Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    I'm out of rep but fully agree with this. People go on and on about Israel's "right to defend itself" by reducing Gaza to rubble every few years, but the Palestinians' right to self-defence apparently doesn't even extent to the right to target uniformed and armed soldiers.

    It's all the same logic. According to the right, the Palestinians must do nothing and just let Israel take over whatever it wants. According to the liberal moderates, Palestinians must do nothing and just sit and hope that Israelis eventually elect Labor or Kadima, who will in their infinite generosity only want to annex ~10% of the West Bank.
    You're forgetting this little thing called "the Arab Israeli conflict" a brief overview of which is:

    The Arabs control the whole middle east, then the Jews come along and are given some land, but the Arabs hate the Jews so try to take this land by force. They get their arises handed to them and the Jews are able to take some more land as their spoils of war. The Arabs try this a few times over and the same thing happens over and over. Most of the Arabs finally realise they're **** and can't beat Israel so resign themselves to the fact Israel exists. The end.

    Wait, sorry, not the end, because you have the paramilitary cells left that seem to think they can somehow force Israel out despite being ***** slapped every few years when they finally get the resources to effectively throw a few rocks and just end up screwing over the people they're allegedly fighting for.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    You're forgetting this little thing called "the Arab Israeli conflict" a brief overview of which is:

    The Arabs control the whole middle east, then the Jews come along and are given some land, but the Arabs hate the Jews so try to take this land by force. They get their arises handed to them and the Jews are able to take some more land as their spoils of war. The Arabs try this a few times over and the same thing happens over and over. Most of the Arabs finally realise they're **** and can't beat Israel so resign themselves to the fact Israel exists. The end.

    Wait, sorry, not the end, because you have the paramilitary cells left that seem to think they can somehow force Israel out despite being ***** slapped every few years when they finally get the resources to effectively throw a few rocks and just end up screwing over the people they're allegedly fighting for.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    isn't that something the right would sympathise with? Given the paranoia of immigrants coming over, and statements like "I want my country back!".

    I find interesting they find that okay to happen elsewhere, but are worried about it happening to them (even though it won't).
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    You're forgetting this little thing called "the Arab Israeli conflict" a brief overview of which is:

    The Arabs control the whole middle east, then the Jews come along and are given some land, but the Arabs hate the Jews so try to take this land by force. They get their arises handed to them and the Jews are able to take some more land as their spoils of war. The Arabs try this a few times over and the same thing happens over and over. Most of the Arabs finally realise they're **** and can't beat Israel so resign themselves to the fact Israel exists. The end.

    Wait, sorry, not the end, because you have the paramilitary cells left that seem to think they can somehow force Israel out despite being ***** slapped every few years when they finally get the resources to effectively throw a few rocks and just end up screwing over the people they're allegedly fighting for.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I've been forbidden from repping you anymore, apparently I do it too often, but +1.

    (Original post by Lord Samosa)
    isn't that something the right would sympathise with? Given the paranoia of immigrants coming over, and statements like "I want my country back!".

    I find interesting they find that okay to happen elsewhere, but are worried about it happening to them (even though it won't).
    The fact that you're taking one policy position (banning immigration) held by a fringe minority and blanket applying it to "the right" really betrays your ignorance.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    You're forgetting this little thing called "the Arab Israeli conflict" a brief overview of which is:

    The Arabs control the whole middle east, then the Jews come along and are given some land, but the Arabs hate the Jews so try to take this land by force. They get their arises handed to them and the Jews are able to take some more land as their spoils of war. The Arabs try this a few times over and the same thing happens over and over. Most of the Arabs finally realise they're **** and can't beat Israel so resign themselves to the fact Israel exists. The end.

    Wait, sorry, not the end, because you have the paramilitary cells left that seem to think they can somehow force Israel out despite being ***** slapped every few years when they finally get the resources to effectively throw a few rocks and just end up screwing over the people they're allegedly fighting for.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Cool story. I'll be here if you ever actually want to discuss serious and nuanced points rather than just churn out pathetically simplistic caricatures.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jape)
    As clever as this statement is, it's essentially meaningless. Forget the words, think about actions and intentions.

    Did these Palestinians deliberately target people they knew were not an immediate threat to them, content with the pain and suffering this would cause? Yes.
    Do you really think this is an effective method of determining legitimacy the of violent acts in conflict? By this logic, we'd have to conclude that it is wrong for air forces to target the opposing side's ground troops unless the latter possess anti-aircraft weaponry, as otherwise they pose no immediate threat to the air forces in question.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    Cool story. I'll be here if you ever actually want to discuss serious and nuanced points rather than just churn out pathetically simplistic caricatures.
    It's simplified, sure, but what about it is actually wrong?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jape)
    I've been forbidden from repping you anymore, apparently I do it too often, but +1.



    The fact that you're taking one policy position (banning immigration) held by a fringe minority and blanket applying it to "the right" really betrays your ignorance.
    Isn't that what a lot of people do what they go on their anti left wing rants :lol:
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Samosa)
    isn't that something the right would sympathise with? Given the paranoia of immigrants coming over, and statements like "I want my country back!".

    I find interesting they find that okay to happen elsewhere, but are worried about it happening to them (even though it won't).
    It's easy to get arounf: the Jewish claim is thousands of years old, it is their ancestral homeland and they had just faced another genocide attempt, the Israelites are known to have inhabited the Land of Canaan since the second millenium BCE, the Arabs are a mostly common era event, particularly in modern Israel. The Jews aren't the invaders, the Arabs are. Not to mention that the Israelis are much bigger fans of liberal democracy
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Samosa)
    Isn't that what a lot of people do what they go on their anti left wing rants :lol:
    I can't think of a time I've done it, but I have seen other people do it. It's daft whoever is doing it, either way.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jape)
    It's simplified, sure, but what about it is actually wrong?
    It's not so much that it's wrong, rather it's not even wrong. It's simplified to the point where it fails to meet the criteria by which right and wrong can reasonably be judged.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    It's easy to get arounf: the Jewish claim is thousands of years old, it is their ancestral homeland and they had just faced another genocide attempt, the Israelites are known to have inhabited the Land of Canaan since the second millenium BCE, the Arabs are a mostly common era event, particularly in modern Israel. The Jews aren't the invaders, the Arabs are. Not to mention that the Israelis are much bigger fans of liberal democracy
    Would you therefore agree with giving back land to native Americans and natives of places like Australia etc?

    Just trying to find some consistency.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jape)
    I can't think of a time I've done it, but I have seen other people do it. It's daft whoever is doing it, either way.
    Agreed.

    Although those types tend to be the worst to discuss things with. They just see someone left wing and MUST be aggressive and argue against them. (Vice versa with left wingers with that attitude)
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Samosa)
    Would you therefore agree with giving back land to native Americans and natives of places like Australia etc?

    Just trying to find some consistency.
    I think the difference is that there are next-to-no Native Americans left, and relatively few Aboriginal Australians. Tel Aviv and Jerusalem aren't exactly lacking for Jews.

    It's ridiculous that we should even be in a position to be having this conversation anyway, the idea of segregating borders religiously is abhorrent everywhere else on earth. But the reason we are discussing this isn't the Israelis. There are Arabs in Israel, let's not forget, and the country had an Arab President at one point. Israel is a pluralistic society (Tel Aviv especially is very metropolitan), whereas there are remarkably few Jews in Gaza, the West Bank, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq... etc etc.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Samosa)
    Agreed.

    Although those types tend to be the worst to discuss things with. They just see someone left wing and MUST be aggressive and argue against them. (Vice versa with left wingers with that attitude)
    I can be aggressive, but that's just because I really enjoy the argument and the debate. I think people conflate that with "everyone who disagrees with me even slightly is automatically a bad person" sometimes.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    Do you really think this is an effective method of determining legitimacy the of violent acts in conflict? By this logic, we'd have to conclude that it is wrong for air forces to target the opposing side's ground troops unless the latter possess anti-aircraft weaponry, as otherwise they pose no immediate threat to the air forces in question.
    Presumably the troops do pose an immediate threat to the aircraft's colleagues on the ground, else it would be shaky legal ground to attack them in the first place. All the British air stuff over ISIS is aimed at strategic targets like oil derricks, rather than people. Last time I checked (admittedly, months and months ago) there have been no reported civilian casualties as a result of British air stuff in the region.

    Air stuff being the technical term.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jape)
    There are Arabs in Israel, let's not forget, and the country had an Arab President at one point. Israel is a pluralistic society (Tel Aviv especially is very metropolitan), whereas there are remarkably few Jews in Gaza, the West Bank, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq... etc etc.
    1. Yes, Arab Israelis who are treated like second class citizens and whom the current PM himself effectively incites hatred of ("voting in their droves" ) . The vast majority of these Arabs in Israel identify as Palestinian, and not (Arab-)Israeli.

    2. There are around 10,000-40,000 Jews in Iran (estimates vary), a Jewish MP, Chief Rabbi, and dozens of synagogues (in Tehran alone).

    3. Who was this Arab President of Israel you speak of?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jape)
    I think the difference is that there are next-to-no Native Americans left, and relatively few Aboriginal Australians. Tel Aviv and Jerusalem aren't exactly lacking for Jews.

    It's ridiculous that we should even be in a position to be having this conversation anyway, the idea of segregating borders religiously is abhorrent everywhere else on earth. But the reason we are discussing this isn't the Israelis. There are Arabs in Israel, let's not forget, and the country had an Arab President at one point. Israel is a pluralistic society (Tel Aviv especially is very metropolitan), whereas there are remarkably few Jews in Gaza, the West Bank, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq... etc etc.
    I agree that segregating people based on religion is ridiculous. But it's just a situation where we know creating one unified country is not possible. (Or at least doesn't seem like it) There are Palestinians who are adamant on having their own country, and likewise zionists who are adamant that the land is rightfully theirs and only theirs.

    Illegal settlements from certain Israelis and Hamas I feel are the biggest obstacles in achieving a peaceful solution.

    (Original post by jape)
    I can be aggressive, but that's just because I really enjoy the argument and the debate. I think people conflate that with "everyone who disagrees with me even slightly is automatically a bad person" sometimes.
    It's all fine to be passionate about something and having your own view. You are expected to argue for it.

    However I find also considering the opposing point of view is good. It helps open your eyes to a different way of looking at something and gives you food for thought. I have always tried to understand the right wing view on things to help give me a more balanced way of looking at things.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Samosa)
    Would you therefore agree with giving back land to native Americans and natives of places like Australia etc?

    Just trying to find some consistency.
    Here you get a few distinct differences, the main thing in terms of arguing from the ethical side is that with those groups we now get either mutual coexistence and integration (mainly of the native into the invader) or autonomy for the natives, with the likes of the Indian reserves in the states, and I'm pretty sure there are similar structures for aborigines and native African tribes. Obviously you also have the far less PC and easy to make argument of Jews and the white settlers be in charge is consistent due to the elevation above the savages, the more advanced and developed have the power in both cases.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Palmyra)
    1. Yes, Arab Israelis who are treated like second class citizens and whom the current PM himself effectively incites hatred of ("voting in their droves" ) . The vast majority of these Arabs in Israel identify as Palestinian, and not (Arab-)Israeli.

    2. There are around 10,000-40,000 Jews in Iran (estimates vary), a Jewish MP, Chief Rabbi, and dozens of synagogues (in Tehran alone).

    3. Who was this Arab President of Israel you speak of?
    He's thinking of Majalli Wahabi, but he's not an Arab, he's Druze.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr Moon Man)
    He's thinking of Majalli Wahabi, but he's not an Arab, he's Druze.
    Indeed, and please remind me how long Mr Wahabi was President for?
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: January 11, 2017
  • 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.

  • Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    Useful resources
  • 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.

  • 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

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.