Arab Israeli Conflict (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter jen23
- Start date
mizz_smee
has a fetish 4 handcuffs
i did the jewish settlers on the isaeli political parties and peace thing
i was okay but to great
but then again i don't think i would have liked any question
i was okay but to great
but then again i don't think i would have liked any question
rock_music
Slap!
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2004
- Messages
- 4
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- 2004
yeah i did the question about jewish setters cause i didn't bother studying anything in the arab israeli conflict before 1967.... most of my friends did terroism though, they said they went on about black september
mizz_smee
has a fetish 4 handcuffs
i think that u would have to mention the PLO
I can't really recall what i wrote in detail. I evaluated why the Palestinians would resort to terrorism. I talked about the failed wars, Arab dis-unity, the refugees, 'Fatah" and the PLO movement, the occupied territoriess, the movements into the 1970 towards Black September and PFLP (Munich and Dawson Field examples), and finally international intervention (USA and the UN) basically the Palestinian perspective and why terrorism develped - and why it was adpated. (also included some stuff on Israeli policy)
I sure there are many ways to interprete the question and still give a valid response, do don't get worked up over it if other people focused on different issues in their essay.
I sure there are many ways to interprete the question and still give a valid response, do don't get worked up over it if other people focused on different issues in their essay.
Personally I think these were the shittest questions I've seen on a HSC paper...Although my memory isn't great...but poor questions...I did the terrorism one & felt pretty confident but cooommmeee on!...I just did NOT expect those questions at all...It's an extremely interesting topic but fuck they give ridiculous questions...Oh well...its over!...Never again! 
ignorance=bliss
Member
yeh im with u b-c
i talked about how they were fed up & reacting on compounding tension & anger bbiuldup coz of
failed wars and ineffectiveness of arab leaders to respresent them
i talked about the ineffectiveness of 242
i sed that they intifade came up as a result of severe buildup of anger & tension n shit
i spoke about the border raids & theur plight to gain international awarenss ot the palestinian issues (e.g muich hijackng/killing)
i dunno if this is on the right track but bcoz it was so unexpected i tried to think lieke... y wood they resort to toerrorism n this i swahat i came upw ith
oh well jus glad tis over
i talked about how they were fed up & reacting on compounding tension & anger bbiuldup coz of
failed wars and ineffectiveness of arab leaders to respresent them
i talked about the ineffectiveness of 242
i sed that they intifade came up as a result of severe buildup of anger & tension n shit
i spoke about the border raids & theur plight to gain international awarenss ot the palestinian issues (e.g muich hijackng/killing)
i dunno if this is on the right track but bcoz it was so unexpected i tried to think lieke... y wood they resort to toerrorism n this i swahat i came upw ith
oh well jus glad tis over
The Nick
McBain
As long as most people thought they sucked it's alright - safety in numbers guys!
i did the first one, on terrorism. i thought they were both a bit stupid. in the terrorism one you couldnt even talk about the intafada, the hebron massacre and all the other impt info that happened after 1979. i thought it was a wierd yr to end on, what do u guys think?
i think i did ok, i talked about the PLO the wars black september, all that crap. not fantastically, i think i repeated myself a bit tho!!
Anyway, four more to go *sigh*!
better get back to study!!
i think i did ok, i talked about the PLO the wars black september, all that crap. not fantastically, i think i repeated myself a bit tho!!
Anyway, four more to go *sigh*!
better get back to study!!
rock_music
Slap!
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2004
- Messages
- 4
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- 2004
oh if i had to summarise my essay into the major things i talked about it would be the same as your summary... hurrah ! i hope u're really good at history !trescowthick said:
Did anyone mention resolution 3314 and 3013 in 1974 which said that terrorism can not be labeled as such if it is conducted by a movement caliming to fight for self-determination or against a racist or colonial regime? Effectively meaning that calling Palestinian movements "terrorist" is incorrect? Meaning that the very question asked was a complete crock-of-shit.
Of course not, why let law and the truth get in the way of indoctrination?
Of course not, why let law and the truth get in the way of indoctrination?
soha
a splendid one to behold
bone 577 what does your name say?
The origin of the problem and the Palestinian resistance can easily be understood if you read the wise words written in 1923 by Vladimir Jabotinsky, one of the creators of the zionist movement:
There can be no discussion of voluntary reconciliation between us and the Arabs, not now, and not in the foreseeable future. All well-meaning people, with the exception of those blind from birth, understood long ago the complete impossibility of arriving at a voluntary agreement with the Arabs of Palestine for the transformation of Palestine from an Arab country to a country with a Jewish majority. Each of you has some general understanding of the history of colonization. Try to find even one example when the colonization of a country took place with the agreement of the native population. Such an event has never occurred.
The natives will always struggle obstinately against the colonists – and it is all the same whether they are cultured or uncultured. The comrades in arms of [Hernan] Cortez or [Francisco] Pizarro conducted themselves like brigands. The Redskins fought with uncompromising fervor against both evil and good-hearted colonizers. The natives struggled because any kind of colonization anywhere at anytime is inadmissible to any native people.
Any native people view their country as their national home, of which they will be complete masters. They will never voluntarily allow a new master. So it is for the Arabs. Compromisers among us try to convince us that the Arabs are some kind of fools who can be tricked with hidden formulations of our basic goals. I flatly refuse to accept this view of the Palestinian Arabs.
They have the precise psychology that we have. They look upon Palestine with the same instinctive love and true fervor that any Aztec looked upon his Mexico or any Sioux upon his prairie. Each people will struggle against colonizers until the last spark of hope that they can avoid the dangers of conquest and colonization is extinguished. The Palestinians will struggle in this way until there is hardly a spark of hope.
It matters not what kind of words we use to explain our colonization. Colonization has its own integral and inescapable meaning understood by every Jew and by every Arab. Colonization has only one goal. This is in the nature of things. To change that nature is impossible. It has been necessary to carry on colonization against the will of the Palestinian Arabs and the same condition exists now.
Even an agreement with non-Palestinians represents the same kind of fantasy. In order for Arab nationalists of Baghdad and Mecca and Damascus to agree to pay so serious a price they would have to refuse to maintain the Arab character of Palestine.
We cannot give any compensation for Palestine, neither to the Palestinians nor to other Arabs. Therefore, a voluntary agreement is inconceivable. All colonization, even the most restricted, must continue in defiance of the will of the native population. Therefore, it can continue and develop only under the shield of force which comprises an Iron Wall through which the local population can never break through. This is our Arab policy. To formulate it any other way would be hypocrisy.
Whether through the Balfour Declaration or the Mandate, external force is a necessity for establishing in the country conditions of rule and defense through which the local population, regardless of what it wishes, will be deprived of the possibility of impeding our colonization, administratively or physically. Force must play its role – with strength and without indulgence. In this, there are no meaningful differences between our militarists and our vegetarians. One prefers an Iron Wall of Jewish bayonets; the other an Iron Wall of English bayonets.
To the hackneyed reproach that this point of view is unethical, I answer, ’absolutely untrue.’ This is our ethic. There is no other ethic. As long as there is the faintest spark of hope for the Arabs to impede us, they will not sell these hopes – not for any sweet words nor for any tasty morsel, because this is not a rabble but a people, a living people. And no people makes such enormous concessions on such fateful questions, except when there is no hope left, until we have removed every opening visible in the Iron Wall.
(The iron wall, 1923)
There can be no discussion of voluntary reconciliation between us and the Arabs, not now, and not in the foreseeable future. All well-meaning people, with the exception of those blind from birth, understood long ago the complete impossibility of arriving at a voluntary agreement with the Arabs of Palestine for the transformation of Palestine from an Arab country to a country with a Jewish majority. Each of you has some general understanding of the history of colonization. Try to find even one example when the colonization of a country took place with the agreement of the native population. Such an event has never occurred.
The natives will always struggle obstinately against the colonists – and it is all the same whether they are cultured or uncultured. The comrades in arms of [Hernan] Cortez or [Francisco] Pizarro conducted themselves like brigands. The Redskins fought with uncompromising fervor against both evil and good-hearted colonizers. The natives struggled because any kind of colonization anywhere at anytime is inadmissible to any native people.
Any native people view their country as their national home, of which they will be complete masters. They will never voluntarily allow a new master. So it is for the Arabs. Compromisers among us try to convince us that the Arabs are some kind of fools who can be tricked with hidden formulations of our basic goals. I flatly refuse to accept this view of the Palestinian Arabs.
They have the precise psychology that we have. They look upon Palestine with the same instinctive love and true fervor that any Aztec looked upon his Mexico or any Sioux upon his prairie. Each people will struggle against colonizers until the last spark of hope that they can avoid the dangers of conquest and colonization is extinguished. The Palestinians will struggle in this way until there is hardly a spark of hope.
It matters not what kind of words we use to explain our colonization. Colonization has its own integral and inescapable meaning understood by every Jew and by every Arab. Colonization has only one goal. This is in the nature of things. To change that nature is impossible. It has been necessary to carry on colonization against the will of the Palestinian Arabs and the same condition exists now.
Even an agreement with non-Palestinians represents the same kind of fantasy. In order for Arab nationalists of Baghdad and Mecca and Damascus to agree to pay so serious a price they would have to refuse to maintain the Arab character of Palestine.
We cannot give any compensation for Palestine, neither to the Palestinians nor to other Arabs. Therefore, a voluntary agreement is inconceivable. All colonization, even the most restricted, must continue in defiance of the will of the native population. Therefore, it can continue and develop only under the shield of force which comprises an Iron Wall through which the local population can never break through. This is our Arab policy. To formulate it any other way would be hypocrisy.
Whether through the Balfour Declaration or the Mandate, external force is a necessity for establishing in the country conditions of rule and defense through which the local population, regardless of what it wishes, will be deprived of the possibility of impeding our colonization, administratively or physically. Force must play its role – with strength and without indulgence. In this, there are no meaningful differences between our militarists and our vegetarians. One prefers an Iron Wall of Jewish bayonets; the other an Iron Wall of English bayonets.
To the hackneyed reproach that this point of view is unethical, I answer, ’absolutely untrue.’ This is our ethic. There is no other ethic. As long as there is the faintest spark of hope for the Arabs to impede us, they will not sell these hopes – not for any sweet words nor for any tasty morsel, because this is not a rabble but a people, a living people. And no people makes such enormous concessions on such fateful questions, except when there is no hope left, until we have removed every opening visible in the Iron Wall.
(The iron wall, 1923)
I forgot I had another very nice quote:
Moshe Dayan, former Chief of Staff and Minister of Defense, was uninhibited in his summary of the nature of Zionist colonization before students at the Israel Institute of Technology (The Techniyon):
We came here to a country that was populated by Arabs, and we are building here a Hebrew, Jewish state. Instead of Arab villages, Jewish villages were established. You do not even know the names of these villages and I do not blame you, because these geography books no longer exist. Not only the books, but also the villages do not exist.
Nahalal was established in place of Mahalul, Gevat in place of Jibta, Sarid in the place of Hanifas and Kafr Yehoushu’a in the place of Tel Shamam. There is not a single settlement that was not established in the place of a former Arab village.
Moshe Dayan, former Chief of Staff and Minister of Defense, was uninhibited in his summary of the nature of Zionist colonization before students at the Israel Institute of Technology (The Techniyon):
We came here to a country that was populated by Arabs, and we are building here a Hebrew, Jewish state. Instead of Arab villages, Jewish villages were established. You do not even know the names of these villages and I do not blame you, because these geography books no longer exist. Not only the books, but also the villages do not exist.
Nahalal was established in place of Mahalul, Gevat in place of Jibta, Sarid in the place of Hanifas and Kafr Yehoushu’a in the place of Tel Shamam. There is not a single settlement that was not established in the place of a former Arab village.
What you are saying is, that colonization, by nature, is fought with fevour, by the indigenous population. Yet, it is not immoral, because this is the nature of colonialism. Or more specifically Zionism in general.
That is perhaps, the most realist, yet sickening thing I have ever heard. But Zionist have a habit of being realists, in this case perhaps the most important Zionist, David Ben Gurion:
"In 1936-9, the Palestinian Arabs attempted a Nationalist revolt …David Ben-Gurion, eminently a realist, recognized its nature. In internal discussion, he noted that ‘in our political argument abroad, we minimize Arab opposition to us,’ but he urged, ‘let us not ignore the truth among ourselves.’ The truth was that ‘politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves… The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country, while we are still outside’… The revolt was crushed by the British, with considerable brutality."
Noam Chomsky, "The Fateful Triangle."
‘In internal discussion in 1938,[David Ben-Gurion] stated that’ after we become a strong force, as a result of the creation of a state, we shall abolish partition and expand to the whole of Palestine… The state will only be a stage in the realization of Zionism and its task is to prepare the ground for our expansion into the whole of Palestine'
What I do not understand, is weather you see this as some sort of justification. You described it as "wise words". These same words could easily be used by Hitler;
Genocide, by nature, is fought with fevour, by the persecuted population. Yet, it is not immoral, because this is the nature of genocide. Or more specifically the holocaust in general. Becuase "This is our ethic. There is no other ethic."
Clarify your statements, because the way it sounds right now, you simply think that war crimes, genocide, and any other number of crimes, are justifiable through the rationale that "This is our ethic. There is no other ethic."
Personally, my thoughts fall in line with those of Gandhi;
"Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French…What is going on in Palestine today cannot be justified by any moral code of conduct…If they [the Jews] must look to the Palestine of geography as their national home, it is wrong to enter it under the shadow of the British gun. A religious act cannot be performed with the aid of the bayonet or the bomb. They can settle in Palestine only by the goodwill of the Arabs…As it is, they are co-sharers with the British in despoiling a people who have done no wrong to them. I am not defending the Arab excesses. I wish they had chosen the way of non-violence in resisting what they rightly regard as an unacceptable encroachment upon their country. But according to the accepted canons of right and wrong, nothing can be said against the Arab resistance in the face of overwhelming odds."
That is perhaps, the most realist, yet sickening thing I have ever heard. But Zionist have a habit of being realists, in this case perhaps the most important Zionist, David Ben Gurion:
"In 1936-9, the Palestinian Arabs attempted a Nationalist revolt …David Ben-Gurion, eminently a realist, recognized its nature. In internal discussion, he noted that ‘in our political argument abroad, we minimize Arab opposition to us,’ but he urged, ‘let us not ignore the truth among ourselves.’ The truth was that ‘politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves… The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country, while we are still outside’… The revolt was crushed by the British, with considerable brutality."
Noam Chomsky, "The Fateful Triangle."
‘In internal discussion in 1938,[David Ben-Gurion] stated that’ after we become a strong force, as a result of the creation of a state, we shall abolish partition and expand to the whole of Palestine… The state will only be a stage in the realization of Zionism and its task is to prepare the ground for our expansion into the whole of Palestine'
What I do not understand, is weather you see this as some sort of justification. You described it as "wise words". These same words could easily be used by Hitler;
Genocide, by nature, is fought with fevour, by the persecuted population. Yet, it is not immoral, because this is the nature of genocide. Or more specifically the holocaust in general. Becuase "This is our ethic. There is no other ethic."
Clarify your statements, because the way it sounds right now, you simply think that war crimes, genocide, and any other number of crimes, are justifiable through the rationale that "This is our ethic. There is no other ethic."
Personally, my thoughts fall in line with those of Gandhi;
"Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French…What is going on in Palestine today cannot be justified by any moral code of conduct…If they [the Jews] must look to the Palestine of geography as their national home, it is wrong to enter it under the shadow of the British gun. A religious act cannot be performed with the aid of the bayonet or the bomb. They can settle in Palestine only by the goodwill of the Arabs…As it is, they are co-sharers with the British in despoiling a people who have done no wrong to them. I am not defending the Arab excesses. I wish they had chosen the way of non-violence in resisting what they rightly regard as an unacceptable encroachment upon their country. But according to the accepted canons of right and wrong, nothing can be said against the Arab resistance in the face of overwhelming odds."
I didn't mean to say that war crimes or colonisations are justifiable, what I found justifiable is the resistance of the colonised people. I referred to the words used by Jabotinsky as wise because for me, they explain very well the palestinians' attitude and reactions since the state of Israel was founded in their land. I took those quotations from a very nice book written by an anti-zionist Jew, Ralph Schoenman:
http://www.wbaifree.org/takingaim/hhz/
http://www.wbaifree.org/takingaim/hhz/
Last edited: