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

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yo radical one)
    This is what these clueless solidarity morons don't understand.


    I would love a Palestinian State, I mean all those "free Palestine" slogans would be pretty meaningless if there were an independent Palestinian State existing outside Israel, those landswaps made sure that any claim of an "apartheid state" in Israel is a total joke, incredible. Heck, not a lot of people know this, but Israel props up the Palestinian areas with humanitarian aid and they say the Jews are money obsessed.


    However and this is huge


    The moment a Hamas (the ruling party of Palestine) militant, decides to fire a rocket into Israel, this would not be criminality or even terrorism, it would be a declaration of war by one sovereign nation on another. Israel would have every right to respond with deadly force.
    Hamas loves to spill the blood of Palestinians and it is even better for them if it's Israel's fault, because they depend on useful idiots who think they are the victim. I would argue that it is in Israel's interests, but against Hamas' interests, for Palestinians to be rich and free. The 2005 Israeli unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza strip was nothing if not a desperate plea for peace, while the rocket attacks coming from the Gaza strip since 2005 have been nothing if not an attempt to create war, and as many Palestinian casualties as possible.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LockheedSpooky)
    Oh noes.

    There won't be a 57th Islamic state and 23rd Arab country.

    How will the world cope without this extra enrichment that Arab Muslim states provide the world? :rolleyes:
    So, what would you propose be done with the West Bank and Gaza and the Palestinians who live there?
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    god bless the palestinitans- shame on zionist israelis... scum
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    Netanyahu: If I'm elected, there will be no Palestinian state

    So yeah, Israel all in favour of peace? Yeah, right.
    absolutely
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by felamaslen)
    Hamas loves to spill the blood of Palestinians and it is even better for them if it's Israel's fault, because they depend on useful idiots who think they are the victim. I would argue that it is in Israel's interests, but against Hamas' interests, for Palestinians to be rich and free. The 2005 Israeli unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza strip was nothing if not a desperate plea for peace, while the rocket attacks coming from the Gaza strip since 2005 have been nothing if not an attempt to create war, and as many Palestinian casualties as possible.
    Maybe rocket attacks wouldn't come from Gaza if shells weren't fired at it.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    So, what would you propose be done with the West Bank and Gaza and the Palestinians who live there?
    Judea & Samaria, which is the historic Jewish land for millennia and renamed to the 'west bank' in order to try and sever links with its Jewish roots, belongs to Israel.

    The 'palestinians' can go and live in Arab countries which they originated from.

    Israel took in the Jewish refugees. The Arab states must take in the 'palestinian' refugees.

    Enough of this farce about 'palestinians'. They're a fabricated political construct.

    The world does not need another failed Arab Muslim state that will inevitably become a base for terrorism.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Midlander)
    Maybe rocket attacks wouldn't come from Gaza if shells weren't fired at it.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Rocket attacks are constant. Shells are in response to said attacks. Were they shelling the place before the Hamas takeover? Are they shelling the West bank now that the second intifada is over?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by felamaslen)
    Rocket attacks are constant. Shells are in response to said attacks. Were they shelling the place before the Hamas takeover? Are they shelling the West bank now that the second intifada is over?
    Were they not tortured by Mossad during the first intifada? I said it before and will again, Israel are the aggressors here and always have been since the Zionist lobby tried to force its creation upon the region. You have now sought to justify shelling beaches with no military targets on them, how do you justify the sniping of children? The blockade?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LockheedSpooky)
    Judea & Samaria, which is the historic Jewish land for millennia
    If only you forget the vast bulk of time when it was controlled by someone else - i.e. Persia, Assyria, Babylon, Rome, Byzantium, etc (and that's all before Islam even existed).

    Unless you're talking about demographic majority population, in which case you still wouldn't manage 'millennia', and would have to admit that the land has been non-Jewish for longer than it was Jewish.

    and renamed to the 'west bank' in order to try and sever links with its Jewish roots, belongs to Israel.
    Then why hasn't Israel annexed it?

    The 'palestinians' can go and live in Arab countries which they originated from.
    Palestine is where they originate from.

    Israel took in the Jewish refugees. The Arab states must take in the 'palestinian' refugees.

    Enough of this farce about 'palestinians'. They're a fabricated political construct.
    As are all nationalities....
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    If only you forget the vast bulk of time when it was controlled by someone else - i.e. Persia, Assyria, Babylon, Rome, Byzantium, etc (and that's all before Islam even existed).
    Every inch of Judea & Samaria is covered with Jewish artifacts, Jewish ruins, Jewish synagogues, tombs etc.

    Not a single shred of anything points to a so-called 'palestinian' people. Nothing. No civilisation, no currency, no kings, leaders - nothing.

    There is no such thing as 'palestinians'.


    Palestine is where they originate from.

    LOL

    Could you please explain to me why one of the most common 'palestinian' surnames is 'Al-Masri' which translates to 'The Egyptian' ?

    Please explain why so many of these so-called 'indigenous' people have surnames which literally tell us they're from Egypt?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Midlander)
    Were they not tortured by Mossad during the first intifada? I said it before and will again, Israel are the aggressors here and always have been since the Zionist lobby tried to force its creation upon the region. You have now sought to justify shelling beaches with no military targets on them, how do you justify the sniping of children? The blockade?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    If shells were indeed fired on beaches with no military targets, or if children were indeed sniped, then those are crimes, obviously, and I will not defend them. Neither of those things represent the general conduct of the IDF though, which is a modern army following modern rules regarding collateral damage etc. If the IDF genuinely wanted to kill children, they would be doing so with far more success than the odd accident during a war against aggressors who hide their weaponry amongst civilian infrastructure and use civilians as human shields.

    The blockade is justified by the existence of the jihad. If there were no jihad, there would be no blockade.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by felamaslen)
    If shells were indeed fired on beaches with no military targets, or if children were indeed sniped, then those are crimes, obviously, and I will not defend them. Neither of those things represent the general conduct of the IDF though, which is a modern army following modern rules regarding collateral damage etc. If the IDF genuinely wanted to kill children, they would be doing so with far more success than the odd accident during a war against aggressors who hide their weaponry amongst civilian infrastructure and use civilians as human shields.

    The blockade is justified by the existence of the jihad. If there were no jihad, there would be no blockade.
    It was no accident, you can find the video of the sniping on the BBC. They revel in imitating the child they have just shot. These are but several of the crimes the Israeli 'Defence' Force have committed in their occupation. You criticise Hamas who hide weaponry amongst civilian infrastructure-where else is it supposed to go? Gaza isn't renowned for the abundance of space and to put weapons out in the open would make them sitting ducks.

    Israel are the aggressors. Israel are the occupiers. Israel are the war criminals. They have no right being where they are and they have no right to obstruct the recognition of Palestine as a sovereign state. Why should civilians in Palestine be denied food and cement to rebuild what the Israelis destroyed?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Midlander)
    It was no accident, you can find the video of the sniping on the BBC. They revel in imitating the child they have just shot. These are but several of the crimes the Israeli 'Defence' Force have committed in their occupation. You criticise Hamas who hide weaponry amongst civilian infrastructure-where else is it supposed to go? Gaza isn't renowned for the abundance of space and to put weapons out in the open would make them sitting ducks.

    Israel are the aggressors. Israel are the occupiers. Israel are the war criminals. They have no right being where they are and they have no right to obstruct the recognition of Palestine as a sovereign state. Why should civilians in Palestine be denied food and cement to rebuild what the Israelis destroyed?
    Ask Hamas why. The jihadist group running the Gaza strip is why concrete is not allowed into the Gaza strip.

    Israel aren't the aggressors. Palestine could have had a state in peace with Israel since 1948 if they'd accepted the UN's partition plan. They could have had a state since 1993. Why did they choose not to? Because they didn't want a Jewish state on their doorstep. If Israel had been set up as an Islamic state, there would currently be no Israel-Palestine conflict at all.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LockheedSpooky)
    Every inch of Judea & Samaria is covered with Jewish artifacts, Jewish ruins, Jewish synagogues, tombs etc.

    Not a single shred of anything points to a so-called 'palestinian' people. Nothing. No civilisation, no currency, no kings, leaders - nothing.

    There is no such thing as 'palestinians'.
    So according to you there are no Mosques, nothing of Muslim (or Christian, come to think of it) significance there at all?

    Nationality is a construct. All nationalities only exist so far as people believe in them


    LOL

    Could you please explain to me why one of the most common 'palestinian' surnames is 'Al-Masri' which translates to 'The Egyptian' ?

    Please explain why so many of these so-called 'indigenous' people have surnames which literally tell us they're from Egypt?
    By this logic, why are so many Jews identified as "Sephardi", which literally means "Spanish"/"Hispanic"?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by felamaslen)
    Israel aren't the aggressors. Palestine could have had a state in peace with Israel since 1948 if they'd accepted the UN's partition plan.
    Setting aside the tactical wisdom of accepting/rejecting the plan for now, why should they have accepted it? Why should they have agreed to gerrymandered borders (drawn to accommodate virtually all Jews within the Jewish state, while more or less ignoring how many Arabs would be left outside the Arab state) that gave away more than half the country to the proposed Jewish state when Arabs outnumbered Jews two to one (and even this is ignoring that the bulk of the Jewish population had just arrived)?

    Furthermore, despite the official acceptance of the plan by the Jewish Agency and Haganah (no-one ever mentions that the other two Zionist paramilitaries that later formed the IDF, Irgun and Lehi, both rejected the plan), they more or less straight away started preparing to subvert it, intending to expand into more territory and expel the Arabs within it.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/bi...medium=twitter

    Interesting opinion piece in The Irish Times by a former high ranking British diplomat, Sir Vincent Fean. I'm in agreement with him here. I have no love for Hamas but if Abbas and the PLO recognise the State of Israel then why continue to build settlements in the West Bank and why refuse to recognise Palestine?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DK_Tipp)
    http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/bi...medium=twitter

    Interesting opinion piece in The Irish Times by a former high ranking British diplomat, Sir Vincent Fean. I'm in agreement with him here. I have no love for Hamas but if Abbas and the PLO recognise the State of Israel then why continue to build settlements in the West Bank and why refuse to recognise Palestine?
    Exactly. There's been almost no genuine reciprocity or anything resembling an effort to provide some sort of fairness and equality to the negotiations at any point. The Israeli position has always been that the Palestinians must show all their cards and give up all their bargaining chips (while making no commitment to doing the same themselves) before negotiations even start.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by felamaslen)
    Ask Hamas why. The jihadist group running the Gaza strip is why concrete is not allowed into the Gaza strip.

    Israel aren't the aggressors. Palestine could have had a state in peace with Israel since 1948 if they'd accepted the UN's partition plan. They could have had a state since 1993. Why did they choose not to? Because they didn't want a Jewish state on their doorstep. If Israel had been set up as an Islamic state, there would currently be no Israel-Palestine conflict at all.
    They chose not to because funnily enough they didn't like the idea of their land being carved up and allocated to the Zionist lobby. What bad things will the Palestinians do with concrete? Build a naughty statue of Netanyahu? What bad things will they do with food? Throw it at the IDF snipers?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Midlander)
    They chose not to because funnily enough they didn't like the idea of their land being carved up and allocated to the Zionist lobby. What bad things will the Palestinians do with concrete? Build a naughty statue of Netanyahu? What bad things will they do with food? Throw it at the IDF snipers?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    "Their" land? Why did the land belong to the Palestinians (or "Arabs" as they were then known) any more than it belonged to the Zionists? Neither had a country beforehand, after all.

    You avoided the question. Giving any kind of humanitarian aid to a jihadist group is often not a good idea. I won't bother spelling this out any further. What you should be complaining about is the fact that a jihadist group runs the Gaza strip.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    Setting aside the tactical wisdom of accepting/rejecting the plan for now, why should they have accepted it? Why should they have agreed to gerrymandered borders (drawn to accommodate virtually all Jews within the Jewish state, while more or less ignoring how many Arabs would be left outside the Arab state) that gave away more than half the country to the proposed Jewish state when Arabs outnumbered Jews two to one (and even this is ignoring that the bulk of the Jewish population had just arrived)?

    Furthermore, despite the official acceptance of the plan by the Jewish Agency and Haganah (no-one ever mentions that the other two Zionist paramilitaries that later formed the IDF, Irgun and Lehi, both rejected the plan), they more or less straight away started preparing to subvert it, intending to expand into more territory and expel the Arabs within it.
    Didn't they propose multiple border-drawing scenarios? They even proposed one where the Jewish state was a tiny bit at the top, near Lebanon, as I recall. Clearly all the Jews wanted was a state somewhere in Palestine, and had an Arab state been set up alongside it they would not have gone to war with each other.

    Was the plan to subvert the UN's strategy carried out before or after the surrounding Arab states declared war?
 
 
 
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.

  • 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.