Middle East Conflict

This afternoon I decided to re-read up on the history of the area again. What a cluster fuck.
Sadly the British Goverment are front and centre as they administered the area between 1920 and 1948. Before that it was the Ottoman empire who had sided with Germany during the first World War. They lost so we took over, well you do don't you. Herein lies the first problem. The Palestinians were promised the region if they helped us fight the Ottomans. They did but we reneged.
The other problem was we did exactly the same with the Jews. We lied to both Jews and Muslims. And we wonder why they are fighting for a land they believe is theirs and one that we had no right to give away.
This was definitely a clusterfuck but one part needs clarifying, which shows how complex and nuanced the situation was.

When the British took over the former Ottoman territories, these covered a huge area, including modern Iraq, Jordan, Palestine and possibly parts of modern-day Saudi Arabia. These were not independent states at the time.

The McMahon letters of 1915 were deliberately ambiguous and there was a crucial issue in the translation of the English to the Arabic, which seemed to accede to the Arab demands, but that was never the intention. The term 'Palestine' was a Western one, but not an Ottoman one, and there was no administrative territory of that name under the Ottomans. There was reference to territories west of Damascus being excluded as "they were not exclusively Arab". This could mean places like the Galilee, where there was a significant Jewish presence, or it might not. We'll never know. But the McMahon letters were deeply cynical. The intention was to encourage an Arab front against the Turks (which it did).

The Sykes-Picot agreement, conducted as secret protocols, divided the area up into British & French spheres of influence but parts of what was known as Palestine (including Jerusalem) were intended to be under some sort of international control.

Then of course there was the Balfour Declaration is 1917 but the published version was a very-much watered-down version of the original. The revised version only talked about establishing a 'homeland' for the Jewish people, rather than the original request for the whole of the Palestine area to be exclusively Jewish. The original also requested unrestricted Jewish immigration, which was left out of the published version, which also talked about protection of the rights of Arabs. The intention was, on the surface, noble but obviously led to the present-day situation.

Incidentally, one of the prime movers in the Balfour Declaration was Charles Dreyfus, who set up Clayton Aniline where the CFA now stands, and who introduced Weizmann to Balfour.

No one really understands the reasoning behind the Balfour Declaration. One theory is that it suited the British to encourage its Jewish population to emigrate. Just a few years earlier, anti-immigration rhetoric (plus ca change) had been aimed at the wave of Jewish immigration from Eastern Europe. Therefore Palestine could have been the Rwanda equivalent. Another is the desire to keep the French out. So you could certainly argue that the BD was yet another cynical manoeuvre.

One the war had ended, the territory was parcelled up, with parts of it given to friendly Arab leaders, without much regard for tribal or territorial integrity, with what's now known as Palestine left under British control from 1923. All attempts to reach a negotiated settlement failed, ultimately leading to us handing back the mandate to the newly-created UN after WWII and the partition of the territory in 1948.
 
This was definitely a clusterfuck but one part needs clarifying, which shows how complex and nuanced the situation was.

When the British took over the former Ottoman territories, these covered a huge area, including modern Iraq, Jordan, Palestine and possibly parts of modern-day Saudi Arabia. These were not independent states at the time.

The McMahon letters of 1915 were deliberately ambiguous and there was a crucial issue in the translation of the English to the Arabic, which seemed to accede to the Arab demands, but that was never the intention. The term 'Palestine' was a Western one, but not an Ottoman one, and there was no administrative territory of that name under the Ottomans. There was reference to territories west of Damascus being excluded as "they were not exclusively Arab". This could mean places like the Galilee, where there was a significant Jewish presence, or it might not. We'll never know. But the McMahon letters were deeply cynical. The intention was to encourage an Arab front against the Turks (which it did).

The Sykes-Picot agreement, conducted as secret protocols, divided the area up into British & French spheres of influence but parts of what was known as Palestine (including Jerusalem) were intended to be under some sort of international control.

Then of course there was the Balfour Declaration is 1917 but the published version was a very-much watered-down version of the original. The revised version only talked about establishing a 'homeland' for the Jewish people, rather than the original request for the whole of the Palestine area to be exclusively Jewish. The original also requested unrestricted Jewish immigration, which was left out of the published version, which also talked about protection of the rights of Arabs. The intention was, on the surface, noble but obviously led to the present-day situation.

Incidentally, one of the prime movers in the Balfour Declaration was Charles Dreyfus, who set up Clayton Aniline where the CFA now stands, and who introduced Weizmann to Balfour.

No one really understands the reasoning behind the Balfour Declaration. One theory is that it suited the British to encourage its Jewish population to emigrate. Just a few years earlier, anti-immigration rhetoric (plus ca change) had been aimed at the wave of Jewish immigration from Eastern Europe. Therefore Palestine could have been the Rwanda equivalent. Another is the desire to keep the French out. So you could certainly argue that the BD was yet another cynical manoeuvre.

One the war had ended, the territory was parcelled up, with parts of it given to friendly Arab leaders, without much regard for tribal or territorial integrity, with what's now known as Palestine left under British control from 1923. All attempts to reach a negotiated settlement failed, ultimately leading to us handing back the mandate to the newly-created UN after WWII and the partition of the territory in 1948.

yeah but yeah but the practise of handing land and power to "friendly" rulers with no recourse to the existing borders, ethnicity of existing occupants, religions, etc - all done with the Imperial Powers best interests in mind (as determined by said Imperial Powers ) has such a legacy of success why should it not happen like that?

Imperialism has caused as much damage in this world ref wars, famines and genocides as has religion. A plague on it all.
 
This was definitely a clusterfuck but one part needs clarifying, which shows how complex and nuanced the situation was.

When the British took over the former Ottoman territories, these covered a huge area, including modern Iraq, Jordan, Palestine and possibly parts of modern-day Saudi Arabia. These were not independent states at the time.

The McMahon letters of 1915 were deliberately ambiguous and there was a crucial issue in the translation of the English to the Arabic, which seemed to accede to the Arab demands, but that was never the intention. The term 'Palestine' was a Western one, but not an Ottoman one, and there was no administrative territory of that name under the Ottomans. There was reference to territories west of Damascus being excluded as "they were not exclusively Arab". This could mean places like the Galilee, where there was a significant Jewish presence, or it might not. We'll never know. But the McMahon letters were deeply cynical. The intention was to encourage an Arab front against the Turks (which it did).

The Sykes-Picot agreement, conducted as secret protocols, divided the area up into British & French spheres of influence but parts of what was known as Palestine (including Jerusalem) were intended to be under some sort of international control.

Then of course there was the Balfour Declaration is 1917 but the published version was a very-much watered-down version of the original. The revised version only talked about establishing a 'homeland' for the Jewish people, rather than the original request for the whole of the Palestine area to be exclusively Jewish. The original also requested unrestricted Jewish immigration, which was left out of the published version, which also talked about protection of the rights of Arabs. The intention was, on the surface, noble but obviously led to the present-day situation.

Incidentally, one of the prime movers in the Balfour Declaration was Charles Dreyfus, who set up Clayton Aniline where the CFA now stands, and who introduced Weizmann to Balfour.

No one really understands the reasoning behind the Balfour Declaration. One theory is that it suited the British to encourage its Jewish population to emigrate. Just a few years earlier, anti-immigration rhetoric (plus ca change) had been aimed at the wave of Jewish immigration from Eastern Europe. Therefore Palestine could have been the Rwanda equivalent. Another is the desire to keep the French out. So you could certainly argue that the BD was yet another cynical manoeuvre.

One the war had ended, the territory was parcelled up, with parts of it given to friendly Arab leaders, without much regard for tribal or territorial integrity, with what's now known as Palestine left under British control from 1923. All attempts to reach a negotiated settlement failed, ultimately leading to us handing back the mandate to the newly-created UN after WWII and the partition of the territory in 1948.
Prestwich, thank you for that post, it told me far more than I knew and what I did know, I could never have explained like that.
I did read something today which amazed me and also brought hope. Israeli surgeons 're-attached the head' (the media description not mine) of a Palestinian boy after a road accident. Obviously his head was not separated as we would think, apparently internal ligaments and muscle had been severed. He should now be dead but brilliant surgeons with no thought about race or religion saved his life and he is expected to make a full recovery.
With amazing people like that there is hope for a solution.
 
Prestwich, thank you for that post, it told me far more than I knew and what I did know, I could never have explained like that.
I did read something today which amazed me and also brought hope. Israeli surgeons 're-attached the head' (the media description not mine) of a Palestinian boy after a road accident. Obviously his head was not separated as we would think, apparently internal ligaments and muscle had been severed. He should now be dead but brilliant surgeons with no thought about race or religion saved his life and he is expected to make a full recovery.
With amazing people like that there is hope for a solution.

Unfortunately those surgeons aren’t the elected leaders calling the shot.
 
Unfortunately those surgeons aren’t the elected leaders calling the shot.
No, but that sort of thing helps us keep our own humanity remember that the Israeli people are not the right wing Israeli government. We quite rightly get angry with Israeli foreign policy, but once that becomes hate for a race/religion/ethnicity we cross the same line.
 
No, but that sort of thing helps us keep our own humanity remember that the Israeli people are not the right wing Israeli government. We quite rightly get angry with Israeli foreign policy, but once that becomes hate for a race/religion/ethnicity we cross the same line.

I guess I see your optimism but I don’t see how Israel changes unless they face the same pressures apartheid South Africa felt, which in my opinion feels inevitable. But sadly I think that is a pretty far timeline to bank on hope on it…
 
I guess I see your optimism but I don’t see how Israel changes unless they face the same pressures apartheid South Africa felt, which in my opinion feels inevitable. But sadly I think that is a pretty far timeline to bank on hope on it…
I take you point, but my reason for posting is as Mazzars Cheese says, we can turn inwards and hate. The fact that a very educated, very clever Jew operated on and saved the life of, a Muslim gives me hope. Without it, I'd be a basket case.
 
No, but that sort of thing helps us keep our own humanity remember that the Israeli people are not the right wing Israeli government. We quite rightly get angry with Israeli foreign policy, but once that becomes hate for a race/religion/ethnicity we cross the same line.
Domestic policy?
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.