-
Finished your HSC? Check out our University Discussion, Non-School forums or help out next year's HSC students! -
YOU can help the next generation of students in the community! Share your trial papers and notes on our Notes & Resources page
Israel and Palestine (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter shiftylilbrat
- Start date
Re: Israel & Palestine
He also says he believes there would be no terrorism in the Middle East if Israel did not exist which is also wrong. As long as a better way of life exists to contradict that by which those who adhere to Sharia law follow, there was always going to be terrorism as they clutch at straws in the way of suicide bombings etc. in order to bring it down.
What worries me is that you're being serious some of the time. Please don't tell me that you are :/
He was talking about the British Mandate, Nebs. The Egyptians have no relevance in his argument, so no, you're wrong. His argument is both factually and theoretically incorrect. The British left before the State of Israel was created, not after, as he said. He also says if Israel hadn't been created, there would be no Western interest in the Middle East, which I'm sure even you're able to acknowledge is incorrect. Primary among the concerns of Western nations in the Middle East is oil, nuclear weaponry, warming of relations with China and Russia, and I'll put "ideological" reasons last, because that is a subjective, possibly fallacious argument.
He also says he believes there would be no terrorism in the Middle East if Israel did not exist which is also wrong. As long as a better way of life exists to contradict that by which those who adhere to Sharia law follow, there was always going to be terrorism as they clutch at straws in the way of suicide bombings etc. in order to bring it down.
What worries me is that you're being serious some of the time. Please don't tell me that you are :/
Nebuchanezzar
Banned
Re: Israel & Palestine
As for the British, his point was that the British promised an Arab state, and didn't deliver. Quite true.
Oil is true. Everything is either minor, or non-existant. Like the nuclear problem in the Middle East, since you know, Israel is the only nuclear power there (cewpt Pakistan, but who cares about them since they only hate India) and Israel is the only reason why others want nuclear weapons.
As for the British, his point was that the British promised an Arab state, and didn't deliver. Quite true.
E
Empyrean444
Guest
Re: Israel & Palestine
But in the very least, it does exacerbate the situation and is not negligible.
mira.mourad
Member
Re: Israel & Palestine
Israel does not exist
Israel does not exist
Re: Israel & Palestine
No, you have your facts wrong, the British did deliver. They succeeded in creating the Arab state of Jordan, which was specified in the British Mandate.
And there was a Palestinian state in the British Mandate. It just never declared it's independence (lack of organisation - what's new?) and within 48 hours of Israel's declaration of independence, Israel was attacked and then conquered the land which was to have been the Palestinian state.
I do agree that oil is the foremost motivation and I am willing to admit that Israel's possession of nuclear weaponry has further motivated the Arab states to have nuclear weapon capabilities, but they would have aimed for it anyway. Anyway, ignoring that, you've just conceded to my main point; oil.
No, you have your facts wrong, the British did deliver. They succeeded in creating the Arab state of Jordan, which was specified in the British Mandate.
And there was a Palestinian state in the British Mandate. It just never declared it's independence (lack of organisation - what's new?) and within 48 hours of Israel's declaration of independence, Israel was attacked and then conquered the land which was to have been the Palestinian state.
True, but my point stands.
Re: Israel & Palestine
does anyone actually believe that israel has a right to existence. when i say israel i mean the state israel, not izreali people or jewis people. how could someone legitimise the israeli state when it is so cleary has no right to exist. israel is on stolen land.
just becuase britian after colonising the arab states decided to give a smal portion of this land to the jews living under opressin in european countries. does not mean that they have a right to that land. the palistinians were living for thuosands in this land befor the jews actully came. if the stealing of palistinain land to give to th jews can be legitimised then why cant britians stealing of australia from the native aboriginals be legitimised. and why cant the stealing of america from the native indians be legitimesed.
the isreali state should be taken down and replaced a palistinian goverment
does anyone actually believe that israel has a right to existence. when i say israel i mean the state israel, not izreali people or jewis people. how could someone legitimise the israeli state when it is so cleary has no right to exist. israel is on stolen land.
just becuase britian after colonising the arab states decided to give a smal portion of this land to the jews living under opressin in european countries. does not mean that they have a right to that land. the palistinians were living for thuosands in this land befor the jews actully came. if the stealing of palistinain land to give to th jews can be legitimised then why cant britians stealing of australia from the native aboriginals be legitimised. and why cant the stealing of america from the native indians be legitimesed.
the isreali state should be taken down and replaced a palistinian goverment
Kwayera
Passive-aggressive Mod
murphyad
Member
Re: Israel & Palestine
Well, technically, the Jews did occupy Israel before the Romans diaspora'ed their asses out of there and more importantly before the Arabs, if you want to argue on a 'first come, first served' basis. However this logic is not particularly relevant to the situation at hand; it's impossible to say that Israel does or does not have a definitive right to exist and expect that standpoint to be universally acknowledged, just as the same would occur if I were to argue that the state of Australia should not exist because it was founded on stolen land.
Imo, regardless of whether or not Israel should exist, it does exist, and many people retain an interest in its continued existence. Therefore it makes no sense to advocate the abolition of Israel because it would be too damaging to those who depend on the current situation. In short, a two-state solution.
Well, technically, the Jews did occupy Israel before the Romans diaspora'ed their asses out of there and more importantly before the Arabs, if you want to argue on a 'first come, first served' basis. However this logic is not particularly relevant to the situation at hand; it's impossible to say that Israel does or does not have a definitive right to exist and expect that standpoint to be universally acknowledged, just as the same would occur if I were to argue that the state of Australia should not exist because it was founded on stolen land.
Imo, regardless of whether or not Israel should exist, it does exist, and many people retain an interest in its continued existence. Therefore it makes no sense to advocate the abolition of Israel because it would be too damaging to those who depend on the current situation. In short, a two-state solution.
Re: Israel & Palestine
Israel already exists and it isn't going anywhere, so exploring "who was there first" is on the same level as two kids arguing over "who started it." It's irrelevant and particularly amusing when you consider that the fault is on neither the Israelis or the Palestinians.
Also, by your post you imply that all Jews were exiled from Israel (or Judea/Palestine as it was back then) by the Romans. This is inaccurate as there has always been a constant Jewish presence there for nearly 3000 years, the population has just wildly fluctuated.
I find arguing on the point to be pointless and particularly childish, for reasons you have partly pointed out.
Israel already exists and it isn't going anywhere, so exploring "who was there first" is on the same level as two kids arguing over "who started it." It's irrelevant and particularly amusing when you consider that the fault is on neither the Israelis or the Palestinians.
Also, by your post you imply that all Jews were exiled from Israel (or Judea/Palestine as it was back then) by the Romans. This is inaccurate as there has always been a constant Jewish presence there for nearly 3000 years, the population has just wildly fluctuated.
Nebuchanezzar
Banned
Re: Israel & Palestine
The land of Palestine will forever belong to the blessed Arabs, and not to the dog Israelis. Arabs lived there in larger numbers for eons before the Jews came along. Perhaps it was Jewish land thousands of years ago in biblical days. Who gives a shit: The bible is not relevant and nor is 1000 years ago. What is relevant is current context. Wake up you Zionist scumbags and smell the cheese.
In the case of Israel, it was Palestinian land for a long time before the late...what, 1800's or something when the Jews decided to take up residence uninvited. There are still Palestinians of that generation still alive, still opposed to the invasion. They have children and grandchildren opposed to the Jewish invasion. Fuck, it was like, 70 years ago you moronic cunts, so don't try to equate it with 1600ad.
Furthermore, the fact that we're debating this and not fucking, idk, Byzantinians means that all you Zionist warmongerers regard Palestinian claim to land as significant. Significant to warrant debate. Unlike the claim to Israel made by Norweigen vikings.
And btw, the fact that Israel is there now doesn't give them right to the land because we rightfully view them as an immoral occupying force cause the Arabs don't want them there.
Sincerely,
Nebuchanezzar
Leader of the Bored of Studies Anti-Israel League
The land of Palestine will forever belong to the blessed Arabs, and not to the dog Israelis. Arabs lived there in larger numbers for eons before the Jews came along. Perhaps it was Jewish land thousands of years ago in biblical days. Who gives a shit: The bible is not relevant and nor is 1000 years ago. What is relevant is current context. Wake up you Zionist scumbags and smell the cheese.
In the case of Israel, it was Palestinian land for a long time before the late...what, 1800's or something when the Jews decided to take up residence uninvited. There are still Palestinians of that generation still alive, still opposed to the invasion. They have children and grandchildren opposed to the Jewish invasion. Fuck, it was like, 70 years ago you moronic cunts, so don't try to equate it with 1600ad.
Furthermore, the fact that we're debating this and not fucking, idk, Byzantinians means that all you Zionist warmongerers regard Palestinian claim to land as significant. Significant to warrant debate. Unlike the claim to Israel made by Norweigen vikings.
And btw, the fact that Israel is there now doesn't give them right to the land because we rightfully view them as an immoral occupying force cause the Arabs don't want them there.
Sincerely,
Nebuchanezzar
Leader of the Bored of Studies Anti-Israel League