3 ms·

Damn, even Osama bun Laden got the Jewish conquest of Israel wrong. The British did not “hand over” Israel — the creation of Israel was a multidecade effort on

Damn, even Osama bun Laden got the Jewish conquest of Israel wrong. The British did not “hand over” Israel — the creation of Israel was a multidecade effort on the part of Jews since Hershel published his pamphlet in the late 1800s and the first meeting of the World Zionist Congress (1890.) In the interlude, they tried a lot of stuff including simply offering the Sultan money for Israel, but I’ll skip to the British part… A lot of lobbying and money was involved in getting the first Jew to ever be elected to British parliament also made the governor of “British Palestine” the year they got it from the Turks (1918.) Thus marked the start of the “first Aliyah” where Jews around the world funded the purchase of land for young Jews to come and create Kibbutzes (self sustaining communities.) Look up what they got up to in one of the first and largest Kibbutzes (manufacturing a lot of guns n ammo.) It’s a museum you can even tour today. As Sun Tzu says, the pinnacle of war is to win without fighting and I see that so many people don’t really know about the creation of Israel, even though it is one of the most impressive feats of conquest (by Sun Tzus metric.)

porkbeer 3y ago
Yes, the colonial playbook was in vogue at the time. But it was far from bloodless. Far from peaceful. Maybe you should read more yourself.
- VK538FY 3y ago
  It's shocking to me to read that the creation of the modern Hebrew state was bloodless. Search word nakba. :-/
  - CTDOCodebases 3y ago
    They said "far from bloodless".
    - VK538FY 3y ago
      My comment was in agreement with the parent. Or do you mean something else by the use of the plural pronoun 'they'?
      - CTDOCodebases 3y ago
        It read like you are in disagreement and trying to educate the parent about the Nakba even though they expressed knowledge on the issue e.g "Yes, the colonial playbook was in vogue at the time..." If your comment was a reply to the parent of the parent it makes more sense in my mind.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
boppo1 3y ago
This was glossed over in my US public education. Lots of 'it's complicated, don't worry about it.
amenhotep 3y ago
> the first Jew to ever be elected to British parliament If anyone else was taken aback by this, Disraeli and a couple before him had to take an oath affirming their Christianity before being seated and are bureaucratically regarded as converted. Although the first openly Jewish member to take his seat was Lionel de Rothschild in 1858, who was not Herbert Samuel, the person being referred to. Samuel was the first Jew to serve as cabinet minister and to lead a major party, though.
volleyball 3y ago
A strange nit to pick but even then your details are wrong. 1896 - Herzl's pamphlet to Rotschilds[1] calling for an Israeli state in either Palestine or Argentina 1897 - First Zionist Congress calling for establishing a Jewish state in Palestine 1917 - British sign Balfour declaration in a letter to Rotschild promising a jewish state in Palestine [2] 1918 - British defeat ottomans and drive them out of the Levant with help of Arab partisans promising them an Arab State. The arabs were betrayed.[3] So barely 20 years between First Pamplet and Congress and the Balfour declaration. Also note that British had already promised Palestine to the Jews before it even came to their possession. I would add that in 1914 the population was 94% arab. By 1948 after the British flooded in Jewish migrants mainly from Europe and the Americas, the population became about ~65% + arab and 35+ Jewish. And the just-formed UN (mostly controlled by Western countries and their friends) handed over 60% of the land to the Jews with Palestine split into 2. So for all intents and purposes "British handed over Palestine to Israel" seems to be an accurate summary. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Der_Judenstaat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Der_Judenstaat [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration [3] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMahon%E2%80%93Hussein_Correspondence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMahon%E2%80%93Hussein_Corres...
CTDOCodebases 3y ago
It didn't hand over the entirety of it but it did make a case for dividing the land[0]. Note that this was occuring at the same time that zionist militants [1] (self proclaimed terrorists who would later become part of the IDF) were fighting the british authorities and even trying to align themselves with the Nazis. Also worth mentioning that the zionists could never have defeated the Ottomans themselves. I guess it comes down to what you consider "handed over". Was there a concerted effort to create a state? Yes. Did the British help them achieve this aim? Yes. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peel_Commission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peel_Commission [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lehi_(militant_group) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lehi_(militant_group)

porkbeer 3y ago

Yes, the colonial playbook was in vogue at the time. But it was far from bloodless. Far from peaceful. Maybe you should read more yourself.

VK538FY 3y ago
It's shocking to me to read that the creation of the modern Hebrew state was bloodless. Search word nakba. :-/
- CTDOCodebases 3y ago
  They said "far from bloodless".
  - VK538FY 3y ago
    My comment was in agreement with the parent. Or do you mean something else by the use of the plural pronoun 'they'?
    - CTDOCodebases 3y ago
      It read like you are in disagreement and trying to educate the parent about the Nakba even though they expressed knowledge on the issue e.g "Yes, the colonial playbook was in vogue at the time..." If your comment was a reply to the parent of the parent it makes more sense in my mind.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

boppo1 3y ago

This was glossed over in my US public education. Lots of 'it's complicated, don't worry about it.

amenhotep 3y ago

> the first Jew to ever be elected to British parliament If anyone else was taken aback by this, Disraeli and a couple before him had to take an oath affirming their Christianity before being seated and are bureaucratically regarded as converted. Although the first openly Jewish member to take his seat was Lionel de Rothschild in 1858, who was not Herbert Samuel, the person being referred to. Samuel was the first Jew to serve as cabinet minister and to lead a major party, though.

volleyball 3y ago

A strange nit to pick but even then your details are wrong. 1896 - Herzl's pamphlet to Rotschilds[1] calling for an Israeli state in either Palestine or Argentina 1897 - First Zionist Congress calling for establishing a Jewish state in Palestine 1917 - British sign Balfour declaration in a letter to Rotschild promising a jewish state in Palestine [2] 1918 - British defeat ottomans and drive them out of the Levant with help of Arab partisans promising them an Arab State. The arabs were betrayed.[3] So barely 20 years between First Pamplet and Congress and the Balfour declaration. Also note that British had already promised Palestine to the Jews before it even came to their possession. I would add that in 1914 the population was 94% arab. By 1948 after the British flooded in Jewish migrants mainly from Europe and the Americas, the population became about ~65% + arab and 35+ Jewish. And the just-formed UN (mostly controlled by Western countries and their friends) handed over 60% of the land to the Jews with Palestine split into 2. So for all intents and purposes "British handed over Palestine to Israel" seems to be an accurate summary. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Der_Judenstaat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Der_Judenstaat [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration [3] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMahon%E2%80%93Hussein_Correspondence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McMahon%E2%80%93Hussein_Corres...

CTDOCodebases 3y ago

It didn't hand over the entirety of it but it did make a case for dividing the land[0]. Note that this was occuring at the same time that zionist militants [1] (self proclaimed terrorists who would later become part of the IDF) were fighting the british authorities and even trying to align themselves with the Nazis. Also worth mentioning that the zionists could never have defeated the Ottomans themselves. I guess it comes down to what you consider "handed over". Was there a concerted effort to create a state? Yes. Did the British help them achieve this aim? Yes. [0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peel_Commission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peel_Commission [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lehi_(militant_group) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lehi_(militant_group)