Have we (the US) screwed up the Middle East?[W:51***]

Re: Have we (the US) screwed up the Middle East?

Kreton said:

Id say the blame falls on the world, including the middle east and the US. US definitely made it worse, so have many other countries, but the middle east damn sure isn't helping themselves.

Click to expand...

I don't even know what "helping themselves" means. They have a right to self determination and how they want to live their lives. They have chosen a theocratic tribal society. It isn't the same as a western democracy but they have no interest in having a western democracy. In fact, it's the west's meddling, trying to impose a western society on them, that has caused most of the problems. Take Saudi Arabia. They were doing just fine before WWI when the west arbitrarily picked one tribe to take charge because they wanted a single group to deal with. They didn't do that to themselves, it was imposed on them from the west.

Re: Have we (the US) screwed up the Middle East?

Apocalypse said:

Radicalism and fundamentalism screwed the Middle East.

Click to expand...

As close to the truth as anything. . . One can say that the extremists have bought this on themselves , via centuries of hatred and intolerance. And, the extremists are try to do the same to our own nation .

Re: Have we (the US) screwed up the Middle East?

It's a religiously based society. Hence it's inherently screwed up. Islam is primordial.

Re: Have we (the US) screwed up the Middle East?

Ryan5 said:

It's a religiously based society. Hence it's inherently screwed up. Islam is primordial.

Click to expand...

Does that translate to "In God we trust," or am I cornfused.

Re: Have we (the US) screwed up the Middle East?

Sherman123 said:

1. I tried to address these in sequence.

We haven't been "constantly screwing" with the 'people' and 'governments' of the region. The vast bulk of the regimes in the Middle East either predated US involvement and/or have come about as a result of indigenous movements. I struggle to think of a country who's borders we 'determined' other than Iraq when we drove them out of Kuwait. We've assassinated vanishingly few Middle Eastern leaders or heads of state. In fact I'm struggling to think of any that we did. Would you care to name some that you think we killed? The selection of 'new heads of state' has also been vanishingly rare if not non-existent. The only example that comes to mind might be Iran but that doesn't really fit with your description.

We've certainly played both sides of the field in certain circumstances. This is only reasonable when you are presented with two terrible choices. The alternating support for Iraq and Iran during the Iran-Iraq War was emblematic of our desire that neither Baathist Iraq nor Islamist Iran would become hegemons in the Middle East.

Obviously US companies, like Dutch, British, Chinese, Korean, Japanese, etc, etc, companies have invested in the region and have periodically been given state partnerships as a result of their technical expertise, especially in the 50's and 60's. This has largely abated in favor of more conventional FDI. When have we sent our missionaries to assist with propagating our 'national religions'? We've occupied one state: Iraq. I hardly care about the 'sovereignty' that a genocidal fascist dictator asserts. Etc, etc, etc.

2. Without US involvement in the Middle East we could point to a plethora of likely outcomes. Going to the immediate post-war period in 1946, it is likely that without US pressure the Soviet Union would likely not have withdrawn support from the Mahabad Republic which would have likely resulted in the creation of a Sovietiezed Kurdish 'Republic' protruding into Iran as a springboard for deeper Soviet penetration and further conflict. This is just one early example among a litany. Without US involvement in the Middle East it is likely that Saddam Hussein and Baathist fascism would reign from the Euphrates to the Gulf and that his government would once again have become embroiled in a war with Iran, a war, with new resources, it might have won. Without US involvement it seems quite likely that Jordan would have collapsed in bloodbaths under pressure from Syrian backed Palestinian uprisings in the 1970's. Without US involvement it seems probable that the Soviet Union would have extended an immensely greater hand throughout the region ensuring much greater regional conflict and violence between the likes of Soviet backed Syria and Egypt against Jordan and Iraq. Instead, as a result of US involvement, these conflicts never materialized and remained 'cold' before eventually dissipating.

I mean I could go on and on. The list of hypotheticals is nearly endless.

3. You wouldn't? Civilization hinges upon access to resources. Food, Oil, Water, Copper, Rubber, it doesn't really matter what you call it. There is a difference between advocating Imperial conquest and colonization and recognizing the importance of resources and the need to ensure that they do not fall into the wrong hands. I'm perfectly willing to say it was in the interests of the United States, and the world, that the oil and natural gas of the Persian Gulf did not fall under the exclusive control of Saddam Hussein.

Click to expand...

Sherman, I appreciate your response. I want to do it justice and I will respond later today. So far it's been a Monday and all that that means.

Re: Have we (the US) screwed up the Middle East?

Cephus said:

I don't even know what "helping themselves" means. They have a right to self determination and how they want to live their lives. They have chosen a theocratic tribal society. It isn't the same as a western democracy but they have no interest in having a western democracy. In fact, it's the west's meddling, trying to impose a western society on them, that has caused most of the problems. Take Saudi Arabia. They were doing just fine before WWI when the west arbitrarily picked one tribe to take charge because they wanted a single group to deal with. They didn't do that to themselves, it was imposed on them from the west.

Click to expand...

The actions that they are taking against each other is their choice. Noone is forcing them to do those things. And the middle east and Saudi were not doing just fine.

Re: Have we (the US) screwed up the Middle East?

DaveFagan said:

Does that translate to "In God we trust," or am I cornfused.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure how you got fused to corn, but that sounds painful.

Re: Have we (the US) screwed up the Middle East?

ecofarm said:

Sovereignty belongs to the people and not a tyrant. Where tyrants rule, the people are not sovereign. Protecting the sovereignty of a tyrant that has taken sovereignty from the people is intellectually pathetic garbage.

Click to expand...

Good, and they can have a ****ing revolution instead of call for daddy to come in.

Well, if they even want a ****ing revolution in the first place.

Re: Have we (the US) screwed up the Middle East?

Yes, the US screwed up the middle east when it put the Shah in power and the rest is history.

Re: Have we (the US) screwed up the Middle East?

radcen said:

Have we (the US) screwed up the Middle East?

I think we have, and for decades to come. For good or for bad, and as imperfect as it was, it was somewhat stable. Now, it's chaos.

Discuss.

Click to expand...

Yes! End of discussion.

Re: Have we (the US) screwed up the Middle East?

Other, or "all of the above" .
That a World War has not commenced here .. a miracle .. I am referring to WW2 (capped off with nuclear bombs ..) Not the "Great War" or WW1 .

Re: Have we (the US) screwed up the Middle East?

Sherman123 said:

1. I tried to address these in sequence.

Click to expand...

Hopefully you will be able to follow my response without your quotes.


1. In semi-modern times, the 1920's or so, the US began following the UK's lead in the Middle East. Early days Britain cared more about/for oil in the region than the US did. The US of course was present in the region a bit earlier with WWI and all that. It was perhaps the very beginning of the passing of the empire torch from the UK to the US.

If we jump to 1947 (I remember that year because it seems that 1947 was a year of note for so many events, many beginnings; right after WWII.) The UK and the West, most especially the US, agreed to partition Palestine while promising to support the establishment of an Arab nation. Most of Palestine went to Jews to become Israel. Palestinians got shafted on the deal in many ways. The US followed Britain's lead but very strongly supported Israel. This occurred as the US was becoming the dominant world power. That fact and America's actions did not go unnoticed by the people of the Middle East.

In short the West lied to and screwed over Muslim people and nations as the US began to take great interest in the region. When pressed by the Arab world to fulfill its promise regarding Palestine the UK and the US orchestrated a "study committee" at the UN. The Arab world has been waiting for what they were promised ever since. Meanwhile the US has become a growing presence in the region. Often - albeit not always - the US has sided with Israel in regional disputes.

Coups and attempted coups in the region: Iran, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Turkey, Eqypt. The US has always had a go to guy ready to replace the deposed leader. In some cases such as Iran the US has deposed popular, democratically elected leaders. Yet we lecture the region about democracy.

Attempted assassinations: Saddam Hussein and Abdul Nasser?

It isn't difficult to understand why people in the region remain pissed off. We have continually screwed with them, lied to them, screwed with their governments and we won't leave. If the situation was reversed there is no question Americans would be apoplectic and screaming for bloody revenge.

As to being left with terrible choices in the region, how about no choice? The one thing we have not done is left the region the hell alone. The region doesn't belong to us. We don't have a dog in the fight.

2. Without US involvement in the region it would have been the region's issues to resolve among themselves. We have no business being involved. Without US involvement in the region over the last 70 years we might have been looking at a much different region. Without US involvement in the invasion of Iraq, without our continued presence in Afghanistan the region may not have burst into ball of fundamentalist hell. The region may well have been more peaceful than it is now.


3. If they make me King of the US tomorrow (don't put your money on it at this point) I would initiate sweeping changes in the way we look at energy consumption. No nation can needlessly was oil like the United States. Canadians aren't far behind. Do we need oil? Yes, of course. Do we use it wisely? We use it wildly. We could be/should be much less dependent upon oil. As a nation most Americans would rather have a relatively few Americans kill other people on their behalf so that Americans can continue to piss away oil.

Oil is not an infinite resource. People have died and people will die so that Americans can continue to live large. As a nation we are acting irresponsibly and I doubt we want to face the karmic debt.

Re: Have we (the US) screwed up the Middle East?

radcen said:

Have we (the US) screwed up the Middle East?

I think we have, and for decades to come. For good or for bad, and as imperfect as it was, it was somewhat stable. Now, it's chaos.

Discuss.

Click to expand...

Yes and no.

The "screwing up" of the Middle East started long before the US even cared about the region. With the end of the Ottoman Empire, new countries were created based on French and British colonial views and "Christian" views and not the tribal formations on the ground. This is the root cause of many of the problems today. While the Ottoman Empire were bastards the last 50-100 years of their Empire, they did manage to keep the region relatively peaceful by establishing administrative areas based on tribal and religious borders for the most part. The French and British screwed that up big time.

Then came Atturk. The single biggest mistake Atturk made was to abolish the Caliphate in 1924. It basically removed the "Pope" type figure/system from the Islamic world, mean the age old tribal and religious conflicts that the Ottomans and the Caliphate had put in check for centuries, were allowed slowly to brew up again.

And then there was of course Israel... the elephant in the room. Forcing the creation of a new nation against the will of the majority of the population is a bad idea, and especially in part of the world that is coveted by 2 major religions and one minor one. It is the recipe for disaster.

The US became involved with the formation of Israel and has never looked back in its meddling. It has made a bad situation worse and worse, especially since 2003. It started with the Suez Canal disaster, and the cutting off the balls of the British and French. Then it continued with the support on one hand Israel and the other hand Iran. This drove Syria and Egypt into the hands of the Soviets. The new "false" nations were only held together by strong men, often supported by the US or Soviets.

Then 2003 came, Iraq was invaded and all hell has broken loose ever since... and THAT is certainly the US fault.

Re: Have we (the US) screwed up the Middle East?

Risky Thicket said:

If we jump to 1947 (I remember that year because it seems that 1947 was a year of note for so many events, many beginnings; right after WWII.) The UK and the West, most especially the US, agreed to partition Palestine while promising to support the establishment of an Arab nation. Most of Palestine went to Jews to become Israel.

Click to expand...

The British mandate of Palestine covered what is today Jordan as well. The split was into two Arab states and a single Jewish state. Of the territory known as Palestine itself the majority went to the Jewish people, yes, but of the land given to the Palestinian-Jews the majority was in the Negev desert, a lower-quality territory that is literally dead in its majority and until this day not much was done with it, while the Palestinian-Arabs received most of northern Israel, a higher-quality territory.

Thus Palestinians got shafted on the deal in many ways.
(...)
In short the West lied to and screwed over Muslim people and nations as the US began to take great interest in the region.

Click to expand...

They weren't. The problem was that the Palestinian-Arabs' leadership and the surrounding Arab nations were not willing to accept any deal that allowed a Jewish state in the land, not that they felt that this deal specifically was unfair.

When pressed by the Arab world to fulfill its promise regarding Palestine the UK and the US orchestrated a "study committee" at the UN. The Arab world has been waiting for what they were promised ever since.

Click to expand...

What, precisely, are you referring to by "have been waiting for what they were promised ever since"? The international community promised two Arab states and a Jewish state in the lands of the British Mandate of Palestine, yes. Did they not fulfill that promise? How so? Jordan exists, Israel exists. Palestine could exist as well if not for their very own actions, you will agree. So where was the promise not seen through?

Meanwhile the US has become a growing presence in the region. Often - albeit not always - the US has sided with Israel in regional disputes.

Click to expand...

And so did the rest of the West, not just the US. In fact Western Europe was supporting Israel since its establishment, the US only started providing financial and military support since the Six-Day war. How, exactly, was it a wrong move to side with a Western democracy over dictatorships and theocracies with Soviet funding pray tell? And that's without even approaching the issue of who was right or wrong here.

Coups and attempted coups in the region: Iran, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Turkey, Eqypt. The US has always had a go to guy ready to replace the deposed leader. In some cases such as Iran the US has deposed popular, democratically elected leaders. Yet we lecture the region about democracy.

Click to expand...

The Iranian coup was probably the stupidest move in the CIA's history, no arguments here.

It isn't difficult to understand why people in the region remain pissed off. We have continually screwed with them, lied to them, screwed with their governments and we won't leave. If the situation was reversed there is no question Americans would be apoplectic and screaming for bloody revenge.

(...)

2. Without US involvement in the region it would have been the region's issues to resolve among themselves. We have no business being involved. Without US involvement in the region over the last 70 years we might have been looking at a much different region. Without US involvement in the invasion of Iraq, without our continued presence in Afghanistan the region may not have burst into ball of fundamentalist hell. The region may well have been more peaceful than it is now.

Click to expand...

Islamic fundamentalism in the region precedes the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. They would have reached that point regardless of US intervention unfortunately, it was the path these societies have taken, not some path they were pushed into by the US as you're painting it.

Re: Have we (the US) screwed up the Middle East?

PeteEU said:

The "screwing up" of the Middle East started long before the US even cared about the region. With the end of the Ottoman Empire, new countries were created based on French and British colonial views and "Christian" views and not the tribal formations on the ground. This is the root cause of many of the problems today. While the Ottoman Empire were bastards the last 50-100 years of their Empire, they did manage to keep the region relatively peaceful by establishing administrative areas based on tribal and religious borders for the most part. The French and British screwed that up big time.

Click to expand...

I agree but that's more true in Africa's case than it is in the case of the Middle East.

And then there was of course Israel... the elephant in the room. Forcing the creation of a new nation against the will of the majority of the population is a bad idea, and especially in part of the world that is coveted by 2 major religions and one minor one. It is the recipe for disaster.

Click to expand...

The formation itself did not ensure a war will happen, it is the position of the Arab nations that a Jewish state is unacceptable in the land that is the reason for the wars. The majority population might have been non-Jewish but in the lands that were given to the Palestinian-Jews the majority were actually Jewish.

The US became involved with the formation of Israel and has never looked back in its meddling. It has made a bad situation worse and worse, especially since 2003. It started with the Suez Canal disaster, and the cutting off the balls of the British and French. Then it continued with the support on one hand Israel and the other hand Iran. This drove Syria and Egypt into the hands of the Soviets. The new "false" nations were only held together by strong men, often supported by the US or Soviets.

Click to expand...

This assertion is false, the Soviets pushed Egypt and Syria into Soviet hands and nobody else did. They offered them money and weapons that nobody else offered them, why wouldn't they join hands under the Soviet umbrella?

Re: Have we (the US) screwed up the Middle East?

sawdust said:

Mistake number one. Bush should not have invaded Iraq.

Mistake number two. Everything Obama has done in Libya, Egypt, Iraq, Syria and Yemen.

Click to expand...

you spelled operation ajax wrong.

Re: Have we (the US) screwed up the Middle East?

sawdust said:

Mistake number one. Bush should not have invaded Iraq.

Mistake number two. Everything Obama has done in Libya, Egypt, Iraq, Syria and Yemen.

Click to expand...

US mistakes go back far further than 2001. Mistake number one: Kermit Roosevelt Jr.

But you weren't alone and shouldn't try to shoulder all the responsibility. External forces have been meddling in the ME for ever. Anyone heard of Alexander the Great? The Crusades? More recently, has the ME been generally at peace since WWI?

Re: Have we (the US) screwed up the Middle East?

Apocalypse said:

I agree but that's more true in Africa's case than it is in the case of the Middle East.

Click to expand...

Africa is an utter mess.

The formation itself did not ensure a war will happen, it is the position of the Arab nations that a Jewish state is unacceptable in the land that is the reason for the wars.

Click to expand...

The formation itself is one of a multiple of problems involving Israel. The Arab nation position against a Jewish state is the same position as the US, Russia and everyone else.

The majority population might have been non-Jewish but in the lands that were given to the Palestinian-Jews the majority were actually Jewish.

Click to expand...

It was not their land to give in the first place.... Yes Jews lived there, so did Christians and the majority were Muslims. They had lived there for thousands of years. The UN, US, France and the UK had no right what so ever to give the land in the region to anyone but the people who were living there in the first place. It should have been up to them to decide what kind of nation or nations that should be formed.. no one else.

This assertion is false, the Soviets pushed Egypt and Syria into Soviet hands and nobody else did. They offered them money and weapons that nobody else offered them, why wouldn't they join hands under the Soviet umbrella?

Click to expand...

Again not exactly true. Both Egypt and Syria were pushed in the Soviet direction in part over the formation of Israel and the aftermath of said formation. It is one thing that the west has never understood about the Middle East.... People in the region, regardless of tribe or sect, tend to stick together in the case of outside invasion. It has always been like that.

Re: Have we (the US) screwed up the Middle East?

PeteEU said:

Africa is an utter mess.

Click to expand...

Precisely due to the reasons that you've mentioned.

The formation itself is one of a multiple of problems involving Israel. The Arab nation position against a Jewish state is the same position as the US, Russia and everyone else.

Click to expand...

What do you mean? The US and Russia voted for the partition plan that referred to a Jewish state alongside two Arab states. The Arab nations held a position against any deal that would result in the creation of a Jewish state in a land they considered part of the 'Ummah', regardless of the deal's details.

It was not their land to give in the first place.... Yes Jews lived there, so did Christians and the majority were Muslims. They had lived there for thousands of years. The UN, US, France and the UK had no right what so ever to give the land in the region to anyone but the people who were living there in the first place. It should have been up to them to decide what kind of nation or nations that should be formed.. no one else.

Click to expand...

The Brits ruled the land, you can argue that they gained it by conquest and it was not theirs to control but there was no actual "state" in the land since the Hasmonean dynasty, one of the Israeli kingdoms. This ended with the Roman conquests of 63 BCE, declaring the land a province and naming it "Palestine" so to mock the occupied people - the Jewish people - who were the nemesis of the Philistines, a people who lived in what is today the Gaza Strip and the city of Ashkelon. The Brits decided to let the international community decide what to do and they decided on the partition plan, UN resolution 181. Jews lived in the land for over 3,000 years continuously and always maintained a population in the land, those who immigrated from Europe between 1881-1948 have all had ancestors who had lived in the land and had a claim as much as the Jews who had ancestors that never left the land. It was completely justified to form a Jewish state in the land. And again, while the majority of Mandate Palestine were not Jewish the majority of those who lived in the lands that became Israel actually were.

Again not exactly true. Both Egypt and Syria were pushed in the Soviet direction in part over the formation of Israel and the aftermath of said formation. It is one thing that the west has never understood about the Middle East.... People in the region, regardless of tribe or sect, tend to stick together in the case of outside invasion. It has always been like that.

Click to expand...

Of course the formation of Israel had to do with it. What would they need arms for if they didn't have the wars they called on Israel? But that doesn't make it the primary reason. The Soviet willingness to have influence in that region is all that was needed for the Soviets to create their alliances with Egypt and Syria. As to the comment about an outside invasion, I'm afraid that this has to do about their shared religion and their viewing of their nations as part of a whole religious group of nations that seeks one goal more than anything else.

Re: Have we (the US) screwed up the Middle East?

PeteEU said:

Africa is an utter mess.



The formation itself is one of a multiple of problems involving Israel. The Arab nation position against a Jewish state is the same position as the US, Russia and everyone else.



It was not their land to give in the first place.... Yes Jews lived there, so did Christians and the majority were Muslims. They had lived there for thousands of years. The UN, US, France and the UK had no right what so ever to give the land in the region to anyone but the people who were living there in the first place. It should have been up to them to decide what kind of nation or nations that should be formed.. no one else.



Again not exactly true. Both Egypt and Syria were pushed in the Soviet direction in part over the formation of Israel and the aftermath of said formation. It is one thing that the west has never understood about the Middle East.... People in the region, regardless of tribe or sect, tend to stick together in the case of outside invasion. It has always been like that.

Click to expand...

Right, in 1956 Israel attacked Egypt's Sinai Peninsula and the Gaza Strip. Soon following Britain and France attacked Egypt. The US then withdrew its agreement to help fund the building of the High Aswan Dam, a project which was a source of great pride to Egypt and the Arab world. Shortly after Britain and the World Bank also withdrew their offers to help fund the dam.

As Britain and France prepared for war Egypt turned to the Soviet Union for arms.

Re: Have we (the US) screwed up the Middle East?

radcen said:

Have we (the US) screwed up the Middle East?

I think we have, and for decades to come. For good or for bad, and as imperfect as it was, it was somewhat stable. Now, it's chaos.

Discuss.

Click to expand...

Yep, we've made a complete mess of the ME for greed and the Free Market fallacy to the point that it is now irreparable. The only thing left us to go oilless as much as possible and kiss those people goodbye.

Re: Have we (the US) screwed up the Middle East?

Risky Thicket said:

Right, in 1956 Israel attacked Egypt's Sinai Peninsula and the Gaza Strip. Soon following Britain and France attacked Egypt.

Click to expand...

Yes..

The US then withdrew its agreement to help fund the building of the High Aswan Dam, a project which was a source of great pride to Egypt and the Arab world. Shortly after Britain and the World Bank also withdrew their offers to help fund the dam.

Click to expand...

Arab world? LOL .. Egypt yea, but Arab world? LOL. And that is not exactly how it went down.

As Britain and France prepared for war Egypt turned to the Soviet Union for arms.

Click to expand...

Lets look at the time line.

1.) Nasser gains power. He is a nationalist and frankly could care less if it was the US or Soviets who support him.
2.) Nasser goes and recognize China.. pissing off the US... the signs are there.
3.) Nasser does not accept the US support/aid package, which includes financing of the dam and defensive weapons and military training. Moves closer to the Soviets.
4.) Nasser moves to nationalize the Suez Canal, cutting the British and French out of the revenue and power of controlling the canal.
5.) France, UK and Israel plan an attack and later carry it out.
6.) The US is against this invasion, and basically forces the UK and France to withdraw by pulling its military and political support. The US sees this as the colonial masters asserting their colonial power. It was US policy since before WW2, to declaw the big European colonial powers and could not allow them to assert their power in Africa.
7.) Nasser pissed at France, UK and Israel and some what at the US.. moves towards the Soviets instead for support.

Like it or not, the US back stabbed France and the UK on the Suez canal, and at the same time pissed off the Egyptians driving them for a few decades in the hands of the Soviets.

Re: Have we (the US) screwed up the Middle East?

jet57 said:

Yep, we've made a complete mess of the ME for greed and the Free Market fallacy to the point that it is now irreparable. The only thing left us to go oilless as much as possible and kiss those people goodbye.

Click to expand...

I'm not too comfortable with "well we ****ed them over, but they're irreparable now, so **** em'."

Then again, they probably would rather we left them alone...

Re: Have we (the US) screwed up the Middle East?

If you want to know what the Middle East looks like with out active US involvement, take a gander at Syria. Then take a look at the coming nuclear arms race between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Them's your options.

Re: Have we (the US) screwed up the Middle East?

Apocalypse said:

Precisely due to the reasons that you've mentioned.



What do you mean? The US and Russia voted for the partition plan that referred to a Jewish state alongside two Arab states. The Arab nations held a position against any deal that would result in the creation of a Jewish state in a land they considered part of the 'Ummah', regardless of the deal's details.



EDITED FOR SPACE

Of course the formation of Israel had to do with it. What would they need arms for if they didn't have the wars they called on Israel? But that doesn't make it the primary reason. The Soviet willingness to have influence in that region is all that was needed for the Soviets to create their alliances with Egypt and Syria. As to the comment about an outside invasion, I'm afraid that this has to do about their shared religion and their viewing of their nations as part of a whole religious group of nations that seeks one goal more than anything else.

Click to expand...

________________
Not quite true.

The Israel/Palestine tragedy is really much simpler: Foreign Immigrants & Zionist Terrorist gangs invaded distant Palestine from Russia, Brooklyn, England, Poland etc & with the near omnipotent clout of Zionist Lobbies in England & the U.S., forced their Colony on Native Residents. The Foreign UN then awarded 56 percent of Palestine to its new 650,000 Jewish inhabitants, and 44 percent to its existing 1,300,000 Muslim and Christian Arab inhabitants. The U.N. was just a Colonial entity doing the will of the Zionist Lobby dominated, Colonial Governments.

The US & British Zionist lobbies were as influential in the early 1900s as they are now.

The unfortunate Arabs who lived up to their agreement (“The McMahon Agreement”)* with the British government were simply betrayed due to the machinations of the British Zionist Lobby & have been cheated, slaughtered & expelled from their land ever since......The Arabs knew nothing of & had no reason to cede their land & any authority to the Foreign U.N..

It's that simple but Israelis & members of the Israeli Hasbara network need to obfuscate the simple truth with blaming the Arabs for not meekly submitting to slaughter, Evictions & agreeing to outrageously unfair Foreign dictates.



Thanks


* The McMahone Agreement

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/mcmahon.htm

EXCERPT “The McMahon-Hussein Agreement of October 1915 was accepted by Palestinians as a promise by the British that after World War One, land previously held by the Turks would be returned to the Arab nationals who lived in that land."CONTINUED

The McMahone Agreement preceded the Balfour Declaration by 3 years. The Balfour Declaration was created under Lord Rothschild's influence over Lord Balfour