American Gov research foresaw Arab-Israeli conflict

[dragonoverlord]

Before i post anything it comes down to two things. The right of a population to have self determination or the inaight right of a group of people to a piece of land even though they never were a majority for over 2000 years ago. Note: Syria refers to modern day Syria, Israel,Palestine,Jordan i think. Kind of like the name Sudan once refered to all of a sub saharan Africa. The American position on the Arab Majority in "Syria" Now this begs the question if the Americans had the descency to do some reasearch on the will of the majority in the Region known in Palestine why didn't the British bother to find out what their subjects wanted their fate to be? Why did the British ignore the will of the people? If instead of British Rule there was American rule in the region at the time do you think the Palestinian/Israel conflict could have been completely avoided alltogether??? because the american report saw that if a jewish state was artificialy carved up on arab majority land that they would only be able to do that with force. So here was The American Position: The arab majority in Syria (as defined above) had the right to self-determination and to choose the course of their lands. Also its worth mentioning Arabs were a majority in what is now Israel from the 7th Century 'till 1948. The British Position: Screw self-determination, screw what the Majority Arabs think. We are giving this land away to Zionist interests, Arab majority or no Arab majority. The British position was based on the fact that 2000 years ago the region held a jewish majority and that area is important for Judaism. In the eyes of the British the Arab majority had no rights to the land because 2000 years ago Jews held a majority before being Exiled. To the British the Arabs had no rights even thought hey held a majority from the 7th century up towards 1948 when the land was carved up into a jewish state. It is important to note that in 1948 the land partioned to become a Jewish State had an arab majority on it. "No such equivocation was shown in the report of the special American commission headed by H. C. King and Charles R. Crane, which President Wilson dispatched to the Middle East to ascertain the wishes of the nationalities to be liberated from Turkish rule. King and Crane reported to the president from Jerusalem that Muslims and Christians in Palestine were united in the "most hostile attitude" toward continuing Jewish immigration, so much so that the Zionist program could be carried out only by force of arms. The final King-Crane report estimated that nine tenths of the population of Palestine - virtually the entire non-Jewish population - were "emphatically against the entire Zionist program". The report recommended, accordingly, that only a "greatly reduced Zionist program" of "definitely limited" Jewish immigration be permitted and that the project for making Palestine distinctly" a Jewish commonwealth "The United States at this time found itself in an equivocal position: on the one hand sympathetic to Zionist aspirations, on the other hand committed, under President Wilson, to the principle of the self-determination of peoples. Wilson wrote to Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, an American Zionist leader, on August 31, 1918: "I welcome an opportunity to express the satisfaction I have felt in the progress of the Zionist movement in the United States and in the Allied countries since the declaration by Mr. Balfour…" Wilson's peace program, however, was largely rooted in the premise that a lasting peace must be based on the self-determination of established populations. In one of his major statements of war aims, President Wilson had defined self-determination as an "imperative principlc of action" and had affirmed as a basic principle that "peoples and provinces are not to be bartered about from sovereignty to sovereignty as if they were mere chattels." http://www.hist.net/kieser/mak8/King-Crane.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King-Crane_Commission

[Universal Mind]

Why are you so obsessed with Islam if you are not Muslim? Of all of the groups to be obsessively supportive of, why them?

[psychology student]

The British Position: Screw self-determination, screw what the Majority Arabs think. We are giving this land away to Zionist interests, Arab majority or no Arab majority. The British position was based on the fact that 2000 years ago the region held a jewish majority and that area is important for Judaism. In the eyes of the British the Arab majority had no rights to the land because 2000 years ago Jews held a majority before being Exiled. To the British the Arabs had no rights even thought hey held a majority from the 7th century up towards 1948 when the land was carved up into a jewish state. It is important to note that in 1948 the land partioned to become a Jewish State had an arab majority on it. Your understanding of the British position is completely wrong and biased. They were against letting the Jews have the land, post WW2. But political pressure from the Americans, and other states, and, pressure from the Jews, via terrorist attacks. Meant that they eventually had to change position.

[dragonoverlord]

Your understanding of the British position is completely wrong and biased. They were against letting the Jews have the land, post WW2. But political pressure from the Americans, and other states, and, pressure from the Jews, via terrorist attacks. Meant that they eventually had to change position. Ya at one point the British were appossed to Zionisim but that slowly began to change as new leaders came to power and Zionist sympathizers like the Rothschilds began courting them. which eventually lead to the Balfour Declration i think...Anyway you're british you know more about the British position then me. Thanks for replying. To people who might not know why Phych Student is means by Jewish terror, back in the days of Mandate of Palestine there were several Jewish terror groups which carried out assisinations and terrorist attacks on Arabs and British. Ironic isn't it? But when "Israel" was carved out of Arab land the new "israeli" regime snuffed these groups out

[juroara]

Why are you so obsessed with Islam if you are not Muslim? Of all of the groups to be obsessively supportive of, why them? I don't think the point of this thread was to show support to any particular nation, but rather to point out the involvement of America in something we probably should have no involvement in

[Universal Mind]

I don't think the point of this thread was to show support to any particular nation, but rather to point out the involvement of America in something we probably should have no involvement in I never said he was supporting any particular nation, my question was legitimate based on what practically every post of his in this forum is about, and I disagree with the U.S./U.N. action of 1948 but strongly believe that Israel's 2008 and beyond status as a democracy should always be protected. I have the same position in regard to all democracies. Whenever democracy is threatened, it is the entire world's business. I don't agree with Zionism, I don't agree with Islamofascism, I don't agree with punishing people for their ancestry, I don't agree with treating a nation or a religion as if it is one person with one mind, and I don't agree with driving natural born citizens out of their nations on the basis of any kind of guilt by association nonsense. I am looking forward to the day when the world has evolved past all of that stupid primitive bullshit.

[dragonoverlord]

I don't think the point of this thread was to show support to any particular nation, but rather to point out the involvement of America in something we probably should have no involvement in Not what i was getting at. The point i was getting at is that if the British bothered to do some research like the americans did then they would have found out that the arab majority would not welcome a jewish state to be artificially incepted on their land. If the british respected the arab majority then the who Palestinian/israeli conflict would hae never happend is what i was getting at. I wasn't america bashing.

[The Fishy]

I don't think the point of this thread was to show support to any particular nation, but rather to point out the involvement of America in something we probably should have no involvement in You mean, as America's involvement was "something we probably should have no involvment in"... you think that America should not have gotten involved with WW 2 because, being a foreign power, they had no business being there? If I understand you correctly (and please, truly, correct me if I mis-understand you) America should have had no involvment because it didn't HAVE an involvement with that situation. So you basically think that there's no such thing as international relations? That there's no excuse for America to involve itself with another country as if what's happening international has no effect on America? Everything that happens in the world will have an effect on America - getting involved is expected and necessary, and NOT because America is "that crazy country that thinks it needs to take care of it's little allies", but because every country needs and has a right to protect it's interest. Which means getting involved and doing what ever you can do to get what you need out of a situation. I mentioned protecting their interests. It might not seem relevant here, nbot as it was in WW2, but in fact it is. That's the main reason I picked WW2, because it's a dramatic but essentially similar situation: Becoming involved when there was no previous and recent involvment and trying to safeguard your interests. In 1941, it was clear what safeguarding our interests meant - stopping the Nazi war machine. There was an urgent, pressing and unavoidable need to stop the Nazi war machine. And so America became involved. Today, it might now seem clear to you what that means, though it seems clear to me what war America seems to be fighting today - the ideological war or terrorism. Just like In 1941, the U.S. has an urgent, pressing and unavoidable need to combat a very real, terrifying threat - terrorism and extremist religion. In backing Israel then, and in backing Israel today the U.S. is safegaurding it's interests and at the same time attacking terrorism. Israel is unimaginably useful for America. It is a lone ally in a sea of powers hostile to the U.S. - many are part of "the axis of evil", many train terrorists and are breeding grounds for terrorism, many that supply the arms for terrorists. It's ability to influence and respond to the threats present in the Middle East is vitally important for America, because if it weren't there, there would be no practical and major, day-to-day opposition (as I'm aware that it is not the ONLY opposition in the area) to these hostile states, no watchdog continually snapping at them. And when that opposition stops it will be a very bad day for America. To put it simply: America had a huge interest in backing Israel then and now and there's no reason it "shouldn't have been involved in it" because such a thing as international realations exist and are very necessary. Dragonoverlord, I've seen your posts. I know what to expect. Bite me.