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

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by noobynoo)
    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).
    its also the history of the colonialisation of the middle east by islam too fyi, seeing as you dont mention it. by your logic, we should go to mecca nad throw all the muslims out - just becuase its deemed islamic by their book, doesnt mean the world should accept this? Nice double standards you have
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chakede)
    its also the history of the colonialisation of the middle east by islam too fyi, seeing as you dont mention it. by your logic, we should go to mecca nad throw all the muslims out - just becuase its deemed islamic by their book, doesnt mean the world should accept this? Nice double standards you have

    Two wrongs don't make a right.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by noobynoo)
    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?
    They are culturally Jewish. They invented a language precisely to create a new identity that was more than a religion.
    They choose Palestine for its historical significance.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by noobynoo)
    Two wrongs don't make a right.
    neither does being ignorant or using double standards. if the british decided to give the muslims and the jews a homeland, then thats what should be upheld, not just one and not the other.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Josb)
    They are culturally Jewish. They invented a language precisely to create a new identity that was more than a religion.
    They choose Palestine for its historical significance.
    Culture/Religion what's the difference? Historical significance/devine right what's the difference? To an atheist these are exactly the same thing. A load of baloney.

    Again, Denmark has historical significance to Anglo Saxons. Doesn't mean all English people should go and live in Denmark. Even though it's a much nicer country.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Not really, but it's done now and it's a bit too late to reverse it.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by noobynoo)
    Culture/Religion what's the difference? Historical significance/devine right what's the difference? To an atheist these are exactly the same thing. A load of baloney.

    Again, Denmark has historical significance to Anglo Saxons. Doesn't mean all English people should go and live in Denmark. Even though it's a much nicer country.
    according the to the OP, these places were all more stable when britian was in control of them - their mistake was handing them over to religious zealots to make them places of religious intolerance. they did the same with saudi arabia, iran afganistan, pakistan etc- these were all made islamic states - ideally they should not allowed oany of this, but seeing as they did, the only option was to allow a jewish state also
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    The worst in the history of worst ideas.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LordMarmalade)
    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.
    So what rights did Jews in Tel-Aviv have to demand the state in which they lived encompass areas like the Negev, Beisan, Safed, etc?

    Brass tacks, nothing in matters of historical partitions ever works out perfectly
    No, they generally work out horrifically. See India-Pakistan, Greece-Turkey, Ireland, Bosnia, etc.

    but the UN partition committee did a reasonably good job. They assigned areas to the new state of Israel that had a Jewish majority
    As well as many areas that had an Arab majority. If the Jewish majority areas in Palestine were entitled to be separated from an Arab-majority Palestine on the basis of self-determination, why were the Arab-majority areas of the proposed Jewish state not entitled to the same right to be separated from a Jewish-majority Israel? And why was Arab-majority Jerusalem not entitled to be part of the Arab state rather than be a separate international zone?

    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.
    Irgun and Lehi resorted to violence in 1944. Haganah in 1945.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    Simple- NO!
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Josb)
    As far as I remember, more Arabs came to Palestine between the World Wars than Jews
    There were far more Jewish immigrants. Arab immigration to Mandatory Palestine was a few tens of thousands. Jewish immigration was in the hundreds of thousands.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    There were far more Jewish immigrants. Arab immigration to Mandatory Palestine was a few tens of thousands. Jewish immigration was in the hundreds of thousands.
    I will look at that (it can take a few days to find the reference).
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Josb)
    I will look at that (it can take a few days to find the reference).
    Martin Gilbert, who's a pretty pro-Israeli historian, estimates that 50,000 Arabs moved into Palestine from 1919-1939. By contrast, in the 'Fifth Aliyah', the period of Jewish immigration from 1929-1939 alone, roughly 250,000 Jews moved in.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    So what rights did Jews in Tel-Aviv have to demand the state in which they lived encompass areas like the Negev, Beisan, Safed, etc?
    It was not about demands, it was about the creation of a Jewish state within a state boundardy within which there was a Jewish majority. It's quite simple, and any attempt to delegitimize it can only come from deeply hypocritical motives and blatant double standards.

    As well as many areas that had an Arab majority. If the Jewish majority areas in Palestine were entitled to be separated from an Arab-majority Palestine on the basis of self-determination, why were the Arab-majority areas of the proposed Jewish state not entitled to the same right to be separated from a Jewish-majority Israel?
    Within the state boundary assigned to the State of Israel, there was a Jewish majority. Simple.

    And why was Arab-majority Jerusalem not entitled to be part of the Arab state rather than be a separate international zone?
    :lol: Jerusalem was assigned to an international zone by the partition committee. It was the Arabs who rejected the partition out of hand. How could you not know that?

    Irgun and Lehi resorted to violence in 1944. Haganah in 1945
    Primarily against the British. Once the partition/states were declared, it was a clean slate and an opportunity for a peaceful outcome. The Arabs chose not to take that, and attempted to seize 100% of the land by force.

    The unjustified and poorly thought through nature of that decision is quite obvious from the outcome.

    Do you justify the decision of the Arab states to seize 100% of the land by force? And repeatedly refuse any peace deal?

    The Palestinians could have had not just a Palestinian state within the pre-1967 borders, but one much larger than that. The fact people like you continue to advocate violence and conflict, and talk up the grievances, is part of the reason there is no Palestinian state and why millions of Palestinians are living in refugee camps in places like Lebanon where they have absolutely no rights.

    You should be ashamed of advocating a policy that has lead to such misery for the Palestinians
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    Martin Gilbert, who's a pretty pro-Israeli historian, estimates that 50,000 Arabs moved into Palestine from 1919-1939. By contrast, in the 'Fifth Aliyah', the period of Jewish immigration from 1929-1939 alone, roughly 250,000 Jews moved in.
    And how many Mizrahi Jews moved to Israel in the period after 1948? What is the proportion of the Israeli population that is descended from Middle Eastern Jews, roughly?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    There were far more Jewish immigrants. Arab immigration to Mandatory Palestine was a few tens of thousands. Jewish immigration was in the hundreds of thousands.
    So you are against immigration?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    Martin Gilbert, who's a pretty pro-Israeli historian, estimates that 50,000 Arabs moved into Palestine from 1919-1939. By contrast, in the 'Fifth Aliyah', the period of Jewish immigration from 1929-1939 alone, roughly 250,000 Jews moved in.
    You just gave the conservative estimation, it could be four times as much. Gottheil mentions 60K Arab immigrants for the period between 1922-31 alone. http://www.meforum.org/522/the-smoki...into-palestine

    Arabs (%) Jews (%) Total
    1870 367,224 (98%) 7,000 (2%) 375,000
    1893 469,000 (98%) 10,000 (2%) 497,000
    1912 525,000 (93%) 40,000 (6%) 565,000
    1920 542,000 (90%) 61,000 (10%) 603,000
    1925 598,000 (83%) 120,000 (17%) 719,000
    1930 763,000 (82%) 165,000 (18%) 928,000
    1935 886,000 (71%) 355,000 (29%) 1,241,000
    1940 1,014,000 (69%) 463,000 (31%) 1,478,000
    1946 1,237,000 (65%) 608,000 (35%) 1,845,000

    It seems quite obvious that the increase of the Arab population could not have took off so sharply after 1920 without a substantial immigration.

    I do recognised there are debates, which are summarized here: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/arch...e-an-exchange/
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LordMarmalade)
    It was not about demands, it was about the creation of a Jewish state within a state boundardy within which there was a Jewish majority. It's quite simple, and any attempt to delegitimize it can only come from deeply hypocritical motives and blatant double standards.



    Within the state boundary assigned to the State of Israel, there was a Jewish majority. Simple.



    :lol: Jerusalem was assigned to an international zone by the partition committee. It was the Arabs who rejected the partition out of hand. How could you not know that?
    I'm not sure if you're being deliberately opaque or not here, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. You're not answering the questions. I know what the partition proposal was. I'm asking you to give justification for it.


    Primarily against the British. Once the partition/states were declared, it was a clean slate and an opportunity for a peaceful outcome.
    One could say the same about the Zionists after the Arab Revolt and the 1939 White Paper. Instead they chose a violent campaign.

    Besides which, Irgun and Lehi both declared a resumption of armed action the same day as the UN vote on the Partition Plan (which they opposed). Even the Jewish Agency and Haganah, while outwardly approving the plan, put all their efforts into expanding the boundaries the first chance they got.

    The Arabs chose not to take that, and attempted to seize 100% of the land by force.
    Actually, most of the Palestinian Arabs, while very much opposed to partition, reacted largely with passivity. Only a few thousand Palestinians, largely without much popular support, actually took up arms. By contrast, the Yishuv forces were about 30,000 strong.

    If anything, it was the Israelis who aimed to take 100% (or as least as much as they could) of the land for themselves, exploiting local irregular violence into a full-scale war. Indeed, Yigal Allon, one of the Israeli commanders, said that Israel probably would have taken as far as the Jordan River had it not been for the neighbouring Arab states entering the war.

    The unjustified and poorly thought through nature of that decision is quite obvious from the outcome.
    The outcome of something does not make it unjustified.

    Do you justify the decision of the Arab states to seize 100% of the land by force?
    There was no such decision. The Arab states had no single unified aim at all (and were all largely at odds with the desires of the Palestinians). In fact, King Abdullah of Jordan was perfectly happy with the idea of partition and the establishment of Israel, as long as he could annex the West Bank, and indeed negotiated with the Israelis prior to May 1948 in efforts to achieve just that. The actions of the other Arab states were in largely part motivated by a desire to subvert Abdullah's ambitions.

    And repeatedly refuse any peace deal?
    The Arab states sent out plenty of peace feelers (as well as putting forth their own counterproposal solutions at the UN before the war). Syria's President even openly declared his ambition to be the first Arab leader to make peace with Israel. No peace was made because Israel refused to make peace along anything other than the military front lines/ceasefire lines as proposed borders.

    The Palestinians could have had not just a Palestinian state within the pre-1967 borders, but one much larger than that. The fact people like you continue to advocate violence and conflict, and talk up the grievances, is part of the reason there is no Palestinian state and why millions of Palestinians are living in refugee camps in places like Lebanon where they have absolutely no rights.

    You should be ashamed of advocating a policy that has lead to such misery for the Palestinians
    Aside from anything else, this is an argumentum ad baculum fallacy.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LordMarmalade)
    And how many Mizrahi Jews moved to Israel in the period after 1948? What is the proportion of the Israeli population that is descended from Middle Eastern Jews, roughly?
    What does this have to do with my response to Josb's post?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by noobynoo)
    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).
    It all depends on the perspective, doesn't it?
 
 
 
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.