Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Abdukazam)
    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.
    By that logic Hamas are legit just trying to conquer Israel and/or the occupied territories.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Abdukazam)
    Those occupied territories were received by right of conquest
    Doesn't exist any more. It was pretty firmly proscribed at Nuremberg, for obvious reasons.

    Palestinians should assimilate and become Israeli citizens with their own distinct national identities.
    Israel doesn't want the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories to become Israeli citizens, because doing so would mean Israel ceasing to be a specifically "Jewish state" (as the ratio of Jews to Palestinians would be virtually 50:50).
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    By that logic Hamas are legit just trying to conquer Israel and/or the occupied territories.
    :clap2:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    By that logic Hamas are legit just trying to conquer Israel and/or the occupied territories.
    I do not disagree with you, if they manage to do so fine, in theory aggressive war is extremely repulsive, in reality it's often hard to determine who is and isn't the aggressor. I am speaking of peace, Hamas are clearly outnumbered, a Palestinian state is a nonsensical idea with no grounding, the wisest thing for Palestine would be assimilation.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    Doesn't exist any more. It was pretty firmly proscribed at Nuremberg, for obvious reasons.



    Israel doesn't want the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories to become Israeli citizens, because doing so would mean Israel ceasing to be a specifically "Jewish state" (as the ratio of Jews to Palestinians would be virtually 50:50).
    Not in law no, in reality it does, as in the case when India invaded the Portuguese colony, or Indonesia invaded East Timur. Or Russia Crimea. Sorry, the world doesn't work the way the UN wants it to. You also make the mistake of thinking all conquests are genocidal, the Nazis were exceptionally bloody even by historical standards.

    Israel already has lots of Palestinian citizens.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    By that logic Hamas are legit just trying to conquer Israel and/or the occupied territories.
    Notice i've not made any moral judgements, it does not bother me either way, both sides have done stupid things. What matters is that there is a practical solution, sometimes might is right works. Indeed, the only reason we in the UK enjoy such wealth is because our stupid monarchy conquered us originally. Otherwise we'd still be having useless squabbles about whether their should be a Saxon, Anglo or Viking state.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ydp360)
    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.
    The word has been used, but there's never been a state in the territory that we refer to as Palestine or Israel that was Arab Muslim. Which is surely the important bit? If the word is all the matters why don't we just ship the Palestinians to Jordan? That was Palestine until the 20th Century.

    (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?
    1. What I meant by that was that there's no historical community of people self-identifying as Palestinian. That's extremely new, with no historical precedent whatsoever.

    2. I just plucked countries out of the air, I actually know little to nothing about the internal politics of Peru. They have a cool desert, and I like the condors, but that's as far as my expertise goes. Nonetheless, in Britain there is a 300-year precedent for being British and its something that's generally accepted as being a part of one's national identity (ScotNats aside). The same is true for the majority of countries, even other Middle Eastern ones. As far as I know, Jordan never existed as a separate entity within roughly the same borders it has now. But I don't care that it exists, because nobody is trying to claim that there was always a bunch of people who feel passionately connected to this idea of a country called Jordan. Jews felt that way about Israel for thousands of years (and there's precedence for them living in Israel with roughly similar borders to now). Palestinian nationalism is fine, but don't try and tell me its a long-embattled movement of principle. It isn't.

    3. The Palestinian Unity Government is a terrorist government. If I were Israel, I would treat Palestine exactly the way Palestine are being treated now. Why would you let Hamas off your leash when the only thing in the world that they want is to wipe you out?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=jape;69461266]The word has been used, but there's never been a state in the territory that we refer to as Palestine or Israel that was Arab Muslim. Which is surely the important bit? If the word is all the matters why don't we just ship the Palestinians to Jordan? That was Palestine until the 20th Century.


    Seriously your ignorance is just unbelievable. And what did the term Palestine mean? It meant the land, the area from the river to the Sea. You can moan all you want it existed and will never cease to exist.

    Israel's days are numbered they are merely just a 100-200 year existence in that area, they will cease to exist, the way they conduct themselves and go about things is going to lead to their downfall.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jape)
    1. What I meant by that was that there's no historical community of people self-identifying as Palestinian. That's extremely new, with no historical precedent whatsoever.
    Nationalism is in general pretty new. While there are a few precursors dating back earlier, nationalism and national identity as we would understand it only really began with the Amerian and French Revolutions in the late 18th Century - and most of the world's nationalisms are far younger.

    While there are some historians like Baruch Kimmerling who've argued that the origins of Palestinian nationalism date to the 19th Century, as far back as the 1834 Revolt, most place the beginning of Palestinian nationalism in earnest in the early Mandatory period, around 1920.

    2. I just plucked countries out of the air, I actually know little to nothing about the internal politics of Peru. They have a cool desert, and I like the condors, but that's as far as my expertise goes.
    In other words you just assumed it to be the case based on nothing except your wanting it to support your argument. Which doesn't really say a lot for your ability to have a meaningful debate on national identity.

    Nonetheless, in Britain there is a 300-year precedent for being British and its something that's generally accepted as being a part of one's national identity (ScotNats aside).
    No, it really isn't. I'm not just asserting this, it's empirically demonstrable. The 2011 Census asked UK citizens about their national identity. Over 60% explicitly rejected describing themselves as British. For a more detailed breakdown:
    - In England, 60% described themselves as English only, 9% as both English and British, and 19% as British only.
    - In Wales, 58% described themselves as Welsh only, 7% as both Welsh and British, and 17% as British only.
    - In Scotland, 62% described themselves as Scottish only, 18% as both Scottish and British, and 8% as British only.
    - In Northern Ireland, 40% described themselves as British only, 20% as Northern Irish only, 25% as Irish only, and 6% as both Northern Irish and British.
    This isn't just about those who support Scottish and Welsh independence - even many if not most who support staying in the UK identify far more with their constituent country than with Britain as a whole.

    The same is true for the majority of countries, even other Middle Eastern ones.
    No, it isn't. Most countries are pretty young. With the exceptions of Egypt, Ethiopia and Liberia, no current state in Africa existed before the 20th Century. Even in Europe, where nationalism has been around longer, many states are younger than you'd thing. Germany and Italy didn't exist as unified independent states until the 1870s. Finland first became independent in 1918. Slovenia's independence, gained in 1991, was pretty much the first time an independent Slovenian state had ever existed. The youngest country in the world is South Sudan, which can trace its history as an independent state to just 2011.

    Jews felt that way about Israel for thousands of years
    No, they didn't. All nationalist movements try to portray their nation as primordial, ancient and natural, when really they're constructing the nation through their movement. The modern nationalist idea of creating a Jewish nation-state, known as Zionism, dates to the late 19th Century.

    and there's precedence for them living in Israel with roughly similar borders to now
    Sort of. Again, this is nationalism going back and trying to find precedent, taking the bits that fit and ignoring the bits that don't. For example:
    - There's very little evidence that the great United Kingdom of Israel of David and Solomon described in the Old Testament ever actually existed. More likely, Ancient Israel and Judah emerged as two separate states rather than splitting from one larger one.
    - The Ancient Kingdoms of Israel and Judah were most likely pagan, with monotheistic Judaism only gradually evolving later, probably only reaching a firm footing during the Babylonian Exile.
    - The Hasmonean Kingdom, the other often-mentioned historic example of a "Jewish state", was a heavily Hellenised society. Hebrew as a spoken language had practically died out, replaced by Aramaic and Greek.

    I could also add the point that the heartland of Ancient Israel and Judah was the central hill region of the Southern Levant, what is now the West Bank and the surrounding area. But when the Zionist movement's efforts to settle in Palestine largely ignored these areas, because they had a vision of building large agricultural settlements, and as a result they focused their resources on the Mediterranean coastal plains which had been outside or at the periphery of the ancient kingdoms.

    3. The Palestinian Unity Government is a terrorist government.
    The "Palestinian Unity Government" collapsed in June 2015.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Jewish life only matters LOL


    A few dead Jews and you a foreign country do this in solidarity

    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TaintedLight)
    I guess arms as whole doesn't kill as many people as automobiles as a a whole. Your extrapolation is most astonishing.
    I guess some people just lack the mental capability to be able to tell whether a comment is serious or not.
 
 
 
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
    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.