T Nation

China Backs Iran

Politics and World Issues
#21

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
“…Absolutely right. Removing Israel will not auto-magically resolve the conflicts in the middle-east. It’s rooted too deep…”

lixy:

That’s the ONLY statement you made that seemed to place ANY responsibility for Middle East problems on anyone OTHER than Israel and America…

[/quote]

I think the statement of Lixy’s right after the one you quoted is the more compelling one, naming the British and the French as culprits. The Jews and the Palestinians are acting as they would be expected to act in order to ensure their own survival, but Britain, France, the UN, and the US are very much to blame for basically putting all the bugs in the jar and shaking it, then sitting back and watching them fight.

I said it on another thread, but Britain is ultimately to blame for the problems of Iraq and Afghanistan, and arguably Iran as well, inasmuch they had a hand in engineering a coup (along with the CIA) to replace Prime Minister Mossadeq with Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who was more receptive to doing business with British Petroleum.

As for Israel, Britain had committed to helping the Zionist Federation establish a Jewish homeland in 1917, following the first World War. The Foreign Secretary, former Prime Minister Arthur Balfour wrote a letter to Baron Rothschild promising just that, on the condition that the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities (i.e., Muslim and Christian Palestinian Arabs) would not be prejudiced by the establishment of such a homeland. A Jewish state, with traditional sovereignty, was not included in the promise.

While the UN was busy carving off a piece of Palestine for the Zionists (in an arrangement that pleased nobody: the Arabs complained that the Jews were given too much of the good land; the Zionists complained they weren’t given enough…and they wanted all of Jerusalem, too, which under the UN plan would be under international administration), the British were busy being intimidated by various Zionist organizations to get their troops out of Palestine. The King David Hotel was bombed in 1946 by Menachem Begin’s Irgun group, which, along with the Stern Gang sent letter-bombs to prominent British politicians who opposed the establishment of a Jewish state.

The intimidation campaign worked: on May 14, 1948, the British pulled out of the Palestine Mandate. Ben-Gurion declared Israel to be a sovereign state that very night.

One cannot go back ninety years and undo the mistakes of the past, but IF:

…the Brits had not split the Osmani Khalifate into the phony kingdoms of Hejaz, Syria, Jordan and Mesopotamia, then handed them over to the Hashemite bedouins at the insistence of T.E. Lawrence; and

…they had remained in the Palestine Mandate until the disputes between the Jewish settlers and the native Palestinians (many of whom were landless peasants who had been uprooted from their farms by shady real estate deals between the settlers and absentee landlords) had been resolved,

I believe that by and large the problems we are seeing today in the Middle East would be, while not nonexistent, certainly much less…explosive.

#22

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
I think the statement of Lixy’s right after the one you quoted is the more compelling one, naming the British and the French as culprits. The Jews and the Palestinians are acting as they would be expected to act in order to ensure their own survival, but Britain, France, the UN, and the US are very much to blame for basically putting all the bugs in the jar and shaking it, then sitting back and watching them fight.

I said it on another thread, but Britain is ultimately to blame for the problems of Iraq and Afghanistan, and arguably Iran as well, inasmuch they had a hand in engineering a coup (along with the CIA) to replace Prime Minister Mossadeq with Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who was more receptive to doing business with British Petroleum.

As for Israel, Britain had committed to helping the Zionist Federation establish a Jewish homeland in 1917, following the first World War. The Foreign Secretary, former Prime Minister Arthur Balfour wrote a letter to Baron Rothschild promising just that, on the condition that the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities (i.e., Muslim and Christian Palestinian Arabs) would not be prejudiced by the establishment of such a homeland. A Jewish state, with traditional sovereignty, was not included in the promise.

While the UN was busy carving off a piece of Palestine for the Zionists (in an arrangement that pleased nobody: the Arabs complained that the Jews were given too much of the good land; the Zionists complained they weren’t given enough…and they wanted all of Jerusalem, too, which under the UN plan would be under international administration), the British were busy being intimidated by various Zionist organizations to get their troops out of Palestine. The King David Hotel was bombed in 1946 by Menachem Begin’s Irgun group, which, along with the Stern Gang sent letter-bombs to prominent British politicians who opposed the establishment of a Jewish state.

The intimidation campaign worked: on May 14, 1948, the British pulled out of the Palestine Mandate. Ben-Gurion declared Israel to be a sovereign state that very night.

One cannot go back ninety years and undo the mistakes of the past, but IF:

…the Brits had not split the Osmani Khalifate into the phony kingdoms of Hejaz, Syria, Jordan and Mesopotamia, then handed them over to the Hashemite bedouins at the insistence of T.E. Lawrence; and

…they had remained in the Palestine Mandate until the disputes between the Jewish settlers and the native Palestinians (many of whom were landless peasants who had been uprooted from their farms by shady real estate deals between the settlers and absentee landlords) had been resolved,

I believe that by and large the problems we are seeing today in the Middle East would be, while not nonexistent, certainly much less…explosive.[/quote]

Which goes to show you that any diplomatic fuck-up, no matter how severe, can and will gain legitimacy once enough time has passed (usually one generation). This is the first hurdle, and enough time has transpired for the Jewish state to clear it. An entire generation has been raised to believe in the lie of Israel’s right to exist.

It’s a lose-lose situation for the Palestinians and they know it, which is precisely why their side employs terrorist tactics. It’s bad enough to have something stolen from you. It’s 10 times worse to have everyone around you think the thief has a right to your belongings.

It’s clear that the so-called “terrorists” are by no means less legitimate than the Israeli state.

The proper course of action for the Western powers, at this point in time, would be to step aside and let one side wipe out the other or drive it out of the region. Only then will the ME have another chance at peace and order.

There are two possible scenarios:

One is to have a relatively low number of casualties on both sides over a protracted time period. That’s the current situation.

The other alternative is to have a large number of deaths in a short time period.

The latter scenario saves more lives in the long run. Liberals tremble at the very thought, but neocons ought to know better. They have have employed identical rationalizations in the past to justify the use of overwhelming military force (such as on the part of the US against Japan).

So let it end in a bloody and timely manner. Sometimes, people need to die before anything can get accomplished.

#23

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
…

I believe that by and large the problems we are seeing today in the Middle East would be, while not nonexistent, certainly much less…explosive.[/quote]

Absolutely. The Brits intentionally fucked things up on their way out the door.

I find it amusing when they come here and criticize the US for trying to fix the problems Britian cause.

It is like setting a fire and then jeckling the firefighters.

Of course at least they are trying to help now.

#24

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:

So let it end in a bloody and timely manner. Sometimes, people need to die before anything can get accomplished.[/quote]

Hmmm. Interesting idea. And so much simpler than my Aussie Airlift Plan. You need to give it a snappy title, though. How about The Final Solution?

It’ll never happen, of course. For one thing, the Jewish lobbies of Britain and the US would never allow their governments to just sit there and let Israel get trashed in a war of attrition (yes, I know Israel has nuclear weapons. I daresay that demand would exceed supply).

For another thing, I don’t think the United States is capable of just standing back and letting things run their course.

Unless it’s in some piss-poor country like Rwanda that nobody cares about.