Turn on thread page Beta

Israel's 'Illegal' Wall watch

Announcements
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    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.
    Their protection was greatfully received.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    Their protection was greatfully received.
    So from 1948 to 1967, the Palestinian Arabs accepted the annexation of their land because their occupiers protected them from what? An occupation?
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vienna)
    Of course, should a UN representative support resolutions that are anything but, in their eyes, fair?
    Sorry, what?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    So from 1948 to 1967, the Palestinian Arabs accepted the annexation of their land because their occupiers protected them from what? An occupation?
    Furhter occupation!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    Furhter occupation!
    So from 1948 to 1967, the Palestinian Arabs accepted the annexation and occupation of their land because their occupiers protected them from more occupation? Explain that to me.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    All occupations are not the same. There was a mutual interest to protect Arab lands.

    There is of course the irony that many Pro- Palestinian activists fail to acknowledge. That an Arab government was responsible for the worst ever massacre of Palestinians.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    All occupations are not the same. There was a mutual interest to protect Arab lands.
    So despite being Palestinian from the same Palestinian region, Palestinian Arabs found a sudden mutual interest to be occupied by foreign forces in order to protect them from Jewish Palestinians and a two state region, because they were Arab? At what point do you think being a distinct people becomes relevant?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    So despite being Palestinian from the same Palestinian region, Palestinian Arabs found a sudden mutual interest to be occupied by foreign forces in order to protect them from Jewish Palestinians and a two state region, because they were Arab? At what point do you think being a distinct people becomes relevant?
    Palestiian Arabs were closer to foreign Arabs than invading Jews.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    Palestiian Arabs were closer to foreign Arabs than invading Jews.
    So the region where this distinct Palestinian Arab people existed, was never also inhabited by Jews, Palestinian Jews? Did the first Jews arrive when the UN decided that there was a need(tell me why) for a two state solution.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    :rolleyes: There were always Palestinian Jews in Palestine. Around 5000 in Jerusalem. Among the first Jews to oppose the creation of the Zionist state. The invaders were never Palestinians.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    :rolleyes: There were always Palestinian Jews in Palestine. Around 5000 in Jerusalem. Among the first Jews to oppose the creation of the Zionist state. The invaders were never Palestinians.
    So the Palestinian Jews were given a state and the Palestinian Arabs afforded land to establish their own state, why then would they accept to be occupied by foreign powers if they acknowledged both the existence of Palestinian Jews and a Jewish state?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Because there were only about 5000 Palestinian Jews who had stayed there from ancient times and they had no desire to invent a new country based on anti-Jewish zionist principles.

    The theft of land and the exodus of a people meant that some action needed to be taken to protect the rest of Palestine and in the national interests of Egypt and Jordan, secure their own borders.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    Because there were only about 5000 Palestinian Jews who had stayed there from ancient times and they had no desire to invent a new country based on anti-Jewish zionist principles.

    The theft of land and the exodus of a people meant that some action needed to be taken to protect the rest of Palestine and in the national interests of Egypt and Jordan, secure their own borders.
    Jews living in Palestine didnt want a two state solution and rejected the state of Israel?

    The creation of Israel ran against the Jewish concepts of the Land of Israel as the birthplace of the Jewish people and its reference in Jewish law?

    Again you suggest that Palestinian Arabs allowed themselves to be occupied in order to prevent occupation and in order to defend the national interests of foreign forces. Yet Palestinians resist, through terrorism, the existence of the State of Israel? Why is that, because Israel is Jewish and not Arab?

    Im also interested to hear that Jordan was securing its borders when it annexed part of Palestine. Do you think this was justified?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Argentina understands Israel decisions to protect its citizens against terror attacks and can see the wall stopping immediate attacks but we do not see it as as a long term plan. Peace negotations should be the answer and we understand that takes time, but we (the international community) do not want to see another Berlin wall which stood for 3 decades.

    What we strongy oppose is the route of the wall, the International Court of Justice feels the wall is unnecessarily separating Palestinans from their schools, hospitals and other important building. As the occupying forces in the occupied land, Israel has broken the fourth Geneva convention which concerns the treatments of civilians on occupied territory. If the they continue to disregard international laws, I see no option but to impose sanctions on Israel.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Jews living in Palestine didnt want a two state solution and rejected the state of Israel?
    Many of the ones who had been there for 200 years, yes.

    The creation of Israel ran against the Jewish concepts of the Land of Israel as the birthplace of the Jewish people and its reference in Jewish law?
    Because it was formed through taking up arms. This is forbidden in the Torah.

    Again you suggest that Palestinian Arabs allowed themselves to be occupied in order to prevent occupation and in order to defend the national interests of foreign forces. Yet Palestinians resist, through terrorism, the existence of the State of Israel? Why is that, because Israel is Jewish and not Arab?
    The Arabs wanted an independent Palestinian State (like they were promised) on the lands they had inhabited for hundreds of years. When the Jewish invasion threatened this, the Jordanians and Egyptians took what steps they felt necessary to safeguard remaining Palestie and their own integrity.

    Im also interested to hear that Jordan was securing its borders when it annexed part of Palestine. Do you think this was justified?
    Not permanently.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    Many of the ones who had been there for 200 years, yes.

    Because it was formed through taking up arms. This is forbidden in the Torah.

    The Arabs wanted an independent Palestinian State (like they were promised) on the lands they had inhabited for hundreds of years. When the Jewish invasion
    You've already told us that Palestinian Jews existed in Palestine. The UN then afforded Jews a state based on their existence. Jews wanted an independent Jewish state on the lands they had inhabited. Whatsmore Jews emigrating to Israel felt that they were bolstering a Jewish state, with religious significance, against the threats from the surrounding Arab states, who OPPOSED the partition plan and an indepedent Palestinian state, rejected an independent Jewish state and attacked Israel.

    threatened this, the Jordanians and Egyptians took what steps they felt necessary to safeguard remaining Palestie and their own integrity.

    Not permanently.
    The Jordanians attacked the State of Israel and rejected the Partition Plan. How did either threaten an independent Palestinian State?

    Again, how did Jordan annexing Palestine protect the integrity of a Palestinian region and its borders?!!

    The Israeli security barrier is not permanent and acts to protect the borders of Israel. You have a problem with such a barrier, but not with the annexing and occupation of Palestine in order to protect Palestine from occupation and secure an independent state?

    I understand that no one could occupy Palestine if it was already occupied by Egypt, yet Im amused to hear that the prospect of an independent Palestinian state was assured when Jordan came and annexed that land.

    The only explanation that one could find to defend such a ludicrous and contradictory position is that Jordanians and Palestinians were united as Arabs in their hostility towards the Jewish race. The Jordanians and Palestinians considered themselves part of one homogeneous group in opposition to 'foreign' Palestinian Jews.
    Offline

    1
    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.
    The United States stands opposed to this proposal and would work with its allies to defeat any attempts at implementing such a plan. As Vienna pointed out there are countless examples of such defenses around the world and Israel has every right to defend its borders from the threat of attack.

    The United States would like to express to the UN that this wall should be viewed as a security border rather than a political one. This is a temporary means to ensure the stability required for successful peace negotiations and does not allow for expansion of Israeli settlements, as Israel has previously committed to.

    The road map to peace is very important to the United States and we are constantly working with the Palestinian Authorities and the Israeli government to ensure this process moves forward. We reiterate our view that all parties should remain committed to this process and proposals such as presented here can be very dangerous in destroying the progress.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kondar)
    As Vienna pointed out there are countless examples of such defenses around the world and Israel has every right to defend its borders from the threat of attack.
    Isreal is not defending its borders. According the the International Court of Justice, the walls are deep inside the Palestinian side (thus seriously impeding their human rights) and not to the proposed 'Green Line'. For an occupying force to built a wall in a land it already occupies is a clear breach of the fourth Geneva convention.

    Does the US backs a country which does not follow international laws?

    I call for all UN nations to condemn these actions against humanitarian laws.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    actually they were offered around 80% of the west bank!
    Actually, the land they were offered included West Bank land and land to be taken from Israel itself and would have totalled well over NINETY PERCENT of the size of the West Bank. Some claim around 93%, some 97%. Micronesia suggests that the Venezuelan representative checks his facts in case he accidentally misleads everyone with falsehoods again.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Refused)
    Isreal is not defending its borders.
    Under what defintion is a country employing an effective measure preventing suicide bombers entering it and blowing up its people not 'defending its borders'? Micronesia is perplexed.

    (Original post by Refused)
    For an occupying force to built a wall in a land it already occupies is a clear breach of the fourth Geneva convention.
    Could the delegate be mroe specific, that's a very long document to just declare a 'clear breach' of without referencing a particular part.
 
 
 
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.