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

Al Aqsa Mosque events Watch

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    Yes, they were no doubt compelled by murderous racial hatred. There's no suggestion that the Israeli police involved did anything at all improper.



    The State of Israel made that law and it is Israeli police that enforce it. The idea that they can "defy" it is nonsense. Some Jewish people want to pray there despite most - I believe - understanding that it is improper to set foot on the Mount due to its sacredness. Some may pray on it, and I actually I think it's pretty rough that Israeli law prevents that.
    so a law can't be defied if the state themselves commissioned it?
    do you hear yourself?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hamzakalinle)
    so a law can't be defied if the state themselves commissioned it?
    do you hear yourself?
    Well, it's rational. If the Israeli Government wanted to "defy" the law they could simply repeal it. In fact, your claim is nonsense: not only is it Israeli legislation, it's only enforced by the Israeli Police. Indeed, we know well that they do indeed conduct searches on Jewish people entering the Temple Mount, confiscate religious items and expel people for praying there.

    Personally I think that's obscene, but the Israeli government clearly believes it is an appropriate grant of respect to their Muslim population. If there was any maturity in the region, the Islamic Waqf that runs the Mount would say that Jews and others were more than welcome to come to the Mount freely, pray and do as they pleased within the limits of respectful conduct.

    I suspect you're not quite as open-minded on that point.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Marco1)
    So two men from the mosque murder two Israeli police officers
    Just to clarify, they were "Border Police". If you're visualising regular civilian policemen, then you've got the wrong image in your head. They're more of a military police, or a gendarmerie. In other words, armed uniformed combatants in occupied territory.

    They are on the Temple Mount in Israel
    The Temple Mount and the Al-Aqsa mosque are in East Jerusalem in the occupied West Bank, not Israel.

    In Palestine Jews are forbidden to practice their faith.
    The vast majority of the Jews currently living in Palestine are Israeli settlers who are perfectly free to practice their faith - indeed they have soldiers and tanks to enforce it at virtually any cost.

    If what you meant by "in Palestine" was something more like "under Palestinian jurisdiction", then the only Jews there will be handful of foreign peace activists there on a likely temporary basis, though many of them have spent a substantial amount of time there unmolested. The only examples of this I could actually name are secular and so practice of faith wouldn't be a problem, but I don't know if there have been any practising Jews in such a situation (though I'd be surprised if there were none at all).

    There's only a couple of Jews (Uri Davis and Ilan Halevi) who have actually become Palestinians in a meaningful sense (both have held office in Palestinian political institutions). Other than that, the closest thing to Palestinian Jews at the moment are the Samaritans.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    Well, it's rational. If the Israeli Government wanted to "defy" the law they could simply repeal it. In fact, your claim is nonsense: not only is it Israeli legislation, it's only enforced by the Israeli Police. Indeed, we know well that they do indeed conduct searches on Jewish people entering the Temple Mount, confiscate religious items and expel people for praying there.

    Personally I think that's obscene, but the Israeli government clearly believes it is an appropriate grant of respect to their Muslim population. If there was any maturity in the region, the Islamic Waqf that runs the Mount would say that Jews and others were more than welcome to come to the Mount freely, pray and do as they pleased within the limits of respectful conduct.

    I suspect you're not quite as open-minded on that point.
    yes repealing this law would be all well and good, but, it hasn't been repealed.
    so until then, going against this law is well, illegal.
    how do you fail to see this?

    it's like saying murder is illegal, but if the state fancies engaging in it it's okay because oh look, the state commissioned it.

    you can't really accuse me of not being open minded when I've openly criticised Palestinian actions/Arab world actions whereas literally every post of yours on this topic has been in staunch defence of the Israeli government.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    The State of Israel made that law and it is Israeli police that enforce it. The idea that they can "defy" it is nonsense.
    International jurisprudence has generally held that superior orders is not a justification for defying international law, merely a mitigating factor (unless the orders are literally made at gunpoint or something like that). Whether this particular order does or doesn't is a different question, but in theory soldiers are obliged to disobey illegal orders.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hamzakalinle)
    yes repealing this law would be all well and good, but, it hasn't been repealed.
    so until then, going against this law is well, illegal.
    how do you fail to see this?
    And it is the Israeli police enforcing that. I'm really not sure what you're getting at here. The idea that the Israeli state is defying its own law that it enforces and that we know it to enforce is bizarre.

    you can't really accuse me of not being open minded when I've openly criticised Palestinian actions/Arab world actions whereas literally every post of yours on this topic has been in staunch defence of the Israeli government.
    That's because in this case, the Israeli Government is in the right.

    I have no particular fondness for the state of Israel or its administration, but I really struggle to see how it can somehow be to blame for the way it administers the Temple Mount and its associated holy sites and the way it conducts security there.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cbreef)
    Whilst I agree Israel haven't done a lot wrong here, they really should've seen this coming.
    They probably did but where does inaction lead?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hamzakalinle)
    are you actually for real?
    Palestinians have been killed to a far greater extent than Israelis.
    On that "list of facts" of mine that you don't like, (presumably because the truth hurts?) I mentioned how many dead.
    Wanna know how many Israelis have died?

    "Israeli security forces used lethal force against suspected attackers in more than 150 cases, including in circumstances that suggest excessive force and at times extrajudicial executions. Overall, between January 1 and October 31, 2016, Palestinians killed at least 11 Israelis, including 2 security officers, and injured 131 Israelis, including 46 security officers, in the West Bank and Israel. Israeli security forces killed at least 94 Palestinians and injured at least 3,203 Palestinians in the West Bank, Gaza, and Israel as of October 31, including suspected assailants, protesters, and bystanders, according to the United Nations."

    Palestinians shouldn't have shed blood either but,
    the Israeli forces killing bystanders ffs?
    but poor old Israel hey? woe to Israel am i right?

    and the whole point of that list was to explain that these issues extends beyond religion, it's about the actions of the Israeli state as much as any division between Islam and Judaism, but your blatant ignorance of my inconvenient facts suggests you blindly support the Israeli regime.

    Oh, and btw, I'm perfectly comfortable with calling out the Palestinian regime when they're wrong, unlike you with the Israelis. They shouldn't engage in violence even though they're often wronged, the Arab world shouldn't have been so anti-Israel in the 40's and 60's.
    Excessive force? Do you think it's a game of tit for tat? It's the real world. The Palestinian boys have been chucking rocks since I don't know when. It was on the news all the time in the 1970s and it is still going on today. The Israelis have to live with a people, within the State of Israel - like it or not, who are taught to hate them and make trouble with them. There is no reasoning so tragically things repeat themselves ad infinitum. The hate is nurtured zealously and passed on down the line, so clear thinking, healing, peace cannot take root. You seem to hold the attitude and arguments popular with the masses and the media at the moment, i.e. that everything is Israel's fault. I reject that totally. There are two sides to the story and one needs to think on that deeply, objectively and dispassionately to put it into perspective. They have learned one has to be firm because negotiation does not work. Palestine has many backers both in the Middle East and the West, militarily and for political world influence, universities, the UN, EDS . . . and my bull**** radar tells me the public discourse on the Palestine/Israel tensions is all very awry.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Marco1)
    Excessive force? Do you think it's a game of tit for tat? It's the real world. The Palestinian boys have been chucking rocks since I don't know when. It was on the news all the time in the 1970s and it is still going on today. The Israelis have to live with a people, within the State of Israel - like it or not, who are taught to hate them and make trouble with them. There is no reasoning so tragically things repeat themselves ad infinitum. The hate is nurtured zealously and passed on down the line, so clear thinking, healing, peace cannot take root. You seem to hold the attitude and arguments popular with the masses and the media at the moment, i.e. that everything is Israel's fault. I reject that totally. There are two sides to the story and one needs to think on that deeply, objectively and dispassionately to put it into perspective. They have learned one has to be firm because negotiation does not work. Palestine has many backers both in the Middle East and the West, militarily and for political world influence, universities, the UN, EDS . . . and my bull**** radar tells me the general concensus out there is all very awry for politically biased ends.
    Like I've said many times, I've got no problem calling out the Arab world/Palestine when they're in the wrong e.g not accepting the right of Israeli statehood, initiating the 6 day war, aggression against innocent Israelis etc.

    I don't understand how you've concluded that I think everything is Israels fault when I've repeatedly pointed out that Palestine has been in the wrong too,
    why do you refuse to acknowledge that Israel has also been at fault?

    Is Israel faultless or not?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    Just to clarify, they were "Border Police". If you're visualising regular civilian policemen, then you've got the wrong image in your head. They're more of a military police, or a gendarmerie. In other words, armed uniformed combatants in occupied territory.
    I don't see how that is relevant? They're still police and they're human beings doing a job. Are you suggesting they are worth as much or something? Bizzare

    The Temple Mount and the Al-Aqsa mosque are in East Jerusalem in the occupied West Bank, not Israel.
    It's still in the country of Israel, in the part looked after by Jordan. It is a mess. As I understand it, the Muslim claim of Jerusalem goes back to the prophet Muhammad and his night dream in the 600s. A Jewish state since Moses, over c1200 years prior to that would lay more of a claim than a 6th century prophet, by this reasoning.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Marco1)
    I don't see how that is relevant? They're still police and they're human beings doing a job. Are you suggesting they are worth as much or something? Bizzare
    In a conflict area, armed uniformed combatants are legitimate military targets. There's a reason we make these combatant-civilian distinctions.

    It's still in the country of Israel, in the part looked after by Jordan.
    No, it is in an area currently administered by Israel as part of an occupation. It is not within Israel's borders. Jordan has merely been granted a supervisory role over the Old City.

    It is a mess. As I understand it, the Muslim claim of Jerusalem goes back to the prophet Muhammad and his night dream in the 600s. A Jewish state since Moses, over c1200 years prior to that would lay more of a claim than a 6th century prophet, by this reasoning.
    I'm not basing this on any centuries-old nationalist historical claim. I'm saying that here and now, in modern international borders, East Jerusalem, including the Old City and the Temple Mount and Al-Aqsa Mosque, are not in Israel, and instead are within the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    .
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    In a conflict area, armed uniformed combatants are legitimate military targets. There's a reason we make these combatant-civilian distinctions.
    Linguistic rubbish to call police combatants, armed or not.

    No, it is in an area currently administered by Israel as part of an occupation. It is not within Israel's borders. Jordan has merely been granted a supervisory role over the Old City.
    No, it's Israel's. Have you forgotten the 1967 Six Day War when Egypt, Jordan and Syria tried to destroy Israel and got decisively beaten. The truth is the Arabs and the Palestinians have rejected 5 good offers for their own State. Why? Because they refuse to allow Israel to exist. There is a deep cultural enmity towards the Jewish people. If one was to call it by it's name, one would use terms like bigotry, religious hatred, racism or anti-Semitism. Palestine will not accept that the Jews can have their own country and reject the notion of a two-state solution. Quite simply, they do not want a peace solution if it means Israel still exists. So instead, they make holy jihad against the Jewish Satan of Israel.

    I'm not basing this on any centuries-old nationalist historical claim. I'm saying that here and now, in modern international borders, East Jerusalem, including the Old City and the Temple Mount and Al-Aqsa Mosque, are not in Israel, and instead are within the Occupied Palestinian Territories.
    Whether you like it or not, history in the Holy Land is as centrally relevant as it ever was. One cannot ignore it and brush it off. It all stems from a timeline of events and tensions in culture, religion, politics, beliefs, values. To understand it one needs to dig into it deeply without partial bias from the outset against one group over another. It does not matter a damn what the popular view is as it is no reliable guide for the truth.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Marco1)
    Linguistic rubbish to call police combatants, armed or not.

    So all a state has to do to have its armed functionaries considered civilian police rather than combatant soldiers is stick the label "Police" on them? You can't see any problems or potential for abuse with this at all?

    Even Israel itself rejects that reasoning - frequently asserting, for instance, that Gaza policemen are combatants.

    The "Border Police" are a military police arm. They operate alongside soldiers, take part in military operations, and time in the Border Police is considered to constitute an Israeli conscript's "military service", just as joining the full IDF would.

    No, it's Israel's. Have you forgotten the 1967 Six Day War when Egypt, Jordan and Syria tried to destroy Israel and got decisively beaten.
    Even if that had been what happened*, the idea of right of conquest has long since ceased to be. That doesn't change regardless of who started the war. If Ireland attacked us tomorrow and we repelled the attack, that wouldn't give us the right to seize and annex bits of Ireland.

    Also, if East Jerusalem and the West Bank are in Israel, why aren't the Palestinians who live there Israeli citizens?

    * Which, for the record, it isn't. Israel attacked Egypt, knowing the latter did not plans to launch an attack of their own, and having rejected several offers from Egypt to solve the crisis through arbitration or negotiations.

    The truth is the Arabs and the Palestinians have rejected 5 good offers for their own State.
    The Palestinians have de facto accepted the two state solution since 1988, and have made several proposals for such a solution in negotiations since Oslo, most notably Abbas' 2008 offer.

    You going to expand on those alleged 5, by the way? Yes, I saw the video you posted in a separate, I'm just giving you an opportunity to post an actually serious credible source instead, or failing that at least try and explain it yourself.

    Why? Because they refuse to allow Israel to exist. There is a deep cultural enmity towards the Jewish people. If one was to call it by it's name, one would use terms like bigotry, religious hatred, racism or anti-Semitism. Palestine will not accept that the Jews can have their own country and reject the notion of a two-state solution.
    Of course, it's all about Jews. Obviously, if it was any other ethnic group, the Palestinians would have happily accepted the creation of an ethnocentric state requiring their mass expulsion and dispossession, and a half-century occupation that had deprived them of civil and political rights, they'd have been jumping for joy, right?


    Quite simply, they do not want a peace solution if it means Israel still exists.
    Despite the fact that, as indicated above, they have made offers and proposals for precisely that?


    Whether you like it or not, history in the Holy Land is as centrally relevant as it ever was.
    Relevant for a proper contextual understanding, yes. A legitimate source of irredentist claims, not really.

    One cannot ignore it and brush it off. It all stems from a timeline of events and tensions in culture, religion, politics, beliefs, values. To understand it one needs to dig into it deeply without partial bias from the outset against one group over another.
    Something you've already failed to do - as a general rule, nationalist historiography is poor historiography.

    It does not matter a damn what the popular view is as it is no reliable guide for the truth.
    International law regarding borders and state territory is not "the popular view", it is legal fact.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Break up or unrequited love?
    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.