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

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Let's face it Hasidic Jews are *****, they even hate their own government, they should be brought down, it is baffling to me why they are tolerated by the secular state of Israel.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    This is so ****ed up. Peace in the Middle East will never be achieved until this stops.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LockheedSpooky)
    palestinian terrorists fire rocket into Israel from Gaza.
    Worth adding:

    Military officials said they believed the rocket was not fired by Hamas but by independent operatives, according to media reports. Army sources told Ynet news that they believed the launch to be an isolated incident which would not lead to escalation.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    As long as "death to west" and "death to israel" marches are done, you can't be surprised. Both sides need to chill the **** out and stop killing over their delusions.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    So a lot of religious people from round the world united by their religion travelled to the Middle East to create a state. Guided by their idea that it was their God given right to claim the lands despite other people living there. And it was written all in their Holy Book. The locals who disagreed with them they would fight mercilessly.

    No this isn't ISIS this is the history of the modern state of Israel. But sounds familiar doesn't it?

    So do you think that the British should have recognised the modern state of Israel or branded it a dangerous ideological state that disrupted the Middle East?

    (Also, this is also the history of the Crusades by the Christians).
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    The creation of Israel was a consequence of the catastrophe of World War Two. It wasn't a grand plan by world leaders and calling it a mistake implies anybody had any choice in the matter.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by noobynoo)
    x
    Do you support the State of Palestine by any chance?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Barlow)
    Do you support the State of Palestine by any chance?
    I have no opinion on the matter.

    Israel wasn't created as a consequence of war. There was Zionist immigration into the place that later became Israel before WWII. Admittedly they were trying to escape anti-Semitism in their own countries.

    All that happened after WWII is that Israel was legitimised by the united nations partly as reparations for the holocaust. In hindsight this may have been a mistake and it would have been better to make the Jewish people more welcome in Europe and America.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Israel wasn't created on a religious basis, it was created on an explicitly secular basis. In fact, it had unbroken socialist governments for its first 30 years. The kibbutzim are predominantly secular and atheist.

    The question isn't "Did the Jewish people living in the Levant in the late 1940s deserve self-determination?"

    The real question is "Were the Arabs mistaken in rejecting the UN partition out of hand and attempting to seize 100% of the land by force?"
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by noobynoo)
    All that happened after WWII is that Israel was legitimised by the united nations partly as reparations for the holocaust.
    Actually, it wasn't. It would be worthwhile for you to read up on the history of Palestine/Israel as then you will be in a position to speak from a position of knowledge.

    The Levant was partitioned by the UN on the basis of self-determination; the half a million or so Jews living in the area were given a state in the areas in which they were a majority. The remaineder (in fact, most of the land) was assigned to the Arabs. The Arabs rejected that partition out of hand and tried to seize 100% of the land by force.

    You can't be the first to resort to violence and then complain about the outcome when you lose.

    Perhaps another more relevant question is, "Was the PLO wrong to reject out of hand Israel's offer in 1968, in the wake of its stunning victories in the Six Day War, to trade land for peace?"
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by noobynoo)
    So do you think that the British should have recognised the modern state of Israel or branded it a dangerous ideological state that disrupted the Middle East?
    Nice straw man. You should take up a career in push polling
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    So if a load of Jewish people decide to move into Wales because they have read in their Holy Book that Wales was promised to them by God. And then declare Wales a Jewish state because they have a Jewish majority. And then when the UK tries to take back Wales they bomb them.
    That's fine is it?

    Is it also fine to declare Crimea as part of Russia because it has a Russian speaking majority?

    Can Bradford declare itself an Isalmic state if it gets a majority muslim population?

    These things aren't as black and white as they seem.

    There was no big Jewish presence in the current state of Israel for hundreds of years before the Zionists started to move in there at the end of the 19th century. It's all about religion.

    It would be like the Anglo Saxons of England going to Northern Germany and Denmark and claiming it as their land. I think the Germans and Danes would have a thing to say about that. Or it would be like the Germans claiming they have a right to Poland because of the German speakers living there. There's a name for that: fascism.

    Something doesn't add up.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LordMarmalade)
    Israel wasn't created on a religious basis, it was created on an explicitly secular basis. In fact, it had unbroken socialist governments for its first 30 years. The kibbutzim are predominantly secular and atheist.

    The question isn't "Did the Jewish people living in the Levant in the late 1940s deserve self-determination?"

    The real question is "Were the Arabs mistaken in rejecting the UN partition out of hand and attempting to seize 100% of the land by force?"
    Actually, it wasn't. It would be worthwhile for you to read up on the history of Palestine/Israel as then you will be in a position to speak from a position of knowledge.

    The Levant was partitioned by the UN on the basis of self-determination; the half a million or so Jews living in the area were given a state in the areas in which they were a majority. The remaineder (in fact, most of the land) was assigned to the Arabs. The Arabs rejected that partition out of hand and tried to seize 100% of the land by force.

    You can't be the first to resort to violence and then complain about the outcome when you lose.

    Perhaps another more relevant question is, "Was the PLO wrong to reject out of hand Israel's offer in 1968, in the wake of its stunning victories in the Six Day War, to trade land for peace?"
    Wrong. This is indeed a question of whether the Jews of the region deserved self-determination, because almost all of them were recent first or second-generation immigrants to the area. We would not be at all happy it if the people of Tower Hamlets declared the creation of New Bangladesh; why would the Arabs be happy when the people of Haifa and Tel Aviv announced the creation of Israel? As it happens, I think the Jews probably did deserve self-determination, but you can't deny that the question is an important one that needs to be answered. I don't blame the Arabs at all for wanting to keep their country whole.

    Even in the areas allotted to Israel by the UN (comprising 56% of the land), Jews formed a bare majority - 55% to 45%. The borders were drawn in such a way that almost no Jews were left in the Palestinian zone, but hundreds of thousands of Arabs were left in the Israeli zone. A fair partition would have had the numbers roughly balanced.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Arbolus)
    Wrong.
    It's unclear exactly what you are saying you think is wrong.

    This is indeed a question of whether the Jews of the region deserved self-determination, because almost all of them were recent first or second-generation immigrants to the area. We would not be at all happy it if the people of Tower Hamlets declared the creation of New Bangladesh
    If these settlers of "New Bangladesh" were in fact an ancient Saxon tribe who had returned to this land after suffering terrible discrimination overseas and after being expelled from this land by Romans and Normans, then that would confer a different moral complexion to the question.

    Furthermore, if the settlers of this "New Bangladesh" also comprised a large number of this ancient Saxon tribe who had been expelled from areas in the North of England (Mizrahi Jews) by hateful and prejudiced Englishmen after the creation of this state, that would further strengthen the legitimacy of this new state.

    Even in the areas allotted to Israel by the UN (comprising 56% of the land), Jews formed a bare majority - 55% to 45%.
    Yes, the Jews formed a majority in the areas they were assigned.

    It's not exactly clear what rights you are claiming a Palestinian in, say, Ramallah has to demand that the state in which he lives encompasses areas of the Levant to which he has no connection, but in which there is a Jewish majority.

    Brass tacks, nothing in matters of historical partitions ever works out perfectly, but the UN partition committee did a reasonably good job. They assigned areas to the new state of Israel that had a Jewish majority; you appear to be saying that the borders should have been different so that the Arabs were given more land (how this is "fairer" is unclear) even though you concede that the state of Israel comprised an area where there was a majority of Jews.

    Ultimately, you cannot (as the Arabs did) be the first to resort to violence, to reject the partition out of hand and attempt to seize 100% of the land by force, and then complain about the outcome when you lose.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    It was a great idea.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by noobynoo)
    So if a load of Jewish people decide to move into Wales because they have read in their Holy Book that Wales was promised to them by God. And then declare Wales a Jewish state because they have a Jewish majority. And then when the UK tries to take back Wales they bomb them.
    You are confused. Zionism was an explicitly secular movement.

    To the extent there was "bombing", it was more the result of Jews (under a specific, legitimate and lawful UN mandate) fighting back after the Arabs rejected the fair partition out of hand and attempted to take 100% of the land by force
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by noobynoo)
    Can Bradford declare itself an Isalmic state if it gets a majority muslim population?
    Apples and oranges. The Muslims of Bradford do not have an ancient connection to that land.

    A majority of Israeli Jews today are the descendents of Middle Eastern (Mizrahi) Jews who were chased out of their ancestral lands by angry, bigoted Arab Muslims determined to wreak revenge on them for the creation of the State of Israel by the United Nations.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by noobynoo)
    So a lot of religious people
    The Zionists were not religious.

    (Original post by noobynoo)
    So if a load of Jewish people decide to move into Wales because they have read in their Holy Book that Wales was promised to them by God. And then declare Wales a Jewish state because they have a Jewish majority. And then when the UK tries to take back Wales they bomb them.
    That's fine is it?

    Is it also fine to declare Crimea as part of Russia because it has a Russian speaking majority?

    Can Bradford declare itself an Isalmic state if it gets a majority muslim population?

    These things aren't as black and white as they seem.

    There was no big Jewish presence in the current state of Israel for hundreds of years before the Zionists started to move in there at the end of the 19th century. It's all about religion.

    It would be like the Anglo Saxons of England going to Northern Germany and Denmark and claiming it as their land. I think the Germans and Danes would have a thing to say about that. Or it would be like the Germans claiming they have a right to Poland because of the German speakers living there. There's a name for that: fascism.

    Something doesn't add up.
    Palestine was not really populated until the end of the Ottoman Empire. The arrival of the Jews following the Balfour declaration created an economic boom in the Middle-East, and many Arabs from Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon came to Palestine to work. The Jews had indeed drained the swamps in the north and invented new irrigation methods in the south in order to cultivate a soil that was thought unproductive. As far as I remember, more Arabs came to Palestine between the World Wars than Jews, so we can hardly say that the latter took the place of the former.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I don't understand how there is such a thing as secular jew?

    What does that even mean? Either you're Jewish in which case you belong to the religion of Judaism or you're not. And why did the Zionists choose Israel if it wasn't for all the religious significance? Why not, for example America?

    Unless secular jews consider themselves genetically different (superior) from the rest of the caucasian race?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LordMarmalade)
    It's unclear exactly what you are saying you think is wrong.



    If these settlers of "New Bangladesh" were in fact an ancient Saxon tribe who had returned to this land after suffering terrible discrimination overseas and after being expelled from this land by Romans and Normans, then that would confer a different moral complexion to the question.

    Furthermore, if the settlers of this "New Bangladesh" also comprised a large number of this ancient Saxon tribe who had been expelled from areas in the North of England (Mizrahi Jews) by hateful and prejudiced Englishmen after the creation of this state, that would further strengthen the legitimacy of this new state.
    Why is the fact that the immigrant's distant ancestors originally came from the region relevant? If the English people were being terribly persecuted in England, would we have the right to go and take over Lower Saxony?

    Yes, the Jews formed a majority in the areas they were assigned.

    It's not exactly clear what rights you are claiming a Palestinian in, say, Ramallah has to demand that the state in which he lives encompasses areas of the Levant to which he has no connection, but in which there is a Jewish majority.

    Brass tacks, nothing in matters of historical partitions ever works out perfectly, but the UN partition committee did a reasonably good job. They assigned areas to the new state of Israel that had a Jewish majority; you appear to be saying that the borders should have been different so that the Arabs were given more land (how this is "fairer" is unclear) even though you concede that the state of Israel comprised an area where there was a majority of Jews.

    Ultimately, you cannot (as the Arabs did) be the first to resort to violence, to reject the partition out of hand and attempt to seize 100% of the land by force, and then complain about the outcome when you lose.
    The border was gerrymandered. While Jews may have been the majority overall in the area allotted to them, they were not in fact the majority in most places beyond the densely populated northern coastal strip. It's like how, today in Northern Ireland Protestants are an overall majority, but Catholics are nevertheless a majority in four out of six counties. Would it not have been more fair to give those four counties to the South when Ireland was first partitioned? And would it not have been more fair to give the Negev, the central plain, Jerusalem and Galilee, where Arabs were a majority, to the Arabs when Palestine was first partitioned?
 
 
 
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
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    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.