- Joined
- Feb 13, 2020
Last edited:
2023 Israel-Palestine Armed Conflict
- Thread starter Enoch Emery
- Start date
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2023
(Accidental effort post incoming)
It's more complicated and interesting than that. In truth the situation is down to Jewish/Zionist, US, European and domestic influences being received by Britain as the leading world power of the day, and a combination of good, bad, and stupid intentions and decisions by successive leaders of Britain, the US, and the League of Nations (later the UN).
The creation of a nation state for the Jewish people in the site of the holy land began to pick up steam in the late 1800s with the rise in popularity of Zionism, but the first concrete proposal in an official capacity was the Balfour declaration, written by Arthur Balfour to Lord Rothschild in 1917, more than 3 decades before the actual creation of Israel. The UK had been at war with the Ottoman empire as part of WWI, and with victory coming closer, the Palestine area would be up for grabs as the spoils of war. Balfour was sympathetic to the Zionist movement, at least on paper, and proposed for "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people". This ended up gathering a significant amount of support not just in the UK, but across Europe and America, but things immediately get complicated when you ask why it had support, and more importantly, what the proposal was actually... proposing.
There were many reasons for supporting the Zionist cause across the west. Some people were simply very sympathetic to the Jews and their history of expulsion from many countries (insert 109 meme here). Others in the government saw the Jews as possessing a huge amount of money and power, and thought getting in their good books was a good idea. Another reason was that people thought that creating a colony of European Jews in the Middle East would expand the British/European sphere of influence in the region. Some people believed the evangelical Christian belief about the Jews returning to the homeland causing the end times. A lot of people just frankly wanted a good excuse to get rid of the Jews by moving them out of the country into their own homeland. You could even argue that this included Balfour himself since 12 years prior he supported limiting the immigration of Jews from Eastern Europe into Britain (Aliens Act 1905). Finally, there was the idea that the Zionist cause was a justification for the mandate, which would give the country access and control in strategic areas like the Suez canal.
After the war the UK submitted the "Mandate for Palestine" to the League of Nations, which meant that the region would, for a time, come under British rule, to be "brought up" to become a self-governing, civilised country. After a lot of negotiation by many LoN countries, it was accepted, with part of the mandate including the bit about the "establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people". There was disagreement on this issue, which is likely why the official phrasing ended up being an annoyingly ambiguous compromise. You can read it as carving out a region "in" Palestine for the Jews, a bit like the Russian Autonomous Jewish Oblast, or you could read is as creating a home for the Jews "in" Palestine (think "You've got a friend *in* me"). The final mandate is a bit of a designed-by-committee clusterfuck, with both interpretations being supported by different sections. One section says:
but another says:
The United States passed congressional endorsement of the Balfour declaration (sorry lads, you're officially on the hook), and got an addition in the mandate that "consent of the United States shall be obtained before any alteration is made in the text of the mandate". (The US also signed a bilateral treaty with Britain on the mandate in 1924). So the mandate was accepted by the LoN and it becomes the UK's legal duty under international law to carry out... whatever the mandate is supposed to actually be. Obviously the Arabs in the region were quite unhappy and there were a few riots and insurgencies to deal with there.
Even by the time the mandate finally passed in 1922, support by the public and the government in the UK for the whole scheme had become very chilly, and there were significant objections to the cost to the British taxpayer and unpopularity to the Palestinians, voiced by people including Churchill. After being rejected by the Lords the bill was passed in the commons because Churchill convinced the house that the strategic and imperial considerations of the mandate for Palestine outweighed the, frankly annoying by this point, Zionist aspects. In the years to come there were reviews, reorganisations, committees one after another, and even by 1923 (hard to believe, still 25 years before the actual creation of Israel!) the government basically admitted they were only in this because it was impossible to get out of it "without a substantial sacrifice of consistency and self-respect, if not honour".
By 1937, after a revolt and general strikes by the Arabs, it was obvious that this whole thing was becoming untenable, Britain created the Peel Commission to decide "what do we do about the shitshow this has become". The conclusion of the commission was that the League of Nations mandate was impossible and the only solution (with large numbers of Jews already there by that point) was partition, with the Jews to be given about a fifth(!) of Palestine by area. The opinion of the commission was that the original mandate was drafted with nobody foreseeing such a massive torrent of Jewish immigration into the region, and that the mandate contains contradictory obligations, attempting to meet any of which only exacerbates the conflict between the two groups. The Arabs completely and utterly rejected this proposal, and the Zionists also insisted that the original Balfour declaration meant that they were entitled to 100% of Palestine for a Jewish state.
By 1938 the British position was in practice to try to quell Zionist efforts in Palestine. In the Évian Conference to manage the growing amount of Jewish {im/e}migration from various places, the overriding objective of the British delegation was to reduce the number of Jews coming into Palestine. Before the conference, Britain and the US struck a deal where Britain wouldn't mention the US' failure to meet its refugee quotas, if the US didn't bring up Palestine as a refugee destination. The Zionist position was (unsurprisingly), to solely press for immigration into Palestine. (Funnily, the Zionist delegation were extremely opposed to allowing Jewish refugees into western countries, since they wanted them to have nowhere in the world to move to except Palestine).
In 1939 Britain held the London Conference to try and come to some kind of agreement between the Arab and Jewish delegations (whose positions you can guess by now). The outcome was:
- Limit Jewish immigration into Palestine
- Restrict the purchase of land by Jews
- Bring Palestinians into governmental positions
- Independence in 10 years with a government representative of the people living there
During WWII there was a 3-year Arab revolt (1936-1939) and the start of a Jewish insurgency (1944-1948 ), as well as obviously huge amounts of Jewish immigration to the country from Europe. By 1946, following incidents like Jewish groups blowing up the King David Hotel full of British officials, the UK government started interning Jewish illegal immigrants to Palestine in Cyprus. Constant Jewish militancy and insurgency meant that after the war 100'000 British soldiers had to be stationed in Palestine. Zionist paramilitaries like Irgun were hanging British sergeants, and British were the targets of increasing attacks. At this point, if it wasn't obvious, the British public and government were absolutely sick to the teeth with the whole debacle.
After pressuring the UK to end the anti-immigration policy for Jews into Palestine, the United States created a joint committee (Committee of Inquiry) with the UK in 1946 to decide what was to be done. The committee gave a list of points, including things like assistance in managing future uprisings, and importantly, having a state that was not exclusively Arab nor Jewish. However, the only point that the USA backed was the immediate importation of a further 100'000 Jewish immigrants into Palestine, (which was accepted by the committee), which really pissed off the UK. The US also delayed issuing WWII reconstruction loans to Britain until promises were made on Jews in Palestine (I think this is right but haven't managed to find a good source that says what the terms of the deal actually were here).
After all this, Britain gave up and basically begged the UN to terminate the mandate and take over control of Palestine. The UN created a committee, UNSCOP (interestingly, containing countries like Guatemala and Sweden, but not the UK and US), which had its members vote on the future of the area, with the majority of countries voting for the creation of separate Arabic and Jewish states, with Jerusalem becoming an internationally administered site. India, Iran, and Yugoslavia supported a single Jewish+Arabic state (which was the British hope).
Eventually, the UN voted on the Partition Plan For Palestine with both new-Palestine and the new state of Israel being basically split into 3 enclaves between each other. The United States voted For, and the UK abstained. For won, and the rest is very violent history. In a closed meeting after the vote, the Zionist Emergency Council stated: "We had won because of the sheer pressure of political logistics that was applied by the Jewish leadership in the United States". President Truman later said: "The facts were that not only were there pressure movements around the United Nations unlike anything that had been seen there before, but that the White House, too, was subjected to a constant barrage. I do not think I ever had as much pressure and propaganda aimed at the White House as I had in this instance. The persistence of a few of the extreme Zionist leaders—actuated by political motives and engaging in political threats—disturbed and annoyed me."
So yes, the creation of Israel involves a massive amount of blunder and poor management by the UK government all round, but the buck doesn't just stop there like Americans would like to believe.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Feb 19, 2020
That video is from 2017 in Syria.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2022
the ccp has its rival, it's the roc on taiwan
kim has his rival, it's the seoul government in the south
like fatah, they are all simply not powerful enough to take over their rivals by force. abbas can't just order his al aqsa brigades to invade gaza and oust hamas, this would exceed their capabilities. could they do it with IDF support? possibly, but that would still require the IDF to first invade gaza and beat down hamas until they're so battered that fatah can successfully take over from them.
Eydallur
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2020
Seoul has no interest in governing North Korea. Taiwan has no interest in governing mainland China. Fatah has tangible interests in Gaza.
I couldn't find a source for someone in the German government demanding that or someone in the liberal party. It would also not be legally possible to remove citizenship from someone just for "being antisemtic". That would also be a retarded precedent to set.
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2020
Bad things happen because of sin and God giving humans free will (aka capacity to commit sin) in Christian theology. Even natural disasters and shit like that happens because the serpent tricked Eve and Eve tricked Adam. Although that part is implied, bad things happening because of human action is explicitly blamed on sin
TheBigZee
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2021
Well, if the idioits get through I hope they cancelled the music festivals in northern Israel.
- Joined
- May 2, 2021
Holy shit. The sounds are awful. Fucking animal. Fuck sandniggers and their shitty religion.
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2020
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2022
both korean states officially claim to be the sole legitimate government of all korea, and the kuomintang considers mainland china to be rightful ROC territory. granted, the kuomintang doesn't even rule taiwan at the moment, but the point still stands - if they had the power to do it they would 100% love to take control of all china, just like seoul would 100% love to bring about korean reunification under its leadership if there weren't a million nork soldiers in the way.
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2021
There's no scenario here where the Israel runs out of munitions and the West doesn't provide supplies. Not specifically because the West supports the Israeli cause, but because it suits the West to keep an allied Westernised presence in the region, which is part of the reason Israel was set up in the first place. Not to mention Israel has money and can just buy more.
When the smoke clears, there's just a slightly singed "I'm sorry you weren't in..." slip lying on the ground.
Although it literally means "God is great", it often get used along the lines of "Oh my God". I've heard a mate saying it when she burned dinner. Probably similar origins, invoking a prayer for help.
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2020
Ursula von der Leyen "running" to the bomb shelter alongside the Israeli President Isaac Herzog
01169
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2021
I'm sure it's just the perspective but if they fire straight up how do we know that half the damage in Gaza isn't from friendly fire?
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2018
You dislike your government and its a democracy not run by Jihadists.
Most Arab countries have similar issues. Their power does not derive from the Tax base, but from their oil in the same way Hamas is powered by Iran.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2022
because their DIY rockets are way too shitty to cause the kind of massive damage to buildings that we see in gaza
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2020
Look at ALL THOSE FUCKING PEOPLE and you know minimum 2/3 of them don't actually serve any purpose. Government is great
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2021
Kino edit with some footage I haven't seen just going through highlighted posts
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2022
I personally don’t believe in the rapture. I think the end times are going to be equally miserable for everyone.