SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (247422)11/5/2007 10:59:53 PM
From: Ruffian  Respond to of 281500
 
my dog can prove that sand moron an Idiot.why waste Ur time?



To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (247422)11/6/2007 1:29:28 AM
From: Elroy  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 281500
 
Blame it on the Balfour Declaration
By Linda S. Heard, Special to Gulf News
Published: November 06, 2007, 00:30

gulfnews.com

Jews in Israel and Britain have been celebrating. This month marks the 90th anniversary of the Balfour Declaration, a letter of intent sympathising with Zionist aspirations that arguably changed the fate of the entire Middle East.

For Palestinians, that blood-soaked letter signifies decades of dispossession, humiliation, victimisation, repression and struggle.

Dated November 2, 1917, the 129-word long missive was addressed to Lord Walter Rothschild for onward transmission to the Zionist Federation and signed by the then British Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour. Approved by the British Cabinet and the US president Woodrow Wilson the main thrust of its text was this:

"His Majesty's government views with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine."

Prompted by the urgings of Chaim Weizmann, who was later to become Israel's first president, the letter was welcomed by Zionist leaders even though at the time it was penned the area was still part of the Ottoman Empire, albeit in the process of disintegration.

In February 1920, the First World War allies gave a mandate to Britain to control Palestine, which was approved by the precursor to the UN the League of Nations in 1922. The Balfour Declaration was incorporated within.

Post-First World War, Jews made up only eight per cent of Palestine's population. Some estimates suggest there were only 60,000 Jews as opposed to 500,000 Arabs. As the trickle of Jewish emigration to Palestine turned into a flood, in 1937, the British decided upon the partition of Palestine into two states - a decision it was later to rescind when faced with an Arab backlash.

Although considered a staunch Zionist at heart, Winston Churchill, then Colonial Secretary, had earlier sought to appease growing Arab outrage by handing three-quarters of land east of the Jordan River within its Palestine mandate to the Hashemite leader King Abdullah I and exempting it from the Balfour "remit".

In 1931, the government of Neville Chamberlain issued a white paper placing strict quotas on Jewish immigration, restricting the rights of Jews to buy land from Arabs. It stated "His Majesty's government now declares unequivocally that it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish state".

David Lloyd George called this "an act of perfidy". Churchill voted against it in parliament. Zionists saw this as a betrayal and launched attacks against the British.

Nevertheless, the British adhered to the white paper's cap on Jewish immigration throughout the Second World War, which resulted in Jews fleeing from Nazi-occupied Europe being interned in displacement camps on Cyprus.

Global public opinion responded with disapproval at the sight of emaciated Holocaust survivors behind British "barbed wire".

The Zionists responded with terrorist attacks. In 1944, the Stern Gang led by Yitzhak Shamir assassinated a British minister. A year later, the Palmach destroyed two police boats, while the Haganah blew up railways. The Irgun, headed by Menachem Begin, bombed the headquarters of the CID, several trains and, in 1946, Occupied Jerusalem's King David Hotel.

More trouble

Britain decided its Palestinian mandate was more trouble than it was worth. On May 14, 1948 Israel declared its independence. The British swiftly pulled out, washed its hands of all responsibility and left behind a bloodbath that continues until today.

The question remains what prompted Britain to pursue a Jewish homeland on populated territory that wasn't Britain's to give away?

On this there are various trains of thought.

Some historians believe Britain viewed Palestine as the gateway to its empire in the east and thought a grateful Jewish state would serve its interests in the long run and help protect the vital Suez Canal from predatory big powers.

Others contend Britain was desperate to keep Russia fighting on the side of the allies in the First World War and thought placating Russian Jews by promising a Jewish homeland would ensure the latter's valuable influence over the Bolsheviks to that end.

Similarly, they say, it was hoped American Jews would be grateful enough to persuade their government to join the conflict.

There is also a belief that Lloyd George furthered the Zionist cause out of gratitude for a process invented by Chaim Weizmann (a chemist) - fermented acetone needed to produce the propellant cordite.

When Balfour first met Weizmann to discuss payment, he was told, "There is only one thing I want: A national home for my people" or so the story goes.

It's difficult to believe that the emergence of an Israeli state once hung on the provision of nail polish remover but in the days when imperialist powers whimsically redrew borders on the back of envelopes, installed puppet leaders and helped themselves to national treasures anything is possible. On second thoughts, nothing much has changed.

Linda S. Heard is a specialist writer on Middle East affairs. She can be contacted at lheard@gulfnews.com



To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (247422)11/6/2007 10:14:40 AM
From: one_less  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
The Vietnam era was very hard on people coming of age and the old farts stuck in WWII mentalities, insisting we view everything through their eyes, made the situation insufferable for the operant age folks. Not everyone of course but the vocal Archie B. stogie old guys, who were experiencing a romanticized life from a 1940's arm chair, couldn't deal with modern circumstance on its own terms. It wasn't about them and the WW era, and to be fair we didn't always react to them amiably, making matters worse.

Whenever we tried to deal with modern circumstance in a constructive and resolute way, there they were, with a glass of scotch in hand, doing their John Wayne shtick. They were really wonderful guys and deserved to be recognised for their sacrifices in WWI, the depression, and WWII; But, the Vietnam era was not about them and what they went through. It was sad that they hadn't moved on but it was frustrating for those of us trying to accomplish something purposeful.

I protested the Vietnam war and some of the establishments of the era, some people went and fought in the Vietnam war ... when it was over most of us moved on to a different time. Some guys, like Ed, couldn't. They were either way too insulted by us protesters or they went to the other extreme to try to make up for something they later decided was a bad choice. That's where Ed is stuck. By 1987 the number of people who had committed suicide because they couldn't deal with their Vietnam era experience and move on, surpassed the number of soldiers killed in Vietnam.

I feel sorry for him just like I did the WWII vets who were obviously struggling to reconcile themselves. His suggestions are about escaping, avoiding, and abandoning, leaving and withdrawing, with no realistic regard for the consequences to others and no vision of a decent future for all. If there were such a thing as human cocooning, this is what it would look like. It contributes nothing constructive, reconciliatory, or resolute but its where he is. Maybe someday he will emerge from his cocoon with something propitious to offer but until then, I'll take his sneering and personal sniping with a grain of salt.

Best regards,
gem



To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (247422)11/6/2007 12:23:53 PM
From: cnyndwllr  Read Replies (4) | Respond to of 281500
 
Dear Nadine, Rough Cut and Michael,

Thank you so much for your respective concerns over my inability to adjust, to get over my feelings about Vietnam and for my being stuck in a cocoon.

Your voices join in a wonderful chorus almost too beautiful to hear. I.e.;

Nadine, "I said that for you it was all about Vietnam, and all about your feelings, and the situation in Iraq was just about irrelevant to the discussion..."

Michael, "I would add that guys on the right have not made it easy for Ed to adjust."

And Rough Cut, "I protested the Vietnam war and some of the establishments of the era, some people went and fought in the Vietnam war ... when it was over most of us moved on to a different time. Some guys, like Ed, couldn't. They were either way too insulted by us protesters or they went to the other extreme to try to make up for something they later decided was a bad choice. That's where Ed is stuck...Maybe someday he will emerge from his cocoon with something propitious to offer..."

After reading your caring posts I almost got a little misty eyed. Here I am, in an emotional state, unable to adjust, stuck forever in larvae stage and incapable of morphing into a wonderful butterfly that could fly, fly away on golden wings. It's almost too sad to ponder.

If I hadn't been in Vietnam maybe I'd have been right about Iraq, Like you three. I might have been able to prognosticate the many successes along the way. Things like the narrow breadth of the doomed insurgency that was only Al Queda and a handful of Saddam "dead enders," the import of the capture of Saddam, the wonderful constitution that "freed" the women of Iraq from male and Muslim tyranny, that beautiful, purple fingered day when Iraq emerged as a beacon for democracy in the middle east, the utter falsity of the story that Pat Tillman was killed by friendly fire and that the Army covered it up, the self evident truth that freedom is a god given right and that free men don't attack their neighbors, and, of course, I'd be able to perceive the utter nobility that's driven our involvement in Iraq.

How could I have been so wrapped up the emotions of Vietnam, so mal adjusted; no, even worse, cocooned, that I didn't recognize the rightness of George Bush's words and, sadly, the reverberating words of the three of you.

You didn't help, Micheal, when you turned against the war, but I'm not blaming you. After all, you made several turns and I could have chosen any of the "right" ones.

No, the problem is mine, and mine alone.

Like so many of the other combat "post Vietnam defeatists," you've identified, I've aided and abetted the enemy by undermining the "will" of the American people. But if we have the "will" no one can stop us, not even the people who have to see it our way for it to work. Yes, tragically I've been lost.

On a personal note, maybe one of you would lend your psychiatric or psychological expertise to helping me. You all seem to have a clear understanding of how it is that so many of us combat veterans are incapable of seeing the world in it's true form.

You could make the time. Dammit, I need your help. Surely you could spare a little time from helping the Iraqi people to help ME!

But, I warn you, you may have to petition the State Home to get in here cause they keep me isolated. The state won't even pay for a computer and I have to write everything out with crayons and then Ruprick puts my notes in sealed baggies and smuggles them out in the slop buckets. They never think to look there even though they keep saying, "That Ed, he's talking shit again." He he he, guffaw, guffaw, I laugh every time they say that but they just stare and shake their heads.

So...SAVE ME...!!!

I want to be like you three. I want to help the Iraqis more. I want to support our soldiers better. I want your record of being right. I want to "emerge from [my] cocoon with something propitious to offer."

Send me a note and Ruprick will slip it in a baloney sandwich and get it through.

Ed,
State Home
22 Mean Street
Bumfuck Texas, 911911