Turn on thread page Beta

Israel's 'Illegal' Wall watch

Announcements
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Israel sends settlers? We seem to recall that we had to remove settlers.
    Look at the thousands of settlers moving to the West Bank.

    Not according to the UN Charter...
    Like regime change?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    Look at the thousands of settlers moving to the West Bank.
    Israel sees no point in removing these settlers when the removal of the settlers from Gaza did nothing for the peace process.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    The Islamic Republic of Iran wholeheartedly supports Cuba's proposal. It also demands that Israel return back to its 1967 borders, without which there is no chance for the peace process to succeed.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Israel sees no point in removing these settlers when the removal of the settlers from Gaza did nothing for the peace process.
    I'm not talking at this stage of remving existing settlers in west bank, i was talking about the movement of settlers TO the west bank. How can you give with one hand and take with another and expect gratitude?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Socrates)
    The Islamic Republic of Iran wholeheartedly supports Cuba's proposal. It also demands that Israel return back to its 1967 borders, without which there is no chance for the peace process to succeed.
    Micronesia was under the impression that the Islamic Republic of Iran wanted to see the end of Israel completely, is this a change in policy? Or is Iran merely adopting the tactics of the 'palestinians' who claim that they want a return to the 1967 borders but in reality wish for the total annihilation of Israel and only advocate return to 1967 borders as a means, rather than an end.
    Furthermore, blindly throwing the support of a country behind a proposal that cannot possibly be implemented or work and is thoroughly misguided as regards the fundamental workings of the UN, is not the most sensible course of action. Then again, Micronesia has little respect for Cuba, Venezuela or Iran, and doesn't really have high expectations of these countries or their delegates.

    --------------

    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    Look at the thousands of settlers moving to the West Bank.
    There's a difference between 'sending' (your original wording) and 'moving'. A difference apparently lost on the delegate of "Venez-wailer".

    --------------

    (Original post by Socrates)
    It also demands
    Micronesia demands that Iran grant equal rights to women, homosexuals and minorities. Micronesia demands Iran acknowledge Israel's right to exist. Micronesia demands Iran start talking the language of peace rather than war. Micronesia demands that Iran cease their pursuit of nuclear capabilities. Micronesia demands Iran stop trying to distract the world from its own actions by ranting about Israel.

    Hey, if Iran can DEMAND stuff, so can Micronesia.

    --------------

    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    How can you give with one hand and take with another and expect gratitude?
    How can you reject every generous offer and proposal ever tabled and instead respond with a 5-year campaign of murderous, indiscriminate terrorism and then expect that you will be rewarded at the end?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    There's a difference between 'sending' (your original wording) and 'moving'. A difference apparently lost on the delegate of "Venez-wailer".
    Well that si in effect what they are doing by allowing illegal construction to take place. And The Republic of Venezuela objects to the mockery of her name by the representative for Micronesia. We view this as an insult to all Venezuelans and trust measures will be taken.

    How can you reject every generous offer and proposal ever tabled and instead respond with a 5-year campaign of murderous, indiscriminate terrorism and then expect that you will be rewarded at the end
    Because every single proposal has offered Israel more land.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    Because every single proposal has offered Israel more land.
    Even when Prime Minister Barak offered them everything they were asking for including part of Jerusalem for their Palestinian State?

    Israel thinks it was rather foolish of them to decline such a generous offer. It is doubtful that they will get an offer like that again. Well, not whilst terrorism is on their side. A missed oppurtunity, some would call it.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    actually they were offered around 80% of the west bank!
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JonathanH)
    A difference apparently lost on the delegate of "Venez-wailer".
    Just as with the comparison made (in an earlier thread) between the United States and Satan, representatives are requested to refrain from resorting to insults.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    actually they were offered around 80% of the west bank!
    Oh is that all? Doesn't change the fact that they rejected it and we all know 80% is better than 0%. And they were offered some of Jerusalem, which really is not on the cards at the moment. So if they were so bothered, they would have accepted what they were offered instead of being greedy. They could have bargained for more later. It is laughable that they have been offered the same deal countless times since then but what did Arafat do? Say no. Oh well.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jangliss)
    If Israel continues to build its "Security Wall" through Palestinian territory, the Cuban people will sponsor a proposal for UN peacekeepers to stop it and any retaliatory violence in time for the Palestinian elections on Jan 25th. You are asking for extremist groups to be elected, which Cuba feels is a threat to security worldwide.
    Will this resolution also take into consideration the seperation barriers in existence in China, Cyprus, India, Ireland, Korea, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Thailand and the United Kingdom?

    And will this not undermine the justiifcation for a security wall erected by the UN between Iraq and Kuwait?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Oh is that all?
    :rolleyes:

    we all know 80% is better than 0%
    Jews didn't used to have a country. Don't you think having a powerful 1st world nation is better tha not? Why grab the west bank?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    :rolleyes:

    Jews didn't used to have a country. Don't you think having a powerful 1st world nation is better tha not? Why grab the west bank?
    Jews have always been in Israel. The Palestinians have not. The Palestinians are indistinguishable from any other Arabs.

    There is little point in arguing as you don't believe what I say, and I don't believe in what you say.

    Shall we get back to the topic now? Maybe you can challenge what Vienna has to say, if you can, because I'd say it's a rather valid point.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    "Palestinian" (Filasteeni فلسطسيني) was always a common nisba adopted by natives of the region, starting as early as the first century after the Hijra (eg `Abdallah b. Muhayriz al-Jumahi al-Filastini
    Palestinian Arabic is a Levantine Arabic dialect subgroup spoken by the Palestinian people. Palestinian rural dialects exhibit several distinctive features (particularly the pronunciation of qaf as kaf) which distinguish them from other Arabic varieties
    Palestnians do not dress or look the same as many Arabs either. How ignorant.

    Shall we get back to the topic now? Maybe you can challenge what Vienna has to say, if you can, because I'd say it's a rather valid point.
    If the said delegate would like to bring up these issues in another motion Venezuela will consider them.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vienna)
    Will this resolution also take into consideration the seperation barriers in existence in China, Cyprus, India, Ireland, Korea, Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Thailand and the United Kingdom?

    And will this not undermine the justiifcation for a security wall erected by the UN between Iraq and Kuwait?
    I think many people's initial response would be that walls such as the Belfast Peace Line, originally erected to separate two conjoining estates, one Protestant and one Catholic, are less serious than the enormous Israeli construction project. The Belfast Line is a local barrier between two groups who want to get at each other; it is intended not to end confrontations but merely to make it difficult for them to constantly occur at the estates' mutual boundary. If you REALLY want a fight, it's not hard to go round the end of the Line.

    The Israeli wall, so far as I can see, has a much larger goal. Its builders don't want anyone going round it - rather than being a small-scale gesture like the Peace Line, it is an important part of Israeli defensive policy and as such it makes no sense to have a wall like that in Belfast, because that would be ridiculously ineffective. The Israeli wall is closer to the Berlin Wall than the Peace Line in both its aims (well, one aim at least - that of stopping ANY ground traffic between two places) and its size, and consequently has the same side-effect of separating families and friends. I expect people will wilfully misquote this last sentence out of context to make it look as though I am comparing Israel to East Germany, but that can't be helped.

    I don't know anything at all about the Chinese, Indian, Irish, Saudi, Spanish or Thai examples, but I would assume that the similar cases we see in Cyprus, the DMZ and the Western Saharan/Moroccan border ought to be treated exactly the same as the Israeli wall for the sake of consistency.

    The need for any wall between Iraq and Kuwait should be disappearing soon; retrospectively, we can't be sure whether the wall was justified, because we can never go back and find out what would have happened without it. It occurs to me that if Saddam Hussein had wanted to blast the wall down, he probably could have done. It couldn't have been a proper defence, but rather a deterrent to invasion. Since there are no major settlements either straddling or particularly close to the border (that I know of), the "separating friends and families" argument seems not to apply. This means that the Iraq-Kuwait wall can only have been one of two things: either (a) a valuable and effective deterrent or (b) a relatively harmless waste of money. Which, I don't know.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    Palestnians do not dress or look the same as many Arabs either. How ignorant.
    So these distinct people who live on the land that we now know to be the region of Palestine, would be justified in their resistance to Ottoman, Jordanian and Egyptian occupation of their land?
    These distinct people would recognise that the origins of the region mean that Jewish Palestinians also had a right to a Palestinian state or the creation of a Jewish state alongside one afforded to Palestinian Arabs? At what point did this distinct people become distinctly Arab?

    If the said delegate would like to bring up these issues in another motion Venezuela will consider them.
    They are highly relevant to this motion. Such a resolution would have an impact on existing security or seperation barriers that exist across the world. Surely you wish to see the UN take a consistent and objective approach to any precedent in regard to their existence?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    So these distinct people who live on the land that we now know to be the region of Palestine, would be justified in their resistance to Ottoman, Jordanian and Egyptian occupation of their land?
    Ottoman of course. The Egyptian and Jordanian presences were not of the same nature.

    Surely you wish to see the UN take a consistent and objective approach to any precedent in regard to their
    Certainly, perhaps you could provide specifics and information?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Agent Smith)
    I think many people's initial response would be that walls such as the Belfast Peace Line, originally erected to separate two conjoining estates, one Protestant and one Catholic, are less serious than the enormous Israeli construction project. The Belfast Line is a local barrier between two groups who want to get at each other; it is intended not to end confrontations but merely to make it difficult for them to constantly occur at the estates' mutual boundary. If you REALLY want a fight, it's not hard to go round the end of the Line.

    The Israeli wall, so far as I can see, has a much larger goal. Its builders don't want anyone going round it - rather than being a small-scale gesture like the Peace Line, it is an important part of Israeli defensive policy and as such it makes no sense to have a wall like that in Belfast, because that would be ridiculously ineffective. The Israeli wall is closer to the Berlin Wall than the Peace Line in both its aims (well, one aim at least - that of stopping ANY ground traffic between two places) and its size, and consequently has the same side-effect of separating families and friends. I expect people will wilfully misquote this last sentence out of context to make it look as though I am comparing Israel to East Germany, but that can't be helped.

    I don't know anything at all about the Chinese, Indian, Irish, Saudi, Spanish or Thai examples, but I would assume that the similar cases we see in Cyprus, the DMZ and the Western Saharan/Moroccan border ought to be treated exactly the same as the Israeli wall for the sake of consistency.

    The need for any wall between Iraq and Kuwait should be disappearing soon; retrospectively, we can't be sure whether the wall was justified, because we can never go back and find out what would have happened without it. It occurs to me that if Saddam Hussein had wanted to blast the wall down, he probably could have done. It couldn't have been a proper defence, but rather a deterrent to invasion. Since there are no major settlements either straddling or particularly close to the border (that I know of), the "separating friends and families" argument seems not to apply. This means that the Iraq-Kuwait wall can only have been one of two things: either (a) a valuable and effective deterrent or (b) a relatively harmless waste of money. Which, I don't know.
    The majority of these fences or barriers exist to prevent conflict or to prevent bloodshed between two peoples. The Israeli barrier is no different, it does not exist as a means to seperate people of colour or ethnicity or of religious belief, but to protect one nation state from a threat of attack.

    The Iraq barrier may no longer be needed since the threat no longer exists. Unfortunately, a threat of terrorism against the state of Israel continues to exist and with it, the wall. Surely the UN should be looking at the most objective way in which Palestinian sovereignity and Israel security can be assured?

    --------------

    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    Ottoman of course. The Egyptian and Jordanian presences were not of the same nature.
    Why not? Jordan unilaterally annexed the land of these distinct peoples and Egypt occupied remaining parts of it. Any hostility to the creation of a Jewish state by Palestinian Jews(Jews with origins in the same region) should not detract from the justification of resistance against the occupation of Palestinian land by peoples distinct from Palestinians who were both foreign to Palestinian Jews and Arabs alike.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vienna)
    The majority of these fences or barriers exist to prevent conflict or to prevent bloodshed between two peoples. The Israeli barrier is no different, it does not exist as a means to seperate people of colour or ethnicity or of religious belief, but to protect one nation state from a threat of attack.

    The Iraq barrier may no longer be needed since the threat no longer exists. Unfortunately, a threat of terrorism against the state of Israel continues to exist and with it, the wall. Surely the UN should be looking at the most objective way in which Palestinian sovereignity and Israel security can be assured?
    I agree. However, the problem is that opinions differ as to how to do this, and there are those who favour one nation or the other, making a fair deal very hard to strike.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Agent Smith)
    I agree. However, the problem is that opinions differ as to how to do this, and there are those who favour one nation or the other, making a fair deal very hard to strike.
    Of course, should a UN representative support resolutions that are anything but, in their eyes, fair?
 
 
 
Poll
Brexit: Given the chance now, would you vote leave or remain?
Useful resources

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.