|
|
Contributor | RP |
|
Last Modified | Penguin June 30, 2006 09:56pm |
Description | Israel & Palestine Conflict
In 1947, the United Nations created the modern state of Israel. The move partitioned the former British protectorate of Palestine into two sections. It was a decision opposed by all Arab nations, many of whom immediately declared war on the state. In a series of bloody wars, Israel and its Arab neighbors fought over the right of the Jewish state to exist. Military victories expanding Israel's territory were interspersed with attempts to find understanding and peaceful coexistence.
At several moments during the later half of the 20th century, Israeli and Arab leaders came to the negotiation table hoping to find ways to bring stability to the war-torn region. Peace talks slowed after the assassination of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin by an Israeli radical in 1995. After several interim agreements and lengthy discussions about Israeli withdrawals, Gaza City, Ramallah, Hebron and other key cities shifted from Israeli control to the Palestinian Authority. But after a first round of moves, talks bogged down in 1997 and 1998.
In 2000, a visit by hard-line Likud party leader Ariel Sharon to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem sparked an even more intensified fight between Israelis and Palestinians. In 2001, Prime Minister Ehud Barak was voted out of office in Israel and Sharon's new administration sparked the conflict as we know it today. |
| BOOKS |
|
|
Title |
Purchase |
Contributor |
DISCUSSION |
[View All 18 Previous Messages] |
|
I:9951 | E Pluribus Unum ( -193.5252 points)
|
Tue, January 28, 2020 07:27:19 PM UTC0:00
|
Palestinians say no, cause they did not even get a say in the "peace plan"
https://english.alarabiya.net/en/features/2020/01/28/Palestinians-skeptical-of-Trump-s-Middle-East-peace-plan.html
https://twitter.com/Breaking911/status/1222227855469350912?s=20
Palestinians say no, cause they did not even get a say in the "peace plan"
[Link]
?s=20
|
|
|
The Palestinians are a bunch of crybabies & from the words of Mulvaney: GET OVER IT.
The Palestinians are a bunch of crybabies & from the words of Mulvaney: GET OVER IT.
|
|
|
I:9951 | E Pluribus Unum ( -193.5252 points)
|
Tue, January 28, 2020 08:00:23 PM UTC0:00
|
The Palestinians are a bunch of crybabies & from the words of Mulvaney: GET OVER IT.
HOW DARE THEY GET MAD WHEN ISRAEL TAKES MORE OF THEIR LAND AND TREATS THEM LIKE THIRD CLASS CITIZENS!!!!
Tar Heel Conservative Dem: The Palestinians are a bunch of crybabies & from the words of Mulvaney: GET OVER IT.
HOW DARE THEY GET MAD WHEN ISRAEL TAKES MORE OF THEIR LAND AND TREATS THEM LIKE THIRD CLASS CITIZENS!!!!
|
|
|
Israel has the right to defend themselves.
Israel has the right to defend themselves.
|
|
|
I:1038 | WA Indy ( 1790.9733 points)
|
Tue, January 28, 2020 08:40:41 PM UTC0:00
|
Palestinians have a right to a state, self-determination, and to defend themselves.
Palestinians have a right to a state, self-determination, and to defend themselves.
|
|
|
I:9951 | E Pluribus Unum ( -193.5252 points)
|
Tue, January 28, 2020 09:23:12 PM UTC0:00
|
Israel has the right to defend themselves.
So does Palestine when Israel tries to take their homes. This whole notion of "Israel has the right to defend themselves" is stupid because you need to remember, THEY ARE THE AGGRESSORS!
Israel wanted the land of Palestine as their own (Cause "god told them the land was theirs"), UN divided up the land (In the fairest way they could), Israel and Palestine disagreed on specifics, then Israel invaded and took more then was given to them. And they kept expanding, no matter who they have to kill along the way.
Tar Heel Conservative Dem: Israel has the right to defend themselves.
So does Palestine when Israel tries to take their homes. This whole notion of "Israel has the right to defend themselves" is stupid because you need to remember, THEY ARE THE AGGRESSORS!
Israel wanted the land of Palestine as their own (Cause "god told them the land was theirs"), UN divided up the land (In the fairest way they could), Israel and Palestine disagreed on specifics, then Israel invaded and took more then was given to them. And they kept expanding, no matter who they have to kill along the way.
|
|
|
D:1 | RP ( 5506.7227 points)
|
Wed, January 29, 2020 12:11:41 AM UTC0:00
|
Israel wanted the land of Palestine as their own (Cause "god told them the land was theirs"), UN divided up the land (In the fairest way they could), Israel and Palestine disagreed on specifics, then Israel invaded and took more then was given to them. And they kept expanding, no matter who they have to kill along the way.
Much as my sympathies lie more with the Palestinians right now, this is not a very accurate portrayal of what happened. Israel accepted the UN partition terms, the Palestinians rejected them. Palestinians and Arab paramilitary groups created conflict and blockaded Jerusalem and a number of Jewish settlements. The Arab League announced that they would intervene as soon an the British left. I don't think you can portray the Israelis as invaders or aggressors at that point.
Certainly you can nowadays though.
E Pluribus Unum: Israel wanted the land of Palestine as their own (Cause "god told them the land was theirs"), UN divided up the land (In the fairest way they could), Israel and Palestine disagreed on specifics, then Israel invaded and took more then was given to them. And they kept expanding, no matter who they have to kill along the way.
Much as my sympathies lie more with the Palestinians right now, this is not a very accurate portrayal of what happened. Israel accepted the UN partition terms, the Palestinians rejected them. Palestinians and Arab paramilitary groups created conflict and blockaded Jerusalem and a number of Jewish settlements. The Arab League announced that they would intervene as soon an the British left. I don't think you can portray the Israelis as invaders or aggressors at that point.
Certainly you can nowadays though.
|
|
|
I:9951 | E Pluribus Unum ( -193.5252 points)
|
Wed, January 29, 2020 02:11:19 AM UTC0:00
|
Much as my sympathies lie more with the Palestinians right now, this is not a very accurate portrayal of what happened. Israel accepted the UN partition terms, the Palestinians rejected them. Palestinians and Arab paramilitary groups created conflict and blockaded Jerusalem and a number of Jewish settlements. The Arab League announced that they would intervene as soon an the British left. I don't think you can portray the Israelis as invaders or aggressors at that point.
Certainly you can nowadays though.
Too an extent that is also not the most accurate portrayal. Look, as well intentioned as the State of Israel was planned to be, inevitably the Palestinians had their land stolen from them and given away against their will. Their actions were to an extent in self defense. British forces and the Haganah were pushing Palestinians out of the land given to Israel in the partition plan, despite the fact Palestine declined the offer. In fact Arab forces did not attempt military action anything until David Ben-Gurion declared Israel a state a day, again without the OK from the Palestinians, and with more land than given to them than in the plan.
When Palestine declined the offer, that should have been the clue for them to pick another spot for Israel, not to push forward. HOWEVER if Israel had only taken the area given to them in the UN Partition plan and then the Arab League invaded, then there'd be a bit more of a grey area in the conflict where both sides would have pros and cons. It was always kinda skewed against the Palestinians, especially now....
RP: Much as my sympathies lie more with the Palestinians right now, this is not a very accurate portrayal of what happened. Israel accepted the UN partition terms, the Palestinians rejected them. Palestinians and Arab paramilitary groups created conflict and blockaded Jerusalem and a number of Jewish settlements. The Arab League announced that they would intervene as soon an the British left. I don't think you can portray the Israelis as invaders or aggressors at that point.
Certainly you can nowadays though.
Too an extent that is also not the most accurate portrayal. Look, as well intentioned as the State of Israel was planned to be, inevitably the Palestinians had their land stolen from them and given away against their will. Their actions were to an extent in self defense. British forces and the Haganah were pushing Palestinians out of the land given to Israel in the partition plan, despite the fact Palestine declined the offer. In fact Arab forces did not attempt military action anything until David Ben-Gurion declared Israel a state a day, again without the OK from the Palestinians, and with more land than given to them than in the plan.
When Palestine declined the offer, that should have been the clue for them to pick another spot for Israel, not to push forward. HOWEVER if Israel had only taken the area given to them in the UN Partition plan and then the Arab League invaded, then there'd be a bit more of a grey area in the conflict where both sides would have pros and cons. It was always kinda skewed against the Palestinians, especially now....
|
|
|
D:1989 | RBH ( 5212.2285 points)
|
Wed, January 29, 2020 07:24:04 AM UTC0:00
|
excited for the chance to hear Israel/Palestine foreign extemp speeches when I judge a HS debate tournament in a few weeks
excited for the chance to hear Israel/Palestine foreign extemp speeches when I judge a HS debate tournament in a few weeks
|
|
|
D:1 | RP ( 5506.7227 points)
|
Wed, January 29, 2020 04:06:35 PM UTC0:00
|
Both Palestinians and Jews had been living in the territory for quite some time, so saying it was exclusively Palestinian land isn't right.
The whole dissolution of the Ottoman Empire was a mess.
There were absolutely Arab paramilitary groups active prior to Ben-Gurion's declaration including the Arab Liberation Army. The declaration was the day the British left officially and that was also the day the Arab League said some time earlier that they would officially intervene militarily.
Both sides were pushing conflict prior to that date.
Both Palestinians and Jews had been living in the territory for quite some time, so saying it was exclusively Palestinian land isn't right.
The whole dissolution of the Ottoman Empire was a mess.
There were absolutely Arab paramilitary groups active prior to Ben-Gurion's declaration including the Arab Liberation Army. The declaration was the day the British left officially and that was also the day the Arab League said some time earlier that they would officially intervene militarily.
Both sides were pushing conflict prior to that date.
|
|
|
I:9951 | E Pluribus Unum ( -193.5252 points)
|
Wed, January 29, 2020 04:49:48 PM UTC0:00
|
Both Palestinians and Jews had been living in the territory for quite some time, so saying it was exclusively Palestinian land isn't right.
The whole dissolution of the Ottoman Empire was a mess.
There were absolutely Arab paramilitary groups active prior to Ben-Gurion's declaration including the Arab Liberation Army. The declaration was the day the British left officially and that was also the day the Arab League said some time earlier that they would officially intervene militarily.
Both sides were pushing conflict prior to that date.
The groups that were active prior to the deceleration were independent groups and gangs unaffilated with Arab countries whereas the Israeli forces were UN Backed (Arab league didn't get involved until the declaration)
RP: Both Palestinians and Jews had been living in the territory for quite some time, so saying it was exclusively Palestinian land isn't right.
The whole dissolution of the Ottoman Empire was a mess.
There were absolutely Arab paramilitary groups active prior to Ben-Gurion's declaration including the Arab Liberation Army. The declaration was the day the British left officially and that was also the day the Arab League said some time earlier that they would officially intervene militarily.
Both sides were pushing conflict prior to that date.
The groups that were active prior to the deceleration were independent groups and gangs unaffilated with Arab countries whereas the Israeli forces were UN Backed (Arab league didn't get involved until the declaration)
|
|
|
D:1 | RP ( 5506.7227 points)
|
Wed, January 29, 2020 07:27:41 PM UTC0:00
|
The Israeli forces weren't UN-backed. They were attempting to enforce the UN proposal, but the UN wasn't involved in the fighting. And the Arab League said some time prior to the declaration that they would get involved as soon as the British left. Ben-Gurion made the declaration the same day the British left - for that reason.
The Israeli forces weren't UN-backed. They were attempting to enforce the UN proposal, but the UN wasn't involved in the fighting. And the Arab League said some time prior to the declaration that they would get involved as soon as the British left. Ben-Gurion made the declaration the same day the British left - for that reason.
|
|
|
I:9951 | E Pluribus Unum ( -193.5252 points)
|
Wed, January 29, 2020 08:07:15 PM UTC0:00
|
The Israeli forces weren't UN-backed. They were attempting to enforce the UN proposal, but the UN wasn't involved in the fighting. And the Arab League said some time prior to the declaration that they would get involved as soon as the British left. Ben-Gurion made the declaration the same day the British left - for that reason.
Britain on behalf the UN, at least in in theory. The conflict was grey to start off with...
RP: The Israeli forces weren't UN-backed. They were attempting to enforce the UN proposal, but the UN wasn't involved in the fighting. And the Arab League said some time prior to the declaration that they would get involved as soon as the British left. Ben-Gurion made the declaration the same day the British left - for that reason.
Britain on behalf the UN, at least in in theory. The conflict was grey to start off with...
|
|
|
D:1 | RP ( 5506.7227 points)
|
Thu, January 30, 2020 12:42:04 AM UTC0:00
|
The conflict was grey to start off with...
Yes, that is my overall point.
E Pluribus Unum: The conflict was grey to start off with...
Yes, that is my overall point.
|
|
|
I:9951 | E Pluribus Unum ( -193.5252 points)
|
Thu, January 30, 2020 12:52:44 AM UTC0:00
|
Yes, that is my overall point.
So we agree then. Or am I gonna have to annex your land to make you agree?
RP: Yes, that is my overall point.
So we agree then. Or am I gonna have to annex your land to make you agree?
|
|
|
D:1 | RP ( 5506.7227 points)
|
Wed, November 1, 2023 08:00:05 PM UTC0:00
|
https://twitter.com/HenMazzig/status/1719703605366689800
|
|
|
|