IF tommorow the Palestinian people peacably protested in the street+did so for month

[CyberGnu]

Another story altogether

[Ned]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
To get back on topic:

Ned: (reposted from page 21)


Well, not quite... I don't know what you mean with multi-ethnic. Less than 10% of the population was jewish, and as far as I know that was the only major ethnicity outside of arabs in the area. I have also never heard this explanation for the mandate.

AFAIK, the mandate was established in the Sykes-Picot Agreement, which is basically just another part of "the Big Game". The three great powers of the first world war agreed to establish spheres of influence in what was at the time the ottoman empire. Russia got armenia, France the areas Syria, Jordan and Lebanon, and England the areas south.

While it cannot be considered certain that palestine was left under a joint "international" mandate because France and England couldn't agree who should have it, as opposed to a genuine concern over the people living there, we all know the French and British records of altruism. Slim to non existent... And considering the Balfour declaration (issued only a year after the Sykes-Picot Agreement) it is pretty clear that England had no intentions of even adhering to the promises made to the indigeneous population.

So, basically, it was just another self-serving part of Englands intent on adding large parts of the arab world to the British Empire.

Cyber Gnu, the Brits had an agreement with Hussein, Faisal's father. The agreement was to the effect that Hussein was to be given control over the Arab lands conquered from Turkey. However the there was an exception. The lands west of Damascus and Amman were to be reserved to international control because those lands were occupied by other than Arabs, at least in part. In Palestine, of course, it was the Jews and Christians. In Lebanon it was Christians.

If you would like, I could get a copy of the original document and post it here.

[CyberGnu]

Ned, this is quite curious. I remember reading the letters quite a while ago, and I didn't get the same conclusion you did out of them.

I did a quick search on google for McMahon-Hussein, and I found numerous hits. However, every single one of them only carried the two first letters of the correspondance. In some instances they have the heading "The McMahon-Hussien Correspondence
14 July 1915 - 10 March 1916", but still only feature the 14 July 1915 and 24 October 1915 letters. For example, look at: http://www.wzo.org.il/home/politic/d148a.htm , the first google hit I got.

I'm not a big fan of conspiracy theories, but it does feel odd that the vast majority of the sites I found only carries the first two of ten letters, especially since letters 3 and 4 are as important as the first two.

Eventually, I managed to find the full correspondance. http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/His...ssmac1.html#10

It's not a website I would ordinarily use, but I can't seem to find a better source online...

Please take a look for yourself. If we agree that the translation is accurate (and I have no reason to believe otherwise, apart from my general suspicious character), I think these are the passages you are interested in:

From 24 October 1915:
McMahon: The two districts of Mersina and Alexandretta and portions of Syria lying to the west of the districts of Damascus, Homs, Hama and Aleppo cannot be said to be purely Arab, and should be excluded from the limits demanded.

November 5, 1915
Hussein:1. In order to facilitate an agreement and to render a service to Islam, and at the same time to avoid all that may cause Islam troubles and hardships-seeing moreover that we have great consideration for the distinguished qualities and dispositions of the Government of Great Britain-we renounce our insistence on the inclusion of the vilayets of Mersina and Adana in the Arab Kingdom. But the two vilayets of Aleppo and Beirut and their sea coasts are purely Arab vilayets, and there is no difference between a Moslem and a Christian Arab: they are both descendants of one forefather.

December 14, 1915
McMahon: I AM gratified to observe that you agree to the exclusion of the districts of Mersina and Adana from boundaries of the Arab territories.

I also note with great pleasure and satisfaction your assurances that the Arabs are determined to act in conformity with the precepts laid down by Omar Ibn Khattab and the early Khalifs, which secure the rights and privileges of all religions alike.

In stating that the Arabs are ready to recognise and respect all our treaties with Arab chiefs, it is, of course, understood that this will apply to all territories included in the Arab Kingdom, as the Government of Great Britain cannot repudiate engagements which already exist.

With regard to the vilayets of Aleppo and Beirut, the Government of Great Britain have fully understood and taken careful note of your observations, but, as the interests of our ally, France, are involved in them both, the question will require careful consideration and a further communication on the subject will be addressed to you in due course.


Now, some have argued that since palestine is not explicitly mentioned, it is not exluded. I think any objective read of the document would conclude otherwise, since Hussein rejects the motivation for the exclusion of the areas south of Mersina and Adana, and mentions Beirut explicitly only because it is in conflict with French interests.



Nevertheless, Britain never intended to honor the McMahon-Hussein Agreement, as they simultaneously worked on the Sykes-Pinot agreement. The Sykes-Pinot was meant to be secret until the end of th war, but was disclosed by lenins new goverment after the russian revolution.

[Panag]

hi ,

gnu , you still dont know anything what so ever , so leave it and put your hate somewhere else , ......

bye

[Ming]

panag... If all you are going to do is insult somebody by saying they don't know anything, don't even bother to post. Dispute his arguments, or shut up. Everybody is welcome to their opinion...

[Ned]

CyberGnu, Ah, the seeds of conflict! Here is a map of the British proposal. Hussein and the Brits apparently did not reach an agreement on Palestine. The issue was "deferred." So, when Faisal is named "King of Syria," he naturally contended that this included Palestine. The Brits did not agree. Thus the conflict that we see today.

But, having said this, CyberGnu; we still must start with the proposition that the Brits did not give, and did not agree to get sovereignty over Palestine to Hussein. Thus they were not "caretakers" for Hussein. That was the position that Hussein took, but it was not a position accepted by Britain or the League of Nations or anybody else the world. Britain therefore had no obligation whatsoever to Hussein with respect to the proper disposition of Palestine. This was to be decided by the people of Palestine themselves in concert with the League of Nations or United Nations.

Do we have an agreement at least to this point?

[Ned]

Hopefully, this is the map.

[Sirotnikov]

Even american intelligence has said the accusations are false...

False.

An American spokesperson told an audience of international journalists that the accusations are false.

I don't recall any american intelligence response to the issue.

No, siro. We are talking about a jewish organization (in this case a newspaper) that caters to a jewish audience.

The Neturei Karta are also a Jewish organization catering to a Jewish audience.

[q]

As such, it is almost certain to hold the same view as the general view of that audience.

Interesting.

Where are the polls to prove that the majority of Jews in germany are zionist or at all pro-israeli?

You use an awfull lot of assumptions.

Would this be "undisclosed sources", also known as "the latest stuff the mossad comes up with to justify their budget"?

Again proves your lack of knowledge in Israeli government and secret service organizations.

The mossad has little to do with tracking al-qaeda in Israel, but rather tracks it out side. IDF and Shin Bet track it in and around Israel.

As to recent events:

The latest two attacks by Al-Qaeda on Israeli targets, and their latest publications all clearly show a concentration on Israel as the new primary target. They've even set up a special wing, for dealing with "Palestine".

One person carrying a fake somalian passport was already arrested a few weeks ago, on a flight from Nigeria, and after interrogation proved to not give enough evidence, he was sent back to Nigeria.

Another story altogether

Not completely. Israeli reporters said that according to israeli and foreign intelligence resources, the gun battle in Ein Hilwe was between Fatah and Al-qaeda related factions. The local Fatah spokespeople quickly denied it, as did the Lebanese, and finally an American spokesperson said that America has no such intelligence [regarding al-qaida activity in ein-hilwe].

panag... If all you are going to do is insult somebody by saying they don't know anything, don't even bother to post. Dispute his arguments, or shut up. Everybody is welcome to their opinion...

Ming, while I agree that panag's post was useless, if he would have qouted Edan's post, would that constitute arguments / proof?

[Sirotnikov]

Hopefully, this is the map

Very very interesting.

Please note that the grey striped areas which the Sherif of Mecca says must be included in a future Arab kingdom DOES NOT INCLUDE J E R U S A L E M.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
Ming, while I agree that panag's post was useless, if he would have qouted Edan's post, would that constitute arguments / proof?

It would have been a step in the right direction And if he had added anything to support his pov, then it would have been fine

The is a big difference between... "Your statement is a pack of lies and you obviously don't know anything BECAUSE of blah blah blah" then just. You don't know anything...

[Ned]

Siro, I can fully understand why Cyber Gnu is squirming on the issue of whether Al Qaeda is now attacking Israel. Cyber Gnu's thesis is that Israel is the enemy the whole world. However Al Qaeda is also the enemy the West. His own country Sweden condemns Al Qaeda. But to be the enemy of Al Qaeda also places one in a quasi alliance with Israel. To him this is an abomination

If, however, he began to sympathize with Al Qaeda because of its war against Israel, he would align himself against the majority opinion of Europe that Al Qaeda is the enemy. Terrorism against Europe and the United States, after all, is wrong even if it's OK if it's against Israel.

Cyber Gnu and the other enemies of Israel do not want to be placed into position of having to make it a choice between two forms of consummate evil. They want to think of themselves as the good guys. To find themselves in bed with Al Qaeda makes them very uncomfortable.

[Paradox]

I for one have followed the thread from its ( absurd and suppositional inception heading post) and must concur with your last comment

I think the map kinda sums up the true situation and along with Siros explanation condemns any so-called Arab claim to ownwership as baseless and reactionary.

Well put Ned....succinct and to the point!

[CyberGnu]

Ned,

CyberGnu, Ah, the seeds of conflict! Here is a map of the British proposal. Hussein and the Brits apparently did not reach an agreement on Palestine. The issue was "deferred." So, when Faisal is named "King of Syria," he naturally contended that this included Palestine. The Brits did not agree. Thus the conflict that we see today.

And I still say that it is disingenious to claim that since the area wasn't explicitly mentioned, it is not included. Since Hussien rejected the reason why it should be excluded, it is clear that all areas south of Alexandretta are included. McMahon defers the issue, but only becuase he claims not to be able to speak for the French. France had no claims on Palestine, and has no need to be mentioned.

But, having said this, CyberGnu; we still must start with the proposition that the Brits did not give, and did not agree to get sovereignty over Palestine to Hussein. Thus they were not "caretakers" for Hussein. That was the position that Hussein took, but it was not a position accepted by Britain or the League of Nations or anybody else the world. Britain therefore had no obligation whatsoever to Hussein with respect to the proper disposition of Palestine. This was to be decided by the people of Palestine themselves in concert with the League of Nations or United Nations.

Do we have an agreement at least to this point?

Again, no. It doesn't matter what they promised Hussein, since they had no intention of keeping their promise.

Is there a particular reason you won't even mention the Sykes-Picot? Read the document, and you'll find it very clear that England and France intended to divide up the Ottoman holdings into their own respective empires, perhaps with limited autonomy.

So the issue remains: England had no legal or moral rights to give away any parts of the middle east to any other entity. Freeing them from Ottoman rule does not transfer any kind of ownership to England. Imagine the US deciding to transfer parts of Quwait to Saudi-Arabia after liberating it in 1990? That is just as absurd.

[CyberGnu]

Siro, I can fully understand why Cyber Gnu is squirming on the issue of whether Al Qaeda is now attacking Israel. Cyber Gnu's thesis is that Israel is the enemy the whole world. However Al Qaeda is also the enemy the West. His own country Sweden condemns Al Qaeda. But to be the enemy of Al Qaeda also places one in a quasi alliance with Israel. To him this is an abomination

If, however, he began to sympathize with Al Qaeda because of its war against Israel, he would align himself against the majority opinion of Europe that Al Qaeda is the enemy. Terrorism against Europe and the United States, after all, is wrong even if it's OK if it's against Israel.

Cyber Gnu and the other enemies of Israel do not want to be placed into position of having to make it a choice between two forms of consummate evil. They want to think of themselves as the good guys. To find themselves in bed with Al Qaeda makes them very uncomfortable.

Excuse me?

Do you have any basis for this apart from conjecture?

[CyberGnu]

Paradox, only if you don't read all of the correspondance, and ignore the Sykes-Picot.