Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Israel slammed for child deaths


RoofGardener

Recommended Posts

It is a tragedy that Gazan children are suffering from long-term malnutrition. 

However, don't blame the Israeli's. Blame HAMAS. They are the genocidal fascist theocrats that have precipitated this situation.

Note that the Palestinian Authority, the "legitimate" representative of The Palestinians,  broadly support both the land - and sea - blockade ! 

Edited by RoofGardener
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Sir Smoke aLot said:

We are not talking about methamphetamine consumers and hippies.

Malnutrition isn't lack of food, it is the lack of nutritious food.  Grossly obese people can be "malnourished".  It's about an unhealthy diet.  While doc was correct on that, I find it difficult to blame Israel for the Palestinian seeming unwillingness to attempt to eat nourishing food.  I'd have to see some documentation that Israel is only allowing junk food empty calories into Gaza before I would agree with that claim.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, and then said:

I had it the first time.  We simply disagree and always will.  Why is that important to you?

Not at all. Disagreeing is normal and you and I disagree mostly but we have also some things we agree.

The one thing that I hate is when people pull the anti-semite card when one is against Israelie policies. The same way I hate it when muslims pull the xenophobe card when arab or predominantly muslim nations are critisized.

In both cases religion and policies or deeds are two seperate entities.

You are known for pulling the ani- semit card very quickly, that is why I had to relply.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, and then said:

Okay.  I admit I was wrong on that point.  I apologise.

Thanks, I appreciate it.

Quote

 Now, can you explain why the Palestinian aggressions against the Israelis are seemingly justified while the heavyhandedness of the IDF is wrong?  Because what I see MOST of the time in these discussions is exactly that attitude.

I do not think Palestinian aggression is justified.  I would say that also say that many Palestinians are being used as cynical bargaining chips/pawns by the like of Hamas.  I think that some of their aggression is a bad response to heavy handedness.  Again, not justified.  But violence begets violence.  Eye for an eye and all that.

What's the correct, proportionate response that IDF should have?  Geez, I honestly don't know.  In some cases (i.e. suicide bombing and rocket attacks) obviously strong military responses are completely justified. 

Quote

From my POV - as a self-described Christian Zionist who believes the Jews have a right to that land - the UN has bolstered unmitigated hatred and lopsided judgments against the state of Israel for nearly 70 years.  There is zero comparison with any other nation on the planet and there is no justification for that kind of overkill.  In fact, it is that very bias that protects Israel indirectly.  I also believe that the deal that was last offered to Arafat gave the lie to any claim that the Palestinians are willing to negotiate on a two-state arrangement, ever.

I agree that the UN has some bias against Israel.  Maybe they are still reeling from Zionist paramilitaries assassinating their mediator in 1948.  Certainly wouldn't be the longest grudge related to the region.  (I kid, of course.)

There is bias.  There are a lot of nations in the UN, and each have their own baggage.  The questions of "right to the land" absent religious considerations is a fairly fraught one.  And could doubtless be taken up in many other instances other than Israel.  The Middle East has always been a flashpoint for conflict, especially ethno-religous conflict.  

The failure of the Camp David talks probably shouldn't be laid solely on Arafat.  I mean, the entire thing was negotiation about a two-state arrangement.  So they were quite willing to negotiate.  I believe that there used to be majority support in both Palestine and Israel for a two-state solution.  Maybe less now?  Of course, the devil lurks in the details of what a two-state solution would be.

Edited by Doc Socks Junior
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/26/2019 at 7:54 PM, Sir Smoke aLot said:

You can not dismiss factual information which also includes some major companies like 'Big Blue' with allegations of Holocaust denial or by defame in general. David Irving and his work do not have place in Israel and Palestine conflict. 

Do you know what BUMP means?

On 6/26/2019 at 7:54 PM, Sir Smoke aLot said:

This is most basic knowledge about the issue and you can not dismiss it with allegations of ''Holocaust denial'' which doesn't have anything to do with Israel and Palestine conflict. Palestinians are not responsible for Holocaust or can they be blamed for Holocaust Denial.

Hilarious.  You clearly haven't spoken to enough Muslims on the issue of whether the holocaust happened or not.  When they are in Europe or the USA they will pay it lip service, but they don't believe it at home.  Palestinians include a lot of holocaust deniers, and have included a lot of Nazi sympathizers, starting with the Grand Mufti back in the day.

On 6/26/2019 at 7:54 PM, Sir Smoke aLot said:

So if Palestinians do not comply Israel has the right to build settlements on the occupied land, contrary to consensus of world's nations?  I can't bother with silly assumptions here, especially one in which you say that British equipped and prepared Jordan and Arabs to fight Israel. Are you aware that British mandate ensured that population is demilitarized? That alone made it easy for Zionists to forcefully take territory and such situation is preserved to this day.

Firstly, the British arms scoop initiative failed.  Is that so hard to fathom?  Secondly, you are clearly unaware of what happened in Jordan.  Go and look it up rather than claiming to want to hear my opinion and then not bothering to actually look into the truth of what I am saying.  If you don't know about this then don't even begin to pretend that you understand the history of the region.  LINK 

On 6/26/2019 at 7:54 PM, Sir Smoke aLot said:

You really want me to believe that Palestinians would be able to commit genocide against Israel? 

Palestinians favor genocide against the Jews to this day, and don't pretend otherwise.  Nothing has changed, they're filth.  You can pretend to yourself that it isn't the case, but the Jewish people know better, and anybody who has seriously engaged with the Palestinians knows that they want to kill as many Jews as possible, preferably all of them.  THIS is the main barrier to peace in the region, and frankly it makes all possibility of peace impossible, so why even try?

On 6/26/2019 at 7:54 PM, Sir Smoke aLot said:

Sarajevo was not hit, VRS positions were hit and those were on hills around the city. Pale is town outside of Sarajevo. You tell me that airplane bombs were actually falling on my head. Well maybe you are correct, how could i know.

Pale is considered to be within the greater metropolitain region of Sarajevo, and that means it is part of Sarajevo, in much the same way that Queens is part of NYC while being a separate municipality.  Secondly, as you are quite ready to dismiss my own eyewitness knowledge of what happened on the ground in Israel and Palestine, why should I pay even the slightest attention to your own claims to have been in Sarajevo? For all I know, you have never left your basement in Alabama.

On 6/26/2019 at 7:54 PM, Sir Smoke aLot said:

Oh but why do i even try... First you claim that statistics and history are inferior to personal experience and now you are teaching me about Sarajevo in 1990's? Can't have it both ways.

So where are the stats you claim to be referring to?  You never even presented them.  As to you having been in Sarajevo, again, if you won't listen to me about my time in Israel and the OT, why should I listen to you about Sarajevo?

As far as I am concerned, you are a defender of genocidal and incestuous child molesters and criminals, who pose as a resistance movement.  You have the moral credibility of Pravda.

Edited by Alchopwn
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

As far as I am concerned, you are a defender of genocidal and incestuous child molesters and criminals, who pose as a resistance movement.  You have the moral credibility of Pravda.

You have a lot of study to do if you want to talk about subjects like these. As i see it you are very lacking and i did show you more than enough respect and gave you time to prove that my assumptions about you were incorrect.

Maybe you were working, maybe you were not not online but it took you so damn long to make this excuse.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, odas said:

The one thing that I hate is when people pull the anti-semite card when one is against Israelie policies.

That's a new trend. It's not secret that Zionists are promoting ''new antisemitism'' theory for decades now. Just recently George Galloway got smeared and sacked because he said something against Israel.

Fact is that we are free to talk all we want and how we want about any country in the world and no matter how hard Israel tries to change that they will never accomplish such thing as to stop anyone from criticizing.

Actually it's double edged sword and i hope they all start to think about larger picture and start caring for Jewish people instead of regime and influence on worlds nations.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Sir Smoke aLot said:

You have a lot of study to do if you want to talk about subjects like these. As i see it you are very lacking and i did show you more than enough respect and gave you time to prove that my assumptions about you were incorrect.

Maybe you were working, maybe you were not not online but it took you so damn long to make this excuse.

 

It seems to me that Alchopwn has done his research, and has personal experience to boot. I also note that you don't attempt to refute any of his observations ! 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RoofGardener said:

It seems to me that Alchopwn has done his research, and has personal experience to boot. I also note that you don't attempt to refute any of his observations ! 

I got to give my 2 pfennings here.

Personnal experience tend to be subjective to bias. Research tend to be subjective too, if one researches only opinions that fitts the mind.

I have many bad experiences with muslims, christians, jews, hindus...

I have researched all the atrocities commited by all of them.

But, the fact is - they are all mostly good people who do not fitt the bad streem. And facts only matter, I like it or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, odas said:

I got to give my 2 pfennings here.

Personnal experience tend to be subjective to bias. Research tend to be subjective too, if one researches only opinions that fitts the mind.

I have many bad experiences with muslims, christians, jews, hindus...

I have researched all the atrocities commited by all of them.

But, the fact is - they are all mostly good people who do not fitt the bad streem. And facts only matter, I like it or not.

Well.. that's a fair point.. so far as it goes. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

It seems to me that Alchopwn has done his research, and has personal experience to boot. I also note that you don't attempt to refute any of his observations ! 

Excuse me but first he stated that experience is superior to research and then he does contrary to his own claim by saying how i was wrong about Sarajevo. After that he accuses me of the same thing. I like to discuss facts not to argue about personal experience.

On 6/22/2019 at 10:47 AM, Alchopwn said:

Think what you like.  I have actually lived in Israel, and I have formed my own opinions based on what I experienced.  I don't much like Israelis, but Palestinians are worse in every respect.

By well researched you mean this :

On 6/20/2019 at 8:07 PM, Alchopwn said:

The fact is that the DID have a say.  Not so much in the matter of the Balfour declaration, but it wasn't the Palestinians who initially objected to the plan, it was the British Foreign Office, who saw the creation of a Jewish state as the Jews hijacking their recently betrayed and stolen mandate.  The British then white anted relations between the Palestinians and the Jews.  After the British whipped up anti-Jewish sentiment, they then "listened to the Palestinian concerns" and started to roll back Jewish migration plans, but the trouble was already started.  

Which is wrong on many accounts, British promised Arabs a state because Arabs did fighting against Ottomans, promised that in 1915 and French too were included in many events. War effort by Arabs enormously helped the Allies. Regardless, another promise, that to Zionists was fulfilled. Promised in 1917, after their official promise to Arabs. So there goes credibility and favoritism is obvious.

'' Sir Edward Grey, Liberal Imperialism and the Question of British Responsibility for the First World War From the British Empire to the American Empire.

 “I'm sure that we can not redeem our honour by covering up our engagements, and pretending there is no inconsistency, we are placed in the most considerable difficulty by the Balfour Declaration itself. It promised, Zionist home with out prejudice to the rights of the population, and if 93. per cent of the population are Arabs, I do not see how you can establish anything other than an Arab Government." ''

Regardless of large support and connections which Zionists had and still have with British top officials there was some opposition and thanks to those good souls is this information all well preserved but one has to dig to get to it. Do not tell me that making allegations about Islam in order to whitewash others is equal to ''well researched''.

Edward Grey's memoirs hold a lot of information from this period but i'd like you to also take into account what Allenby was saying him self of that period. After you go through relevant information from the time before Lord Balfour and that when he came into position, then tell me about research and that Mr. Alchopwn does not trivialize things.

British officials, along with French who too promised Arabs their state at the time well they simply ignored that promise and have done what Zionists requested. I can not even describe how wrong this was, considering that world power broke his officially signed documents.

Balfour declaration and everything prior to wars with Arabs were only one sided aggression, ethnic cleansing and destruction of native population which had 93% majority. You told me a lot by this reply Roof, i look at you a bit differently from now on.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Sir Smoke aLot said:

Excuse me but first he stated that experience is superior to research and then he does contrary to his own claim by saying how i was wrong about Sarajevo. After that he accuses me of the same thing. I like to discuss facts not to argue about personal experience.

By well researched you mean this :

Which is wrong on many accounts, British promised Arabs a state because Arabs did fighting against Ottomans, promised that in 1915 and French too were included in many events. War effort by Arabs enormously helped the Allies. Regardless, another promise, that to Zionists was fulfilled. Promised in 1917, after their official promise to Arabs. So there goes credibility and favoritism is obvious.

'' Sir Edward Grey, Liberal Imperialism and the Question of British Responsibility for the First World War From the British Empire to the American Empire.

 “I'm sure that we can not redeem our honour by covering up our engagements, and pretending there is no inconsistency, we are placed in the most considerable difficulty by the Balfour Declaration itself. It promised, Zionist home with out prejudice to the rights of the population, and if 93. per cent of the population are Arabs, I do not see how you can establish anything other than an Arab Government." ''

Regardless of large support and connections which Zionists had and still have with British top officials there was some opposition and thanks to those good souls is this information all well preserved but one has to dig to get to it. Do not tell me that making allegations about Islam in order to whitewash others is equal to ''well researched''.

Edward Grey's memoirs hold a lot of information from this period but i'd like you to also take into account what Allenby was saying him self of that period. After you go through relevant information from the time before Lord Balfour and that when he came into position, then tell me about research and that Mr. Alchopwn does not trivialize things.

British officials, along with French who too promised Arabs their state at the time well they simply ignored that promise and have done what Zionists requested. I can not even describe how wrong this was, considering that world power broke his officially signed documents.

Balfour declaration and everything prior to wars with Arabs were only one sided aggression, ethnic cleansing and destruction of native population which had 93% majority. You told me a lot by this reply Roof, i look at you a bit differently from now on.

 

 

 

The Arabs DID get a state. It's called Transjordan. It was part of the original Mandate of Palestine. It was SUPPOSED to be the portion of the mandate allocated to Arabs... the entirety of what we now call the "West Bank" (and Gaza) was SUPPOSED to be allocated to the Jews. 

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

I also note that you don't attempt to refute any of his observations ! 

This deserves special treatment. I do not argue with bigotry and racist opinions and it is all evident from first exchange of posts between two of us. If i see anything solid which deserves my attention i would most certainly respond.

By your opinion, what was well researched and factual that needed to be refuted, show me i did not see anything like that.

And i have to say i am sorry @Alchopwn i mention you so much in this two posts and maybe in harsh language but i had to reply to attacks from others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

The Arabs DID get a state. It's called Transjordan.

Oh, ''the research'' again. You sound wiser when you speak about my mental state. [edit] to add: you are in UK go in that damn library and archives ;) 

Edited by Sir Smoke aLot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Sir Smoke aLot said:

This deserves special treatment. I do not argue with bigotry and racist opinions and it is all evident from first exchange of posts between two of us. If i see anything solid which deserves my attention i would most certainly respond.

By your opinion, what was well researched and factual that needed to be refuted, show me i did not see anything like that.

And i have to say i am sorry @Alchopwn i mention you so much in this two posts and maybe in harsh language but i had to reply to attacks from others.

I see... so you can arbitrarily allocate opinions as being "bigotry and racist"... and hence not argue with them ? 

VERY convenient, SSaL. 

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Sir Smoke aLot said:

Oh, ''the research'' again. You sound wiser when you speak about my mental state. [edit] to add: you are in UK go in that damn library and archives ;) 

You make no sense. 

So.. no change there :P:D 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

You make no sense. 

So.. no change there :P:D 

Syria and Trans Jordan was the name of territory promised to Arabs and there is no any question about what it includes. From Turkish mountains over to Gulf region. Syria in Arab stands for ''sea side of Arab land'', wording might be wrong.

You make claim that Trans Jordan, or let's say Jordan and Egypt - are Arab lands and that Palestine is Jewish and always was Jewish. That is wrong on many accounts. Read what was included in ''Treaty of Friendship'' and also my quotation in prior reply here, Arabs were 93% majority and Zionist myths and propaganda can not distort this fact.

So instead of making wild claims and accusations i made new topic about Balfour and that time period so let me hear your research, i love to learn, my job allows me time for reading, as much as i want so show me your superior research please.

You never reply to my points directly, maybe you did sometimes earlier but not anymore. Instead of making constructive conversation we waste time on BS. Everything which i posted and was factual and irrefutable every pro Israeli member just goes in to silence mode.

Thanks to the fact that i do not like to brag about that and that i do not sing praises of my little victories in all these years here - you thank me by shooting me with BS. You know very well about what i talk and about how many times you all just left discussions, no word, nothing... Not even laugh. 

So, go there and show me your research and teach me in Balfour topic, or make new topic it doesn't have to be early period of Israeli and Palestine conflict, pick anything but Balfour was one of the ''points'' made here.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/26/2019 at 12:54 PM, Doc Socks Junior said:

The questions of "right to the land" absent religious considerations is a fairly fraught one.  And could doubtless be taken up in many other instances other than Israel.

I think this is precisely the point.  While I believe that Israel (Jacob's descendants) have a right to that land in perpetuity, I also understand that the majority today think of the location of their title or deed (the Bible) to be a fantasy or fairy tale.  To each his own.  I understand why many well-meaning people will support the Palestinian cause.  What I don't accept as righteous is the double standard that many Palestinian supporters engage in.  They turn a blind eye to the crimes of the Palestinians or claim they are justified as an act of resistance while they fault any move Israel makes in self-defense.  It's pretty obvious for a reasonable person to detect.  There are two sides of support to this conflict and few minds will be changed, IMO.  I believe that the U.S. government will decide at some point to break with Israel and leave them to their fate.  I also believe that when that day comes, the world's attitude about Israel will be changed in the aftermath of the war that will occur.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Sir Smoke aLot said:

Which is wrong on many accounts, British promised Arabs a state because Arabs did fighting against Ottomans, promised that in 1915 and French too were included in many events. War effort by Arabs enormously helped the Allies. Regardless, another promise, that to Zionists was fulfilled. Promised in 1917, after their official promise to Arabs. So there goes credibility and favoritism is obvious.

The British promised the Hashemites control of Greater Arabia in order to get them to go to war.  The Hashemites had been naive, however, and had not taken adequate steps to fight the house of Ibn Saud, who were busy securing their control of Eastern Arabia while the Hashemites wasted their strength against the Ottomans in the West, for the Entente.  In fact the British DID make good on part of their promise, and today there is a Hashemite king on the throne of Jordan, but there is no unified Arabia.  As to who was the greater ally to the Entente, I think that Rothschild money was ever more powerful than a few thousand armed bodies in a desert somewhere.  Britain made a lot of promises it couldn't keep, and didn't really want to keep any, so they 1/2 to 1/3rd kept most of the promises to shut up their critics.  This is why I blame Britain for being the catalyst of the whole situation, just as in Nth Ireland, India/Pakistan, Iraq/Kuwait, and nearly all the rest of the world's ongoing international trouble spots.  It was all part of a deliberate  "divide and conquer" strategy the British Foreign Office employed so they would be seen as a necessary policing force in their colonies to maintain peace between hostile ethnic forces, and thus maintain their "legitimacy".  When asked to leave, the British would find ways to rev up the conflict when it became convenient.  It was a sleazy tactic, but more humane than the Russian alternative, and more effective than the French, and less bloodthirsty than the Spanish, Belgians, and Germans, so sleaziness aside, I think the British weren't stupid in their colonialism. 

By comparison, the USA has no workable doctrine for occupation and counter insurgency, even to this day, other than "Send een thuh good ol' boys an' hope fur thuh bey-ust".  I say this as an American, being critical of the USA.  It is clownish and horrible to watch the USA bungle occupation after occupation, even when they have more-or-less good intentions (I think getting rid of dictatorships is just fine).  I guess this is what happens when you send in kids who failed their IQ test to die in a foreign war.  I am not an American Exceptionalist, and I hate and fear the works of those who are, as they are going to get people killed for a silly illusion.  Where the USA does best is undeniably in the projection of soft power, i.e. culture imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/26/2019 at 3:16 AM, odas said:

No. Muslim, kkk, jewish, christian...I do not believe in propaganda regardless from whom it comes. I used to. But life thought me a lesson.

You SAY that you are immune to propaganda, and yet you seem to immediately accept info from some scources and reject info from others without making a proper justification as to why you're doing it.  I think you're suffering from cognitive dissonance on the issue of propaganda  LINK.  Don't feel bad, this isn't a harch criticism, it can happen to anybody.  In fact it is hard to avoid cognitive dissonance, as it is like a trojan horse bug on a computer system that lurks away undetected by the OS that lacks definition checks to catch it.  It is, however, one of the differences between a naive and an informed opinion that every intelligent person needs to be aware of and avoid.  The fact is, the media is riddled with propaganda, and they convieniently ignore facts that don't support their editorial  agenda, which is all too often so misinformed and stupid, that they barely realize they are producing propaganda, and think they are producing "truth".  When someone thinks they have the "truth" such that they won't listen to another opinion, they are drunk on their own ideology, and are no doubt stuck in an echo chamber, and there will be a terrible accident.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

You SAY that you are immune to propaganda, and yet you seem to immediately accept info from some scources and reject info from others without making a proper justification as to why you're doing it.  I think you're suffering from cognitive dissonance on the issue of propaganda  LINK.  Don't feel bad, this isn't a harch criticism, it can happen to anybody.  In fact it is hard to avoid cognitive dissonance, as it is like a trojan horse bug on a computer system that lurks away undetected by the OS that lacks definition checks to catch it.  It is, however, one of the differences between a naive and an informed opinion that every intelligent person needs to be aware of and avoid.  The fact is, the media is riddled with propaganda, and they convieniently ignore facts that don't support their editorial  agenda, which is all too often so misinformed and stupid, that they barely realize they are producing propaganda, and think they are producing "truth".  When someone thinks they have the "truth" such that they won't listen to another opinion, they are drunk on their own ideology, and are no doubt stuck in an echo chamber, and there will be a terrible accident.

Never said I was imune to propaganda, it's just that I don't believe everything that is said. There is a difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

Well.. that's a fair point.. so far as it goes. 

Within the 3% margin of error. Nobody is perfect, right?

I would love to have a beer with you one day. Would be great.

Edited by odas
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, odas said:

Never said I was imune to propaganda, it's just that I don't believe everything that is said. There is a difference.

Yes, nobody believes everything that is said, that is the easy part.  The hard part is actively separating the facts from fiction.  You have made the classic mistake of thinking that just because one group are apparently oppressed that their cause must be just.  The Palestinians are a failed bully culture who couldn't genocide the Israelis, and so they have set about internally genociding themselves thru corruption, sexual perversion, callous disregard for the lives of their children, and maintaining a lost war so that a criminal elite can retain social control.  They live without a future and die, just so a bunch of creepy thugs can feel like their balls are big.  The Marquis De Sade in writing "120 Days of Sodom" laid down a model for understanding Palestinian society.  Is Israel a perfect society?  Hell no.  I'm glad I don't live there anymore, but Israel is much better than their neighbors on nearly every measure, and their responses to the casual violence that their stupid savage neighbors think it is their right to visit upon Israel is more measured than I (and likely you) would be facing such regular provocation.  The media is always trying to paint the Palestinians as victims, but they victimise other Palestinians far more than Israel ever does, and we never hear about it because the truth is too ugly and <R> rated to report, and we, as a society might have to stop Jew baiting by proxy via supporting the Palestinians.

Edited by Alchopwn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

The British promised the Hashemites control of Greater Arabia in order to get them to go to war.  The Hashemites had been naive, however, and had not taken adequate steps to fight the house of Ibn Saud, who were busy securing their control of Eastern Arabia while the Hashemites wasted their strength against the Ottomans in the West, for the Entente.  In fact the British DID make good on part of their promise, and today there is a Hashemite king on the throne of Jordan, but there is no unified Arabia.  As to who was the greater ally to the Entente, I think that Rothschild money was ever more powerful than a few thousand armed bodies in a desert somewhere.  Britain made a lot of promises it couldn't keep, and didn't really want to keep any, so they 1/2 to 1/3rd kept most of the promises to shut up their critics.  This is why I blame Britain for being the catalyst of the whole situation, just as in Nth Ireland, India/Pakistan, Iraq/Kuwait, and nearly all the rest of the world's ongoing international trouble spots.  It was all part of a deliberate  "divide and conquer" strategy the British Foreign Office employed so they would be seen as a necessary policing force in their colonies to maintain peace between hostile ethnic forces, and thus maintain their "legitimacy".  When asked to leave, the British would find ways to rev up the conflict when it became convenient.  It was a sleazy tactic, but more humane than the Russian alternative, and more effective than the French, and less bloodthirsty than the Spanish, Belgians, and Germans, so sleaziness aside, I think the British weren't stupid in their colonialism. 

By comparison, the USA has no workable doctrine for occupation and counter insurgency, even to this day, other than "Send een thuh good ol' boys an' hope fur thuh bey-ust".  I say this as an American, being critical of the USA.  It is clownish and horrible to watch the USA bungle occupation after occupation, even when they have more-or-less good intentions (I think getting rid of dictatorships is just fine).  I guess this is what happens when you send in kids who failed their IQ test to die in a foreign war.  I am not an American Exceptionalist, and I hate and fear the works of those who are, as they are going to get people killed for a silly illusion.  Where the USA does best is undeniably in the projection of soft power, i.e. culture imo.

That has nothing to do with what rights Arabs were promised and what rights they naturally had in the region. Arabs expected independence for which they fought hard so regardless of them being naive or not, but the fact is that Arab leaders of the time, at least those who communicated with the powers, like Feisal, they indeed had no belief that powers would fulfill their promises and for that reason he tried to make deal with Ottomans too.

Regardless of his connection with Lawrence, intelligence officer at the time. Region in question is today's Syria, Jordan and parts of Saudi Arabia. So it was very large and had plenty of manpower to play a role in events which followed, which lead to taking Damascus and opened way to make desired independent Arab state.

To Abdullah it was only autonomy which was given in Jordan and independence in Jordan happened only in late 1940's so i am not sure how that could constitute ''promise being partly fulfilled''?

There was indeed divide and conquer, i agree and formally in Sykes-Picot agreement, while debated (especially in contrast with earlier Mchanon deals) was certainly made to undermine any strong opposition among native population. But divide and conquer tactics are applied everywhere through all history and still does, both in relationships of small groups of people and in geopolitics, globally. That is nothing special, just the way people function in their fight for power.

My point is that since late 1800's Zionist organization played large role in politic decisions regarding the region. Israel and whole idea of Jewish homeland did not arise with forming of the State of Israel but a lot earlier and it is beyond doubt that powers, mainly Britain and France - showed large favoritism towards Zionists, regardless of everything which happened in the region because it was almost natural connection of business partners, family connection etc. while Arabs had to wait for decades for their first delegation to come in Britain.

You also have to take into account that after British failed to get Feisal's signature they stopped supporting him. Another ally of the British were Saud's, and with support from powers they managed to take over whole of Husain's kingdom. So it wasn't because of naive behavior but because of shifted support that Sauds took over. That alliance with House of Saud is evident to this day especially with silence over Yemen and both Israel and Saudis are products of the same powers who shaped the region in early 1900's.

So you are wrong to say that ''Sauds won because Feisal was naive''. They won because British withdrew support from Faisal and supported Sauds. So it's important to take that into account too.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/29/2019 at 8:47 PM, Sir Smoke aLot said:

That has nothing to do with what rights Arabs were promised and what rights they naturally had in the region. Arabs expected independence for which they fought hard so regardless of them being naive or not, but the fact is that Arab leaders of the time, at least those who communicated with the powers, like Feisal, they indeed had no belief that powers would fulfill their promises and for that reason he tried to make deal with Ottomans too. Regardless of his connection with Lawrence, intelligence officer at the time. Region in question is today's Syria, Jordan and parts of Saudi Arabia. So it was very large and had plenty of manpower to play a role in events which followed, which lead to taking Damascus and opened way to make desired independent Arab state. To Abdullah it was only autonomy which was given in Jordan and independence in Jordan happened only in late 1940's so i am not sure how that could constitute ''promise being partly fulfilled''?

LOL, I hope you don't think I am defending the British Foreign Policy in the Middle East 1920s-1950s.  I am analyzing it from a position of pragmatic power politics, where morality is something that is at most a veneer.  I don't know if the Hashemites would have been good rulers of a united Middle East, but they could hardly be worse than the present tangle of rogues, perverts and dictators.  In fact, to be completely fair, the Jordanian monarchy is a regional model of propriety and decency (but then the bar isn't exactly set very high, now is it?). The Hashemites of the early 20th Century seemed a lot more willing to be cosmopolitain and outward looking than any other regional power, and it is a shame about what happened to them. Was the promise in any way fulfilled?  The British at best can be said to have paid lip service to it.  Jordan is a poor country and a bad piece of land, and becoming British puppets was a sad fate for the Hashemites.  The Hashemites got diddled by Britain, it's a matter of public record that I don't dispute in the slightest.

On 6/29/2019 at 8:47 PM, Sir Smoke aLot said:

There was indeed divide and conquer, i agree and formally in Sykes-Picot agreement, while debated (especially in contrast with earlier Mchanon deals) was certainly made to undermine any strong opposition among native population. But divide and conquer tactics are applied everywhere through all history and still does, both in relationships of small groups of people and in geopolitics, globally. That is nothing special, just the way people function in their fight for power.

 I am glad you agree in part.  Just saying that divide and conquer tactics have been applied elsewhere doesn't do adequate justice to the viciousness and effectiveness of Britain's use of divide and conquer across its colonies.  Let's take another look...

India/Pakistan.  Northern Ireland.  Iraq/Kuwait.  Israel/Palestine.  Sudan/South Sudan, Greek vs Turkish Cyprus, Nigeria-Biafra etc...  All former British Colonies.  All set up to fail in the post-War period of British Decolonization, by the British Foreign Office, so the British could "do the civilized thing" and go in to re-assert control.  Of course the policy failed, but the manufactured troubles remain as ongoing "bleeding sores" on the International landscape that "never heal".  The British were clever about running their empire, and this was a deliberate strategy to allow them a means and a reason to return, when the new countries became failed states.  Other powers have not been so sneaky during decolonization, and have normally been kicked out with flaming trousers, the USA included.

On 6/29/2019 at 8:47 PM, Sir Smoke aLot said:

My point is that since late 1800's Zionist organization played large role in politic decisions regarding the region. Israel and whole idea of Jewish homeland did not arise with forming of the State of Israel but a lot earlier and it is beyond doubt that powers, mainly Britain and France - showed large favoritism towards Zionists, regardless of everything which happened in the region because it was almost natural connection of business partners, family connection etc. while Arabs had to wait for decades for their first delegation to come in Britain.

And you don't see this as a deliberate and ruthlessly cunning descision by the British to destabilize the region and thus make themselves indispensable as Imperial peacekeepers?  I just want to underline this.  While the Jews probably thought that their hard won lobbying, financial and political victories were a reward they had earned, they too had been played as patsies by the British Foreign Office.  Remember that this was an Empire that was routinely able to control 2 million colonized tribal people with a company of 100 riflemen and one well-trained district magistrate.  I think the British Foreign Office has forgotten more about managing insurgencies than the USA has ever known, and that is to say nothing of the byzantine diplomatic juggling act that Britain maintained to keep itself dominant for centuries on the global scale.  I think you are playing up the importance of the Zionists and underplaying the evil genius of the Imperial British.  That being said, the British often governed people better than they, historically speaking, were ever capable of governing themselves (which is a bit sad).

On 6/29/2019 at 8:47 PM, Sir Smoke aLot said:

You also have to take into account that after British failed to get Feisal's signature they stopped supporting him. Another ally of the British were Saud's, and with support from powers they managed to take over whole of Husain's kingdom. So it wasn't because of naive behavior but because of shifted support that Sauds took over. That alliance with House of Saud is evident to this day especially with silence over Yemen and both Israel and Saudis are products of the same powers who shaped the region in early 1900's.

This is an interesting point of M.E. regional politics, and I am pleased you have raised it, as it often goes unremarked.  The rise of the house of Saud was indeed marked by British Diplomacy, but initial contacts were wary by both sides.  The Sauds were always far more suspicious of the British than the Hashemites.  This was the Sauds were Salafists, and more fundamentalist Islamic, and thus always more xenophobic than the Hashemites.  The Sauds were definitely less naive, but they were also less in a position to recieve British aid (were it ever forthcoming).  In fact the British, in retrospect, would have done better to support the Hashemites to the hilt, and thus have gained a powerful western-looking long term regional ally, but Britain was still mentally playing the colony game of "manipulating savages", and failed to see what they were actually doing.  Remember that Britian did get Iraq and Kuwait, and that meant unrestricted commercial access to the Ramalia Oil field, which was the largest in the world.  It might be noted that Saudi suspicion and xenophobia made for careful Sadui diplomacy and managed to maintain the independence of the Kingdom in a time when any major power may have intervened to snuff them out at any time.  On the other hand, the House of Saud is a completely reprehensible pack of perverted, murderous, religiously bigoted bandits to this day, and I think the world would have been well rid of them.

On 6/29/2019 at 8:47 PM, Sir Smoke aLot said:

So you are wrong to say that ''Sauds won because Feisal was naive''.

LOL, reconsider.  Feisal was naive to think that the British would support him against the Saudis.  The British only wanted his support against the Ottomans in WW1.  Once that was over, that alliance came to be seen more as a nuisance than an opportunity by Britain.  Feisal seriously thought that he was going to get British support in his civil war, when it was very clear very early that this wasn't going to be the case, and T.E. Lawrence told Feisal that with tears in his eyes if I recall in 1918.  As Feisal lost his grasp on Western Arabia, it was touted that the Hashemites would get some portion of the north, and eventually they were handed Jordan as a consolation prize.  The British all but washed their hands of the Hashemites when the jumped ship to court the House of Saud.  How is that not Feisal being naive?  Not seeing the treachery in the wind far earlier would have been the sign of a less naive ruler.  The fact is that there were ample signs of impending British treachery when Britain established relations with the House of Saud in 1915, and Feisal should have been far more outraged about Britain courting his regional enemies.  For its part, the British regarded the local savages as simply a means to an end, and whichever helped it meet that end faster became the preferable choice.  I stand by the naivetee of Feisal.  Had he concentrated his forces on beating Saud, and paid lip service to the British in return for guns, the Hashemites would have won the war for control of Arabia.  Instead he plowed his forces into a war against the Turks that made him a worthless friend in Britian, and lost him greater Arabia.

On 6/29/2019 at 8:47 PM, Sir Smoke aLot said:

They won because British withdrew support from Faisal and supported Sauds. So it's important to take that into account too.

I think you are wildly overstating the support that Britiain showed for Saud.  While the relationship developed, the Sauds never kept the British all that close, and never fought for them.  The British tried to cultivate the Saudis as clients, but the Saudis were never taken in to the point where they lost perspective on their own best interests, and served the British.  In this regard, the British always came courting the Saudis from a position of weakness, as Ibn Saud was used to dealing with treachery and slow to favor any potential ally who hadn't proven themselves many times.  This was a lesson that highlights Feisal's naivetee.

It is certainly an interesting piece of history, but I do fear we are off topic.

Edited by Alchopwn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.