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

    21
    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.
    Bit one can easily look at it as cultural rather than religious borders, which are actually good things. One of the biggest errors made by western Europe has been the establishment of geographical over cultural borders. In the grand scheme of things Western Europe is all culturally similar enough the most obvious borders are geographical, you know you're crossing it if it's a river, not so much if it's the middle of a field. The problems then come about when you go to the places where there is major cultural difference and do the same thing. We didn't help Eastern Europe in the early 19th century because we went for geography over culture, and the same is true with parts of hacking up the old empires.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    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
    But surely that is undemocratic? To simply say that the more "advanced and developed" people in society have the power. In which case would it not make sense for Indians and Chinese in the U.K. for example to have the power? Since they outperform the natives in terms of education, economic prosperity etc?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Samosa)
    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.
    My issue with Palestinian statism specifically is that there's no nation of Palestinians out there in the ether. Not in the way there's a nation of Iranians, Brits, Peruvians, Kurds etc. The people in Gaza and the West Bank are culturally indistinguishable from Jordan and Egypt (the former governors of those territories). There's no distinct culture there. No reason to have a seperate country at all, other than to box in Israel and keep Jews out of East Jerusalem, which is the bit they want the most because that's where all the holy **** is.

    Illegal settlements from certain Israelis and Hamas I feel are the biggest obstacles in achieving a peaceful solution.
    They are, but I don't think they contribute to the problem equally.

    (Original post by Mr Moon Man)
    He's thinking of Majalli Wahabi, but he's not an Arab, he's Druze.
    My mistake. I think that makes me racist.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Samosa)
    But surely that is undemocratic? To simply say that the more "advanced and developed" people in society have the power. In which case would it not make sense for Indians and Chinese in the U.K. for example to have the power? Since they outperform the natives in terms of education, economic prosperity etc?
    With the likes of the native Americans if memory serves correctly they're practically their own mini states in the reserves with minimal federal interference, including exemptions from stuff like income tax and the draft, however voting rights are lost with it and they don't count towards state populations when it comes to political elements such as districting.

    As for the latter point, that line of argument runs deeper than that, it's the mud huts and spears, and prehistoric tribes vs railways and rides, whereas the counter example given has a much lesser disparity, and that disparity that does exist is for completely different reasons, mostly being down to drive rather than the likes of the Chinese and Indians being significantly more advanced nations.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    With the likes of the native Americans if memory serves correctly they're practically their own mini states in the reserves with minimal federal interference, including exemptions from stuff like income tax and the draft, however voting rights are lost with it and they don't count towards state populations when it comes to political elements such as districting.
    Just to confirm this is correct. It's where the popular image of the Native American casino that you sometimes get in US media comes from. The reserves they live on are de facto independent of US Jurisdiction, which basically makes them the only casinos around in several states where commercial gambling is banned outright. The areas aren't small either, there's a significant one in northern New Mexico which cuts a big circle out of the south-western US.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jape)
    Just to confirm this is correct. It's where the popular image of the Native American casino that you sometimes get in US media comes from. The reserves they live on are de facto independent of US Jurisdiction, which basically makes them the only casinos around in several states where commercial gambling is banned outright. The areas aren't small either, there's a significant one in northern New Mexico which cuts a big circle out of the south-western US.
    Part of the reason why the two situations are very different. It's also worth noting that it's easy to argue that just as the Indian reservations are partially sovereign, in a way so are the states and federal government, and the constitution itself implicitly gives the reservations as being separate to the states they reside and and from the federal government, and current convention gives the executive no power over the reservations, congress holding ultimate authority on Indian matters. Of course they are still coveted by some federal legislation even without representation (but they still get a better deal than DC)

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Ban Lorries, they're too dangerous if they get in the hands of a nutter!
    Ownership of lorries is written into our constitution!!! Youll never take away our freedoms you pinko bleeding heart liberal!!!!! lol
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jape)
    My issue with Palestinian statism specifically is that there's no nation of Palestinians out there in the ether. Not in the way there's a nation of Iranians, Brits, Peruvians, Kurds etc. The people in Gaza and the West Bank are culturally indistinguishable from Jordan and Egypt (the former governors of those territories). There's no distinct culture there. No reason to have a seperate country at all, other than to box in Israel and keep Jews out of East Jerusalem, which is the bit they want the most because that's where all the holy **** is.



    They are, but I don't think they contribute to the problem equally.



    My mistake. I think that makes me racist.

    Mate you're completely lost, Palestinians DO have their own separate culture, foods, language, that originated from Palestine. That statement alone shows the lack of education you have on this matter.

    A word of advice, start to read. Books not propaganda.

    P.S Jordan didn't even exist before Palestine, you sound a fool.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ydp360)
    Mate you're completely lost, Palestinians DO have their own separate culture, foods, language, that originated from Palestine. That statement alone shows the lack of education you have on this matter.

    A word of advice, start to read. Books not propaganda.

    P.S Jordan didn't even exist before Palestine, you sound a fool.
    When did the Palestinian state exist? Because before Israel it was Britain, before Britain it was Ottoman for however many centuries. Jordan certainly did exist while the West Bank and Gaza were still British territory (Sykes-Picot, read a book).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jape)
    When did the Palestinian state exist? Because before Israel it was Britain, before Britain it was Ottoman for however many centuries. Jordan certainly did exist while the West Bank and Gaza were still British territory (Sykes-Picot, read a book).

    "Before Israel it was Britain", oh God haha.

    It is widely known Jesus was born in first century Palestine, what year was that in? The term Palestine has been used since 5th century BC.

    Palestine is mentioned in Shakespeare's writing of : "The Life and Death of King John: Scene II."

    So just by doing a bit of independent reading outside of the hasbara-sphere I can tell you it's been a couple of thousand years, so tell me again how Palestine has never existed?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ydp360)
    "Before Israel it was Britain", oh God haha.

    It is widely known Jesus was born in first century Palestine, what year was that in? The term Palestine has been used since 5th century BC.

    Palestine is mentioned in Shakespeare's writing of : "The Life and Death of King John: Scene II."

    So just by doing a bit of independent reading outside of the hasbara-sphere I can tell you it's been a couple of thousand years, so tell me again how Palestine has never existed?
    Palestine was synonymous with Syria/South Levant for much of its early history as a distinct term, until the British Mandate when the term was used to refer to Israel and Transjordan. There has never been a Palestinian state. There has never even been an Arab Muslim state in that area. There have been two Jewish ones though.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jape)
    Palestine was synonymous with Syria/South Levant for much of its early history as a distinct term, until the British Mandate when the term was used to refer to Israel and Transjordan. There has never been a Palestinian state. There has never even been an Arab Muslim state in that area. There have been two Jewish ones though.
    I give evidences and of course as I expected you were going to remain completely ignorant. Shakespeare's time is not early history, that is 2000 years after the term Palestine started to be used.

    You're obviously out of your depth here kid.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jape)
    My issue with Palestinian statism specifically is that there's no nation of Palestinians out there in the ether. Not in the way there's a nation of Iranians, Brits, Peruvians, Kurds etc. The people in Gaza and the West Bank are culturally indistinguishable from Jordan and Egypt (the former governors of those territories). There's no distinct culture there. No reason to have a seperate country at all, other than to box in Israel and keep Jews out of East Jerusalem, which is the bit they want the most because that's where all the holy **** is.
    A few points here:
    i) There's no nation of anyone "out there in the ether". Nations are intersubjective constructs that only exist insofar as people believe they exist.
    ii) Your choice of examples is particularly bizarre, as there are patently no British or Peruvian "nations" in the ethno-cultural sense. Britain is a multinational state of English, Scots, Welsh and Irish (and some would add Cornish). Only a small minority of UK citizens actually identify nationally as "British" - the majority primarily identify with one of the constituent countries. As for Peru, it has a cultural makeup similar to pretty much all of the former Spanish American colonies - the descendants of Spanish Criollo settlers live alongside the indigenous Native Americans. Do you really think White Spanish-speaking Peruvians are more culturally similar to Amerindian Quechua-speaking Peruvians than they are to white Spanish-speaking Bolivians/Mexicans/Chileans/etc? And indeed, many states are not defined by a particular ethno-cultural group; e.g. the USA, Switzerland, Belgium, Canada, etc.
    iii) Why does it matter? The Palestinians are still being deprived of their civil and political rights regardless. Their ethno-national identification doesn't change that, nor does it change the territorial legalities of the situation. Would you prefer that the occupied territories simply became a full part of Israel and its inhabitants given full citizenship and political rights?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Automobiles as a whole do, so let's ban all motor vehicles, not just the lorries that are becoming popular!

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I guess arms as whole doesn't kill as many people as automobiles as a a whole. Your extrapolation is most astonishing.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jape)
    Palestine was synonymous with Syria/South Levant for much of its early history as a distinct term, until the British Mandate when the term was used to refer to Israel and Transjordan. There has never been a Palestinian state. There has never even been an Arab Muslim state in that area. There have been two Jewish ones though.
    A very helpful précis of the dubious stature of "Palestine".

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    jape is correct, the notion of a distinct Palestinian state which deserves independence is an absurdity, no state has ever deserved independence, they have received it by right of conquest. Palestine was under British control before being passed on, it was up to the British to decide what was and what wasn't acceptable under law then and there.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    A few points here:
    i) There's no nation of anyone "out there in the ether". Nations are intersubjective constructs that only exist insofar as people believe they exist.
    ii) Your choice of examples is particularly bizarre, as there are patently no British or Peruvian "nations" in the ethno-cultural sense. Britain is a multinational state of English, Scots, Welsh and Irish (and some would add Cornish). Only a small minority of UK citizens actually identify nationally as "British" - the majority primarily identify with one of the constituent countries. As for Peru, it has a cultural makeup similar to pretty much all of the former Spanish American colonies - the descendants of Spanish Criollo settlers live alongside the indigenous Native Americans. Do you really think White Spanish-speaking Peruvians are more culturally similar to Amerindian Quechua-speaking Peruvians than they are to white Spanish-speaking Bolivians/Mexicans/Chileans/etc? And indeed, many states are not defined by a particular ethno-cultural group; e.g. the USA, Switzerland, Belgium, Canada, etc.
    iii) Why does it matter? The Palestinians are still being deprived of their civil and political rights regardless. Their ethno-national identification doesn't change that, nor does it change the territorial legalities of the situation. Would you prefer that the occupied territories simply became a full part of Israel and its inhabitants given full citizenship and political rights?
    Palestinians who live in Israel are Israeli citizens and therefore entitled to the same rights as anyone else in the country. This does not include the right to use terrorism.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Abdukazam)
    Palestinians who live in Israel are Israeli citizens and therefore entitled to the same rights as anyone else in the country. This does not include the right to use terrorism.
    I'm not talking about Palestinians who live in "Israel proper", I'm talking about those who live in the occupied territories.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    I'm not talking about Palestinians who live in "Israel proper", I'm talking about those who live in the occupied territories.
    Those occupied territories were received by right of conquest, squabbles over who's land it is leads to long and unnecessary arguments such as this one. Palestinians should assimilate and become Israeli citizens with their own distinct national identities. A Palestinian state has never existed, and never should do.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    ISIS and those who it inspires seem to have realised you don't need to have complicated grand terrorist events like 9/11 or 7/7 to have an impact. All they need to do is drive a truck into a crowd of holiday goers enjoying themselves in Paris. It's a worrying development.
 
 
 
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.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
    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.