Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Nice to see you enjoy watching people suffer.
    When it comes to settlers, yes.


    I thought they were merely settlers who happened to be living in the wrong place, perhaps because the Israeli state encouraged them to move there. What did these innocent civillians and their children do to deserve such contempt from you?
    They represent the ugliest face of the Israeli state. They have stolen land, they steal resources and they pollute Palestine. They are cancers that need to be cut out.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mi...ast/4137860.stm - this is interesting. I find it strange to see the majority of Israeli opinion seems balanced yet the Palestinians seem extremely ungrateful.
    Another opinion page on the BBC site gives 7 interviews with Israelis and 6 of them are opposed with the other one saying no more land should be given back.

    You steal someone's house then give them back the smallest bedroom (in which they've been confined to one bed) for nearly 5 years and you expect them to be greatful?!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    They represent the ugliest face of the Israeli state. They have stolen land, they steal resources and they pollute Palestine. They are cancers that need to be cut out.
    Huh? Wouldn't they have to be part of the Israeli government in the first place, to represent it?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bashment)
    p.s anyone notice how much media coverage this gaza withdrawl has got !! under the israelis are losing there homes its so terrible yet when palestinians lose there homes it barely makes the international news !
    Can you not see how big a precedent this is? It is a big move forward for the Palestinians as well as a setback for the settlers.

    Also, Vienna, settlings your own citizens on occupied land is illegal under the Geneva convention. The settlements should never have been built in the first place and (its easy to say this with hindsight I suppose) people should never have settled their in the first place. It saddens me that the settlers have to go but the Israeli government is righting a wrong and more than compensating the settlers for their troubles (providing removal, paying for rent until they find new homes, unemployment benefit for those who lose jobs plus cash reparations and extra bonuses for moving in settlements in West Bank (IMO the last one is pure madness)). To me the game of settlement is madness. Ordinary people are beingb used as a political weapon and in the end it is they who suffer.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Northumbrian, ease off will you, theres no need for stupid remarks. I mean they are moving aren't they. Gemgems89, its not a case of whos more extreme than the other, at the end of the day an extremist will happily kill its opponent whether its a Jew or a Muslim. And you have to accept that there are Jewish Extremists who are willing to kill a Palistinian innocent or not, and vice versa (Hamas etc). Its not quantity of killings, its any killings that are wrong.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gemgems89)
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/4137860.stm - this is interesting. I find it strange to see the majority of Israeli opinion seems balanced yet the Palestinians seem extremely ungrateful.
    The Israeli people do not have balanced opinion at all.
    The majority of the country are point blank against the withdrawal.

    As you are probably aware - orange ribbons represent support against the withdrawal and blue ribbons support for the government.

    How many blue ribbons have you seen? I was in Israel for 3 weeks earlier this month, and I honestly had seen one chap with a blue ribbon attached to his car which many of the people I was with was commenting with in disgust.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by walshie)
    The Israeli people do not have balanced opinion at all.
    The majority of the country are point blank against the withdrawal.

    As you are probably aware - orange ribbons represent support against the withdrawal and blue ribbons support for the government.

    How many blue ribbons have you seen? I was in Israel for 3 weeks earlier this month, and I honestly had seen one chap with a blue ribbon attached to his car which many of the people I was with was commenting with in disgust.
    From what I've read I gather the majority of "mainland" Israelis believe the pullouts are a good thing, with only the settlers and a minority of extremist Zionists against the pullout. Why do you think only 1000-3000 demonstrators turned up at Gaza instead of 100,000? I think most Israelis just want the violence from the Palestinians to end so they can feel safe. Losing Gaza is a realistic way of acheiving this.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    The majority cannot be bothered to turn up.
    They do have normal social lives that don't just revolve around a protest.

    I can assure you the mjority are against!
    The question will be whether Ariel Sharon stays in power again . . . . which you know blatantly he won't.

    How many blue ribbons cans you see on cars Carl? - absolutely none.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by walshie)
    The majority cannot be bothered to turn up.
    They do have normal social lives that don't just revolve around a protest.

    I can assure you the mjority are against!
    If they thought that the withdrawal from Gaza was so wrong they'd have turned up. I think the majority are either apathetic or like me, have mixed feelings, recognising that seeing Jews evict Jews from their homes in not nice, but such a move is neccesary in the give and take world of the peace process.

    How many blue ribbons cans you see on cars Carl? - absolutely none.
    How many oxygen molecules can you see? Empiricism is not argument, so-called "Walshie".
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Carl)
    Also, Vienna, settlings your own citizens on occupied land is illegal under the Geneva convention.
    Well im glad to see someone is actually willing to engage in some constructive conversation. I'd be disappointed if "how many blue ribbons are there" was the limit of this debate. Which part of the Geneva Convention?

    The settlements should never have been built in the first place and (its easy to say this with hindsight I suppose) people should never have settled their in the first place. It saddens me that the settlers have to go but the Israeli government is righting a wrong
    People keep saying this but noone gets any further in demonstrating what wrong existed. Of course there is the 'moral' argument, yet strangely that appears to be discarded when we talk of a Jewish homeland or Egypt's illegal occupation, much less the legal and moral basis on which Jewish settlers were afforded rights in Gaza and the West Bank, both under the Mandate for Palestine, further defended by the Article 80 of the UN Charter, UN Res. 242 and the Oslo agreements where the PLO recognised the right of Jewish settlers in the disputed territories. A few members here seem to have jumped the gun in declaring this land in favour of the Palestinians, yet at the same time claiming Palestine is occupied. How can one have jurisdiction over land and yet be occupied by another force at the same time?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by walshie)
    The Israeli people do not have balanced opinion at all.
    The majority of the country are point blank against the withdrawal.

    As you are probably aware - orange ribbons represent support against the withdrawal and blue ribbons support for the government.

    How many blue ribbons have you seen? I was in Israel for 3 weeks earlier this month, and I honestly had seen one chap with a blue ribbon attached to his car which many of the people I was with was commenting with in disgust.
    First of all, its a small majority that are for the withdrawal, meaning it is very close. I think it could be something like 60% for it. Israel is a very diverse place and I agree, many people hold different views. But when I said the thing on BBC showed Israelis being balanced, I meant that although they see the bad points (like security and the Palestinians not giving anything back) they do see it for the best. Then there's some who thinks it's not right to give away the land but there could be some hope anyway. In other words, most of them aren't fully orange and aren't fully blue, apart from the settlers that are actually involved which is quite understandable.

    Secondly, I was in Israel for 4 weeks 2 weeks ago. Tell me, why would you see blue ribbons? The orange ribbons held by protesters are to show that people are against the other decision. Usually, you do not protest for something. If it is going to happen, it's going to happen so how will having a blue ribbon change it? You only protest against something you do not wish to happen.

    (Original post by Jamie)
    by no means violent....against their own soldiers no.
    A few ickle examples is a really poor way fo doing thing....

    *cough*Yitzhak Rabin*cough*
    http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L04663144.htm
    [israeli extremist murders arabs on bus]

    http://www.nimn.org/articles/whats_new/000470.php
    [the stoning of a palestinian lad, plus violent attacks against IDF soldiers by settlers, not to mention that they poured opil and nails in the middle of the motorway!]
    I never said there aren't Jewish extremists. There are. My point is, not all the settlers are extremists. It's the minority. BBC even commented that the protests have been peaceful (so far) and it's more emotionally painful than physically. I don't know how many times you've seen the news but I've been watching about 3 live things a day in Gaza and the most violent things I've seen is a bit of pushing and shoving. That could change tonight when they will have to be forced out but like a soldier said in one of those BBC articles, the ones that are waiting till the hour they are forced out are just staying in order to stay as long as possible and will leave peacefully. Then the soldiers will be left with the more stubborn extreme ones.

    Of course there are extremist settlers, and they're the ones that remain now; a minority.

    (Original post by Viper)
    Gemgems89, its not a case of whos more extreme than the other, at the end of the day an extremist will happily kill its opponent whether its a Jew or a Muslim. And you have to accept that there are Jewish Extremists who are willing to kill a Palistinian innocent or not, and vice versa (Hamas etc). Its not quantity of killings, its any killings that are wrong
    Yeh, I know. All I'm saying is Jewish extremism is on a small scale. It exists but I don't think many would volunteer to attach some explosives to their belt to blow up Palestinians?

    (Original post by Viper)
    Northumbrian, ease off will you, theres no need for stupid remarks. I mean they are moving aren't they.
    Exactly. And what are they getting back for it? That question still remains unanswered, since Hamas and Co are adament.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Why did the Israeli's ever advise settlers to settle in Gaza when this is the end result. I wouldn't want to leave my house if I had been told it was going to be part of Israel and had developed it.

    Put simply this is a move to cut the costs of defending the population as the settlements were expensive to mantain. It is good for the Palestinians in the short term. However the individual settlers have been screwed over by the Israeli Government.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by material breach)
    Why did the Israeli's ever advise settlers to settle in Gaza when this is the end result. I wouldn't want to leave my house if I had been told it was going to be part of Israel and had developed it.

    Put simply this is a move to cut the costs of defending the population as the settlements were expensive to mantain. It is good for the Palestinians in the short term. However the individual settlers have been screwed over by the Israeli Government.
    Did the Israeli government force them into these settlements?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vienna)
    People keep saying this but noone gets any further in demonstrating what wrong existed. Of course there is the 'moral' argument, yet strangely that appears to be discarded when we talk of a Jewish homeland or Egypt's illegal occupation, much less the legal and moral basis on which Jewish settlers were afforded rights in Gaza and the West Bank, both under the Mandate for Palestine, further defended by the Article 80 of the UN Charter, UN Res. 242 and the Oslo agreements where the PLO recognised the right of Jewish settlers in the disputed territories. A few members here seem to have jumped the gun in declaring this land in favour of the Palestinians, yet at the same time claiming Palestine is occupied. How can one have jurisdiction over land and yet be occupied by another force at the same time?
    Do you think the settlers should be staying?

    I would say a policy is wrong is you end up reversing it.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vienna)
    Well im glad to see someone is actually willing to engage in some constructive conversation. I'd be disappointed if "how many blue ribbons are there" was the limit of this debate. Which part of the Geneva Convention?
    Cheers V. I don't know but it said so last night, on the channel four news. The journalist was discussing the withdrawal with a protestor from outsite Gaza who had come to disrupt the evictions. This protester was arguing that what the IDF was doing was illegal under the Geneva convention (can't remember why), but the journalist came back saying that Israel was in the wrong in the first place by building settlements on occupied land, because that is forbidden under the Geneva convention. I can google it if you want (I think I will anyway and post in a bit).



    People keep saying this but noone gets any further in demonstrating what wrong existed.
    Well if it's against the Geneva convention to settle in the first place then it is legally wrong.
    Of course there is the 'moral' argument, yet strangely that appears to be discarded when we talk of a Jewish homeland
    I think the Jews are entitled to a homeland. They should just share it. In an ideal world the settlers should be able to stay in Gaza and the West Bank as part of a Palestinian state or even prinicipality (like Wales in UK) and exist as an ethnic minority. I tears me apart watching the settlers torn from their nice homes, their neighbours, their jobs, their livelihoods, especially since many were born there or have lived there nearly all their lives.
    or Egypt's illegal occupation
    of where?
    , much less the legal and moral basis on which Jewish settlers were afforded rights in Gaza and the West Bank, both under the Mandate for Palestine, further defended by the Article 80 of the UN Charter, UN Res. 242 and the Oslo agreements
    I don't know anything about these. Sorry. Surely if it was legally wrong to build settlements in the first place then no law or agreement drawn up after is valid?
    where the PLO recognised the right of Jewish settlers in the disputed territories.
    Well as I said if the settlers could safely live in a Palestinian territory of some sort then it'd be cool.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vienna)
    Did the Israeli government force them into these settlements?
    The impresssion I have been given by the settlers moving out is that they were encouraged. The Economist seems certain of the view that Sharon encouraged those settlers who had to move after the giving back of Yamit to Egypt were encouraged into these settlements.

    If Israeli is not encouraging the settlements, why does she spend so much money on them?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by material breach)
    Do you think the settlers should be staying?

    I would say a policy is wrong is you end up reversing it.
    Jewish settlers have rights in the West Bank and Gaza. This doesnt necessarily establish that land as being under the sovereign control of the Israeli state, and it shouldnt exempt them from the jurisdiction of the PLO if they happened to settle on land that the PLO had acquired as a result of agreements throughout the 90's. Israel didnt force its people onto disputed land, nor doest it actively pursue a policy whereby the state acquires disputed territory for the permanent expansion of the Israeli state. Israel has the legal right to occupy land acquired in its defense and to hold that territory for reasons of security until an agreement is otherwise reached that establishes that land as being under the sovereign control of another government. This is not the case in Gaza. Neither is Israel the governing force in Gaza which rules out any claim that Israel is occupying said territory.

    The current policy of withdrawal is one of security forced upon the state by the growing demographic issue facing Israel.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by material breach)
    The impresssion I have been given by the settlers moving out is that they were encouraged. The Economist seems certain of the view that Sharon encouraged those settlers who had to move after the giving back of Yamit to Egypt were encouraged into these settlements.

    If Israeli is not encouraging the settlements, why does she spend so much money on them?
    Israel approves and recognises Jewish settlements. That is the right of those persons to do so, I dont see why Israel would want to deny them such rights.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vienna)
    Did the Israeli government force them into these settlements?
    No, but some people can't resist cheap, good quality housing. You can't argue that there was no politcal end in building the settlements. Israel wouldn't build settlements for them to remain empty either....
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vienna)
    The current policy of withdrawal is one of security forced upon the state by the growing demographic issue facing Israel.
    Which nevertheless would not occured had a policy of settling not existed in the first place.
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
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: October 8, 2005
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?
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.