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

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AdvanceAndVanquish)
    You'll note that the maps you posted are labelled very differently from the other ones, and the first map is different as well. This makes the maps not so much outright false as simply misleading, by using the same color to mean very different things on different maps, to give false impressions of continuity and discontinuity.

    I've done a quick edit on the maps to make them less misleading.

    Attachment 439301

    There are sill a few problems with the labels, but at least now it is colored so that the colors mean the same thing across the maps. You'll also note that the situation in the second map never actually existed, it was an unrealised proposal.
    Yet even your map cannot deny the fundamental issue that illegal settlements have been made on the land that was given to the Palestinians.
    how the hell do you see this as ok?


    Sidenote:

    Shakespeare's Othello – Act 4, Scene 3

    “I know a lady in Venice would have
    walked barefoot to Palestine for a touch of his nether lip”

    Even Shakespeare in the 17th Century recognised that it was Palestinian land first

    If the British and Americans were so concerned over the need for Jews to have land of their own then why couldn't they give them some of their own land? surely America is big enough? Yet they chose to impose them on the Palestinians instead, who now lie dead in the thousands. Nice one...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AdvanceAndVanquish)
    You'll note that the maps you posted are labelled very differently from the other ones, and the first map is different as well. This makes the maps not so much outright false as simply misleading, by using the same color to mean very different things on different maps, to give false impressions of continuity and discontinuity.

    I've done a quick edit on the maps to make them less misleading.

    Attachment 439301

    There are sill a few problems with the labels, but at least now it is colored so that the colors mean the same thing across the maps. You'll also note that the situation in the second map never actually existed, it was an unrealised proposal.
    You fail to acknowledge the fact that Palestinian land has decreased substantially.
    Ok. The second map maybe incorrect (according to you) but that makes no difference to the state of Palestine by 2005. A decade has passed since then. I dread to know how much smaller it is now.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zaki Hendrix)
    You fail to acknowledge the fact that Palestinian land has decreased substantially.
    Ok. The second map maybe incorrect (according to you) but that makes no difference to the state of Palestine by 2005. A decade has passed since then. I dread to know how much smaller it is now.
    Well, there are certain areas where Palestinian land has increased; Israel completely pulled out of Gaza in 2005, including forcibly evicting 10,000 Israeli settlers.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pineapplefridge)
    “I know a lady in Venice would have
    walked barefoot to Palestine for a touch of his nether lip
    Palestine wasn't named after the Palestinians, the Palestinians were named after Palestine (and it was really only around the 1950s/1960s that they started to refer to themselves that way rather than as Arabs).

    Furthermore, it was first called Palestine by the Roman Empire, at a time when the population was overwhelmingly Jewish. So the name doesn't really tell us much

    Even Shakespeare in the 17th Century recognised that it was Palestinian land first
    First? Where do you think Jews come from originally?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zaki Hendrix)
    Oh so I guess this is ludicrously wrong as well. There a many maps which look like this.
    Do you know what happened in 1947/1948?

    How large would the Palestinian state be today if the Palestinians had accepted the partition deal?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pineapplefridge)
    Yet even your map cannot deny the fundamental issue that illegal settlements have been made on the land that was given to the Palestinians.
    how the hell do you see this as ok?

    If the British and Americans were so concerned over the need for Jews to have land of their own then why couldn't they give them some of their own land? surely America is big enough? Yet they chose to impose them on the Palestinians instead, who now lie dead in the thousands. Nice one...
    The incomprehension here, the failure to know history, is staggering.

    You are getting confused by the names, because between 1947 and today the meaning of the term 'Palestine' and 'Palestinian' changed.

    The people that today are known as 'Palestinians' are only one faction of the Palestinians.
    Before 1948, 'Palestinian' did not refer exclusively to the Arab residents of Palestine and their descendents, the ones who today go by that term. The people who are today called 'the Palestinians' are some of the Palestinians and their descendants. The rest of the Palestinians are now called 'Israelis,' and live in the state of the Palestinian Jews, which they chose to call Israel.

    If you look at the history of Palestine during the British Mandate, before the establishment of the state of Israel, things which are called 'Palestinian' are just as frequently references to Jewish things as they are to Arab things. For example, the Palestine Post (now the Jerusalem Post) was a major Jewish newspaper.

    When the Palestinian Jews declared their state, they could just as easily have called it Palestine. They didn't for reasons I will explain below.

    (Original post by Pineapplefridge)
    Sidenote:

    Shakespeare's Othello – Act 4, Scene 3

    “I know a lady in Venice would have
    walked barefoot to Palestine for a touch of his nether lip”

    Even Shakespeare in the 17th Century recognised that it was Palestinian land first
    As can be seen from the above, this quote is meaningless, because the fact that the land was called Palestine does not mean that it belongs to the people now called Palestinians, because the meaning of the names has changed, and Israelis could just as easily have been called Palestinians.

    The reason they didn't is because Palestine is the name that was imposed by the Roman Empire in the year 135 CE on the area when they crushed a Jewish revolt in what was then called Judea. For example, Jesus, living (as we know) about 100 years before this, would have known the land he lived in as Galilee and Judea, not Palestine.

    This renaming was intentionally done to break the connection of the Jews to Judea. The name, which was originally just the southern coastal region once inhabited by Philistines, had occasionally been used as a reference to the whole land before, along with a number of other terms. But it was only after the Romans applied it that it became the general and enduring name. Thus, that is the name Shakespeare would have known. That doesn't mean it wasn't called Judea and Israel long before that.

    (Original post by Zaki Hendrix)
    You fail to acknowledge the fact that Palestinian land has decreased substantially.
    Ok. The second map maybe incorrect (according to you) but that makes no difference to the state of Palestine by 2005. A decade has passed since then. I dread to know how much smaller it is now.
    I didn't say it was incorrect, I said it was a map of a proposed situation, not one that ever existed. The Partition Plan? This is basic stuff.

    'Palestinian land' is not decreasing or increasing because 'palestinian land' is a nebulous and shifting concept which people use without defining, freely jumping between and mixing concepts of national sovereignty, moral entitlement, private ownership, and residence. What do you mean by it?

    There is no state of Palestine (aside from Israel, as per above). The only territory that the Palestinian Arabs have ever governed on their own is shown in green on the last map.

    Of course, that section of the Palestinian Arabs who, along with the Palestinian Jews, are also Israelis, shares in governing the blue section.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ExcitedPup)
    Well, there are certain areas where Palestinian land has increased; Israel completely pulled out of Gaza in 2005, including forcibly evicting 10,000 Israeli settlers.
    Did you not see the map? Ok they may have pulled out of the Gaza strip. That's a fair point. But by looking at the map you can see that the Gaza strip would not have been created if the Jews had just kept to their own. You cannot say that Palestinian land has grown because the fact is it has shrunk. Drastically.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zaki Hendrix)
    Did you not see the map? Ok they may have pulled out of the Gaza strip. That's a fair point. But by looking at the map you can see that the Gaza strip would not have been created if the Jews had just kept to their own. You cannot say that Palestinian land has grown because the fact is it has shrunk. Drastically.
    What do you mean "kept to their own"?

    Palestinian land shrinks every time the Arabs make war on Israel and lose. If the Palestinians had accepted the 1947 partition, they would today have a very substantial state. In fact, Israel and Palestine would have developed together and traded, and probably become quite prosperous.

    Imagine if the Palestinians had accepted that, look at the map below, the entire yellow area would be theirs. Instead, the Arabs rejected the deal out of hand and attempted to seize 100% of the land by force

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zaki Hendrix)
    Did you not see the map? Ok they may have pulled out of the Gaza strip. That's a fair point. But by looking at the map you can see that the Gaza strip would not have been created if the Jews had just kept to their own. You cannot say that Palestinian land has grown because the fact is it has shrunk. Drastically.
    Three very important facts.

    1. The Palestinian land shrinks each time the Arabs / Palestinians make war on Israel and lose. They had reasonable offers on the table in 47/48, in 1968 and in 2008. Each time they miss an opportunity, thinking somehow magically in the future everything will turn around and they will be able to drive the Jews into the sea. It's never going to happen.

    2. A majority of modern Israelis are descended from the Mizrahi, who are Middle Eastern Jews from countries like Yemen, Iraq, Egypt, Syria etc. So the majority of modern Israelis are not some European group foreign to the Middle East. About as many Jewish Mizrahis were made refugees from 1947-1957 as were Palestinians made refugees in the Nakba. Those middle Eastern Jews settled in Israel. There is a certain degree of symmetry to that

    3. The Palestine mandate included the Transjordan. So the Arabs were given 80% of Palestine straight off the bat, which became Jordan. Of the remaining 20%, it was divided about 55/45 in the Arabs favour (and much of the Israeli land included large sections of the Negev desert, which the Jews said they would take as they could green the deserts with their advanced agriculture, which is what they ended up doing). Giving the Jews, who are the original inhabitants of the area, the Israel/Palestine aborigines, 10% of the mandate of Palestine (and 1% of the total area of the Middle East) does not seem massively unfair.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ExcitedPup)
    Giving the Jews, who are the original inhabitants of the area, the Israel/Palestine aborigines, 10% of the mandate of Palestine (and 1% of the total area of the Middle East) does not seem massively unfair.
    We don't know who the original inhabitants of the area were. The archaeological record doesn't tell us that much. But there is certainly evidence of several other cultures in the region before the emergence of Hebrew/Israelite/Jewish (which term is most appropriate for the time is debated) culture, which didn't appear until the Iron Age, and is hard to trace back much further than around 1000 BCE (and was probably a lot less dominant over the area than the Bible claims).

    Most indigenous people are not the original inhabitants of their areas by such a definition. The Aztecs inhabited Central Mexico when the Spanish arrived, but had migrated there from Northern Mexico or maybe even Texas or Arizona. The Cherokee lived in the Southeast of what is now the USA when the first colonists arrived, but had migrated there from the Great Lakes region. Just like in Europe and Asia, in the Americas, Africa and Oceania there were conquests, migrations, assimilations and splits, and language and cultural shifts and evolution. The indigenous people there are indigenous not because they have always inhabited those regions, but because they were pre-colonial societies and have become colonised peoples. Zionism, by contrast, was not a movement resisting settler colonialism; it was (and to an extent, still is) settler colonialism.

    Even if 2,000 years of living outside the land you claim to be native to is not in itself a disqualification for indigeneity (and considering just 200 years is generally considered enough to discount the Americo-Liberians), the fact that during there time there were conversions to and from Judaism, intermarriages, language and cultural shifts would seem to. The idea that an Anglophone Jewish New Yorker whose family has never set foot in the Middle East for at least several centuries, probably well over a thousand years (if at all) is more indigenous to Israel/Palestine than a Palestinian who was born there as were his parents and ancestors for at least those same centuries is absurd and offensive.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    There was a bbc documentary on the conflict where they showed both sides.
    Am not trying to start a war but all i saw was rubble and destroyed buildings in Gaza whilst when the reporter went to isreal, there were beautiful buildings and shops. I don't get how israel are the victims here. Even the children in Gaza were in ripped clothes and in Israel the children were happy with all the resources.

    (am not picking sides) Just wondering. Thanks
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Yeh its all one sided unfortunately. A couple months ago the bbc news reported a Israeli soldier died yet the same day 1000's of Palestinians where killed and yet nothing was mentioned on the news
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofquestions1)
    Yeh its all one sided unfortunately. A couple months ago the bbc news reported a Israeli soldier died yet the same day 1000's of Palestinians where killed and yet nothing was mentioned on the news
    am still sad still cant stop thinking about that kid i wish i can help :hugs:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PrincessAnna)
    am still sad still cant stop thinking about that kid i wish i can help :hugs:
    You always can! There are alot of charities that raise money, clothes, food, baby powder etc for gaza..

    Me and my friends recently donated to build a water well for them because they're being the Pride of Freshwater and they are having a drink dirty and salty water atn
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Yeah they're not gonna stop fighting any time soon. This has no end in sight unfortunately
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofquestions1)
    You always can! There are alot of charities that raise money, clothes, food, baby powder etc for gaza..

    Me and my friends recently donated to build a water well for them because they're being the Pride of Freshwater and they are having a drink dirty and salty water atn
    A lot of innocent people are suffering because of the actions of the few
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fullofquestions1)
    You always can! There are alot of charities that raise money, clothes, food, baby powder etc for gaza..

    Me and my friends recently donated to build a water well for them because they're being the Pride of Freshwater and they are having a drink dirty and salty water atn
    how do the resources get there ?
    since there is a blockade placed with isreali tanks
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cbreef)
    Yeah they're not gonna stop fighting any time soon. This has no end in sight unfortunately
    i feel so down :/ ergh guess am weak lol
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cbreef)
    A lot of innocent people are suffering because of the actions of the few
    All for some land that Israel randomly believe it belongs to them... shame how its not shown in the media like other world conflicts
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PrincessAnna)
    i feel so down :/ ergh guess am weak lol
    Religion has caused more violence than good. That's the unfortunate truth
 
 
 
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.