The TSR Palestinian Society Watch

gemgems89
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#1861
Report 11 years ago
#1861
(Original post by Invocation)
So effectively telling me to "shut up" instead of trying to justify the illegal settlements, and the desecrating all over the Road Map to Peace ? Good debating technique. I like it.
I don't think I said shut up, I said educate yourself and learn some new points. You've never stopped chattering about these "illegal" settlements and they've been rebuked several times over. Boooooring.

2. Why did gemgem feel the need to neg me for "flaming" when her post was intended to be a flame ? The irony is deafening. Bloody hypocrites. :rolleyes:
Actually, I didn't rep you. What a silly assumption for you to make. Don't believe me? It's ok, I'll neg you to now prove to you it wasn't me. I await your apology for making such hasty assumptions.
0
reply
Invocation
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#1862
Report 11 years ago
#1862
(Original post by gemgems89)
I don't think I said shut up, I said educate yourself and learn some new points. You've never stopped chattering about these "illegal" settlements and they've been rebuked several times over. Boooooring.
Hardly.

(Original post by Guardian)
Jerusalem's city council plans to build three new Jewish settlements on land it occupied in 1967, in contravention of international law, it was announced yesterday. The estates will be built on land that has been earmarked for a future Palestinian state, close to Bethlehem and Ramallah.

International law forbids construction on land acquired by war, but since 1967 Israel has built homes for around 500,000 Israelis in the West Bank and Jerusalem.

Actually, I didn't rep you. What a silly assumption for you to make. Don't believe me? It's ok, I'll neg you to now prove to you it wasn't me. I await your apology for making such hasty assumptions.
It wasn't a "silly assumption" at all. Your side is notorious around here for handing out neg rep like hot cakes.

Are you going to apologise to me for making the assumptions I tore to shreds in my earlier post ?
0
reply
gemgems89
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#1863
Report 11 years ago
#1863
(Original post by Invocation)
Hardly.
What a nice biased article there from the Guardian. Have you not read anything in this thread which samba and Helzerel have written? But listen, if this land was so important to the Palestinians then they'd have accepted it already when they were offered it several times in the past. They rejected several land offers and they have the audacity to complain when Israel builds on it instead. :rolleyes:

It wasn't a "silly assumption" at all. Your side is notorious around here for handing out neg rep like hot cakes.
So you're still not going to admit that you were wrong in accusing me and neg repping me? Typical.

FYI, I've not negged any of your "circle" for months, until just now. The opposite seems to be happening within your "circle" as previously red gem'd members now have green shinies.

Are you going to apologise to me for making the assumptions I tore to shreds in my earlier post ?
Tore to shreads? Who are you kidding? All you managed to reply back was with lame attempts of denying whatever I said in my post, without any kind of additional debate. Besides, only the first paragraph was aimed at you. The rest you've still not managed to answer back. Shouldn't the fact that Hamas and Fatah are killing each other be your first priority in discussing in getting order for the Palestinian people rather than discussing a bit of land that Israel is building on (which has been offered to them in the past)? Do you admit that Gaza has turned into a terrorist-filled anarchy ruled by animalistic gunmen? I don't recall you rebuking/answering any of these points.
0
reply
Invocation
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#1864
Report 11 years ago
#1864
(Original post by gemgems89)
What a nice biased article there from the Guardian. Have you not read anything in this thread which samba and Helzerel have written?
No, every single media outlet has been justified in calling them illegal. What part of "International law forbids construction on land acquired by war, but since 1967 Israel has built homes for around 500,000 Israelis in the West Bank and Jerusalem" do you not understand ?

But listen, if this land was so important to the Palestinians then they'd have accepted it already when they were offered it several times in the past. They rejected several land offers and they have the audacity to complain when Israel builds on it instead. :rolleyes:
:laugh: Logical fallacy at it's worst.

So you're still not going to admit that you were wrong in accusing me and neg repping me? Typical.

FYI, I've not negged any of your "circle" for months, until just now. The opposite seems to be happening within your "circle" as previously red gem'd members now have green shinies.
Oh noes, conspiracy!

Tore to shreads? Who are you kidding? All you managed to reply back was with lame attempts of denying whatever I said in my post, without any kind of additional debate.
I addressed each point. Each of which assumped something on my part, which I tore to shreds. You claimed:

1. I in some way "support Hamas". Carl can vouch for me, I've heavily criticised their indiscriminate attacks, their use of civilians as "cover" and Islamist nature.
2. I blamed Israel for "the current fighting in Gaza". Please show me a post, anywhere in this thread at all, where I have claimed that. The burden of proof is on you.

Besides, only the first paragraph was aimed at you.
Ha! Backtracking at it's worst. Now you say that, evidently only when it suits you, hun.

The rest you've still not managed to answer back.
I have, twice now.
Shouldn't the fact that Hamas and Fatah are killing each other be your first priority in discussing in getting order for the Palestinian people rather than discussing a bit of land that Israel is building on (which has been offered to them in the past)?
Discussing that wouldn't "get order" for the Palestinian people. I don't need to talk about it- it's all over the news, they can' miss it. The new illegal settlements, and roadblocks to the roadmap to Peace isn't, however. I'm simply raising awareness.
Do you admit that Gaza has turned into a terrorist-filled anarchy ruled by animalistic gunmen? I don't recall you rebuking/answering any of these points.
Why are you so intent on changing the subject ?
0
reply
Carl
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#1865
Report 11 years ago
#1865
Did anyone watch the C4 documentary on the Occupied Territories last night? Whilst hardly two sided (it's coverage of Israelis went as far as the settlers, who IMO are the worst bunch), it is clear that the Israelis could treat the Palestinians better without compromising their own security. I still think the onus should be on the PA to sort their own house out, but it is clear that Israel could take several steps to make life easier for the Palestinians. Removing many of the checkpoints within the Occupied Territories, guaranteeing the property rights of the Palestinian people, keeping settlers in check with regards to attacks on Palestinians, better sharing resources such as water, and generally better positioning the security wall would perhaps reduce the level of resentment on the Palestinian people towards their occupiers.

As I said, I still think the Israelis are in the right, but parts of the occupation work neither for the security of Israel nor reduce the tensions that exist between the two peoples.
0
reply
gemgems89
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#1866
Report 11 years ago
#1866
(Original post by Invocation)
No, every single media outlet has been justified in calling them illegal. What part of "International law forbids construction on land acquired by war, but since 1967 Israel has built homes for around 500,000 Israelis in the West Bank and Jerusalem" do you not understand ?
They might be illegal according to International law, but that article specifically drew attention to the land being "occupied." How, if it was won during a war, is it occupied? I assume that every country that has ever won land is also building on occupied land.

I addressed each point. Each of which assumped something on my part, which I tore to shreds. You claimed:

1. I in some way "support Hamas". Carl can vouch for me, I've heavily criticised their indiscriminate attacks, their use of civilians as "cover" and Islamist nature.
2. I blamed Israel for "the current fighting in Gaza". Please show me a post, anywhere in this thread at all, where I have claimed that. The burden of proof is on you.

Ha! Backtracking at it's worst. Now you say that, evidently only when it suits you, hun.
I never said you support Hamas and I never said you blamed Israel. You can call it backtracking if you want but surely by now you are experienced enough in the English language to realise that the pronoun "you" doesn't have a singular and plural mode and so when I say "you" it doesn't just mean you but Palestinian-Soc in general. I've seen the media blame Israel for the current fighting where ever possible and I'd like to know how this is so. Surely Pal-Soc is the best place to get the answer.

Discussing that wouldn't "get order" for the Palestinian people. I don't need to talk about it- it's all over the news, they can' miss it. The new illegal settlements, and roadblocks to the roadmap to Peace isn't, however. I'm simply raising awareness.
The new illegal settlements aren't all over the news? Right, that's why you just quoted an article about it for me.

Why are you so intent on changing the subject ?
Ha, how ironic. Are you going to answer the question or what? And I'm not changing the topic, I initiated the topic if you remember when I first posted here.
0
reply
Invocation
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#1867
Report 11 years ago
#1867
(Original post by gemgems89)
They might be illegal according to International law
Thank you

I never said you support Hamas
Yes you did, but then you realised that I don't and thus had to change your rhetoric on who the post was aimed at, namely everyone except me; even though you explicitly quoted me, used my name, and didn't mention anyone else. No one's buying the whole "I wanted talking to you!" bit, hun. :rolleyes:
and I never said you blamed Israel
Lies. You: "you're now blaming Israel for the fighting IN Gaza"-Post 1875. I mean are we reading the same thread here or what? :rolleyes: This really is pathetic.
when I say "you" it doesn't just mean you
:rofl: That is a classic line.

The new illegal settlements aren't all over the news? Right, that's why you just quoted an article about it for me.
I'm talking about media where most people get their news- not many people read the Guardian inside out everyday you know.

Ha, how ironic. Are you going to answer the question or what? And I'm not changing the topic, I initiated the topic if you remember when I first posted here.
I'm talking about settlements, and you're trying to get me to talk about Hamas, who have nothing to do with it. This really is getting tedious. Stop trying to sidestep the discussion.
0
reply
gemgems89
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#1868
Report 11 years ago
#1868
(Original post by Invocation)

Yes you did, but then you realised that I don't and thus had to change your rhetoric on who the post was aimed at, namely everyone except me; even though you explicitly quoted me, used my name, and didn't mention anyone else. No one's buying the whole "I wanted talking to you!" bit, hun. :rolleyes:
Ha, how pathetic can you get. Are in capable of reading, seriously? I didn't quote you in my first post in this soc. I mentioned your name in the first paragraph and then went on to address the whole society. Why are you trying to pick on every little thing? Pedantry as its worse.

Lies. You: "you're now blaming Israel for the fighting IN Gaza"-Post 1875. I mean are we reading the same thread here or what? :rolleyes: This really is pathetic.:rofl: That is a classic line.
Oh my goodness, this just gets worse. You know this is getting SO boring. I've already said it was addressed to the whole society. Why would I say it about you if I haven't actually seen it about you or quoted you? Usually people only assume it's about them when a quote has been made. Check out my post and hey guess what, a quote wasn't made, omg! But I'll let you carry on with your futile attempts to belittle me with your stupid smilies and your silly "arguments" because that's really only what you can do.

I'm talking about media where most people get their news- not many people read the Guardian inside out everyday you know.
Rubbish, the news about settlements was on the BBC as well.

I'm talking about settlements, and you're trying to get me to talk about Hamas, who have nothing to do with it. This really is getting tedious. Stop trying to sidestep the discussion.
Dammit, you lose again. I was starting a NEW LINE of debate. I wanted to know what you all think of the situation in Gaza. Since that is quite relevant to this society. Correct me if I'm wrong but this isn't the Anti-Israeli-Settlements-Society.
0
reply
Invocation
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#1869
Report 11 years ago
#1869
(Original post by gemgems89)
Ha, how pathetic can you get. Are in capable of reading, seriously? I didn't quote you in my first post in this soc.
Copying JonH's debating technique isn't really a good idea. It takes the debate into an unnecessarily hostile territory
I mentioned your name in the first paragraph and then went on to address the whole society. Why are you trying to pick on every little thing? Pedantry as its worse.
You called me by name FFS, so obviously you were talking to me. You made no reference to the group as a whole or anyone else, so why should I believe you? Besides the pathetic and illogical reasoning of "when I say 'you', and even call you by name, I wasn't actually talking to 'you' ".

And just for the record WHO blamed Israel for the fighting in Gaza. Give names or accept that you weren't talking to the whole society, since it's only 32 and I on here, which one of us were you referring to ?

Oh my goodness, this just gets worse. You know this is getting SO boring.
Then go away!
I've already said it was addressed to the whole society. Why would I say it about you if I haven't actually seen it about you or quoted you? Usually people only assume it's about them when a quote has been made. Check out my post and hey guess what, a quote wasn't made, omg! But I'll let you carry on with your futile attempts to belittle me with your stupid smilies and your silly "arguments" because that's really only what you can do.
You called me by name, so I knew you were referring to me. You don't see the logical fallacy you're spewing ?

Rubbish, the news about settlements was on the BBC as well.
TV or website ? Huge difference. And is this the settlements or the Gaza fighting ?


Dammit, you lose again.
Actually it has been you making a complete ass of yourself, but carry on. Keep telling yourself that.
I was starting a NEW LINE of debate. I wanted to know what you all think of the situation in Gaza. Since that is quite relevant to this society. Correct me if I'm wrong but this isn't the Anti-Israeli-Settlements-Society.
Fair enough.
0
reply
*titanium*
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#1870
Report 11 years ago
#1870
So Palestinians have a right to Israel since some of them used to live there for a little bit? Well Jews not only lived in the westbank 2000 years ago, but they where living there since the late 1800's and then Jordan anexed the land and sent them running for their lives. Now that they come back, these setlments are illegal? Wouldnt that mean if Palestinians came back to Israel any settlment they build would also be Illegal since there is no diffrence. They Israeli army wouldnt have to guard them and build seprate roads for them if Palestinians where not so violent, they cant be left alone there because the Palestinians would kill them, they try to anytime they get a chance. Why Is it that these lands must be ethnicaly clensed of Jews, but Palestinians should get a right of return to Israel?

Your common claims seem to be that Jews lived there so long ago 2000 years ago that they cant claim its theres anymore, but Palestinians lived there, not all that long ago so their case is still valid. Youv kinda bitten youself in the arse here, the number of Palestinian 'refugees' that ever lived in former mandate land is falling as they get older. It seems like Palestinians have jumped the gun and put a time clause on their claim for the land. In other words, if they are as fair and decent people as you claim that will not treat Jews to a diffrent standard, then in sevral generations when not any of their grandparents lived in former mandate land, they suddenly loose their claim. Infact they have recently become well aware that in say 20 years there will be no Palestinian that actualivy lived in the former mandate land and so they have already started to change their argument from "it was so long ago" to "The Jews never actualy lived there" its so handy for them isnt it? If the facts dont fit the argument, change the facts! I mean lots of people have done that in the past if its good enough for Soveit Russia and Nazi Germany to do its good enough for them, right?
0
reply
Invocation
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#1871
Report 11 years ago
#1871
(Original post by *titanium*)
So Palestinians have a right to Israel since some of them used to live there for a little bit. Well Jews not only lived in the westbank 2000 years ago but they where living there since the late 1800's andthen Jordan anexed the land and sent them runninf for their lives. Now that they come back, these setltlments are illegal?
How many Jews do you know that are 2000 years old ?
Wouldnt that mean if Palestinians came back to Israel any settlment they build would also be Illegal since there is no diffrence. They Israeli army wouldnt have to guard them and build seprate roads for them if Palestinians where not so violent, they cant be left because the Palestinians would kill them, they try to anytime thye get a chance. Why Is it that these lands must be ethnicaly clensed of Jews, but Palestinians should get a right of return?
FFS That's not why the settlements are illegal.

Your common claims seem to be that Jews lived there so long ago 2000 years ago that they cant claim its theres anymore, but Palestinians lived there, not all that long ago so their case is still valid. Youv kinda bitten youself in the arse here, the number of Palestinian 'refugees' that ever lived in former mandate land is falling as they get older. It seems like Palestinians have jumped the gun and put a time clause on their claim for the land. In other words, if they are as fair and decent people as you claim that will not treat Jews to a diffrent standard, then in sevral generations when not any of their grandparents lived in former mandate land, they suddenly loose their claim. Infact they have recently become well aware that in say 20 years there will be no Palestinian that actualivy lived in the former mandate land and so they have already started to change their argument from "it was so long ago" to "The Jews never actualy lived there" its so handy for them isnt it? If the facts dont fit the argument, change the facts! I mean lots of people have done that in the past if its good enough for Soveit Russia and Nazi Germany to do its good enough for them, right?
Wow, what a mess. I'd appreciate it if anyone could tell me the general jist of this^ because I haven't a clue.

I'll take a guess, your general point is that the Palestinians are on Jewish land ? Because some very very very old people decided they wanted to move by to Israel ?
0
reply
*titanium*
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#1872
Report 11 years ago
#1872
Care to read again? I said 1800's, and where living there untill 1948, there are Jews thta where living on westbank land up till 1948 and then came back in 1967.

So what you are trying to do is make fun of my argument by referring to someone very very very old and hope it will go away? You have not even made a valid comment. in there at any point. It still stands that going by the Palestinians current arguments not only are htye holding Jews to diffrent standards, they have put a time limit on their argument. If Jews arent the rightfull owners because its 2000 years, then Palestinians will soon be like this. Go on try and say something slightly more constructive then making fun, just like you admited yourself, your clueless.
0
reply
Invocation
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#1873
Report 11 years ago
#1873
(Original post by *titanium*)
Care to read again? I said 1800's, and where living there untill 1948, there are Jews thta where living on westbank land up till 1948 and then came back in 1967.

So what you are trying to do is make fun of my argument by referring to someone very very very old and hope it will go away? You have not even made a valid comment. in there at any point. It still stands that going by the Palestinians current arguments not only are htye holding Jews to diffrent standards, they have put a time limit on their argument. If Jews arent the rightfull owners because its 2000 years, then Palestinians will soon be like this. Go on try and say something slightly more constructive then making fun, just like you admited yourself, your clueless.
It's of my opinion, and I'm sure it differs from most of this soc, is that groups of people cannot "own" land. If someone has legitimately acquired, and then holds it as an asset to be handed down to future generations, fine. You can do what you want with it. This should be dealt with on an individual basis.

But returning to an area because ancestors, say more than 200 years ago, held it shouldn't happen, especially if people have moved onto that land since.
0
reply
*titanium*
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#1874
Report 11 years ago
#1874
(Original post by Invocation)
It's of my opinion, and I'm sure it differs from most of this soc, is that groups of people cannot "own" land. If someone has legitimately acquired, and then holds it as an asset to be handed down to future generations, fine. You can do what you want with it. This should be dealt with on an individual basis.

But returning to an area because ancestors, say more than 200 years ago, held it shouldn't happen, especially if people have moved onto that land since.
Thats like saying if something is stolen off someone and that person gets rid of it, and someone else stumbles upon it, the owner musnt make a claim for it now. If a group of people cant own a land than nor can the Palestinians. But like I said before, if your putting a time clause on it for Jews than surlely the must be one on it for palestinians. Remember that Palestinians, have never had authority on the land. Israel does know, before that it was the British before that it was the Ottomans which where turks before this there have been times when it was ruled by Arabs, also very long ago, but you are saying that jews cant claim it because they ruled it so long ago, Palestinians can because arabs did at some point aswell, whats the diffrence? Dont you remember the UN partition plan. Dont forget trans jordan, arabs where given the vast majority of the land 83% but it wasnt enough so they tried to destroy the Jewish state, does this not ring a bell? The Jews and muslims where living on British owned land, a 3 state solution was made, transjordan, Palstine and Israel, but the Arabs didnt want to give them anything at all, they where attacking jews decades before the state of Israel was formed, even before the balfor decleration. The Paritioan plan was very just for muslims getting 83% of the land, but they still turned it down, the Jews where forced out of transjordan when it was created, I still dont understand how anyway can see the situation as unjust against the Arabs. Its not like Jews suddenly got all the land, they have 17% of it and less than 0.2% of the total middle east despite making up 2.3% of the population. Gaza maybe vastly populated, by why not have a word with the arab part of the mandate land, trans jordan. Israel absorbed the Jewish refugees from Arab lands, it didnt stick them in camps. The Arabs caused this problem because they refused to accept a plan where Britian gives the arabs more than a fair share and they failed to absorbe palestinian refugees and Israel gets blamed for it.
0
reply
Invocation
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#1875
Report 11 years ago
#1875
(Original post by *titanium*)
Thats like saying if something is stolen off someone and that person gets rid of it, and someone else stumbles upon it, the owner musnt make a claim for it now.
No it's not. It's like when something is stolen off someone and that person gets rid of it, and someone else stumbles upon it, the owner can't make a claim for it now- because he's long dead. Since then in has been in the hands of numerous persons, until it eventually ended up in the hands of some Arabs, (and as you put it- still some Jews). I'm not condoning this however, since transfer of land is usually met with a bucket load of bloodshed.

I just don't believe in the idea that land can/should be "owned" by a certain race or religion. It should be a public commodity, free for everyone to use. Thus no one should have the right to force people of certain areas of land.
0
reply
Carl
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#1876
Report 11 years ago
#1876
(Original post by Carl)
Did anyone watch the C4 documentary on the Occupied Territories last night? Whilst hardly two sided (it's coverage of Israelis went as far as the settlers, who IMO are the worst bunch), it is clear that the Israelis could treat the Palestinians better without compromising their own security. I still think the onus should be on the PA to sort their own house out, but it is clear that Israel could take several steps to make life easier for the Palestinians. Removing many of the checkpoints within the Occupied Territories, guaranteeing the property rights of the Palestinian people, keeping settlers in check with regards to attacks on Palestinians, better sharing resources such as water, and generally better positioning the security wall would perhaps reduce the level of resentment on the Palestinian people towards their occupiers.

As I said, I still think the Israelis are in the right, but parts of the occupation work neither for the security of Israel nor reduce the tensions that exist between the two peoples.
I don't know if I was expecting a response, but thanks for ignoring my post people...
0
reply
Invocation
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#1877
Report 11 years ago
#1877
I didn't see the doc. Sounds interesting though. Was it "Dispatches" ?
0
reply
Carl
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#1878
Report 11 years ago
#1878
It was called "Love Thy Neighbour", and it's premise was that "The West" supports Israel because it is a western style democracy, but through it's ill treatment of the Palestinians, Israel could not be considered to be upholding the values that liberal democracies should do. This makes two logical fallacies: it assumes that the Occupied Territories are on a legally equal footing with the rest of Israel, whilst maintaining that the Occupation is illegal; and secondly that the Palestinians at least in theory are as much citizens of Israel as the Israelis themselves. He also neglected to mention why Isreal occupied this land, his silence implying that the Six Day war was an act of border expansion on the part of the Israelis, rather than an act of self-defence which resulted in the Israelis taking more land than they started with.

So in all, it was quite one-sided towards the Palestinians, but even so it brought home the reality of life under occupation and showed that there are concessions that the Israelis can and should make should they genuinely wish to live at peace with their Palestinian neighbours.
0
reply
smellielli
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#1879
Report 11 years ago
#1879
(Original post by Carl)
It was called "Love Thy Neighbour", and it's premise was that "The West" supports Israel because it is a western style democracy, but through it's ill treatment of the Palestinians, Israel could not be considered to be upholding the values that liberal democracies should do. This makes two logical fallacies: it assumes that the Occupied Territories are on a legally equal footing with the rest of Israel, whilst maintaining that the Occupation is illegal; and secondly that the Palestinians at least in theory are as much citizens of Israel as the Israelis themselves. He also neglected to mention why Isreal occupied this land, his silence implying that the Six Day war was an act of border expansion on the part of the Israelis, rather than an act of self-defence which resulted in the Israelis taking more land than they started with.

So in all, it was quite one-sided towards the Palestinians, but even so it brought home the reality of life under occupation and showed that there are concessions that the Israelis can and should make should they genuinely wish to live at peace with their Palestinian neighbours.
It made some very good points on both sides of the argument. It was the first time that I've actually seen video proof of the violence of the 'settlers' against the 'Palestinians'.
0
reply
*titanium*
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#1880
Report 11 years ago
#1880
I didnt see it but from what I hear from calling it one sided isnt even enough, Israeli settler violence, where as there are some Israeli villages there where despite the military presence 10% of the population have been murdered by Palestinians.

Then theres your assumptions that getting rid of check points and letting weapons move around the westbank freely wont harm Israel, despite the fact we can see it harming Israel from Gaza.

One sided is one thing, this sounds more like a propaganda video.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

Brexit: Given the chance now, would you vote leave or remain?

Remain (52)
74.29%
Leave (18)
25.71%

Watched Threads

View All