The Balfour Declaration -a different view

This is a long post so to summarise:
The Balfour Declaration was an important document but has been over-rated as it was never implemented in Palestine, and did not play as important a role on the emigration of Jews to Palestine as some think that it did.

A hundred years has passed since the Foreign Secretary of the United Kingdom, Lord Arthur Balfour, sent a letter to Baron Rothschild (Lionel Walter) with the intention that Rothschild convey its contents to the Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland. The letter, which contains the now famous or notorious 'Balfour Declaration' is important because it was not just a commitment that the British made before the end of the First World War, it was incorporated into the text of the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine after the War as part of the settlement that divided the territories of the defeated Ottoman Empire among the victorious powers.

The Declaration is viewed by Jews as the official means whereby the British Empire supported the emigration of Jews to Palestine; just as Arabs view the Declaration as a betrayal of the promises made by the British to the Arabs to establish an independent Arab state to replace the Ottoman territories in the Middle East.

I depart from the standard view because I believe the Declaration has been over-rated in terms of its direct impact on the development of Palestine after 1918, and that in a real sense it was never implemented in full anyway.

Point one is the fact that the commitment made by the British in 1917 states:
His Majesty's government view 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, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country

The Preamble to the Mandate for Palestine of 1922 says:
Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britis...al_instrument)

The problem with the original letter is that the British made a commitment, not to the Jewish people, but to Zionism. At the time there was no legitimate representation of the Jewish people world-wide, so the choice of the World Zionist Movement and its branch in the UK was exclusive rather than universal. It has been argued the Declaration was made when the War was going badly and that it would consolidate support for the War among American Jews, but even at home there was evidence that Jews were opposed to both Zionism and a 'National Home' in Palestine, a position taken by Montague Norman who became Governor of the Bank of England in 1920 and thus, conceivably the most influential Jew in the world at that time.

Point two extends this argument, because not only were Jews -or anyone else- in Palestine not consulted before the commitment was made, Balfour himself in a Memorandum of 1919 made it clear that the views of the people that actually lived in Palestine at the time were simply irrelevant. In a stunning example of imperial arrogance, this is what he wrote-

The contradiction between the letter of the Covenant and the policy of the Allies is even more flagrant in the case of the ‘independent nation’ of Palestine than in that of the ‘independent nation’ of Syria. For in Palestine we do not propose even to go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country, though the American Commission has been going through the form of asking what they are. The four Great Powers are committed to Zionism. And Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-lng traditions, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land.
http://aldeilis.net/english/memorand...opotamia-1919/

Point three follows on to argue that neither the Declaration nor the Mandate can be viewed as instruments that were applied in Palestine because it is clear that even before the British had conquered the territory the wishes of the inhabitants were irrelevant, just as throughout the period of the Mandate both Jews and Arabs could argue the terms of the Declaration and the Mandate were not applied. The judgement is that these were words on a page that meant nothing in terms of the actual governance of Palestine.

Point Four argues that neither the Declaration nor the Mandate acted as a 'Pull' factor in the emigration of Jews to Palestine, indeed, prior to the creation of the Mandate one wonders how many Jews had ever heard of the Balfour Declaration. The reverse argument is that there was a 'Push' factor in that large part of Europe extending from the now collapsed Russia Empire through to Poland, that accelerated in the inter-war years to include Central Europe, and that it was this wave of violent anti-Semitism with Jews fleeing for their lives that drove emigration. Yet even here, at least before the USA passed the Immigration Act in 1924, America was their favoured destination, not Palestine, and after 1924 southern American states like Brazil and Argentina were replacement destinations.

Point Five underlines this trend by asking why did so few Jews already living in North Africa and the Middle East not emigrate to Palestine? As is well documented, there were large communities of Jews in Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt and Iraq, yet no significant emigration from these countries took place until the creation of Israel in 1948 -

In 1931, only 1 out of every 4 Jews living in the Land of Israel came from Asia and Africa. By 1948 there were still only 70,000 of the latter in Israel, as compared to 253,661 Israeli-born Jews and 393,013 Jews from Europe and America, out of a total population of 716,678 Jews.
https://chelm.freeyellow.com/displacement.html

The evidence thus suggests that for all the good or the harm that it did, the Balfour Declaration might never have been written. Jewish emigration to Palestine was partial, and not driven by the Declaration, while the fact that it was never implemented in full and that Jewish immigration was halted in 1939 exposes the hollow centre of the Declaration and its claims.

I made an error in my OP above, as the prominent British Jew who opposed Zionism was Edwin Montagu, former Secretary of State for India, not Montagu Norman. I did not check my Montagu's before writing.

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

It was never fully implemented,.... but who asking who for what in exchange for what.. is what makes it a big deal.

That seems a bit cryptic and feels like it doesn't say why who and what and who and what makes it a big deal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaphneCruz

It was never fully implemented,.... but who asking who for what in exchange for what.. is what makes it a big deal.

---

The truth is that in the period between the London Agreement of 1915 and the Paris Peace Conference process that followed the end of the War, 'who and what' is in reality the Imperial powers. And because the Americans voted for Harding who opted out of the League of Nations, it gave Britain and France complete control of the post-war dispensation of power that re-distributed the defeated territories of the fallen empires -the German, the Austro-Hungarian and the Ottoman- the Russians at this time 'doing their own thing'. In Europe new and independent states were created, such as Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia, without any regard to their conditions for statehood, whereas in the Middle East states so-called 'Mandated territories' were established because Britain and France decided the Arabs had no capacity for statehood at all -which by extension also meant those non-Arabs living in Palestine, Iraq and Syria which must include their Jewish citizens.

It also enabled them to resist attempts by the emerging state of Turkey to claw back the Ottoman Empire's Arab possessions, as happened at the Conferences of Sevres and Lausanne between 1920-23, though the Turks got their own back by flooding Alexandretta with 'Turks' before illegally annexing the territory in 1938 without any reaction from Britain and France (Kemal threatened another alliance with Germany if they tried anything to stop it).

To read the various documents Balfour drew up before and after the Declaration that bears his name is to be transported back to a time of imperial arrogance when the mere idea that 'the people' should decide their fate was dismissed as nonsensical. Although at the time the British had given military support to the oilfields in south-western Persia and the emerging refinery complex on the Gulf Coast at Abadan -and moved into Iraq for commercial as well as political reasons -most of the Middle East was viewed in the context of the security of the sea and land route to India -hence the British presence in Gibraltar, Cyprus, the Suez Canal and Aden on the southern Arabian coast, the last supply stop before Bombay.

Who were the losers in all this? The Arabs and the Jews. If you think the British did what they did to promote Jewish nationhood, then you need a cold bath in the realities of inter-war politics and diplomacy. It was never about taking sides in a dispute because the British only ever had one side -their own.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaphneCruz

It was never fully implemented,.... but who asking who for what in exchange for what.. is what makes it a big deal.

---

:iagree:

Quote:

---

Who were the losers in all this? The Arabs and the Jews. If you think the British did what they did to promote Jewish nationhood, then you need a cold bath in the realities of inter-war politics and diplomacy. It was never about taking sides in a dispute because the British only ever had one side -their own.

---

This couldnt be more true.

But this is not a topic for discussion, because you can only take one side. So.. I'll leave my replies short.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaphneCruz

This couldnt be more true.
But this is not a topic for discussion, because you can only take one side. So.. I'll leave my replies short.

---

Just to clarify I was not attacking you personally when I wrote 'If you think' it was more of a general 'you'. The problem with 'taking sides' in the Middle East is that is has tended to be shaped by contemporary events, and is not always consistent because of that.

For years, but mostly from the 1960s to the 1990s, the division was simple: Israel or Palestine. Since the 1990s, the conflict between Israel and Palestine has been eclipsed by Political Islam so that taking sides can mean the most unlikely actors -Israel and Saudi Arabia, for example -being on the same side with regard to Iran, which they see as a mutual threat, even though the core issue of Political Islam, crystallized in the 'Islamic Revolution' in Iran, the source of anxiety for Israel and Saudi Arabia, does not resolve the problem of either the religious fanatics who form such a woeful influence in Israeli politics, or the odious religious fanatics of Saudi Arabia who have used the kingdom's money to turn their weird Wahabi nonsense into mainstream Islam in places where it has contributed to political disorder, particularly Pakistan.

Taking sides in the Balfour Declaration is a good example. Netanyahu came to London to participate in the 'Celebration' yet his Likud Party emerged from the Revisionist fanatics who condemned the British in Palestine ad fought them because they believed the Jews had been betrayed by the British, Netayahu's predecessor, Menachem Begin fought against, and hated the British and provided Argentina with material support during the Falklands War in 1982. It is almost beyond belief that the British welcomed to London a Prime Minister who has on more than one occasion joined in the 'commemoration' of the bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem in 1946 which killed British, Arab and Jews alike and is spookily reminiscent of some IRA bombing in the UK over the last 40 years. Makes you wonder whose side Theresa May was on during that centenary event.

If anything it proves how risky it is to take sides in the Middle East. One could always side with the truth, but that is a risk in itself not likely to be rewarded with a positive outcome, as one person's truth is another's lie.

I didnt think you were attacking me, so youre good. Im leaving my replies short because in the matter of Israel and Palestine, you cant really argue against Israel.

But simply put, Israel is 100% completely wrong and Palestine are the victims of foreign invaders. The Balfour Declaration simply made it official to give Palestine to the Jews in order to get the US into the war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaphneCruz

But simply put, Israel is 100% completely wrong and Palestine are the victims of foreign invaders. The Balfour Declaration simply made it official to give Palestine to the Jews in order to get the US into the war.

---

Although it is true to say the Declaration was aimed in part at American Jews, one wonders why, given that the US entered the war in April of 1917 seven months before the Declaration was issued. Moreover, the US, officially, entered the War against the Germans owing to the German submarines targeting of US shipping, thus fighting the German Empire and its allies for 'Liberty'.
It is true that Woodrow Wilson was more sympathetic to the Jews at a time when they were the target of anti-Semitic propaganda as well as official sanction, for example-

the Army Manual of Instructions for Medical Advisory Boards included the statement: “The foreign born, and especially Jews, are more apt to malinger [in order to avoid service] than the native-born.” When the Anti-Defamation League brought this manual to President Wilson’s attention, he ordered the manual recalled and revised.
http://www.jewishtreats.org/2017/02/...-and-jews.html

But Wilson was himself a racist. Wilson played a decisive role in removing Black Americans from the positions they held in numerous government jobs that were a feature of the 'Progressive Era', and, in addition, was no friend of the British or the French Empires, his 'Fourteen Points' becoming a signal part of the broader movements for 'national self-determination' that enabled the creation of the successor states that replaced the territories of the defeated European Empires to become a reality in the Versailles Peace process that followed the end of the war in 1918.

That he was sympathetic to the Jews of America is a plus point for him at a time when, as noted above, they were the targets of racist abuse in the US, and indeed, in the 1920s the primary targets of immigration bans. But did the Balfour Declaration rally American Jews to the cause of British Imperialism in the Middle East? Was it to win them over to the British rather than the French, or even Bolshevik Russia? I don't think so, if only because the evidence does not make a convincing case for it.

On the one hand you can describe the settlers as 'foreign invaders' on the basis that they were born, say, in the US; that there was an international agreement between Israel and Jordan in 1949 following the war in 1948 that established the geographical division ('Green Lines') between Israel and the Palestinian territories (formally part of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan which to this day has legal authority over the Haram es-Sharif in Jerusalem) that was violated by Israel's invasion in 1967, and therefore that the subsequent occupation in all its forms is illegal in international law. This formed the basis of the negotiations that led to the Treaty between Israel and the PLO that was signed in 1993 but left some issues -such as the status of Jerusalem- unresolved.

On the other hand, there must be a basic principle that no single group has exclusive rights to the land, because religious and ethnic diversity has always been the reality of this relatively small block of territory, while the attempt by some Jewish groups to claim biblical authority for their modern state lacks credibility given what little we know about the geography of the ancient kingdoms of Israel and Judah, where they were, and who lived in them.

Indeed, the basic principle that Jews and non-Jews must share what they have is the basic principle on which to build peace, not the promotion of one side against another, least of all by a fanatical US Presidency whose motivation in the current climate makes the solution to this conflict even less possible than it was a year ago.

If 'many peoples, one land' is a fair description of the USA, why not for present-day Israel and Palestine?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaphneCruz

I didnt think you were attacking me, so youre good. Im leaving my replies short because in the matter of Israel and Palestine, you cant really argue against Israel.

---

Why can't you argue against Israel? Argue away. I don't see the point in pretending you can't when you clearly can.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaphneCruz

I didnt think you were attacking me, so youre good. Im leaving my replies short because in the matter of Israel and Palestine, you cant really argue against Israel.

But simply put, Israel is 100% completely wrong and Palestine are the victims of foreign invaders. The Balfour Declaration simply made it official to give Palestine to the Jews in order to get the US into the war.

---

I don't want to seem hostile or aggressive with you or I feel what you have said will have been a self-fulfilling prophesy. You seem to think you are not able to say anything critical against Israel (what you think the repercussions are I don't know) and yet you feel perfectly comfortable saying "Israel is 100% completely wrong". What is it you wanted to say that was more extreme than this?

Yes it's a short sentence and a mere conclusion, but it's difficult to think of a conclusion more stark than this. You might have come down on the side of the Palestinians yet still discussed the history of Jewish immigration to the region, the presence of some Jews in the region, and the events that led to Jewish immigration, as well as the many injustices and hardships experienced by the Palestinians. Yet you seem more interested in implying your viewpoint is suppressed while at the same time expressing the most extreme view one can; correct me if I'm wrong but 100% is as high as percentages go and you cannot apportion Israel 110% of the blame.

So maybe you feel I've expressed myself to directly to you, but why don't you just say what it is you are thinking? You've already said elsewhere that you think HIV does not cause AIDS and that the polio vaccine was not that effective against polio...so it's not like you can say something that would be shocking to people who read those posts. Just please say whatever it is you're interested in saying.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

On the one hand you can describe the settlers as 'foreign invaders' on the basis that they were born, say, in the US; that there was an international agreement between Israel and Jordan in 1949 following the war in 1948 that established the geographical division ('Green Lines') between Israel and the Palestinian territories (formally part of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan which to this day has legal authority over the Haram es-Sharif in Jerusalem) that was violated by Israel's invasion in 1967, and therefore that the subsequent occupation in all its forms is illegal in international law. This formed the basis of the negotiations that led to the Treaty between Israel and the PLO that was signed in 1993 but left some issues -such as the status of Jerusalem- unresolved.

---

I agree, but I am curious whether Daphne intended to describe settlers in illegally occupied Palestine as foreign invaders or any Jewish person who made his way to the region as an immigrant before the state of Israel was formed. My interpretation was that he was describing any Jew who came to the region as a "foreign invader" and as well as any Israeli whose forebears immigrated there at some point in the 20th century.

In the spirit of avoiding censorship and encouraging discussion, I do not want to stigmatize any views but would rather discuss whether some buzzwords greatly simplify this history and make the actions of Jewish immigrants seem more malign than they were.

The Holocaust itself places no obligation on the Palestinians or exculpation for Israelis. But would it be fair to say that these people who arrived in the region and were mostly repelled by the British were "foreign invaders"? Did they arrive with the intention to form a conquering army or because this was one of few places they were allowed to settle? https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article...uleId=10005459

There is no doubt that some of them fought in the 1948 war, but this war was not itself a invasion by Jews or Israelis, whatever one thinks of the partition plan and subsequently resolution 181.

As Michelle Obama put it last year, 'words matter', and nowhere are they as bland or toxic as in the Middle East.

One notes, for example, that the Balfour Declaration refers to a 'Jewish National Home' rather than a 'Jewish State' even though the author and his audience were well aware that political Zionism had been well publicised by Theodor Herzl's book The Jewish State. The use of 'home' rather than 'state' was the signal that in reality the British had no intention of creating independent states in the Middle East, whereas in continental Europe the defeated empires were succeeded by independent states.

The whole point of the Mandate system was to hand control to the imperial powers in order to protect their interests. During the war the French government had been lobbied fiercely by the textile merchants of Lyon who had invested in the industry in Beirut and Damascus, and thus saw the opportunity to both underline the commercial interests of the merchants while extending French authority in the Middle East where before it had been limited to investments in what is now Turkey and Syria.

The British were primarily concerned to protect the land and sea route to India, though interest in the oil resources of Iran and the emerging Iraq were viewed as strategic interests, but mostly after 1919.

As for for the contemporary situation, international law rejects Israel's claims over the West Bank because the Charter of the UN makes the acquisition of territory by force illegal, yet the word 'invasion' and 'invaders' is not common. As both Israeli and Palestinian authorities refer to 'settlers' and 'settlements' this is clearly an accepted use of words that describes the movement and the people concerned.

Other words can be used as weapons for those with a mission. Because, going back in time, the Arabs did not always refer to themselves as Arab some Zionists have argued that Palestinian Arabs originated in the Arabian Peninsula along with all the other Arabs and thus have no natural claim to this land of Palestine as they call it. On the other hand, when people refer to the Jews as 'invaders' there may lurk in that identity a link to the view that not all Jews have a natural right to even be in Israel because they cannot claim ancestry from the 'twelve tribes' but are descendants of converted Jews. It doesn't help that Israel has made several attempts to define a Jew in law and never succeeded in reaching a definitive conclusion.

As for the word 'terrorist'...HAMAS- a movement that was welcomed by Israel when it was founded- has used 'terrorist' methods to attack Israel, yet the population claims descent from Palestinians who lived in the Jaffa area, and may be classified in 'national liberation' terms as 'freedom fighters' even if there is no realistic scenario in which they 'return' to their homes.

The diverse reality of Israel and the Occupied Territories means that many nurses, domestic servants -probably more per capita in Israel than there are in either the US of the UK- and agricultural workers are from the Philippines, Thailand, China and Sri Lanka; there are 'refugees' or migrants from the Horn of Africa (whom Netanyahu wants expelled from the country), and under occupation, those communities of Coptic, Armenian, Greek, Russian and Latin Christians who have maintained a presence in Jerusalem and Bethlehem for over 1,000 years.

Provocative words and labels have caused enough trouble, we must move on to the real issues, or the conflict will go on and on and on.

You cannot make any case against Israel without eventually being called an anti-semite.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaphneCruz

You cannot make any case against Israel without eventually being called an anti-semite.

---

You can of course, but you can't also say stuff like you did in the national socialist thread and not have people make the connection. The following is what an anti-semite tends to say:

"You need to get your own symbols and call it something else. You're just tarnishing Hitler's great legacy. He'd be ashamed of today's wannabe Nazis."

Why is it that it's always people who are undeniably anti-semitic who say this. In the Labour party in Britain for instance there was a private facebook group that Jenny Tonge, David Ward, and Jeremy Corbyn were members of. They had all posted in it and they had to get special permission to enter by the administrator who was linking David Duke articles and calling him a smart guy. Other people in that party did the same kind of gaslighting you were doing where they claimed nobody can talk about Israel w/o being called anti-semitic and that they've never seen anti-semitism EVER in the party even while new examples were popping up daily. But here's a link to it....the members of this group were anti-zionists in the sense you are.
http://david-collier.com/wp-content/...art1_FINAL.pdf

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaphneCruz

You cannot make any case against Israel without eventually being called an anti-semite.

---

I was not going to respond to this, because it is a superficial remark that provokes confusion in an already crowded field of debate, accusation and manufactured lies.

My purpose in the OP was to expose what I feel was the deceitful manner in which the British managed the transition of the Ottoman Empire's Arab lands into the League of Nations mandates that were ruled by Britain and France. Contrary to what Melanie Phillips has said I don't believe the British ever made a sincere commitment to the World Zionist Congress on the establishment of a 'Jewish National Home' and their conduct of the Mandate to me is proof of this. Decisions that were made at a time of war took on their own dynamic after it, by which time the British had lost control of Palestine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

I was not going to respond to this, because it is a superficial remark that provokes confusion in an already crowded field of debate, accusation and manufactured lies.

---

I understand that tack but the context is just too obnoxious for me to avoid. This will be my last post in the thread and I will gladly read your informative posts afterward. It is an interesting thread, but one where most people probably don't know enough about the dealings at the time to offer an informed view. So in that sense your posts are very much appreciated.

In my view, Daphne has basically said the same thing four times in one form or another without actually offering much in the way of an explanation or a viewpoint.

His last post came after 2 months of the thread being cold. The only other post of his in this forum is one where he said Hitler had a great legacy. I have trouble believing that he is so muzzled with concerns of being called anti-semitic that he can't even express a coherent view on this subject but yet can also freely say Hitler had a "great legacy." He has the tone of the hunted man in one thread and in another identifies with hunters.

I am sure some people acting in good faith have been called anti-semitic and we should deal with that as inappropriate and wrong. But I can't actually believe that anyone would in good faith do the things I see so many people doing; saying things that reflect hostility and animus, that marginalize their movement and destroy their credibility, and offer nothing to the Palestinians either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

In my view, Daphne has basically said the same thing four times in one form or another without actually offering much in the way of an explanation or a viewpoint.

---

It is throwing a smoke bomb, or in this case a stink bomb into a room just to get a reaction. The Balfour Declaration probably deserves more thought, but it will not be forthcoming from those with an alternative agenda. Not much more I can say.

Point proven.



I would seriously love to give my point and my case (something I have studied intently for more than 4 years and have devoted my life to it) but what is the point. it will go nowhere. I have fought this battle. it goes nowhere. It has already gone nowhere. Its impossible. So why do you pretend like youre open minded?

learn history. that is all. I have no agenda.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaphneCruz

Point proven.
I would seriously love to give my point and my case (something I have studied intently for more than 4 years and have devoted my life to it) but what is the point. it will go nowhere. I have fought this battle. it goes nowhere. It has already gone nowhere. Its impossible. So why do you pretend like youre open minded?
learn history. that is all. I have no agenda.

---

You have proved nothing. The thread is about the Balfour Declaration, you want it to be about the state of Israel, and there is nothing to stop you from creating one, though the comment you made on Hitler in another thread suggests your views might be tainted, but only you can prove that one way or the other. Someone else could as easily have said the Balfour Declaration was a betrayal of promises made to the Arabs and defended their rights, or ridiculed their historical record in politics which, in the case of the Palestinians leaves a lot to be desired. You may have 'studied' 'it' for more than 4 years, I have been doing it for more than 40, but that doesn't make me an authority, as those of us who have lived in the region as well as written about it know only too well how the ladder taking you up suddenly turns upside down and leaves you where you started, and often bruised and shaken. You also need to manage more than a sentence of two to be taken seriously.

Of course I have proven nothing. I havent said anything. Again, it would be fruitless.

And do you think we can talk about the Balfour Declaration without talking about the state of Israel? lol Thats why I know this thread is pointless and will get shut down the second someone brings up jews.

and wait, you have been studying 'it' for 40 years?! holy shit... what books have you been reading? Do you train at the institute of public school? lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaphneCruz

And do you think we can talk about the Balfour Declaration without talking about the state of Israel? lol Thats why I know this thread is pointless and will get shut down the second someone brings up jews.

---

The history of this forum says otherwise. People are given wide latitude to express themselves (there have been a couple threads about Jews, the premises of which were straightforwardly anti-semitic and they were not shut down) but you cannot control what people say in response to you. Unlike you, Stavros writes intelligently on a number of subjects and in good faith. If you disagree with him, why don't you say why and where?

You, on the other hand, have been asked to contribute to the topic and have written six posts where you admittedly say nothing. Why would write six times to say nothing and then act persecuted when people point it out?

And I can tell you as someone with decades on this planet as a Jew, I have never met a person who praises Hitler as having a great legacy and talks as cryptically as you do who is not an anti-semite. To me this is what the dialogue looked like:

You: you cannot write about this topic without being called anti-semitic
Me: Please say what you mean instead of repeating this. I don't want this to end up being a self-fulfilling prophecy.
You: Hitler had a great legacy and neo-nazis are embarrassments but only because they don't capture the real essence of Hitler.
Me: Okay, you are an anti-semite.
You: Point proven.

I forgot what I said about not responding. I'm definitely done responding to this guy. Apologies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaphneCruz

....I would seriously love to give my point and my case (something I have studied intently for more than 4 years and have devoted my life to it) but what is the point. it will go nowhere....

---

Maybe you should have spent your 4 years getting a GED, or better still a certificate in plumbing, or HAC. Then you could be a bigot and make pretty good money as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaphneCruz

Of course I have proven nothing. I havent said anything. Again, it would be fruitless.
And do you think we can talk about the Balfour Declaration without talking about the state of Israel? lol Thats why I know this thread is pointless and will get shut down the second someone brings up jews.
and wait, you have been studying 'it' for 40 years?! holy shit... what books have you been reading? Do you train at the institute of public school? lol

---

If you admit you have said nothing, then what is the purpose of your posts? Maybe you should say what it is that you want to say.

To repeat, the point I was making about the Balfour Declaration is that it expressed selfish motives for the British Empire which were considered more important than the desires, let alone the rights of Arabs and Jews at the time, that was my core point. The extent to which the British facilitated -or blocked- Jewish immigration into Palestine has become one of the contentious issues of the Mandate period; you will find that someone like Netanyahu is happy to visit London to celebrate the Balfour Declaration even though his political movement fought a murderous campaign against the British on the basis that the Jews were not given what the British promised - but that is what the Arabs have been arguing too. So why just Israel? Given the content of your posts in another thread, it should come as no surprise if you single out Israel without declaring your purpose and that this raises doubts in some minds about what it is that you want to say.

Stavros is handling himself very well. Broncofan has already called me a bigot.

Lets contribute. The Balfour declaration was bad for jews and arabs. Because it gave away land that didn't belong to the ones giving it away. Is that okay? Are we cool? I dont want to offend anyone. Apparently I am a bigot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DaphneCruz

Lets contribute. The Balfour declaration was bad for jews and arabs. Because it gave away land that didn't belong to the ones giving it away. Is that okay? Are we cool? I dont want to offend anyone. Apparently I am a bigot.

---

My point was that the Balfour Declaration was made to suit the interests of the British Empire, but as managers of the League of Nations Mandate, the British then found themselves in the middle of a confrontation they created for themselves and to which they added themselves as victims -vide the British officials and soldiers murdered by Jews and Arabs.

If the British had stayed at home, and if the Balfour Declaration had never been written, a conflict over land might have followed the collapse of Ottoman Rule, but for even more complex reasons, mostly related to the Land Reform programme that the Ottomans began to implement across their Arab territories in the Tanzimat administration of the late 19th century. Squabbles over land became violent in what is now Syria and Iraq, even in what is now Jordan the Ottoman army had to move in the fight the Bedouin over land rights on what is now the capital city, Amman. The Bedouin eventually conceded and agreed to sign title deeds, the irony being this gave them ownership of Amman with the result their descendants are now millionaires. The first and second Aliyah to what was then the Vilayet of Jerusalem were an additional sign that land -and immigration- was going to become an arena of confrontation. The last thing the people needed were two Imperial powers re-organizing their politics and their daily lives without taking their interests into consideration, but that is what happened, and we -and they- live with the consequences.

Tolstoy once wrote a parable, How Much Land Does a Man Require? in which an ignorant peasant given the chance to become a land-owner if he can walk around the land he wants, gets up at dawn and walks until dusk to acquire as much land as he can, but then drops dead from exhaustion. How much land does a man require? 6x6x3.