This discussion is closed.
adelz
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#961
Report 16 years ago
#961
(Original post by DoctorNO)
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.
Just the article on the whole so people can get an understanding of the whole issue and what has happened. Though I will use it, when needed.
0
thefish_uk
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#962
Report 16 years ago
#962
(Original post by adelz)
[b]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.
That's actually a good point...

I think it's about time I had my usual rant about religion, just to remind you all that I hate religion because it causes so much trouble and if we didn't have organised religion these days so many of the world's conflicts wouldn't even have started.
0
DoctorNO
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#963
Report 16 years ago
#963
(Original post by adelz)
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.
'Minimum' is just a matter of interpretation. I think its minimum because historically urban warfare always result in greater civilian casualties. But from the statistic civilian deaths are only a little than 50% of the total. For me thats "minimum".


(Original post by adelz)
No, all militants care about the palestinian people and they are fighting for what they think will eventually bring a palestinian self ruled state.
Thats your opinion. From what I observe the militants care more about the land than for the people living on it.
0
Jamie
Badges: 18
#964
Report 16 years ago
#964
(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.
If you read the UN mandate you would have seen they were already struggling for independence in 1917 (they were the only arab land not granted it, because the British wanted Jewish settlement there as well, and figured that the palestinians (if they had their own government and therefore voice) would say no.
It may have been anti-semitism on the part of the league of nations particulary britian - don't really care what happens to them, so long as they leave Europe sort of thing.
And those who would quibble at the palestinians quests for independence long before amounts of zionists arrived, remember what Britian took from so many countries. No one would argue India deserved independence, so why didn't palestine (albeit several decades apart)
J
0
adelz
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#965
Report 16 years ago
#965
(Original post by thefish_uk)
That's actually a good point...

I think it's about time I had my usual rant about religion, just to remind you all that I hate religion because it causes so much trouble and if we didn't have organised religion these days so many of the world's conflicts wouldn't even have started.
I agree. religion is the basis of .. the majority of todays problems. Infact, the majority of todays problems are stemmed from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
0
thefish_uk
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#966
Report 16 years ago
#966
(Original post by adelz)
I agree. religion is the basis of .. the majority of todays problems. Infact, the majority of todays problems are stemmed from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
I'd start a "Do you hate religion like I do" thread...

But no, with today's attitudes towards religion threads on UKL it wouldn't be a good idea...
0
DoctorNO
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#967
Report 16 years ago
#967
(Original post by adelz)
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.
Oh my. The UK is an internationally recognized state. It has authority, government, leadership and jurisdiction. That is why you cant just claim for yourself any unoccupied lot within its jurisdiction.

The palestinians had none of these. In fact the term "palestinian" only became popular on the latter half of the last century. Nobody owns that region and both the palestinians and the jews had legitimate claim to it. And so the U.N. did what was best. Dividing the land.

(Original post by adelz)
They were not a state as 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.
Tough luck. Its a good thing the U.N. took over, eh? They gave each party what they deserved.

(Original post by adelz)
The land is ENTITLED TO the Palestinian people as they are the ones residing on it and working on it.
You are 50% correct. The U.N. saw that the Palestinian were 'entitled to' the developed half of the land.
0
DoctorNO
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#968
Report 16 years ago
#968
(Original post by foolfarian)
If you read the UN mandate you would have seen they were already struggling for independence in 1917 (they were the only arab land not granted it, because the British wanted Jewish settlement there as well, and figured that the palestinians (if they had their own government and therefore voice) would say no.
It may have been anti-semitism on the part of the league of nations particulary britian - don't really care what happens to them, so long as they leave Europe sort of thing.
And those who would quibble at the palestinians quests for independence long before amounts of zionists arrived, remember what Britian took from so many countries. No one would argue India deserved independence, so why didn't palestine (albeit several decades apart)
J
None of what youVE said justifies a sovereign state. Yes they were struggling but somebody else struggled with them. Tough luck.
0
adelz
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#969
Report 16 years ago
#969
Oh my. The UK is an internationally recognized state. It has authority, government, leadership and jurisdiction. That is why you cant just claim for yourself any unoccupied lot within its jurisdiction.
palestine had no govt, leadership as the british already had a vision to make palestine the jewish homeland. Iraq is currently in disarray, and is governed by a foreign power yet random people cannot randomly come in and take areas of it jsut because its in disarray. When the ottoman empire took over Palestine they took over the land that is currently called Israel and Palestine.

The palestinians had none of these. In fact the term "palestinian" only became popular on the latter half of the last century. Nobody owns that region and both the palestinians and the jews had legitimate claim to it. And so the U.N. did what was best. Dividing the land.
No it didnt. Palestine is the name of that land and Palestinians are the people entitled to it as they are its inhabitants. The Palestinians have legitimate clame to it as that is where they have grown up, worked, lived for centuries. The Jews have no legitimate claim to it - religious claims cannot be used as political claims etc. The UN had to divide the land as the Jews immigrated to palestine and you cant really ship them all back .


Tough luck. Its a good thing the U.N. took over, eh? They gave each party what they deserved.
why did the Jews deserve anything ? why didnt they give them UK land instead ?

You are 50% correct. The U.N. saw that the Palestinian were 'entitled to' the developed half of the land.
the jews got more than half of the "developed" land. And I just want to point out that the land was developed by the Palestinian people and the Israelis took over their homes, land etc.etc.
0
adelz
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#970
Report 16 years ago
#970
(Original post by DoctorNO)
'Minimum' is just a matter of interpretation. I think its minimum because historically urban warfare always result in greater civilian casualties. But from the statistic civilian deaths are only a little than 50% of the total. For me thats "minimum".
50% is NOT minimum. 18% being children is NOT minimum either.

(Original post by DoctorNO)
Thats your opinion. From what I observe the militants care more about the land than for the people living on it.
Actually, its a fact. Ive been there, Ive seen it. All the militant organisations have other sides to them too - they operate schools, hospitals and provide help & basic services to Palestinians who, as Ive mentioned before, are mostly unemployed and 60% earn less than $1 a day. The militants too have said that if Israel pull out to pre1967 borders, which is LESS than what Palestinians are, according to you, entitled to by the UN, they will stop attacks. Militants fight for the Palestinian people and try to, using whatever means, ultimately provide a homeland for the nation.
0
HasanB
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#971
Report 16 years ago
#971
(Original post by thefish_uk)
I'd start a "Do you hate religion like I do" thread...

But no, with today's attitudes towards religion threads on UKL it wouldn't be a good idea...

well id have to agree abt everything u sed there abt religion, and to be honest i get quite annoyed by it, it is the root of many conflicts and if ppl would stop butting into someone elses business things would be much better off, as in if someone wants to be some type of a religion then its their business !! u cant start a war or something because someone else doesnt believe in the same religion that u do, plus all the conservative crap that comes with religion (if u follow it properly) annoys me aswell, so yeah i agree with u on religion
0
adelz
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#972
Report 16 years ago
#972
(Original post by DoctorNO)
None of what youVE said justifies a sovereign state. Yes they were struggling but somebody else struggled with them. Tough luck.
Dude, what the hell is wrong with you ?!?! Palestinians LIVED, WORKED, GREW UP, DEVELOPED the PALESTINIAN LAND. HOW does that not justify a sovereign state ?!?!?! The only reason they did not become a country was because the UK had other plans for palestine !!! HOW is a JEWISH STATE OF ISRAEL justified in land where PALESTINIANS live and to which Jews ONLY HAVE RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION FROM MILLENIA AGO!
WHAT then to YOU justifies a sovereign sate ?!
0
DoctorNO
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#973
Report 16 years ago
#973
(Original post by adelz)
Dude, what the hell is wrong with you ?!?! Palestinians LIVED, WORKED, GREW UP, DEVELOPED the PALESTINIAN LAND. HOW does that not justify a sovereign state ?!?!?! The only reason they did not become a country was because the UK had other plans for palestine !!! HOW is a JEWISH STATE OF ISRAEL justified in land where PALESTINIANS live and to which Jews ONLY HAVE RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION FROM MILLENIA AGO!
My friend,

* the jews were the orginal occupants of the land. theyve been in exile and unwanted in every nation they settled.
* there are also a small number of jews who continued to live, work and develop that land.
* the development of pre-1948 palestine was largely due to the jewish immigrants who brought skill & funds into the region.
* it takes governance and international recognition to become sovereign.
* much of the land was unoccupied & undeveloped at that time.

(Original post by adelz)
WHAT then to YOU justifies a sovereign sate ?!
You mean you still dont get it? I mentioned them several times already.
0
adelz
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#974
Report 16 years ago
#974
* the jews were the orginal occupants of the land. theyve been in exile and unwanted in every nation they settled.

They were originally the occupants of the land according to religion, in the second millenium BC. Since around 100BC the Jews have not ruled the land and since around 100 AD it has been muslim. And even if we say that they are the originally the occupants of the land, that does not mean that the land is now JEWISH as you do not have countries which belong to a certain RELIGION. You have countries which belong to a certain people - in this case PALESTINIANS the people of PALESTINE - they can be of any religion. And no, they have not been in exile and unwanted in every nation they settled for 4000 years. They had become jewish people of different nationalities, exactly as every other normal religion - you have jewish,muslim,chrisitan,buddhist ,scientologist etc.etc. english people but none of those religions has a "promised land" which they are therefore "entitled to" because their holy book says so. Why should Israel ?
Also, if you are arguing that the jews are entitled to the land as they are the original occupants then Pakistan should be indian, Canada should belong to Red Indians, South america should be spanish .. or whoever the original inhabitants were. Its not like that. And you dont have the people who originally inhabited those countries fighting to try and get it back as this was all thousands of years ago and cannot be used as an excuse that the land is entitled to them. In Palestine, the Palestinians owned the land till 1947 - they may have been governed by different powers till then, but so was a lot of the world at that time. It was normal.


* there are also a small number of jews who continued to live, work and develop that land.

So what ? They were a minority and its normal to have people of one nationality but different religion. Arab Jews. That is not a point that justifies the land belonging to Israel

* the development of pre-1948 palestine was largely due to the jewish immigrants who brought skill & funds into the region.

No it wasn't. They developed the parts they lived on, Arabs developed the parts they lived on too. But before the Jews came the country on the whole had been developed for thousands of years by the Arabs. Again, that is not a justifiable reason that gives them the right to own the land

* it takes governance and international recognition to become sovereign
.
Palestine was under British mandate and was the only country that did not become a self ruled country, as seen in the UN history of Palestine, as britain had other goals for it. Palestine was still PALESTINE and land of Palestinians. Lets say that they werent sovereign, just for the sake of argument. That again does not mean that any random person can waltz in and take control of land as it was under control of the british mandate - and still had borders, rules etc.

* much of the land was unoccupied & undeveloped at that time.

So what ? Much of the UAE where I live is unoccupied and undeveloped as its desert. As is much of Saudi Arabia and Africa. Alaska too as matter of fact. That again does not mean that anyone can waltz in and take it. This is not finders keepers, losers weepers.
0
DoctorNO
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#975
Report 16 years ago
#975
(Original post by adelz)
* it takes governance and international recognition to become sovereign
.
Palestine was under British mandate and was the only country that did not become a self ruled country, as seen in the UN history of Palestine, as britain had other goals for it. Palestine was still PALESTINE and land of Palestinians. Lets say that they werent sovereign, just for the sake of argument. That again does not mean that any random person can waltz in and take control of land as it was under control of the british mandate - and still had borders, rules etc.

* much of the land was unoccupied & undeveloped at that time.

So what ? Much of the UAE where I live is unoccupied and undeveloped as its desert. As is much of Saudi Arabia and Africa. Alaska too as matter of fact. That again does not mean that anyone can waltz in and take it. This is not finders keepers, losers weepers.
Mate, I dont know what it would take for you to learn what a "SOVEREIGN STATE" is.

And the rest of your post had already been thoroughly discussed not too many pages ago. And if you cant even understand the concept of 'sovereign state' I doubt you could understant the more complex nature of the palestinian conflict.

Maybe you can discuss it with another newbie to this thread.

Have a great day, mate.
0
adelz
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#976
Report 16 years ago
#976
(Original post by DoctorNO)
Mate, I dont know what it would take for you to learn what a "SOVEREIGN STATE" is.

And the rest of your post had already been thoroughly discussed not too many pages ago. And if you cant even understand the concept of 'sovereign state' I doubt you could understant the more complex nature of the palestinian conflict.

Maybe you can discuss it with another newbie to this thread.

Have a great day, mate.
Yeah .. Im sure. Im the newbie that knows nothing and you are the professor that fully understands the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Ive been to both Palestine and Israel and therefore I have way more first hand experience than you. I also live in the middle east and reckon I understand the conflict a bit better than you. You have no right to argue on the case unless you have been there and see how people live their every day lives - on both sides. Even if I do not know what a sovereign state is, and you are right and Im wrong about that - in my previous post Ive assumed that Palestine was not a sovereign state - but as Ive said before that does not mean any group of people can waltz in and take it over as its not a sovereign state. It was the land of Palestine, ruled by the british under the mandate, which had BORDERS..


More like "I cannot argue to what you've just said" methinks.

Have a great day too "mate".
0
DoctorNO
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#977
Report 16 years ago
#977
(Original post by adelz)
Yeah .. Im sure. Im the newbie that knows nothing and you are the professor that fully understands the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.
Nah Im just not into repeating stuff. I already made my points and im content with that. I am only advising you to wait for another zealous newbie and im sure he would love to discuss all the things discussed here before.

(Original post by adelz)
Ive been to both Palestine and Israel and therefore I have way more first hand experience than you.
And you are affected emotionally by what youve seen right? And thus your emotions cloud your judgements. These things can happen to any of us. In fact some people went there and patronized the israelis instead.

So sometimes it is better not to see the actual but instead weigh the issue according to the reports on both side.

(Original post by adelz)
I also live in the middle east and reckon I understand the conflict a bit better than you.
And because of this you may be more BIASED than any of us. Which is why you could not accept the fact the palestinians were never a sovereign state. Which is why you could not find jewish presence tolerable. You are quite EXTREME in your views.

My views are simply for the peaceful coexistence of both nations.


(Original post by adelz)
You have no right to argue on the case unless you have been there and see how people live their every day lives - on both sides.
More like "I cannot argue to what you've just said" methinks.
Have a great day too "mate".
I am just exercising my freedom of speech, mate. As does everybody here. I have every right to argue on the case.
0
adelz
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#978
Report 16 years ago
#978
(Original post by DoctorNO)
Nah Im just not into repeating stuff. I already made my points and im content with that. I am only advising you to wait for another zealous newbie and im sure he would love to discuss all the things discussed here before.
Actually this is a forum where discussions are supposed to take place. Ones views can be said and debated upon. If you are afraid of repeating stuff and if youve already made your points and are content then why are you on here ?
I too have repeated a lot of the things Ive said but its a debate so ofcourse, there will be repitition.

(Original post by DoctorNO)
And you are affected emotionally by what youve seen right? And thus your emotions cloud your judgements. These things can happen to any of us. In fact some people went there and patronized the israelis instead.
So sometimes it is better not to see the actual but instead weigh the issue according to the reports on both side.
How can it be better not to see the actual ? If you see the actual, on both sides, you will see the problems of both sides and weigh against fact and reality, not paper reports, doctored by both sides and written with aim to prove a certain point - not taking the whole issue to account.
The problem in Palestine and Israel is the suffering, the killing, the innocent children being killed. That is reality and Ive seen it. Therefore I have a more down-to-earth and firsthand perspective and as I have been to both places.

(Original post by DoctorNO)
And because of this you may be more BIASED than any of us. Which is why you could not accept the fact the palestinians were never a sovereign state. Which is why you could not find jewish presence tolerable. You are quite EXTREME in your views.
Well, according to your profile you live in Canada where people are much more Pro Israeli. I live in Dubai, a very metropolitan city where soemthing like 90% of the population is foreigner. I have had a british education since nursery. If we look at the history of the majority of the countries in the world we see that until around the 18 - 1900's lots of them were ruled by foreign powers and then around WW1 became independant. Palestine did not become an independant as, for the zillionth time, the British had other plans for it. Palestine still had borders to the land that the british mandate had an effect and to the land that the people who lived there - palestinians - could move about, work, live etc. in. The land was theirs, even though they were ruled by a foreign power and was entitled to them when the british left, not the Israelis. The fact that British decided to create a homeland for the Jews does not mean that the Jews are therefore entitled to it - they had their own countries, nationalities, homes in Europe. The home of Palestinians was IN PALESTINE. And no, I dont find jewish presence intolerable - there is no way Israel is going to disappear - if they just pull back to pre1967 borders the war will end. In your eyes I may be "extreme" in my views as I support palestine in most areas - in mine your views are more extremist.
Its all a matter of opinion.

(Original post by DoctorNO)
My views are simply for the peaceful coexistence of both nations.
Well so are mine - I may have a different opinion to the conflict but ultimately I want peace. As Ive said dozens of times before all they have to do is pull back to pre1967 borders and bloodshed will end but it is normal for people of a country to fight for its independance (as have the majority of countries around the world). The militant groups are fighting for an israeli pull back to pre1967 borders.

(Original post by DoctorNO)
I am just exercising my freedom of speech, mate. As does everybody here. I have every right to argue on the case.
Ofcourse you do, as do I .
0
Jamie
Badges: 18
#979
Report 16 years ago
#979
(Original post by DoctorNO)
None of what youVE said justifies a sovereign state. Yes they were struggling but somebody else struggled with them. Tough luck.
See this is why I don't like your posts. This whole 'tough luck' ethos you have. Makes you look like a bit of a git
J
0
DoctorNO
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#980
Report 16 years ago
#980
(Original post by foolfarian)
See this is why I don't like your posts. This whole 'tough luck' ethos you have. Makes you look like a bit of a git
J
No offense was meant, foolfarian. Sometimes life sucks. And thats tough luck. So its tough luck for the arabs that history happened the way it did. And so they must learn to peacefully coexist with the Israelis.
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

People at uni: do initiations (like heavy drinking) put you off joining sports societies?

Yes (211)
67.63%
No (101)
32.37%

Watched Threads

View All