Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Why do you think the Palestinians didn't resist the occupation by Egypt and Jordan?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I do not believed they were occupied.

    I do not believe they were thrown from their homes

    I do not believe they were regularly massacred (yes I know about Syrian massacres and condemn them)

    I do not belive they lived in over crowded poverty.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    I do not believed they were occupied.

    I do not believe they were thrown from their homes

    I do not believe they were regularly massacred (yes I know about Syrian massacres and condemn them)

    I do not belive they lived in over crowded poverty.

    What do you mean they weren't occupied?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    What do you mean they weren't occupied?
    What do you mean they were occupied?
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    Why do you think the Palestinians didn't resist the occupation by Egypt and Jordan?
    Why do you think they resist occupation by Israel? That's a rather more pressing question.

    If you mean to imply that Palestinians are anti-semitic for preferring Egyptians/Jordanian rule, you'll accept that Israeli's are anti-gentile for preferring foreign born Jews to 'Israel' born Palestinians, as with the 'right of return'?

    Why the flag Northu?
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    Yea their religion encourages that kind of direct militant action to free Muslims from infidel rule and impose Islam on them. Fair play, I respect the openness of their hatred even as I look forward to the day we send them packing.

    [Along with any other, perhaps more cowardly and subversive, religious or ethnic groups that seek to corrupt or destroy Western civ.]
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    Why do I get the feeling you're referring to Jews? :rolleyes:
    Pass. :rolleyes:

    Sometimes people with an excessive and exclusive interest in the welfare and interests of their own ethnic group reveal this in a hypersensitivity to criticism of their own tribe and a lack of sensitivity to others.

    Given that my comment implied no specific ethnic or religious groups, I might have been thinking of Sikhs or Chinese say, or even none at all - maybe you're being hypersensitive?

    If I paraphrase your comments about Muslims a few posts up, perhaps I find you were insensitive too, "I can't quite figure out why, but just about every country with a sizeable Jewish minority had to boot them out to keep the peace."

    You see, if you're happy to generalise that Muslims are the problem, it would be acceptable to say that Jews were the problem, and you probably wouldn't accept that would you? Anti-semitic isn't it?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ArthurOliver)
    Why do you think they resist occupation by Israel? That's a rather more pressing question.
    Clearly theres a difference, why?

    If you mean to imply that Palestinians are anti-semitic for preferring Egyptians/Jordanian rule, you'll accept that Israeli's are anti-gentile for preferring foreign born Jews to 'Israel' born Palestinians, as with the 'right of return'?
    Theres clearly a reason why no calls of occupation were made against the successive Arab control of Palestine and why the same Arab nation declared war and destruction on Israel that caused millions of Palestinians to flee. They did not flee as Israelis and thus have no Israeli citizenship on which to claim a right of return. There is no legal basis for a right to return, and despite Israels efforts to rehouse or to accomodate those displaced at the time of its creation, there is no obligation for Israel to treat Palestinian refugees any differently to any other foreign national wishing to immigrate into Israel. Israel was created as a homeland for the Jewish people and its immigration policies reflect that.

    Those who feel they are occupied, clearly cannot feel they have a right to return. Those that did not recognise Arab occupation, but now oppose Israeli occupation do so for the very same reason that Israel was created. It exists as a Jewish homeland in region that Arabs and not Palestinians, claim rights to.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ArthurOliver)
    Pass. :rolleyes:

    Sometimes people with an excessive and exclusive interest in the welfare and interests of their own ethnic group reveal this in a hypersensitivity to criticism of their own tribe and a lack of sensitivity to others.

    Given that my comment implied no specific ethnic or religious groups, I might have been thinking of Sikhs or Chinese say, or even none at all - maybe you're being hypersensitive?

    If I paraphrase your comments about Muslims a few posts up, perhaps I find you were insensitive too, "I can't quite figure out why, but just about every country with a sizeable Jewish minority had to boot them out to keep the peace."

    You see, if you're happy to generalise that Muslims are the problem, it would be acceptable to say that Jews were the problem, and you probably wouldn't accept that would you? Anti-semitic isn't it?
    Arthur Oliver, I applaud you but calling all of them *******s in your previous post wasn't necessary. Bismark you made a sweeping generalisation 'for some reason, Muslims can't stand being ruled by non-Muslims', I'm a Muslim, I don't have a problem with being ruled by Mr Blair. If I'm being unjustly treated because of my religious background (or any unjust treatment for that matter) I will obviously voice my opinion. Why don't people stop being so f*****g nationalistic with their pride and ignorance and try and get along? The way I see it, its just the greed of people yearning for power thats the root cause of all of this, or just a case of one-side getting one over the other.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Viper)
    Why don't people stop being so f*****g nationalistic with their pride and ignorance and try and get along? The way I see it, its just the greed of people yearning for power thats the root cause of all of this, or just a case of one-side getting one over the other.
    Exactly, which is why we shouldn't have any religious states in the world. Secular government is better for all.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by yawn)
    I read the following report of a recent visit to Palestine by a reporter and his view of what he saw:

    "From the aggressive armed checkpoints to the hilltop forts and military spy posts - from the destruction and blockading of rural roads separating farmers from their land to the constant military overflights, it is clear the British and the Israelis have learned many tactics of oppression from each other over the years. (he had also visited Iraq)
    Last weekend's visit was a real eye-opener. It was obvious to me that the aim of the Israelis and those who back them is to make a Palestinian state unviable. Every effort is made to disrupt the lives of the Palestinian people - to prevent them farming - to prevent them bringing goods to market - to prevent them opening businesses - to prevent them from eking out an existence in their own land.
    This trip also brought home to me the reality of the spurious claims that Israel is removing its settlements from Palestine. While they claim to be dismantling some, other settlements continue to expand across the Palestinian territories. The 'Apartheid Wall' continues to be built deep inside Palestinian territory - divinding communities and in places cutting them off from vital natural resources, like water.
    This is about an aggressive, heavily militarised state, breaking international law after international law, brazenly flouting numerous UN resolutions without sanction, trying to break the will of Palestinian people.
    It cannot be allowed to continue unchallenged by the international community."

    Any original comments that breathe new life into the eternal debate?
    OK - I haven't got much response in the way I would have expected to this personal view by a freelance reporter. He was, after all, talking about the impact on ordinary people, rather than making a judgement.
    Let's try this - supposing this report was a view on how a people were suffering as a result of a war - supposing it was the Jewish people - would your responses differ? Would you be more empathetic to the suffering - or doesn't the suffering come into it? Is it just an exercise in justifying or condemning the two sides?
    Do humanitarian feelings enter the debate at all?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    Do humanitarian feelings enter the debate at all?
    Of course they do. But there's a couple of other things to consider, firstly, everything that reporter said is an opinion not fact. And secondly, the response I think you're looking for is "Poor Palestinians, its all Israel's fault."

    While I concur with the first part of that statement, and I have a lot of sympathy for the Palestinians that are living awful lives at the moment, I disagree that the solution is simply that Israel shouldn't exist.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by thebucketwoman)
    Of course they do. But there's a couple of other things to consider, firstly, everything that reporter said is an opinion not fact. And secondly, the response I think you're looking for is "Poor Palestinians, its all Israel's fault."

    While I concur with the first part of that statement, and I have a lot of sympathy for the Palestinians that are living awful lives at the moment, I disagree that the solution is simply that Israel shouldn't exist.
    The reporter made a lot of comments based on facts - e.g. watch towers, helicopter circling, 'apartheid' wall encroaching on Palenstinian land etc.

    The response I am looking for is some sort of empathetic expression for those innocents caught up in the situation - I would express the same concerns if the Israelis were unable to go about their everyday business, unable to attend school, unable to farm and sell their produce.

    Please don't project your own feelings onto me and make me responsible for them!

    I really do feel that the International community should be standing up and saying "Enough - sort out the situation or we shall sort it out for you". Israel must have some land to call their own - but they have - it was given to them in 1948 by the British (although what moral right we had to do that I can't fathom!) But they can't keep taking more from another nation - that is patently wrong and obviously unjust.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Gaza was controlled by Egypt and the West Bank and east Jerusalem were controlled by Jordan. Does one have to be occupied by Jews before you consider it an occupation?
    The mandate of Palestine and Transjordan was split into two. The West bank was part of Palestine, as was gaza when the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan was made independent. Then the Jews came etc...

    I doubt the egyptians or the jordanians drove people out of their homes, forced them into povert etc
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    'apartheid' wall encroaching on Palenstinian land etc.
    .
    The moral dilemma with the security fence, for me, is that it has seperated Palestinian familes and harming their lives, BUT it was set up in order to prevent suicide bombings. How many suicide bombings have there been since it was set up?? Its working. I think that its position should be modified so that it encroaches less on Palestinian land and is more convenient for them, but it should definitely stay in some form or other to stop the attacks.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)

    I really do feel that the International community should be standing up and saying "Enough - sort out the situation or we shall sort it out for you"..
    They have - through international diplomacy Israel are now going to withdraw from many settlements, and hopefully more in the future.

    The USA and UK have encouraged the two state 'roadmap'.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by thebucketwoman)
    The moral dilemma with the security fence, for me, is that it has seperated Palestinian familes and harming their lives, BUT it was set up in order to prevent suicide bombings. How many suicide bombings have there been since it was set up?? Its working. I think that its position should be modified so that it encroaches less on Palestinian land and is more convenient for them, but it should definitely stay in some form or other to stop the attacks.
    I see your point - I am encouraged that you agree it's positioning needs moderating as those it is affecting greatly may see it as a wall of oppression rather than protection from potential assailants.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by thebucketwoman)
    They have - through international diplomacy Israel are now going to withdraw from many settlements, and hopefully more in the future.
    I have read that this intent to withdraw is coupled by moves to take over other areas, so is seen as meaningless and deceitful.

    But then again, in these situation, good intent is always perceived as disingenuous by the opposite side - this happens in other places, particularly in Northern Ireland where you have a similar 'social apartheid'.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    OK, I read that blog from the first page:


    ''Note that statement: 'Palestinian suicide bombers are retaliating too'. They are 'retaliating' against people on buses, and in discos and restaurants, against children and infants. The concept of retaliation Hilsum employs only has meaning if you take the relevant acts as being between communities, and do not distinguish the individual actors and their victims. Just think about this: after some coalition soldiers have been killed in Iraq, the US army opens fire, deliberately and with intent, on people shopping in a market or on groups of Iraqi children on their way out of school. Can you imagine Lindsey Hilsum or any other journalist participant in the study being willing to speak about that as a retaliation? Because I can't. Rightly not. It would be a crime: a war crime, and a crime against humanity. But the mobilization of journalistic bias doesn't work in that direction, where it does, strangely, work over suicide murders.

    I wonder, finally, if there's any screening in these media bias studies for bias in the starting assumptions of those carrying them out.''


    Isn't this incredibly biased? It doesn't take into account at all the impact Israeli tanks have on peoples homes. It's all well and good to say they're protecting themselves from suicide bombers, but perhaps the best way to do this is by NOT destroying peoples homes. I really don't see the equation between a small frankly mentally unsatable group of people and an entire army.

    btw. yawn, I do care about the humanitarian side, and while I doubt the legitimacy of Israel, the Israelis live there now and It wouldn't be a great idea to force them out, surely we can all live in peace?

    *softly hums 'One Love' to self while observing pigs flying past window*
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    those it is affecting greatly may see it as a wall of oppression rather than protection from potential assailants.
    I agree.
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

2,241

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
How are you feeling about GCSE results day?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.