Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    And if there had been no Arabs, there would be no problem
    I was pointing out the fact that if there was no zionism there would have been no partition.

    Demonstrate how the security barrier is permanent.
    When did I claim it was?

    No it means there is no ruling to obey
    Exactly. There are rulings but Israel doesn't have to obey.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    When did I claim it was?

    Exactly. There are rulings but Israel doesn't have to obey.
    Good, im glad thats cleared up. I thus expect you to oppose the resolution in light of the fact that such action is temporarily justifiable, irrespective of whether its foreign Arab invaders or Zionists protecting their own state.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I thus expect you to oppose the resolution in light of the fact that such action is temporarily justifiable, irrespective of whether its foreign Arab invaders or Zionists protecting their own state
    No because the wall is an apartheid wall and is cutting into Palestinian land making the lives of thousands of people even more miserable. If you want to stop the bombs then remove the illegal settlements.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    No because the wall is an apartheid wall
    Whats apartheid?

    and is cutting into Palestinian land making the lives of thousands of people even more miserable. If you want to stop the bombs then remove the illegal settlements.
    Im sure it is making the lives of alot of people more difficult than we would like, yet that isnt much of a justification for anything. We are talking about the basis for a security barrier in order to protect national integrity. You told us that occupation and even annexation of Palestinian territory was "temporarily justified" in order to maintain secure borders. Yet this doesnt apply to the State of Israel?

    Does Venezuela not recognise the State of Israel?
    And is their any form of terrorism that Venezuela does not condone?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Of course Venezuela recognises the state of Israel and her right to protect herself and is not opposed to a temporary barrier in principle.

    And is their any form of terrorism that Venezuela does not condone?
    Venezuela condemns all terrorism, defined as acts of deliberate violence against civilian targets.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Micronesia would like to inquire as to where Venezuela gets its definition of terrorism from. Micronesia would like to point out that most definitions of terrorism are not nearly as far reaching as the one Venezuela uses and most talk about the use of that violence to achieve political or social ends, rather than just for any reason at all.

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

    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    Of course Venezuela recognises the state of Israel and her right to protect herself and is not opposed to a temporary barrier in principle.
    Micronesia thus assumes that Venezuela will not vote against the barrier and will simply voice its concerns about the details, rather than using nonsensical rhetoric about a barrier somehow instituting 'apartheid'. Micronesia would like to point out that 'apartheid' is a whole system and method of running a country, a barrier cannot constitute 'apartheid', the suggestion that Israel has constructed an 'apartheid wall' is laughable.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Micronesia would like to inquire as to where Venezuela gets its definition of terrorism from.
    Morally, we do not believe the deliberate targetting of civilians is right in any circumstances.

    Micronesia thus assumes that Venezuela will not vote against the barrier and will simply voice its concerns about the details, rather than using nonsensical rhetoric about a barrier somehow instituting 'apartheid'.
    Venezuela would rather see the security barrier dismantled than have it in its current, wholly illegal state.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    'wholly illegal'? Does Venezuela thus consider that the parts which follow the 'green line' are illegal too? And just to clarify, Venezuela would rather expose all Israelis to a greater terrorist threat (and all 'palestinians' to the collateral impacts of retaliation) leading to increased death and bloodshed on all sides, rather than leave up a passive defensive barrier?
    Micronesia is puzzled by this seemingly pro-violence stance.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    'wholly illegal'? Does Venezuela thus consider that the parts which follow the 'green line' are illegal too?
    Venezuela cannot see the wall in sections, but only as a whole.

    And just to clarify, Venezuela would rather expose all Israelis to a greater terrorist threat (and all 'palestinians' to the collateral impacts of retaliation) leading to increased death and bloodshed on all sides, rather than leave up a passive defensive barrier?
    Venezuela would not , again, see the falling of the wall as an isolated act. We call for the wall to be torn down and for the Israelis not to target Palestinian infrastructure. For Palestinians, the greatest threat for them is Israel, not other Palestinians so expecting them to reign in militants when they have no infrastructure and when they are under illegal occupation is really not feasible.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    If Venezuela can only see the barrier as 'a whole' then Venezuela should be most pleased that a lot of it has not been built yet.

    The greatest threat to 'palestinians' is actually other 'palestinians' in the form of terrorists. If these terrorists ended their campaign of violence against Israel, then there would be no need for any Israeli preventative measures or responses. Israel would not need a barrier, checkpoints, or to make arrests or kill terrorists. Thus a logical step would be to end the terrorism from 'palestinians'.
    Anyway, Venezuela claims that the 'palestinians' cannot take any measures to control terrorism until all their demands are given in to? That seems like a pretty poor argument. Even with the PA receiving many millions in aid and all sorts of help? Micronesia thinks that this sort of pitiful victim-acting and pretend impotence should not be rewarded with a State. What guarantee is there that if a state is granted that the terrorists will be tackled then? None.
    Why should a people so unable to do basic things such as tackle terrorism and incitement in their own population, be granted a State?

    Furthermore, Israel has withdrawn from Gaza and left the area in the power of the PA. Israel has seen only increased rocket attacks on its population in Israeli borders, even though the PA does not have to deal with any 'occupation' in this area. The problem is apparently not any sort of Israeli military involvement, but a wholesale failure of law and order and unwillingness by the 'palestinians' to take sufficient anti-terror measures.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    If Venezuela can only see the barrier as 'a whole' then Venezuela should be most pleased that a lot of it has not been built yet.
    Point being?

    The greatest threat to 'palestinians' is actually other 'palestinians' in the form of terrorists.
    Are the quotation marks an attempt to indicate that Micronesia doesn't recognise the existence of the Palestinian people.

    If these terrorists ended their campaign of violence against Israel, then there would be no need for any Israeli preventative measures or responses. Israel would not need a barrier, checkpoints, or to make arrests or kill terrorists. Thus a logical step would be to end the terrorism from 'palestinians'.
    There is resistance because of occupation. You cannot expect resistance to stop until the occupation stops.

    Even with the PA receiving many millions in aid and all sorts of help?.
    :rolleyes: nothing to what Israel gets in 'aid.'

    Furthermore, Israel has withdrawn from Gaza and left the area in the power of the PA. Israel has seen only increased rocket attacks on its population in Israeli borders, even though the PA does not have to deal with any 'occupation' in this area. The problem is apparently not any sort of Israeli military involvement, but a wholesale failure of law and order and unwillingness by the 'palestinians' to take sufficient anti-terror measures.
    Israel cannot expect a cessation of violence over night. What measures would you suggest the Palestinians take that woudl not cause civil war?
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vienna)
    Whats apartheid?
    The Afrikaans word for "apartness", which I'm sure isn't an English word, or "separation".
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    Point being?
    Point being that maintaining that your country sees all the barrier as the same, irrespective of whether it follows the green line or not is rather silly. It would indicate that Venezuela opposes a barrier existing AT ALL, rather than just existing in certain places.

    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    There is resistance because of occupation. You cannot expect resistance to stop until the occupation stops.
    Rubbish. Demonstrable, false nonsense. There were terror attacks on Israel before it came in to possession of the territories in 1967. There have been terror attacks on Israel since the day it was created. There were no terror attacks on Jordan and Egypt when they "occupied" the territories, there were only terror attacks on Israel during that time period. Furthermore, none of the palestinian terrorist groups acknowledge the right of Israel to exist in any form, and all say that they will continue terrorist violence against Israel until it is entirely eliminated. If the terrorism were "resistance" as the Venezuelan absurdly calls it, then surely its goal would not be the annihilation of Israel. Micronesia suggests that all these facts combined strongly demonstrates that "occupation" is not the root of the problem or the terrorism, but the problem is a manifest Arab hatred of Israel and desire for its destruction, which has existed for almost the last six decades. Venezuela's anti-factual and baseless position and viewpoint needs some explaining, as all the available evidence seems to contradict it.

    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    :rolleyes: nothing to what Israel gets in 'aid.'
    What the hell has that got to do with the point? Micronesia notes that the PA gets millions upon millions in aid as well as training etc. from foreign governments and organisations, and yet claims complete impotence and inability to crack-down on terror, and Venezuela responds by noting that Israel gets more in aid. This utter failure to address anything even approaching the point is rather disturbing.

    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    Israel cannot expect a cessation of violence over night.
    Indeed, however Israel has been waiting 57 years for a 'cessation of violence' from its neighbours and none has yet been forthcoming.

    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    What measures would you suggest the Palestinians take that woudl not cause civil war?
    With one hand Venezuela expresses a desire for a complete Israeli pullout of all territories and the granting of a palestinian state, and on the other it cannot fathom a way for the palestinians to crack down on terror without creating civil war? Micronesia wonders if a palestinian state would be possible under these conditions.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    There is resistance because of occupation. You cannot expect resistance to stop until the occupation stops.
    But when it concerns defensive measures you believe occupation is "temporarily justified" when territorial integrity and border security are at risk.

    We know that Palestinian terrorists such as Hamas are calling for the destruction of Israel, I would conclude that was a threat to Israeli sovereignity.

    Why call for the immediate removal of a security barrier when you believe that such a measure is "temporarily justified" under such circumstances?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Uruguay stands with Argentina, and to a certain extent, Venezuela. The Palestinians ('Phillistines') are the indigenous people. However, Uruguay feels that the Jewish people have a strong claim to share the Holy Land - but their actions and unwillingness to recognise the claims of other religions/peoples undermines its own claims.

    Uruguay cannot support the original proposal made by Cuba unless it should become more multilateral in general.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Syntax)
    but their actions and unwillingness to recognise the claims of other religions/peoples undermines its own claims.
    Israel supports a two state solution that includes a sovereign Palestinian state. Israel supports the "Road Map" process that was endorsed by the UN Security Council as the means to acheive that two state solution.
 
 
 
Poll
Did you get less than your required grades and still get into university?
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.