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

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Shqiptare)
    X.
    Prsom. You absolutely smashed anarchism's position
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Shqiptare)
    This is mostly just a matter of semantics. None of it changes the fact that the Arab states (with the possible exception of Jordan, which was a special case) invaded the territory of Mandetory Palestine with the aim of preventing the emergence of the Jewish state
    That's significantly different from saying they "invaded/attacked Israel".

    The 1949 ceasefire lines are recognized as Israel's legal borders
    Eventually they were, yes, but that was by no means clear from the start, and certainly not by the Arabs at that point. For instance, take the dispute over the DMZs in the armistices.

    and Israel was after that date an internationally recognized sovereign state. The Israeli held area was no more (and in fact less) 'conquered territory' than, say, the Jordanians in the West Bank and Egyptians in Ghaza.
    Yes, and those cases were largely recognised as such.

    You can say that the Arabs had no pressing national interest in making peace with Israel and that's fine. But don't then hold your hands up and accuse Israel of being a crazy warmonger who needlessly squandered a chance for peace when it was unwilling to make the sorts of concessions that the Arabs were demanding in exchange for peace.
    True, you can take that point of view and say that essentially both/neither (depending on how generous you are) were particularly at fault for the failure to deliver peace in this specific instance, but that would only prompt a further analysis of the conflict up to that point.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    'palestinian' terrorists shoot 4 Israeli civilians, serious injuries

    At least four people were initially reported injured, with three people sustaining serious wounds and one with light-to-moderate wounds.

    'palestinian' female terrorist stabs Israeli female soldier

    Earlier Monday, a female IDF military police officer sustained moderate-to-serious wounds after being stabbed in the neck by a female terrorist at the south Jerusalem security checkpoint Rachel’s Crossing, in what police are deeming a terrorist attack.


    'palestinian' child terrorist nabbed before committing attack in Jerusalem

    Military Police arrested a 15-year-old Palestinian boy armed with a submachine gun who attempted to pass a Shuafat security checkpoint in northern Jerusalem during the early hours of Monday morning.



    Welcome to Ramadan, the "holy" month. A month of slaughter.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ExcitedPup)
    I would say that given the genocide the Jewish people suffered, given the fact that the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was a close personal friend of Hitler's, given the Secretary-General of the Arab League called for genocide of Jewish people in 1947/48 and the five well-armed, professional armies of the Arab states ganged up on Israel (a tiny state taking up 2% of the Middle East, with a population of 500,000), given the Arab world repeatedly tried to wipe Israel out during the 1960s, 70s and 80s, and given they repeatedly refused reasonable peace offers, given Hamas' charter incites genocide by calling for the murder of all Jews everywhere.... we know who the aggressor is.

    The aggressor is an ideology that cannot abide Jews living in the Middle East unless they live as dhimmis. It is an ideology that counts ISIS, Al-Qaeda and Hamas as its greatest champions. It is an ideology that saw an innocent French man beheaded yesterday and 15 innocent British tourists gunned down in front of their families. The aggressor is an ideology that throws gay men off tall buildings and performs "honour" killings against "wanton" women, and commits genocide against the Yezidi and the Kurds (the latter of which have close relations with Israel). It is a death cult ideology.

    Tell us, which side do you support?
    What a load of ramble.

    >If the "Arab Leage" wanted to get rid of the "jews" they would have done so long ago.

    >If you want to imply ISIS and Hamas in a single bracket it means you have absolutely no idea what you are on about.

    >Palestinians and Islam are not the same.

    >I'll save my time and hope you realize you are as clueless as a moldy sandwich.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    That's significantly different from saying they "invaded/attacked Israel".
    I don't interpret it that way at all.


    (Original post by anarchism101)
    Eventually they were, yes, but that was by no means clear from the start, and certainly not by the Arabs at that point. For instance, take the dispute over the DMZs in the armistices.
    The DMZ's were a slightly different issue, as they were established as part of the ceasefire agreements, although again the Arab states had no legal claim to the DMZs, although I will admit that Israel's behaviour in them didn't help matters.

    The simple fact is that Egypt and Syria were making massive territorial claims to territory that did not belong to them and to which they had no legal claim. It's worth remembering that none of these states were calling for the establishment of an independent Palestinian state (or they may have had more of an argument in their favour). I don't think Israel was under any moral obligation to agree to these concessions to countries which had just attacked them literally the year before.


    (Original post by anarchism101)
    True, you can take that point of view and say that essentially both/neither (depending on how generous you are) were particularly at fault for the failure to deliver peace in this specific instance, but that would only prompt a further analysis of the conflict up to that point
    A fair point.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ShotsFired-9941)
    What a load of ramble.
    A load of ramble? Is that the kind of wit and eloquence we can expect on TSR these days?

    Instead of a load of ramble, I'd put it to you that your post was a crock of ****.

    >If the "Arab Leage" wanted to get rid of the "jews" they would have done so long ago.
    What are you talking about? They did. There are almost no indigenous Jews living in the Middle East outside Israel. You are obviously ignorant of Middle Eastern history some I'm unsure whether it's worth engaging you on that point

    If you want to imply ISIS and Hamas in a single bracket it means you have absolutely no idea what you are on about
    Of course they fit into a single bracket; it's called Islamism.

    I'll save my time and hope you realize you are as clueless as a moldy sandwich.
    You'll "save [your] time and hope"? What does that even mean?

    Where on earth did you go to school? I'd be asking for my money back; your prose style is the linguistic equivalent of fingernails down a blackboard.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Tbh this conflict is a no-brainer. It's civilisation vs savagery.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Dictator)
    Tbh this conflict is a no-brainer. It's civilisation vs savagery.
    It's only because Hamas controls much of Palestine and takes advantage of the Israeli embargo by smearing their Islamist rhetoric all over the place. If Palestine was secular then you'd be wrong.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ExcitedPup)
    A load of ramble? Is that the kind of wit and eloquence we can expect on TSR these days?

    Instead of a load of ramble, I'd put it to you that your post was a crock of ****.



    What are you talking about? They did. There are almost no indigenous Jews living in the Middle East outside Israel. You are obviously ignorant of Middle Eastern history some I'm unsure whether it's worth engaging you on that point



    Of course they fit into a single bracket; it's called Islamism.



    You'll "save [your] time and hope"? What does that even mean?

    Where on earth did you go to school? I'd be asking for my money back; your prose style is the linguistic equivalent of fingernails down a blackboard.
    1) Jews travel everywhere within the middle east
    2) Radical groups exist in every continent.
    3) So called "Islamism" (lol) happens to target the Muslim populace as well

    #) your offspring(s) will wreck this world
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Ok so this is a conflict which has been going on for well over 6 decades. What I want to know is who is to blame? My opinion at the moment is Israel is pushing things too far. Building on Palestinian land and breaking international laws. Oh and let's not forget the number of casualties in Palestine in comparison to Israel. Big difference.

    I'd like to know what your opinions are. Who agrees and who disagrees?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    That level of balance in the first post...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yo radical one)
    That level of balance in the first post...
    I did ask who agrees and who disagrees. But thanks anyway.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    i'm pretty sure there is already a thread with 2000+ replies on this topic
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zaki Hendrix)
    I did ask who agrees and who disagrees. But thanks anyway.
    This thread is the equivalent of an Atheist saying:


    'What do you think of religion; btw I think Muhammad was a paedophile, a warlord, a mass-murderer and a child molester'



    I'm not saying that Atheists should make such a thread (it's clearly immature and insensitive), but a lot of Muslims on this website behave in a way which is very caustic towards other people's religion as well as people who simply question Islam and when people create things such as the ex-Muslim thread in response to this, they then go on to claim that this website is racist and Islamophobic despite their constant antagonism towards everyone else
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Smug Life)
    i'm pretty sure there is already a thread with 2000+ replies on this topic
    This will get merged with that thread.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yo radical one)
    This thread is the equivalent of an Atheist saying:


    'What do you think of religion; btw I think Muhammad was a paedophile, a warlord, a mass-murderer and a child molester'



    I'm not saying that Atheists should make such a thread (it's clearly immature and insensitive), but a lot of Muslims on this website behave in a way which is very caustic towards other people's religion as well as people who simply question Islam and when people create things such as the ex-Muslim thread in response to this, they then go on to claim that this website is racist and Islamophobic despite their constant antagonism towards everyone else
    I just wanted a few opinions on my own thread, not someone elses. I'm not critisising the jews or the muslims but my opinion is based on my research. This is a hot topic in our geography lessons and I wanted a few opinions. Let's not get too deep into racism. That is not what this is about.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Palestine.

    Attacking Israel consistently for a century and then moaning when they lose land in a war. They should all emigrate to Jordan/Egypt or stfu
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zaki Hendrix)
    Ok so this is a conflict which has been going on for well over 6 decades. What I want to know is who is to blame? My opinion at the moment is Israel is pushing things too far. Building on Palestinian land and breaking international laws. Oh and let's not forget the number of casualties in Palestine in comparison to Israel. Big difference.

    I'd like to know what your opinions are. Who agrees and who disagrees?
    I think there are many misconceptions that people frequently fall into when they get only a quick or distorted glimpse into this region and its history, and nevertheless feel compelled to form definite opinions on it.

    Some of these basic misconceptions come through in your post.

    For example, the concept of 'Palestinian land.' What does this term even mean? It is used in a number of wildly different ways each of which has very different legal and moral implications. That doesn't stop people from switching freely between these meanings without any indication or definition, even within the same sentence at times.

    Are you using it here to mean 'Land which is currently under the civil administration of the Palestinian Authority as per the Oslo Accords'? Are you using it to mean 'Land which is privately-owned by Arab residents of the State of Israel or any territory she controls?' Or even the more expansive, 'All land within the former Palestine Mandate which was controlled by Jordan or Egypt up to the 1967 war, which is now somehow morally the possession of the Palestinian Arabs specifically and collectively'?

    I would also suggest that you move beyond a simplistic view of the conflict which assigns rightness and wrongness based upon respective casualty counts. It is especially inappropriate in the context of this conflict in particular, where the major players on the Arab side actually work to maximise their own noncombatant casualties for the purposes of scoring propaganda victories among precisely the people who employ such simplistic reasoning. It also leads to a number of perverse conclusions, such as the idea that Israel would be more moral if she did not employ sirens, shelters, and antimissiles, and instead sent her civilian population up to the rooftops when being bombarded. This would increase Israeli casualty counts, and, by bodycount=morality logic, tilt the moral balance back towards Israel. This is clearly perverse.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Israel. Hardly rocket science unless you remain brainwashed by the Zionist media.

    I recommend watching Dr Norman finklestein's interviews on YouTube. He himself is a Jewish man who spent the majority of his life studying the conflict. He is fantastic at addressing the truth
    • Community Assistant
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I would say Israel - let's face it, if Israel hadn't annexed Gaza and the West Bank there probably wouldn't be a conflict any longer - but the Palestinians certainly haven't helped themselves by turning violent and firing rockets at Israel.
 
 
 
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.