Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gemgems89)
    Why do you think they're askig that?

    So they can get in and blow more bombs off, maybe? Why else would they want the borders secure? Anyway, the Israelis have a right to protect their borders.
    No, the Palestinians just want a little more land, they won't have anywhere near as much as they used to have, but they'd be happy then. And it isn't too much to ask of Israel, is it?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gemgems89)
    Why do you think they're askig that?

    So they can get in and blow more bombs off, maybe?
    Um, no.

    Anyway, the Israelis have a right to protect their borders.
    And a right to steal 80% of the land of anther country? To occupy and oppress all the people in that country, murdering hundreds of children?

    Yeah...OK....
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thefish_uk)
    No, the Palestinians just want a little more land, they won't have anywhere near as much as they used to have, but they'd be happy then. And it isn't too much to ask of Israel, is it?
    And you really believe they'll be satisfied? How would you know anyway, have you asked them?

    Once they have grabbed the borders, they'll be after more and more land. They won't ever be satisfied. Israel has many times offered land just for a bit of peace, and there's still terroist attacks!
    So they've had to resort to a wall to prevent the bombers, and don't start giving me the rubbish that it's an excuse to land grab because it takes up a petty 1.9% of their land! That's all! And it protects both sides from anyone not wanted enterring.

    And don't start saying that that's not the way to a friendly peaceful world by spliting different people up because we aren't in a friendly peaeful world, if we were none of this wouldn't have happened.

    The final point still remains that Israel don't kill people purposely, they retaliate. The Palestinians don't.

    I'm going offline now, goodbye.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gemgems89)
    And you really believe they'll be satisfied? How would you know anyway, have you asked them?

    Once they have grabbed the borders, they'll be after more and more land. They won't ever be satisfied.
    That's possible, but remember it was their land in the first place.

    (Original post by gemgems89)
    So they've had to resort to a wall to prevent the bombers, and don't start giving me the rubbish that it's an excuse to land grab because it takes up a petty 1.9% of their land! That's all! And it protects both sides from anyone not wanted enterring.
    I don't think it's a land grab. What I do oppose, however, is the way that it goes into Palestinian terroritory and splits people's backyards in two, and goes right down streets in the middle of towns which will seriously disrupt life. I don't see why it can't be built down the Israel borderline or at least on Israel's side because the Israelis are building it.

    You should know that building a fortress doesn't promote peace. That's the American approach - in fact, the Americans are funding Israel. When Americans get attacked in Iraq they just put more armour on which means people hate them more because it just distances them. Building a wall will be the same.

    The problem is, Gems, that you think that because the Israeli people live on their land now then they are right to own it, rather than the people that the Israelis displaced who still have nowhere to comfortably live.

    I don't want to be arguing with you but I do just want to see you showing that you've thought about both sides of the argument. If you do that, people will respect your views much more.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gemgems89)
    And you really believe they'll be satisfied?
    They will be satisfied by a just settlement,yes.

    How would you know anyway, have you asked them?
    I have, as it goes. Not all of them, of course, but quite a few, yes.

    Once they have grabbed the borders, they'll be after more and more land. They won't ever be satisfied.
    They've shown many times they will come to the table, even when what is on offer is much much less than a just solution.

    Israel has many times offered land just for a bit of peace, and there's still terrorist attacks!
    Israel has NEVER offered anything approaching a just solution. That would include a viable, independent Palestinian state, as well as the right to return, etc.

    So they've had to resort to a wall to prevent the bombers, and don't start giving me the rubbish that it's an excuse to land grab because it takes up a petty 1.9% of their land! That's all!
    They've had to resort to a wall to protect the horrendously unjust setup that currently exists. The point of the wall is that it creates a huge prison, forever controlled by the Zionists. Would you be happy if the setup was exactly the same, only it was the Zionists being walled in by the Palestinians? No? Then you should understand why it is unjust this way round too.

    The point of the land grab argument is that is creates a permanent line which gives Israel overall a ridiculous amount of territory that the Palestinians deserve.

    And it protects both sides from anyone not wanted entering.
    LOL!!!!! So it will enable the Palestinians to stop the IDF entering?

    The final point still remains that Israel don't kill people purposely, they retaliate. The Palestinians don't.
    You'll need to prove this, TBH, because from where I'm standing it is rubbish. You have a cycle of violence, both sides attacking the other. To say one is retaliation and one is unprovoked is bizarrely blinkered and partisan. Typically, the Palestinian attacks are the result of the killings of Palestinians below the radar of Western news coverage, creating the uncorrected impression that they are unprovoked.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by llama boy)
    You'll need to prove this, TBH, because from where I'm standing it is rubbish. You have a cycle of violence, both sides attacking the other. To say one is retaliation and one is unprovoked is bizarrely blinkered and partisan. Typically, the Palestinian attacks are the result of the killings of Palestinians below the radar of Western news coverage, creating the uncorrected impression that they are unprovoked.
    Yes, if you look at the BBC news website or something, Palestinian attacks on Israel appear as front page headlines but the Israeli attacks on Palestinians are normally on the other news or you have to go into the Middle East section for them.

    I do think the BBC give Israel more sympathy than the Palestinians.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Saintsin)
    What do you find more as a disgraceful act?

    A Palestinian suicide bomber killing a bus load of people or an Israeli raid for a precise target but with innocent casualties killed due to brute force attack?
    All moral and ethic questions can be evaluated in several ways. You have cosequentialism which only deals with the consequence of an action. In this case it all depends on how many civilians get killed vs how many "bad guys" gets killed. This rather cynical view istroublesome as it is often impossible to define the choice made. As an example, should each single Israeli incursion be evcaluated separately, or should one considder the policy of assasinating terrorists as a whole.

    The other main way to analyze an action is in terms of intention. Here the palestinian atacks would come out quite bad because they aim for murdering as many civilians as possible, whereas the Israeli atacks are directed towards militant palestinians. The problem here is that it is not possible to know the intention of an action with certainty. If civilians are killed in an Israely incursion you evaluate whether the soldiers acted in an irresponsible way or not (Which brings up more questions about the definition of "irresponsible" ).

    Some peopel in this thread has argued that the palestinian atacks is a result of the occupation. This is not entierely true. As an example, peace talks between Ehud Barack and Yasser Arafat, which could have led to the creation of a palestinian state where disrupted by the intifada. The palestinian uprising caused Barack to resign and is also likely to be the reason why Sharon got such support in the elections. The reooccupation of palestinian territories under Ariel Sharons command was a direct result of the palestinian atacks following the collapse of peace talks between Arafat and Barack.

    In short, there is not single reason why you have a conflict. The occupation is part cause part consequence of the suecide bombings and vice versa. Personally I place a lot of Guilt at Arafat and his government as they have abused the foreign aid received from friendly countries instead of using the money to try to improve the situation of the palestinian population. Of all the billions they have received Id be surprised if more than 3% has been spent on the palestinian refugees. This corruption is one of the main causes of palestinian poverty and an indirect reason why the extremist groups rule rather freely in the palestinian self controlled areas.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The other main way to analyse an action is in terms of intention. Here the palestinian attacks would come out quite bad because they aim for murdering as many civilians as possible, whereas the Israeli attacks are directed towards militant palestinians. The problem here is that it is not possible to know the intention of an action with certainty. If civilians are killed in an Israely incursion you evaluate whether the soldiers acted in an irresponsible way or not (Which brings up more questions about the definition of "irresponsible" ).
    Although there is truth in this, it is too simplistic an analysis. "Intent" must surely be measured not only in terms of the act in isolation, but also in terms of the ultimate aim. The militant attacks so not seek innocent bloodshed as the ultimate aim, rather it is used as a means to justice and freedom from oppression. The Israeli attacks, on the other hand, and fighting FOR the forces of oppression and this must also be taken into account.

    Some people in this thread has argued that the palestinian attacks is a result of the occupation. This is not entirely true.
    I'm suggesting the only reason for attack is the injustices suffered by the Palestinians. Perhaps "the occupation", per se, is too narrow.

    As an example, peace talks between Ehud Barack and Yasser Arafat, which could have led to the creation of a palestinian state where disrupted by the intifada. The palestinian uprising caused Barack to resign and is also likely to be the reason why Sharon got such support in the elections. The reoccupation of palestinian territories under Ariel Sharon's command was a direct result of the palestinian attacks following the collapse of peace talks between Arafat and Barack.
    Those peace talks were never going to achieve anywhere near a just solution. What was offered to Palestine was an insult. It is only right that resistance should continue until justice is achieved.

    Your example does not prove there is any other motive for the attacks than injustice and the occupation.


    In short, there is not single reason why you have a conflict. The occupation is part cause part consequence of the suicide bombings and vice versa.
    Again, there is truth in this. We have this superficial conflict, the cycle of violence being repeated, etc, as you say. Underneath we have the ultimate cause of this, which is injustice perpetrated by the Israelis.

    Personally I place a lot of Guilt at Arafat and his government as they have abused the foreign aid received from friendly countries instead of using the money to try to improve the situation of the palestinian population. Of all the billions they have received Id be surprised if more than 3% has been spent on the palestinian refugees. This corruption is one of the main causes of palestinian poverty and an indirect reason why the extremist groups rule rather freely in the palestinian self controlled areas.
    I have very little time for Arafat, for the reasons you outline. However, even if Palestine had a model leader, it would not change the fact that Israel has no intention of agreeing to a just settlement.

    They have spent billions ensuring the Palestinian economy cannot function independently. They have built settlements for hundreds of thousands of people on Palestinian land. They show no sign of allowing any Palestinian "state" to have any sort of military or economic autonomy whatsoever.

    Palestine deserves no more and no less of those things than Israel.

    The points you make are largely true in relation to the superficial conflict. However, that superficial cycle is caused by the determination of the Israelis to fight against a just solution that gives equal consideration to the right of all.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by llama boy)
    Those peace talks were never going to achieve anywhere near a just solution. What was offered to Palestine was an insult. It is only right that resistance should continue until justice is achieved.
    Nonsense! Barack offered Arafat more than 90% of the west bank, a complete Israeli withdrawal from those territories, a sovereign state , a part of jerusalem as a capitoll as well as economical compensation for palestinian refugees. Arafat denied and demanded that Israel should give 5 million palestinian refugees Israeli citizenship. ( Israels population is about 10 million). When Israel did not accept that (If they had accepted it you would have get an arab majority in Israel within few years) Arafat launched the last intifada encouraging atacks against Israeli citizens in palestinian media.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by llama boy)
    Underneath we have the ultimate cause of this, which is injustice perpetrated by the Israelis.
    What hipocracy. Israel has REPEADATELY offered to withdraw in return for a peace agreement, but the arabs has never accepted it. PLO still has the destruction of Israel on their public agenda, and they have not done **** to stop terrorism. PLO executes whoever opposes their policies as "Israeli spies" and they actively support the al-aqsa movements. Of all billions friendly foreign countries has pumped into the palestinian territories none of it has even gotn close to helping the palestinian refugees. It has all been dumped in swiss bank acounts and used to feed Arafat and his government. And what does Europe have to say about this? NOTHING! PLO has not recieved any criticism whatsoever from the European governments for their ignorant and respectless treatment of their own population, they have not been pulled to court for supporting terrorism, nor have they been critisized for nottaking action against Israeli suecide bombings. When Israel constructs a fence to stop this, however, it is responded towards as if it was a WMD arsenal.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    Nonsense! Barack offered Arafat more than 90% of the west bank, a complete Israeli withdrawal from those territories, a sovereign state , a part of jerusalem as a capitoll as well as economical compensation for palestinian refugees.
    I'm aware what was offered, and it did not constitute a just settlement. It would not have given justice (eg the right to return) or a properly autonomous (economically or militarily) state, or anywhere near enough land. It would still have been under the thumb of Israel. I think that situation is as acceptable as a weak Israeli state under the thumb of a strong Palestine - would you have accepted that if it was the other way round?

    Arafat denied and demanded that Israel should give 5 million palestinian refugees Israeli citizenship.
    The right to return is enshrined in international law, and I for one cannot see how the Palestinians can be blamed for holding out for a return to the land they were forcibly removed from.

    ( Israels population is about 10 million). When Israel did not accept that (If they had accepted it you would have get an arab majority in Israel within few years) Arafat launched the last intifada encouraging atacks against Israeli citizens in palestinian media.
    Well, you've just said it, haven't you. Israel blocked a just settlement that would comply with international law because it was scared of allowing those dirty arabs equal citizenship rights.

    This leads on to what is the only viable solution now - a secular state that includes all people and all territory. If the Israelis don't like it then I struggle to see how their position differs from those who argued for continued apartheid in South Africa.

    Israel has REPEADATELY offered to withdraw in return for a peace agreement, but the arabs has never accepted it.
    The issue is more complex than you make out. Israel has offered to withdraw. However, to understand the situation you must see there are two caveats to this. Firstly, it still won't offer a realistic Palestinian state. Secondly, it demands complete demilitarisation of the resistance groups first. Now, you only have to look at other peace processes (e.g. Northern Ireland) to see that for this to happen there has to be simultaneous withdrawal and disarmament. The Israeli government knows this, of course, which leads me to believe their offer is something less than entirely sincere.

    PLO still has the destruction of Israel on their public agenda, and they have not done **** to stop terrorism. PLO executes whoever opposes their policies as "Israeli spies" and they actively support the al-aqsa movements. Of all billions friendly foreign countries has pumped into the palestinian territories none of it has even gotn close to helping the palestinian refugees. It has all been dumped in swiss bank acounts and used to feed Arafat and his government. And what does Europe have to say about this? NOTHING! PLO has not recieved any criticism whatsoever from the European governments for their ignorant and respectless treatment of their own population, they have not been pulled to court for supporting terrorism, nor have they been critisized for nottaking action against Israeli suecide bombings.
    I'm afraid I'm not going to be led into defending the PLO. However, none of what you have said, and however true it is, changes the fact that Israel is not prepared to agree to a just settlement and that is the root cause of the problem.

    When Israel constructs a fence to stop this, however, it is responded towards as if it was a WMD arsenal.
    Oh yes, the WMD arsenal. What was it? 200 nukes at the last count? My, a country in the middle east that has real as oppose to imaginary WMD. Has anyone told George?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by llama boy)
    Well, you've just said it, haven't you. Israel blocked a just settlement that would comply with international law because it was scared of allowing those dirty arabs equal citizenship rights.
    Of course, the fact that the Arab world has tried to make palestine a "jewish clean" area for about 60 years just bypasses you. The bottome line of all of it is that both sides do have claims to the areas, and a 100% just solution cannot be reached. Therefore a compromise is neccessary. Its the only way to achieve peace in the region. However, Arafat and his goivernment refuse to accept this. They have a clear goal, to get rid of the jews... They still has not obandoned the charter formed in 67 which openly states that Israel and teh Jewish culture should be destroyed.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    OK, so you've chosen to object to just one of my points.

    (Original post by Jonatan)
    Of course, the fact that the Arab world has tried to make palestine a "jewish clean" area for about 60 years just bypasses you.
    It doesn't bypass me, it just isn't particularly relevant. The Palestinians are more than ready to accept a secular one state solution, or indeed two states side by side of comparable strength. The Israelis aren't.


    The bottom line of all of it is that both sides do have claims to the areas, and a 100% just solution cannot be reached.
    Yes, there can, there can be a secular state encompassing all of the area, with equal rights for all.

    Would you support this?

    Therefore a compromise is necessary. Its the only way to achieve peace in the region. However, Arafat and his government refuse to accept this.
    LMFAO! They have bent over backwards to try and achieve a settlement. If by "compromise" you mean the Palestinians should give in to the bits of the opposing position that are based on religious and racial bigotry, then frankly that doesn't seem particularly fair at all. The Israeli position is based on the simple premise that an Israeli life deserves more consideration than a Palestinian one. Until that vile attitude changes, there is no hope of a feasible solution.

    They have a clear goal, to get rid of the jews... They still has not abandoned the charter formed in 67 which openly states that Israel and the Jewish culture should be destroyed.
    You know damn well that virtually all in Palestine are prepared to accept a two state solution (even coming to the table when what is on offer is an insult).

    You also know that the "No Palestinian state" lobby in Israel is CONSIDERABLY larger than the "No Israeli state" lobby in Palestine.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    If Israel wants peace, it must initiate it...and then stick to it...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThornsnRoses)
    If Israel wants peace, it must initiate it...and then stick to it...
    ...and just ignore every car bomb that blows apart their civilians, and every terrorist who wires explosives to school buses, right?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr White)
    ...and just ignore every car bomb that blows apart their civilians, and every terrorist who wires explosives to school buses, right?
    well thats only in repsonse to its militant attitude towards the Palestinians...you can't ignore someone systimatically abolishing your homes, targetting your children and fellow citizens, putting you in isolation and hindering you from going out to work and earning a living in order to feed your family, can you now?...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThornsnRoses)
    well thats only in repsonse to its militant attitude towards the Palestinians...you can't ignore someone systimatically abolishing your homes, targetting your children and fellow citizens, putting you in isolation and hindering you from going out to work and earning a living in order to feed your family, can you know?...
    Can I know what?

    It is unacceptable that the Palestinians view killing civilians as an acceptable retaliation to Israel's militaristic intentions.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr White)
    ...and just ignore every car bomb that blows apart their civilians, and every terrorist who wires explosives to school buses, right?
    That's not a particulary useful contribution.

    That is exactly the attitude both sides take now (we wouldn't have to do X if the other side didn't do Y), and is exactly what leads to the perpetuation of the cycle of violence.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by llama boy)
    That is exactly the attitude both sides take now (we wouldn't have to do X if the other side didn't do Y), and is exactly what leads to the perpetuation of the cycle of violence.
    And if one side just stopped, the violence would subside, is that right? I see - it's completely obvious that the Palestinians would be more than willing to compromise and find a peaceful solution.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr White)
    And if one side just stopped, the violence would subside, is that right?
    if the occupation stopped, I have no doubt there would be a complete ceasefire, yes. Given that the resistance forces have been prepared to declare ceasefires even without a withdrawal at times in the past, there is little doubt that a ceasefire would occur.

    I see - it's completely obvious that the Palestinians would be more than willing to compromise and find a peaceful solution.
    It's completely obvious that with an occupation to resist, there would be no need for resistance.

    All that is need is for Israel to show some sign of agreeing to a just solution.

    As of now there is about none.
 
 
 
Poll
Favourite type of bread
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.