Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    The reporter made a lot of comments based on facts - e.g. watch towers, helicopter circling, 'apartheid' wall encroaching on Palenstinian land etc.
    Give me a definition of apartheid and then justify this security wall/fence being termed an apartheid wall.

    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!)
    The international community has made efforts. Israel wants a two state solution, Israel is withdrawing, Israel is legally entitled to land that it captured as a result of the wars that were declared against it. What is stopping the Palestinians declaring a state of Palestine?

    The problem is the international community perceived the solution to be a two state region. The Palestinians and Arab nation rejected it. The Palestinians and Arab nation declared war on one of the states that took that opportunity. Unless the international community no longer believes this two state solution is the answer, what kind of peace and security can you offer Israel?

    But they can't keep taking more from another nation - that is patently wrong and obviously unjust.
    They are legitimately entitled to land acquired as a result of the Six day war. Israel would be happy to withdraw to these borders if the Palestinians were happy to declare a Palestinian state on the same premise. They arent.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    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
    The Jewish settlers bought land from the Arabs. The land was comparably valueless when Jews began to settle, and many arabs chose to cash in and move elsewhere in the Arab nation. As the region grew more prosperous, many Arabs started returning to build on a shared prosperity with their Jewish neighbours. Its well documented that there was little animosity between the two peoples at this time. The Jews were the majority when the state of Israel was declared, something that the Arab nations opposed, so much so they actually threatened the Arabs who lived on Israeli soil and who had developed wealthy ties with their Jewish counterparts in the region.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Vienna)
    Give me a definition of apartheid and then justify this security wall/fence being termed an apartheid wall.
    I'll do more than give you a definition of apartheid - I'll tell you what it means to live with apartheid.

    I lived in South Africa and witnessed the history of apartheid at first hand.
    Blacks and whites were separated socially and economically by the presence of laws.

    Blacks could not use the same entrance to shops as whites, they could not sit on the same benches as whites. They were not allowed to worship in whites churches with the exception of the Catholic church. They could not eat in the same restaurants as whites and could not enter through the same door as whites to 'take aways'. They could not attend the same schools at whites, they could not even live in the home of their white master (instead living in a windowless 'cell' in the back of the garage. If they 'lived in' their meals were eaten on separate tin plates and mugs whilst standing outside on the 'stoop'.

    I could go on but I'm sure you see now what apartheid means in real life rather than within the covers of a dictionary.

    I am glad you posed this question as it has given me the impetus to reflect on the description of 'apartheid wall' by the reporter. A most apt description in hindsight.

    I am surprised you felt the need to ask the question however - you really need to get out into the real world, Vienna!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    I'll do more than give you a definition of apartheid - I'll tell you what it means to live with apartheid.

    I lived in South Africa and witnessed the history of apartheid at first hand.
    Blacks and whites were separated socially and economically by the presence of laws.

    Blacks could not use the same entrance to shops as whites, they could not sit on the same benches as whites. They were not allowed to worship in whites churches with the exception of the Catholic church. They could not eat in the same restaurants as whites and could not enter through the same door as whites to 'take aways'. They could not attend the same schools at whites, they could not even live in the home of their white master (instead living in a windowless 'cell' in the back of the garage. If they 'lived in' their meals were eaten on separate tin plates and mugs whilst standing outside on the 'stoop'.

    I could go on but I'm sure you see now what apartheid means in real life rather than within the covers of a dictionary.

    I am glad you posed this question as it has given me the impetus to reflect on the description of 'apartheid wall' by the reporter. A most apt description in hindsight.

    I am surprised you felt the need to ask the question however - you really need to get out into the real world, Vienna!
    I appreciate your first hand knowledge, yawn, but you haven't explained how the situation in Israel warrants that description. How many of the examples you mention are mirrored in Israel by the security fence?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by thebucketwoman)
    I appreciate your first hand knowledge, yawn, but you haven't explained how the situation in Israel warrants that description. How many of the examples you mention are mirrored in Israel by the security fence?
    I thought that members would extrapolate from my post, the connection between a physical wall separating Israel/Palestine and the physical separation between the black/white communities in South Africa.

    Let's look again at the starter post on this thread where the reporter relates that Palestinians are unable to go about their business, farm their produce and sell their produce because of the wall impinging on their land, breaking it up. It does not seem to impose the same restrictions on Israelis, does it? Or perhaps you have evidence that it does.

    If you cannot see the connection, it might be that you don't want to see it - in which case no matter what I might say, you will convince yourself there is no connection.

    I hope that is not the case as you appear to be more open to sensible discussion than some others are.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    I'll do more than give you a definition of apartheid - I'll tell you what it means to live with apartheid.

    I lived in South Africa and witnessed the history of apartheid at first hand.
    Blacks and whites were separated socially and economically by the presence of laws.

    Blacks could not use the same entrance to shops as whites, they could not sit on the same benches as whites. They were not allowed to worship in whites churches with the exception of the Catholic church. They could not eat in the same restaurants as whites and could not enter through the same door as whites to 'take aways'. They could not attend the same schools at whites, they could not even live in the home of their white master (instead living in a windowless 'cell' in the back of the garage. If they 'lived in' their meals were eaten on separate tin plates and mugs whilst standing outside on the 'stoop'.

    I could go on but I'm sure you see now what apartheid means in real life rather than within the covers of a dictionary.

    I am glad you posed this question as it has given me the impetus to reflect on the description of 'apartheid wall' by the reporter. A most apt description in hindsight.

    I am surprised you felt the need to ask the question however - you really need to get out into the real world, Vienna!
    What you failed to do, however, is demonstrate how this "apartheid wall" can be compared to the experience of Apartheid in South Africa.

    Israels wall is not constructed to seperate on racial or ethnic grounds, but to prevent illegal immigration into Israel, and ultimately to protect lives. The Israeli government would not erect the wall if it was not necessary to save Israeli lives. The fact that many Arabs, Palestinians and Muslims live and work in Israel is testimony to the very obvious differences.

    Israels wall seperates the state of Israel from West Bank Palestine. Its not a border, is temporary and is open to renegotiation.

    Palestinians, as non-Israelis, are being denied no right by being seperated from Israel and Israeli citizens.

    The presence of the wall has not coincided with any policy of forcifully moving racial or ethnic groups either side of the wall in an effort to segregate them.

    Whatsmore, similar fences have been constructed in Northern Ireland, in Indian Kashmir, in the US, and those under construction in the European Union where security is not even an issue.

    "It's incredible the EU has no problem building a fence just to keep illegal immigrants out, but when the Jewish State builds a security fence as a last resort for the purpose of keeping terrorists out and saving Israeli lives, we are blasted by them and the U.N.,
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)

    If you cannot see the connection, it might be that you don't want to see it - in which case no matter what I might say, you will convince yourself there is no connection.

    I hope that is not the case as you appear to be more open to sensible discussion than some others are.
    Well thank you I'll try and be as open minded as possible, but I do agree with the last 2 responses by Bismarck and Vienna.

    The difference between apartheid and the security fence is that the latter has nothing to do with seperating citizens of the same country because of their religion or race. Israeli citizens are of many different races/religions, apartheid would be if Israel sent all its Arab citizens into Palestine and then built a wall. Instead, the wall simply stops illegal immigrants crossing from Palestine into Israel - its about their nationality not their race.

    But as I already said, I do have concerns that the wall isn't in exactly the right place to enforce this legal boundary.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    Or if Palestine sent all its Jewish residents into Israel and then declared independence.
    Are there any Jews in Palestine? Or was that your point? lol
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    On a different note, I just found a really disgusting article by the 'Free Arab Voice' which describes their opinion towards Jewish people like myself who try and understand the plight of both sides.
    Here's a quote:

    On the contrary, those who
    claim to support us, but only on conditions such as condemning the human
    bombs tactic, accepting the myths of the Hollowcause
    , and reassuring Jews
    that their presence on our land is legitimate, even desirable, are not
    really supporting us at all. They are indirectly asking us to embrace their
    frame of mind so they can support us. But what does that really mean? Does
    it mean that they are supporting us or that we are supporting them?! Who
    gains here? Who loses? Think about it this way: we gain their support if
    we agree to lose ourselves...

    Similarly, if we help expose the hoax of the gas chambers, we do not risk
    sounding 'anti-semiticist'. We just help unmask the mantra of
    Jewish/Zionist power worldwide...


    http://www.freearabvoice.org/readers...tinianJews.htm

    Perhaps I should just become an all-out Zionist after all.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by thebucketwoman)

    Perhaps I should just become an all-out Zionist after all.
    Those who can only see things from their own point of view are the losers imo.

    Never lose the ability to see things from the point of view of others as well as your own.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    The Jewish settlers bought land from the Arabs.
    So how come many still have deeds and keys and the documented evidence of people being forced from their homes. I believe 'yallah yallah' replaced 'raus raus.'

    Which one is it?
    As I said, I do not believe Palestine was occupied at all by Jordan or Egypt. Jordan was split for Palestine (while under British rule) and therefore when Jordanian independence came, Palestine was not part of it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    So how come many still have deeds and keys and the documented evidence of people being forced from their homes. I believe 'yallah yallah' replaced 'raus raus.'
    Many were forced by the local Arab leaders.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    As I said, I do not believe Palestine was occupied at all by Jordan or Egypt. Jordan was split for Palestine (while under British rule) and therefore when Jordanian independence came, Palestine was not part of it.
    Are you being dense on purpose? If the West Bank was not part of Jordan, and Jordan controlled it (which it did), then how wasn't this an occupation? Are you now claiming that Jordan didn't control the West Bank and east Jerusalem and that Egypt didn't control Gaza from '48 to '67?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Vienna)
    Many were forced by the local Arab leaders.
    Evidence please.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    Evidence please.
    Below are a collection of various sources some of which should be taken as credible.

    http://zionsake.tripod.com/pal-refugees.htm

    Among which,

    Khaled al-`Azm, who served as Prime Minister of Syria in 1948 and 1949, wrote in his memoirs (published in Beirut, 1973), that among the reasons for the Arab failure in 1948 was "the call by the Arab Governments to the inhabitants of Palestine to evacuate it and to leave for the bordering Arab countries, after having sown terror among them...Since 1948 we have been demanding the return of the refugees to their homes. But we ourselves are the ones who encouraged them to leave...We have brought destruction upon a million Arab refugees, by calling upon them and pleading with them to leave their land, their homes, their work and business..." (Part 1, pp. 386-387).


    Harry C. Stebbens, who was in an official position in the British Mandatory Government in Palestine in 1947-48, wrote in the London Evening Standard (Friday, 10 January, 1969):
    "Long before the end of the British mandate, between January and April, 48, practically all my Arab Palestinian staff of some 200 men and women and all of the 1800 labor force had left Haifa in spite of every possible effort to assure them of their safety if they stayed.
    "They all left for one or more of the following reasons:

    1. The Arab terrorism engendered by the November, 1947, U.N. partition resolution frightened them to death of their imaginative souls and they feared Jewish retaliation.

    2. Propagandists promised a blood bath as soon as the mandate ended in which the street of all the cities would run with blood.

    3. The promised invasion by the foreign Arab armies (which started on May 14, 1948, with the Arab Legion massacre of some 200 Jewish settlers at Kfar Etzion) was preceded by extensive broadcasts from Cairo, Damascus, Amman, and Beirut to the effect that any Arabs who stayed would be hanged as collaborators with the Jews.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Vienna)
    Below are a collection of various sources some of which should be taken as credible.

    http://zionsake.tripod.com/pal-refugees.htm

    Among which,

    Khaled al-`Azm, who served as Prime Minister of Syria in 1948 and 1949, wrote in his memoirs (published in Beirut, 1973), that among the reasons for the Arab failure in 1948 was "the call by the Arab Governments to the inhabitants of Palestine to evacuate it and to leave for the bordering Arab countries, after having sown terror among them...Since 1948 we have been demanding the return of the refugees to their homes. But we ourselves are the ones who encouraged them to leave...We have brought destruction upon a million Arab refugees, by calling upon them and pleading with them to leave their land, their homes, their work and business..." (Part 1, pp. 386-387).


    Harry C. Stebbens, who was in an official position in the British Mandatory Government in Palestine in 1947-48, wrote in the London Evening Standard (Friday, 10 January, 1969):
    "Long before the end of the British mandate, between January and April, 48, practically all my Arab Palestinian staff of some 200 men and women and all of the 1800 labor force had left Haifa in spite of every possible effort to assure them of their safety if they stayed.
    "They all left for one or more of the following reasons:

    1. The Arab terrorism engendered by the November, 1947, U.N. partition resolution frightened them to death of their imaginative souls and they feared Jewish retaliation.

    2. Propagandists promised a blood bath as soon as the mandate ended in which the street of all the cities would run with blood.

    3. The promised invasion by the foreign Arab armies (which started on May 14, 1948, with the Arab Legion massacre of some 200 Jewish settlers at Kfar Etzion) was preceded by extensive broadcasts from Cairo, Damascus, Amman, and Beirut to the effect that any Arabs who stayed would be hanged as collaborators with the Jews.
    Thank you Vienna for the link - I have read through it all from the website you provided - I don't know much about the conflict, my interest is in the humanitarian aspects which cause the politics of it all.

    I was anxious, as ever, to seek balance and the alternative viewpoint to that provided by you - not, I hasten to add, because I feel that yours is biased - but simply to show that both sides of the conflict are coming from opposite angles, as ever!

    http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo/his_palestine.html
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    Thank you Vienna for the link - I have read through it all from the website you provided - I don't know much about the conflict, my interest is in the humanitarian aspects which cause the politics of it all.

    I was anxious, as ever, to seek balance and the alternative viewpoint to that provided by you - not, I hasten to add, because I feel that yours is biased - but simply to show that both sides of the conflict are coming from opposite angles, as ever!

    http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo/his_palestine.html
    "While Jewish immigration to Palestine in the 1920’s caused little alarm, the situation escalated markedly with the rise of Nazi persecution in Europe. Large numbers of European Jews flocked to Palestine, inflaming nationalist passions among all Arabs, who feared the creation of a Jewish state in which they would be the losers. Palestinian resistance erupted into a full-scale revolt which lasted from 1936-39. This revolt, which in some respects resembled the intifada of the late 1980s, was the first major outbreak of Palestinian-Zionist hostilities."

    I see this is hostility towards a Jewish state and an organised Palestinian 'resistance' to it. That resistance consisted of Egyptian, Jordianian, Syrian attacks on Jewish settlers and then on the state of Israel itself. Threats directed towards those Arabs who were willing to stay in Israel, who were offered Israeli citizenship, were made under the premise that they were traitors to the Arab nation. Whatever the disagreement and injustice done to the Arab Palestinians when the state of Israel was founded, thousands if not millions of Arabs, who lived prosperously alongside the Jewish settlers in the region, were forced by their own 'brothers' to reject Israeli citizenship and become 'refugees' residing in the existing parts of the Arab nation, notably Jordan and Egypt.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ransjordan.png

    All of the partition mpas show Palestine mandate as including the West Bank and Gaza.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ransjordan.png

    All of the partition mpas show Palestine mandate as including the West Bank and Gaza.
    Was Palestine independent between '48 and '67?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    Was Palestine independent between '48 and '67?
    You might find the answer to that question somewhere amongst this lot!

    http://www.unitedjerusalem.com/PLO_C...o_covenant.asp
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

1,068

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
A-level students - how do you feel about your results?
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.