delfin Skrevet 2. mars 2015 Rapporter Del Skrevet 2. mars 2015 Noen av dere har sikkert sett denne, men hvorfor kom Balfour med en slik uttalelse midt under første verdenskrig? Her er noen historiske dokumenter som de aller fleste (om noen) garantert aldri har sett... Dette er mer eller mindre et klagebrev sendt til den britiske regjeringen for at de ikke holdt sin del av avtalen... ... that the best and perhaps the only way (which proved so to be) to induce the American President to come into the War was to secure the co-operation of Zionist Jews by promising them Palestine, and thus enlist and mobilise the hitherto unsuspectedly powerful forces of Zionist Jews in America and elsewhere in favour of the Allies on a quid pro quo contract basis. Thus, as will be seen, the Zionists, having carried out their part, and greatly helped to bring America in, the Balfour Declaration of 1917 was but the public confirmation of the necessarily secret "gentleman's" agreement of 1916 made with the previous knowledge, acquiescence and/or approval of the Arabs and of the British, American, French and other Allied Governments, and not merely a voluntary altruistic and romantic gesture on the part of Great Britain as certain people either through pardonable ignorance assume or unpardonable illwill would represent or rather misrepresent. Og hvordan klarte de i praksis å dra USA inn i en krig de ikke ville delta i? Palestine, the Balfour Declaration and Why America Entered the Great War 3 Lenke til kommentar
delfin Skrevet 2. mars 2015 Forfatter Rapporter Del Skrevet 2. mars 2015 (endret) I ren tekst, for de som foretrekker det {cover} New Zionist Publications - No. 1 GREAT BRITAIN, THE JEWS AND PALESTINE by SAMUEL LANDMAN Price 6d. NEW ZIONIST PRESS 47, Finchley Road, London, N. W. 8 {p. 1} GREAT BRITAIN, THE JEWS AND PALESTINE by Samuel Landman, M.A. March, 1936 {p. 2} The author of this pamphlet is a well-known English Zionist. He was Hon. Secretary of the Joint Zionist Council of the United Kingdom in 1912, Joint Editor of the" Zionist" in 1913-14 and Author of pamphlets on "History of Zionism" and " Zionism, Its Organisation and Institutions" published during the war. From 1917 to 1922 he was Solicitor and Secretary to the Zionist Organisation. He is now Legal Adviser to the New Zionist Organisation. {p. 3} GREAT BRITAIN, THE JEWS AND PALESTINE by Samuel Landman AS the Balfour Declaration originated in the War Cabinet, was consummated in the Foreign Office and is being implemented in the Colonial Office, and as some of those responsible for it have passed away or have retired since its migrations from Department to Department, there is necessarily some confusion or misunderstanding as to its raison d'etre and importance to the parties primarily concerned. It would, therefore, seem opportune to recapitulate briefly the circumstances, the inner history and incidents that eventually led to the British Mandate for Palestine. Those who assisted at the birth of the Balfour Declaration were few in number. This makes it important to bring into proper relief the services of one who, owing above all to his own modesty, has hitherto remained in the background. His services however should take their proper place in the front rank alongside of those Englishmen of vision whose services are more widely known, including the late Sir Mark Sykes, the Rt. Hon. W. Ormsby Gore, The Rt. Hon. Sir Ronald Graham, General Sir George Macdonagh and Mr. G. H. Fitzmaurice. In the early years of the War great efforts were made by the Zionist Leaders, Dr. Weizmann and Mr. Sokolow, chiefly through the late Mr. C. P. Scott of the Manchester Guardian, and Sir Herbert Samuel, to induce the Cabinet to espouse the cause of Zionism. These efforts were, however, without avail. In fact, Sir Herbert Samuel has publicly stated that he had no share in the initiation of the negotiations which led to the Balfour Declaration.* The actual initiator was Mr. James A. Malcolm and the following is a brief account of the circumstances in which the negotiations took place. * "England and Palestine," lecture delivered by Sir Herbert Samuel, published by the Jewish Historical Society, London (February, 1936). {p. 4} During the critical days of 1916 and of the impending defection of Russia, Jewry, as a whole, was against the Czarist regime and had hopes that Germany, if victorious, would in certain circumstances give them Palestine. Several attempts to bring America into the War on the side of the Allies by influencing influential Jewish opinion were made and had failed. Mr. James A. Malcolm, who was already aware of German pre-war efforts to secure a foothold in Palestine through the Zionist Jews and of the abortive Anglo-French démarches at Washington and New York; and knew that Mr. Woodrow Wilson, for good and sufficient reasons, always attached the greatest possible importance to the advice of a very prominent Zionist (Mr. Justice Brandeis, of the U.S. Supreme Court); and was in close touch with Mr. Greenberg, Editor of the Jewish Chronicle (London); and knew that several important Zionist Jewish leaders had already gravitated to London from the Continent on the qui vive awaiting events; and appreciated and realised the depth and strength of Jewish national aspirations; spontaneously took the initiative, to convince first of all Sir Mark Sykes, Under Secretary to the War Cabinet, and afterwards Monsieur Georges Picot, of the French Embassy in London, and Monsieur Goût of the Quai d'Orsay (Eastern Section), that the best and perhaps the only way (which proved so to be) to induce the American President to come into the War was to secure the co-operation of Zionist Jews by promising them Palestine, and thus enlist and mobilise the hitherto unsuspectedly powerful forces of Zionist Jews in America and elsewhere in favour of the Allies on a quid pro quo contract basis. Thus, as will be seen, the Zionists, having carried out their part, and greatly helped to bring America in, the Balfour Declaration of 1917 was but the public confirmation of the necessarily secret "gentleman's" agreement of 1916 made with the previous knowledge, acquiescence and/or approval of the Arabs and of the British, American, French and other Allied Governments, and not merely a voluntary altruistic and romantic gesture on the part of Great Britain as certain people either through pardonable ignorance assume or unpardonable illwill would represent or rather misrepresent. Sir Mark Sykes was Under-Secretary to the War Cabinet specially concerned with Near Eastern affairs, and, although at the time scarcely acquainted with the Zionist movement, and unaware of the existence of its leaders, he had the flair to respond to the arguments advanced by {p. 5} Mr. Malcolm as to the strength and importanee of this movement in Jewry, in spite of the fact that many wealthy and prominent international or semi-assimilated Jews in Europe and America were openly or tacitly opposed to it (Zionist movement), or timidly indifferent. MM. Picot and Goût were likewise receptive. An interesting account of the negotiations carried on in London and Paris, and subsequent developments, has already appeared in the Jewish press and need not be repeated here in detail, except to recall that immediately after the "gentleman's" agreement between Sir Mark Sykes, authorised by the War Cabinet, and the Zionist leaders, cable facilities through the War Office, the Foreign Office and British Embassies, Legations, etc., were given to the latter to communicate the glad tidings to their friends and organisations in America and elsewhere, and the change in official and public opinion as reflected in the American press in favour of joining the Allies in the War, was as gratifying as it was surprisingly rapid. The Balfour Declaration, in the words of Professor H. M. V. Temperley,* was "a definite contract between the British Government and Jewry." The main consideration given by the Jewish people (represented at the time by the leaders of the Zionist Organisation) was their help in bringing President Wilson to the aid of the Allies. Moreover, officially interpreted at the time by Lord Robert Cecil as "Judea for the Jews" in the same sense as "Arabia for the Arabs," the Declaration sent a thrill throughout the world. The prior Sykes-Picot Treaty of 1916, according to which Northern Palestine was to be politically detached and included in Syria (French sphere), was subsequently, at the instance of the Zionist leaders, amendedÝ so that the Jewish National Home should comprise the whole of Palestine in accordance with the promise previously made to them for their services by the British, Allied and American Governments and to give full effect to the Balfour Declaration, the terms of which had been settled and known to all Allied and associated belligerents, including Arabs, before they were made public. In Germany, the value of the bargain to the Allies, apparently, was duly and carefully noted. In his "Through Thirty Years " Mr. Wickham * History of the Peace Conference in Paris, 1920, volume 6, page 173. ÝFranco-British Convention, December 1920 (Cmd. II95). {p. 6} Steed, in a chapter appreciative of the value of Zionist support in America and elsewhere to the Allied cause, says General Ludendorff is alleged to have said after the War, that: "The Balfour Declaration was the cleverest thing done by the Allies in the way of propaganda, and that he wished Germany had thought of it first."* As a matter of fact, this was said by Ludendorff to Sir Alfred Mond (afterwards Lord Melchett), soon after the War. The fact that it was Jewish help that brought U.S.A. into the War on the side of the Allies has rankled ever since in German - especially Nazi - minds, and has contributed in no small measure to the prominence which anti-Semitism occupies in the Nazi programme. An outstanding consideration, though not forming part of the bargain, was the great potential value of Zionism in future as an instrument of British foreign policy. (In 1917 a Jewish Department was opened in the Ministry of Information and several Zionists were in its service.) But Zionism in its second stage continued to be under the Foreign Office only till 1921, when the Cairo Conference, under Mr. Winston Churchill, transferred the care of Palestine to the Colonial Office, no doubt because that Office is the only Government Department with experience of controlling overseas Colonies and fostering their development. It is worth noting here that this is the concern of Great Britain only and the views, if any, of foreign countries in regard to such colonial development are of no great moment. The case of Palestine, however, differs entirely from that of any British Colony, or even of other British Mandated territories. Firstly, by its historical associations, Palestine is of interest to all foreign countries. Secondly, its growth is at all times of intense interest to the Jewish inhabitants of the countries of the world. To-day, in view of what is happening to Jews in Central and Eastern Europe, the speeding up of Palestinian development is of poignant necessity in almost all foreign countries, which the Foreign Office would obviously be better able to appreciate. Thirdly, the constitution of Palestine is sui generis in that Great Britain is the trustee appointed by the League of Nations to administer Palestine for the benefit, not only of the present population, but of the Jewish people as a whole, who are to " reconstitute their National Home." There is no precedent in Colonial Office experience for the case of Palestine, and what happens in * Volume 2, page 392. These are the actual words of the Mandate for Palestine - see App. II. {p. 7} and about Palestine can, and does, have important repercussions in foreign countries, and it would, therefore, be a very useful step if the Foreign Office could be kept fully informed of such repercussions. Moreover, the fact that the very existence of the future of Jewish Palestine depends, from the point of view of international law, on a Mandate of the League of Nations has powerfully contributed towards making the Jews everywhere into strong supporters of the League of Nations. In France, for instance, it is well known that the Jews are among the leaders of the pro-League policy. In other lands it is equally true, though less well known. For instance, the views of such a man as Dr. Einstein - a convinced Zionist believer in the League - count heavily in the land where he now dwells-the U.S.A. The Mandates Commission of the League has taken its duties of supervising the administration of the mandated territories very seriously. The Minutes of the Mandates Commission relating to Palestine are printed almost in extenso in Zionist periodicals all over the world and carefully studied. The undecided British attitude recorded in these Minutes has had an unfortunate effect on Jewish minds, especially in America. Faith in British promises and in the value of the League has been shaken. The three massacres (1920, 1921, 1929) of Jews in Palestine under British protection have naturally given very severe shocks to Jewish opinion. In 1916 and 1917 the Jewish people were led to expect British help in building up an autonomous Jewish Commonwealth.* This aspiration has been the lodestar of Jewry amidst the gloom of persecution. The Jewish problem, which was already serious in 1897 at the time of the founding of the Zionist Organisation by Theodor Herzl, has since become progressively acute and pressing. The recent letter of resignation of Mr. James G. McDonald from the post of High Commissioner for Refugees (Jewish and Other) from Germany, throws same light on the tragic position of the Jews and urgently * The Manchester Guardian may be quoted as typical of the interpretation placed on the Balfour Declaration. In a leading article of the 10th November, 1917, it wrote as follows : "What it means is that, assuming our military successes to be continued and the whole of Palestine brought securely under our control, then at the conclusion of peace our deliberate policy will be to encourage in every way in our power Jewish immigration, to give full security, and no doubt a large measure of local autonomy, to the Jewish immigrants, with a view to the ultimate establishment of a Jewish State." The views of the leaders of British public opinion were collected and published as a brochure prepared by the Ministry of Information under the title "Great Britain, Palestine and the Jews" in December, 1917. {p. 8} calls for infinitely greater effort and facilities for them to go there than the High Commissioner for Palestine would seem to realise or afford. A people numbering sixteen millions cannot be crushed out of existence, but is nevertheless not allowed to live or breathe freely. Political and racial hatred, religious and economic persecution, harass them in the lands where dwell their masses, viz., in Central and Eastern Europe. What is it that keeps them from adopting, in the bitterness of their despair, a Samsonlike attitude and attempting to pull down the pillars of civilisation? Only one thing - the hope of a Jewish Palestine. Remove that hope and millions of Jewish youth may be driven into the arms of Bolshevism, Communism and other forms of destructive activity. The announcement that Palestine, the National Home of the Jews, is to have a Parliament with a statutory Arab majority is profoundly moving and disturbing the Jewish people. They realise that the Palestine Government cannot act without the authority of the British Government. They devoutly pray and rightly demand, therefore, that like the Passfield White Paper of 1930 it might be deferred indefinitely or abandoned in accordance with the spirit and letter of the Balfour Declaration. The letter of Colonel Wedgwood, M.P., in The Times of January 3rd, 1936,* is an admirable and forceful exposure of the unnecessary yet alarming situation which cannot be remedied by any such device as "cantonisation" of Jews and Arabs recently suggested by Mr. Archer Cust, late Assistant Secretary to the Palestine Government. The projected Legislative Council in the eyes of World Jewry would, on the face of it, certainly lend insidiously and effectively to undermine and sabotage the practical realisation of their high national ideals. Since the promise of 1917 they regard Great Britain as the appointed trustee of Palestine on behalf of the Jewish people all the world over and not only the handful of Jews who were in Palestine at the time. The Jews consider, and properly, that Great Britain promised them in 1917 help, not hindrance, facilities, not obstac1es, co-operation, not sabotage, in the rebuilding of Palestine as their National Home. They rightly regard a Parliament with a dominating and openly hostile Arab majority, able to impede the Jewish development of * Reprinted in full on pp. 18-20. {p. 9} the land, as probably a thoughtless but undoubtedly a direct breach of trust by the Trustee Government. Mr. L. S. Amery, M.P., who was one of the Under-Secretaries to the War Cabinet, and afterwards Secretary of State for the Dominions and the Colonies, writing on the subject of "A Council for Palestine" in The Times of January 10th, 1936, states:- "It is of the essence of the mandate that the Jewish population of Palestine is there, and is entitled to develop, as a matter of internationally recognized and affirmed right, and not as a matter of sufferance by the Arab population, just as the Arab population is also there as of right. The two communities are equal in right and, under existing conditions, no system of representation which gives a greater voting power to one community than another is consistent with the spirit and purpose of the mandate." Sir Archibald Sinclair, M.P., from another platform of politics, endorses this view :- "In accepting the Mandate, we undertook the responsibility for establishing the Jewish national home as well as the duty of safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine. To devolve a share of our responsibilities for the government of Palestine upon a Legislative Council, the statutory majority of whose e1ected members would be pledged to do all in their power to hamper the Government in establishing the Jewish national home, would be to open up a dreary vista of racial discord and increasing friction which would endanger, or at least de1ay, the accomplishment of the primary purpose of the Mandate. If any part of our responsibilities under the Mandate is to be shared with elected. representatives of the people of Palestine it surely cannot be right to give a statutory majority on the proposed council to those who repudiate the Mandate and demand its repeal."-The Times, Feb. 5th, 1936. In a debate in the House of Lords, on 26th February, 1936, the projected Legislative Council was opposed by Lord Snell, The Earl of Lytton, the Marquess of Lothian, Viscount Elibank, Lord Jessel, Lord Melchett, the Earl of Mansfie1d, Viscount Cecil and Lord Marley. It was supported only by the Government spokesman, Lord Plymouth. {p. 10} In the opinion of Lord Cecil and General Smuts, the League of Nations and a Jewish Palestine are the two greatest positive results of the Great War. The two things are interdependent to a large extent. A Government that has let the world understand clearly that Great Britain stands unshakably by the League cannot logically do otherwise with regard to Zionism and Palestine. Having regard to all the circumstances, the New Zionist Organisation* is convinced that the following measures are indispensable if the Balfour Declaration is to be implemented as intended and solemnly promised: 1. Abandonment or at least postponement sine die of the Legislative Council and other proposed legislation contrary to the spirit of the Balfour Declaration; 2. Strengthening the Department of the Foreign Office dealing with foreign and League of Nations views regarding Palestine, Jews and Zionism. 3. Declaration by His Majesty's Government of their intention to implement fully the Balfour Declaration in order to put art end to Arab agitation by interested parties. 4. A promise of Government facilities for a Plan of Settlement of at least one million Jews in Palestine and Transjordan within the next ten years. The ultimate aim of all these steps is the establishment of a Jewish Commonwealth which could properly seek admission as a seventh Dominion of the British Commonwealth of Nations. To appreciate adequately the above considerations, it may be considered desirable to give a resume of recent developments in Zionist Jewry. It is not generally realised what devastation the Great War and the post-War economic crisis have brought to the Jewish nation. When mighty Empires have been shaken to their social and political foundations it is not surprising that a weak, scattered and homeless people should have been brought nigh to destruction. The strongest centre of Jewry, Russia, from which for several generations emanated all that was deeply national in modern Jewry, has disappeared. The Russo-Jewish reservoir that provided the intellectual leaders of Jewry in our own time - great Scholars and learned * Inaugurated at a Congress held in Vienna in September, 1935; attended by 350 Zionist Delegates from 34 countries, representing 713,000 voters, which is the largest number of Jewish voters ever recorded. {p. 11} Rabbis, spiritual leaders like Ahad Haam and Bialik, political leaders such as Jabotinsky, Sokolow and Weizmann, and all the pioneers of Palestine Colonisation in the last 50 years - has been destroyed, some say for ever. In the lands of Western Europe and America, it was again the Russo-Jewish immigrants or their children who kept alive the flame of Jewish national urge and who even to-day mainly provide the stream of men and money which is directed to Palestine. In the other lands of Eastern and Central Europe where Jewish masses congregate, the economic crisis has reduced them to a condition of appalling and unbelievable wretchedness. Into this unrelieved gloom, the Balfour Declaration penetrated like a beam flood-lighting the vision of a home, the prospect of which has kept the nation alive. It is no exaggeration to say that the Declaration of the British Government in November, 1917, that " His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a Jewish National Home "- was the salvation of Jewry after the War. The subsequent stages of the implementing of this promise, the decision of the Allied Powers in San Remo in 1920, to place in British hands the mandate for Palestine, in order to create the Jewish National home in Palestine, the actual juridical mandate approved by the Council of the League of Nations, in Ju1y 1922, and the growth of the Jewish Settlement in Palestine under British administration in the last twelve years, are familiar enough. What is not so well known however, is the steady growth of profound dissatisfaction among the Jewish masses, during the last ten years, in regard to Zionism and the Jewish National Home. What are the main causes for this profound dissatisfaction ? First and foremost, the masses feel that their leaders have" let them down," have failed to utilise the wonderful opportunity given them by the British Government in particular and the non-Jewish world in general. Their vision and hope of a National home as outlined first by Dr. Pinsker in his "Auto-Emancipation" (1882), then more clearly by the Founder of Zionism - Theodor Herzl - in his "Jewish State," in 1896, and finally after the War by the Zionist leaders at the Peace Conference, have appeared to fade and in their stead they see the sad spectre of another Jewish minority settlement in Palestine. It is not that they expected a fully equipped Jewish {p. 12} State to have been achieved already. What they cannot forgive however is the acceptance, even though obviously under moral duress, by their leaders of the position in which even the distant prospect of complete national regeneration in a National home seems to have faded out. It was mainly for the acceptance of this situation that Sir Alfred Mond (afterwards Lord Melchett) resigned from the Jewish Agency and that Dr. Weizmann failed to obtain re-election as President of the Zionist Organisation in 1931 and 1933, in spire of his signal services to the movement for twenty years or more. And to-day among the Jewish masses in Poland, hundreds of thousands feel so profoundly that they have been deceived by the Zionist Organisation and its present leaders that they have decided to join the New Zionist Organisation. 713,000 Zionists went to the poll and elected delegates for the Congress held in Vienna, in September, 1935, for this purpose; and the numbers of active supporters are swelling daily; whereas the voters (including plural voters) represented at the Congress of the old Zionist Organisation at Lucerne in August, 1935, were 632,000. Another factor which has given rise to profound misgivings amongst the Jewish masses is the growth of left wing Socialism in Palestine, with the spread of extreme doctrines. The blame for this is laid in the first instance at the door of the responsible leaders of the Zionist Organisation.* Since the end of the war they have permitted or fostered, by means of liberal subsidies from Zionist funds, the growth of the Poale Zion, until it developed several most unpleasant hypertrophic features of which Dictatorship of 1abour, class war, and frequent strikes are the most obvious. The predominance of Poale Zion leaders in the present Executive of the Zionist Organisation has undermined the confidence of the Jewish masses - who are far more Nationalist than Socialist at heart. The rise of Hitler to power in Germany, with its ruthless forms of anti-Semitism, has driven home the Zionism of Herzl and given a tremendous impetus to Jewish national feeling all over the world. A few years ago, the view, adopted by Sir Herbert Samue1 in 1921, that a smallish Jewish model settlement in Palestine living on healthy national lines would provide spiritual sustenance for the vast majority of Jewry outside Palestine still had a good few adherents, but to-day, German anti- * Thus it was the predominance of the Left at the Lucerne Congress in August, 1935, which secured the election of Dr. Weizmann as President. {p. 13} Semitism and its repercussions in other lands, has all but given this doctrine its coup de grace. Every Jew now sees clearly that without a physical and political as well as a spiritual centre, Jewry stands very little chance of survival. This conviction has spread much more rapidly than certain Zionist leaders, who have lost touch with the masses, realise. The Jewish land hunger has grown immeasurably and the Jewish masses feel that Palestine without Transjordan is far too small for the urgent and imperative need of Jewish emigration. Transjordan was originally part of the mandated territory of Palestine to which the Jewish National Home applied. Hence one of the other main points in the platform of the new Zionist Organisation is the opening of Transjordan to Jewish immigration. Another factor which has estranged the masses of Jewry from the old Zionist Organisation is its attitude to the Jewish Religion.* The old Zionist Organisation declares that Religion is a private affair of the individual. The masses of Jewry however instinctively feel that this attitude does less than justice to the ideals of social justice contained in the Bible and the Prophets and crystallised in Jewish tradition through the many centuries. This precious heritage they feel should not be thrown away. Was it not their religion which through the ages has been the source of their invincible fortitude and preserved them as a Nation? Moreover, realising that no civilisation is possible without an established form of religion, they have rallied round the New Zionist Organisation which does justice to the Jewish tradition. The New Zionist Organisation has absorbed the Zionist Revisionists. This party was founded in 1925 by Vladimir Jabotinsky to resist the tendencies towards defeatism and decay, to keep alive the Herzlian tradition and to resist the growing dictatorship and arrogance of the Palestine Labour Zionists. The party grew rapidly, and by 1933 at the Zionist Congress in Prague, it was already second in size of the parties within the organisation. The Leader of the Revisionists has naturally become the President of the New Zionist Organisation. This choice indicates recognition by the masses of Jewry that the pressing need of the time is to strengthen the moral and political foundations of the movement. * The Chief Rabbi, Dr. J. H. Hertz, stated (according to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency) at a public meeting in London on the 23rd February, 1936, that "religious teaching is being blotted out in the Jewish schools. Thus, while funds which make possible Zionist schools come from Jews alone, these schools and settlements are not Jewish and still, except for the language, lack Jewish spirit and teaching. In fact, in some schools, 'Socialism,' not Judaism, is the object of tuition." {p. 14} Born in Russia about fifty-five years ago, Jabotinsky threw himself from early youth into the Zionist movement. Almost alone in Russia in 1915, he advocated Jewish support for the Allied Cause (in spite of the terribly unjust treatment of the Jews by the Russians), because he saw in an Allied Victory the hope of a Jewish Palestine. He conceived the idea of a Jewish Legion to fight for Palestine on the side of the Allies and carried it through in the teeth of the strongest opposition, including that of many of his own friends.* Had it not been for this opposition it is practically certain that he would have rallied a large army of Jewish soldiers to lead the capture of Palestine and would have been the Jewish Garibaldi. He was in Palestine attached to the Jewish battalion under Lord Allenby and was soon recognised by the British authorities as a fearless Jewish leader and defender of Jewish rights. He resisted the authorities in Palestine during the Arab attacks on Jews in 1920, was sentenced to fifteen years' imprisonment in the historie fortress of Acre, but was set free after a few months. This episode in his career has naturally endeared him to the masses of Jewry, and the prohibition of his re-entry into Palestine has had a similar stimulating effect. What are the prospects of the New Zionist Organisation? The break-up of the Zionist Centre party Conference at Cracow in 1935 indicates clearly what was already evident to the clear-sighted, viz., that there are only two parties to the struggle in Zionism - the Socialist Left and the Revisionist Right. The Left is now suffering for some of the sins committed during the last ten years under the influence of the heady wine of power and office. Almost every recent Jewish visitor to Palestine has returned thoroughly disappointed with the regime of the Left. A sound Jewish instinct tells them that advanced Socialism or Communism - whatever its advantages in the remoter future - is entirely unsuitable for a nascent Jewish National Home. The New Zionists emphasise the great traditions of England - fair play, recognition of the principle of nationality, free but orderly democracy, and especially respect for those who stand up for their rights. The New Zionist Organisation is pro-British to the core. It is the rallying centre of Jewry in its crisis. It has the Jewish youth on its side, enrolled in subsidiary organisations such as the Betar, named after Captain * If required, thousands of Jews would come forward today under his leadership to serve in the forces of the Mandatory Power. {p. 15} Trumpeldor, a Jewish hero, who died fighting in Palestine in 1919. Young Jews and Jewesses in Eastern Europe are taught through this organisation to prepare themselves for Palestine not only in Hebrew and agriculture but also in team work, self-defence and obedience to leadership. Reports from Eastern Europe attest the fact that Jabotinsky is acclaimed by hundreds of thousands of Jewish people and indicate that the New Zionist Organisation will be, if it is not already, larger, as well as more truly representative of Jewry, than any other body now in existence. Steps are being taken to convene as soon as practicable a National Assembly of Zionist Jewry representing the larger part of articulate Jewry. Every Jew or Jewess over 20, if in favour of the Zionist solution of the Jewish problem, has the right to vote for the election of delegates to this Assembly. The franchise is not acquired by purchase but is true to its name, viz., free and dependent on political convictions only. At the same time a well founded plan of large-scale colonisation for settling 1 1/2 - 2 million Jews in Palestine and Transjordan over a period of ten years is being prepared by experts for submission to the Assembly. As the pressure on Jewry grows, the numbers of the New Zionist Organisation will continue to increase, for it is based on the firm conviction that the Jewish problem is a world problem, and that an untrammelled Jewish National Home on both sides of the Jordan is the only and inevitable solution. There is overwhelming evidence that if they were allowed to do so by the British Government, Trans-Jordan Arabs (comparatively very few in number) are most anxious to sell their surplus and uncultivated lands to Jewish immigrants at very much lower prices than the Palestine Arab proprietors are in the circumstances demanding and obtaining to-day for theirs. The British Empire can afford to wait or hasten slowly; but it will be conceded that in their tragic plight the choice before Jewry is either speedily to rebuild Palestine or slowly to perish in the Diaspora. The words of the traditional Jewish toast - " Next year in Jerusalem" (Leshana Habaa Birushalayim) - are therefore no longer conventional words, but inspiriting and instinct with meaning and action and must assuredly appeal to the sense of humanity and fair play of the British Government and people. {p. 16} APPENDIX I. THE BALFOUR DECLARATION. FOREIGN OFFICE, 2nd November, 1917. DEAR LORD ROTHSCHILD, I have much pleasure in conveying to you on behalf of His Majesty's Government the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations, which has been submitted to and approved by the Cabinet: "His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country." I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation. Yours sincerely, (Signed) ARTHUR JAMES BALFOUR. APPENDIX II. Extract from Preamble to, and Specific Articles of, the Palestine Mandate referring to the Jewish National Home. Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting info effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country; and Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country. {p. 17} 2. The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble,* and the development of self-governing institutions, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion. 4. An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters - as may affect the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine, and, subject always to the control of the Administration, to assist and take part in the development of the country. The Zionist organisation, so lang as its organisation and constitution are in the opinion of the Mandatory appropriate, shall be recognised as such agency. It shall take steps in consultation with His Britannic Majesty's Government to secure the co-operation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home. 6. The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Artide 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, induding State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes. 7. The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine. 11. The Administration of Palestine shall take all necessary measures to safeguard the interests of the community in connection with the development of the country, and, subject to any international obligations accepted by the Mandatory, shall have full power to provide for public ownership or control of any of the natural resources of the country or of the public * This phrase rules out any interpretation of "Jewish National Home" other than as laid down in the Preamble, which speaks of "reconstituting their national home." {p. 18} works, services and utilities established or to be established therein. It shall introduce a land system appropriate to the needs of the country, having regard, among other things, to the desirability of promoting the close settlement and intensive cultivation of the land. The Administration may arrange with the Jewish agency mentioned in Article 4 to construct or operate, upon fair and equitable terms, any public works, services and utilities, and to develop any of the natural resources of the country, in so far as these matters are not directly undertaken by the Administration. Any such arrangements shall provide that no profits distributed by such agency, directly or indirectly, shall exceed a reasonable rate of interest on the capital, and any further profits shall be utilised by it for the benefit of the country in a manner approved by the Administration. 22. English, Arabic and Hebrew shall be the official languages of Palestine. Any statement or inscription in Arabic on stamps or money in Palestine shall be repeated in Hebrew, and any statement or inscription in Hebrew shall be repeated in Arabic. 23. The Administration of Palestine shall recognise the holy days of the respective communities in Palestine as legal days of rest for the members of such communities. APPENDIX III The following letter from Colonel J. C. Wedgwood, M.P., appeared in the " Times," of Friday, January 3rd, 1936. SIR,- The plan of the Legislative Council for Palestine has been announced in Jerusalem. There is time to criticise the proposals before any enactment is made by Orders in Council. If this start towards home rule is not to be made on dangerous lines that criticism should come now. The objections of the Jews and their determination to boycott the council may delay the scheme. It is the proposals themselves on which I would comment, and from the British point of view. First, one might judge from Egypt that it is a mistake, especially just now, to give the impression that one yields to threats of violence. The results of the 1923 Constitution in Egypt are so manifest that one need not labour the point. The connexion between Egypt and Palestine is so close; {p. 19} the regrets for the Constitution granted to Iraq are so keen. Surrender to bluff is not at the moment popular. Then the proposed machinery gives the impression of having been devised without sufficient regard to practice and experience elsewhere in the Empire. No one who knows community representation in India approves of that method of election; it leaves minorities helpless and encourages racial and religious bitterness. Why impose it on Palestine, where all are agreed that the vital issue is to get Jew and Arab to be more friendly? The essence of the English system is that the M.P. represents all sorts, and is as anxious to please those who might, as he is to please those who do, vote for him. The recent crisis is proof thereof, so anxious were we all to get the liberal vote at the next election - so eager to respond to the protests of our correspondents. This, as Mr. Baldwin has pointed out, is democracy; and it only works well because, with a common electoral roll, we have to see the other fellow's point of view. With these community rolls, election depends on beating the community drum, and the most vigorous denunciation of the other communities. The position of a statutory minority, which can never hope for posts, preferment, or power, is particularly unfair and quite un-English. Probably Jews object to this obvious result more than to community representation itself; for it is only the Jews of England and America who understand the virtues of the common electoral roll and the vices of community isolation. We have seen from India that once community representation is started, reversion to the unifying English system becomes impossible. In Kenya there is an official majority on the council to preserve the control by the Colonial Office and by Parliament. In Palestine there is to be no official majority. Instead we are to rely on the balancing of the rival communities - so many Moslems, Christians, Jews, officials, possibly Germans. This is "divide and rule "-a "rule" which leads to more inefficiency and exasperation than any other. We had just that " rule " in Cyprus; for 50 years we ruled on the Governor's casting vote; and it only ended when the Christians stormed Government House and the Constitution went up in the flames. {p. 20} Many other questions arise, such as control over the purse, over education, over police, over public works, over loans, over municipalities. These are not matters which solve themselves on the march, and we have had much experience in Colonies both less and more civilized than is Palestine. Malta, Guiana, Newfoundland, Ceylon provide precious evidence on the difficulties that will arise.Would it not be wise to use the time before the Palestine Constitution starts to have on all these matters the mature consideration of a committee, which need never visit Palestine? The practical experience of the British Empire is worth taking into account, worth a little delay, and no reflection upon the necessarily limited experience of those who have framed these proposals. I am, Sir, yours, &c., JOSIAH C. WEDGWOOD. Committee on History of Parliament, 1, Queen Anne's Gate Buildings, Dartmouth Street, S.W.1. {end Landman pamphlet} Og et brev sendt fra Chaim Weizzmann, Israels første president til Winston Churchill, 10. september 1941: Dette er litt vanskeligere å lese, så jeg legger ved teksten her og... Dated: 10th September, 1941 Addressed to : The Right Honorable Winston S. Churchill, P.C., M.P., 10 Downing Street, SW1 Greeting: Dear Mr. Prime Minister, I wish to thank you for the very kind message which you sent me through Mr. Martin. I deeply appreciate it. Still, our position has become so serious (nay, critical), that I feel I must lay the facts before you by letter if I cannot do so personally. Two years have passed since, on the outbreak of the war I offered to His Majesty's government, on behalf of the Jewish people, the fullest active support of Jews in Palestine and throughout the world. A whole year has elapsed since you gave your personal approval to our offer to recruit the greatest possible number of Jews in Palestine for the fighting services and to form "Jewish military units abroad for service in the Middle East or elsewhere. But during these two years our readiness to serve has earned us only rebuffs and humiliations. Even in Palestine, where the need for ur service was acknowledged, our most zealous endeavours have not received a single word of public acknowledgement. Ten thousand Palestinian Jews have fought in Libya, Abyssinia, Greece, Crete, and Syria. But our people are never mentioned; our name is shunned, all contact or co-operation with us is kept dark as if it were compromising. In March last, before I left for the United States, I was given, in a letter from the Colonial Secretary, the assurance that the formation of the Jewish fighting force was reluctantly postponed - but surely postponed at the utmost for six months. I know with what enthusiasm the announcement that it is to be formed at last would be received by our people in Palestine and throughout the world. But this is not to be, even now. Even in Palestine, our people, for whom the defence of their country and of the British position in the Middle East may be literally a matter of life and death, are permitted to serve only under humiliating limitations and conditions. Tortured by Hitler as no nation has ever been in modern times, and advertised by him as his foremost enemy, we are refused by those who fight him the chance of seeing our name and our flag arrayed against him. I know that this exclusion is not in your own intentions and spirit. It is the work of people who were responsible for the Munich policy in Europe and for the White Paper in Palestine. We were sacrificed to win over the Mufti of Jerusalem and his friends who were serving Hitler in the Middle East; whereas the only thing which can secure the Arab is British strength in the Middle East, as has been clearly shown in Iraq. But are the Jews so utterly unimportant as the treatment meted out to them suggests? I have spent months in America, traveling up and down the country, and clearly searching the American scene. Forces over there are finely balanced; the position is uncertain. There is only one big ethnic group which is willing to stand, to a man, for Great Britain, and a policy of "all-out-aid" for her: the five million American Jews. From Secretary Morgenthau, Governor Lehman, Justice Frankfurter, down to the simplest Jewish workman or trader, they are conscious of all that this struggle against Hitler implies. It has been repeatedly acknowledged by British Statesmen that it was the Jews who, in the last war, effectively helped to tip the scales in America in favour of Great Britain. They are keen to do it - and may do it - again . But you are dealing with human beings, with flesh and blood, and the most elementary feeling of self respect sets limits to service, however willing, if the response is nothing but rebuffs and humiliations. American Jewry waits for a word - a call - from His Majesty's Government. The formation of a Jewish fighting force would be that signal. Equipment cannot be the determining factor; there will always be some alternative use for whatever equipment is available; and fresh recruits are all the time being called up in the British Commonwealth by their hundreds of thousands, while we are being told to wait for one single division because of lack of equipment. If the spirit of American Jewry is roused, the influence which this will exercise on America's rather sluggish production will return to you that equipment with manifold gains. Let me feel, Mr. Prime Minister, that our friendship is not spurned on the British side, nor our name obliterated at a time when Hitler is endeavouring to obliterate our very existence. Yours very truly Initials: C W Endret 2. mars 2015 av pifler 1 Lenke til kommentar
L4r5 Skrevet 2. mars 2015 Rapporter Del Skrevet 2. mars 2015 Kan du gi en kort oppsummering for de av oss som ikke har tre uker til overs for å lese hele greia? 8 Lenke til kommentar
delfin Skrevet 2. mars 2015 Forfatter Rapporter Del Skrevet 2. mars 2015 Er det noen som har lest noe om dette i "offisiell" historie? Hvorfor er dette totalt gjemt fra historiebøker? Vel, det kan finnes her: "Seeds of conflict", series 7: Palestine, The twice-promised land 2: The Jewish Cause 1978, KTO Press, a division of Kraus-Thomson Organization Ltd, Nendeln, Lichtenstein ISBN 3 - 262 - 00191 - 0 2 Lenke til kommentar
delfin Skrevet 2. mars 2015 Forfatter Rapporter Del Skrevet 2. mars 2015 (endret) Kan du gi en kort oppsummering for de av oss som ikke har tre uker til overs for å lese hele greia? Det første avsnittet er en kort oppsummering, men her har du en ekstremt kort variant: Thus, as will be seen, the Zionists, having carried out their part, and greatly helped to bring America in, the Balfour Declaration of 1917 was but the public confirmation of the necessarily secret "gentleman's" agreement of 1916 made with the previous knowledge, Britene visste at de ikke hadde noen mulighet til å vinne krigen uten USA, og de klarte ikke å få dem med i en krig det var null interesse for, så sionistene inngikk en avtale om å bruke makten sin til å presse USA inn i krigen. Hvis de ikke hadde gjort det hadde det trolig endt med en form for fredsavtale i 1916, da ingen av partene kom noen vei. tl; dr: Palestina ble gitt som betaling til jødene for at de lurte USA inn i krigen. Tyskerne var sinte på jødene etter første verdenskrig fordi (noen av dem) hadde forrådt landet sitt og fått dem til å tape krigen, som førte til at de mistet store landområder, mange mennesker (i tillegg til de som døde i en unødvendig lang krig), og måtte betale 500 milliarder dollar (dagens verdi) i erstatning. Kort nok? Endret 2. mars 2015 av pifler 2 Lenke til kommentar
Pernicious Weed Skrevet 2. mars 2015 Rapporter Del Skrevet 2. mars 2015 Er det noen som har lest noe om dette i "offisiell" historie? Hvorfor er dette totalt gjemt fra historiebøker? Vel, det kan finnes her: "Seeds of conflict", series 7: Palestine, The twice-promised land 2: The Jewish Cause 1978, KTO Press, a division of Kraus-Thomson Organization Ltd, Nendeln, Lichtenstein ISBN 3 - 262 - 00191 - 0 Ikke glemt, nei. Har selv hatt et helt fag på universitetet om Palestina-konflikten. Balfour-erklæringen er en del av det. Britene lovet bort samme område til tre forskjellige aktører. De lovet det bort til muslimske lokalherrer, dersom de fikk hjelp under krigen, de ble enige med Frankrike om å dele området mellom seg selv og Frankrike, og de lovet zionistene en jødisk stat. Balfourerklæringen (sionistene), Sykes-Picot-avtalene (Frankrike) og Hussein-McMahon-korrespondansen (muslimene). At de kom med erklæringen tror jeg ikke hadde alt for mye med USA i seg selv å gjøre. Det klart, det skadet ikke at det fantes mange jøder i USA, med makt, men dette fikk også med seg jøder på laget under krigen, i tillegg så man for seg å kunne slippe et jødeproblem på hjemmebane, også etter krigen. Skal heller ikke se bort ifra at det ble gjort litt som en kompistjeneste mellom David Lloyd George (statsminister i UK) og Chaim Weizmann (prominent sionist), og det faktum at sistnevnte var en viktig sprengstoff-forsker. Personlig bærer det mer preg av at britene "endelig" lot seg ovetale av mas fra sionistene, som hele tiden hadde vært bevisste på at de trengte støtte fra en verdensmakt for å kunne opprette en jødisk stat i Israel. Britene hadde vel tidligere "gitt dem" Uganda, men det var ikke godt nok 2 Lenke til kommentar
delfin Skrevet 2. mars 2015 Forfatter Rapporter Del Skrevet 2. mars 2015 Er det noen som har lest noe om dette i "offisiell" historie? Hvorfor er dette totalt gjemt fra historiebøker? Vel, det kan finnes her: "Seeds of conflict", series 7: Palestine, The twice-promised land 2: The Jewish Cause 1978, KTO Press, a division of Kraus-Thomson Organization Ltd, Nendeln, Lichtenstein ISBN 3 - 262 - 00191 - 0 Ikke glemt, nei. Har selv hatt et helt fag på universitetet om Palestina-konflikten. Balfour-erklæringen er en del av det. Britene lovet bort samme område til tre forskjellige aktører. De lovet det bort til muslimske lokalherrer, dersom de fikk hjelp under krigen, de ble enige med Frankrike om å dele området mellom seg selv og Frankrike, og de lovet zionistene en jødisk stat. Balfourerklæringen (sionistene), Sykes-Picot-avtalene (Frankrike) og Hussein-McMahon-korrespondansen (muslimene). At de kom med erklæringen tror jeg ikke hadde alt for mye med USA i seg selv å gjøre. Det klart, det skadet ikke at det fantes mange jøder i USA, med makt, men dette fikk også med seg jøder på laget under krigen, i tillegg så man for seg å kunne slippe et jødeproblem på hjemmebane, også etter krigen. Skal heller ikke se bort ifra at det ble gjort litt som en kompistjeneste mellom David Lloyd George (statsminister i UK) og Chaim Weizmann (prominent sionist), og det faktum at sistnevnte var en viktig sprengstoff-forsker. Personlig bærer det mer preg av at britene "endelig" lot seg ovetale av mas fra sionistene, som hele tiden hadde vært bevisste på at de trengte støtte fra en verdensmakt for å kunne opprette en jødisk stat i Israel. Britene hadde vel tidligere "gitt dem" Uganda, men det var ikke godt nok Det som er "glemt" er ikke at britene lovet det bort, men at det var en hemmelig avtale mellom britene og zionistene som lenge før det ble offentliggjort, og at det slett ikke var altruisme som gjorde at britene ville gi Palestina til zionistene Ellers er det merkverdig lite interesse for historie som er stikk i strid med det man lærer, og som plutselig gjør at ting gir litt mer mening. At denne hemmelige avtalen kostet "utallige" menneskeliv burde også være av interesse. Jeg hadde tenkt å poste hele dette dokumentet: ... men med såpass laber interesse er jeg ikke sikker på om det er noe vits i det. Er det noen som bryr seg i det hele tatt? 2 Lenke til kommentar
del_diablo Skrevet 2. mars 2015 Rapporter Del Skrevet 2. mars 2015 Er ikke hemmelige avtaler mellom stormen og stater ganske vanlige? Uavhengig av hvor umoralske de er? Lenke til kommentar
delfin Skrevet 2. mars 2015 Forfatter Rapporter Del Skrevet 2. mars 2015 Er ikke hemmelige avtaler mellom stormen og stater ganske vanlige? Uavhengig av hvor umoralske de er? Hvem er "stormen", og poenget mitt er ikke så mye om det er vanlig eller ikke, men hvorfor det er komplett utelatt fra historiebøkene nå som det ikke er hemmelig lenger 2 Lenke til kommentar
Pernicious Weed Skrevet 2. mars 2015 Rapporter Del Skrevet 2. mars 2015 Er noen år siden jeg fordypet meg noe særlig i dette temaet, men jeg vil ikke si det er helt glemt. Er heller det at de overspeiles av de konfliktene som er i området i dag. I den nye verden er det ikke lenger så viktig for folk å vite om bakgrunnen for ting, og siden det handler om religioner og man dypper gjerne enda lenger tilbake i historien for å finne argumenter. Sionistene har alltid vært klar over at de trengte en stormaktsgaranti for å etablere Israel, og med et maktskifte de siste 100 årene er det nå i langt større grad USA, og ikke britene, som står for det. Lenke til kommentar
delfin Skrevet 3. mars 2015 Forfatter Rapporter Del Skrevet 3. mars 2015 Er noen år siden jeg fordypet meg noe særlig i dette temaet, men jeg vil ikke si det er helt glemt. Er heller det at de overspeiles av de konfliktene som er i området i dag. I den nye verden er det ikke lenger så viktig for folk å vite om bakgrunnen for ting, og siden det handler om religioner og man dypper gjerne enda lenger tilbake i historien for å finne argumenter. Sionistene har alltid vært klar over at de trengte en stormaktsgaranti for å etablere Israel, og med et maktskifte de siste 100 årene er det nå i langt større grad USA, og ikke britene, som står for det. Det jeg mener med "glemt" er ikke at den offisielle historien er glemt, men at den reelle historien ikke blir fortalt Som med veldig mye annen historie; det vi lærer er overhodet ikke noen objektiv sannhet, og jeg kan på mange måter forstå hvorfor dette, som har forandret hele Europas historie, ikke blir fortalt, men jeg kan ikke moralsk forsvare det. USA har nok hatt mer makt enn man tror, og det skyldes nok i stor grad en mangel på det tradisjonelle europeiske aristokratiet, som lenge sørget for at makt gikk i arv. Selvfølgelig er det i stor grad slik ennå, også i USA, men det er en langt mer "kapitalistisk" tilnærming til makten der, som gjør at det er lettere for de rike og slue å kjempe seg til topps. Et par sider til: 2 Lenke til kommentar
del_diablo Skrevet 3. mars 2015 Rapporter Del Skrevet 3. mars 2015 Det er litt som "kulen som startet første verdenskrig". De hadde ikke brydd seg hadde de ikke allerede vært klar for krigen i 20-30 år. Historien som blir fortalt er ekstremt overforenklet. Et annet eksempel er AP før andre verdenskrig. De gjorde ikke mange legistitative forandringer, eller byttet ut så mange dommere. De er likevel tilskrevet noe som de ikke gjorde. Og det er mange flere eksempler. Lenke til kommentar
Pernicious Weed Skrevet 3. mars 2015 Rapporter Del Skrevet 3. mars 2015 Så litt nærmere på det nå, og må innrømme at jeg aldri har vært borti denne James Malcolm, såvidt jeg kan huske. Hvem er han, og hva er det som tilsier at han er troverdig i forhold til dette? Har forøvrig ingen problemer med å tro at britene kunne finne på å bruke sionistene til å få amerikanerne inn i krigen. De var desperate på den tiden. Dog verdt å merke seg at det å "gi bort" Palestina til jødene ikke var en så big deal for de da, som det ville vært idag. Britene var godt vandte med å te seg slik de ville i mange av verdens kriker og kroker. Samt at det finnes flere andre troverdige teorier for hvorfor det kunne være fordelaktig å gjøre noe sånt- Lenke til kommentar
Budeia Skrevet 3. mars 2015 Rapporter Del Skrevet 3. mars 2015 Var det ikke slik at Winston Churchill fikk USA med i krigen ved å senke/ofre passasjerskipet Lusitania? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Lusitania Lenke til kommentar
Rampage Skrevet 3. mars 2015 Rapporter Del Skrevet 3. mars 2015 Hmmm, her trekkes det endel løse tråder. Hvordan eksakt fikk jødene USA inn i 1. verdenskrig? Bortsett fra referanser til at "jødemakten ble mobilisert" og en israelsk president som hevdet at England stod i gjeld til jødene fordi "de var tungen på vektskålen". Det var innflytelsesrike jøder i USA (og andre viktige områder) man håpte kunne bli mobilisert for propagandagrunner. At jødene lobbyerte for å få USA inn i krigen, som en del av avtalen der jødene fikk landområde i Palestina er ikke synonymt med at jødene dro USA inn i krigen. At du omtaler det som at de "lurte" USA inn i en krig de ikke ville virker som at du tillegger en hel del negative konnotasjoner til samarbeidet som du ikke har dekning for. Nå er det veldig lenge siden jeg har lest meg opp på de avtalene og samarbeidet, for det er ærlig talt ikke så veldig interessant lengere, men det hevdes ikke noe annet enn grunnen som er etablert som konsensus. Der grunnen til at USA gikk inn i krigen var fordi tyskerne gjenopptok angrep på amerikanske frakteskip (fordi de supplerte de allierte) med ubåtene sine og dermed ble USA dratt inn i krigen. Det har altså absolutt ingenting med at USA ble "lurt inn" av jødene, men at Tyskerne fortsatte aggresjonen mot USA og jødiske rådgivere i USA pushet for at man måtte blande seg inn. Jeg ser også at du gjentar til det kjedsommelige om at "historiebøkene" utelater alt dette her, som selvfølgelig ikke er sant, med mindre du omtaler ungdomskolebøker. Realitetsorientering: "HISTORIEN" er ikke det lille du lærte i grunnskolen, den er altfor omfattende, involverer alt for mange enkeltindivider, historier, samhandlinger og ulike motiver og aksjoner til at alt kan inkluderes. Selv på universitetsnivå må det komprimeres til noe forståelig og velges ut deler for å presentere det viktigste ved en historie, som gjernes løses ved å begrense omfang. 3 Lenke til kommentar
delfin Skrevet 3. mars 2015 Forfatter Rapporter Del Skrevet 3. mars 2015 Så litt nærmere på det nå, og må innrømme at jeg aldri har vært borti denne James Malcolm, såvidt jeg kan huske. Hvem er han, og hva er det som tilsier at han er troverdig i forhold til dette? Har forøvrig ingen problemer med å tro at britene kunne finne på å bruke sionistene til å få amerikanerne inn i krigen. De var desperate på den tiden. Dog verdt å merke seg at det å "gi bort" Palestina til jødene ikke var en så big deal for de da, som det ville vært idag. Britene var godt vandte med å te seg slik de ville i mange av verdens kriker og kroker. Samt at det finnes flere andre troverdige teorier for hvorfor det kunne være fordelaktig å gjøre noe sånt- Han er f.eks nevnt av Landman i sitt dokument, som er akseptert, og det sammenfaller med alle andre skildringer... These efforts were, however, without avail. In fact, Sir Herbert Samuel has publicly stated that he had no share in the initiation of the negotiations which led to the Balfour Declaration.* The actual initiator was Mr. James A. Malcolm and the following is a brief account of the circumstances in which the negotiations took place. Naturlig nok er det mange som ikke har interesse av at dette skal komme ut, så at det ikke finnes så mye informasjon om ham er ikke så rart, om du tenker logisk på det Han siteres også i ymse bøker om emnet, blant annet denne: http://www.bokklubben.no/SamboWeb/produkt.do?produktId=6065048 Publikasjonen hans ligger nå i biblioteket til Harward, og originalen ligger nok fortsatt på British Museum. Det er ikke så lett å finne informasjon om ham, siden han er ukjent utover dette arbeidet... Var det ikke slik at Winston Churchill fikk USA med i krigen ved å senke/ofre passasjerskipet Lusitania? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Lusitania Nei, hvem som senket det er ukjent; det er mange teorier om at det var Chuchill, i et desperat forsøk på å få med USA, men det var Zimmermann-telegrammet som til slutt gjorde at man klarte å dra med USA i krigen... Det var veldig vanskelig å overbevise amerikanerne om at de hadde noe å tjene på denne krigen, så det ble gjort mange forsøk på å få dem med. Jeg har ikke oversikt over alle, men det er rimelig stor enighet blant historikere om at dette var casus belli for at USA til slutt mobiliserte. Hmmm, her trekkes det endel løse tråder. Hvordan eksakt fikk jødene USA inn i 1. verdenskrig? Bortsett fra referanser til at "jødemakten ble mobilisert" og en israelsk president som hevdet at England stod i gjeld til jødene fordi "de var tungen på vektskålen". Det var innflytelsesrike jøder i USA (og andre viktige områder) man håpte kunne bli mobilisert for propagandagrunner. At jødene lobbyerte for å få USA inn i krigen, som en del av avtalen der jødene fikk landområde i Palestina er ikke synonymt med at jødene dro USA inn i krigen. At du omtaler det som at de "lurte" USA inn i en krig de ikke ville virker som at du tillegger en hel del negative konnotasjoner til samarbeidet som du ikke har dekning for. Nå er det veldig lenge siden jeg har lest meg opp på de avtalene og samarbeidet, for det er ærlig talt ikke så veldig interessant lengere, men det hevdes ikke noe annet enn grunnen som er etablert som konsensus. Der grunnen til at USA gikk inn i krigen var fordi tyskerne gjenopptok angrep på amerikanske frakteskip (fordi de supplerte de allierte) med ubåtene sine og dermed ble USA dratt inn i krigen. Det har altså absolutt ingenting med at USA ble "lurt inn" av jødene, men at Tyskerne fortsatte aggresjonen mot USA og jødiske rådgivere i USA pushet for at man måtte blande seg inn. Jeg ser også at du gjentar til det kjedsommelige om at "historiebøkene" utelater alt dette her, som selvfølgelig ikke er sant, med mindre du omtaler ungdomskolebøker. Realitetsorientering: "HISTORIEN" er ikke det lille du lærte i grunnskolen, den er altfor omfattende, involverer alt for mange enkeltindivider, historier, samhandlinger og ulike motiver og aksjoner til at alt kan inkluderes. Selv på universitetsnivå må det komprimeres til noe forståelig og velges ut deler for å presentere det viktigste ved en historie, som gjernes løses ved å begrense omfang. Noen av spørsmålene du stiller er gode. Hvordan eksakt fikk jødene med i krigen? Det er et vanskelig spørsmål å besvare, siden jeg ikke var en del av det, men alle de historiske dokumentene jeg har delt sier at det var de som klarte det, og det at Balfour plutselig bestemte seg for å komme med denne deklarasjonen et halvt år etter at USA ble med, sier vel ganske greit at han han hadde et eller annet å betale tilbake. Det var flere som jobbet for å få dette området på den tiden, blant annet araberne. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes%E2%80%93Picot_Agreement#Conflicting_promises Har du noen god alternativ forklaring på hvorfor denne deklarasjonen ble publisert? Når det gjelder nøyaktig hvordan, så er denne artikkelen meget opplysende: http://www.wrmea.org/1999-october-november/the-zimmermann-telegram-palestine-the-balfour-declaration-and-why-america-entered-the-great-war.html Jødene insisterer på at det var deres innsats som fikk USA med, Zimmermann var zionist (selv om man ikke kan vite 100% om det var han som sendte telegrammet, selv om han sier det), og Balfour-deklarasjonen blir plutselig veldig logisk om det er slik det henger sammen. I tillegg har man alle de zionistiske kildene, blant annet brevet fra Chaim Weizmann til Churchill, som sier det samme. Chaim Azriel Weizmann (Hebrew: חיים עזריאל ויצמן Ḥayīm Wayzman; 27 November 1874 – 9 November 1952) was a Zionist leader and Israeli statesman who served as President of the Zionist Organization and later as the first President of Israel. He was electedon 16 February 1949, and served until his death in 1952. Weizmann convinced the United States government to recognize the newly formed state of Israel. Du sier at det er jeg som påstår at det var zionistene som var ansvarlige for at USA ble dratt inn, men om du leser kildene så ser du at det er zionistene selv som kommer med denne påstanden, jeg bare gjengir den. At de "ble lurt" handler om at det var svært laber interesse blant det amerikanske folket for denne krigen, og selv om visse hendelser økte interessen noe, så var det ikke før Zimmermann-telegrammet at det amerikanske folket ville gå inn i krigen... Og igjen; det er zionistene som påstår at det var de som var ansvarlige for dette og at de hadde en hemmelig avtale, noe som forklarer veldig godt Balfour-deklarasjonens eksistens. Når jeg sier at det ikke er en del av historien, så snakker jeg ikke bare om skolepensum, men at det i stor grad ikke blir nevnt noe om denne alliansen i "store" verk om historien. Hadde du hørt om dette før? Visste du om disse dokumentene? Brevet? Jeg har lest bøker om WWI og Zimmerman-telegrammet er essensielt i alle som snakker om hvorfor USA ble med i krigen, men ingen stiller spørsmål ved hvorfor han innrømte å ha sendt det, eller stiller det åpenbare spørsmålet (blant de som nevner den); hvorfor kom Balfour-deklarasjonen når den gjorde? Den ser ut til å ha kommet helt ut av det blå, men høyst sannsynlig ligger det noe bak den. Her er noen flere sider fra Malcolm sitt dokument: I enquired what special argument or consideration had the Allies put forward to win over American Jewry. Sir Mark replied that they had made use of the same argument as used elsewhere, viz. that we shall eventually win and it was better to be on the winning side, I informed him that there was a way to make American Jewry thoroughly pro-Ally, and make them conscious that only an Allied victory could be of permanent benefit to Jewry all over the world. I said to him, "You are going the wrong way about it. The well- to-do English Jews you meet and the Jewish clergy are not the real leaders of the Jewish people. You have overlooked what the call of nationality means. Do you know of the Zionist Movement?" Sir Mark admitted ignorance of this movement and I told him something about it and concluded by saying, "You can win the sympathy of the Jews everywhere, in one way only, and that way is by offering to try and secure Palestine for them." 2 Lenke til kommentar
delfin Skrevet 3. mars 2015 Forfatter Rapporter Del Skrevet 3. mars 2015 Så litt nærmere på det nå, og må innrømme at jeg aldri har vært borti denne James Malcolm, såvidt jeg kan huske. Hvem er han, og hva er det som tilsier at han er troverdig i forhold til dette? Har forøvrig ingen problemer med å tro at britene kunne finne på å bruke sionistene til å få amerikanerne inn i krigen. De var desperate på den tiden. Dog verdt å merke seg at det å "gi bort" Palestina til jødene ikke var en så big deal for de da, som det ville vært idag. Britene var godt vandte med å te seg slik de ville i mange av verdens kriker og kroker. Samt at det finnes flere andre troverdige teorier for hvorfor det kunne være fordelaktig å gjøre noe sånt- Det var en "big deal" fordi de hadde en hemmelig avtale med araberne om å gjøre opprør mot ottomanerne, hvor de ble ledet til å tro at de skulle få kontroll over området i etterkant (noe jeg ikke tror var intensjonen da, men de hadde nok fått det som en slags koloni), men ved å publisere Balfour-deklarasjonen gjorde de det klart at de hadde tenkt å gi området til palestinerne, noe som er implisitt om man kjenner til hvordan sionister avslo blant annet Uganda, og at de ikke la veldig mye skjul på at de ville ha Palestina på den tiden. McMahon's promises were seen by the Arabs as a formal agreement between them and the United Kingdom. Lloyd George and Arthur Balfour represented the agreement as a treaty during the post war deliberations of the Council of Four. On this understanding the Arabs established a military force under the command of Hussein's son Faisal which fought, with inspiration from 'Lawrence of Arabia', against the Ottoman Empire during the Arab Revolt. Hva planene til britene egentlig var er er ikke godt å si på det tidspunktet, men de visste godt hvordan araberne tolket situasjonen, og at Balfour-deklarasjonen ville være en spiker i kista for det prosjektet... Det foregikk mye bak kulissene her, men britene hadde nok en god grunn til å komme med Balfour-deklarasjonen på det tidspunktet... 2 Lenke til kommentar
Rampage Skrevet 3. mars 2015 Rapporter Del Skrevet 3. mars 2015 Noen av spørsmålene du stiller er gode. Hvordan eksakt fikk jødene med i krigen? Det er et vanskelig spørsmål å besvare, siden jeg ikke var en del av det, men alle de historiske dokumentene jeg har delt sier at det var de som klarte det, og det at Balfour plutselig bestemte seg for å komme med denne deklarasjonen et halvt år etter at USA ble med, sier vel ganske greit at han han hadde et eller annet å betale tilbake. Det var flere som jobbet for å få dette området på den tiden, blant annet araberne. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes–Picot_Agreement#Conflicting_promises Har du noen god alternativ forklaring på hvorfor denne deklarasjonen ble publisert? Nå blir dette selvfølgelig en veldig forenklet tilnærming for det vil kreve ekstremt mye lesing å lese seg opp på diplomatiet som foregikk mellom partene før og under 1. verdenskrig, men for å ta de viktigste hovedpunktene. "Alle de historiske dokumentene" du har presentert er: 1. At Zionistene skulle arbeide for å få USA involvert i krigen 2. At Chaim Weizmann hevdet at det var de som var tungen på vektskålen For å sette dette i kontekst, det var åpenbart at Zionismens sak (et hjemland for jødene) allerede var på agendaen i Storbrittania, de prøvde som nevnt å ordne noe med Uganda som ikke gikk gjennom. Valget om å gi områdene rundt Jerusalem til jødene gjennom Balfour-erklæringen hadde en todelt effekt: A) Det sikret at sentrale Zionister i USA kunne arbeide for å få USA inn i krigen og B) mobilisere jøder særlig i Tyskland og Russland til å arbeide mot Tyskerne fordi de allierte kjempet for deres sak. Primært var det B som kunne gi stor effekt særlig i Tyskland. Når det gjelder nøyaktig hvordan, så er denne artikkelen meget opplysende: http://www.wrmea.org/1999-october-november/the-zimmermann-telegram-palestine-the-balfour-declaration-and-why-america-entered-the-great-war.html Jødene insisterer på at det var deres innsats som fikk USA med, Zimmermann var zionist (selv om man ikke kan vite 100% om det var han som sendte telegrammet, selv om han sier det), og Balfour-deklarasjonen blir plutselig veldig logisk om det er slik det henger sammen. I tillegg har man alle de zionistiske kildene, blant annet brevet fra Chaim Weizmann til Churchill, som sier det samme. Du sier at det er jeg som påstår at det var zionistene som var ansvarlige for at USA ble dratt inn, men om du leser kildene så ser du at det er zionistene selv som kommer med denne påstanden, jeg bare gjengir den. At de "ble lurt" handler om at det var svært laber interesse blant det amerikanske folket for denne krigen, og selv om visse hendelser økte interessen noe, så var det ikke før Zimmermann-telegrammet at det amerikanske folket ville gå inn i krigen... Og igjen; det er zionistene som påstår at det var de som var ansvarlige for dette og at de hadde en hemmelig avtale, noe som forklarer veldig godt Balfour-deklarasjonens eksistens. Vel, for å gjøre det enkelt: zionistene arbeidet for å få USA inn i krigen, endel av avtalen mellom zionistene var at de skulle få USA inn i krigen. Da vil selvfølgelig de selv hevde at det var deres arbeid som fikk USA inn i krigen, fordi de har interesse av at det skal fremstå slik (uavhengig av om det var tilfellet). Så når de vil legge press på britene så er de påpasselig til å minne de på at det var de som fikk USA med, når realiteten er at det var tyskerne selv som sørget for det. Poenget her er at det skal framstilles som at storbrittania er i gjeld til zionistene, selv om arbeidet deres ikke var direkte årsak til at USA ble med i krigen. Zimmermanntelegrammet var viktig for å snu litt av interessen ja, men det hadde ikke vært nok i seg selv. Og poenget er at det er strategien som ligger bak Zimmermanntelegrammet (ubåtkrig mot alle skip som skulle til storbrittania) som blir det avgjørende som drar USA inn i krigen. Når jeg sier at det ikke er en del av historien, så snakker jeg ikke bare om skolepensum, men at det i stor grad ikke blir nevnt noe om denne alliansen i "store" verk om historien. Hadde du hørt om dette før? Visste du om disse dokumentene? Brevet? Jeg har lest bøker om WWI og Zimmerman-telegrammet er essensielt i alle som snakker om hvorfor USA ble med i krigen, men ingen stiller spørsmål ved hvorfor han innrømte å ha sendt det, eller stiller det åpenbare spørsmålet (blant de som nevner den); hvorfor kom Balfour-deklarasjonen når den gjorde? Den ser ut til å ha kommet helt ut av det blå, men høyst sannsynlig ligger det noe bak den. Jamenn, du sier dette her samtidig som du siterer en hel haug med historiebøker. Samtidig som at en person i denne tråden allerede forteller at de har studert denne avtalen og alliansen og problemene britene kom opp i ved å inngå allianser og avtaler som kom i konflikt på universitetet. Han innrømte å ha sendt det av den åpenbare grunnen som var at han sendte det: Det skulle virke avskrekkende for USA når tyskerne gjorde militærvalg som gikk utover amerikanerne. Hele Zimmermanntelegrammet går ut på å få en allianse med Mexico, der Mexico holder seg nøytrale med mindre amerikanerne går inn i krigen. Ironisk nok er det jo de kronglete alliansene og avtalene som var en av grunnene til at 1. verdenskrig startet i førsteomgang. Det som virkelig fikk USA inn i krigen var at tyskerne gjenopptok ubåtkrigføringen og senket flere amerikanske frakteskip på vei mot England og det skapte såpass mye furore ettersom USA tross alt ble angrepet av tyskerne at USA gikk til krig mot Tyskland. Sånn sett er ikke selve Zimmermanntelegrammet avgjørende, men strategien som ligger bak det avgjørende. Ja, grunnen til at Balfourdeklasjonen kom i et forsøk på å mobilisere jøder og for å starte en propagandakrig mot Tyskland. Hvis jødene følte at alliert seier ville gi de et hjemland i Jerusalem, vil de som har ressurser til det jobbe for alliert seier. 2 Lenke til kommentar
delfin Skrevet 4. mars 2015 Forfatter Rapporter Del Skrevet 4. mars 2015 Alle de historiske dokumentene" du har presentert er: 1. At Zionistene skulle arbeide for å få USA involvert i krigen 2. At Chaim Weizmann hevdet at det var de som var tungen på vektskålen Siden mye av posten din dreier seg om ting som egentlig ikke er relevante, prøver jeg å lage en kort liste over påstander, så kan du få gå over dem... Chaim Weizmann skriver til Churchill i et brev: It has been repeatedly acknowledged by British Statesmen that it was the Jews who, in the last war, effectively helped to tip the scales in America in favour of Great Britain. They are keen to do it - and may do it - again. Landmann skriver: ... the best and perhaps the only way (which proved so to be) to induce the American President to come into the War was to secure the co-operation of Zionist Jews by promising them Palestine, and thus enlist and mobilise the hitherto unsuspectedly powerful forces of Zionist Jews in America and elsewhere in favour of the Allies .... Thus, as will be seen, the Zionists, having carried out their part, and greatly helped to bring America in, the Balfour Declaration of 1917 was but the public confirmation of the necessarily secret "gentleman's" agreement of 1916 ... Malcolm skriver: In order to give the history of the Balfour Declaration ... ... I enquired what special argument or consideration had the Allies put forward to win over American Jewry. [...] "You are going the wrong way about it. The well- to-do English Jews you meet and the Jewish clergy are not the real leaders of the Jewish people. You have overlooked what the call of nationality means. Do you know of the Zionist Movement?" Sir Mark admitted ignorance of this movement and I told him something about it and concluded by saying, "You can win the sympathy of the Jews everywhere, in one way only, and that way is by offering to try and secure Palestine for them." Og vips, like etter at USA har blitt med i krigen dukker altså Balfour-deklarasjonen opp. Tilfeldig? Neppe. Jeg kan ikke si nøyaktig hvordan jødene brukte innflytelsen sin, men selv om vi ikke med 100% sannsynlighet kan si at de lyktes (selv om mye tyder på det). Dette kan jo være hint: og ... Men uansett om vi ikke får svaret på det, så kan vi slå fast følgende: 1) Sionistene prøvde å få med USA i krigen, i bytte mot Palestina 2) Sionistene påstår at de lyktes 3) USA gikk inn i krigen (som sionistene sa de skulle gjøre) 4) Balfour-erklæringen gir mest mening om man ser den som en gjenytelse for "noe" sionistene gjorde for britene Du kan velge å tro at det er helt tilfeldig at britene plutselig lovet bort Palestina til jødene samme året som USA gikk inn i krigen, men i dokumentene påstås det at det var en konsekvens av sionistenes innsats. Du kan selvfølgelig velge å ikke tro dem på det. Sionistene prøvde i det minste å bytte til seg Palestina mot at USA skulle bli med i krigen. Nøyaktig hvor de hadde en finger med i spillet er vanskelig å vite, men de har faktisk mye makt, og hadde det også den gangen. Av Forbes 400 rikeste i USA (2013) er 32% jøder til tross for at de utgjør 2% av befolkningen. Det har også en lang tradisjon med å eie medier og lignende. Mulighetene er mange... Personlig velger jeg å se på lovnadene om Palestina som en slags belønning, men selvfølgelig, det kan være et innfall fra Balfour hvor han plutselig fikk veldig sympati med Rotschild og ikke tenkte så mye på konsekvensene av å offentlig love bort palestina... 2 Lenke til kommentar
Rampage Skrevet 4. mars 2015 Rapporter Del Skrevet 4. mars 2015 Siden mye av posten din dreier seg om ting som egentlig ikke er relevante, prøver jeg å lage en kort liste over påstander, så kan du få gå over dem... Interessant, hvilke ting er ikke relevante? Chaim Weizmann skriver til Churchill i et brev: It has been repeatedly acknowledged by British Statesmen that it was the Jews who, in the last war, effectively helped to tip the scales in America in favour of Great Britain. They are keen to do it - and may do it - again. Landmann skriver: ... the best and perhaps the only way (which proved so to be) to induce the American President to come into the War was to secure the co-operation of Zionist Jews by promising them Palestine, and thus enlist and mobilise the hitherto unsuspectedly powerful forces of Zionist Jews in America and elsewhere in favour of the Allies .... Thus, as will be seen, the Zionists, having carried out their part, and greatly helped to bring America in, the Balfour Declaration of 1917 was but the public confirmation of the necessarily secret "gentleman's" agreement of 1916 ... Dette er jo akkurat det jeg kommenterte i hele forrige innlegg. Bare fordi Zionistene hevder at det var deres arbeid som fikk USA inn i krigen så betyr ikke det at det var faktisk tilfellet. De har interesse av å fremstille det slik, selv om sannheten er at det var tyskerne som klarte det helt på egenhånd ved å gjenoppta krigføringen mot amerikanske skip. Malcolm skriver: In order to give the history of the Balfour Declaration ... ... I enquired what special argument or consideration had the Allies put forward to win over American Jewry. [...] "You are going the wrong way about it. The well- to-do English Jews you meet and the Jewish clergy are not the real leaders of the Jewish people. You have overlooked what the call of nationality means. Do you know of the Zionist Movement?" Sir Mark admitted ignorance of this movement and I told him something about it and concluded by saying, "You can win the sympathy of the Jews everywhere, in one way only, and that way is by offering to try and secure Palestine for them." Og vips, like etter at USA har blitt med i krigen dukker altså Balfour-deklarasjonen opp. Tilfeldig? Neppe. Ja, leser du hva som står der? Min utheving. Jeg kan ikke si nøyaktig hvordan jødene brukte innflytelsen sin, men selv om vi ikke med 100% sannsynlighet kan si at de lyktes (selv om mye tyder på det). Det var prominente Zionister med innflytelse i USA og de lobbyerte garantert for at det var i amerikanske interesser å bli med i krigen, det er ikke noe mer magisk enn det. Det er ikke mye som tyder på det, å hevde at det var Zionistene som fikk USA inn i krigen er å helt totalt ignorere tyskernes handlinger som er direkte årsak. Dette kan jo være hint: Jeg må minne om at det ikke er den amerikanske presidenten på egenhånd som erklærer krig. ... Men uansett om vi ikke får svaret på det, så kan vi slå fast følgende: 1) Sionistene prøvde å få med USA i krigen, i bytte mot Palestina 2) Sionistene påstår at de lyktes 3) USA gikk inn i krigen (som sionistene sa de skulle gjøre) 4) Balfour-erklæringen gir mest mening om man ser den som en gjenytelse for "noe" sionistene gjorde for britene Du utelater jo effektivt det aller mest relevante her: 2.a Tyskerne gjenopptok ubåtkrigføring mot amerikanske skip 2.b Tyskerne senket flere amerikanske skip 2.c Dette skapte furore i USA fordi det var et angrep på amerikanske interesser. 3. USA går inn i krigen Du kan velge å tro at det er helt tilfeldig at britene plutselig lovet bort Palestina til jødene samme året som USA gikk inn i krigen, men i dokumentene påstås det at det var en konsekvens av sionistenes innsats. Du kan selvfølgelig velge å ikke tro dem på det. Sionistene prøvde i det minste å bytte til seg Palestina mot at USA skulle bli med i krigen. Nøyaktig hvor de hadde en finger med i spillet er vanskelig å vite, men de har faktisk mye makt, og hadde det også den gangen. Av Forbes 400 rikeste i USA (2013) er 32% jøder til tross for at de utgjør 2% av befolkningen. Det har også en lang tradisjon med å eie medier og lignende. Mulighetene er mange... Det er tilfeldig, det er sammenfallende, det gjør ikke det ene til en årsak av det andre. De henger sammen fordi det handler om å snu krigen. Det var derfor balfourdeklasjonen kom: For å mobilisere zionister og jøder til å kjempe for de alliertes sak. Eneste måten Zionistene kan påta seg æren for å fått USA inn i krigen er hvis de står bak Tysklands valg om å gjenoppta ubåtkrigføring, men da er du inne i brunskjortenivå av tinnfolie. Personlig velger jeg å se på lovnadene om Palestina som en slags belønning, men selvfølgelig, det kan være et innfall fra Balfour hvor han plutselig fikk veldig sympati med Rotschild og ikke tenkte så mye på konsekvensene av å offentlig love bort palestina... Hva i all verden snakker du om? Det har jo blitt påpekt i dokumentene du viser til og det jeg sa i forrige innlegg: Publiseringen fra Balfour var ment til å mobilisere innflytelsesrike jøder ved å vise at de allierte kjempet for deres sak (Et hjemland i Palestina), med andre ord var den offentlige bortlovingen strategisk og hadde en hensikt fremover. Konsekvensene av å love bort Palestina er med andre ord nettopp det de tenkte på. 1 Lenke til kommentar
Anbefalte innlegg
Opprett en konto eller logg inn for å kommentere
Du må være et medlem for å kunne skrive en kommentar
Opprett konto
Det er enkelt å melde seg inn for å starte en ny konto!
Start en kontoLogg inn
Har du allerede en konto? Logg inn her.
Logg inn nå