Pages: 1 2 3 4

 

2007-07-24 11:26:41
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6586|SE London

jonsimon wrote:

"Used to be" doesn't matter. America "used to be" the native american's. Britain "used to be" the celt's and the pict's. Israel "used to be" the jews, but it also "used to be" the caananites. A lot of places "used to" belong to someone else, but that holds no legal or political significance in the PRESENT. The argument that Israel "used to be" the jew's is mere propoganda created by the zionist jews as early as WWI.
Very true.

Add that to modern day laws which make expanding your borders through military conquest illegal - which is what Israel has been doing since that time and you have an Arab populace in the surrounding states with a large number of very legitimate grievances. Not that those grievances justify terrorist attacks against Israelis, but they are no worse than the attacks carried out by the Israelis against Arabs in the '30s and '40s. If anything the Arabs have the moral high ground and legal rights to much of the land.
2007-07-24 11:33:37
M.O.A.B
'Light 'em up!'
+1,220|6228|Escea

jonsimon wrote:

"Used to be" doesn't matter. America "used to be" the native american's. Britain "used to be" the celt's and the pict's. Israel "used to be" the jews, but it also "used to be" the caananites. A lot of places "used to" belong to someone else, but that holds no legal or political significance in the PRESENT. The argument that Israel "used to be" the jew's is mere propoganda created by the zionist jews as early as WWI.
But then you could say the Arabs 'used to be' where Israel is now.
2007-07-24 11:42:45
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6586|SE London

M.O.A.B wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

"Used to be" doesn't matter. America "used to be" the native american's. Britain "used to be" the celt's and the pict's. Israel "used to be" the jews, but it also "used to be" the caananites. A lot of places "used to" belong to someone else, but that holds no legal or political significance in the PRESENT. The argument that Israel "used to be" the jew's is mere propoganda created by the zionist jews as early as WWI.
But then you could say the Arabs 'used to be' where Israel is now.
You could say that.

Though the fact that their actions in forming a state were technically illegal then and would be illegal now due to international law, which is not the case in the other examples given. You have to draw the line somewhere and the point where international legislation makes those actions illegal seems to be a pretty good place to draw the line.
2007-07-24 12:41:19
Wolphoenix
Member
+3|6155
Btw, i was talking about bombing every Arab country. Thats jsut mass murder. If the US really wanted to do something in teh Middle East and help, it would stop supporting terrorists like the Saudi Royal Family and the other kings and presidents it has installed and supports. With no US backing they would fall and the power would go to the people. That is also what Bin Laden wants, ironically.
2007-07-24 12:52:52
makeuser
Member
+5|6729|Texas

CameronPoe wrote:

nukchebi0 wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:


Why on earth should the Palestinians have been relocated? If someone told you tomorrow that the UN decided your house and business was being given to a Mexican immigrant would you not regard yourself as having been done an injustice?
Yes. So are you saying that the Jews and Arabs should have coexisted peacefully within what is now Israel.
They had done for centuries. The Jewish immigration that was permitted under British administration following WWI fucked things up a bit. Prior to that it was part of the Ottoman empire.
I think you can fairly put the blame on the Brits w/the introduction of the "Balfour Declaration of 1917," partitioning of the Ottoman Empire and their support of a Zionist home/state in Palestine.
2007-07-24 13:10:46
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6586|SE London

makeuser wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

nukchebi0 wrote:


Yes. So are you saying that the Jews and Arabs should have coexisted peacefully within what is now Israel.
They had done for centuries. The Jewish immigration that was permitted under British administration following WWI fucked things up a bit. Prior to that it was part of the Ottoman empire.
I think you can fairly put the blame on the Brits w/the introduction of the "Balfour Declaration of 1917," partitioning of the Ottoman Empire and their support of a Zionist home/state in Palestine.
You clearly aren't familiar with the history of the region concerning this are you?

That's not what the Balfour declaration said. It essentially said they were allowed to immigrate and live alongside the Arabs there, so long as they didn't negatively affect them in any way. They did negatively affect them and the British brought in all sorts of further legislation to try to protect the rights of the Arabs living there - such as (but not resticted to) the white paper of 1939.

If you really want people to blame. Blame the King-Crane commission or Truman. Not the British for issuing a declaration that had been decided upon by the League of Nations at the San Remo conference and did not permit the establishment of the state of Israel in any case, but sought to maintain equal rights for Jews and Arabs alike.
2007-07-24 13:13:03
xXCortoMalteseXx
Member
+11|6156|Some Pub in Valletta

Bertster7 wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

"Used to be" doesn't matter. America "used to be" the native american's. Britain "used to be" the celt's and the pict's. Israel "used to be" the jews, but it also "used to be" the caananites. A lot of places "used to" belong to someone else, but that holds no legal or political significance in the PRESENT. The argument that Israel "used to be" the jew's is mere propoganda created by the zionist jews as early as WWI.
Very true.

Add that to modern day laws which make expanding your borders through military conquest illegal - which is what Israel has been doing since that time and you have an Arab populace in the surrounding states with a large number of very legitimate grievances. Not that those grievances justify terrorist attacks against Israelis, but they are no worse than the attacks carried out by the Israelis against Arabs in the '30s and '40s. If anything the Arabs have the moral high ground and legal rights to much of the land.
I'm behind bertster7
2007-07-24 16:13:39
makeuser
Member
+5|6729|Texas

Bertster7 wrote:

makeuser wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

They had done for centuries. The Jewish immigration that was permitted under British administration following WWI fucked things up a bit. Prior to that it was part of the Ottoman empire.
I think you can fairly put the blame on the Brits w/the introduction of the "Balfour Declaration of 1917," partitioning of the Ottoman Empire and their support of a Zionist home/state in Palestine.
You clearly aren't familiar with the history of the region concerning this are you?

That's not what the Balfour declaration said. It essentially said they were allowed to immigrate and live alongside the Arabs there, so long as they didn't negatively affect them in any way. They did negatively affect them and the British brought in all sorts of further legislation to try to protect the rights of the Arabs living there - such as (but not resticted to) the white paper of 1939.

If you really want people to blame. Blame the King-Crane commission or Truman. Not the British for issuing a declaration that had been decided upon by the League of Nations at the San Remo conference and did not permit the establishment of the state of Israel in any case, but sought to maintain equal rights for Jews and Arabs alike.
I'm somewhat familiar w/the the history of this area.

Here's the document:

Foreign Office,
November 2nd, 1917.

Dear Lord Rothschild,
I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet:
"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country".
I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.

Yours sincerely
Arthur James Balfour
So, my understanding of this letter is the British govt endorses the view of Jewish Zionists that there should be a Jewish homeland in Palestine.  Jewish Zionists believe Jews from around the world should gather in Palestine and create a Jewsih nation-state.  The San Remo Conference (1920, giving the Brits stewardship of Palestine), Churchill's White Papers (1922, denying a Jewish state was the intention) were subsequent to the Balfour Declaration.

My issue is this; you can't invite a group of people (Zionists no less) to someone else's homeland & not expect some problems.  The British govt was either being very daft or not exactly honest.
2007-07-24 17:12:18
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6586|SE London

makeuser wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

makeuser wrote:


I think you can fairly put the blame on the Brits w/the introduction of the "Balfour Declaration of 1917," partitioning of the Ottoman Empire and their support of a Zionist home/state in Palestine.
You clearly aren't familiar with the history of the region concerning this are you?

That's not what the Balfour declaration said. It essentially said they were allowed to immigrate and live alongside the Arabs there, so long as they didn't negatively affect them in any way. They did negatively affect them and the British brought in all sorts of further legislation to try to protect the rights of the Arabs living there - such as (but not resticted to) the white paper of 1939.

If you really want people to blame. Blame the King-Crane commission or Truman. Not the British for issuing a declaration that had been decided upon by the League of Nations at the San Remo conference and did not permit the establishment of the state of Israel in any case, but sought to maintain equal rights for Jews and Arabs alike.
I'm somewhat familiar w/the the history of this area.

Here's the document:

Foreign Office,
November 2nd, 1917.

Dear Lord Rothschild,
I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet:
"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country".
I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.

Yours sincerely
Arthur James Balfour
So, my understanding of this letter is the British govt endorses the view of Jewish Zionists that there should be a Jewish homeland in Palestine.  Jewish Zionists believe Jews from around the world should gather in Palestine and create a Jewsih nation-state.  The San Remo Conference (1920, giving the Brits stewardship of Palestine), Churchill's White Papers (1922, denying a Jewish state was the intention) were subsequent to the Balfour Declaration.

My issue is this; you can't invite a group of people (Zionists no less) to someone else's homeland & not expect some problems.  The British govt was either being very daft or not exactly honest.
It wasn't the British governments decision in any case, when the mandate was established it was always intended to be a homeland for Jewish people - the British interpretation of this was never to be a Jewish state, but a single Jewish/Arab state. Perhaps this was a naive view, but it is the actions of the Zionist immigrants that made it that way.

It was always the US who pushed for and supported the idea of a Jewish state.
2007-07-25 00:48:41
makeuser
Member
+5|6729|Texas

Bertster7 wrote:

makeuser wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

You clearly aren't familiar with the history of the region concerning this are you?

That's not what the Balfour declaration said. It essentially said they were allowed to immigrate and live alongside the Arabs there, so long as they didn't negatively affect them in any way. They did negatively affect them and the British brought in all sorts of further legislation to try to protect the rights of the Arabs living there - such as (but not resticted to) the white paper of 1939.

If you really want people to blame. Blame the King-Crane commission or Truman. Not the British for issuing a declaration that had been decided upon by the League of Nations at the San Remo conference and did not permit the establishment of the state of Israel in any case, but sought to maintain equal rights for Jews and Arabs alike.
I'm somewhat familiar w/the the history of this area.

Here's the document:

Foreign Office,
November 2nd, 1917.

Dear Lord Rothschild,
I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet:
"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country".
I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.

Yours sincerely
Arthur James Balfour
So, my understanding of this letter is the British govt endorses the view of Jewish Zionists that there should be a Jewish homeland in Palestine.  Jewish Zionists believe Jews from around the world should gather in Palestine and create a Jewsih nation-state.  The San Remo Conference (1920, giving the Brits stewardship of Palestine), Churchill's White Papers (1922, denying a Jewish state was the intention) were subsequent to the Balfour Declaration.

My issue is this; you can't invite a group of people (Zionists no less) to someone else's homeland & not expect some problems.  The British govt was either being very daft or not exactly honest.
It wasn't the British governments decision in any case, when the mandate was established it was always intended to be a homeland for Jewish people - the British interpretation of this was never to be a Jewish state, but a single Jewish/Arab state. Perhaps this was a naive view, but it is the actions of the Zionist immigrants that made it that way.

It was always the US who pushed for and supported the idea of a Jewish state.
So, are you ignoring the Balfour Declaration, or calling it inconsequential and/or meaningless?  I don't understand. This is a document from the British govt of 1917 incorporated into Treaty of Sevres, a peace treaty that the Allies of WWI, not including the U.S., and the Ottoman Empire signed in 1920.  Inspired by negotiations between Foreign Secretary Lord Balfour and a Zionist the British govt was indebted to from WWI, Dr. Chaim Weizmann, the first President of the State of Israel.

The Republicans in the U.S. declared that the U.S. would hold an isolationist stance in the world post WWI and declined membership in the of League of Nations.  The British however are one of the four permanent members of the League's Council - the body to deal w/any matter affecting world peace.  The U.S. govt isn't a power on the world stage at the time British govt is endorsing Zionists come to western half of Palestine (the Brits having mandate over the area, divide Palestine into two sections, they create the "Emirate of Transjordan" - Jordan, east of the Jordan River, and Palestine west of the Jordan, the area for "a national home for the Jewish people").  So when the sh!t was about to hit the fan, Britain wanted out of the mess it "naively" created and told the U.N. to take over. In 1947, the U.N. partitioned part of Palestine for the Jews and part for the Palestinian Arabs.  And just before the British got out, the Zionists did the inevitable and declared their independence and started the 1948 War (the result being the ultimate insult for the Palestinian Arabs, more land was taken from them by Israel, Jordan & Egypt). Truman/U.S.A. did approve of the 1947 U.N. plan and did recognize Israel in 1948.  I don't see U.S. complicity in the situation until it was a fait accompli. 

British Balfour Declaration + British Control of Palestine + Zionists + WWII + More Zionists - Britain + U.N. = Israel
2007-07-25 05:37:37
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6586|SE London

makeuser wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

makeuser wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

You clearly aren't familiar with the history of the region concerning this are you?

That's not what the Balfour declaration said. It essentially said they were allowed to immigrate and live alongside the Arabs there, so long as they didn't negatively affect them in any way. They did negatively affect them and the British brought in all sorts of further legislation to try to protect the rights of the Arabs living there - such as (but not resticted to) the white paper of 1939.

If you really want people to blame. Blame the King-Crane commission or Truman. Not the British for issuing a declaration that had been decided upon by the League of Nations at the San Remo conference and did not permit the establishment of the state of Israel in any case, but sought to maintain equal rights for Jews and Arabs alike.
I'm somewhat familiar w/the the history of this area.

Here's the document:


So, my understanding of this letter is the British govt endorses the view of Jewish Zionists that there should be a Jewish homeland in Palestine.  Jewish Zionists believe Jews from around the world should gather in Palestine and create a Jewsih nation-state.  The San Remo Conference (1920, giving the Brits stewardship of Palestine), Churchill's White Papers (1922, denying a Jewish state was the intention) were subsequent to the Balfour Declaration.

My issue is this; you can't invite a group of people (Zionists no less) to someone else's homeland & not expect some problems.  The British govt was either being very daft or not exactly honest.
It wasn't the British governments decision in any case, when the mandate was established it was always intended to be a homeland for Jewish people - the British interpretation of this was never to be a Jewish state, but a single Jewish/Arab state. Perhaps this was a naive view, but it is the actions of the Zionist immigrants that made it that way.

It was always the US who pushed for and supported the idea of a Jewish state.
So, are you ignoring the Balfour Declaration, or calling it inconsequential and/or meaningless?  I don't understand. This is a document from the British govt of 1917 incorporated into Treaty of Sevres, a peace treaty that the Allies of WWI, not including the U.S., and the Ottoman Empire signed in 1920.  Inspired by negotiations between Foreign Secretary Lord Balfour and a Zionist the British govt was indebted to from WWI, Dr. Chaim Weizmann, the first President of the State of Israel.

The Republicans in the U.S. declared that the U.S. would hold an isolationist stance in the world post WWI and declined membership in the of League of Nations.  The British however are one of the four permanent members of the League's Council - the body to deal w/any matter affecting world peace.  The U.S. govt isn't a power on the world stage at the time British govt is endorsing Zionists come to western half of Palestine (the Brits having mandate over the area, divide Palestine into two sections, they create the "Emirate of Transjordan" - Jordan, east of the Jordan River, and Palestine west of the Jordan, the area for "a national home for the Jewish people").  So when the sh!t was about to hit the fan, Britain wanted out of the mess it "naively" created and told the U.N. to take over. In 1947, the U.N. partitioned part of Palestine for the Jews and part for the Palestinian Arabs.  And just before the British got out, the Zionists did the inevitable and declared their independence and started the 1948 War (the result being the ultimate insult for the Palestinian Arabs, more land was taken from them by Israel, Jordan & Egypt). Truman/U.S.A. did approve of the 1947 U.N. plan and did recognize Israel in 1948.  I don't see U.S. complicity in the situation until it was a fait accompli. 

British Balfour Declaration + British Control of Palestine + Zionists + WWII + More Zionists - Britain + U.N. = Israel
Where did I say the Balfour declaration was inconsequential or meaningless? I said it did not endorse the creation of a Jewish state, which it does not. I also said that it had been decided upon by the league of nations, not just the British, which it had.

Did you not know that Truman had expressed to the Zionist agency that he would support a Jewish state before they declared independence? This is widely recognised as a significant factor in how they were able to manage to declare independence successfully. It was not so much Truman's fault, as it was the fault of his administration (and other advisors), Truman required a good deal of convincing that a Jewish state was the right move. Initially Truman supported Jewish immigration to Palestine - that was it. Later after numerous talks with Eddie Jacobson, Truman's position shifted.

The British never supported the creation of a Jewish state, they simply allowed Jewish immigration to Palestine. There are numerous precedents of this sort of immigration working perfectly well, although the actions of the Zionist movement made this impossible - perhaps it was naive to believe it could work given the backgrounds and religious differences between the two peoples and the typically reclusive nature of both groups - but that was their intention. They strived to achieve an ideal that was in an admirable cause. The British may have taken the first steps, but they actively opposed the Jewish takeover, which had never been their intent.

Without promises of US support it is questionable whether the state of Israel would ever have been formed. Without the US support they recieved minutes after declaring independence, they would not have recieved Soviet support and without those two powerhouses backing them, the state would never have been recognised by the UN.
2007-07-25 06:41:05
konfusion
mostly afk
+480|6555|CH/BR - in UK

I support Bertster7
It is not a fault of the British - it's the Zionists...
And the question of this thread seems very naive. I'd be pretty pissed off if someone took my house and told me it's someone else's now...

-konfusion
2007-07-25 09:39:53
rawls2
Mr. Bigglesworth
+89|6565

jonsimon wrote:

"Used to be" doesn't matter. America "used to be" the native american's. Britain "used to be" the celt's and the pict's. Israel "used to be" the jews, but it also "used to be" the caananites. A lot of places "used to" belong to someone else, but that holds no legal or political significance in the PRESENT. The argument that Israel "used to be" the jew's is mere propoganda created by the zionist jews as early as WWI.
So Israel "used to be Palestine". Doesn't this statement fit your argument since 1948 is not the present?

Last edited by rawls2 (2007-07-25 09:41:39)

2007-07-25 10:29:12
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6586|SE London

rawls2 wrote:

jonsimon wrote:

"Used to be" doesn't matter. America "used to be" the native american's. Britain "used to be" the celt's and the pict's. Israel "used to be" the jews, but it also "used to be" the caananites. A lot of places "used to" belong to someone else, but that holds no legal or political significance in the PRESENT. The argument that Israel "used to be" the jew's is mere propoganda created by the zionist jews as early as WWI.
So Israel "used to be Palestine". Doesn't this statement fit your argument since 1948 is not the present?
I've already addressed this exact point earlier:

Bertster7 wrote:

You could say that.

Though the fact that their actions in forming a state were technically illegal then and would be illegal now due to international law, which is not the case in the other examples given. You have to draw the line somewhere and the point where international legislation makes those actions illegal seems to be a pretty good place to draw the line.
The difference is that when the Zionists did it, there were international laws against it in place. These laws are still in place today.
2007-07-25 13:56:23
makeuser
Member
+5|6729|Texas

konfusion wrote:

I support Bertster7
It is not a fault of the British - it's the Zionists...
And the question of this thread seems very naive. I'd be pretty pissed off if someone took my house and told me it's someone else's now...

-konfusion
I am not quoting it all again.

You and Bertster are ignoring the issue that Britain had mandate of the area, issued a Declaration stating there should be development of national home for the Jewish people which was ratified into a peace agreement w/the Ottoman Empire, as a result of a debt from WWI and the person the Brits were indebted just happens to become the first president of Israel. 

I'm talking about events in 1917 and you are warping ahead to 1947.  In the interim Britain divided Palestine into Jordan & Palestine and let a load of Zionists (you know the guys who want their own Jewish state, the guys the Balfour Declaration was talking about) into Palestine in the 1920's.  The Arab Palestinians revolted against the British and the Zionists continuously (seems a reasonable thing to do; people who aren't your people move in where you live, want to have their own state, but not include you).  In 1936 the British govt begin training, arming & funding Jewish security & intelligence organizations (the Jewish Supernumrary Force, the Jewish Settlement Police, the Special Night Squads, FOSH & SHAI to name a few).  Britain has invited Zionists into Palestine AND given them weapons & trained them prior to 1947.  Which leads us to the events of 1947 when the Zionists have been given the go ahead by the U.N. to stay in Palestine, are ready to declare independence and kick the ass of 5 Arab nations (+ the Palestinians).  Not bad for a bunch of farmers & street merchants.  It was a done deal by 1947, I'm talking about events leading up to 1947 under British administration.   

Berster calls all these political moves  "naive" and "unintentional," and wants Truman (a guy who was selling hats for a living at the time, not exactly consequential to world events) to take the fall.  I wouldn't call allowing Zionists, if not actually encouraging them, to come to Palestine and then arming & training them "naive" or "unintentional" (by the time Truman was president the White Papers of 1922 & 1939 actually did serve a function, the Arab Palestinians could wipe their asses w/them).

Yeah, you're right, it was the hat salesman in Kansas City.
2007-07-25 14:12:33
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6586|SE London

makeuser wrote:

konfusion wrote:

I support Bertster7
It is not a fault of the British - it's the Zionists...
And the question of this thread seems very naive. I'd be pretty pissed off if someone took my house and told me it's someone else's now...

-konfusion
I am not quoting it all again.

You and Bertster are ignoring the issue that Britain had mandate of the area, issued a Declaration stating there should be development of national home for the Jewish people which was ratified into a peace agreement w/the Ottoman Empire, as a result of a debt from WWI and the person the Brits were indebted just happens to become the first president of Israel. 

I'm talking about events in 1917 and you are warping ahead to 1947.  In the interim Britain divided Palestine into Jordan & Palestine and let a load of Zionists (you know the guys who want their own Jewish state, the guys the Balfour Declaration was talking about) into Palestine in the 1920's.  The Arab Palestinians revolted against the British and the Zionists continuously (seems a reasonable thing to do; people who aren't your people move in where you live, want to have their own state, but not include you).  In 1936 the British govt begin training, arming & funding Jewish security & intelligence organizations (the Jewish Supernumrary Force, the Jewish Settlement Police, the Special Night Squads, FOSH & SHAI to name a few).  Britain has invited Zionists into Palestine AND given them weapons & trained them prior to 1947.  Which leads us to the events of 1947 when the Zionists have been given the go ahead by the U.N. to stay in Palestine, are ready to declare independence and kick the ass of 5 Arab nations (+ the Palestinians).  Not bad for a bunch of farmers & street merchants.  It was a done deal by 1947, I'm talking about events leading up to 1947 under British administration.   

Berster calls all these political moves  "naive" and "unintentional," and wants Truman (a guy who was selling hats for a living at the time, not exactly consequential to world events) to take the fall.  I wouldn't call allowing Zionists, if not actually encouraging them, to come to Palestine and then arming & training them "naive" or "unintentional" (by the time Truman was president the White Papers of 1922 & 1939 actually did serve a function, the Arab Palestinians could wipe their asses w/them).

Yeah, you're right, it was the hat salesman in Kansas City.
You talk about people the British were indebted to, you neglect to mention their commitments to the Arabs living there for their part in the Arab revolt.

You show me a single document from a British source that supports the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine (I could show you dozens from American sources). They were offered a Jewish state in other places, but the Zionist organisation delined these offers and were offered a homeland (not a state) in Palestine.

They were given an inch and took a mile, as the old idiom goes.

Without US support, the declaration of independence would never have been recognised by the UN - therefore Israel would not have been a state. I'm not saying Truman set the events in motion, he just facilitated their conclusion - those are the two most important periods, the begining and the end. Blame can be placed with a lot of people, the vast majority of it resting firmly with the Zionists, whose methods were abhorent. But then blame can be placed upon the British for setting it in motion (though as I have stressed earlier, that was as part of a decision made by the league of nations) and blame for the creation of the state of Israel can also be firmly placed with Truman.
2007-07-25 16:14:38
makeuser
Member
+5|6729|Texas

Bertster7 wrote:

makeuser wrote:

konfusion wrote:

I support Bertster7
It is not a fault of the British - it's the Zionists...
And the question of this thread seems very naive. I'd be pretty pissed off if someone took my house and told me it's someone else's now...

-konfusion
I am not quoting it all again.

You and Bertster are ignoring the issue that Britain had mandate of the area, issued a Declaration stating there should be development of national home for the Jewish people which was ratified into a peace agreement w/the Ottoman Empire, as a result of a debt from WWI and the person the Brits were indebted just happens to become the first president of Israel. 

I'm talking about events in 1917 and you are warping ahead to 1947.  In the interim Britain divided Palestine into Jordan & Palestine and let a load of Zionists (you know the guys who want their own Jewish state, the guys the Balfour Declaration was talking about) into Palestine in the 1920's.  The Arab Palestinians revolted against the British and the Zionists continuously (seems a reasonable thing to do; people who aren't your people move in where you live, want to have their own state, but not include you).  In 1936 the British govt begin training, arming & funding Jewish security & intelligence organizations (the Jewish Supernumrary Force, the Jewish Settlement Police, the Special Night Squads, FOSH & SHAI to name a few).  Britain has invited Zionists into Palestine AND given them weapons & trained them prior to 1947.  Which leads us to the events of 1947 when the Zionists have been given the go ahead by the U.N. to stay in Palestine, are ready to declare independence and kick the ass of 5 Arab nations (+ the Palestinians).  Not bad for a bunch of farmers & street merchants.  It was a done deal by 1947, I'm talking about events leading up to 1947 under British administration.   

Berster calls all these political moves  "naive" and "unintentional," and wants Truman (a guy who was selling hats for a living at the time, not exactly consequential to world events) to take the fall.  I wouldn't call allowing Zionists, if not actually encouraging them, to come to Palestine and then arming & training them "naive" or "unintentional" (by the time Truman was president the White Papers of 1922 & 1939 actually did serve a function, the Arab Palestinians could wipe their asses w/them).


Yeah, you're right, it was the hat salesman in Kansas City.

Bertster7 wrote:

You talk about people the British were indebted to, you neglect to mention their commitments to the Arabs living there for their part in the Arab revolt.
No, just one person, Dr. Chaim Weizmann, who became the first president of Israel.  Though it is a largely a ceremonial position, it is obviously an honor.  And why do you think he was given this honor?  Coincidence? No. It was b/c he got the British Balfour Declaration done.  And the Arabs in Palestine aren't just revolting against the Jews, they're revolting against the British as well.  Why do you think they were attacking the British?  B/c they had some extra bombs & bullets laying about?  Or b/c the British weren't operating in the Arabs' interest and arming & training the Jews?  Like I said, the White Papers were good for one thing. 

Bertster7 wrote:

You show me a single document from a British source that supports the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine (I could show you dozens from American sources). They were offered a Jewish state in other places, but the Zionist organisation delined these offers and were offered a homeland (not a state) in Palestine.
I quoted it, I even put the entire document in a post - The Balfour Declaration.  "...the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people..." "...nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine...".  Wink, wink, nudge, nudge, White Paper, White Paper.  Keywords there - "national home." Britain invited Zionists to Palestine!  What is the Zionist mission?  This is naive & unintentional?  Do you deny Britain armed & trained Jews in Palestine?  Trained security & intelligence forces? Now we have Zionists w/training & guns.  This is prior to Truman becoming president, the U.S. endorsing the U.N. deal, the U.S. recognition of Israel, etc.

Bertster7 wrote:

They were given an inch and took a mile, as the old idiom goes.
After Britain trained & armed them!

Bertster7 wrote:

Without US support, the declaration of independence would never have been recognised by the UN - therefore Israel would not have been a state. I'm not saying Truman set the events in motion, he just facilitated their conclusion - those are the two most important periods, the begining and the end. Blame can be placed with a lot of people, the vast majority of it resting firmly with the Zionists, whose methods were abhorent. But then blame can be placed upon the British for setting it in motion (though as I have stressed earlier, that was as part of a decision made by the league of nations) and blame for the creation of the state of Israel can also be firmly placed with Truman.
Once again, you ignore the events from British Mandate of 1917 until 1947, a period when Truman was struggling to sell hats & later became a senator.  He became president in 1945.  There was a history of Britain, Jews, and Palestine before that time.  C'mon, what part of this puzzles you?  Are you floating down that river in Egypt?

Bertster7 wrote:

You clearly aren't familiar with the history of the region concerning this are you?
2007-07-25 16:19:57
Izgard
Member
+0|6126

Cerpin_Taxt wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

I feel this topic could get closed, coz some mods don't like Israel threads, even when the topic isn't about Israel.

http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=81004

Courtesy of badhq.
Oh please...

Could it have been closed because you have made like 40 Israel threads!? (this list doesn't include any of your Israel threads from the past month...God only knows how long it would be if it did)

[url=http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=74802]How to Achieve Peace for Dummies[/url]

[url=http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=74928]47% of Americans Think Israel is Justified in Killing Civilians[/url]

[url=http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=74306]The Real Job of the IDF[/url]

[url=http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=73874]Does Israel want the rockets to stop?[/url]

[url=http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=73565]Wouldn't You Hate Them Too if You Were Living There?[/url]

[url=http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=72810]The Israeli SOLUTION to the Palestinian Problem[/url]

[url=http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=72169]Jews Want Israel to Raise its Moral Standard[/url]

[url=http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=72073]Should Olmert Resign?[/url]

[url=http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=71683]Is this Fighting Terrorism or Supporting it?[/url]

[url=http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=71249]Jerusalem Should Be Declared Capital of the World[/url]

[url=http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=71109]It's All About Education[/url]

[url=http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=70942]Is Retaliation the Solution?[/url]

[url=http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=70388]A Nuke Would Be Nicer[/url]

[url=http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=69994]Israel Used Palestinian Kids as Human Shields[/url]

[url=http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=70174]Two-Thirds of Palestinians Want Peace Settlement[/url]

[url=http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=69579]Israel Nukes and the Refusal to Sign the NPT Go Unpunished[/url]

[url=http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=68416]Palestinians: scapegoats for Hitler's Failures?[/url]

[url=http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=67987]They steal your home: what would you do?[/url]

[url=http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=66895]Israel Won't Deal with the New Palestinian Government[/url]

[url=http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=67001]Winds of Change?[/url]

[url=http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=63899]Israel leaving the Occupied Territories[/url]

[url=http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=62253]I am Israel[/url]

[url=http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=62292]Interesting Video About .s.a.l[/url]

[url=http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=54171]Palestine & Israel Discussion Thread[/url]

[url=http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=53989]247 People Gazassinated Since June[/url]

[url=http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=53970]First Step to Achieve Peace: US Incredible Opportunity[/url]

[url=http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=51591]Global Leaders Call for Action on Arab-Israeli Settlement[/url]

[url=http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=51306]How Many More People Should Israel kill?[/url]

[url=http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=46455]Isn't it outrageous?[/url]

[url=http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=44051]Could Israel be anti-semite?[/url]

[url=http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=42837]Is Israel fucking with the world?[/url]

[url=http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=41582]Should Israel negotiate with Hezbollah?[/url]

[url=http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=38708]How 'd you solve the conflict between Israel and muslin countries?[/url]
Hehehe. Yeah, sergeriver is a dick.

Izzy
2007-07-25 16:46:48
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6586|SE London

makeuser wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

makeuser wrote:

I am not quoting it all again.

You and Bertster are ignoring the issue that Britain had mandate of the area, issued a Declaration stating there should be development of national home for the Jewish people which was ratified into a peace agreement w/the Ottoman Empire, as a result of a debt from WWI and the person the Brits were indebted just happens to become the first president of Israel. 

I'm talking about events in 1917 and you are warping ahead to 1947.  In the interim Britain divided Palestine into Jordan & Palestine and let a load of Zionists (you know the guys who want their own Jewish state, the guys the Balfour Declaration was talking about) into Palestine in the 1920's.  The Arab Palestinians revolted against the British and the Zionists continuously (seems a reasonable thing to do; people who aren't your people move in where you live, want to have their own state, but not include you).  In 1936 the British govt begin training, arming & funding Jewish security & intelligence organizations (the Jewish Supernumrary Force, the Jewish Settlement Police, the Special Night Squads, FOSH & SHAI to name a few).  Britain has invited Zionists into Palestine AND given them weapons & trained them prior to 1947.  Which leads us to the events of 1947 when the Zionists have been given the go ahead by the U.N. to stay in Palestine, are ready to declare independence and kick the ass of 5 Arab nations (+ the Palestinians).  Not bad for a bunch of farmers & street merchants.  It was a done deal by 1947, I'm talking about events leading up to 1947 under British administration.   

Berster calls all these political moves  "naive" and "unintentional," and wants Truman (a guy who was selling hats for a living at the time, not exactly consequential to world events) to take the fall.  I wouldn't call allowing Zionists, if not actually encouraging them, to come to Palestine and then arming & training them "naive" or "unintentional" (by the time Truman was president the White Papers of 1922 & 1939 actually did serve a function, the Arab Palestinians could wipe their asses w/them).


Yeah, you're right, it was the hat salesman in Kansas City.

Bertster7 wrote:

You talk about people the British were indebted to, you neglect to mention their commitments to the Arabs living there for their part in the Arab revolt.
No, just one person, Dr. Chaim Weizmann, who became the first president of Israel.  Though it is a largely a ceremonial position, it is obviously an honor.  And why do you think he was given this honor?  Coincidence? No. It was b/c he got the British Balfour Declaration done.  And the Arabs in Palestine aren't just revolting against the Jews, they're revolting against the British as well.  Why do you think they were attacking the British?  B/c they had some extra bombs & bullets laying about?  Or b/c the British weren't operating in the Arabs' interest and arming & training the Jews?  Like I said, the White Papers were good for one thing.
What are you talking about?

I'm talking about the Arab revolt (as opposed to the Great Arab Revolt of 1936-39). Lawrence of Arabia? Ring any bells?

On the one hand you have Weizmann, on the other people like Faisal and Abdullah. Hence the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement of 1919 - which represents the intentions the British had for the region. After these plans fell apart, the British attempted to clamp down on Jewish dominance - with the white papers you are so contemptuous of.

makeuser wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

You show me a single document from a British source that supports the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine (I could show you dozens from American sources). They were offered a Jewish state in other places, but the Zionist organisation delined these offers and were offered a homeland (not a state) in Palestine.
I quoted it, I even put the entire document in a post - The Balfour Declaration.  "...the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people..." "...nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine...".  Wink, wink, nudge, nudge, White Paper, White Paper.  Keywords there - "national home." Britain invited Zionists to Palestine!  What is the Zionist mission?  This is naive & unintentional?  Do you deny Britain armed & trained Jews in Palestine?  Trained security & intelligence forces? Now we have Zionists w/training & guns.  This is prior to Truman becoming president, the U.S. endorsing the U.N. deal, the U.S. recognition of Israel, etc.
You've quoted the Balfour declaration. A document which quite clearly does not support the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine. It supported the immigration of Jews to Palestine, something which had been happening on a mass scale since the first Aliyah began in 1882.

makeuser wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

They were given an inch and took a mile, as the old idiom goes.
After Britain trained & armed them!
As a part of the cooperative Jewish-Arab state plan, they trained Arabs too. It was part of their responsibilities under the terms of the mandate.

Later training to groups like FOSH and SHAI/Mossad, was only as a part of their involvement in WWII. When you are fighting a war, you train recruits. I believe FOSH started out as a group deemed to be terrorists by the British and stole the majority of their weapons from the British.

makeuser wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Without US support, the declaration of independence would never have been recognised by the UN - therefore Israel would not have been a state. I'm not saying Truman set the events in motion, he just facilitated their conclusion - those are the two most important periods, the begining and the end. Blame can be placed with a lot of people, the vast majority of it resting firmly with the Zionists, whose methods were abhorent. But then blame can be placed upon the British for setting it in motion (though as I have stressed earlier, that was as part of a decision made by the league of nations) and blame for the creation of the state of Israel can also be firmly placed with Truman.
Once again, you ignore the events from British Mandate of 1917 until 1947, a period when Truman was struggling to sell hats & later became a senator.  He became president in 1945.  There was a history of Britain, Jews, and Palestine before that time.  C'mon, what part of this puzzles you?  Are you floating down that river in Egypt?
I choose to ignore the intermediary events because they are less relevant to the establishment of the state. If you want to go over the years of economic deprivement of Arabs by the Zionists and their prolonged terrorist campaigns - feel free, but I hardly see that it places blame at the feet of the British - the actions of those years places blame squarely with the Zionists themselves.

The time at which the state was established is clearly a critical period. If you can't appreciate that, then you must be incapable of understanding the situation in any reasonable manner. Truman was the facilitator of the establishment of the state. To neglect his involvement is ludicrous.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2007-07-25 16:55:06)

2007-07-25 22:38:54
makeuser
Member
+5|6729|Texas
So 30 years of British rule in Palestine just prior Zionists declaration of independence is irrelevant?  A British debt to a Zionist is irrelevant?  The Balfour Declaration is irrelevant?  Telling Zionist Jews to come to Palestine is irrelevant? Training and arming Jews in Palestine is irrelevant?

Yes, I am quite incapable of understanding how all these things occurred under British rule are irrelevant and didn't lead to the creation of Israel.
2007-07-26 05:20:18
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6586|SE London

makeuser wrote:

So 30 years of British rule in Palestine just prior Zionists declaration of independence is irrelevant?
No it isn't. But you've neglected the details of it. For the majority of British rule of Palestine, the administration were attempting to keep the Zionists in check, again this is well documented - but you choose to overlook it.

makeuser wrote:

A British debt to a Zionist is irrelevant?
Again, no. I never claimed it was irrelevant. But you seem to consider the British debt to the Arabs to be irrelevant. When in fact the two debts and the Faisal-Weizmann Agreement are very revealing about the British stance in Palestine.

makeuser wrote:

The Balfour Declaration is irrelevant?
Yet again, no and yet again I have never claimed that it was. But you have already quite clearly made your, rather blunt, point about the Balfour Declaration and I have rejected it, for a number of reasons. I have highlighted several examples, all well documented, of how your interpretation of the Balfour Declaration, permitting a Jewish state, is wrong.

makeuser wrote:

Telling Zionist Jews to come to Palestine is irrelevant?
You seem to think that telling them not to come to Palestine is just as irrelevant, given your attitude to the 1939 white paper, which placed tight limits on immigration, that were ignored. Of course the fact that they did invite Jews to immigrate to Palestine is important, but not neccessarily a determining factor in the establishment of a Jewish state. Mass Jewish immigration to Palestine had been happening for nearly 40 years, the Balfour Declaration was simply rubber stamping it.

makeuser wrote:

Training and arming Jews in Palestine is irrelevant?
That one is pretty irrelevant, yes. In part of a war for survival, in which both the Zionists and the British had a common enemy, not using all the potential troops available would be foolhardy. I think you'll find the vast majority of weapons they had were stolen and that militant Jewish organisations had existed long before the WWII training you are refering to.
Post independence, in the various wars they fought, the training they recieved may have been very useful. I would imagine that 20 years experience in terrorism and guerilla warfare, would've been equally useful.

makeuser wrote:

Yes, I am quite incapable of understanding how all these things occurred under British rule are irrelevant and didn't lead to the creation of Israel.
Who ever said they (the majority at least) were irrelevant? I notice you haven't actually addressed any of the points I made.
2007-07-26 13:49:45
makeuser
Member
+5|6729|Texas
I don't think the timeline or gravity of events prior to Truman/USA's endorsement of Israel is more important than Britain's "rubber stamp" endorsement of Jews/Zionists coming to Palestine and later training and arming Jews to help the British fight the Palestinian Arabs in 1936.  You assert the British training of Jewish security & intelligence groups occurred primarily to assist the British during WWII.  The training and arming occurred in 1936, WWII didn't start until 1939 (and Rommel wasn't in the neighborhood until 1941).  So, Britain chose to train & arm the Jews in Palestine and not "the common enemy," the Arabs in Palestine.  From 1936-39 the British, with cooperation of its Jewish allies killed 5,000 Arabs, wounded another 10,000 Arabs, imprisoned or exiled, a total of 10% of the male Palestinian Arabs.  The Palestinian Arabs apparently weren't assured by all the British White Papers issued and I am not either ("and the rest is history").

I addressed your points, point by point previously.  I just got tired of quoting it all over again.  You don't want to seriously address the timeline (British Mandate [you dismiss as irrelevant], you want to start w/Truman), you want to argue the nuance of events (Balfour's national home vs. national state, Britain trained some Jewish groups but not all, some weapons Jews used were stolen).    You ignore recommendation of the British Peel Commission published in 1937 that wanted to give the Jews, not a home in Palestine, but an actual State.  The Arab Palestinians never recovered from the repression of the British Mandate, so when Jews declared independence, guess what, they were defeated before the 1948 War started.

^Again, all events prior to Truman becoming president.
2007-07-26 14:40:06
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6586|SE London

makeuser wrote:

I don't think the timeline or gravity of events prior to Truman/USA's endorsement of Israel is more important than Britain's "rubber stamp" endorsement of Jews/Zionists coming to Palestine and later training and arming Jews to help the British fight the Palestinian Arabs in 1936.  You assert the British training of Jewish security & intelligence groups occurred primarily to assist the British during WWII.  The training and arming occurred in 1936, WWII didn't start until 1939 (and Rommel wasn't in the neighborhood until 1941).  So, Britain chose to train & arm the Jews in Palestine and not "the common enemy," the Arabs in Palestine.  From 1936-39 the British, with cooperation of its Jewish allies killed 5,000 Arabs, wounded another 10,000 Arabs, imprisoned or exiled, a total of 10% of the male Palestinian Arabs.  The Palestinian Arabs apparently weren't assured by all the British White Papers issued and I am not either ("and the rest is history").

I addressed your points, point by point previously.  I just got tired of quoting it all over again.  You don't want to seriously address the timeline (British Mandate [you dismiss as irrelevant], you want to start w/Truman), you want to argue the nuance of events (Balfour's national home vs. national state, Britain trained some Jewish groups but not all, some weapons Jews used were stolen).    You ignore recommendation of the British Peel Commission published in 1937 that wanted to give the Jews, not a home in Palestine, but an actual State.  The Arab Palestinians never recovered from the repression of the British Mandate, so when Jews declared independence, guess what, they were defeated before the 1948 War started.

^Again, all events prior to Truman becoming president.
Yet you ignore the earlier American reports which recommend the establishment of a Jewish state throughout the whole of Palestine.

King-Crane Commission Report wrote:

We recommend, in the fifth place, serious modification of the extreme Zionist program for Palestine of unlimited immigration of Jews, looking finally to making Palestine distinctly a Jewish State.
This in no uncertain terms demonstrates the US stance on Palestine.

The Peel Comission recommended a partition plan. A partition plan very much in the Arabs favour:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Peel_map_pd.png

Ultimately, as I have made abundantly clear, the real blame lies with the Zionists for many reasons, some of which are outlined in the King-Crane Commission Report.

For "a national home for the Jewish people" is not equivalent to making Palestine into a Jewish State; nor can the erection of such a Jewish State be accomplished without the gravest trespass upon the "civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine." The fact came out repeatedly in the Commission's conference with Jewish representatives, that the Zionists looked forward to a practically complete dispossession of the present non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine, by various forms of purchase.
This demonstrates the obvious incompatibility of the Balfour Declaration with the idea of a Jewish state and is a direct reference to the Zionist policy of economic deprivement. A policy the US supported. Since the report also outlines the extreme probability that for the creation of a Jewish state to occur, the Zionists would have to take it by force, it must be assumed that the US stance was backing this action as well.

The reports of the Hope Simpson Royal Commission come to similar conclusions about the Zionist policy of deprivement (though with dramatically different recommendations) - which was predicted would lead to revolts by the Arabs - guess what happened a few years later, neccessitating the training of the JSP to protect Jewish civilians. Suggesting that the British chose to support Jewish militant groups, whom British troops were a prime target for, out of anything other than neccessity, is laughable.
2007-07-26 15:02:52
makeuser
Member
+5|6729|Texas

Bertster7 wrote:

makeuser wrote:

I don't think the timeline or gravity of events prior to Truman/USA's endorsement of Israel is more important than Britain's "rubber stamp" endorsement of Jews/Zionists coming to Palestine and later training and arming Jews to help the British fight the Palestinian Arabs in 1936.  You assert the British training of Jewish security & intelligence groups occurred primarily to assist the British during WWII.  The training and arming occurred in 1936, WWII didn't start until 1939 (and Rommel wasn't in the neighborhood until 1941).  So, Britain chose to train & arm the Jews in Palestine and not "the common enemy," the Arabs in Palestine.  From 1936-39 the British, with cooperation of its Jewish allies killed 5,000 Arabs, wounded another 10,000 Arabs, imprisoned or exiled, a total of 10% of the male Palestinian Arabs.  The Palestinian Arabs apparently weren't assured by all the British White Papers issued and I am not either ("and the rest is history").

I addressed your points, point by point previously.  I just got tired of quoting it all over again.  You don't want to seriously address the timeline (British Mandate [you dismiss as irrelevant], you want to start w/Truman), you want to argue the nuance of events (Balfour's national home vs. national state, Britain trained some Jewish groups but not all, some weapons Jews used were stolen).    You ignore recommendation of the British Peel Commission published in 1937 that wanted to give the Jews, not a home in Palestine, but an actual State.  The Arab Palestinians never recovered from the repression of the British Mandate, so when Jews declared independence, guess what, they were defeated before the 1948 War started.

^Again, all events prior to Truman becoming president.
Yet you ignore the earlier American reports which recommend the establishment of a Jewish state throughout the whole of Palestine.
ffs, as I stated before American opinion counted for all wank as they were isolationist and not a player on the world stage prior to their involvement in WWII.  You value someone's opinion (who has no juice) over someone who has mandate over the area?
2007-07-26 15:13:02
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6586|SE London

makeuser wrote:

Bertster7 wrote:

Yet you ignore the earlier American reports which recommend the establishment of a Jewish state throughout the whole of Palestine.
ffs, as I stated before American opinion counted for all wank as they were isolationist and not a player on the world stage prior to their involvement in WWII.  You value someone's opinion (who has no juice) over someone who has mandate over the area?
No juice then. That's why I'm pointing the finger at Truman. When the US did become involved their actions were decisive and it is those actions that, post WWII, led to the creation of the state of Israel.

The earlier reports simply outline the position the US took on the Palestine situation. A totally different position to that held by the British. The fact that the solution supported by the US came to pass, as a result of their support for Israel in '48, says a lot.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2007-07-26 15:17:10)

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard