Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by an Siarach)
    Entitled by what? You seem to be claiming that a state of war still exists between Jordan/Egypt and Israel which is untrue.
    No, neither Egypt or Jordan contest the land. The land is contested by a people that have no formal state but technically lived under the jurisdiction of Jordan and Egypt. We want to see a Palestinian state formed but what formal right do these people have to claim the land from Israel?

    And how much sooner would aggression have ceased against Israel had it a)withdrawn from land which was populated by hostile peoples and to which it had no claim beyond that of might is right
    The aggression existed because Israel existed which is why the Arab Nation rejected the UN proposal for a two state solution in Palestine. Jordan and Egypt annexed this land as part of aggression against Israel.

    b)immediately created the palestinian state/allowed the palestinian state to be created instead of
    How can Israel create a state for a people that twice rejected the opportunity themselves?

    c)displacing the native peoples and replacing them with Israelis?
    Displacing from the land afforded to Israel?

    Also, as you suggest that Israels occupation is legitimate as it is not contested by Egypt/Jordan and so presumably had the war progressed to an extent which saw one of the aforementioned states entirely occupied they would also legitimately considered be Israeli land as the state would no longer exist and thus could not contest the occupation?
    They would be occupied terroritories and one would hope that Israel would agree to cease occupation providing that its security could be assured.

    Or would you consider the contention of the native peoples to be enough? (a pointless question but may as well ask)
    Since Israel occupied a formerly recognised nation state, then it would be logical to assume that an agreement could be reached whereby its occupation cease and the state reestablished.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    No, neither Egypt or Jordan contest the land. The land is contested by a people that have no formal state but technically lived under the jurisdiction of Jordan and Egypt. We want to see a Palestinian state formed but what formal right do these people have to claim the land from Israel?
    What 'formal' right does Israel have to the land?
    (Original post by vienna95)
    The aggression existed because Israel existed which is why the Arab Nation rejected the UN proposal for a two state solution in Palestine. Jordan and Egypt annexed this land as part of aggression against Israel.
    I agree with what you say hear but you do not answer my question. Do you think the aggression would have ceased sooner had Israel not occupied an entirely hostile people and had it not started planting its own people and displacing the native peoples?
    (Original post by vienna95)
    How can Israel create a state for a people that twice rejected the opportunity themselves?
    In this context i would consider the opportunity to create a palestinian state as an opportunity to have a completely independant and autonomuos nation - or simply a solution acceptable to the palestinian arabs. Was that offered by Israel? And if so, was it rejected by the palestinian people or by egyptian/jordanian politicians who have no interest in the wellbeing of the palestinian arabs - who use them only for political gain?
    (Original post by vienna95)
    Displacing from the land afforded to Israel?
    Displaced from the land annexed by Israel. It seems strange to displace people from their homes if you wish purely to allow them their own state dont you think? And rather antagonistic as well, dont you think?
    (Original post by vienna95)
    They would be occupied terroritories and one would hope that Israel would agree to cease occupation providing that its security could be assured.
    So the nations occupied by Germany were legitimately occupied during the second world war as the states formerly in contention with Germany no longer existed? Should Israel be conquered at some point by a vicious Islamic/Arab regime any action taken by the Arabs against Israel will be legitimate as, to quote you from a previous thread; those without their own land have rights to nothing ?(in reference to the palestinians)
    (Original post by vienna95)
    Since Israel occupied a formerly recognised nation state, then it would be logical to assume that its occupation cease and the state reestablished.
    Agreed.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by an Siarach)
    What 'formal' right does Israel have to the land?
    It occupied it during a time of war. It has not been disputed by the states that formally occupied it.

    I agree with what you say hear but you do not answer my question. Do you think the aggression would have ceased sooner had Israel not occupied an entirely hostile people and had it not started planting its own people and displacing the native peoples?
    But what were they occupying? The land was annexed by Jordan. Jordan hasnt asked that Israel cease to occupy its land, Palestinian Arabs decide that they wish to create a state of Palestine that would include part of the land that was ruled over by the Ottomans, ruled by a British mandate, annexed by Jordan and then taken by Israel. Jordan and Egypt remained hostile to Israel, so I dont believe that returning this land to anyone would have ended aggression toward Israel.

    In this context i would consider the opportunity to create a palestinian state as an opportunity to have a completely independant and autonomuos nation - or simply a solution acceptable to the palestinian arabs. Was that offered by Israel? And if so, was it rejected by the palestinian people or by egyptian/jordanian politicians who have no interest in the wellbeing of the palestinian arabs - who use them only for political gain?
    Im not sure of what period in time you are referring to.

    Displaced from the land annexed by Israel. It seems strange to displace people from their homes if you wish purely to allow them their own state dont you think? And rather antagonistic as well, dont you think?
    All were offered Israeli citizenship if they wished to remain on Israeli soil. Jordan didnt want the Palestinians, Palestinians wanted their own state. Neither wanted Israel to exist. Israel was not going to concede land to a set of people that were ready to destroy it. They were ready to concede land if aggression ceased.

    So the nations occupied by Germany were legitimately occupied during the second world war as the states formerly in contention with Germany no longer existed?
    They were legitimately occupied and once the war ended, those countries were liberated. During the war, noone expected Germany to concede land. If Alsaciens rejected a state of their own, remained under the jurisdiction of the French and were then invaded by the Germans, who would expect Germany to recognise Alsace with the prospect of French and allied hostility?

    Should Israel be conquered at some point by a vicious Islamic/Arab regime any action taken by the Arabs against Israel will be legitimate as, to quote you from a previous thread; those without their own land have rights to nothing ?(in reference to the palestinians)
    Agreed.
    That was misleading on my part. Israel would cease to exist as a state or be an occupied state. Palestinians can be neither.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    It occupied it during a time of war. It has not been disputed by the states that formally occupied it.
    So using your justification it would be perfectly legitimate for the nations which neighboured the former Yugoslavia/Chzechoslovakia (or any other example) to annex parts of those nations which, seeing as they were falling apart into new and distinct nations, would not be able to dispute the theft of land.
    (Original post by vienna95)
    But what were they occupying? The land was annexed by Jordan. Jordan hasnt asked that Israel cease to occupy its land, Palestinian Arabs decide that they wish to create a state of Palestine that would include part of the land that was ruled over by the Ottomans, ruled by a British mandate, annexed by Jordan and then taken by Israel. Jordan and Egypt remained hostile to Israel, so I dont believe that returning this land to anyone would have ended aggression toward Israel.
    Again youre rather bodyswerving past the question which does not concern Jordan or Egypt or whoever else but purely the inhabitants of the lands Israel occupied. Had Israel left the occupied territories you would have no Hamas, no Intifada etc - not that i think antagonism and violence would have ceased altogether, but i dont doubt it would have been on a vastly smaller scale and negotiations would have been far easier,far less bitter.
    (Original post by vienna95)
    Im not sure of what period in time you are referring to.
    Im simpy referring to your claims that the palestinians were twice offered their own nation. Im assuming that you meant they were made this offer by Israel as a solution to the problem with the occupied territories although id welcome clarification on what two occasions you were referring to.
    (Original post by vienna95)
    All were offered Israeli citizenship if they wished to remain on Israeli soil.
    Ive had a quick glance through the relevant chapter in Israel:A history and i cant find any mention of this and i find it highly doubtful that Israel would be willing to have such a huge population of hostile arabs as citizens -unless they were only offered a lower class of citizenship to that available to Jews and thus were not afforded any democratic rights which would, after all, be hugely influential? Were they offered citizenship status equal to that of an European/American Jewish Immigrant?
    (Original post by vienna95)
    Jordan didnt want the Palestinians, Palestinians wanted their own state. Neither wanted Israel to exist. Israel was not going to concede land to a set of people that were ready to destroy it. They were ready to concede land if aggression ceased.
    True. A great shame the violence was to flair up again as there were some genuine signs of progress and promise immediately following the 6 Day war and there were some very interesting plans made by Dayan et al.
    (Original post by vienna95)
    They were legitimately occupied and once the war ended, those countries were liberated. During the war, noone expected Germany to concede land. If Alsaciens rejected a state of their own, remained under the jurisdiction of the French and were then invaded by the Germans, who would expect Germany to recognise Alsace with the prospect of French and allied hostility?
    Fair enough - I simply wanted to be sure i had your view on the issue correctly interpreted.
    (Original post by vienna95)
    That was misleading on my part. Israel would cease to exist as a state or be an occupied state. Palestinians can be neither.
    How exactly does a state become a legitimate or recognised state in your eyes though? Should the palestinian militants become unusually successful and force the Israeli forces out of the occupied territories will they then have a state of their own? Considering such action would be similiar to those taken by the Zionists to gain Israeli sovereignty post WW2 would that be sufficient to form a state? Or would international recognition from the UN as was awarded to Israel be required?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by an Siarach)
    So using your justification it would be perfectly legitimate for the nations which neighboured the former Yugoslavia/Chzechoslovakia (or any other example) to annex parts of those nations which, seeing as they were falling apart into new and distinct nations, would not be able to dispute the theft of land.
    If those nations were at war and subsequently remained hostile, yes.

    Again youre rather bodyswerving past the question which does not concern Jordan or Egypt or whoever else but purely the inhabitants of the lands Israel occupied. Had Israel left the occupied territories you would have no Hamas, no Intifada etc
    No, they exist because Israel exists. This was also the position of most of the Arab world until they realised that it was damaging the prospect of a Palestinian state.

    Im simpy referring to your claims that the palestinians were twice offered their own nation. Im assuming that you meant they were made this offer by Israel as a solution to the problem with the occupied territories although id welcome clarification on what two occasions you were referring to.
    In 1948 and 1999.

    Ive had a quick glance through the relevant chapter in Israel:A history and i cant find any mention of this and i find it highly doubtful that Israel would be willing to have such a huge population of hostile arabs as citizens -unless they were only offered a lower class of citizenship to that available to Jews and thus were not afforded any democratic rights which would, after all, be hugely influential? Were they offered citizenship status equal to that of an European/American Jewish Immigrant?
    When Israel was established it offered everyone settled on that land Israeli citizenship, to the best of my knowledge. Citizenship of Israel is irrespective of your ethnic or religious background.

    How exactly does a state become a legitimate or recognised state in your eyes though? Should the palestinian militants become unusually successful and force the Israeli forces out of the occupied territories will they then have a state of their own? Considering such action would be similiar to those taken by the Zionists to gain Israeli sovereignty post WW2 would that be sufficient to form a state? Or would international recognition from the UN as was awarded to Israel be required?
    It would become legitimate as soon as it has political control over land clearly defined by and recognised by the majority of its population, and one would hope the international community. It would also have to accept or provide for political obligations to co exist with its neighbours.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    No, they exist because Israel exists. This was also the position of most of the Arab world until they realised that it was damaging the prospect of a Palestinian state.
    Well thats not untrue but its misleading to say that they exist as they are purely because Israel exists. Had Israel remained within its own borders rather than subjugating hostile peoples i dont see how you can seriously suggest the level of hostility and suffering would have been the same.
    (Original post by vienna95)
    In 1948 and 1999.
    Im pretty sure the decision in 1948 had very little to do with the palestinian people - just as the sale of land to Israel in previous years had nothing to do with the inhabitants of those lands and everything to do with absentee landlords in other arab nations - and had an acceptable offer been made in 1999 (fully independant, fully autonomous) i dont doubt it would have been accepted. Its a bit naive to expect a people as bitter and hate filled as the palestinians to accept a form of 'state' which would see Israelis maintain sovereignty over them.
    (Original post by vienna95)
    When Israel was established it offered everyone settled on that land Israeli citizenship, to the best of my knowledge. Citizenship of Israel is irrespective of your ethnic or religious background.
    When i have time il have a proper look at the relevant chapters but i really do find that highly doubtful. Putting aside the previously mentioned reasons for its unlikelyhood there have also been well documented issues regarding white american/european jewish racism against darker skinned jews such as those from Ethiopia etc so i dont expect a sudden bout of egalitarianism against a former, and still entirely hostile people who would have a tremendous impact upon the state if provided with full citizenship and democratic rights (which is what i assume you mean by citizenship).
    (Original post by vienna95)
    It would become legitimate as soon as it has political control over land clearly defined by and recognised by the majority of its population, and one would hope the international community. It would also have to accept or provide for political obligations to co exist with its neighbours.
    Fair enough.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by an Siarach)
    Well thats not untrue but its misleading to say that they exist as they are purely because Israel exists. Had Israel remained within its own borders rather than subjugating hostile peoples i dont see how you can seriously suggest the level of hostility and suffering would have been the same.
    The level of hostility from Hamas would have existed. Whether or not they would have the sympathy of the UN, the EU and the international left is another thing. It would have been alot less aggressive and hostile to let Hitler waltz across Europe, but security demanded that hostility from people that want to wipe you out should not be appeased. Had Israel retreated under aggression from Jordan, Egypt, Syria and Islamic militants, we could be looking at a totally different Israel today.

    Im pretty sure the decision in 1948 had very little to do with the palestinian people - just as the sale of land to Israel in previous years had nothing to do with the inhabitants of those lands and everything to do with absentee landlords in other arab nations
    The UN divided the land and offered the Palestinians a state. They even accepted this in part and at one time declared themselves a nation. Land onto which Israel was founded, was settled by a majority of Jews who had bought the land from the Arabs. Arabs actually welcomed the Jews who had brought prosperity to the region.

    and had an acceptable offer been made in 1999 (fully independant, fully autonomous) i dont doubt it would have been accepted. Its a bit naive to expect a people as bitter and hate filled as the palestinians to accept a form of 'state' which would see Israelis maintain sovereignty over them.
    The state was offered by Barak and Clinton. It would have meant they would have received at least 97% of the land, the remaining 3% in Jerusalem would have been termed as an 'international' city, as it was disputed by both the Israelis and Palestinians.

    When i have time il have a proper look at the relevant chapters but i really do find that highly doubtful. Putting aside the previously mentioned reasons for its unlikelyhood there have also been well documented issues regarding white american/european jewish racism against darker skinned jews such as those from Ethiopia etc so i dont expect a sudden bout of egalitarianism against a former, and still entirely hostile people who would have a tremendous impact upon the state if provided with full citizenship and democratic rights (which is what i assume you mean by citizenship).
    There are Arab, Christian and Jewish Israelis, all equal. Many arabs that had settled on land that became Israel were bullied by the rest of the Arab Nation. They had to join their "brothers" against the "Nakhba".
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Would that pathetic little weed who keeps neg repping me come on the thread and actually show themself. By neg repping me you look completely pathetic as you are not showing who you are so that i can explain what i mean........

    The Palestinians are fighting because of religion. Although they both want the holy city of Bethlehem, Israel are fighting more because of Politics. Afterall, there is more evidence for politics than religion. Religion was made up to help human-beings not feel alone. What is the point in fighting over something that is not real and can hurt people? That is the reason i said i hope all Palestinian suicide bombers kill themselves (not injuring others) and realise there is no such God, to whom they wasted they pathetic little lives over!

    Yes some people believe we still havent landed on the moon, but there is evidence to support this. Religion just seems to conjuer up "magic" to cover the weaknesses in its story. Such weaknesses include the body of christ dissappearing in the tomb after he died.

    If there was a god brought down to earth (who was mortal) why was he sent at such a time? Surely if ever we needed a God then he would have been sent to us at this period of time.........
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Is the Pope Catholic?
    Nice one! But isnt he Roman Catholic hehe?
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
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: February 16, 2005
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
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.