state solution as they have indicated they might do. The longer this goes on, the more extreme the situation will get.

    Of course, we're still approaching this from the view that Israel wants peace; it doesn't. It's a neocolonialist power which wants to effectively annex more Palestinian land, take what is of value and subject the Palestinian people to Apartheid and brutal occupation, keeping them in the world's largest open-air prison or, in the West Bank, some unviable cantons.

    There appear to be three options: the status quo, which Israel wants; the full annexation of Palestinian land into Israel, which leaves Israel with the so-called "demographic problem"; or a Palestinian state which would allow Israel to "cleanse" its population (like it did in 1948 with the ethnic cleansing of 700,000 Palestinians) and transfer the Arabs to the Palestinian state, but would mean that they give up land and resources.

    There is a fourth option, however: despite the lack of media coverage, many Palestinians have been employing non-violent resistance to Israeli state terror and crimes against humanity. In addition, the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement is growing and, if we combine this with nonviolent resistance from within Palestine, it may force the Israelis out of their illegal settlements. It would not end the Occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, but it would mean that the Palestinians at least have their land back. Now, if we get a nonviolent movement this big, it could force groups like Hamas to resort to nonviolent methods and, eventually, a Palestinian state could be formed. Israel's worst nightmare, is, incidentally, the march of tens of thousands of Palestinians to the checkpoints and the illegal borders. The first intifada was broadly non-violent until the Israelis responded with brutal force - most likely to elicit a violent response from the Palestinians so that Israel can shout "terrorism!".

    This option appears to be the most promising, seeing as the status quo is unacceptable, the second option would most likely lead to second-class citizenry for non-Jews and the third is simply not going to happen because Israel doesn't support a two-state solution, meaning that if Hamas did accept Israel's right to exist, nothing would change. The Israelis have been changing their tune for decades - Hamas weren't even in power for a long time, yet nothing was done. Then, when militant groups started to rise, Israel said "ah, no, you can't have your State seeing as you're divided". Then, when the Palestinians formed a Unity Government, Israel said "ah, no, you can't have your state seeing as you work together". Hence, more pressure needs to be applied to Israel, as it is the only way to stop them.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sic semper erat)
    Unfortunately we don't live in June 1967. Types of weaponry, cities, demographics and diplomacy have all changed.
    The same is true of just about everywhere. Yet for the most part, there's no mass border-altering. Even the Eastern European nationalist groups trying to alter borders there are generally unrecognised

    Palestinians don't have security concerns, we haven't exactly had Jewish terror groups firing rockets at Ramallah or Jewish suicide bombers blowing themselves up in Palestinian restaurants.
    They have had the small matter a foreign army occupying them for nearly 50 years, however.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sic semper erat)
    Israel should make a claim over the West Bank then, they are being foolish
    Go ahead. If Israel wanted to annex the West Bank and make all 2.5-3 million Palestinians who live there full citizens of Israel, then I'd be fine with that. Of course, they don't, because that would threaten Israel's claim to be a "Jewish state".
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    The same is true of just about everywhere. Yet for the most part, there's no mass border-altering. Even the Eastern European nationalist groups trying to alter borders there are generally unrecognised

    They have had the small matter a foreign army occupying them for nearly 50 years, however.
    Ukraine is a sovereign country with recognized borders. The West Bank was never part of a country, so I wouldn't make too much comparison. In fact Google maps doesn't even recognize the 1949 lines (or pre-1967 lines) as borders, but as a ceasefire line.

    Okay. But the IDF ended up in the West Bank after Jordan started shelling Jerusalem on the second day of the 6 Day War and until 1988 the dispute was with Jordan. The Palestinians were nobodys back in the day.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Not sure if it's been commented on yet, but Israel is so desperate to stop Palestinian ICC membership that they're refusing to give the PA their ~ $100m monthly tax revenues that constitute about two thirds of the revenue budget. I assume the US has no issue with this, being Israel's lapdog on the international stage.
    Indeed. The United States condemned the move as "counterproductive" or something, as usual, but I don't see how justice being served for Israeli war crimes (and Hamas's, for that matter) is "counterproductive". Hamas actually gave their blessing to this move, while Israel are running scared.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viddy9)
    Indeed. The United States condemned the move as "counterproductive" or something, as usual, but I don't see how justice being served for Israeli war crimes (and Hamas's, for that matter) is "counterproductive". Hamas actually gave their blessing to this move, while Israel are running scared.
    Well, it's interesting to none that, unsurprisingly,neither the US nor Israel are members themselves, but they do a good job of crap vigilante justice no being criminals themselves

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The ICC handles cases of genocide like in African countries where the government in question does not investigate the crimes committed. It is not a puppet of the Palestinian propaganda machine. Nonetheless Abbas should continue with this move. Ironically both him and his PLO will probably end up being prosecuted. As the Palestinian UN rep recently said - "every missile fired from Gaza at Israel is 'a crime against humanity'."
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viddy9)
    Hamas are part of the Palestinian Unity government and, if an agreement were reached, would have to accept the two-state solution as they have indicated they might do.
    HAMAS have effective sovereignty, i.e. military control over a defined territory. It is more accurate to say that the Palestinian government can only offer recognition of Israel if HAMAS agrees to do so, not that the Palestinian government can force HAMAS to accept a deal that it agrees independently with Israel.

    The basic problem here is that the creation of a Palestinian state and a two-state solution are, although you've used the terms interchangeably, only tangentially related. The Palestinians are not proposing to have their state recognised by Israel in exchange for a deal that will ensure the permanent sovereignty of Israel and the personal safety of its citizens; they are proposing to have their state recognised by Europe and the US and this then presented as a fait accompli to Israel.

    The purpose of a recognised Palestinian state is, in the eyes of HAMAS and probably many of the others, not to advance a two-state solution, but a one-state solution: an Arab Islamic state that covers the entire territory of Mandatory Palestine.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viddy9)
    The Palestinians have entered negotiations and made a number of significant concessions, directly with Israel, to ensure that a two-state solution is implemented that recognises the security needs of Israel. As US negotiator Robert Malley stated regarding Camp David, the Palestinians accepted Israel's security needs and the two-state solution. Similarly, in 2008-2009, the same happened. Whether or not that's the desire of certain groups like Hamas is irrelevant to whether that one-state will be implemented and, as I've stated earlier, there are good reasons to think that it won't.
    Once again you are not engaging with the point (and the similarity of the words and phrasing you use looks almost like a press release or something, not spontaneous response): clearly HAMAS is not "recognising" (whatever that means) the security needs of Israel if they do not even recognise Israel's status as a state, and their opinions are controlling because they possess the only effective military force in Palestine. Israel can make whatever agreements it wants with a paper government but only HAMAS can actually stop the attacks.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sic semper erat)
    The ICC handles cases of genocide like in African countries where the government in question does not investigate the crimes committed. It is not a puppet of the Palestinian propaganda machine. Nonetheless Abbas should continue with this move. Ironically both him and his PLO will probably end up being prosecuted. As the Palestinian UN rep recently said - "every missile fired from Gaza at Israel is 'a crime against humanity'."
    The thing is, several of the things aren't investigated by Israel because they think there is nothing wrong, the likes of their West Bank settlements, then you do have to question whether they really do investigate what they say they do. Then you get some of the potentially questionable military actions seen as legitimate strategy and there are very much things that could be raised against Israel. No doubt there will then be cases against Palestinian factions, but assuming things go as the Palestinians hope, despite the inevitable cases against them, they will all in all ultimately ''win"

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    Once again you are not engaging with the point (and the similarity of the words and phrasing you use looks almost like a press release or something, not spontaneous response): clearly HAMAS is not "recognising" (whatever that means) the security needs of Israel if they do not even recognise Israel's status as a state, and their opinions are controlling because they possess the only effective military force in Palestine. Israel can make whatever agreements it wants with a paper government but only HAMAS can actually stop the attacks.
    Hamas has stopped the attacks on numerous occasions. The Gaza War of 2008-09 and the recent 2014 conflict were both started by Israel breaking the ceasefire which Hamas had held. Hamas can barely attack Israel now, and any two-state solution which will be agreed upon with what you call a "paper government" won't change that, if, indeed, Hamas even do want to attack Israel by that time.

    I'm less confident in this scenario but I'm still not convinced by your notion that a two-state solution couldn't be agreed upon if it weren't for Israeli rejectionism. However, as I've said, I'm more confident in a scenario that incorporates non-violent resistance.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viddy9)
    Hamas has stopped the attacks on numerous occasions. The Gaza War of 2008-09 and the recent 2014 conflict were both started by Israel breaking the ceasefire which Hamas had held. Hamas can barely attack Israel now
    Then what's it offering? It wants Israel to drop the blockade so it can replenish its missile stocks - does it really surprise you Israel isn't wild about this idea?

    The most sensible solution would be to annex the Gaza Strip to Egypt, a country that is strong enough both to stop Israel from attacking the Strip without provocation, and to crush HAMAS if it tries to attack Israel.

    and any two-state solution which will be agreed upon with what you call a "paper government" won't change that, if, indeed, Hamas even do want to attack Israel by that time.

    I'm less confident in this scenario but I'm still not convinced by your notion that a two-state solution couldn't be agreed upon if it weren't for Israeli rejectionism. However, as I've said, I'm more confident in a scenario that incorporates non-violent resistance.
    I don't think either side is uniquely obstructionist. I think both sides have a price. There will be a deal with those prices converge. However, it seems to me that right now the Palestinians aren't prepared to offer anything at all. Accepting that the other party in the negotiations actually exists in a basic legal sense is not a concession, it is just a prerequisite of having talks at all.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sic semper erat)
    Ukraine is a sovereign country with recognized borders. The West Bank was never part of a country, so I wouldn't make too much comparison. In fact Google maps doesn't even recognize the 1949 lines (or pre-1967 lines) as borders, but as a ceasefire line.
    I don't know why you're of the opinion that Google Maps is the authority on international politics (aside for the fact that it's sometimes different in different countries), but it shows the pre-1967 lines with a dotted line, as it does with the Serbia-Kosovo and Georgia-Abkhazia borders, among others.

    Okay. But the IDF ended up in the West Bank after Jordan started shelling Jerusalem on the second day of the 6 Day War
    In response to the Israeli attack on their ally Egypt.

    and until 1988 the dispute was with Jordan. The Palestinians were nobodys back in the day.
    I don't see why this matters. Succession of states and claims can work that way. As an analogy, suppose Norway had invaded and occupied Orkney and Shetland, and later Scotland became independent. Orkney and Shetland would subsequently be considered as occupied Scottish territory, not occupied British territory.

    Also, as I've said before on this thread, there is a precedent for the Palestinian situation: Namibia had never existed as an independent state with recognised borders prior to 1990 - before South African control the previous authorities had been the German colonial ones. Nevertheless, it was regarded (from the late 1960s) as an illegal South African occupation of Namibian territory.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    I don't know why you're of the opinion that Google Maps is the authority on international politics (aside for the fact that it's sometimes different in different countries), but it shows the pre-1967 lines with a dotted line, as it does with the Serbia-Kosovo and Georgia-Abkhazia borders, among others.

    In response to the Israeli attack on their ally Egypt.

    I don't see why this matters. Succession of states and claims can work that way. As an analogy, suppose Norway had invaded and occupied Orkney and Shetland, and later Scotland became independent. Orkney and Shetland would subsequently be considered as occupied Scottish territory, not occupied British territory.

    Also, as I've said before on this thread, there is a precedent for the Palestinian situation: Namibia had never existed as an independent state with recognised borders prior to 1990 - before South African control the previous authorities had been the German colonial ones. Nevertheless, it was regarded (from the late 1960s) as an illegal South African occupation of Namibian territory.
    Google maps calls it the "1949 Armistice Agreement Line". Its a ceasefire line and if you read about it in Wikipedia, you'll see that Israel and Jordan agreed that this line is not to be considered an international border.

    Egypt's blockade of the Strait of Tiran and getting rid of UN forces in the Sinai and deploying tanks there was an act of war. Also Israel informed Jordan that if they don't attack, nor will Israel. Sorry but all I'm saying is there's context to Israel's presence in the West Bank. The Palestinian issue is a lot more recent as much as they deny it.

    The West Bank by definition is occupied, but that doesn't give any moral or legal right to establish a 23rd Arab state there either which we all know will go to war with Israel in the first day of its independence.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    The thing is, several of the things aren't investigated by Israel because they think there is nothing wrong, the likes of their West Bank settlements, then you do have to question whether they really do investigate what they say they do. Then you get some of the potentially questionable military actions seen as legitimate strategy and there are very much things that could be raised against Israel. No doubt there will then be cases against Palestinian factions, but assuming things go as the Palestinians hope, despite the inevitable cases against them, they will all in all ultimately ''win"

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I doubt the Palestinians will win. In fact they are digging their own graves by messing with Israel in the ICC, and i'll tell you why. The ICC exercises its jurisdiction over all acts committed by the citizen of a member state, wherever those acts are committed. from the date the state was granted membership.

    Which state am I talking about? Jordan, which joined the ICC in 2002. Let's not forget that PLO members are Jordanian citizens. This means that Palestinians leaders can and will be tried for terrorist attacks against Israeli citizens and human rights violations of Palestinians dating back to 2002, which ironically is when the Second Intifada took place and 1000+ Israelis were killed by suicide bombings.

    Israel on the other hand, can only be indicted for deeds done from the day the Palestinian Authority joined the Rome Statute, which was last week.

    This will be a bigger loss for the Palestinians than a failed vote in the UN Security Council.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by R£SP£CT)
    What History book have you been reading? From the early 1900s there was a populace consisted of roughly several hundred thousands of Palestinians, of which roughly 80% were non Jewish. When Britain captured Palestine this too was the case demographically.
    The Jews living in that area wore keffiyehs and referred to themselves as Palestinians before the Arabs ever claimed to be Palestinian.


    If you knew anything about the history of that region, you would know that the great grandfathers of today's "Palestinians" would never have called themselves Palestinians, they would have been Egyptian or they would have been Syrian and both Syria and Egypt have their own countries already.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sic semper erat)
    Google maps calls it the "1949 Armistice Agreement Line". Its a ceasefire line and if you read about it in Wikipedia, you'll see that Israel and Jordan agreed that this line is not to be considered an international border.
    At the time, yes, but subsequent resolutions, agreements, rulings and recognitions have affirmed the line as something more than that. As an analogy,the border between the two Koreas was officially just a ceasefire line; both sides still only recognise it as such and claim the entire territory of the other. However, everyone else recognises two Koreas with the 'ceasefire line' as the border.

    Egypt's blockade of the Strait of Tiran and getting rid of UN forces in the Sinai and deploying tanks there was an act of war.
    Having troops in your own territory is not an act of war by any stretch. It would potentially justify an Israeli pre-emptive attack if Nasser had been planning to attack, but he wasn't and the Israeli government and IDF knew it.

    As for the Straits, there's slightly more of a controversy there (while there's quite a strong case that the closure was illegal, that's a rather different thing to it being an act of war), and in fact Nasser did offer to refer the case to the ICJ. The Israelis turned down the offer.

    Also Israel informed Jordan that if they don't attack, nor will Israel.
    So?

    Sorry but all I'm saying is there's context to Israel's presence in the West Bank.
    Even if we accept the Israeli narrative of the occupied territories supposedly being taken in self-defence, that wouldn't justify how it regards the West Bank. It would warrant an occupation somewhat like the US occupation of Japan after WW2. Instead, Israel regards the West Bank (and to a large extent, Golan, as well as Sinai and Gaza as well in the past) effectively as morally their territory that for practical reasons cannot be officially incorporated into the state proper.

    The Palestinian issue is a lot more recent as much as they deny it.
    The Palestinian militant groups were fighting the Jordanian government as early as 1968, While it's true that in many ways the early phase of the conflict was characterised bu the Palestinians seeing themselves as part of a pan-Arab nation, whereas the later conflict saw the prominence of a more distinct Palestinian identity, I don't really see why this matters.

    The West Bank by definition is occupied, but that doesn't give any moral or legal right to establish a 23rd Arab state there
    No, that right derives from other sources.

    either which we all know will go to war with Israel in the first day of its independence.
    Melodramatic nonsense.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Dear President Obama,

    I am 14 and live in the Palestinian Sheikh Jarrah neighbourhood in East Jerusalem. Almost four years ago my family and I were evicted from part of our home by Israeli settlers, backed by Israeli court decisions. The process has made life almost unbearable for me and tens of thousands of Palestinians. Settlers are working towards Jewish control of all of East Jerusalem, at times using violence against Palestinians.

    This was once a beautiful neighbourhood. Everybody was so close, and before part of my house was evicted, I was never afraid of going to sleep. We used to have no worries. Now it doesn't feel like a Palestinian neighbourhood any more. All the signs are in Hebrew, and the music too.

    The people who've been evicted have lost financially and emotionally. My father has stopped going to work for almost a year, because it was so crowded and dangerous and every day there was tension and violence, so he couldn't just leave us alone in the house with the settlers. The little kids wet their beds. My sister couldn't sleep. The settlers have a dog in our house and every time it went past, she wet herself.

    This thing that happened tore us apart. We were one big family, and now everyone lives in a different city. We are extremely uncomfortable and uncertain about what is going to happen here. Children my age and much younger are regularly arrested, interrogated and beaten by Israeli police, and violently attacked by settlers. For most of my life I have felt unsafe and threatened in my own neighbourhood and even in my own home.

    Mr President, you have the power to change that. The most simple thing you could do is see our situation for yourself and speak out about it, to see the reality and talk about what you see. It's not like you don't know what's happening here. I'm sure you know everything.

    On this trip I hope that you will speak out against the Israeli government's role in supporting the settlers and pressure the Israeli government to change its policies. US military aid to Israel is used directly against unarmed Palestinian demonstrators. I hope in the future you will stop giving military aid to support Israel's illegal occupation of my people.

    I also hope that in the future justice will return to the people. I hope the world will begin to speak out against the oppression we face in my neighbourhood and [the oppression] against all Palestinians. That you and others will not remain silent while our homes are taken, children are arrested and injured, and our future threatened.

    Mr President, we want our houses back. And our pre-1948 land. It's not fair what's happening here, and most of the world doesn't realise it. So if I had one wish I would get everyone's rights back. From a little ball they stole from a boy in the street to a big farm they stole from a grandfather
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Are Palestinians still trying to kill Israeli civilians in rocket attacks?

    That's 14 years now israeli civilians have lived under threat of random indiscriminate attacks.
 
 
 
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
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
    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.