Iran

[sukeban]

2) Israel and Nukes.

 

I completely support Israel and their nuclear capabilities while denouncing the Arab world's attempt to build them ... why ?

Let me start off by saying that Israel is not Cuba who during the Cuban missile crisis actually wanted the Soviet Union to engage the United States in a nuclear war.

Israel will use guns, bombs etc to defend themselves and I'm sure that they only keep their other stuff - nukes - for in case - as insurance.

They are not a bunch of crazed people ready to deal out death and destruction in a nuclear holocaust ... they would far rather use other means ... but, having said

that, they will not sit idly by and be obliterated by anyone.

 

How would you feel if you were surrounded on EVERY SIDE by people who wished nothing more than to kill you ... and the worst thing is that your brothers - fellow Jews,

who are supposed to support you are some of the absolute worst left wing radicals in the world ... what a disgrace.

Btw, David Ben Gurion was a hero, all he wanted was to have a place for his people to live in peace and freedom.

I have met a lot of Jews, Israeli Jews born in Palestine and they have no hatred for the Arabs, they just want peace as do most Jews IN ISRAEL.

 

3) Double Standards ?

 

Israel is not talking about destroying anyone ... Iran is, DPRK is a direct threat to South Korea, a proper Democracy that allows opposition and voting.

Pakistan ... hah, the land that sheltered Ben Laden, sure they didn't know, right ?

I don't have a problem with Israel existing, if that's what you're trying to imply. I find the circumstances around its origins to be somewhat... distasteful, what with the bombing of the King David Hotel and the Irgun thugs engaging in what would today pass as terrorist activities against the British and the local Palestinians. Then there is the whole 1949 debacle and the land-grabs and the fact that all of this was done without any input from the Arabs. And the Balfour Declaration. Sure, there were Jewish folk living in the area, but they were far, far, far from the majority and when last they were it was absolute ancient history. That would be like the Native Americans coming back to occupy the entire San Francisco Bay Area. Without the input of anybody actually living there--and backed by China and Brazil. In my opinion, it was an absolute (to use Wu-Tan Clan terminology) "jack-move" perpetrated against the Palestinians by a foreign, well-connected Jewish lobby that knew precisely what it wanted and played upon Western regret over the Holocaust in order to get it. And Israel still uses that regret as a tool, I mean: Benjamin Netanyahu handing Obama the Book of Esther??! PUH-LEEZE.

 

Be that as it may, Israel is here to stay and Palestinians are delusional to think otherwise. And that's okay, because I have some Israeli friends too and they are some of the best people ever. The Likud Party in Israel (and the militant Orthodox Party, whatever it's called) is an abomination, but the everyday Israeli-on-the-street seems fantastic. And my Israeli friends are even more "liberal" on the Palestinian issue that I am. In any case, I wish the Israeli people peace, prosperity, and continued democracy.

 

Regarding nuclear weapons vis-a-vis Israel, that argument is totally not convincing. The exact same thing could be said about Iran right now (beset by neighbors that hate its guts and want to see it destroyed), same for North Korea. Pakistan views India as the same sort of existential threat that Israel sees embodied in the Arab states, so by that logic their acquisition of nuclear weapons may be justified as well. I accept that Israel is acting in its own security interests (note how I didn't say "best" interests)--the same as any other state does. Israel is not special. Iran is not special. All are merely countries trying to ensure the survival of their people. I am not de-legitimizing Israel's pursuit of an atomic weapon just as I will categorically not de-legitimize Iran's pursuit of the very same technology. Our countries (USA, UK, NZ, AUS) and Israel do, however. I don't view nuclear weapons as the best course of action for anybody, but it is not irrational to seek the capability.

 

Therefore, David Ben-Gurion = Kim Jong-il in terms of their shared desires to proliferate. One might be more upstanding than the other in many, many other areas, but in this area they are exactly the same. Israel used espionage, subterfuge, and a covert alliance with France in order to gain a nuclear capability. They accepted Eisenhower's "Atoms for Peace" initiative to gain access to a nuclear reactor (ostensibly for electricity generation) that they then used to enrich uranium for a weapon. They built the secret Dimona facility deep in the Negev Desert to conceal their work. Wow, what does this sound a whole lot like? Right, Iran.

 

People (fair-minded people, at least) bash Israel because they have essentially been living under neo-Conservative (the W. Bush Administration) rule for the last fifteen years. They have taken a hawkish, hard-line approach in all of their foreign policy dealings and have spoiled a lot of goodwill that would otherwise be headed their way. I like Israel and like Israeli people (and food, yum). I do not like the right-wing Israeli government nor hard-line Orthodox settlers. Unfortunately, these are the folks that have been calling all the shots in Israel for a very, very long time.

Edited April 1, 2012 by sukeban

[ginnyfizz]

OMG...I must confess that I find the idea of David Ben Gurion as a fanatical lunatic dictator on a par with Kim Jong-Il really quite extraordinary.

 

Sukeban, you really need to delve into the history of Israel and the "Palestinians" a little more deeply. My cards on the table first. I am British and I am also part Jewish on my mother's side although I practice a different faith. (No religious debate, statement of fact). I happen to regard British policy when they held the Palestine mandate as a stain on our national history. The British Foreign Office has always pursued an Arabist policy, being still stuck in their minds in the Lawrence of Arabia era. Moreover, whereas you have a powerful Jewish pro-Israel lobby in the United States, you are the only place that really does. I regret to say that anti-Semitism has never really disappeared in Britain and Europe. Now, none of this excuses the activities of the Irgun gang, but you have to realise that the British Mandate was really very far from benign as far as the Jews were concerned. Whereas higher level policy spoke in favour of a Jewish homeland, the people on the ground often behaved brutally. When WW2 was declared, whereas many Israeli Jews enlisted in the British army, the Palestinian Mufti of Jerusalem, the lovely Haj-Amin al Husseini, loudly supported Hitler and his genocidal ways (IIRC even we had to kick him out for a while). This is why I always smirk bitterly when I see a member of that same family pop up on the TV as a Palestinian spokesperson. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

 

What is distasteful about the circumstances around the founding of the State of Israel is rather more complicated than the bombing of the King David Hotel. I find it distasteful that officers from my own country led the Arab Legion which, after the State of Israel was formed, immediately violated that emergent states borders and seized Jerusalem and other points. So some (I say not all)of your "hard line settlers" are only taking back what had been part of the State of Israel from the first.

 

Why anyone is surprised/shocked at the Israelis having nukes I really don't know (ummm...Oppenheimer, Einstein anyone...?). I am well aware of the Samson option, thankyou very much. I also think the Israelis have more sense than to use it, Immadinnerjacket in Iran, on the other hand....

[grannywils]

Going green this month...

 

I just have to say that I enjoyed reading both of the above posts by Sukeban and Ginny. You both make such compelling arguments that I find myself nodding at most of what each of you have to say. It boggles the mind.

 

However, I will say two things, although I agree partially with you on much that you have to say on this subject Sukeban, I cannot help but note in this post and some others of yours a certain tone that despite your protestations to the contrary hint of a tiny bit of anti-Israelism.

 

(Granny-I am sorry to say I edited your post. While this prior sentence is fine and this would lead to an answering of questions you may wish...the next part was a bit accusatory and if that is how you see matters and its that serious then it would be advisable to report it. I would rather not have anyone make a very serious statement like this and have things get difficult in the thread. That is my job. :thumbsup: Thank you and have a nice day.~Lisnpuppy)

 

The second thing that I have to say is, Ginny, it does not always matter what you say, I just love to read your posts. They are always well thought out, well presented, and most importantly you invariably make me laugh. Bless you, girl!!! :P

[Aurielius]

OMG...I must confess that I find the idea of David Ben Gurion as a fanatical lunatic dictator on a par with Kim Jong-Il really quite extraordinary.

 

Sukeban, you really need to delve into the history of Israel and the "Palestinians" a little more deeply. My cards on the table first. I am British and I am also part Jewish on my mother's side although I practice a different faith. (No religious debate, statement of fact). I happen to regard British policy when they held the Palestine mandate as a stain on our national history. The British Foreign Office has always pursued an Arabist policy, being still stuck in their minds in the Lawrence of Arabia era. Moreover, whereas you have a powerful Jewish pro-Israel lobby in the United States, you are the only place that really does. I regret to say that anti-Semitism has never really disappeared in Britain and Europe. Now, none of this excuses the activities of the Irgun gang, but you have to realise that the British Mandate was really very far from benign as far as the Jews were concerned. Whereas higher level policy spoke in favour of a Jewish homeland, the people on the ground often behaved brutally. When WW2 was declared, whereas many Israeli Jews enlisted in the British army, the Palestinian Mufti of Jerusalem, the lovely Haj-Amin al Husseini, loudly supported Hitler and his genocidal ways (IIRC even we had to kick him out for a while). This is why I always smirk bitterly when I see a member of that same family pop up on the TV as a Palestinian spokesperson. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

 

What is distasteful about the circumstances around the founding of the State of Israel is rather more complicated than the bombing of the King David Hotel. I find it distasteful that officers from my own country led the Arab Legion which, after the State of Israel was formed, immediately violated that emergent states borders and seized Jerusalem and other points. So some (I say not all)of your "hard line settlers" are only taking back what had been part of the State of Israel from the first.

 

Why anyone is surprised/shocked at the Israelis having nukes I really don't know (ummm...Oppenheimer, Einstein anyone...?). I am well aware of the Samson option, thankyou very much. I also think the Israelis have more sense than to use it, Immadinnerjacket in Iran, on the other hand....

@Giinyfizz

Lucid, accurate and factual..well done.

 

@grannywils

I concur with your assessment though not in the enjoyment of revisionist history.

 

@Sukeban

The comparison of of Ben Gurion to Kim Jong was exceeding even your taste for hyperbole, Ben Gurion to my knowledge never asserted dictatorial powers, enslaved his populace or starved them while feeding his army. if one was to make a comparison of freedom fighters and terrorists that MIGHT have had some validity but your assertion is patently historically inaccurate. It seems that the old axiom of those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it's failures is once again proved valid. I make no brief for Israeli excesses but neither am I under threat of avowed annihilation as they have been since the creation of their state.

[HeyYou]

The Israelis have used the threat of the use of nuclear weapons on more than one occasion. Certainly, they have not done so lately...... I don't recall hearing Iran stating that as soon as they had one that worked, they would erase Jerusalem from the map though...... Of course, calling for the destruction of Israel doesn't exactly endear them either.... But again, they are not the only country with that particular rallying cry..... Egypt is starting to become more and more anti-Israel as well. (oh gee, big surprise there.....)

 

As for the Israel/Palestine thing.... well, that's been going on for decades, and BOTH sides share the blame for that particular debacle. PART of the problem is, the Jews see ALL of that land as theirs, given to them by God..... Doesn't matter that very few, if any of them were there prior to 1948...... nor does it seem to matter that none of them even really have any recent ancestry from that area. (at the time...) They were mostly displaced Russian Jews. Personally, that is an issue I think the US should just butt out of, and let the two sides figger that one out on their own. I suspect the issues surrounding that won't be completely resolved until one side, or the other.... are all dead. (take a wild stab in the dark at which side is more likely to survive. :D)

 

In my view, Iran has every right to develop nuclear weapons, treaty signatory or no. They can always abrogate the treaty, in the same manner that N. Korea did. In all reality, that would almost be a better idea for them, than sticking with their current course. Now, should Iran decide to USE one of said nuclear weapons, either directly, or, via some third party (hezbollah/hamas), they ALSO have the right to become a glass covered parking lot. Mr. Dinnerjacket isn't going to be in power (such as it is) for much longer, lets hope the next pres there is a tad more moderate...... (sane?)

[Nintii]

Actually HeyYou what the Israeli's are seeing is the ever shrinking land of Israel ... would that it be true that ALL that land be theirs.

If you were arrested and so was your family and relatives and their relatives and so on and on ... and you were sent off into the rest of the world, would you also not

oneday want to come back to the place of your birth ?

But now you do and other people have filled the land and refuse to give you the land in which your forefathers have dwelt for over a 1000 yrs ... and to top it off there's a

country up north called Iran that is run by a warmonger that says:

 

"The Zionist regime has lost its raison d'être. Today, the Palestinians identify with your name Khomeini, your memory, and in your path. They are walking in your illuminated path and the Zionist regime has reached a total dead end. Thanks to God, your wish will soon be realized, and this germ of corruption will be wiped off."

 

and

 

"... like a cancer cell that spreads through the body, this regime infects any region. It must be removed from the body"

 

and

 

"Those who think they can revive the stinking corpse of the usurping and fake Israeli regime by throwing a birthday party are seriously mistaken. Today the reason for the Zionist regime's existence is questioned, and this regime is on its way to annihilation."

 

Ahmadinejad also stated that Israel "has reached the end like a dead rat after being slapped by the Lebanese." Later, he said: "The Zionist regime is dying," and "The criminals imagine that by holding celebrations (...) they can save the Zionist regime from death." Ahmadinejad also stated that "They should know that regional nations hate this fake and criminal regime and if the smallest and briefest chance is given to regional nations they will destroy (it)".

 

Please not that the, "Wiped off the map" statement by "maa moo I'm ginna jab you" was not included in the line up of quotes because the

Iranians conveniantly claimed that it was a translation error.

 

Do you really want to give them nuclear capability ?

Edited April 1, 2012 by Nintii

[sukeban]

@Nintii + Aurielius

 

I'm not putting Ben-Gurion on par with Jong-il in any category except their (manifested through their actions) thirst for nuclear weapons and penchant for shady proliferation. Obviously Ben-Gurion is the better man and leader in every other category. But they were both serial proliferators. Both lied about their programs and intentions (Israel still officially lies about even having such weapons, clinging to their doctrine of "not being the first to introduce nuclear weapons to the Middle East *ques the laugh track*) and, as such, have destabilized their respective regions. As I've said before, it is rational for states to pursue nuclear weapons if they believe that their survival (either their people or merely their regime) is under threat. Israel is behaving rationally. But so is Iran. It is the latter that many folks seem to hold a blatant double-standard on. Echoing HY, Iran has every right to a nuclear weapon as well as civilian nuclear power. Agreeing with him further (and also endorsing his bid for President), Iran also has the right to destroy itself by ever using said weapons.

 

I stand by my assertion that Israel having nuclear weapons is probably more dangerous than Iran, largely because of the size of the country. They have almost no buffer area, that is why their stated nuclear doctrine is so aggressive. Their military is quite rational when they state that any ground attack that penetrates the 1967 borders will probably succeed in destroying their government (even if it is Holocaust-mongering to say that such an attack would also wipe out their people). That is why this is one of their "red lines" for a nuclear attack. Rational... but dangerous. It basically means that Israel can never lose a war without launching a nuclear strike against the victor. Now, it is unlikely that Israel ever would lose a conventional war with their neighbors given how well we arm them--as well as given the strength of their own weapons systems and their military--but it is not an impossible event to contemplate. Likely, we would also intervene before they ever actually lost a war....

 

Which brings me to my next point, that Israel has outsmarted us in this regard. They get to play the "madman" card (nuclear strike in case of losing war) which forces us to intervene on their behalf to ensure that they never lose said war. They know that we don't want to see anybody get nuked, that this is bad in and of itself but also highly undesirable politically to have one of our chief allies be the instigator of a nuclear attack. This is what happened in 1973. So they know that we will do whatever it takes to prevent Israel from ever using such a weapon against their neighbors (or the Soviet Union back in the day). Which means that we have to do their geopolitical bidding, keeping their neighbors weak and them insurmountably (in a Mideast context) strong. To do anything else is to potentially invite a nuclear strike, ruining everything. I would also say that threatening the Soviet Union over Egypt is the same functional thing as threatening the USA directly. If Israel had attacked the Soviet Union, the Soviet Union would likely have attacked us, viewing us (more or less correctly) as their sponsor. That might have provoked a nuclear exchange, thus--ending the world? And over what, the possibility of losing a conventional war that Israelis viewed as the extinction of their people? That is why small countries shouldn't have nuclear weapons.

 

As far as being anti-Israel myself, I do not feel that this is the case. I just do not view Israel as being anything particularly special. In other words, I am unsentimental (as I am about many other things) about that country. They are one country in a world of 186. The Holocaust was ~70 years ago. Horrific as it undeniably was, people need to let go of this and stop using it to justify their present-day behavior (again with Netanyahu and the Book of Esther). I suppose that I just find it rather unjust that the Arabs were made to pay for the crimes of Nazi Germany and their collaborating allies. If justice were really to be meted out against the offending parties, wouldn't a more logical course of action been to have given the Jewish people a part of Germany and consider that justice done?

 

That might be a shocking thing to read, but which is really more important in terms of the safety of the Jewish people (which we all want)--that they have a state to call their own or its precise location? Whatever the Mufti of Jerusalem may or may not have said or done back in the days, he did not plan, orchestrate, nor carry out the Holocaust.* So why were his people made to sacrifice their lands for the state of Israel? That is not justice. Germany was responsible for the crimes of the Holocaust, but was excused from paying penance. Nor do I look favorably at intersections of religion and state power, which is what the Zionist project is. If they really wanted a state, they could probably have had it just about anywhere. That they demanded it be in Palestine is a cultural and religious demand, not a matter of security. It is indeed the Jewish homeland, but it was also a tragically revanchist demand to make given that the Jewish people had not been a majority there for thousands of years. Think of all the displaced (or actually extinct) minorities that could make that same claim. What would the world look like then? It is a fact that Zionists were given special consideration given the aftermath of the Second World War. It is also a fact that the Taino Indians of the Caribbean (driven to extinction courtesy of Columbus) will never be extended this same sort of consideration, that they wouldn't even if they were still alive to tell the tale.

 

Ultimately, I mean to say that two wrongs do not make a right. Punish Germany for the crimes of Germans.

 

*Actually, just read a biography about the Mufti. It would appear as though he was one bad dude, very much supportive of the Holocaust and Hitler's program.

 

PS--

 

Orthodox settlers are insane. I view their God-given claims to Palestinian lands with about the same respect as I view polygamist Mormons who claim that God tells them that they may keep unlimited wives. God can tell them to do whatever he pleases privately, but to accept the legitimacy of one God condoning land-grabs is to also support the same line of reasoning that says that the Taliban is fighting a "holy" war.

Edited April 1, 2012 by sukeban

[ginnyfizz]

Quite so, Nintii.

 

@HeyYou, Now as it happens I am at the moment focused on a period of history just under 2000 years ago, which makes it quite apparent that there were Jews in Israel then and had been for thousands of years before that, excepting the odd diaspora of course. IIRC, the Arabs didn't arrive there, as conquerors, until the 7th Century CE. So there's no wonder the Israeli Jews think it's theirs. Their ancestors got there first, if you want to start splitting hairs. And the Jews began to return to Israel WAY before 1948, that is to say around about when they were officially expelled from every country in Europe during the Middle Ages. This goes back much farther than the First and Second Aliyah, or the Holocaust.

 

Given a past like that, and the ranting statements of Immadinnerjacket, as quoted by Nintii, and other ones made by various other leaders in the region, are we surprised that the Israelis want that nuclear option? (Even though they would have more sense than to use it.) We surely shouldn't be.

 

@sukeban, the Mufti actively collaborated with the Nazi regime and suggested that the Jews in Israel should be sent to Poland "under strong and energetic guard". He recruited some of his deluded followers for the Waffen SS. How he escaped the "three yards of cord and a sliding board" treatment baffles me. Do try reading what I said. There really was not anywhere else the State of Israel could have been, given what I have said above about the Jews being expelled from every country in Europe. Whether you like it or not, they had historic ties and claims there. Oh and by the way, the Balfour Declaration and the agreement in principle to establish the Jewish homeland predates WW2, please let's get our history in order.

 

I find it quite interesting that you make a statement such as "So why were his people made to sacrifice their lands for the state of Israel?", which implies an acceptance that the lands belong to the "Palestinians", whilst suggesting that the Israelis could go some place else and thus also implying that they have less right to be there than the "Palestinians".

[HeyYou]

Oh, I don't have a problem with Israel having nukes, they are a significantly more stable regime than some of the other nuclear powers...... (Pakistan, India, N. Korea.......) I don't have a problem with the existence of Israel either. (although, the whole partitioning of the middle east after WWII was certainly not implemented very well.......) I DO have some issues with their foreign policies though..... but, that's for another thread. :) Thanks for the info on some of the history there though. Muchly appreciated.

 

A nuclear Iran, though certainly not something I see as in the worlds best interests...... (right along with a nuclear anyone else.....) IS something we are going to have to deal with. Sure, we can bomb the facilities, and set them back a few years, but, is that really something we want to have to do every few years????? A good percentage of the muslim world doesn't particularly care for the west as it is, bombing one of their 'buds' on a regular basis most certainly is NOT going to endear us to them..... Even Iraq is moving closer to Iran...... and given the events currently going on there, I could see a time when they become really good buddies... won't that be fun?

 

So, what are our choices here? Bomb Iran every few years, on the suspicion that they are developing the bomb? Wait until they test one, and then bomb the crap out of them? (as we would have evidence they did indeed have a nuclear weapons program......) Or, let them develop the bomb, and keep them on notice that should one of their bombs detonate somewhere outside their border, even 'by accident'..... there is gonna be a terrible price to be paid......? Or heck, they may continue with their peaceful development of nuclear power, and never bother building a bomb... just to keep the rest of the world guessing.

 

The first option would seriously annoy a good chunk of the muslim world, and terrorist recruiting would skyrocket, as "the great satan" perpetrated an 'unprovoked' attack against a sovereign muslim nation. Again.... Ooooo, would the terrorists LOVE that......

 

The second option would give us a bit more of a leg to stand on at least.... we would have some concrete evidence of a nuclear weapons program at least... something that we don't really have at the moment. The muslim world make shake their fingers at us, but, would have less grounds for a jihad against the west. (like they really need a valid reason......)

 

The third option? While it would most certainly SUCK for someone...... (several million someones really.....) the consequences for Iran would be horrific. They would immediately become a pariah nation, except for a VERY few staunch supporters...... most of whom we could ignore anyway, and the rest of the world would more than likely support the drubbing Iran would take for it. (Russia and China might make some noise, but, in the end, they wouldn't be able to say a hell of a lot.....)

 

The fourth option? This would be the ideal..... but, not what I expect to happen. :)

 

I still think we should just drop all the damn sanctions, that aren't doing a hell of a lot anyway... (I mean, seriously, we have had sanctions in place against Cuba for better than 50 years.... and that hasn't made one whit of difference.) Allowing Iranian oil onto the common market would go at least a little ways toward easing the price of gasoline right here in the states....... Iran is going to do what they are going to do anyway.... Might just as well accept it, and make the best of a bad situation.

[sukeban]

@sukeban, the Mufti actively collaborated with the Nazi regime and suggested that the Jews in Israel should be sent to Poland "under strong and energetic guard". He recruited some of his deluded followers for the Waffen SS. How he escaped the "three yards of cord and a sliding board" treatment baffles me. Do try reading what I said. There really was not anywhere else the State of Israel could have been, given what I have said above about the Jews being expelled from every country in Europe. Whether you like it or not, they had historic ties and claims there. Oh and by the way, the Balfour Declaration and the agreement in principle to establish the Jewish homeland predates WW2, please let's get our history in order.

 

I find it quite interesting that you make a statement such as "So why were his people made to sacrifice their lands for the state of Israel?", which implies an acceptance that the lands belong to the "Palestinians", whilst suggesting that the Israelis could go some place else and thus also implying that they have less right to be there than the "Palestinians".

Agreed regarding the Mufti. I would now accept the statement that had Germany won the war, he would have eagerly collaborated with Hitler to solve his own "Jewish Problem" using the same methods. But, that didn't happen. France, Poland, Austria, Italy, Czechoslovakia, etc. did however, collaborate with the Nazis and send their Jewish populations (in varying degrees) to death camps. The Mufti probably would have too, but "probably would have" isn't the same thing as "did." It does, I will relent, weaken my argument, however.

 

In any case, who said anything the Balfour Declaration being before the Second World War? Certainly I did not. I only mentioned it as evidence that Zionists were well-connected within European powers in ways that Arabs were not, signifying the disadvantage that the Arabs were at later when events finally came to a head after the war.

 

Additionally, "their lands" means the people actually living there at the time (i.e. primarily Arabs), you know, the ones actually occupying the lands. Again, Israel was (in 1947) Jewish land in the same way that all of the United States is presently Native American land. If somebody came to evict the residents of Manhattan in favor of the Lenape Indians (its original inhabitants), we would reject their claim and say that the land belonged to modern American New Yorkers--because that is how things exist now--and not to the tribe. Nearly every ethnicity on Earth can make revanchist claims against its neighbors about who was there first way back in the misty mire of prehistory. None of it really matters, however, unless they have the military or political muscle to do something about it in the present.

 

Israel could have been placed anywhere on the map to be perfectly frank. Wasn't Theodore Hertzl looking around somewhere in Africa before the Balfour Declaration ever came down? There were also Sephardic Jews scattered around the rest of the Middle East (and Ethiopia). I will contend that it was one of the last gasps of imperialism that saw the state carved out at the Arabs' expense. Even if the British were consumed were fantasies of Lawrence of Arabia or the nobility of the Arab people or whatever... it is certainly easier to take non-Europeans' lands than it is to take those of Europeans. Lots of history doing that, lots of experience. At the time, it was practically a European sport, or, I should say--a game.

Edited April 2, 2012 by sukeban