UK Muslims targeted for speaking out about terror

[Rostere]

 

What would you have done if a minority of Muslims declared a "Muslim" state in Texas?

Was there a Muslim diaspora from Texas in the past?

 

 

Dude, you don't want to enter that discussion . The Native Americans were a majority in Texas far, far more recently than the Jews were a majority in Palestine. By the logic of "DERRRP, Palestine is Jewish ancestral homeland", the entirety of the US should be wiped clean from everybody except the Native Americans. And that is obviously bizarre. I'm only trying to say that people should condemn every crime, and every war crime committed in Palestine by every actor and that the international community should take an active role in peacekeeping and preventing said crimes. I don't need to talk about Hamas - everybody here knows about all the bad stuff they do and we agree on that. Talking about their crimes would not create a discussion. But there are a lot of people who don't know about, or completely ignore all the crimes (current and historical), that Israel has been guilty of. Especially American foreign policy towards Israel is ridiculously one-sided. I can't stress how harmful it is to American image abroad, especially in Muslim countries, that American leaders are the enablers of Israeli war crimes, sitting on the UNSC vetoing everything that does not praise Israel to the skies. The fact that American taxpayers directly pay 3 billion dollars a year for the Israeli weapons which blows up Palestinian houses is just mind-boggling. This took an especially picturesque turn when a Palestinian at a rally was shot dead by direct hit of a tear gas charge bearing the large words "MADE IN THE USA". Here's an article about Palestinians decorating their Christmas trees with tear gas cartridges as a form of protest against the US.

 

The only reason I used Muslim in the example was so that everybody could relate to the cultural differences. Not many (me included) know much about Native American culture.

 

Couple of chaps got arrested a week or so back for strolling around East London attempting to enforce Sharia Law in an area around a mosque. Response fromt he wider Islamic community was bemusement.

 

Yeah, I guess that's some form of poetic justice for the British handing over a country to a foreign people like that. If there was a God he'd definitely be laughing at the British right now.

[Kroney]

 

Yeah, I guess that's some form of poetic justice for the British handing over a country to a foreign people like that. If there was a God he'd definitely be laughing at the British right now.

 

 

They were both British. In fact, one of them was ginger. Thinking about it, that's probably why he was so cross. Still, sling out all the immigrants, as it's probably their fault. I'll get right on that, Kilroy.

Edited December 13, 2013 by Kroney

[Malcador]

 

But there are a lot of people who don't know about, or completely ignore all the crimes (current and historical), that Israel has been guilty of

 

Here ? Really ? You have an entire thread where you go on about that

[Rostere]

 

But there are a lot of people who don't know about, or completely ignore all the crimes (current and historical), that Israel has been guilty of

 

Here ? Really ? You have an entire thread where you go on about that

 

Oh, I'm sorry, couldn't help myself!

[Walsingham]

 

Yeah, I guess that's some form of poetic justice for the British handing over a country to a foreign people like that. If there was a God he'd definitely be laughing at the British right now.

 

 

People complain when we take countries FROM foreigners. People complain when we give countries TO foreigners. There's no pleasing you bastards, is there?

[Wrath of Dagon]

 

The Caliphate wouldn't screw around if opposed, they would simply exterminate all opposition. They might do that in any case, look at what's happening to Christians right now in Muslim countries.

 

So does that make the invasion, occupation and ongoing ethnic cleansing of Palestine moral? What is your point?

 

Yeah, Christians are having an increasingly hard time down in the Middle East right now. After the whole age of colonialism, Cold War meddling and support of unpopular dictators, the recent wars and US enthusiastic support for Israeli war crimes, they are increasingly starting to think that Christians are the source of all evil. You can forgive them a bit for thinking so when you consider it must seem that way from their perspective. If only all Arabs could go to trips to the US, they would learn that American Christians do not sit all day and plot which countries to bomb next and do high-fives when they hear the Israeli army has shot another child. In fact most American Christians are probably 100% oblivious both about which ME dictators the CIA supported during which years, how many civilians have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan and about the situation in Israel. So it would be deeply unfair to characterize them as evil in any way.

 

So now you're justifying the persecution of Arab Christians by Arab Muslims by blaming it on Israel and the US? Truly you've sunk to a new low. Check out what they're are doing, since you're so into righteous indignation, it's a thousand times worse than anything Israel does to Palestinians, which is all done in self defense btw.

[Rostere]

 

 

The Caliphate wouldn't screw around if opposed, they would simply exterminate all opposition. They might do that in any case, look at what's happening to Christians right now in Muslim countries.

 

So does that make the invasion, occupation and ongoing ethnic cleansing of Palestine moral? What is your point?

 

Yeah, Christians are having an increasingly hard time down in the Middle East right now. After the whole age of colonialism, Cold War meddling and support of unpopular dictators, the recent wars and US enthusiastic support for Israeli war crimes, they are increasingly starting to think that Christians are the source of all evil. You can forgive them a bit for thinking so when you consider it must seem that way from their perspective. If only all Arabs could go to trips to the US, they would learn that American Christians do not sit all day and plot which countries to bomb next and do high-fives when they hear the Israeli army has shot another child. In fact most American Christians are probably 100% oblivious both about which ME dictators the CIA supported during which years, how many civilians have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan and about the situation in Israel. So it would be deeply unfair to characterize them as evil in any way.

 

So now you're justifying the persecution of Arab Christians by Arab Muslims by blaming it on Israel and the US? Truly you've sunk to a new low. Check out what they're are doing, since you're so into righteous indignation, it's a thousand times worse than anything Israel does to Palestinians, which is all done in self defense btw.

 

"Justification" - I think you need to check out what it means. I can obviously understand how people feel or think without agreeing with their actions.

 

I know rather well about the persecution of Christians in the ME (in Egypt and in Syria). I wouldn't say what has happened in Egypt and Syria is worse than what Israel has done to the Palestinians historically speaking. However these last 2 years have seen an extreme peak in violence against Christians in Egypt and Syria, in connection to the revolutions. We get to hear a lot about this in Sweden - we have large Christian community from the ME, for example the fourth highest population of Syriac Orthodox in the world, fascinatingly more than even in Lebanon. I'm really upset about a lot of stuff but frankly I also think it's not an interesting subject for discussion in itself, because all forum visitors will have the exact same opinions.

 

"Self defence"? That's just grand. What about I go to your place, kick you out and blow your house up in "self defence"? Obviously few of the issues I've raised can be adequately explained by self defence, but even if some can be explained by it, the point is moot. If I stole a car and stabbed the police officer who went to get it back from me, it would not be a problem related to my act of "self defence", it's another problem at the core entirely. If you go to a place, make an effort at ethnically cleansing the local population, continuously work at this afterwards, and then find out people are resisting violently, the core problem is not how you should defend yourself. Emphasizing that is just averting your eyes from the real problem.

[Walsingham]

A new thought occurs to me.

 

If Rosti and WoD will excuse my saying so, aren't they sick with the same illness that caused BOTH Christian and Palestinian and Jewish troubles?

 

The question of who is right or wrong  implies the obligation to deliver restitution of those wrongs. In personal affairs, and in a courtroom I am fiercely keen on justice. But across teeming millions of varying complicity, and in the court of speculation, how can there be any justice?

 

Perhaps this lay at the heart of why Mandela forgave the people who called themselves his enemies. Were they all his enemies? Did he oppose every one of them? What would revenge achieve? It would be mere gambling. With the very real possibility that he would become as bad as the worst of them by harming innocents.

 

Just so, what is the point of asking if a Christian acting here yesterday justifies a Christian being killed over there tomorrow? If a home taken in blood was taken before? It's all bollocks. An impossible assessment. The only way to act on these issues to demand no fresh atrocities today.

 

This is a new thought to me.

Edited December 14, 2013 by Walsingham

[Malcador]

Is a pretty good point, revenge is a cycle and so on.  Though convincing a side to just take it on the chin (most want the Israelis to do this) would be hard.  You get the sense that this conflict is great for both parties involved

[Wrath of Dagon]

@Wals I don't advocate revenge, only the right to self defense and justice.

 

"Self defence"? That's just grand. What about I go to your place, kick you out and blow your house up in "self defence"? Obviously few of the issues I've raised can be adequately explained by self defence, but even if some can be explained by it, the point is moot. If I stole a car and stabbed the police officer who went to get it back from me, it would not be a problem related to my act of "self defence", it's another problem at the core entirely. If you go to a place, make an effort at ethnically cleansing the local population, continuously work at this afterwards, and then find out people are resisting violently, the core problem is not how you should defend yourself. Emphasizing that is just averting your eyes from the real problem.

First, Palestine didn't belong to anyone before establishment of Israel, there was no Arab state there for hundreds of years. There was no ethnic cleansing, there was a brutal civil war with Jews fleeing from Arabs and Arabs fleeing from Jews. There was no cleansing afterwards, that's just a lie. Israel isn't just going to pick up and go away, any more than Americans or Australians or the blacks in South Africa for that matter. And so long as it exists, it has the right to self-defense, just like any other nation.

 

Edit: I've posted this before, but it's an interesting article : http://www.historynet.com/lashing-back-israel-1947-1948-civil-war.htm

Edited December 14, 2013 by Wrath of Dagon

[Walsingham]

And my point about justice in a case of nations? ...

[Rostere]

A new thought occurs to me.

 

If Rosti and WoD will excuse my saying so, aren't they sick with the same illness that caused BOTH Christian and Palestinian and Jewish troubles?

 

The question of who is right or wrong  implies the obligation to deliver restitution of those wrongs. In personal affairs, and in a courtroom I am fiercely keen on justice. But across teeming millions of varying complicity, and in the court of speculation, how can there be any justice?

 

Perhaps this lay at the heart of why Mandela forgave the people who called themselves his enemies. Were they all his enemies? Did he oppose every one of them? What would revenge achieve? It would be mere gambling. With the very real possibility that he would become as bad as the worst of them by harming innocents.

 

Just so, what is the point of asking if a Christian acting here yesterday justifies a Christian being killed over there tomorrow? If a home taken in blood was taken before? It's all bollocks. An impossible assessment. The only way to act on these issues to demand no fresh atrocities today.

 

This is a new thought to me.

 

I think this text is excellent. We should push towards having UN peacekeepers in Palestine, disarming Hamas in Gaza and making sure no crimes are committed in the West Bank. Then we should grant the Palestinian refugees the same right of return that Jews who haven't ever lived seen Israel have now. Then the long-term goal should be for them to live side by side, just as the whites and blacks do in today's South Africa.

 

This will however also take the same type of sanctions and pressure from the US and the EU as it took for South Africa.

 

@Wals I don't advocate revenge, only the right to self defense and justice.

 

"Self defence"? That's just grand. What about I go to your place, kick you out and blow your house up in "self defence"? Obviously few of the issues I've raised can be adequately explained by self defence, but even if some can be explained by it, the point is moot. If I stole a car and stabbed the police officer who went to get it back from me, it would not be a problem related to my act of "self defence", it's another problem at the core entirely. If you go to a place, make an effort at ethnically cleansing the local population, continuously work at this afterwards, and then find out people are resisting violently, the core problem is not how you should defend yourself. Emphasizing that is just averting your eyes from the real problem.

First, Palestine didn't belong to anyone before establishment of Israel, there was no Arab state there for hundreds of years. There was no ethnic cleansing, there was a brutal civil war with Jews fleeing from Arabs and Arabs fleeing from Jews. There was no cleansing afterwards, that's just a lie. Israel isn't just going to pick up and go away, any more than Americans or Australians or the blacks in South Africa for that matter. And so long as it exists, it has the right to self-defense, just like any other nation.

 

Edit: I've posted this before, but it's an interesting article : http://www.historynet.com/lashing-back-israel-1947-1948-civil-war.htm

 

There was no Arab state because first they were occupied by the Ottomans, and the by the British. That does not change the fact that those who lived there were predominantly Palestinians, most of the Muslims but some Christians. But then most Palestinians were driven out in a deliberate campaign of ethnic cleansing. That includes Christians - see this and this - Christmas trees have become the latest symbol of protest for Palestinian Christians who want to return their ancestral homes which have been demolished by state decrees at different points in history. Meanwhile, in Israel:

 

This issue first came to public attention two years ago when it was revealed that Shimon Gapso, the mayor of Upper Nazareth, had banned Christmas trees from all public buildings in his northern Israeli city.

 

“Upper Nazareth is a Jewish town and all its symbols are Jewish,” Gapso said. “As long as I hold office, no non-Jewish symbol will be presented in the city.”

 

But Gapso is not alone in his trenchant opposition to making even the most cursory nod towards multiculturalism. The city’s chief rabbi, Isaiah Herzl, has refused to countenance a single Christmas tree in Upper Nazareth, arguing that it would be “offensive to Jewish eyes”.

 

That view, it seems, reflects the official position of the country’s rabbinate. In so far as they are able, the rabbis have sought to ban Christmas celebrations in public buildings, including in the hundreds of hotels across the country.

 

A recent report in the Haaretz newspaper, on an Israeli Jew who grows Christmas trees commercially, noted in passing: “hotels – under threat of losing kashrut certificates – are prohibited by the rabbinate from decking their halls in boughs of holly or, heaven forbid, putting up even the smallest of small sparkly Christmas tree in the corner of the lobby.”

 

You who appear to care especially about Christians in various places all over the world: you should read that article and learn how Palestinian Christians are treated in a country which has long since gone off the rails in efforts to "Judaize" itself. The worst part is that far-right nationalism and religious fundamentalism seem to be constantly on the rise in Israel. The ultra-Orthodox Jews are also the fastest growing segment of the population (which has resulted in much resentment towards them from other Jews).

 

The 1948 ethnic cleansing is a fact, however you are right in that people among the Palestinians wanted the Jews gone in the same way. However that was not really what happened at all. After 1967 the Jews could settle freely anywhere in Palestine (using state decree to confiscate land and demolish villages if Palestinians lived there), while the Palestinians were confined to several areas. After this, Palestinian homes and villages have been demolished one by one as part of a deliberate strategy, "dunam by dunam", to drive them from their lands (in the Israeli Knesset, this is called handling the "demographic threat"). Most significantly, this includes ancient Palestinian parts of Jerusalem. If this all had happened at once, it would without a shadow of a doubt be called "ethnic cleansing". That is why I call it a continuous campaign of ethnic cleansing - the intentional uprooting of people of a certain race.

 

Personally I don't want the Jews to leave, in fact I don't even think that it is necessary to destroy the illegal settlements in the West Bank. If international peacekeepers had disarmed all factions in 1948, we could have had a South Africa-like multi-ethnic country there today. With all the aggression that has been built up, such a solution is now harder because it will take a longer time to get there, but I think the most sensible end solution to aim for is the return of all Palestinian refugees, the end of planned house demolitions and a united, democratic nation in the whole area of Palestine, without necessarily the destruction of illegal settlements but with a more even distribution of confiscated land and resources.

[Walsingham]

Firstly, I don't believe that the dynamics of the Mideast would have lead to a peaceful multi-ethnic state in Palestine any more than it has anywhere else in the region.

 

Secondly, what has this got to do with speaking out against terror and then being targeted for murder?

 

I guess the point is that modern terror tactics could polarise even your multi-ethnic state if it chose to. Kill all the moderates, provoke economic problems by destroying investor confidence. Bing bang bosh. Problem state.

 

I don't know if you'd noticed, Rosti. But dissident Republicans are RIGHT NOW attempting to derail NOrthern Ireland's peace process. I hope you're right, because otherwise the whole place is going back down the toilet. All to satisfy the 'justice' that WoD is keen on.

[Rostere]

Firstly, I don't believe that the dynamics of the Mideast would have lead to a peaceful multi-ethnic state in Palestine any more than it has anywhere else in the region.

 

Secondly, what has this got to do with speaking out against terror and then being targeted for murder?

 

I guess the point is that modern terror tactics could polarise even your multi-ethnic state if it chose to. Kill all the moderates, provoke economic problems by destroying investor confidence. Bing bang bosh. Problem state.

 

I don't know if you'd noticed, Rosti. But dissident Republicans are RIGHT NOW attempting to derail NOrthern Ireland's peace process. I hope you're right, because otherwise the whole place is going back down the toilet. All to satisfy the 'justice' that WoD is keen on.

 

Exactly. Both far-right Jewish factions and extremist Palestinian factions such as Hamas would likely try to sabotage relations by inflicting atrocities on the other side, and perhaps even in the worst case resorting to false-flag attacks on their own side, to shift opinion. I don't think that would be below some of the most brainwashed actors in this conflict. As you say, extremists on both sides are "betting" on having a Palestine free from the other side. For Hamas, this takes the shape of an unwillingness to enter negotiations and peace talks (hoping vainly to eventually secure a final military victory over Israel). For the far-right parties in the current Israeli government, this takes the shape of the continuous strategic house demolitions and institutionalized racism. This is why we need a strong (international and neutral) peacekeeping force in place for a long time, to ensure no atrocities are inflicted on either side. It will also be critical to advance this peace and unification process very slowly, in order to avoid instability.

 

Essentially, the peace hinges on pro-equality Jews and Palestinians choosing to align themselves with each other, instead of siding with their extremist brethren. There are already "peace villages" where Jews, Muslim and Christian Palestinians live side by side, all recognizing each other's right to coexist and the potential of cooperation (in addition to so-called "mixed cities" in Israeli terminology which often consist of a segregated Jewish modern city and under-prioritized Palestinian slums). However these are currently just small projects of "peace hippies", often harassed and derided as being unpatriotic traitors.

 

You've also got to realize that the dynamics of the ME are very much a product of the current situation in Palestine. Because of US payments to Israel to support the occupation and unwillingness to condemn Israeli war crimes, "The West" is easily made a punching bag and portrayed as a malevolent external force by autocratic leaders who need to demonize Western democracy to support their own despotism. Thus the situation in Palestine has slowly but steadily been polarizing "The West" and the Arab and Muslim world. Sadly this is only going to get worse if we don't do something.

 

In the 1970s, with the strength of the Communist ideology at the time, movements and leaders in the ME utilized Communist rhetoric to gain followers by viewing the war crimes in Palestine as committed by "capitalist imperialists". Thus the situation in Palestine was a powerful tool through which Communist movements could gain followers. Today, with the decline of Communism, the same types of autocratic leaders and terrorist cults are blaming the war crimes in Palestine on the entire Christian world for their complacency and complicity (using the ideology of militant Islamism), thus polarizing all Muslims against Christians and Jews (even though Christians were also victims of Zionism - but nobody said these guys were consistent). Exactly like you say Walsingham, the only way out of this is to prevent any future atrocities from occurring, from today onwards. That means using international pressure and international, neutral peacekeeping forces to stop Israeli house demolition and land confiscation, disarm Hamas and similar organizations and prevent all terrorist actions.

[Walsingham]

I don't think I have to realise that mideast dynamics are due to Israel. I think YOU have to realise that they are down to 1000s year old political and social mores, such as 'izzat'.

 

Zionist Israel is a blip on the history of the Mideast. I'm genuinely surprised you'd argue that the whole political and social trend of this region is due to it.

[Rostere]

Zionist Israel is a blip on the history of the Mideast. I'm genuinely surprised you'd argue that the whole political and social trend of this region is due to it.

 

Well, of course it has not changed the entire ME completely (sorry if it came across as that - I just meant that it was very important). But the situation there has been an important factor, since it is so crucial in deciding the relationship between the Muslim/Arab world and the US. I'd say the Cold War (for example) definitely has been more important for shaping the ME, without a shadow of a doubt.

 

Still the situation in Palestine has been one of the most important problems fundamentally changing how "the West" is perceived in the ME. It's possible 9/11 would never have occurred if it were not for the situation in Palestine, for example. Remember before the end of WW2 the British and the Americans were more like friends of the Arabs, the Arab public perception of the British was much different than it is today.

[Malcador]

 

I think this text is excellent. We should push towards having UN peacekeepers in Palestine, disarming Hamas in Gaza and making sure no crimes are committed in the West Bank. Then we should grant the Palestinian refugees the same right of return that Jews who haven't ever lived seen Israel have now. Then the long-term goal should be for them to live side by side, just as the whites and blacks do in today's South Afric

 

In this situation, feel for the nations that donate bodies to that mission.

[Zoraptor]

Still the situation in Palestine has been one of the most important problems fundamentally changing how "the West" is perceived in the ME. It's possible 9/11 would never have occurred if it were not for the situation in Palestine, for example. Remember before the end of WW2 the British and the Americans were more like friends of the Arabs, the Arab public perception of the British was much different than it is today.

 

Hmm. Not sure about 'friends' at all. The Brits (and French) had after all promised the arabs independence in WW1 then reneged spectacularly and betrayed their main arab ally after WW1 to boot. And a lot of the ethno religious and other conflicts happening now is because of those lines-drawn-on-maps countries much as it is in Africa.

 

Whether a pan arab state would definitely have been better is unknowable, of course. Once the hodge-podge approach had been decided upon Israel's creation certainly did not help matters.

[Rostere]

 

I think this text is excellent. We should push towards having UN peacekeepers in Palestine, disarming Hamas in Gaza and making sure no crimes are committed in the West Bank. Then we should grant the Palestinian refugees the same right of return that Jews who haven't ever lived seen Israel have now. Then the long-term goal should be for them to live side by side, just as the whites and blacks do in today's South Afric

 

In this situation, feel for the nations that donate bodies to that mission.

 

 

Indeed. But how can we achieve anything without an effort? If anything, the IDF's occupation of the West Bank actually shows that you can police a very large area without many casualties. Now imagine a police/military force whose goal is actually to improve on people's daily life instead of forcefully displacing them. I imagine the West Bank would be less dangerous than several UN missions, the same with Gaza once the initial clashes end.

 

In such a case, I'm much more worried about the Jewish religious fundamentalist settler groups. They make up a fairly large portion of the IDF, especially among officers. It is said that if a two-state (and certainly a one-state) peace deal is ever finalized and parts of the West Bank handed over to Palestinians, they will execute a military coup (similar to the Algiers putsch). It is doubtful that they succeed, but that scenario together with the possibility of far-right IDF elements fighting international peacekeepers is very daunting.

Edited December 15, 2013 by Rostere

[Rostere]

 

Still the situation in Palestine has been one of the most important problems fundamentally changing how "the West" is perceived in the ME. It's possible 9/11 would never have occurred if it were not for the situation in Palestine, for example. Remember before the end of WW2 the British and the Americans were more like friends of the Arabs, the Arab public perception of the British was much different than it is today.

 

Hmm. Not sure about 'friends' at all. The Brits (and French) had after all promised the arabs independence in WW1 then reneged spectacularly and betrayed their main arab ally after WW1 to boot. And a lot of the ethno religious and other conflicts happening now is because of those lines-drawn-on-maps countries much as it is in Africa.

 

Whether a pan arab state would definitely have been better is unknowable, of course. Once the hodge-podge approach had been decided upon Israel's creation certainly did not help matters.

 

 

Hmm.. I guess it's only things I've read about this for example which make me think that. Plus, the Zionists certainly thought in 1948 that the British were very Arab-friendly. In fact, I think I might know more about what Zionists thought about the British-Arab relationship than I know about how that relationship actually was.

 

It might have something to do with that initially, the foremost goal of the Zionists was forcing the British from Palestine by acts of terrorism. They certainly believed that the British and the Arabs were on the same side (which I guess they were back then).

 

Here's about Lehi from Wikipedia:

 

 

Lehi split from the Irgun militant group in 1940 in order to continue fighting the British during World War II. Lehi initially sought alliance with Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, offering to fight alongside them against the British in return for the transfer of all Jews from Nazi-occupied Europe to Palestine. On the belief that Nazi Germany was a lesser enemy of the Jews than Britain, Lehi twice attempted to form an alliance with the Nazis. During World War II it declared that it would establish a Jewish state based upon "nationalist and totalitarian principles". After Stern's death in 1942, the new leadership of Lehi began to move it towards support of Joseph Stalin's Soviet Union. In 1944 Lehi officially declared its support for National Bolshevism. It said that its National Bolshevism involved an amalgamation of left-wing and right-wing political elements – Stern said Lehi incorporated elements of both the left and the right – however this change was unpopular and Lehi began to lose support as a result.

 

Lehi and Irgun were jointly responsible for the massacre in Deir Yassin. Lehi assassinated Lord Moyne, British Minister Resident in the Middle East, and made many other attacks on the British in Palestine. On May 29, 1948, the Government, having inducted its activists members into the Tzahal, formally disbanded Lehi, though some of its members carried out one more terrorist act, the assassination of Folke Bernadotte some months later, an act condemned by Bernadotte's replacement as mediator, Ralph Bunche. Israel granted a general amnesty to Lehi members on 14 February 1949. In 1980, Israel instituted a military decoration in "award for activity in the struggle for the establishment of Israel," the Lehi ribbon. Former Lehi leader Yitzhak Shamir became Prime Minister of Israel in 1983.

 

Here's from an article detailing the initial Zionist armed struggle (before the transformation of the Irgun and Lehi terrorist groups to Israeli political bureaucracy):

 

 

Anglo-Arab relations were of vital importance to British strategic concerns both during the war and after, notably for their access to oil and to India via the Suez Canal. Britain governed or protected Oman, Sudan, Kuwait, the Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Yemen, had treaties of alliance with Iraq (the Anglo-Iraqi Treaty (1930) and The Anglo-Iraqi Treaty of 1948) and Egypt (Anglo-Egyptian Treaty of 1936). Transjordan was granted independence in 1946 and the Anglo-Jordanian Treaty of 1948 allowed Britain to station troops in Jordan and promised mutual assistance in the event of war.

 

What do you think?

[Zoraptor]

Two things I'd note, firstly, you can find many, many arabs who thought that British policy strongly favoured Zionists. That is usually the way in such conflicts, both sides are absolutely convinced that they're the injured party.

 

Secondly, there's a difference between having good relations with elites and good relations with arabs in general- having good relations with elites was practised throughout the Empire, eg in India. Britain had good relations with those countries, but up until WW2- and for some well after- it was more of a suzerain/ vassal relationship rather than anything else.

[Rostere]

Two things I'd note, firstly, you can find many, many arabs who thought that British policy strongly favoured Zionists.

 

Before 1948?

 

 

Secondly, there's a difference between having good relations with elites and good relations with arabs in general- having good relations with elites was practised throughout the Empire, eg in India. Britain had good relations with those countries, but up until WW2- and for some well after- it was more of a suzerain/ vassal relationship rather than anything else.

 

Indeed, but having a good relationship with elites does not necessarily make it more unlikely you have a bad relationship with the general populace, right? There are examples of where colonial powers were looked up to, before a violent struggle for independence started.

 

I really wish there was more information on the Internet about Arab opinion on Britain and the US before Israel, there seems to be awfully little written on the subject (in comparison to relations with the Zionists/Israel).

[Zoraptor]

I honestly cannot think of a single instance in which a colonised populace genuinely looked up to their coloniser. In most cases I'd suggest dull indifference would fit better. In most of the other some degree of antipathy. Here for example while whitey probably has some degree of affection for dear old blighty still there's a lot more antipathy from Maori- except the elites- plus a lot of indifference.

 

There was plenty of arab resistance in Palestine to the British. The British being biased against the Zionists is... well, if you got a rabid Morsi supporter and a rabid al-Sisi supporter and asked them who the US was supporting each would say the other in absolute sureness that they were right.

[BruceVC]

A new thought occurs to me.

 

If Rosti and WoD will excuse my saying so, aren't they sick with the same illness that caused BOTH Christian and Palestinian and Jewish troubles?

 

The question of who is right or wrong  implies the obligation to deliver restitution of those wrongs. In personal affairs, and in a courtroom I am fiercely keen on justice. But across teeming millions of varying complicity, and in the court of speculation, how can there be any justice?

 

Perhaps this lay at the heart of why Mandela forgave the people who called themselves his enemies. Were they all his enemies? Did he oppose every one of them? What would revenge achieve? It would be mere gambling. With the very real possibility that he would become as bad as the worst of them by harming innocents.

 

Just so, what is the point of asking if a Christian acting here yesterday justifies a Christian being killed over there tomorrow? If a home taken in blood was taken before? It's all bollocks. An impossible assessment. The only way to act on these issues to demand no fresh atrocities today.

 

This is a new thought to me.

 

I think the best solution to the Israeli and Palestinian conflict is for an organization like the UN to take ownership of all areas considered to be religiously significant and to allow both side rights to visit and pray at these areas

 

Its clear that neither side has the vision or political will to want to really compromise so remove responsibility for them having to resolve the issue, yes I know this won't happen but it would solve the debate around who is the legitimate owners of certain parts of land that is considered holy to there specific religion

[Meshugger]

I am sure the arabs and jews would more than likely to comply with that.