DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
melnyk
HTML https://melnyk.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: First Mandatory Post
*****************************************************
#Post#: 16--------------------------------------------------
Fatah Reply
By: Fatah Date: March 23, 2012, 8:40 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
1)Who has the right to possess the land of Israel and Palestine?
Explain using historical/cultural/political reasoning that
reflect your country's position and beliefs.
Now for this point Fatah have some important points to remember
1. History the historical claim is a tie, at best. The Israelis,
who are largely immigrants from Europe, have as many ties to
Europe as they do Palestine. In the past there may have been a
kingdom of Israel however that was thousands of years ago. The
Palestinians who have been living in the area for the last
thousand years have just as much claim to the land, as does
Israel. History isn't the best way to fairly decide who has a
better claim. If the historical argument works then, guess what
US, your country doesn't belong to you. This is due to the
Natives being able to claim ownership of the land that they
colonized first.
2.Furthermore, the people who claim that Israel has the right to
own the land because of the Belford deal have clearly forgotten
some major events, such as World War 1. In this time, the
British promised the Arab tribes that the land of Palestine
would be theirs in return for fighting the Ottomans. In
response, we fought the Ottomans, and thus have the first legal
claim in this century.
3. Some might claim that because Israel fought and won in the
wars around it, that they should have the right to the land.
However, in that case, shouldn't China have full control over
Tibet because they won in this war? That is not the case, so why
is it right for Israel to say their case is different than that
of Tibet?
4. Finally, there is the concept of religion. This argument is a
central part of the Israeli argument because they say that god
gave them the land in the quote to Abraham "To your offspring I
will give this land". In response, there are 2 main points about
this 1. We are also the descendants of Abraham through his first
son Ishmael. Therefore, we also have a right to the land. 2. God
also promised that land to the Muslims, and since God is the
same for us, that very same God intended for us to share the
land. If one contends that Our God is not another’s God, then
that means that simply that religion cannot be a part of the
arguments. This is due to the constant reverse streaming of the
same argument stating that, your god does not agree with
another’s, and therefore is irrelevant.
2)In the eyes of the international community, Palestine should
indefinitely be recognized as a state. Palestine successfully
fulfills all international requirements to be qualified as an
individual state. There are three major factors , as stated by
foreign policy, that enable a country to be qualified: a defined
territory, permanent population, and a form of government.
With regards to a defined territory, the land of
Israel/Palestine is skewed; however, the fact of the matter is
that it is still defined Arab land. To say that, the Israeli
owns the Palestinian land is equivalent in saying that the
Native Americans have ownership of the US. The argument of
“who got there first” is irrelevant in this case, as both sides’
present strong cases. Thus we must look at the modern situation.
The fact of the matter is that there are two separate groups of
people living in one land. The West Bank and the Gaza strip are
widely known to be Palestinian land as a direct result of Arab
presence. Therefore, a defined territory is set, as this land
is dominantly Arab popularized.
With respect to a permanent population, there is a definite
Arab population in the area defined as territory. Arab
populations have gone as far back as any nation there is.
Hence, it would be quite difficult to ignore the 2.4 millions
Arab population that are present.
Moreover, Palestine has a defined form of government. In 2006,
Palestine held an election in which the people were free to
vote. The US itself even acknowledged this as a democratic
movement. In even more recent news, both political factions
Hamas and Fatah have attempted to perform a unity government.
Led my Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian ideals have been kept in
the bigger picture. Essentially, Palestine has a leader that
both acts internally and has international relations with many
acknowledged states.
To further press the matter, Palestine has support from a large
portion of the international community. Palestine is recognized
as a state by 129 nations of the United Nations, and is further
supported by approximately half the Security Council. Moreover,
a fair portion of the security that does not acknowledge
Palestine as a nation, states that they would acknowledge them
if a two state solution were met. Even more, the Pope himself
supports the statehood of Palestine.
The fact of the matter is that the situation is not so much
SHOULD Palestine statehood be recognized, but rather WHEN will
it be.
3) Throughout both history and the modern world, Iran and Hamas
have always had a keen interest in the affairs of the other. In
hindsight, one benefit to a faction is beneficial to another.
With respect to this, the unity government of Hamas and Fatah
takes into account the best interest of its allies as a means to
keep peace in Palestine. Therefore, with the best interest of
Palestine, Fatah supports the relationship with its allies, and
therefore accepts Iran’s pursuit in the development of nuclear
weapons.
In addition, there are no major nuclear powers in the
surrounding geographical area. It would not be unfair for there
to be a balance in terms of nuclear power in the middle east. As
for any state, nuclear weapons should only be used for
deterrence and never annihilation.
#Post#: 20--------------------------------------------------
Re: Fatah Reply Posting Order
By: Fatah Posting Order Date: March 23, 2012, 9:33 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
1) Zack
2) Andrew C
3) Zack and Andrew C
#Post#: 62--------------------------------------------------
Re: Fatah Reply
By: USA Date: March 25, 2012, 9:25 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
First you say that you support Iran's pursuit of Nuclear
program, and then you say that there should be a balance of
nuclear power within the Middle East. This is following the
statement that there are no major nuclear powers within the
Middle east. So if Iran were to further pursue nuclear weapons
does that not create an imbalance in power? Does this not go
against the very point of balance that you stated. How is it
fair for Iran to posses nuclear power if the rest of the middle
east does not? Also this support seems al little out of
character. Fatah blamed Iran for stopping the unification of
Fatah and Hamas.
HTML http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/153975#.T2_TF-xST6s.<br
/>Furthermore, Fatah wants peace. Would Iran developing nuclear
weapons not just result in an arms race in the middle east
resulting in nuclear tension and/or war? Something Fatah would
not want? -Guru
*****************************************************