Apartheid Israel

“Sarge, what sort of shiney stuff do you have? (LOL)

And Mutt, sarge does not hate jews...I can promise you that.”

“I love it when you guys post.

pedXing,
Did you read the pertinent material? Three simple answers is all it takes.”

“Sorry , again I didn't fully explain. Certainly ,with the #1 power more than willing to back up that 7 million more than they would any other 7 million( including any 7million in the states), I'll stick with #2.”

““Cold Disk” Wax Deposition Apparatus?”

“Premise 1
[i]The Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916 states that after the conclusion of WWI British and French interests would control those parts of the Middle East as shown on the accompanying annexation map. Agree or disagree?

That looks to be pretty accurate as far as it goes, except that calling it an "annexation map" is incorrect. The map lays out spheres of influence and degrees of influence for the British and French. It also makes several references to future Arab states and to negotiations with Arabs regarding the Arab state or states and the borders of said states.


Premise 2
As stated in the Wikipedia article, the Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916 is a contradiction of predating promises made to Arabs concerning the formation of an Arab state that included land south of the 37 parallel (near the Turkish southern border), east to Persia (Iran) and the Persia Gulf, south to the Arabian Sea and east to the Mediterranean Sea. Agree or disagree?

I think there is a good case to be made for some double dealing by the Brits. There are, however, loopholes I cannot parse.... such as "areas that cannot be said to be wholly Arab"

Premise 3
The land in both the Sykes-Picot Agreement and the Balfour Declaration was formally part of the Ottoman Empire up until the signing of the Armistice of Mudros in October of 1918. Agree or disagree?

It looks to me like most, perhaps even all of it was part of the Ottoman empire. It wasn't entirely clear to me comparing the various maps available.
last edited: 7/31/07 11:32:55 AM”

“LOL....and yet the Isrealis have yet to set off a weapon in any country outside that region....HMM>>>lets look at SH's buddies the Islamo Fascists....oops kinda a bad record.”

“Premise 1
Quoting your post;

That looks to be pretty accurate as far as it goes, except that calling it an "annexation map" is incorrect.

I concede this point. I misread the following sentence of the document.

It is accordingly understood between the french and British governments: That France and great Britain are prepared to recognize and protect an independent Arab states or a confederation of Arab states (a) and (b) marked on the annexed map, under the suzerainty of an Arab chief.

The word annexed in this case clearly infers that the map is a supplement to the written text.

Premise 2
Quoting your post:

I think there is a good case to be made for some double dealing by the Brits. There are, however, loopholes. I cannot parse.... such as "areas that cannot be said to be wholly Arab".

I agree with your statement that there was double dealing by the British. I agree that there were loopholes concerning “lands not wholly Arab” but as I read the documents that land was not Palestine. Again quoting the Wikipedia site

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hussein-McMahon_Correspondence#The_Damascus_Protocol

“The letter from McMahon to Hussein dated October 24th, 1915 is key. It stated on behalf of the Government of Great Britain that:

The districts of Mersin and Alexandretta, and portions of Syria lying to the west of the districts of Damascus, Homs, Hama and Aleppo, cannot be said to be purely Arab, and must on that account be excepted from the proposed delimitation. Subject to that modification, and without prejudice to the treaties concluded between us and certain Arab Chiefs, we accept that delimitation.

It is important to reiterate that McMahon was speaking on behalf of the British government and he clearly references known cities of the region. All we need is a map that identifies the cities referenced and the lands west of them. We already have that map.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/sykesmap1.html

The districts of Mersin and Alexandretta are clearly in modern day Turkey. Then if you draw a line starting at Aleppo and move in a general SSW direction you will pass through Hama and Homs. Then continuing on you will finally stop at the southern terminus, Damascus. Look at the lands to the west. No parts of Palestine will be in the land west of this line. It's not even close. In 1915-16 the British government (by way of McMahon) was clearly talking about Lebanon which had and has a large non-Arab Christian populace. The Arabs took that statement at face value. This letter was the “agreement” the Arabs needed before they would revolt against the Ottoman Turks. When the got it they fulfilled their end of the bargain. After the war the British “welshed” on their agreement. We’ll go on to that in the future. But for now we still have this and Premise 3 to clear.
last edited: 7/31/07 6:32:14 PM”

“Jerusalem, and all of Israel is west, of Damascus. The text does not indicate a southern boundary, merely a western one. The letter is not precise - it offers no map, no strict guarantees, it is indeed tentative. To say that other areas to the south were obviously excluded is a inference lacking in solid foundation. I can't prove you wrong, but I can't prove you right, either.

Indeed, it doesn't offer any lasting or final agreement. It is clearly discussing a possible agreement in principle which has not yet been made. This is why the text you quote says:

"and must on that account be excepted from the proposed delimitation."

I don't see that Israel has much at stake in the issue, but I think we are talking about an inference of substantial likelihood. I don't see your premise as proven.”

“Premise 3

These two maps clearly illustrate that Palestine in whole, Lebanon, and the other bordering countries were part of the Ottoman Empire during the pertinent timeframe (1914-1917).

http://www.atlas-historique.net/1815-1914/cartes_popups/EmpireOttoman1914GF.html

http://www.sandafayre.com/atlas/turkia.htm”

“It looks to me like you are right on premise 3. If there is any divergence, and I grant there probably isn't = it is small. I'd have to see good maps at a good scale or take time to really look at an atlas to be 100%. Certainly all of Palestine is covered by both and that is what is most important to our discussion.”

“Jerusalem, and all of Israel is west, of Damascus. The text does not indicate a southern boundary, merely a western one

At least three-quarters of the world is west and south of Damascus by that logic! The British clearly delineated the lands west of the line between Aleppo and Damascus. You would have to continue the line at least 190 miles south of Damascus to Tafila,Jordan to cover just the ariable lands of Palestine.

http://www.lonelyplanet.com/mapshells/middle_east/jordan/jordan.htm

You're being intellectually dishonest here.

And your quote.

Indeed, it doesn't offer any lasting or final agreement. It is clearly discussing a possible agreement in principle which has not yet been made. This is why the text you quote says:

"and must on that account be excepted from the proposed delimitation."

Clearly the Arabs lacked the ability to "parse" the finer points of English semantics. They got conned by a slick diplomat representing a country bound and determined to expand its empire. But can you blame them for being a culture where deals and a man's honor were made on spoken words? You may but I don't. The question you have to ask yourself is would the British demarcation line hold up in an unbiased internation court of law? I say it would.
last edited: 7/31/07 7:58:54 PM”

“Let us go back and examine the initial statement and the text of the entire paragraph.

It stated on behalf of the Government of Great Britain that:


"The districts of Mersin and Alexandretta, and portions of Syria lying to the west of the districts of Damascus, Homs, Hama and Aleppo, cannot be said to be purely Arab, and must on that account be excepted from the proposed delimitation. Subject to that modification, and without prejudice to the treaties concluded between us and certain Arab Chiefs, we accept that delimitation. As for the regions lying within the proposed frontiers, in which Great Britain is free to act without detriment to interests of her ally France, I am authorized to give you the following pledges on behalf of the Government of Great Britain, and to reply as follows to your note: That subject to the modifications stated above, Great Britain is prepared to recognize and uphold the independence of the Arabs in all the regions lying within the frontiers proposed by the Sharif of Mecca."

That part about "we accept that delimitation" means that the British accepted the deal with the delimitation. The ball was now in the Arabs' court. They had to convey their agreement or disagreement with the proposal as set forth by the British government.

Knowing what happened later and what Chruchill expoused in his 1922 White Paper do you really think the British would have come forward with any formal documentation proving that the Arabs had agreed to the deal?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Churchill_White_Paper%2C_1922
last edited: 8/01/07 9:40:48 AM”

“"Prepared to recognize and uphold" doesn't seem like the language of a done deal.

Again, I'm not averse to saying the Brits, or some Brits, swindled or betrayed Arab nationalists. But sticking to the text you offer, I don't think you've proved your case. Lots of negotiations and deals go south before they are finalized.

And when you talk about accepting, you are ignoring the fine print (subject to...).”

“I am authorized to give you the following pledges on behalf of the Government of Great Britain,

This phrase is separate from what follows.

and to reply as follows to your note: That subject to the modifications stated above, Great Britain is prepared to recognize and uphold the independence of the Arabs in all the regions lying within the frontiers proposed by the Sharif of Mecca."”

“It seems clear to me that this letter was taking place in the negotiation phase. It doesn't sound like a deal has concluded at this point.

I remember some more convincing evidence about the Brits breaking promises to Arabs from reading up on TE Lawrence some time ago. I forget what it was, but he certainly felt the Brits had double crossed the Arabs.

I've always assumed that there was a major double cross, and I haven't changed my mind. I just don't think you've produced a smoking gun, or evidence of the precise nature of what was promised. Perhaps you've shown what many Arab's expected then, and feel that they were entititled to.
last edited: 8/02/07 6:00:11 AM”

“I agree on that. The

I am authorized to give you the following pledges on behalf of the Government of Great Britain,

part is evidence that there are parts of the letter we see on the Wikipedia page. When I have the time I'll look for the complete text of this letter.”

“there are parts of the letter that we don't see on the Wikipedia page.
last edited: 8/02/07 7:57:03 AM”

“http://net.lib.byu.edu/~rdh7/wwi/1916/mcmahon.html

October 24, 1915.
I have received your letter of the 29th Shawal, 1333, with much pleasure and your expression of friendliness and sincerity have given me the greatest satisfaction.

I regret that you should have received from my last letter the impression that I regarded the question of limits and boundaries with coldness and hesitation; such was not the case, but it appeared to me that the time had not yet come when that question could be discussed in a conclusive manner.

I have realised, however, from your last letter that you regard this question as one of vital and urgent importance. I have, therefore, lost no time in informing the Government of Great Britain of the contents of your letter, and it is with great pleasure that I communicate to you on their behalf the following statement, which I am confident you will receive with satisfaction. -


The two districts of Mersina and Alexandretta and portions of Syria lying to the west of the districts of Damascus, Homs, Hama.and Aleppo cannot be said to be purely Arab, and should be excluded from the limits demanded.
With the above modification, and without prejudice to our existing treaties with Arab chiefs, we accept those limits.

As for those regions lying within those frontiers wherein Great Britain is free to act without detriment to the interests of her ally, France, I am empowered in the name of the Government of Great Britain to give the following assurances and make the following assurances and make the following reply to your letter:

(1) Subject to the above modifications, Great Britain is prepared to recognise and support the independence of the Arabs in all the regions within the limits demanded by the Sherif of Mecca.

(2) Great Britain will guarantee the Holy Places against all external aggression and will recognise their inviolability.

(3) When the situation admits, Great Britain will give to the Arabs her advice and will assist them to establish what may appear to be the most suitable forms of government those various territories.

(4) On the other hand, it is understood that the Arabs have decided to seek the advice and guidance of Great Britain only, and that such European advisers and officials as may be required for the formation of a sound form of administration will be British.

(5) With regard to the vilayets of Bagdad and Basra, the Arabs will recognise that the established position and interests of Great Britain necessitate special administrative arrangements in order to secure these territories from foreign aggression to promote the welfare of the local populations and to safeguard our mutual economic interests.

I am convinced that this declaration will assure you beyond all possible doubt of the sympathy of Great Britain towards the aspirations of her friends the Arabs and will result in a firm and lasting alliance, the immediate results of which will be the expulsion of the Turks from the Arab countries and the freeing of the Arab peoples from the Turkish yoke, which for so many years has pressed heavily upon them.

I have confined myself in this letter to the more vital and important questions, and if there are any other matters dealt with in your letters which I have omitted to mention, we may discuss them at some convenient date in the future.

It was with very great relief and satisfaction that I heard of the safe arrival of the Holy Carpet and the accompanying offerings which, thanks to the clearness of your directions and the excellence of your arrangements, were landed without trouble or mishap in spite of the dangers and difficulties occasioned by the present sad war. May God soon bring a lasting peace and freedom of all peoples.

I am sending this letter by the hand of your trusted and excellent messenger, Sheikh Mohammed ibn Arif ibn Uraifan, and he will inform you of the various matters of interest, but of less vital importance, which I have not mentioned in this letter.

(Compliments).
(Signed): A. HENRY MCMAHON.”

“The full letter looks to me like McMahon isn't concluding a final deal, but is making an agreement to support Husain Ibn Ali's planfor a large Arab state that would be within the British sphere of influence and hoping find some way to have other areas under direct control.

I wonder if there isn't some deliberate ambiguity about Palestine, which may include a deliberate attempt to convey a greater sense of commitment than has been made (in McMahon's mind at least).

I also note double dealing on the part of the Brits - they extending offers to Husain Ibn Ali that are contradicted by the deal they soon make with the French and they are working on a deal with Husain Ibn Ali to exclude French influence in regions which they soon promise the French that they will have influence or control.”

“Then there is the itty bitty...almost so small you shouldnb't factor it in thing in 1936-1945 called World War II when many of the Arabs supported the LOSING side (Called Fascisim).”

“OH and SH...do you really think if Isreal were to offer the Palestinains EVERYTHING they want they would take it and give up their VICTIM STATUS???/”

“Where did the Palestinians learn the VICTIM game? From the stars of that movie.”

“OH and in case you are wondering the Isrealis did agree to OSLO...the Palestinians answered the question ..no”

““OH and in case you are wondering the Isrealis did agree to OSLO...the Palestinians answered the question ..no”
XL400236
8:50:34 AM
8/03/07

Wow! I'm basically on your side in this argument, but both sides signed the Oslo accords. Not sure where you got your story from.”

“I found a Fact, size XL, anyone loose one?”

“I can see the cockroaches have begun to scurry about again ie. Mutt and XL. Why don't you amateurs head over to one of the lightweight feugo threads. Someplace where you can expound thousands of cubic feet of hot air name-calling and Demo Vs Repub BS. Ped and I are were learning about the history of the Middle East conflict and we really don't need you two wasting bandwidth.

Ped I have some points to make before we move on to the next premise but I'm doing some remodeling work this weekend and can't spend a great deal of time doing research.”

“Sol - I might be scarce, I've got tons of work to catch up on and I start the Long Trail on Wednesday (probably a three week trip).”

“Enjoy the hike Ped. I'm sorry I can't do it with you. I'm sure we could some have very reasoned conversations around the campfire. I think you are a person who wants solutions to some very real problems this world faces.
We'll carry on when you get back.”

“Solitary Hiker 88 - pedXing thinks you're a racist scumbag, too, like everyone else:

Yes, criticizing foreign aid is a legitimate argument worthy of discussion. Blaming the world's problems on the major recipients, however, is simply 88 scumbaggery. - Mutt

To which pedXing responded:

Mutt, I fold. I concede, The chips on this thread are yours.

I'd put it less harshly or globally than you do, but you've got enough evidence to make a very solid case.

last edited: 8/03/07 2:44:39 PM
pedxing
2:41:21 PM
8/03/07”

“I'm waiting for it to tell us the Holocaust never happened.”

“There was a holocaust!? Holy #&%!$! That sucks big time.”