This discussion is closed.
DoctorNO
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#941
Report 16 years ago
#941
(Original post by adelz)
Yeah Sure, take it off an israeli site, it wont be biased AT ALL !.
Who said it wont be biased? I only think they are more reliable than Al Jazeera. And like it or not they are the only source for these kinds of statistics. For they are in control of the region and it is them who do the body counts.

(Original post by adelz)
But even if it is correct, look at the number of children killed on both sides, look at the number of combatants killed on both sides. The palestinian militant organisations are not and official govt force which can be controlled while the IDF is.
And that is why they could not control militants from taking cover among the crowds. On the other hand the IDF was able to keep civilian casualties to a minimum. It is extremely difficult to kill an enemy surrounded by civilians.


(Original post by adelz)
A quote : "During the fighting, dozens of youths stood in the streets watching the battle as gunfire whizzed by. At one point, a gunman picked up a young schoolboy by his backpack and whisked him out of the battle zone. "
Which proves that some militants do care for the safety of children.
0
Jamie
Badges: 18
#942
Report 16 years ago
#942
(Original post by adelz)
Im sorry but because they were persecuted does not mean that they can migrate to another state and camp out there.In many countries such people would be classified as ILLEGAL immigrants. Cubans rowing to US are illegal immigrants. Iranians crossing the persian gulf to Dubai are illegal immigrants. Despite the conditions. Some ofcourse, are issued permits to live in the country they immigrate to but I dont think ANY country would accept millions of refugees. After world war 2 they could have gone back to their previous homes and started their lives again as did many other people affected by world war 2. Plus, why didnt they all just move to Norway ? Its closer than Palestine. I wonder what your opinion would be in that case - I understand that they were discriminated, they immigrated into Palestine and palestinians were fine with it for some time. But then jews started taking over palestinian land etc.etc. and there was an uprising as the jews were taking over the country ! And now the palestinians are the ones who are being persecuted by the jews. Please read http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/ngo/history.html before replying.
Wow, that makes pretty interesting reading.
J
0
thefish_uk
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#943
Report 16 years ago
#943
(Original post by adelz)
This statement just shows how amazingly biased you are and how you are "holding back" information to try and support the point you are trying to make. Plus again, its from an israeli site. Lets take a look at Yahoo news article http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...palestinians_3 . A quote : "During the fighting, dozens of youths stood in the streets watching the battle as gunfire whizzed by. At one point, a gunman picked up a young schoolboy by his backpack and whisked him out of the battle zone. "
So please, dont try and give us crap biased information just to try and support your point. If you think that the majority of the palestinian public doesn't think of the militant groups as national heroes and patriots then you are very, very wrong.
If a source is biased it doesn't mean it's useless.

Statistics are generally more reliable than written details because they lack opinion and so the only way they can be biased is through lies or selectivity.
0
Jamie
Badges: 18
#944
Report 16 years ago
#944
(Original post by DoctorNO)
Who said it wont be biased? I only think they are more reliable than Al Jazeera. And like it or not they are the only source for these kinds of statistics. For they are in control of the region and it is them who do the body counts.


And that is why they could not control militants from taking cover among the crowds. On the other hand the IDF was able to keep civilian casualties to a minimum. It is extremely difficult to kill an enemy surrounded by civilians.




Which proves that some militants do care for the safety of children.
Dude, read the UN document, and forget the titles of 'Jew' and 'Muslim' for 5 minutes, and you'll see why so many people are pro-palestinian.
J
0
Jamie
Badges: 18
#945
Report 16 years ago
#945
(Original post by thefish_uk)
If a source is biased it doesn't mean it's useless.

Statistics are generally more reliable than written details because they lack opinion and so the only way they can be biased is through lies or selectivity.
Statistics are easily corrupted, if the definition of terms isn't used.
0
thefish_uk
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#946
Report 16 years ago
#946
(Original post by foolfarian)
Statistics are easily corrupted, if the definition of terms isn't used.
Well yeah, they can be abused.

But still, don't dismiss them as being useless.
0
adelz
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#947
Report 16 years ago
#947
Who said it wont be biased? I only think they are more reliable than Al Jazeera. And like it or not they are the only source for these kinds of statistics. For they are in control of the region and it is them who do the body counts.
No I dont think they are going to be the ones counting the palestinian death toll. Lets look at another source of the palestinian death toll. http://www.palestinemonitor.org/fact...fact_sheet.htm
And even from the count that you posted, there are more innocent palestinians killed than Israelis. And why is Al Jazeera going to be less reliable ? I think thats a load of crap. Al Jazeera will be more biased towards arabs but and israeli site will be more biased towards israelis. Plus I havent mentioned Al jazeera, most of my sources are relatively unbiased sites such as yahoo news.


And that is why they could not control militants from taking cover among the crowds. On the other hand the IDF was able to keep civilian casualties to a minimum. It is extremely difficult to kill an enemy surrounded by civilians.
Umm looking at the deathtolls the IDF isnt so able to keep civillian casaulties to the minimum. And the militants arent taking cover among crowds, they are shooting and crowds surround them to help, cheer on etc. As Ive said before the militants are "Heroes" and "Patriots" who fight for the better of the palestinian people and are adored by most.

Which proves that some militants do care for the safety of children.
No, all militants care about the palestinian people and they are fighting for what they think will eventually bring a palestinian self ruled state.
0
adelz
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#948
Report 16 years ago
#948
(Original post by thefish_uk)
Well yeah, they can be abused.

But still, don't dismiss them as being useless.
I never said they were useless. But facts are not facts if they are doctored. And as you can see Ive used the biased facts provided in my argument.
0
thefish_uk
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#949
Report 16 years ago
#949
Adelz,

Please can you put your quotes in quote tags and your response in normal rather than bold?

Thanks
0
adelz
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#950
Report 16 years ago
#950
(Original post by thefish_uk)
Adelz,

Please can you put your quotes in quote tags and your response in normal rather than bold?

Thanks
I respond in bold, below the paragraph im responding to so you can see what im replying to more easily. Okay, Ill use quote tags for my quotes
0
DoctorNO
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#951
Report 16 years ago
#951
(Original post by adelz)
http: //hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/sovereign < theres your definition. Palestine was a sovereign state.
heh youll have to do better than that. list down the definition and try to equate that with pre-1947 palestine. if you could do that then I would agree that it was a sovereign state.


(Original post by adelz)
Errr .. Im sorry but ... Israel have more land than palestine - when the land used to be ALL palestinian - the fact that they have even one centimetre of it is to their gain and palestinian loss.
Yes the U.N. did give a slightly more land to the Jews. But still it was mostly barren and undeveloped. Perhaps the U.N. were trying to be just by offsetting the low-land-value.

(Original post by adelz)
Did you know that today's Israel sits on the former sites of more than 400 Palestinian villages that were destroyed and depopulated by Israel in 1948?
No thats not how I know it. What I studied from history is that the arabs mostly willingly abandoned their land at the advice of their military generals. To give the arab war machine a clean path for driving the jews into the sea.
0
DoctorNO
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#952
Report 16 years ago
#952
(Original post by foolfarian)
Dude, read the UN document, and forget the titles of 'Jew' and 'Muslim' for 5 minutes, and you'll see why so many people are pro-palestinian.
J
Mate, point us to the right UN document and highlight what you want to point out.

Yes so many people are pro-palestinian but so many people are also pro-israeli.

And please try to read carefully for I didnt say 'jews' or 'muslims' there.
0
adelz
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#953
Report 16 years ago
#953
heh youll have to do better than that. list down the definition and try to equate that with pre-1947 palestine. if you could do that then I would agree that it was a sovereign state.

possessing,
or entitled to, original authority or jurisdiction; as, a
sovereign state; a sovereign discretion.
Palestinians are living there, they are entitled to it, Jews coming in from Europe as they have been persecuted are not.



Yes the U.N. did give a slightly more land to the Jews. But still it was mostly barren and undeveloped. Perhaps the U.N. were trying to be just by offsetting the low-land-value.

SLIGHTLY more land ? HAHA ! more like .... 40% more land than Palestinians. But anyway, so what if it is currently barren land - in the future it can be developed, there could be oil, its LAND ! Dubai, where I live, used to be a fishing village in the desert with 1000 people 40 years ago . Today it is a metropolitan city, the richest, most developed, most modern city with a population of over a million. The "developed" land in pre 1947 Palestine was evenly split between the 2, but as Ive said before the fact that the Jews got even a centimetre of it is a gain for them and a loss to the Palestinians.

No thats not how I know it. What I studied from history is that the arabs mostly willingly abandoned their land at the advice of their military generals. To give the arab war machine a clean path for driving the jews into the sea.

No, I dont think so . Read the history by the UN that I posted.
0
adelz
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#954
Report 16 years ago
#954
(Original post by DoctorNO)
Mate, point us to the right UN document and highlight what you want to point out.

Yes so many people are pro-palestinian but so many people are also pro-israeli.

And please try to read carefully for I didnt say 'jews' or 'muslims' there.
http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/ngo/history.html
0
thefish_uk
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#955
Report 16 years ago
#955
(Original post by DoctorNO)
Yes the U.N. did give a slightly more land to the Jews. But still it was mostly barren and undeveloped. Perhaps the U.N. were trying to be just by offsetting the low-land-value.
Wouldn't the Palestinian owners of the developed land want to keep it?

Also, if the Jews were creating a new country, Israel (even though it has ancient roots, I know), why should they complain when told that they have to build it just how they want it from the ground up?
0
DoctorNO
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#956
Report 16 years ago
#956
(Original post by adelz)
Palestinians are living there, they are entitled to it, Jews coming in from Europe as they have been persecuted are not.
Who said they are 'entitled to'? They were not a recognized state. They had no government. They had no leadership. They dont occupy the whole region. They had no authority. They had no jurisdiction.

The only thing they were 'entitled to' was to their portion assigned to them by the U.N.
0
Bigcnee
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#957
Report 16 years ago
#957
(Original post by DoctorNO)
Who said they are 'entitled to'? They were not a recognized state. They had no government. They had no leadership. They dont occupy the whole region. They had no authority. They had no jurisdiction.
Therein lies the problem.
0
DoctorNO
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#958
Report 16 years ago
#958
(Original post by thefish_uk)
Wouldn't the Palestinian owners of the developed land want to keep it?
Unfortunately the Arabs wasnt content with their better portion of the deal. They wanted everything. And I cant blame them, for everything was indeed promised to them initially. Unfortunately things change.

(Original post by thefish_uk)
Also, if the Jews were creating a new country, Israel (even though it has ancient roots, I know), why should they complain when told that they have to build it just how they want it from the ground up?
I did not hear any significant complain from them.
0
DoctorNO
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#959
Report 16 years ago
#959
I have already read that, I think its a balanced article and I do not dispute it. If there is something specific you want to point out there then please quote it here.
0
adelz
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#960
Report 16 years ago
#960
(Original post by DoctorNO)
Who said they are 'entitled to'? They were not a recognized state. They had no government. They had no leadership. They dont occupy the whole region. They had no authority. They had no jurisdiction.

The only thing they were 'entitled to' was to their portion assigned to them by the U.N.
You cannot be serious. They occupied the territory of palestine. There are unanhabited areas of the UK yet they are still part of the UK. They were not a state as
All but one of these Mandated Territories became fully independent States, as anticipated. The exception was Palestine where, instead of being limited to "the rendering of administrative assistance and advice" the Mandate had as a primary objective the implementation of the "Balfour Declaration" issued by the British Government in 1917, expressing support for "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people". - UN HISTORY
Palestine did not become a self ruled state because the British didnt let them, as they had a vision for Palestine to become the Jewish homeland.
The land is ENTITLED TO the Palestinian people as they are the ones residing on it and working on it. When the UK left India it was ENTITLED TO the INDIAN PEOPLE as they are the people who live on it and work on it and therefore it became INDIA. If the palestinians werent entitled to the land then in NO WAY are the Israelis entitled to it.
And what youve said about the only thing they are "entitled to" being the portion assigned to them by the UN - then why doesnt Israel give the palestinians that portion - they want less than that - and Israel is only entitled to what they were given by the UN, they currently own wayyyy more than that. In NO WAY were the Jews entitled to the land as they had only historical affiliation with it, from thousands of years ago, and as they had their own homes and nationalities to which they could have gone back to after the war.
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
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

Do you get study leave?

Yes- I like it (211)
61.7%
Yes- I don't like it (13)
3.8%
No- I want it (94)
27.49%
No- I don't want it (24)
7.02%

Watched Threads

View All