Israel guilty of stealing Palestinian money because they were accepted into UNESCO

[Hauldren Collider]

I don't think it was the colonial adventures that were bad for the world. I think it was the decolonization misadventures that were bad for the world. Decolonization was done so ****ing poorly by just about every European nation.

[Aeson]

Yah, a little genocide here and slaving there never hurt anyone...

[Hauldren Collider]

The genocide and slaving was largely happening before the colonization, too, as I understand. I don't think the colonization made things worse so much as they prevented things from getting better.

[regexcellent]

If the the Brits hadn't had "colonial adventures" there would be no such thing as the USA. You have thus persuaded me of the rightness of your argument.

Nor would there be Australia.

[Aeson]

The genocide and slaving was largely happening before the colonization, too, as I understand. I don't think the colonization made things worse so much as they prevented things from getting better.

It's absurd for you to think that colonialism didn't make anything worse for native populations who were "colonialized".

[Dr Strangelove]

There was a point in history where the world came together and said that the old ways, colonialism, imperialism, might making right would be cast aside and the world would be governed by the principle of self-determination and the rule of law. Actually there were two points in time, the first in 1919, which obviously failed, the second time in 1945. The United Nations owed it to the Palestinian people to honor their wishes regarding the dispostion of Palestine. The problem is that they knew that the Palestinians were not going to agree to give away more than half of their land so their wishes were completely ignored. The United Nations tossed their governing principles out the window when they negotiated the disposal of Palestine in 1947. There was always more sympathy to the Jews, with whom the peoples of Europe and the Americas were more familiar with, that there was to the Palestinians people - there just wasn't enough sympathy in the nations of Europe for them to pony up to the table and put a sufficient effort to putting right the damage They had done. Instead they compensated the Jews with someone else's land.

[Zevico]

There was a point in history where the world came together and said that the old ways, colonialism, imperialism, might making right would be cast aside and the world would be governed by the principle of self-determination and the rule of law.

Yes, of course! Apart from those pesky "natives"--you know, people who had no idea what you were talking about when this happened--who did not think to cast a vote at the time, "the world" unanimously assented to this sophistry-passing-for-idealism.

Actually there were two points in time, the first in 1919, which obviously failed, the second time in 1945.

Which obviously failed, as Libya's example demonstrates. Libya was a member state of an institution committed to so many "governing principles" it didn't know which to break first. It probably hit the high watermark when it chaired the UN Human Rights group. Then Gaddaffi fell and Libya's new, "democratic" government declared Sharia law. Happily enough it has now recovered Libya's rightful place as UN Human Rights chair. Who knew polygamy and death sentences for blasphemy were so humanitarian?

The United Nations was stillborn. Its corpse is kept about today by funding from countries whose foreign policy elites are either blind to, or too lazy to concentrate their attention on, the wasted resources, time, and adverse consequences of their support for it.

The United Nations owed it to the Palestinian people to honor their wishes regarding the dispostion of Palestine.

Funny, I never knew the Palestinian people had a say on the subject. No one even knew they existed at the time. Not even the Arabs. This seriously confused proposition is all the more flawed because you simply can't identify what the wishes of these people were. Transjordan? Greater Syria? Greater Egypt? The only subject on which the Arabs agreed on was that "Palestine" would be Jew-free, and they were very committed to the attainment of that goal. Not committed enough to agree on what to do with it afterwards, of course. (Which led to a piecemeal, haphazard war strategy and, partly, to Jewish victory).
But the fallacy here is that there was no Palestinian people, and certainly no forum through which those Arabs in Palestine could express their wishes, in 1947-48.

The problem is that they knew that the Palestinians were not going to agree to give away more than half of their land so their wishes were completely ignored.

Here's that same fallacy again. The Palestinians weren't around to agree. They didn't exist as a people. There was no "mandate Palestinian nationalism." The very notion is is bizarre. It would be a form of nationalism defined merely by the borders set down by the British. And the British created those borders simply so as to exclude Jordan, which it granted to King Abdullah. Three decades prior to the UN vote. Three decades to establish a distinct national culture, polity, and society? Didn't we learn that artificial borders don't necessarily create national feelings in the space of a mere moment in history? They had no leadership but the leadership of a Jerusalemite Nazi sympathiser who got himself appointed head of the Al Aqsa Mosque, various militas, and a "Higher Committee." Bordering Mandate Palestine was a collection of Arab states who wished to attain the prestige that came with conquering "Al Quds" for the Arabs. "Wishes ignored" indeed. The average Arab for his part had no say in this decision-making process. He voted with his feet. He either stayed in Israel during and after the war or fled.

And the greater of the fallacies is that the UN vote meant anything. It didn't. The Jews created a state not because or despite the resolution. They created a state because they wanted to created a state. And the countries who voted for or against that resolution determined whether or not to support Israel according to their own national interests. Nothing more, nothing less.

The United Nations tossed their governing principles out the window

You mean those governing principles so sincerely upheld by the Soviet Union? Or moving forward a few decades, the People's Republic of China? Who do these principles "govern" exactly?

when they negotiated the disposal of Palestine in 1947.

But they didn't, because there was no "negotiation of the disposal of Palestine in 1947." It was a UN resolution. It was about as useful or important as any other UN resolution in the history of that institution: that is to say, not at all. The land was split not according to the whims of the UN, but according to the battle-lines drawn between the Arabs and the Jews.

There was always more sympathy to the Jews, with whom the peoples of Europe and the Americas were more familiar with, that there was to the Palestinians people

Confusion piled on confusion. Do you really think the Soviet Union had sympathy for the Jews when it voted in favour of the establishment of the Jewish State? The same Soviet Union whose leader expelled every Jew from the medical faculty of Moscow University on the whim of Joseph Stalin, whom it deified? Do you really think that a vote in the UN is always and necessarily a determinant of one's true foreign policy, as opposed to their willingness to accede to popular or prevailing fads for the purpose of keeping up appearances?

there just wasn't enough sympathy in the nations of Europe for them to pony up to the table and put a sufficient effort to putting right the damage

Their hearts didn't bleed enough for the Jews? That's what you're putting the existence of the Jewish state down to? Sir, you need to get your head out of the sand and start reading some serious history books. This is naive nonsense, not analysis.

Instead they compensated the Jews with someone else's land.

Grades of sympathy? There's simply no way for you to prove the truth of this fantastic assertion.

[Hauldren Collider]

Zevico is on point, as usual

The entire notion of "Palestinians" as a people literally did not exist at the time Israel was created. If I recall correctly, the whole nationality was a creation of Yasir Arafat and the PLO.

[DaShi]

I agree. Zevico and HC are about equally knowledgeable on this topic.

[Zevico]

Zevico is on point, as usual

The entire notion of "Palestinians" as a people literally did not exist at the time Israel was created. If I recall correctly, the whole nationality was a creation of Yasir Arafat and the PLO.

Yes, but keep in mind that the PLO was backed by Nasser. So it is perhaps more accurate to look to Nasser. Initially the PLO (founded in the 1960's) did not even call for a Palestinian State; it simply operated under the Egyptian umbrella. It adopted the "Statehood" platform after the 6 day war.

Jordan also laid claim to the mantle of "Palestinianhood." It saw Nasser's support for the PLO for what it was (in part): a threat to Jordan's very existence, given its Palestinian majority. It was a threat that could have eventuated if Black September, Arafat's attempt to oust the monarchy from power, succeeded.

For Nasser, the success of the PLO could have meant the installation of an anti-status quo, pro-Nasser, Arab radical power in place of Jordan's monarchy. Jordan's monarchy has been, since its inception, somewhat agnostic about destroying Israel, relatively pro-Western, and very much threatened by the Arab socialist-nationalist (and anti-monarchist) movement Nasser embodied. Had the PLO succeeded in Jordan it would have created another radical Arab state, alongside Sadat's then-radical Egypt.

Eventually Yasser Arafat manouvred, indoctrinated and killed enough people throughout the various refugee camps to obtain popularity in his own right. In case you were wondering, in the Western media this is known as "becoming a moderate." As this occurred the other Arab nations were slowly forced to recognise that the PLO was the first port of call in the new Palestinian politics. This didn't happen overnight and it wasn't inevitable. Keep in mind that it wasn't so long ago that Jordan laid claim to being the sole representative of the Palestinian people--in the 1990's, if memory serves.

[molly bloom]

Yes, and the Irish Republic was rather cozy with the Nazis.

Erm, the Irish Free State locked up Nazi spies. And interned downed German air crew. And thousands of Irish Catholics volunteered in the Allied forces- my great uncle for one.

The real source was the WW1 British politicos who thought they could use the promise of a Jewish homeland to stir up trouble behind enemy lines

Such as who, for instance ?

[molly bloom]

Anti- (Jewish) semitic might have been a better choice.

Anti-Zionist might perhaps be more accurate. He was however, chosen and appointed by Herbert Samuel, himself notably pro-Zionist.

It's apparent that there had not been much conflict between Jewish settlers and the Palestinians until the British arrived.

Not quite true.

The British were bound to provide a national home in Palestine for Jews. The Zionists wanted a Palestine homeland for Jews, which is not quite the same thing.

It's apparent that there had not been much conflict between Jewish settlers and the Palestinians until the British arrived.

Or to put it another way, once the war had ended and the possibility of increased Zionist immigration to Palestine became a reality, Nationalist Arabs alarmed by the Balfour Declaration and opposed to a Palestinian national homeland for Jews, decided to do something about it.

[molly bloom]

So since he doesn't fit your stereotype of the evil white man, Haj Amin al-Husseini was a "useful fool" instead of an international figure with his own beliefs, opinions, and agency.

I can't recall making any reference to his skin colour. What stereotypes of 'evil white men' did you have in mind ? I don't know really what you're referring to here.

He was however, as I said, a useful fool for the Nazis and the Italian Fascists who had demonstrated in Germany and Cyrenaica and Libya what they thought of 'lesser' races.

[molly bloom]

Eventually Yasser Arafat manouvred, indoctrinated and killed enough people throughout the various refugee camps to obtain popularity in his own right. In case you were wondering, in the Western media this is known as "becoming a moderate."

Or in Menahem Begin's case, becoming leader of Israel. If a terrorist is as a terrorist does, then what were the bombing of the King David Hotel and the massacre at Deir Yassin ? Terrorist acts, it seems to me.

[DinoDoc]

Or in Menahem Begin's case, becoming leader of Israel. If a terrorist is as a terrorist does, then what were the bombing of the King David Hotel and the massacre at Deir Yassin ?

The King David Hotel was a military target and warnings were sent to the hotel staff which they decided to ignore. Deir Yassin was a war crime and given it's aims could be described as terrorism.