Palestine

[Octavious]

Bless...

Ever heard of the expression "flogging a dead horse"? But if you want to keep arguing for your pet idea that's as unworkable as it's undesirable then by all means continue

[orathaic]

The more viable solution would be handing the West Bank back to Jordan. But as far as I'm aware, Jordan is fed up with Palestine (large numbers of Palestinian refugees still live in Jordan, and the expense of war with Israel has not been forgotten).

[Randomizer]

You forgot the two Palestinian assassination attempts against the late King Hussein of Jordan, the Black September conflict (1970) where they fought for control of Jordan, and being believed to be behind other attacks against the Jordanian government. Some people bear grudges for decades.

[orathaic]

Didn't forget, had never heard of it... Thanks.

[yavuzovic]

Hooligannon, I understand that British governed badly and did many mistakes on other's lands and I agree that it was their fault to direct Jewish disapora to Palestine. Even if it was their historical land, it was no longer and actually the land belongs to the people living on it rather than some historical owners (Can you give back America to natives ?). However be realistic, you can't just expect them to accept your solution. I think not even the Palestinians will accept this. Instead you can expect Britain to fund a new state for both nations. Neither Palestine nor Israel seems to work for the current situation (unless they decide to cover both nations - which I would expect from Israel, the stronger state but they don't seem to mind that a lot). A new state established by UN (?) could cover both nations and we could force Britain to fund something so they could pay some of the damage they caused.

[orathaic]

The comparison with American Aboriginal peoples is rather apt. You can indeed give them autonomy over their own lands, respect treaty rights negotiated a few hundred years ago, and not build oil pipelines across their lands without their agreement.

On the other hand, has the UN ever established a new state and seen success?

Like thinking of recent countries, South Sudan - established by the South Sudanese, and a civil war with Sudan, recognised by the UN.
Kosovo - like South Sudan, but not recognised by many opponents of unilateral separation of states.
Iraq - new regime established by the US and resulted in a deep insurgency and Iranian influence...

The list goes on, back until you get to the mandate of Palestine... And look how we'll that turned out.

[taylor4]

Have I missed the alleged poisoning of Arafat hereinabove?

[Octavious]

Hooligannon, I understand that British governed badly and did many mistakes on other's lands and I agree that it was their fault to direct Jewish disapora to Palestine. Even if it was their historical land, it was no longer and actually the land belongs to the people living on it rather than some historical owners (Can you give back America to natives ?). However be realistic, you can't just expect them to accept your solution. I think not even the Palestinians will accept this. Instead you can expect Britain to fund a new state for both nations. Neither Palestine nor Israel seems to work for the current situation (unless they decide to cover both nations - which I would expect from Israel, the stronger state but they don't seem to mind that a lot). A new state established by UN (?) could cover both nations and we could force Britain to fund something so they could pay some of the damage they caused.

Absolutely. We shall allocate some of the compensation we get from Italy for the crimes of Rome, and combine that with the funding from the Norway and Denmark Viking apology initiative, and make sure the money gets put to work as soon as we get it

[MajorMitchell]

Hoorah for some interesting reading.
I rather liked Jamiet99uk's harsh assessment of Israel as not giving a shit about international law & Palestinian lives & thought well.i might suggest that the observation might be made that significant numbers of Palestinians don't give a shit about international law and Israeli and Palestinian lives as the hard line leadership on the Palestinian side have used their own people as cannon fodder and human shields..eg using schools as rocket launcher sites then whining in international media etc when a targeted response hits the Rocket launch sites.
As for this blame it western powers stuff, how far back shall we take it? Obviously the 21st century UK has to make recompense for Richard 1st's slaughter of prisoners at Acre, shall we start our fantasy list there? Of course before the wicked western powers arose those regions were so much better run by their citizens.. the home of great enlightened & compassionate ancient powers where all had civil rights(????).. the Babylonians, Egyptians who both enslaved the Israelites, the Hellenic nations, and the Phoenicians​~Carthage & Rome.
The Arabs and Israelis are all Abraham's seed so that bloomin' Biblical Grain Merchant has a lot to answer for imho.
Nevertheless we can use the existing nations in the region as a guide as to the capacity of indigent persons to collaboratively govern themselves with such wonderful help from other nations for a guide on how long it might take for them to resolve their few minor outstanding problems and come up with an estimate of maybe eight to umpteen centuries before their bloody squabbling before bedtime ceases....there are no doubt more pessimistic views on that.

[MajorMitchell]

I also make the provocative suggestion that a lot of powerful players in the middle Easter nations have no genuine desire at all for peaceful coexistence and tolerance etc.. they're much more willing to keep the bloodshed, violence and divisiveness going on as long as possible.

[MajorMitchell]

Haha, the auto scriptcorrecting thingy changed eastern nations to Easter nations.

[orathaic]

Mitchell, given the context, that is a oddly shitty aruument.

The question isn't what historical wrongs have been done, and who is to blame. The question is what is happening today to cause people suffering.

And if countries knew there would be consequences for shitty actions, then perhaps they wouldn't allow themselves be so shitty.

Like take the complete inaction of the UN Security Council over the war onYemen. Today, children starve, while the powers who have the capacity to end it do nothing (not that we would agree with what action to take, most likely), or sell arms to their preferred side (I know that most of the largest arms producers in the world had permanent security Council seats... Though the figures may have changed in recent years - irrc Germany and Italy are currently selling more arms than in the 90s)

[MajorMitchell]

That's it, they're begging for arms and doing anything to purchase armaments to kill each other with and armaments producers have corrupted their governments and others to support the arms sales.
Collectively we spend way too much of the wealth produced each year globally on armaments and the line between "legitimate" and unlawful armaments sales is often a self serving confection.
But there it is, the nation in which I live Australia is being bullied by the PRC totalitarian state for not obediently Kow Towing before their dictatorial schwinehund rulers. So what choice do we have but to spend on armaments and foreign aid to vulnerable small Pacific nations also getting targeted by the PRC?

[yavuzovic]

I understand your point orathaic. We can't blame today's UK for the bad government of colonial England, yes I accept your point here because you are right.
You also said UN doesn't establish successful states. Maybe they can force one of the existing countries (Israel in this context) to make a home for the nations in conflict. Will the situation get worse than today? And even if we find the perfect solution, UN is an establishment of countries and I don't know a single country who will prefer the good to their interest.

[Octavious]

7th Feb 1920

The Situation in Palestine.

THE legitimate aspirations of the Zionists naturally appeal to our sympathies. To restore " a people without a land to a land without a people " is an attractive task, which may well be regarded as a public duty. The idea of a Jewish State, embracing the Promised Land of the days of Moses, and becoming the centre of Jewish nationalism and culture, had captured the imagination of many people before Mr. Balfour made his important pronouncement. Inexorable facts are, however, too often the enemies of great ideas, and unless the realities of the situation in Palestine are understood, we shall be faced with the certainty of grave trouble involving serious military commitments.

The historical claim of the Jews to a portion of Syria is based upon far distant conquest, and upon a rule of between thiee and four centuries—a very short span in the annals of the Old World. Palestine has long ceased to be a Jewish country, and at the present time the population consists approximately of : Moslems, 515,000 ; Jews, 65,300 ; Christians, 62,500 ; others, 5,050. The land, therefore, is not without a people ; the Jews are in a small minority, and their claims to a dominant position are regarded with intense hostility by Moslems and Christians alike. This hostility is in fact a bond of union between these two communities, which live together in harmony in spite of the traditional enmity of the Crescent and the Cross. The Holy Places of Palestine are objects of devout reverence to the great mass of Christians throughout the world, while among Moslems Jerusalem ranks equal to or above Medina in sanctity. Religious sentiment of incalculable force thus combines with racial conditions to oppose the projects of the Zionists.

In a most misleading article recently published, Lieutenant-Colonel Patterson, D.S.O., the commander of one of the two Jewish battalions raised during the war, states that " the Beduin question will in course of time settle itself either by equitable purchase or by the Beduin's desire for the nomadic life which he will find over the border in the Arab State." There could be no more dangerous fallacy than is embodied in this sentence. The term " Arab " or " Beduin " is resented by the Syrian Mohammedans, some of whom have become Christians, and it includes many representatives of other than Arab races upon whom the Moslem faith was forced by conquest. Agriculture is almost the sole Industry of the country, and the percentage of the three principal communities thus employed is : Mohammedans, 69 ; Christians, 46 ; Jews, 19. The so-called Beduin is, therefore, the principal cultivator of the land, and the Jew is nowhere. The strong probability is that, under just and orderly government, the nomads of Palestine would settle down to agriculture, and that others from beyond the Jordan would be attracted to the land. Some of the Jewish colonists have successfully engaged in garden and vineyard culture ; but even in this department they have been excelled by Christians, and they do not undertake the production of cereals. The theory of Colonel Patterson, that the Jews are to come into Palestine as capitalists in order to acquire the land of the people " by equitable purchase " and to oust the Moslem cultivators, violates the most elementary principles of sound policy, and would, if accepted, lead to violent outbreaks against the Jewish minority.

In such conditions, it must be evident that the only Zionists who can safely be admitted to Palestine must be selected as expert cultivators willing to go on the land, or persons with special qualifications able to undertake practical activities necessary for the development of the country. To accord to them any favoured position in the future Government would be to court disaster. Palestine is a land of great possibilities ; but for some time no large influx of colonists is practicable. Irrigation, for which the Jordan offers facilities, afforestation, a restoration of the old terrace cultivation, and the creation of a good port on the Mediterranean can do much to enable the country to maintain an increased population in prosperity and contentment ; but the process must be gradual. There is rich soil in places, and a considerable area now barren can be brought under cultivation ; but a great part of Palestine will remain unfruitful, and the country as a whole is not comparable with parts of India or with Mesopotamia from the point of view of fertility. The British conquest and occupation have brought new railways and roads which will help the progress of the country. More, however, are needed, and while capital is required, it is most undesirable and unnecessary that it should all come from Jewish sources. Malaria is a curse of Palestine, and medical services on a large scale must be provided to atone for the neglect of centuries.

By the irony of fate, responsibility for the future of Palestine appears to have fallen upon us, and the problems involved are far more complex and difficult than those of Mesopotamia. The reluctance of America to share the white man's burden in the East will add enormously to the demands upon our statesmanship, and the long delay in settling the question of Syria has aggravated all the difficulties. The advent of an American Com- mission gave rise to the belief that a Protectorate by the United States was imminent, and Syrians generally welcomed this solution, which they understood was favoured by Great Britain. Latterly widespread resent- ment has been caused by indications that the establish- ment of a Jewish State is contemplated, and nothing is better calculated to arouse the fanaticism of Moslems in Syria and in India than the prospect of Jerusalem under Jewish control.

A plain declaration of policy is urgently required, and it can be based only upon the goodwill of the present population, whose rights must be respected. While Jews of the right type can be admitted to the Protectorate, it would be most dangerous to give them preferential treatment in the Administration, and if they were to become a separate class monopolizing trade and finance, which would cause them to be accredited with interests at variance with those of the cultivators, we should quickly be forced to deal with a violent Mohammedan revolt in which Christians would probably participate, and the effects would not be confined to Palestine. There could be nothing more unfortunate than the necessity of maintaining a large garrison in the Protectorate ; and to be obliged to employ it against the rightful owners of the soil, driven to insurrection by the actions of a minority, would be disastrous. For the present, the only safe course is to govern Palestine in paternal fashion, like an Indian province before the advent of Mr. Montagu, utilizing native agency as far as possible, building up Municipalities and Rural Councils, and carefully developing education. There is fine work to be accomplished, and if the right type of administrator is selected, peace and prosperity will he assured. While the immigration of sound Jewish elements may help the rebuilding of Palestine, the erection of a Zionist State is for the present an impossibility

[orathaic]

I understand your point orathaic. We can't blame today's UK for the bad government of colonial England, yes I accept your point here because you are right.
You also said UN doesn't establish successful states. Maybe they can force one of the existing countries (Israel in this context) to make a home for the nations in conflict. Will the situation get worse than today? And even if we find the perfect solution, UN is an establishment of countries and I don't know a single country who will prefer the good to their interest.

I was not the one who made the case for restitution.

I did argue that it is disengenuous to call for all historical wrongs to be righted, merely claiming that Palestinians suffering today are not the same as Anglo-Saxons harmed by Viking invasion a thousand years ago. Because we can do something about Palestine today (ie boycotting Israeli good produced in the occupied territories).

A boycott helped end Apartheid in SA. Modern UK citizens could take the initiative and talk to their MPs about supporting such a boycott.