Understanding the Middle East

[Gunnar]

I think in the OP you hit the nail on the head in the OP about the British, French, and Turks (Ottoman Empire Sultans) working against the Palestinians, and native Jews to a certain extant.

There is again just so much to read on the subject my views are all over the place, and shift often. My head is spinning in regard to taking all the different rabbit trail truths, and organizing them.

The British and French were ruthless with the Ottoman Empire and folks like Serbians in regard to WW1, they were basically chum in battles. I was reading how Syria by war's end, percentage wise had lost 1/3 of it people to war and famine, the Serbs almost as many percentage wise. And for what? These folks had no idea what the war was about.

If my recollection is correct, and I think I am close, before WW1 the Jews were about 10% of the population of Israel, and lived in relative peace with the Palestinians. Then the Balfour agreement, which totally screwed over the Palestinians.

But again, I feel and understand the plight and reasons for the Zionists themselves. The Jews were not just fighting for land, but for identity as a nation and people, I get that. I also get how the Palestinians would have felt to have their land ripped out from underneath them, and their rights and maybe better put their "way of life." Their rights were more traditional and tribal, rather than the black and white laws introduced by the Balfour.

Then on top of that going way back, I see how the Jews were decimated by the Romans back when they went through Israel and destroyed their nation and Temple, and while they were scattered as individuals, they lost their identity as a people and nation.

Again it is such a mess.

Thanks for that. I think that was an entirely fair and rational analysis of the situation. I agree that the Balfour agreement, as you said, "totally screwed over the Palestinians." Whatever we can say about the immorality and cruelty of the Palestinians attacks on Jewish settlements and Israel, no one can honestly deny that they have had and still have some very legitimate grievances. No wonder they are so angry! And I don't think we can deny that even some of the intended Zionist beneficiaries of that agreement were ultimately harmed in some ways by the heavy-handed way it was implemented. Do you agree?

[Chap]

Then the Balfour agreement, which totally screwed over the Palestinians.

I am not here to defend or attack the foreign policy decisions of any government, but I do think that for the sake of accuracy a couple of things need to be said.

1. There was no 'Balfour Agreement' between Britain and any other state. There was a unlateral declaration by the British Foreign Secretary, Arthur Balfour, dated 17 November 1917, outlining the attitude of the then British government towards those who wished to promote the idea of 'a national home for the Jewish people' in Palestine.

2. The text of the declaration clearly states that this declaration is subject to the condition "that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine". Had that condition actually been implemented, it would have certainly precluded any "screwing over" of the Palestinians. However, by the time this became a practical issue, Balfour and most of his fellow ministers were dead or retired from public office.

Here is the original declaration as sent:

[Markk]

Then the Balfour agreement, which totally screwed over the Palestinians.

I am not here to defend or attack the foreign policy decisions of any government, but I do think that for the sake of accuracy a couple of things need to be said.

1. There was no 'Balfour Agreement' between Britain and any other state. There was a unlateral declaration by the British Foreign Secretary, Arthur Balfour, dated 17 November 1917, outlining the attitude of the then British government towards those who wished to promote the idea of 'a national home for the Jewish people' in Palestine.

2. The text of the declaration clearly states that this declaration is subject to the condition "that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine". Had that condition actually been implemented, it would have certainly precluded any "screwing over" of the Palestinians. However, by the time this became a practical issue, Balfour and most of his fellow ministers were dead or retired from public office.

Here is the original declaration as sent:

There was a clear agreement of support between Britain and the Zionist movements in Israel, which is referred to the Balfour Declaration. It led to a lot of death and destruction of both Zionists and Arabs, then and today. It led to deep discriminative laws. It led to the creation of many of the issues between the Palestinians and Jews today. It is referred to as the declaration that changed the world, which I agree with; it helped via the Holocaust, lead Israel to become a nation in 1948.

[Markk]

I think in the OP you hit the nail on the head in the OP about the British, French, and Turks (Ottoman Empire Sultans) working against the Palestinians, and native Jews to a certain extant.

There is again just so much to read on the subject my views are all over the place, and shift often. My head is spinning in regard to taking all the different rabbit trail truths, and organizing them.

The British and French were ruthless with the Ottoman Empire and folks like Serbians in regard to WW1, they were basically chum in battles. I was reading how Syria by war's end, percentage wise had lost 1/3 of it people to war and famine, the Serbs almost as many percentage wise. And for what? These folks had no idea what the war was about.

If my recollection is correct, and I think I am close, before WW1 the Jews were about 10% of the population of Israel, and lived in relative peace with the Palestinians. Then the Balfour agreement, which totally screwed over the Palestinians.

But again, I feel and understand the plight and reasons for the Zionists themselves. The Jews were not just fighting for land, but for identity as a nation and people, I get that. I also get how the Palestinians would have felt to have their land ripped out from underneath them, and their rights and maybe better put their "way of life." Their rights were more traditional and tribal, rather than the black and white laws introduced by the Balfour.

Then on top of that going way back, I see how the Jews were decimated by the Romans back when they went through Israel and destroyed their nation and Temple, and while they were scattered as individuals, they lost their identity as a people and nation.

Again it is such a mess.

Thanks for that. I think that was an entirely fair and rational analysis of the situation. I agree that the Balfour agreement, as you said, "totally screwed over the Palestinians." Whatever we can say about the immorality and cruelty of the Palestinians attacks on Jewish settlements and Israel, no one can honestly deny that they have had and still have some very legitimate grievances. No wonder they are so angry! And I don't think we can deny that even some of the intended Zionist beneficiaries of that agreement were ultimately harmed in some ways by the heavy-handed way it was implemented. Do you agree?

I am not sure what I agree with anymore, like I wrote the more I read, the more I don't understand the complexities. But what I do understand is that innocent people have suffered on both sides for a long time, and I see both sides with no real answer.

[Gunnar]

I am not here to defend or attack the foreign policy decisions of any government, but I do think that for the sake of accuracy a couple of things need to be said.

1. There was no 'Balfour Agreement' between Britain and any other state. There was a unlateral declaration by the British Foreign Secretary, Arthur Balfour, dated 17 November 1917, outlining the attitude of the then British government towards those who wished to promote the idea of 'a national home for the Jewish people' in Palestine.

2. The text of the declaration clearly states that this declaration is subject to the condition "that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine". Had that condition actually been implemented, it would have certainly precluded any "screwing over" of the Palestinians. However, by the time this became a practical issue, Balfour and most of his fellow ministers were dead or retired from public office.

Here is the original declaration as sent:

There was a clear agreement of support between Britain and the Zionist movements in Israel, which is referred to the Balfour Declaration. It led to a lot of death and destruction of both Zionists and Arabs, then and today. It led to deep discriminative laws. It led to the creation of many of the issues between the Palestinians and Jews today. It is referred to as the declaration that changed the world, which I agree with; it helped via the Holocaust, lead Israel to become a nation in 1948.

Thank you for that clarification and showing us that we still have a lot to learn about the situation.

[Physics Guy]

Just to be clear, that letter that Chap posted is the Balfour Declaration. In fact the Declaration itself is only the middle paragraph of the letter. It is literally one single sentence. Presumably it was the result of a lot of lobbying, but as Chap said, it was a unilateral declaration by the government of the British Empire, not an agreement between any two parties. In retrospect that was the problem with it. If it had been an agreement with a particular Zionist organisation, it could have stipulated the obligations of the Zionist party more clearly, and it would not have applied to any other groups.

Instead the Balfour Declaration was a vaguely worded blank check that allowed any present or future Zionist group to claim the support of the superpower of the day. It was not a commitment by the British Empire to do anything in particular: "best endeavours" sounds good but doesn't say in what sense the endeavours should be the best, or for whom they should be best. Likewise "national home" could mean a Jewish nation state but didn't obviously have to mean exactly that.

The stipulation that religious and civil rights of the Palestinians had to be respected sounds good, but it was actually quite unclear what "civil rights" meant in a territory that had been part of the Ottoman Empire for centuries and was being overrun by British troops as the Declaration was issued. It certainly wasn't clear that "civil rights" meant that the Palestinians would be entitled to democracy. The Declaration says nothing about what exactly the civil rights of Palestinians were—or about who could define what they were. And the Declaration does not commit the British Empire to protecting those civil rights, whatever they were. It merely implies that the British government would stop making its "best endeavours" to promote the Jewish "national home" if the civil rights of the Palestinians were "prejudiced".

In late October of 1917, with most of Palestine still under Ottoman rule and the course of World War I still quite undecided, the future of the territory was an abstract question. The very fact that the Declaration mentions the possibility of "prejudice" to the "civil and religious rights" shows, however, that Balfour and the British Cabinet were already anticipating that establishing a national home for Jews in Palestine might well threaten the rights of non-Jewish Palestinians. Of the 67 words in the Declaration, the anticipation of that danger takes up 23. It was not an overlooked detail. It was the first thing that came to everyone's minds in connection with Zionism, even back then.

[Chap]

I am not sure that an informal forum like this is a place where one can hope for further discussion of relevant matters that will produce more light than heat.

For those who would like to continue, it might be a good idea to look at the very comprehensive Wikipedia article on the Palestine Mandate:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandate_for_Palestine

This situation recalls to me the words of the 19th C. British Prime Minister Palmerston, on the topic of what is called the 'Schleswig-Holstein question' [a territorial dispute connected with a region near the Germany-Denmark border]. Of this he said "There are only three people who have understood this question. One is dead, one has gone mad, and the third is myself. And I have forgotten."

[Markk]

Just to be clear, that letter that Chap posted is the Balfour Declaration. In fact the Declaration itself is only the middle paragraph of the letter. It is literally one single sentence. Presumably it was the result of a lot of lobbying, but as Chap said, it was a unilateral declaration by the government of the British Empire, not an agreement between any two parties. In retrospect that was the problem with it. If it had been an agreement with a particular Zionist organisation, it could have stipulated the obligations of the Zionist party more clearly, and it would not have applied to any other groups.

Instead the Balfour Declaration was a vaguely worded blank check that allowed any present or future Zionist group to claim the support of the superpower of the day. It was not a commitment by the British Empire to do anything in particular: "best endeavours" sounds good but doesn't say in what sense the endeavours should be the best, or for whom they should be best. Likewise "national home" could mean a Jewish nation state but didn't obviously have to mean exactly that.

The stipulation that religious and civil rights of the Palestinians had to be respected sounds good, but it was actually quite unclear what "civil rights" meant in a territory that had been part of the Ottoman Empire for centuries and was being overrun by British troops as the Declaration was issued. It certainly wasn't clear that "civil rights" meant that the Palestinians would be entitled to democracy. The Declaration says nothing about what exactly the civil rights of Palestinians were—or about who could define what they were. And the Declaration does not commit the British Empire to protecting those civil rights, whatever they were. It merely implies that the British government would stop making its "best endeavours" to promote the Jewish "national home" if the civil rights of the Palestinians were "prejudiced".

In late October of 1917, with most of Palestine still under Ottoman rule and the course of World War I still quite undecided, the future of the territory was an abstract question. The very fact that the Declaration mentions the possibility of "prejudice" to the "civil and religious rights" shows, however, that Balfour and the British Cabinet were already anticipating that establishing a national home for Jews in Palestine might well threaten the rights of non-Jewish Palestinians. Of the 67 words in the Declaration, the anticipation of that danger takes up 23. It was not an overlooked detail. It was the first thing that came to everyone's minds in connection with Zionism, even back then.

It was an agreement and assurance that Britain would back the Zionist Movement. History is clear this happened, and equally clear for many reasons. One reason was to hopefully get the US more involved in the war via Jewish influence, and another to keep Russia in the war via Russian Jews. Britain defeated Ottoman rule in 1917, and Jerusalem basically became under their governance. Britain, as governor of Palestine/Israel agreed to support the Zionists and their movement....and the declaration was a written commitment and pledge to Rothchild and by default Zionists like Chaim Weizmann.

[Gunnar]

Throwing this on the pile of resources that are accumulating on this thread. These are the Messianic Jews I posted about a while back...last year? It's 2.5 hours long. In my opinion, your time will be WELL invested!

Israel: Whose Land is it Anyway?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0jdK9Z ... l&index=11

I sat through the whole thing, and it gave me some insight into the thinking of Messianic Jews. I'm glad that they espouse the Christian ideal of loving even one's enemies and deploring the violence and hatred that has become so endemic between groups who don't share each other's beliefs or ethnic backgrounds. But I am dismayed by the theological nonsense and religious fundamentalism that permeated the whole discussion. I don't give any credence at all to the Biblical claim that the Israelites and Jews were specially chosen by God or gods to be especially favored over all other people any more than I believe Ancient Greek claims that they were specially favored by the gods of Olympus, or Babylonian claims that they were specially favored by Marduk and Ishtar. I am convinced that such religious beliefs only tend to exacerbate and perpetuate the rivalry and conflicts that have led to so much suffering and death. Nor do I believe in the literal second coming of Christ and the commencement of a millennial reign by him.

In general, I don't know of any compelling justification or evidence that the Bible is any more likely to contain the infallible and inerrant word of an immortal, omniscient deity than anything else that has ever been written.

[Markk]

Just to be clear, that letter that Chap posted is the Balfour Declaration. In fact the Declaration itself is only the middle paragraph of the letter. It is literally one single sentence. Presumably it was the result of a lot of lobbying, but as Chap said, it was a unilateral declaration by the government of the British Empire, not an agreement between any two parties. In retrospect that was the problem with it. If it had been an agreement with a particular Zionist organisation, it could have stipulated the obligations of the Zionist party more clearly, and it would not have applied to any other groups.

Instead the Balfour Declaration was a vaguely worded blank check that allowed any present or future Zionist group to claim the support of the superpower of the day. It was not a commitment by the British Empire to do anything in particular: "best endeavours" sounds good but doesn't say in what sense the endeavours should be the best, or for whom they should be best. Likewise "national home" could mean a Jewish nation state but didn't obviously have to mean exactly that.

The stipulation that religious and civil rights of the Palestinians had to be respected sounds good, but it was actually quite unclear what "civil rights" meant in a territory that had been part of the Ottoman Empire for centuries and was being overrun by British troops as the Declaration was issued. It certainly wasn't clear that "civil rights" meant that the Palestinians would be entitled to democracy. The Declaration says nothing about what exactly the civil rights of Palestinians were—or about who could define what they were. And the Declaration does not commit the British Empire to protecting those civil rights, whatever they were. It merely implies that the British government would stop making its "best endeavours" to promote the Jewish "national home" if the civil rights of the Palestinians were "prejudiced".

In late October of 1917, with most of Palestine still under Ottoman rule and the course of World War I still quite undecided, the future of the territory was an abstract question. The very fact that the Declaration mentions the possibility of "prejudice" to the "civil and religious rights" shows, however, that Balfour and the British Cabinet were already anticipating that establishing a national home for Jews in Palestine might well threaten the rights of non-Jewish Palestinians. Of the 67 words in the Declaration, the anticipation of that danger takes up 23. It was not an overlooked detail. It was the first thing that came to everyone's minds in connection with Zionism, even back then.

It was an agreement and assurance that Britain would back the Zionist Movement. History is clear this happened, and equally clear for many reasons. One reason was to hopefully get the US more involved in the war via Jewish influence, and another to keep Russia in the war via Russian Jews. Britain defeated Ottoman rule in 1917, and Jerusalem basically became under their governance. Britain, as governor of Palestine/Israel agreed to support the Zionists, and their movement....and the declaration was a written commitment and pledge to Rothchild and by default Zionists like Chaim Weizmann.

What I learned yesterday, in short....

Weizmann who would later be the first president of Israel was key in getting Britain to pledge support for Israel and the Balfour declaration. He was intelligent, educated, and a chemist.

The back story is that acetone was key munitions in the early 19th century, and Germany was the primary manufacturer of acetone. As World War 1 started, the UK needed acetone for their munition needs with the acetone exports from Germany drying up. Weizmann developed a way to manufacture acetone synthetically and organically from chestnuts, and Britain/Churchill jumped all over this.

Weizmann was also a key player in the Zionist movement, as was Rothchild, and both had a deep relationship with the former Prime Minister of the UK Walter Balfour. Acetone development appears to be a key reason that helped Britain to support Zionism and the declaration adopted by the UK to support Israel becoming a nation.

Long story very short, Rothschild and Weizmann were key lobbyists of the Balfour agreement.