Machine Nation

Irish Politics Forum - Politics Technology Economics in Ireland - A Look Under The Nation's Bonnet


Devilish machinations come to naught --Milton
 
PortalPortal  HomeHome  FAQFAQ  SearchSearch  MemberlistMemberlist  UsergroupsUsergroups  RegisterRegister  Log in  GalleryGallery  MACHINENATION.org  

Share | 
 

 John Pilger annihilates the lies that underpin Israel's murder in Palestine

Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1, 2
AuthorMessage
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: John Pilger annihilates the lies that underpin Israel's murder in Palestine   Fri Jan 09, 2009 7:23 pm

What I was referring to was that control by proxy of Middle Eastern oil was central business in WWII. One of the crucial outcomes of the War was a shift of power from Britain to the US and USSR and with this the Palestinian protectorate disappeared in favour of a US backed, heavily armed Israel.

http://www.uvm.edu/~fgause/world_war_ii_and_the_middle_east.htm

I could have, of course, said it started with the first World War, but it is adequate to say that without understanding WWI in the Middle East, you cant understand the Middle East today.


Quote :
The seeds of the current conflict in the Middle East were sown during and after the First World War. Between 1918 and 1923 the territories of the defeated Ottoman (Turkish) Empire were carved up by Britain and France. Britain gained control of Iraq and Palestine; France took Syria and Lebanon. As the film emphasises, the British fleet (on which her security and position as a world power depended) was converting from coal to oil even before 1914; oil was already recognised as the fuel of the future. Unless the implications of these points are grasped, an understanding of the current predicament in Iraq and Palestine is impossible.

The film provides a detailed and wide-ranging account of the fighting in Anatolia, Gallipoli, Iraq, Palestine, Syria and the Caucasus. There is much more here about blood than about oil. Much of this, informative though it is, is irrelevant to the basic premise. Turkey for example, although defeated in the1914-18 war and humiliated by the post-war treaties, is a member of N.A.T.O. and an aspiring member of the European Union. The film is heavy on information and light on analysis. As background to the current conflict, it would have been better to have focused more narrowly on Iraq and Palestine.

Iraq was a creation of the First World War. The British wished to construct a political entity containing major oilfields in the region which they could dominate - hence they forced together a Shiite Muslim majority with Kurdish and Sunni minorities under a Sunni monarch (Faisal) from what is now Saudi Arabia. This artificial entity could only ever be held together by some form of dictatorship (by direct or proxy British control or by Baathists like Saddam). Only supremely arrogant, ignorant and na�ve leaders such as those who directed United States and British foreign policy after 2001 could conceivably have believed otherwise. A Kurdish revolt against British rule in the 1920s was crushed with considerable brutality, involving indiscriminate aerial bombardment by the infant Royal Air Force under the leadership of none other than Arthur “Bomber” Harris of Dresden fame (that this butcher should have been honoured with a memorial statue in the Strand is a national disgrace). A Sunni-led nationalist revolt against Iraq`s pro-British rulers was defeated in 1941. British influence was finally brought to an end by the Baathist coup of 1957 which led in turn to Saddam`s dictatorship. How “democracy” is supposed to take root in this divided and artificial construct is beyond understanding.

The Palestinian problem too was a product of the First World War. The Balfour Declaration of 1917 gave British support to the establishment of a “National Home” for Jews in a predominantly Arab Palestine; the post-war treaties made Britain responsible for the government of Palestine under a so-called League of Nations mandate. By 1949 this “National Home” had become the state of Israel with a Jewish majority after the flight (or expulsion, depending on your point of view) of much of the Arab population. The wars of 1956, 1967 and 1973, as well as the two recent intafadas, are the enduring legacy of the injustices perpetrated on the Arab population of Palestine by the “peacemakers” of 1919.

None of this was inevitable. Had the principles of national self-determination been followed, what is now northern Iraq would have formed part of a state of Kurdistan. Instead of this, the 20 million Kurds are without a state of their own, scattered around Turkey, Iran Syria and Iraq. The rest of Iraq would have been divided along Sunni/Shia sectarian lines, as it had been in Ottoman times. But no - the British determination to control the oil took precedence over the interests of the inhabitants of the area. Ironically, a major British concern at the time was to limit FRENCH influence in the region! So much for the Entente Cordiale and Anglo-French co-operation during the 1914-1918 war! Similarly, an Arab state would have been created in Palestine had the principles of national self-determination been followed. Instead of this, the British chose to establish their own control of the country - not least in order to protect the Suez Canal (again the French were regarded as the major rivals!). A Jewish population in Palestine would, it was thought, help cement British influence there. Thus the 1914-1918 war was as great a disaster in the Middle East as it was in Europe, leaving the region in a condition considerably worse than it had been before.
http://www.thirdway.eu/2008/01/30/blood-and-oil-middle-east-in-world-war-1/
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: John Pilger annihilates the lies that underpin Israel's murder in Palestine   Fri Jan 09, 2009 7:39 pm

cactus flower wrote:
imokyrok wrote:
scribe wrote:
zakalwe wrote:
cactus flower wrote:
You could in many ways look at the situation in Palestine as a continuation of WWII.

ww2 was a continuation of ww1 by that mark!

Actually I worked this out right back once ... and it goes all the way back to .....God!....

After all the Romans exported to Europe.. who then had the Holocost.. who exported back to Palestine....
But God's the person who exported them from Egypt and told them to kill anyone in their way....

Nice... confused

A Cup of Chrisitianity for anyone? Razz

Believe it or not you can hear exactly that point of view daily on Israel National Radio. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Radio/

They really believe the God of the Bible gave them the right to annilate the "philistines" as they call them. Of course that fact that the bible is mythology for which even the Israeli archaelogists have had to admit there is no factual basis, is of no interest to these people who believe that Gods miracles are the reason they lose so few citizens to the Hamas rockets while the IDF can kill hundreds of "philistines". I'm not exagerating here. This is what they broadcast on a daily basis.

If you are suggesting that this is what my admittedly short post was saying, you could not be more wrong and nowhere was it suggested in the post. To say I am put out is to put it mildly.

I'm not sure if you are replying to me here Cactus. My post was a comment on scribes post and reflects my despair at the use of religion by goverments - be they Israel or Bush's US- as an excuse and perhaps even a reason for their actions. I have no arguement with your POV re: WWII.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: John Pilger annihilates the lies that underpin Israel's murder in Palestine   Fri Jan 09, 2009 7:48 pm

My misunderstanding then, sorry, the flu is at me.

Bit of the "Blood and Oil" video here - its all available in bite sized pieces if your interested.

Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: John Pilger annihilates the lies that underpin Israel's murder in Palestine   Fri Jan 09, 2009 11:04 pm

Again, I’m struck by the similarities between the arguments used on both sides.

I’m going to pick on you Aragon. First we have the one I’ve pointed out again and again, that the media is completely biased. This one is a staple of the debate.

Aragon wrote:
the big lie that the media are feeding from with appalling acquiescence while children are dying even as we type these messages. He clearly wants to do something to try and redirect the public gaze away from what a friend of mine calls 'the permanent bullshit blizzard' about what is happening right now
Compare to:
Ian O’Doherty wrote:
Yet the conventional dinner party wisdom which we've had to put up with in the media, both here in Ireland and generally across Britain, is that somehow Israel is the aggressor in the rapidly worsening situation in Gaza.

Footage of air strikes with the ensuing photogenic explosions and dramatic plumes of smoke, quickly followed by clips of collapsed buildings and enraged mourners, makes far better copy than actually looking at the reasons why Israel has done what it's done.

Anyone who devotes only a cursory glance at the news, both print and television, would be forgiven for thinking that, out of spite, might and malice, Israel has decided to destroy the Palestinian people.

The problem with that conclusion -- and it's not something you're going to learn from the BBC and most other outlets -- is that, contrary to the currently popular belief, Israel is actually acting with a ridiculous degree of restraint.
What was it Aragon said about the BBC? Ah yes, they belong in the dunce’s corner (maybe I’m touchy about the BBC). The media bias line is repeated a lot on both sides, but mainly it’s a complaint on the pro-Israeli side.


Aragon wrote:
I agree that objectively the Hamas rockets do not seem to be serving the Palestinians well - beyond giving expression to much justified rage and anger ... In fact, right at the moment, the rockets are serving some purpose in terms of self defence because they have drawn a ground offensive which the Israeli's are fearful of. This has reduced the loss of life in Gaza, though it hasn't stopped it ... Hamas have a duty to fire on Israel if only to try to prevent it from killing more children and other people.
Rocket attacks, fire indiscriminately into civilian territory, are now saving lives? That sounds uncannily like the Israeli argument
Zion Evrony wrote:
The Hamas bombardment of Israel has been unrelenting, indiscriminate and far from harmless as some allege ... Since Israel withdrew from Gaza, over 5,000 rockets and mortars have been deliberately fired from there at southern Israel, hundreds of them within the last few days alone.

No government can stand idly by while its citizens are being attacked on a daily basis. Israel, like Ireland or any other state, has the right and duty to defend its civilian population.
This civilian population line is one that both sides use, though Israel far more. No politics involved whatsoever we’re supposed to believe.
Aragon wrote:
We havent been living with it - havent felt the consequences of repeatedly being treated so appallingly. It's probably inappropriate - to impose the dispassionate logic of people emotionally and geographically distant from all of this terrible history.
Does that apply to the Israelis too? What do the other side say?
Zion Evrony wrote:
Imagine your home town under daily fire from deadly rockets. Imagine your children walking to school when an alarm sounds, giving them only 15 seconds to find cover. Imagine your house torn to bits by a rocket, your car blown up or your nursery school shredded by shrapnel. And all the while, the world has remained silent, overlooking your pain, ignoring your terror.
Sound familiar? Apart from the bit about having a bomb shelter to run to.


The other one I love is the references to US-backed Israelis and Iran-backed Hamas. Both these seem to take it for granted that the backing country is quite evil.

Now I can understand subjectivity, I might not agree with it though. What I don't understand is when people don't recognise the subjectivity of their opponents. I've offered remarks from two people I have very little time for: Ian O'Doherty (and I apologise for associating you with him Aragon, even in diametric opposition) and Zion Evrony. But what I suspect is that they mean what they say just as much as any supporter of the Palestinians. I'll leave it to ye to judge how much that is.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: John Pilger annihilates the lies that underpin Israel's murder in Palestine   Fri Jan 09, 2009 11:10 pm

Aragon can answer for herself on her views.

Another staple of debate is bundling disparate views contrary to your own into a "you people" group.

Another one is the idea that there are two, misguided "sides", both wrong, above which one rises unscathed oneself.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: John Pilger annihilates the lies that underpin Israel's murder in Palestine   Sat Jan 10, 2009 1:54 am

cactus flower wrote:
Aragon can answer for herself on her views.

Another staple of debate is bundling disparate views contrary to your own into a "you people" group.

Another one is the idea that there are two, misguided "sides", both wrong, above which one rises unscathed oneself.
Oh, all right fair point. Like I said, I've a weak spot for the BBC. I don't coke out better than anyone. But you have to admit, the similarities in rhetoric are something to behold.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: John Pilger annihilates the lies that underpin Israel's murder in Palestine   Sun Jan 11, 2009 5:25 am

Well, to put an end to the difficulty here - Mark Regev, one of Ehud Olmert's senior spokespersons was skewered by a Channel 4 'More 4' journalist this week:


http://www.tamuchly.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/regev-more4.wvx
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: John Pilger annihilates the lies that underpin Israel's murder in Palestine   Sun Jan 11, 2009 4:35 pm

Aragon wrote:
Well, to put an end to the difficulty here - Mark Regev, one of Ehud Olmert's senior spokespersons was skewered by a Channel 4 'More 4' journalist this week:


[url=http://www.tamuchly.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/regev-more4.wvx
http://www.tamuchly.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/regev-more4.wvx[/quote[/url]] It would probably take a thread in itself to go into who started the current conflict. It's too chicken and eggy for me and goes to far back in history.

Of course, both sides are adamant that ther opponents started the war. I think the general Israeli side's argument is: they never stopped digging tunnels, as I presume was the agreement, they didn't stop smuggling rockets in and they didn't stop rocket attacks entirely. As the report shows, the rocket attack numbers were drastically reduced (which shows a real effort on Hamas' side) but didn't stop entirely, affording Israel the chance to claim that rockets attacks continued through the ceasefire. They are as concerned about the attacks themselves, not just the casualties. Hamas said they wouldn't renew the ceasefire.

The Palestinians and their supporters point out that the blockade was never lifted as per the agreement, that Israelis launched an unprovoked attack during the ceasefire (as the report shows), and now I daresay they'll point to the evidence that Israel was planning an attack all along.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: John Pilger annihilates the lies that underpin Israel's murder in Palestine   Sun Jan 11, 2009 4:43 pm

905 wrote:
Aragon wrote:
Well, to put an end to the difficulty here - Mark Regev, one of Ehud Olmert's senior spokespersons was skewered by a Channel 4 'More 4' journalist this week:


[url=http://www.tamuchly.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/regev-more4.wvx
http://www.tamuchly.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/regev-more4.wvx[/quote[/url]] It would probably take a thread in itself to go into who started the current conflict. It's too chicken and eggy for me and goes to far back in history.

Of course, both sides are adamant that ther opponents started the war. I think the general Israeli side's argument is: they never stopped digging tunnels, as I presume was the agreement, they didn't stop smuggling rockets in and they didn't stop rocket attacks entirely. As the report shows, the rocket attack numbers were drastically reduced (which shows a real effort on Hamas' side) but didn't stop entirely, affording Israel the chance to claim that rockets attacks continued through the ceasefire. They are as concerned about the attacks themselves, not just the casualties. Hamas said they wouldn't renew the ceasefire.

The Palestinians and their supporters point out that the blockade was never lifted as per the agreement, that Israelis launched an unprovoked attack during the ceasefire (as the report shows), and now I daresay they'll point to the evidence that Israel was planning an attack all along.

My understanding was that the borders were meant to be opened and the siege ended by the Israelis - that didn't happen and is viewed by Hamas as a breach of the ceasefire. The Israeli spokesman on the video admitted the Hamas rockets had stopped by November - Hamas jailed people who set off rockets in the ceasefire. Hamas did not say they wouldn't renew the ceasefire - they were relying on Egypt to broker a renewal for them. They looked for a ceasefire in the first week of the attack and Israel refused. It is not chicken and egg, there was a ceasefire and it was breached by the Israeli government. It is also clear from its own admissions that the Israeli Government always intended to end it and attack Gaza.

One of the first posts here notes that Hamas believe the Eygyptians deliberately led them to believe a ceasefire was imminent whilst in reality they were giving the nod to the Israelis that they would not oppose an attack.
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: John Pilger annihilates the lies that underpin Israel's murder in Palestine   Sun Jan 11, 2009 5:26 pm

[quote="cactus flower"]
905 wrote:
Aragon wrote:
Well, to put an end to the difficulty here - Mark Regev, one of Ehud Olmert's senior spokespersons was skewered by a Channel 4 'More 4' journalist this week:


http://www.tamuchly.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/regev-more4.wvx[/quote] It would probably take a thread in itself to go into who started the current conflict. It's too chicken and eggy for me and goes to far back in history.

Of course, both sides are adamant that ther opponents started the war. I think the general Israeli side's argument is: they never stopped digging tunnels, as I presume was the agreement, they didn't stop smuggling rockets in and they didn't stop rocket attacks entirely. As the report shows, the rocket attack numbers were drastically reduced (which shows a real effort on Hamas' side) but didn't stop entirely, affording Israel the chance to claim that rockets attacks continued through the ceasefire. They are as concerned about the attacks themselves, not just the casualties. Hamas said they wouldn't renew the ceasefire.

The Palestinians and their supporters point out that the blockade was never lifted as per the agreement, that Israelis launched an unprovoked attack during the ceasefire (as the report shows), and now I daresay they'll point to the evidence that Israel was planning an attack all along.

My understanding was that the borders were meant to be opened and the siege ended by the Israelis - that didn't happen and is viewed by Hamas as a breach of the ceasefire. The Israeli spokesman on the video admitted the Hamas rockets had stopped by November - Hamas jailed people who set off rockets in the ceasefire. Hamas did not say they wouldn't renew the ceasefire - they were relying on Egypt to broker a renewal for them. They looked for a ceasefire in the first week of the attack and Israel refused. It is not chicken and egg, there was a ceasefire and it was breached by the Israeli government. It is also clear from its own admissions that the Israeli Government always intended to end it and attack Gaza.

One of the first posts here notes that Hamas believe the Eygyptians deliberately led them to believe a ceasefire was imminent whilst in reality they were giving the nod to the Israelis that they would not oppose an attack.

My understanding, deprived from wikipedia, is that Hamas officially declared it would not be continuing the ceasefire, as Israel had not accepted their terms. Israel could as easily claim the same. At any rate Hamas launched a few attacks and Israel responded, as they said they would.

As to who originally breached the ceasefire, it was not as simple as you think. As I have pointed out, Israel imposed a blockade because they said militant Palestinians were smuggling in weapons (I don't know of any independent confirmation of this smuggling). You can debate at length which came first, but I doubt you'll sort it out to everyone's full satisfaction.
Back to top Go down
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: John Pilger annihilates the lies that underpin Israel's murder in Palestine   

Back to top Go down
 
John Pilger annihilates the lies that underpin Israel's murder in Palestine
Back to top 
Page 2 of 2Go to page : Previous  1, 2
 Similar topics
-
» In memory of John Whatmough
» DREAM OF JOHN BEVERE
» CAPSULE CONTAINING POPE JOHN PAUL II'S BLOOD HEADING TO MEXICO
» ISRAEL TO CONSIDER WORK-FREE SUNDAY
» ONE MORE MIRACLE NEEDED FOR JOHN PAUL II'S SAINTHOOD

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Machine Nation  :: Politics and Current News :: World Politics and Events-
Jump to: