[pugsville]

[

Let's move on to my horror, when I realised that castrating history breeds anti-semitic comments.

The distinguished government of her british majesty has, during WWI, made promises to muslim arabs to motivate them to fight against the ottomans. British promises and efforts lead to the establishment of two brand new arab muslim states in the ME - Iraq and Jordan. With Lebanon and Syria, that makes 4 states for arabs in the ME after WWI, plus the british engineered newly-born Pakistan. Versus one jewish national home.

Edit: well, 5 brand new arab states, with Saudi Arabia. 6 new muslim states, but the jews...

The craziness of such logic. The Arab peoples were the overwhelming majority of the population in those areas, that Iraq, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, are Arab its what? What was the alternative? Imposing some tiny minority rule? Importing a vast population from somewhere else to take over?

The Astounding ting is the Palestine was taken over by a small minority of foreigners with the behest of the Imperial powers.

Why should European Jews who had lived in Europe for 1,000 years have any right what so ever in the middle east?

Why should not the new nations the middle east have been Arab? As that was the overwhelming majority of the population ?

Can you not not see the difference between these two things the first is a massive injustice the second is just.

[Zamuel]

Rich, were you accepting or rejecting what I cited?

I prefer to go point by point. Even if I disagree with everything, blanket dismissal does not serve intellectual inquiry. I have been considering the nature of radical left opposition to Israel, but need a little more time to be really clear how I want to express my view.

Well rich, please consider that the "radical left" is interested ONLY in what it perceives to be it's own interest ... which basically has nothing to do with Israel or Arabia ...

Zam

[Pongo]

Rich, of course Iranian nuclear bomb is much more important than some decapitators. Europe always misunderstand the middle east. There was a time that most of the European believed the stone throwing Palestinians are the root cause of all the Middle East problem if not the whole world. Just because they occupy their TV screen (Pallywood).

[redcarpet]

The Astounding ting is the Palestine was taken over by a small minority of foreigners with the behest of the Imperial powers.

Inflammatory garbage. Israel was established by the UN, majority vote in the UNGA

[Rich]

Inflammatory garbage. Israel was established by the UN, majority vote in the UNGA

Yeah right from London to Bangkok, from Riyadh to Rio the peoples of the world were out rioting demanding their governments give the Jews a homeland. Never in world history had humanity been so united, so convinced by the overwhelming justice of the Jews case. Anyway back in the real world, Israel was created by Joseph Stalin and the American establishment. After the second world war nearly everyone was in hock to America or the Soviet union. The Zionists owned the American Congress, they pressurised Truman and America bought the votes at the UN, quite cheaply, as most of the world couldn't give a fuck about Israel Palestine either way.

I'm sure Truman was sympathetic to the Jewish cause but even he felt railroaded by the Zionist lobby.

[pugsville]

Inflammatory garbage. Israel was established by the UN, majority vote in the UNGA

The Imperial Powers mainly Britain put the Zionists into the position they had in 1948, Without the imperialist backing the Zionists would not achieved the situation where the UN could ever possibly came to decision to partition Palestine, the period 1919-1949 was fairly crucial. The Zionists were a small minority of foreigners placed in a very dominating position by the imperial powers. The statement is true and factual. It is also inflammatory, due to the massive injustice and racism behind the decision.

UNGA vote on partition was subject threats and bribery without which it never would have passed.

[wat0n]

The craziness of such logic. The Arab peoples were the overwhelming majority of the population in those areas, that Iraq, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, are Arab its what? What was the alternative? Imposing some tiny minority rule? Importing a vast population from somewhere else to take over?

Ummm, the British did just that in Iraq and Jordan at least. Why else do you think there was a high level of support for anti-British positions in Iraq in particular?

[pugsville]

Good point but does not change the basic argument. Those areas had overwhelmingly Arab populations. While the placing of s compromised puppet regime of a foreign ruler is questiuonable, still quite different to encouraging the mass migration of a group of foreigners internet on taking over. Complaining about Iraq or Jordan regimes as being 'Arab' is what? some sort of valid compliant?

[Heinie]

The Imperial Powers mainly Britain put the Zionists into the position they had in 1948, Without the imperialist backing the Zionists would not achieved the situation where the UN could ever possibly came to decision to partition Palestine, the period 1919-1949 was fairly crucial. The Zionists were a small minority of foreigners placed in a very dominating position by the imperial powers. The statement is true and factual. It is also inflammatory, due to the massive injustice and racism behind the decision.

UNGA vote on partition was subject threats and bribery without which it never would have passed.

You are correct in all the essentials. It is to the eternal shame of the English that they created a Frankenstein Jewish state in Palestine, a poison in the Middle East.

[wat0n]

Good point but does not change the basic argument. Those areas had overwhelmingly Arab populations. While the placing of s compromised puppet regime of a foreign ruler is questiuonable, still quite different to encouraging the mass migration of a group of foreigners internet on taking over. Complaining about Iraq or Jordan regimes as being 'Arab' is what? some sort of valid compliant?

Indeed, one could claim Arabness was the only thing that could have kept countries like Iraq - in which the British put a non-Iraqi Sunni Arab family as a monarchic ruler over a Shi'ite majority - somewhat together.

But, even this is highly questionable given the presence of rebellious non-Arab minorities like Kurds and Assyrians and the brutal treatment they got.

[pugsville]

SO where are you going with this. The Post WW1 in the middle east was far from perfect.

But how does this justify the Mandate/Balfour declaration? How do European Jews, not resident in Palestine get special rights? Whats the principle you are suggesting be followed?

Any even vaguely represenatiatve system in most of the middle east was going to get somewhat arabic states. As the overwhelming majority of the population in those areas it's hardily some great wrong, por some sort of special treatment.

Britain as imperial power with the consent of other imperial powers imposed a special regime on Palestine granting vague rights to some "national home" to the Zionist Movement, which was favoured in many ways in the mandate that enabled the build up of the Jewish population form a tiny minority to roughly a third o the population and create their own shadow state. Why Palestine, Why should this European colonisation be forced upon the Native population? The Un Partition vote was only passed due to threats and bribery. It's validity is highly questionable. The Balfour declaration is also highly questionable.

[wat0n]

SO where are you going with this. The Post WW1 in the middle east was far from perfect.

But how does this justify the Mandate/Balfour declaration? How do European Jews, not resident in Palestine get special rights? Whats the principle you are suggesting be followed?

Any even vaguely represenatiatve system in most of the middle east was going to get somewhat arabic states. As the overwhelming majority of the population in those areas it's hardily some great wrong, por some sort of special treatment.

Britain as imperial power with the consent of other imperial powers imposed a special regime on Palestine granting vague rights to some "national home" to the Zionist Movement, which was favoured in many ways in the mandate that enabled the build up of the Jewish population form a tiny minority to roughly a third o the population and create their own shadow state. Why Palestine, Why should this European colonisation be forced upon the Native population? The Un Partition vote was only passed due to threats and bribery. It's validity is highly questionable. The Balfour declaration is also highly questionable.

European Jews were regarded as a persecuted diaspora, that's where the justification of Palestine in particular comes from.

The thing is, Ashkenazi Jews weren't regarded as "real" Europeans in many parts of Europe which is why contemporary Zionism even came to be in the first place.

I also don't think it is particularly odd that Arab states were founded at the time, but why weren't Kurdish or Assyrian states founded as well?

[pugsville]

Well there was a state for the Kurds muted and it was part of the original settlement, but got scrapped with the mm agreement the Turks who survived the pretty Brutal carve of of Turkey originally envisaged a Kurdish State.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Sèvres#Kurdistan

But I would say the Imperial Powers mainly Britain and France were not primarily motivated by setting up a just, demographically, democratic solution to the fall of the ottoman empire. They had there own imperial designs, their chosen form might well gave been through Mandates which has certain amount of Rhetoric and was designed to fob off the Americans and the public and the locals to some degree. (To some extent as the 1930s unrolled with the league of Nations more and more people bought into this rhetoric and often lost sight of the reality it was constructed on)

But even if they Architects of the Peace had been trying for some just, demographic, democratic solution their knowledge of the middle east was (though aided by many experts, to varying degrees well meaning, none did not have their own agendas) was hardly perfect. Nation building , creating new nations from the flotsam of the the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the Middle East would have been extremely challenging audit would be pretty inconceivable that some 100 years later hind sight would not have revealed pretty massive errors.

The Assyrian Minority (I think but I could be wrong on this) while being a significant minority group where not geographically centralised in defined area to enable an easy National boundaries. the Ethnic self determination concept is problematic in the real world with many shades of ethnic, religious, cultural groups often highly intermixed.

The Zionists were promoted in large part by British Imperial interests who felt they could be used to create a compliant client State in Palestine helping to secure British interests (the Suez canal). British Imperial factions often worked at cross purposes, the British Government, the Indian Government, Egyptian Administration all were promoting their own visions, interests and clients.

[Heinie]

European Jews were regarded as a persecuted diaspora

Is that a fact now? Regarded by whom? Not a single person in Europe ever had any notion of a Jewish so-called "diaspora" except the Zionists themselves.

The thing is, Ashkenazi Jews weren't regarded as "real" Europeans in many parts of Europe which is why contemporary Zionism even came to be in the first place.

They were regarded by no one in Europe as "real" Palestinians for sure.
You believe your own propaganda and that of nationalist racist elements who were dead wrong then as they are today.

[Rich]

The Balfour declaration wasn't fair? This is irrelevant. Women didn't have the vote in Britain or France, many of the British soldiers sacrificing their lives in Flanders didn't have the vote, so judging the Balfour declaration by modern standards of political correctness is futile.

No the question is why on earth did the allies risk losing the war by issuing the Balfour declaration? Over three million allied soldiers had already paid the ultimate sacrifice. The allies had already suffered over fifteen million casualties. The European establishment had already seen the overthrow of the Romanovs, if the war was not concluded quickly there was a danger of losing everything to Bolshevism. Why, why, why would the British and French establishment risk all that terrible, terrible sacrifice to give a homeland to the Jews? National consciousness amongst Muslim populations was low, but religious consciousness was anything but low. Most Arabs probably cared little whether they lived in Arab state or a Turkish State. But they did care about whether it was an Islamic State. And they did care whether Islam's third holiest city was handed over to the Jews. So the question was why, why why commit this seeming madness of the Balfour declaration?

And there is only one answer, the British and French establishments calculated that the power of international Jewry was so immense, the power of international Zionist Jewry if you want to be precise, was so large, that the support of international (Zionist) Jewry was critical to victory in World War I.

Do my arguments give succour to Nazis? No not in the slightest. It was the German high command that ferried Lenin and his so called Judo-Bolsheviks across German territories. It was the German high command that stuffed Lenin's pockets with gold. It was the German high command that destroyed the Romanov monarchy and its Liberal democratic successor. It was the German high command that allowed the Bolsheviks to consolidate their reign of terror in Russia. It was the German high command that made peace with the so called Judo-Bosheviks when they could have swiped them away like a fly. And the Nazis never disavowed the WWI German high command. they never disavowed Ludendorf and Hindenburg.

But more than this without the so called Judo Bolsheviks the rise of the Sturm Abteilung would have been cut short. There would have been no Kasierschalcht. There would have been no more advances on the Western front. There would have been no myth of defeat snatched form the jaws of victory. Germany would have been crushed from East and West. There would have been no Frei Corps. There would have been no Nazis without the German enabled victory of Bolshevism in Russia. So this is why I always support a zero tolerance policy to Nazi whining about Judo Bolshevism. If there was one man who was in absolutely no position, who had absolutely zero right to whine about Judo-Bolshevism, it was Adolph Hitler, whose rescue from post war destitution was utterly predicated on Bolshevism's German manipulated victory in Russia.

[wat0n]

Well there was a state for the Kurds muted and it was part of the original settlement, but got scrapped with the mm agreement the Turks who survived the pretty Brutal carve of of Turkey originally envisaged a Kurdish State.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Sèvres#Kurdistan

But I would say the Imperial Powers mainly Britain and France were not primarily motivated by setting up a just, demographically, democratic solution to the fall of the ottoman empire. They had there own imperial designs, their chosen form might well gave been through Mandates which has certain amount of Rhetoric and was designed to fob off the Americans and the public and the locals to some degree. (To some extent as the 1930s unrolled with the league of Nations more and more people bought into this rhetoric and often lost sight of the reality it was constructed on)

But even if they Architects of the Peace had been trying for some just, demographic, democratic solution their knowledge of the middle east was (though aided by many experts, to varying degrees well meaning, none did not have their own agendas) was hardly perfect. Nation building , creating new nations from the flotsam of the the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the Middle East would have been extremely challenging audit would be pretty inconceivable that some 100 years later hind sight would not have revealed pretty massive errors.

The Assyrian Minority (I think but I could be wrong on this) while being a significant minority group where not geographically centralised in defined area to enable an easy National boundaries. the Ethnic self determination concept is problematic in the real world with many shades of ethnic, religious, cultural groups often highly intermixed.

The Zionists were promoted in large part by British Imperial interests who felt they could be used to create a compliant client State in Palestine helping to secure British interests (the Suez canal). British Imperial factions often worked at cross purposes, the British Government, the Indian Government, Egyptian Administration all were promoting their own visions, interests and clients.

I think you answered your own question, didn't you?

As for Assyrians, they had a defined territororial presence and were denied an autonomy (at least) within Iraq, and massacred in the process (the Simele massacre). Not that it matters all that much, given that forced population movements were also part of the inter-war arrangement.

Is that a fact now? Regarded by whom? Not a single person in Europe ever had any notion of a Jewish so-called "diaspora" except the Zionists themselves.

So antisemitism in Europe didn't exist and Jews were seen and treated as normal Europeans all throughout Europe.

Nonsense.

They were regarded by no one in Europe as "real" Palestinians for sure.
You believe your own propaganda and that of nationalist racist elements who were dead wrong then as they are today.

I am simply mentioning an objective fact: Some elements in Europe regarded the Jews as the "other" and discriminated against them. They didn't even regard them as Europeans on equal standing and didn't treat them as such (particularly in the Russian Empire).

And some still don't, such as those who believe European Jews should not wear kippot in broad daylight so Muslims won't try to attack them, the same people who would not tell Christians not to wear a cross or women to avoid wearing a short skirt to avoid the same.

[Lightman]

Heinie, do you think ghettoization of Jews did not happen? Do you think pogroms did not happen? Do you think expulsions did not happen? Do you think that Jews were generally accepted as European and worthy of respect by the majority of the gentile population of Europe?

[Political Interest]

You are all forgetting one important factor. The British elite wanted a state in the Middle East that could serve as a potential ally. A Jewish state was to serve such purpose and this contributed to English support for its creation. Kurdistan was another potential state that could have served a similar purpose.

There is also some discussion that Balfour was himself a Christian Zionist who believed that the return of the Jews to Palestine was Biblically mandated.

The question is, which of the various factors motivated the British government to issue the Balfour Declaration? Or was it a combination of all the factors we have discussed?

[wat0n]

All of them mattered, but the advancing of geopolical interests was likely the most important one (by far). The issue of the Jewish question probably played a role as well.

I would also add that it wasn't only about Christianity as well. The archaeological evidence available at the time (gathered during the 19th century) suggested that the Bible was broadly historically accurate (minus the more amazing parts of course). This consensus was only challenged on the second half of the 20th century.

[noemon]

Do you think that Jews were generally accepted as European and worthy of respect by the majority of the gentile population of Europe?

Yes they were, Jews were given equal rights in the 19th century in Europe. But even if they weren't given equal rights, how can the Jews feel entitled to these kind of rights when they do not give them to non-Jews in Israel in the 21st century?

Nevertheless even if the Jews were mistreated by the majority of Europeans which they weren't, what does that mean for Palestinians or other Arabs anyway? Why should they care anyway?

And lastly claiming that the majority of Europeans are historically racists against Jews is not only false but quite dishonest too. There were certain European regimes hateful towards Jews, but these regimes were never a majority anywhere, perhaps with the exception of Hitler who is not representative of historical European majority.