General Politics Thread

[Ad Lib]

This is quite interesting about the motives of the Balfour Declaration from a fairly impeccable source. Basically money and getting the Yanks onside in WW1.

 

https://www.rothschildarchive.org/contact/faqs/walter_rothschild_and_the_balfour_declaration

The Balfour Declaration used deliberately vague language. The term “national home†was chosen in order to minimize the Zionist dream, to make Palestine a Jewish state.

This goes more than just a little bit at odds with what you were suggesting above when you said:

 

An absurd bit of nit picking there. How exactly do you think the Zionists interpreted the letter?

In order to suggest that I was not correct when I was pointing out, on the question of substance, that:

 

The Balfour Declaration did not involve the establishing of a Jewish state, let alone the partition of Mandate territory. Like, read it. It was about the UK promising to lift some immigration controls so that a relatively modest number of Jews from Europe could set-up communities in the Mandate, subject to the rights of, mainly, Arabs in the area not being undermined in the process. It wasn't even close to advocating statehood and at best was taking baby steps towards multiple autonomous rule of different communities within a territory of the British empire. The closest (but imperfect) analogue I can think of in terms of the substance of the proposals in terms of self government is the failed statelets the UN drew up for Bosnia in the aftermath of the Slovenian and Croat independence movements.

It bears no resemblance to what the UN came up with and by no possible definition advocated the creation of Israel.

[welshbairn]

This goes more than just a little bit at odds with what you were suggesting above when you said:

 

In order to suggest that I was not correct when I was pointing out, on the question of substance, that:

 

 

You missed out this bit.

 

 

 

Surprisingly, the British by and large kept their word, and for at least two decades until the outbreak of the Second World War they allowed the Zionist movement to bring hundreds of thousands of Jewish immigrants into Palestine. These new arrivals set up hundreds of settlements, including several towns as well as the political, economic, military and cultural infrastructure of the future state of Israel.

[HaikuHibee]

Fine let me explain it to you. I really don't want to, because it is yet another large essay from you.

 

The Balfour Declaration set in stone the British policy in the Palestinian territories, encouraged migration of Jewish people to Israel in the inter-war period, had a huge role in the birth of Palestinian nationalism and was certainly the basis for the British position immediately post-war that led to the 1947 Partition Plan.

 

Your argument that the Balfour Declaration did not 'intend' to create Israel is based on your belief. If they did not intend to do it, the British clearly thought they could control the Jewish minority in Palestine in perpetuity as a result of the declaration or were just incredibly stupid.

Edited May 1, 2016 by HaikuHibee

[Peppino Impastato]

Not only that but Britain itself took control swathes of the Middle East reneging on promises made to Arabs during the First World War. There's also the fact that Britain has been one of the most anti-semitic countries on the planet and banned immigration of Jews to the UK for centuries. 

 

Winston Churchill had a fairly negative view of Jewish people. Britain had its own plans for Palestine and cannot be said to have helped matters in the region at all.

 

 

Not only that Churchill also had a fairly negative view of Scottish people too.  Yay UK.

 

Not to mention the fact he was an alcoholic racist who called Indians 'beasts' and said they deserved the famine we exacerbated causing the deaths of 29 million people.  Then was voted Brit of the century.

[Peppino Impastato]

What's cheery about this thread is that I think it's established that you can discuss Zionism and the origins and justifications for the State of Israel in a critical fashion without being labeled a hateful anti semite. 

 

 

I think there are only two chief concerns regarding the West Bank.  I mean the settlements are built, the wall in place, they've been there over half a century, some of them have even had kids!!!! (Making them indigenous obviously)

 

 

So self-determination and democracy means no state for the pallys I'm afraid, its only right and proper.

[Ad Lib]

You missed out this bit.

I didn't "miss it out". That's entirely consistent with what I said. It was about resettlement, not statehood. That they took advantage of it is neither here nor there.

This is where the analogy I gave with reference to Alex Salmond is a sound one. He welcomed the Scottish Parliament as it gave Scotland #moarpowers and he believes that Scotland should govern its own affairs (see also, Zionists believing that Jews should self-govern). Salmond supported devolution despite the fact that some of its most prominent advocates said it would #killnationalismstonedead (note the analogue there with the UK very specifically not wanting a Jewish state). That Alex Salmond then used Holyrood as a platform to advance the cause of independence, almost doubling baseline historic support, isn't the same as saying that devolution was about the creation of an independent Scotland (the analogue of which is that the Balfour Declaration wasn't about the creation of a Jewish state).

[HaikuHibee]

I have already asked this, but can someone point me to all these examples of anti-Semitism from the left of the Labour Party and also the evidence that no action has been taken.

I genuinely can't remember a claim of this proportion with such national coverage being made without any supporting evidence.

 

George Galloway's 'Israeli's were not welcome in Bradford' quip probably comes close to crossing a line in my book. But George Galloway is a bit of a p***k and wasn't in Labour when he said that.

[Ad Lib]

Fine let me explain it to you. I really don't want to, because it is yet another large essay from you.

 

The Balfour Declaration set in stone the British policy in the Palestinian territories, encouraged migration of Jewish people to Israel in the inter-war period, had a huge role in the birth of Palestinian nationalism and was certainly the basis for the British position immediately post-war that led to the 1947 Partition Plan.

 

Your argument that the Balfour Declaration did not 'intend' to create Israel is based on your belief. If they did not intend to do it, the British clearly thought they could control the Jewish minority in Palestine in perpetuity as a result of the declaration or were just incredibly stupid.

No one here argues that it did not facilitate significant Jewish migration to the Mandate territories. Like, no one. As dorlomin pointed out though, it involved primarily the development and consolidation and expansion of existing much smaller Jewish settlements. As we have also pointed out, the overwhelming influx of migration from Europe resulted from the pogroms in the East, and was not a result of the regulated migration permitted and encouraged under the Balfour Plan and Palestine-based Zionist groups that supported it.

Secondly, the "British position immediately post-war" did not "lead to" the 1947 Partition Plan. The British position was explicitly opposed to similar proposals and they were trying to do literally anything they could to stop a partition plan from being all that was left open. They were heavily leant-upon by the Americans especially to relinquish the Mandate and let the UN settle it. This was not "because of" the British position in 1945, but in spite of it.

My argument that the Balfour Declaration did not intend to create Israel is based on the wording of the document and secondary literature that shows there was not at that point the intention to grant statehood let alone Jewish statehood. Indeed WelshBairn specifically linked to a source that points to the "deliberately vague" language of the declaration so as to temper and frustrate Zionist ambitions for statehood. I'm not sure how much more evidence is needed to satisfy you that this constitutes a clear consensus by informed people that the intention was not the creation of a Jewish state and if anything was the contrary, especially when looked at in the context of the subsequent actions, attitudes and policies of the British Government up to and including 1947.

Whatever their motives, the truth about statehood is not arguable. Yes, it almost certainly was about facilitation of control (and the consolidation of trade links through the Suez Canal). Whether or not it was stupid is a legitimate point of historical debate, but that is not the same as saying that the UK therefore intended for a Jewish state to be created by partitioning the Mandate.

Edited May 1, 2016 by Ad Lib

[HaikuHibee]

This is where the analogy I gave with reference to Alex Salmond is a sound one. He welcomed the Scottish Parliament as it gave Scotland #moarpowers and he believes that Scotland should govern its own affairs (see also, Zionists believing that Jews should self-govern). Salmond supported devolution despite the fact that some of its most prominent advocates said it would #killnationalismstonedead (note the analogue there with the UK very specifically not wanting a Jewish state). That Alex Salmond then used Holyrood as a platform to advance the cause of independence, almost doubling baseline historic support, isn't the same as saying that devolution was about the creation of an independent Scotland (the analogue of which is that the Balfour Declaration wasn't about the creation of a Jewish state).

 

It is not like that at all for a multitude of reasons that are so obvious its painful. The most obvious being that there is no desire to create a 'home for the Scots' where a hundreds of thousands of Arabs live. Second, if the analogy has any weight it would be essentially be that the British override the opinions of the people that live in Scotland for some short-term advantage. You talk about self-determination, but it was the opposite of self-determination and resulted in immediate inter-ethnic conflict.

 

I'm not saying Jewish people did not deserve a homeland, but to draw any parallels with Alex Salmond is just plain weird. Not to mention the fact you had wrote extensively chastising Granny Danger for making a similar analogy. It was a stupid thing to say, move on.

[Peppino Impastato]

George Galloway's 'Israeli's were not welcome in Bradford' quip probably comes close to crossing a line in my book. But George Galloway is a bit of a p***k and wasn't in Labour when he said that.

 

To be fair I don't see the word Jew mentioned anywhere there.

 

Some people, whether you disagree with them or not, view Israel similar to how most people viewed Nazi Germany, as the greatest purveyor of violence (though really that's the USA and its lapdog the UK) on the planet, the most prolific violator of international law, a belligerent bully and an enemy of democracy, human rights and liberty.

 

Therefore to be opposed to Israelis in that context is discriminatory but not anti-Semitic.

[Ad Lib]

It is not like that at all for a multitude of reasons that are so obvious its painful. The most obvious being that there is no desire to create a 'home for the Scots' where a hundreds of thousands of Arabs live. Second, if the analogy has any weight it would be essentially be that the British override the opinions of the people that live in Scotland for some short-term advantage. You talk about self-determination, but it was the opposite of self-determination and resulted in immediate inter-ethnic conflict.

 

I'm not saying Jewish people did not deserve a homeland, but to draw any parallels with Alex Salmond is just plain weird. Not to mention the fact you had wrote extensively chastising Granny Danger for making a similar analogy. It was a stupid thing to say, move on.

Oh for actual f**k's sake I am not suggesting that the means and implications of Zionism and Scottish independence are the same. I am using the analogy to explain the motivations of actors for agreeing with or disagreeing with, certain bilateral or multilateral proposals for autonomy, that fall short of, or which do not promise, the end goal of nationalist movements.

Edited May 1, 2016 by Ad Lib

[welshbairn]

No one here argues that it did not facilitate significant Jewish migration to the Mandate territories. Like, no one. As dorlomin pointed out though, it involved primarily the development and consolidation and expansion of existing much smaller Jewish settlements. As we have also pointed out, the overwhelming influx of migration from Europe resulted from the pogroms in the East, and was not a result of the regulated migration permitted and encouraged under the Balfour Plan and Palestine-based Zionist groups that supported it.

Secondly, the "British position immediately post-war" did not "lead to" the 1947 Partition Plan. The British position was explicitly opposed to similar proposals and they were trying to do literally anything they could to stop a partition plan from being all that was left open. They were heavily leant-upon by the Americans especially to relinquish the Mandate and let the UN settle it. This was not "because of" the British position in 1945, but in spite of it.

My argument that the Balfour Declaration did not intend to create Israel is based on the wording of the document and secondary literature that shows there was not at that point the intention to grant statehood let alone Jewish statehood. Indeed WelshBairn specifically linked to a source that points to the "deliberately vague" language of the declaration so as to temper and frustrate Zionist ambitions for statehood. I'm not sure how much more evidence is needed to satisfy you that this constitutes a clear consensus by informed people that the intention was not the creation of a Jewish state and if anything was the contrary, especially when looked at in the context of the subsequent actions, attitudes and policies of the British Government up to and including 1947.

Whatever their motives, and it almost certainly was about facilitation of control (and the consolidation of trade links through the Suez Canal). Whether or not it was stupid is a legitimate point of historical debate, but that is not the same as saying that the UK therefore intended for a Jewish state to be created by partitioning the Mandate.

 

The British Government's specific intention was to encourage the belief by Zionists that they would be of assistance towards creating an Israeli State, in return for money and influence. That is what happened, they delivered.

[HaikuHibee]

No one here argues that it did not facilitate significant Jewish migration to the Mandate territories. Like, no one. As dorlomin pointed out though, it involved primarily the development and consolidation and expansion of existing much smaller Jewish settlements. As we have also pointed out, the overwhelming influx of migration from Europe resulted from the pogroms in the East, and was not a result of the regulated migration permitted and encouraged under the Balfour Plan and Palestine-based Zionist groups that supported it.

Secondly, the "British position immediately post-war" did not "lead to" the 1947 Partition Plan. The British position was explicitly opposed to similar proposals and they were trying to do literally anything they could to stop a partition plan from being all that was left open. They were heavily leant-upon by the Americans especially to relinquish the Mandate and let the UN settle it. This was not "because of" the British position in 1945, but in spite of it.

My argument that the Balfour Declaration did not intend to create Israel is based on the wording of the document and secondary literature that shows there was not at that point the intention to grant statehood let alone Jewish statehood. Indeed WelshBairn specifically linked to a source that points to the "deliberately vague" language of the declaration so as to temper and frustrate Zionist ambitions for statehood. I'm not sure how much more evidence is needed to satisfy you that this constitutes a clear consensus by informed people that the intention was not the creation of a Jewish state and if anything was the contrary, especially when looked at in the context of the subsequent actions, attitudes and policies of the British Government up to and including 1947.

Whatever their motives, the truth about statehood is not arguable. Yes, it almost certainly was about facilitation of control (and the consolidation of trade links through the Suez Canal). Whether or not it was stupid is a legitimate point of historical debate, but that is not the same as saying that the UK therefore intended for a Jewish state to be created by partitioning the Mandate.

 

The vague wording had much more to do with Arab hostility.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Palestine_riots

[Savage Henry]

The vague wording had much more to do with Arab hostility.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Palestine_riots

Do you have a proper reference for that? I'd genuinely be interested in that interpretation. Edited May 1, 2016 by Savage Henry

[HaikuHibee]

To be fair I don't see the word Jew mentioned anywhere there.

 

Some people, whether you disagree with them or not, view Israel similar to how most people viewed Nazi Germany, as the greatest purveyor of violence (though really that's the USA and its lapdog the UK) on the planet, the most prolific violator of international law, a belligerent bully and an enemy of democracy, human rights and liberty.

 

Therefore to be opposed to Israelis in that context is discriminatory but not anti-Semitic.

 

It's still pretty inflammatory, designed to play into a particular demographic in his constituency.

[Peppino Impastato]

It's still pretty inflammatory, designed to play into a particular demographic in his constituency.

 

 

That's true and I'm not defending it, but in court you would never be able to convict him of being anti-Semitic based on those comments.

[Ad Lib]

The British Government's specific intention was to encourage the belief by Zionists that they would be of assistance towards creating an Israeli State, in return for money and influence. That is what happened, they delivered.

No it wasn't. They didn't want to "encourage the belief". That's specifically why the wording was confined to resettlement. All they wanted was compliance, by whatever means necessary. The Balfour Declaration was not motivated out of a desire to encourage Zionism, however, and did not precipitate, the creation of the Israeli state.

 

The vague wording had much more to do with Arab hostility.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Palestine_riots

1. You've just linked to a series of riots that took place 12 years after the Balfour Declaration. If the intention was to temper Arab hostility it wasn't very successful, was it?

2. In 1917 the British Government categorically did not want, want to encourage, or consider it in its interests, that an independent Jewish state be created in the Mandate territories. Literally all the evidence of British foreign policy, from that point right up until they relinquished control to the UN in 1947, supports that view.

Edited May 1, 2016 by Ad Lib

[Granny Danger]

George Galloway's 'Israeli's were not welcome in Bradford' quip probably comes close to crossing a line in my book. But George Galloway is a bit of a p***k and wasn't in Labour when he said that.

No he wasn't.

If journalists in the MSM were doing their jobs they would be asking the question I asked or at least having the decency not to perpetuate the lie that appears to be going about. Maybe I'm asking for too much.

[Savage Henry]

That's true and I'm not defending it, but in court you would never be able to convict him of being anti-Semitic based on those comments.

That's kind of the point. The discourse on both sides is full of language which implies but doesn't state directly.

[Peppino Impastato]

That's kind of the point. The discourse on both sides is full of language which implies but doesn't state directly.

 

Yes but the point is also you can't go assigning meanings and objectives to people's comments based on your interpretation of them either.