The Iran Deal

So there are two different accounts of the same history while referencing the same uncovering of MI6 documents.
 
Of course the hostility of the British establishment toward Jewish immigration into Palestine since long before the notorious 1939 White Paper on the subject is well-known—even King George VI wrote that year to say that he was “glad to think that steps are being taken to prevent these people leaving their country of origin”—nonetheless this is the first indication of the violent lengths to which post-war Britain was willing to go in order to appease the oil-rich Arab states of the region. For it now emerges that in late 1946 the Labour government of Clement Attlee asked MI6 for “proposals for action to deter ships masters and crews from engaging in illegal Jewish immigration and traffic,” adding, “Action of the nature contemplated is, in fact, a form of intimidation and intimidation is only likely to be effective if some members of the group of people to be intimidated actually suffer unpleasant consequences.” Among the options contemplated were “the discovery of some sabotage device, which had ‘failed’ to function after the sailing of a ship,” “tampering with a ship’s fresh water supplies or the crew’s food,” and “fire on board ship in port.” Sir Stewart Menzies, the chief of the SIS, suggested these could be blamed on an invented Arab terrorist group called The Defenders of Arab Palestine.

So according to the article I linked the only reason it was blamed on a terrorist group was because it failed but the original intention was to appease the Arab nations.
 
thethe said:
So there are two different accounts of the same history while referencing the same uncovering of MI6 documents.
Click to expand...

But they aren't different

"Sir Stewart Menzies, the chief of the SIS, suggested these could be blamed on an invented Arab terrorist group called The Defenders of Arab Palestine."
 
thethe said:
Israel is the state of the Jews. Every decision that is made is with the intention to preserve the Jewish people. To mostly everyone in the world they are one in the same.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but that statement is simply and solidly false. To many Jewish individuals, even—both Israeli citizens and Jews around the worlds—Israel qua contemporary nation-state is neither commensurate with Judaism nor the Jewish People. To say that "[to] mostly everyone in the world they are one in the same" is both gross overstatement and gross oversimplification.
 
jpx7 said:
I'm sorry, but that statement is simply and solidly false. To many Jewish individuals, even—both Israeli citizens and Jews around the worlds—Israel qua contemporary nation-state is neither commensurate with Judaism nor the Jewish People. To say that "[to] mostly everyone in the world they are one in the same" is both gross overstatement and gross oversimplification.
Click to expand...

There's some real truth in the idea that many people (Americans most prominently) treat Israel as the symbolic home of Judaism. I think that is what thethe was getting at -- moreso the perception than the reality
 
Hawk said:
There's some real truth in the idea that many people (Americans most prominently) treat Israel as the symbolic home of Judaism. I think that is what thethe was getting at -- moreso the perception than the reality
Click to expand...

But that position is almost as reductive as—and perhaps ultimately more problematic than—zito's "teh Jewz wasn't wanted no more" reading of Zionist repatriation efforts.

The reality is that there are many Israels, and parties on all sides leverage that multiplicity to sew instrumental confusion. Israel is the symbolic home of Judaism, and that Israel intersects with the State of Israel; but there's also a whole lot of territory on the Venn diagram where they aren't concomitant.
 
jpx7 said:
I take your point, to an extent; nonetheless, I don't think "popularity" is nearly so irrelevant as your glib dismissal implies.
Click to expand...

You are right. It's not irrelevant. But, seeing as Sturg is an unabashed isolationist, I wonder how he hopes to even achieve basal popularity with a total non-interventionist philosophy. He's Monday morning quaterbacking foreign policy while reaping the benefits daily. Seems detached.
 
Hawk said:
You are right. It's not irrelevant. But, seeing as Sturg is an unabashed isolationist, I wonder how he hopes to even achieve basal popularity with a total non-interventionist philosophy. He's Monday morning quaterbacking foreign policy while reaping the benefits daily. Seems detached.
Click to expand...

He does that on every issue. Won't even support Rand Paul.
 
Hawk said:
You are right. It's not irrelevant. But, seeing as Sturg is an unabashed isolationist, I wonder how he hopes to even achieve basal popularity with a total non-interventionist philosophy. He's Monday morning quaterbacking foreign policy while reaping the benefits daily. Seems detached.
Click to expand...

I'm the opposite of an isolationist.

non-interventionist... that's correct

Further - I'm not monday quarterbacking anything. I'm generally in favor of the Iran deal - much moreso than a military conflict or more sanctions.
 
Hawk said:
Ah, diplomacy as a popularity contest. Cool.
Click to expand...

Well considering that everything we've done has led to more hatred than ever before - and as thethe describes - the biggest threat to the world we've ever seen, perhaps a new approach is in order
 
That threat was building regardless of US politics. This has been a battle for centuries.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top