2 readers online now  |  69 million page views

Infidel's History

Reader comment on item: Trouble in Londonistan
in response to reader comment: Israel's History

Submitted by Sword of Islam & The Babies of Beslan (United Kingdom), Aug 21, 2006 at 00:53

Submitted by Infidel, Aug 13, 2006 at 03:33

"Thanks to the British sympathy for the Arabs, Israel today consists of less than 10% of the land intended for them by the League of Nations."

And it is thanks to British sympathy for the Jews the state of Israel actually exists as a entity. Without the Balfour Declaration (British) the series of events that lead to Israel's creation would not have occurred. Had the British not defeated the Turks and taken Palestine by force there would be no Israel. Had the British not been the biggest power in the League there would have been no mandate. Had the British not repaired/implemented Palestine's social infrastructure and eliminated the chronic disease and disorder that was rife, especially in Jerusalem, there would have been no population to build it.

The tenor of much of your text clearly suggested that Britain was arbitrarily selected to run this region by the League. Very disingenious. The British conquered that region (with more than a little Arab help - see T.E Lawrence or see Lawrence of Arabia). The British were the main world power in the League and the British initiated the whole affair. Without the British you would have NOTHING.

Given the unparalleled power of the US in this modern age and it's impotence in looking after those affected by Katrina it is quite simply moronic of anybody to imagine that a region that could barely support it's indigent population at the time could support the unrestrained waves of immigration that you would have liked to have seen in a desert at the turn of the last century. Especially given two intervening World Wars.

These are historical facts. They are irrefutable. Be thankful for the 10% that Israel does have rather than wistful for the 90% of desert that you might have had but which you never actually possessed or populated. Why was the 90% promised and then taken away? Who knows? You can take the easy route of the non-intellectual and apply 'oil' as the only motive but in doing so damn the activities of the current US government. I personally don't believe that the world is as black and white as that to anybody but the bigot. Reliance on hearsay and oil are debate strategies that I thought were almost exclusively Islamist. How mistaken I was.

Maybe losing 90% of territory that was mandated as being part of the non-existent state of Israel (at that time) was partially due to the fact that Jordan was never intended as anything other than a transitional state, hence the previous moniker of Transjordan, maybe it was because the British feared rival French imperialism in the region, especially given the proximity of Syria, a French colony at the time. Maybe it was oil, though this seems rather simple-minded given the British mandate in Iraq at that time. Maybe there was a moral obligation to the Arabs given the fact that the Arab Revolt shortened the war. Maybe the intention, or hope, was that it might defuse the situation and undermine Arab resentment against the waves of Jewish immigration to Palestine . Who knows? Maybe it was simply misguided politics. Maybe it was economic greed. Maybe it was a mixture of the two. Maybe it was due to the fact that the World experienced two wars of a magnitude never before seen. Maybe it Europe was in a mess. Maybe the US wasn't interested in anything outside the US - (remember that the US had a much shorter WWII than the rest of us). Maybe priorities changed. Maybe it was because Britain was bombed into oblivion and had a global empire that it could no longer administer thanks to these considerations. These are considerations that the objective student might make but who am I to deprive you of the redneck mentality that sees only race and money as motives.

Without the British, Israel would be 0%. Be thankful for the 10% rather than rueing the 90%. The British withdrew in 1947 after the Partition Plan was proposed by the newly formed UN. It had a majority vote. It was supported by the leaders of the soon to be ratified State of Israel. The British disagreed with the plan hence their withdrawal. They felt that the region would never find peace unless both sides agreed in principle I am sure that you will ascribe such sensibilities to Pro-Arab motives and a desire for oil but nobody else stepped in to replace them, not one of the 33 nations that ratified the Resolution, and the British were ultimately proven correct in their belief - they'd had a lot more practise than the rest of the world at that kind of game.

You must have a real dislike of Winston Churchill as he was instrumental in the controversial decisions that you resent so much. A real pity as he is something of a hero to us. Not a very encouraging augury for any hope of intellectual rapprochement between our respective points of view.

However, I must say that returning to a thread almost a month after throwing your toys out of the pram and facetiously conceding the argument is pretty low. It's akin to cheating oneself at a game of Solitaire. Presumably you simply wanted to have 'the last word' in an adult manner rather than in the childish manner with which you responded to my last comments and further delude yourself into believing that the thread had ended by virtue of your obvious intellectual brilliance. Sorry to disappoint you as I came upon the thread again by a lucky accident.

Repeatedly denigrating my single reference to Wikipedia is also rather cheap. This appears to be the strongest card in your hand. You have done it in multiple postings. It is rather purplexing given that you have failed to make a single reference to the other link that I posted which purports to provide data from both the US Congress and Israeli government despite numerous invitations to do so. Could it be that you are unable to find a single credible page amongst the billions on the Internet to refute the statistics provided?

If so, I'd be thankful for the opportunity to have learned something new. If not, you are merely re-emphasing your lack of an argument. Conspiracy theories alone simply don't cut it nor do references to 'secret' documents.

Have a nice day.

Submitting....

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

Comment on this item

Mark my comment as a response to Infidel's History by Sword of Islam & The Babies of Beslan

Email me if someone replies to my comment

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

See recent outstanding comments.

Follow Daniel Pipes

Facebook   Twitter   RSS   Join Mailing List

All materials by Daniel Pipes on this site: © 1968-2021 Daniel Pipes. daniel.pipes@gmail.com and @DanielPipes

Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum.Daniel J. Pipes

(The MEF is a publicly supported, nonprofit organization under section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Contributions are tax deductible to the full extent allowed by law. Tax-ID 23-774-9796, approved Apr. 27, 1998.

For more information, view our IRS letter of determination.)