Syrian Man Beheads 15 Month Old Nephew In Saudi Arabia
March 6, 2008
Does it get any more insane than a man beheading his 15 month old nephew in a public market? There are no words suitable to react to this sort of thing really. It just gives civilized people one more reason to dislike the Middle East, everything in it and about it.
Entry Filed under: Beliefs, Crime, Culture, Everything Else, Global, Immigration, Law, Middle East, News, Psychology, Random, Random Thoughts, Saudi Arabia, Security, Social Issues, Syria, Thoughts. .
9 Comments Add your own
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed
Seed Newsvine
1.
XOR Gate Fetishist | March 6, 2008 at 4:09 am
What about the woman in the US of A who recently killed her children because god told her to do it? Religion is why we should dislike the middle east, and the united states. Did you see the white phosphorous rocket attacks that came from Israeli warplanes and landed on civillian targets in Lebanon? Jewish culture at work. Do you remember 9.11.01? Islamic culture, hard at it again. What about the war on Iraq, which violated every precept of international law? Christian Dominionist culture at work in the world! Every culture, people and society has it’s villains, but kudos to you on focusing on one particular subset and villifying them. Too bad I see right through you.
2.
Sean Wilson | March 6, 2008 at 5:02 am
I doubt you see through me, because you are apparently blind. Did I mention race? Did I mention religion? In fact, if you read through my blog you will find many instances where I state my dislike of religion–all religions–and in fact suggest that religion is the single greatest example of collective madness on the planet.
You haven’t seen through anything because you haven’t even opened your eyes. You read a single post and you know all about me? Do forgive me if I laugh.
However, you defend this action by your attack on my pointing it out. Your sarcasm makes a poor reflector, and you reveal your own biases with it. The Middle East is a place, not an ethnic, racial, or religious group.
But thank you for pointing it out that it is indeed one subset of the world’s people that likes to go around beheading people.
In fact, if I were religious, I might suggest that Islam is the Anti-Christ. After all it is Islamic nations that when coming to power change dates and implement Sharia law:
“He will speak against the Most High and oppress the saints and try to change set times and the laws.” (Daniel 7:25).
And who but Islamic people behead anyone?
“Then I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God, who had not worshiped the Beast or his image, and had not received his mark on their foreheads or on their hands.” (Revelation 20:4)
But, no— I’m not religious. And you haven’t seen through me. You haven’t even begun to see me.
You read a single paragraph and chose to reveal yourself, however…as one of those who jump at the chance to defend the backwards and uncivilized behavior of those in the Middle East. I don’t need to do anything to vilify those in the Middle East–they do the job nicely on their own.
I see through your arguments, however. You claim the war on Iraq violated every precept of international law, which shows a great ignorance on your part. Do you recall the Gulf War, in which many nations—including other Middle Eastern nations—expelled Iraq from Kuwait? The cessation of hostilities was preconditioned upon terms which the government of Iraq agreed to and failed to fulfill—thus, America did not need the attacks of 9/11 to justify resumption of hostilities, nor WMD’s to be found to justify it.
However, Iraq was harboring terrorists…such as Abu Nidal, and various terrorists groups. Iraq was building delivery systems (missiles) whose range exceeded that allowed under terms Iraq agreed to as part of the cessation of hostilities. Iraq had chemical precursors for WMD’s, and in fact did have them, having used them on its own people on at LEAST two occasions.
For failure to fulfill its obligations—which were the only reason hostilities were suspended after Iraq was forced from Kuwait—Iraq was a legitimate target for the renewal of hostilities.
It does not matter one whit whether the Bush administration based its argument for it on WMD’s or sponsoring terrorism, or if it made its case poorly or not at all. That is only for drumming up the support of public opinion at home and abroad, and was not and has never been any sort of legal claim to justification. It was and is a legitimate war based on tenets of international law which Iraq agreed to itself—all the anti-war rhetoric in the world cannot change that. The only people claiming it was an illegitimate war are those choosing to ignore the 12 + years of history prior to the 2003 invasion.
3.
Stasmi | March 6, 2008 at 6:33 am
Organized religion, of any denomination, creed, whatever, is the greatest evil in this world. Spirituality, faith, belief in a higher being is lovely, but once you organize it, once you politicize it, it becomes evil. Once you have a leader or organization telling you what to believe, and how to act on your beliefs, then all the goodness of that ‘faith’ goes right down the crapper.
4.
Sean Wilson | March 6, 2008 at 11:19 am
Stasmi, I could not agree with you more. Spirituality is fantastic, but religion is an institution created by people and used to suit the needs of people—not the divine. Religion has always been a social tool for keeping some people in line and others in power.
Thanks for dropping by to read and share your thoughts. Have a great weekend!
5. NATO Fears Over Dutch Fil&hellip | March 6, 2008 at 4:33 pm
[...] it would offend someone and upset them because it offended their peaceful belief in stoning and beheading. For the anti-war establishment, it’s much more acceptable to let a war continue and not [...]
6.
sandmansa | March 7, 2008 at 2:22 am
Your right on Stasmi, spirituality which comes from within and one’s own inner beliefs originating from the heart is the only true way to find peace and happiness. It is the religious leaders, of all faiths, who tell or demand that we must think and act in a certain way based on their interpretation of what is right, wrong, good, evil that has lead us to the slaughter of countless millions over the centuries.
Personally I have found Buddhism, which does not claim to be a religion, to be the path which most closely reflects my own inner beliefs. Life is nothing but our own illusion and desire is the cause of our unhappiness, pain, and suffering. Everyone must find their own path, but all paths eventually lead to us to our goals, some just take longer to get there than others.
Sean, you seem to be an intelligent fellow and I can agree with much of what you stated, except relating to Bush’s invasion of Iraq. It seems your logic is that the means justifies the end. I must admittedly disagree with this. Bush either out right lied to the American people or at a minimum distorted the truth to further his neo-conservative goals. Saddam Hussein was a SOB and very few would disagree on this, but Bush’s dishonesty is no excuse or justification for the US to take unilateral action against him. Neither the World nor the US people are safer because of his actions.
I am an American who has lived in Saudi Arabia for the past 10 years and I can tell that few Saudi’s or Middle Easterners liked or supported Hussein’s régime, but they understood that he’s tight handle on that country prevented the secular violence we are seeing today. There had to be a better way of dealing with this tyrant.
One thing about Americans and the Middle East that confounds me is how we Americans view the Israeli Palestinian conflict and how ill informed we really are. We have swallowed the Israeli BS, hook, line, and sinker. Israel was formed based on a pack of lies and broken promises to the Palestinians starting with the British and followed by the US. Due to the West sorrow and guilt over the holocaust, we allowed the Zionist to run over the Palestinians and steal their lands using terrorism to due so. Yes I said and mean terrorism. Ask the British as they were the first prime targets. Then we tied their hands when they attempt to regain what is rightly theirs.
Israel is not going to go away, but they continue their own war of terror against the Palestinians as the US and the West stands by or supports their actions. We wonder why so many in the Middle East dislike or distrust the US. It is simple. We are a gullible lot and believe and support all the Zionist propaganda. The US provides more foreign and military aid to Israel than any other nation in the world, and this doesn’t take into account monies provided by the American Jewish communities. Personally, I didn’t realize that Israel was in so bad of a condition that need millions of US tax dollars. I can think of many other countries and are much greater need.
There will be no peace in the Middle East or the World until the US changes course with Israel and takes action to force them into a peaceful and just settlement with the Palestinians. This war is not about religion, it is about Israeli greed for land and power. It’s well past time for the US to cut the Israeli purse sting and become legitimate brokers for a fair and equitable peace.
As a side note, isn’t funny how the US pushes and supports democracies throughout the world, until the people elect leader who the US does not like.
7.
Sean Wilson | March 7, 2008 at 4:09 pm
Sandmansa, thank you for dropping to share your thoughts with us. Look, I’ll be the first to agree Bush is a poor excuse for a leader, and I am the first to suggest that the Bush administration manipulated intelligence reports to help suit their agenda.
All the Bush administrations poor management of the war effort does not however change the fact that under the provisions by which Iraq agreed to a cease-fire, Iraq had failed to comply with the legal requirements put on them by the international community, and as a result America was perfectly justified under international law to resume hostilities to remove the non-compliant regime. You can say Bush lied to sway people into supporting it…and if he did outright lie, then he did. I’m not going to argue on his behalf because I don’t like the man. But his lying about the reasons behind the urgency for needing to do so would still not erase the legal justification that existed.
The simple fact is that the war in Iraq is not illegal, but those who are against it refuse to open their eyes and admit to themselves the facts that exist which support the legality of it because they cannot separate Bush’s words from the actual conditions that existed for the cessation of hostilities during the first Gulf War. Either people have to acknowledge Iraq was defeated and their government allowed to continue in the form it was on the condition that certain terms must be met, or they are ignoring history and reality. There’s no two ways about it.
I agree there are also two sides to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. However, the points I see often being made by those attempting to justify the terrorism of the Palestinians are no justifications in the end. Things such as claiming Palestinians were pushed off lands to make room for Jews and stealing their lands. It seems to me that Palestinians and other Arabs did that to the Jews first, whose traditional homeland they are reclaiming. As soon as someone can show me in historical records where Palestinians were there before Jews, I’ll be happy to concede that point.
And many people wish to point out Israel’s receiving so much of our US dollars in support. What about the various Arab nations that support other Muslim nations? More to the point, how about the financial and material support provided by wealthy Arab governments to Hamas, Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations?
I do not support the Israeli/Zionist position blindly, and certainly not because I believe in a Judeo-Christian faith…because I don’t believe in one. I support them based on viewing that conflict as one of civilization versus barbarism. One is good for the rest of the world and the other is not. So long as the Palestinians continue to use terrorism and murder, I will continue to see them as yet another force of barbarism in the world.
Let’s get to the root of the issue. Either Israel is legitimate and has a right to exist or it doesn’t. Either the Palestinians have a right to a homeland or they don’t. Those are the two key questions. When I look at the issue, this is how I see it…
Israelis are in their homeland, which historical records bear out. If the international community took land from Arab governments to create Israel, they were only doing what the Arabs themselves had done and so I find Israel to be every bit as legitimate as any other nation might be said to be. Further, it was a coalition of Arab nations that attacked Israel and lost. Any right or claim they had on the land or the land captured by the Israelis during that war is gone. They chose to pursue the path of war and as such their entire nations were put on the table and they lost. If anything, Israel has been generous not to have laid claim to more—which they were entitled to.
The fact is that Israel has been remarkably restrained and tolerant considering the attitudes, threats, and terrorism the nation has faced since its founding. It earned its place among nations by winning wars. For those who want to point to issues of international law, they ought to remember that international law is based on the will of all nations, and not just a few. The international community says Israel is a nation with a right to exist. And even if Israel dropped out of the UN, they would still be a nation. The UN is not any more legitimate than any other entity or state or idea. It gets its legitimacy from those willing to participate.
Israel has made its share of mistakes, there is no question of that. They have, in my opinion, implemented some really bad decisions and policies with regards to the humanitarian conditions of the Palestinians. But let’s be clear here: the Palestinians have no right to expect anything from the Israelis because they lost.
People like to point an accusing finger at Israel and say they kill innocent Palestinians. Do they now? What innocent Palestinians are we talking about? Women and children? There have been women suicide bombers. In fact, the Palestinians seek to pervert international law and hide behind it by attacking like cowardly terrorists rather than putting on military uniforms and fighting. If your enemy want to act as if they are civilians, then civilians are your enemies. The existence of any nation requires national defense of some sort. Is Israel supposed to do nothing in the face of Palestinians murdering innocent civilians?
Clearly, Israeli soldiers and civilians are differentiated. Yet Palestinians choose to attack civilians. They are terrorists and cowards in my eyes, and barbarous. If Palestinians who are civilians die in the course of reprisals by Israel as collateral damage, I see that as unfortunate and terrible–yet they brought it on themselves by tolerating terrorists among their population and supporting them. That is reaping what you sow. War is not sanitary, and you cannot fight wars and expect there will be no non-combatants killed, that is simply a fantasy of an expectation. Civilized nations avoid targeting civilians however as a policy, and do what they can to ensure their safety.
However, if Palestinians who are non-combatants are targeted by Israelis knowingly, the Israelis are acting barbarous and like Nazi thugs of WWII. Certainly, I have seen videos of Israeli settlers throwing rocks at Palestinians and aid workers and other acts. I have heard of explosions that killed many innocent bystanders, and I have heard accusations that Israelis targeted civilians in Lebanon. But much of it is unsubstantiated, and we never see video of it taking place. However, we do know for a fact that in Lebanon Hezbollah used civilians as human shields because we have video footage of them doing it. I am not saying Israel has not had its share of individual soldiers violating the principles of the law of land warfare…they have. As a policy however, the national army of Israel does not purposely target civilians. In fact, there have been many instances that show great restraint by Israeli defense forces…some where IDF soldiers increased their personal risk when they would have been more than justified in simply leveling an area occupied by Palestinian forces with artillery or guided munitions.
Israel is not perfect, and I have never believed that. But they are civilized, certainly more than the Palestinians act. The Palestinians cannot accept that their side lost in war. They are acting like spoiled brats, clamoring for more than they have a right to when the truth is that Israel has no obligation to give them anything.
Now, do Palestinians have a right to exist? Sure they do. They have a home, but instead of building it and letting go of the past, they keep fighting over that past and ignoring the future. They condone terrorism. They elected Hamas, a terrorist organization. Let’s take a look at that.
If terrorism is something that subverts international law, and you have a nation that is led by a terrorist government, does that nation then have any legitimacy? No, they don’t. Do they have a right to seek intervention or cooperation or oportection from those nations who have agreed to and that participate in the international community of nations that abide by international law when they themselves subvert it, ignore it, and stand against it? No, they do not.
Any nation/people/government which would allow a nation led by terrorists to exist on its borders is asking for its own destruction. No one with the least bit of common sense would tolerate it. Any government that would tolerate a nation of terrorists living on their border would be derelict in its duty to its own citizens. We’re talking political realities and survival here. You do not allow those who seek your destruction to destroy you if you wish to exist–that is the basic principle of all animal life, which we humans are a part. It superceedes all the man-made laws in existence.
I am not lacking compassion towards the Palestinians, but the simple truth is that they could have a peaceful nation and be improving their lives if they wanted it. They don’t. They would rather fight and blow up women and children over a war they lost decades ago. They claim they were oppressed and many were forced to flee. So what? More Jews were expelled from other nations than Palestinians fled. They claim their homeland was taken. So what? They took it from someone themselves. In the end, the Jews lived there long before they did, so who is more right?
As i understand it from what history I have read and researched, there was never any Palestinian people in a historical context going back a couple thousand years in history. Palestine was merely the name given to a region–not a people–and it was inhabited by the Jewish people before Arabs lived there.
Even if we ignore the who was there first argument, the reality is ‘who is there now?’
Are we going to send people in every nation back to where they were ‘first’ or something? That is not only ridiculous, it’s absurd. Why then does anyone expect we should make an exception for the Palestinian argument that they are entitled to lands they legitimately lost in a war that Arabs launched? If the tired old argument is raised that it was the international community that created Israel and took the land away from Arabs which started the war in reality, then it becomes a question of whether or not the Arabs are going to abide by the decisions of the international community or not…doesn’t it? Let us not forget that some of these Arab governments sided with the Axis/Nazis which forced the Jews out of nations where they lived in the first place, precipitating the international community’s decision to establish the Jewish state. Don’t ignore that.
So now we have the finger pointing back at Arabs in the “who did what first to start all of this” argument. We know the Jews lived there under the Romans of course. Just how far do we need to go back and how many times do we need to point fingers before people just accept that things are as they are and start working together?
The Palestinians, just as the insurgents in Iraq, cannot grasp the simple concept that if they just stopped fighting, their perceived enemies would leave. If Palestinians simply quit attacking Israelis and spent the next decade on building their nation, they would have a prosperous nation and while they might not have the land they think they deserve they will have a home.
The West Bank is land that historically was also Jewish let us not forget. Should the Israelis take that back as well? Somewhere you have to draw a line and say enough is enough. I see Israelis eager to get on with living in peace, but not Palestinians. They continue clamoring for fighting and more land and so forth. They tolerate terrorists among them, they support them. In the end, the Palestinians are getting what they deserve for their behavior. If you are going to encourage and support terrorism, then you will suffer as a nation that does…it is that simple. If you attack others, they will defend themselves.
Which brings us to the whole ridiculous accusation that Israel uses disproportionate force. There is no such thing. It is only generally agreed upon principles of warfare among civilized nations, called Just Warfare, and Palestinians have a lot of gall to whine about it when they themselves are condoning uncivilized behavior and terrorism, murdering women and children. Most people who cite this disproportionate use of force have no clue about the principles of warfare, or of politics…and I’m not talking about elections and voting and your right to free speech. I’m talking about the politics of national survival and that which builds nation states.
Proportionate use of force is something used in law enforcement. Among nations, military policy is generally agreeable to the concept in order to provide some sense of international order and stability. There is no requirement for it and no nation has as far as I know ever ceded away its right to determine the appropriate level of military response it can use when threatened. However, if you or anyone else can show me an instance of a single nation that has so limited itself, I will be glad to make that point…and then say to you “so what?” If one naton does it, what requirement will that put on another? Absolutely none, unless they agree to it. And that is what international law is about…agreement between civilized nations.
The simple fact is that Israel is justified in using whatever force is necessary to preserve their borders and national integrity. They are a nation. Palestinians have no nation and are struggling to have one. They just want more than what they have earned and fought successfully for. Personally, if I were leading Israel, I would tell the Palestinian people that for every terrorist attack I would seize another 5 sqaure kilometers of land that they would never get back. I would make it the price they pay for attacking my nation, and I could care less if international law supported it or if anyone else thought it was acceptable. I would make it so that they either take what they have and make the best of it or they would lose it all.
Further, no nation ever survived by saying “Well, let’s see…three of them attacked us, so we’ll only strike back with three soldiers.” If someone attacks your nation, you respond as you see fit…with proportionate force if you so like, or with overwhelming force if you so like. It is your right for having been attacked. So, if that is the justification that Palestinian terrorists use for blowing up innocent Israeli civilians, then I have not one drop of sympathy for them if 80 Palestinian civilians die because the Israeli military targeted three Palestinian terrorists in a car driving down the street. If the Palestinians tolerate such terrorists amongst them, they must live with the consequences of doing so…just as the Israelis must live with the consequences of their actions.
The notion that Palestinians are unfairly suffering is pure hogwash. They are suffering as is appropriate for their actions and behavior, just as the Israelis are.
Israel has been incredibly patient with the Palestinians and tolerant of constant attacks by Hezbollah and other terrorists that the Arab people support. Palestinians were unhappy with the borders after the 1949 Armistice, but look what their subsequent fighting cost them…greater loss of territory. Israel was quite generous after giving the Sinai back to Egypt. Personally, I think that was a mistake, but whatever.
Both sides make mistakes in this conflict. I am not blind. Both sides have exhibited poor jugement and have done things which are brutal and not in the best interests of long-term peace. But, the simple fact is that Palestinians and the Arabs of the world continue fueling this conflict with their hatred of Israel and their inability to accept the blow to their pride that being defeated by Israel dealt to them.
Do you think Israeli soldiers would rather be getting shot at in the West Bank or going out on a date with their sweetheart?
Now, if I ask myself whether I think Palestinian men would rather be going out on a date with their sweetheart than getting shot at by Israeli soldiers…my answer is that I don’t know. When you have Hamas and Hezbollah putting children in terrorist training, and when you have Palestinian television airing children’s shows preaching violence and hatred of Israelis, I find it harder to believe that Palestinians prefer peace over war.
And that is why I believe this conflict is not about Jewish and Arab or Israeli and Palestinian. I believe it is about civilization versus barbarism. And I will side with civilized over barbarism.
8.
sandmansa | March 8, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Firstly, Israel is here and by all means it appears that it is here to stay, unless there is some unforeseen event in the future which no one can predict. The lands of Palestine and Israel have a long history of conflict and troubled time so who really knows what the future will bring, I certainly do not. But for the our discuss, lets agree that Israel is here to stay.
I must differ with your historical account of this region that Israel is the rightful inherent owner of the land, they are not.
From the time of the raise Saul until the fall of the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah last no more than 500 years. During that time, the Hebrew did not control the regaion in whole and for the most of this period maintained holds in city-states referenced in the biblical accounts of the time. If you add to those 500 years, and 100 for recent times, basically after War World I, The Jews have occupied and controled the regain for no more than 600 of the 5500 years history accounts for.
Listed below is a synopsis of the history of the region I scrounged from the internet as will as from a history put together by a PhD friend of mine who was the first Westerner who opened my eyes to the history of the region and deceit used to establish present day Israel and the justified, although covert war, the Palestinian are waging for their survival.
The area was inhabited by people long before the Hebrews showed up. Although there is no substantiated documentation, it was most likely occupied by a series of city-states controlled by various tribes, much like the Saudi Arabian Bedouins before being consolidated most recently by King Saud into present day Saudi Arabia.
Canaan’s history dates back to at least 3500BC when Hamoukar had developed into a rather large city. Hamoukar is thought to have been established by the Uruk, which are better referenced as Sumerians, who also establish Sumer and Babylonia, possibly even Sodom and Gomorrah. They perhaps established the first connections between Syria and Southern Mesopotamia
During the 2nd millennium BC, Ancient Egyptian texts use the term Canaan to refer to an Egyptian province, whose boundaries generally corroborate the definition of Canaan found in the Hebrew Bible, bounded to the west by the Mediterranean Sea, to the north in the vicinity of Hamath in Syria, to the east by the Jordan Valley, and to the south by a line extended from the Dead Sea to around Gaza.
The breakup of the Egyptian empire beginning around 1500 BC and made possible the invasion of the Hebrews. So much for the Hebrew or Jews being the first to occupy and control the region, they were not.
According to Hebrew tradition, 12 tribes entered Canaan from Egypt and conquered it, led by Moses and soon after a kingdom was established, first under Saul (1047 – 1007 BC) and then under David (1009 – 969 BC).
After the death of King Solomon (971 BC - 931 BC), Israel split into two kingdoms. Eventually, both the kingdom of Israel, and later that of Judea, with its temple in Jerusalem, were overrun by invaders. The Persians restored the Judean kingdom and allowed the Jews to rebuild their temple. This kingdom fell to Greek and later Hellenic-Syrian domination when Alexander the Great conquered Persia.
In 164 BC the Hasmonean Kingdom of Judea revolted and became semi-independent of Syria. It was protected by a treaty of friendship with Rome. However in 61 Pompei conquered Jerusalem, and from then on Israel or Palestine was subordinate to Rome. Parts of it were nominally independent under the rule of local kings of the line of Herod the Idumean.
Herod built many towns and fortifications (including Massada and Heordion) and extensively remodeled the temple in Jerusalem. After the first Jewish rebellion and fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD, large numbers of Jews were exiled. Jerusalem was eventually rebuilt as Aelia Capitolina. After the failure of the revolt of Bar-Kochba in 133, there were more exiles and ruined towns. On the ruins of Israelite and Canaanite towns, the Romans built new ones, populated partly by inhabitants of neighboring lands. The land was divided into several districts, of which Palestine was only one. The Negev (southern district), generally excluded from these divisions was inhabited by the Nabateans, an Arab trader nation that made a notable desert civilization in cities such as Avdat (in modern Israel) and Petra (in modern Jordan). The whole area between the desert and the sea was known, later in the Roman Empire, as the Christian Patriarchate of Jerusalem, though this was not a Roman administrative division.
Christian Palestine fell first to the Persians, in 614. It was reconquered briefly in 629 by Heraclius. However, with the rise of Islam, the Middle East, and with it Palestine - Israel - Canaan - was conquered by Arabs. Jerusalem fell in 640. The Jews were willing allies of the Arabs, as they had been of the Persians. The Land was divided into a Southern Jund (district) of Filastin with a capital in Al-Lud (later in Ramleh), and a northern Jund of Al Urdunn with its capital in Tabariyeh (Tiberius).
Beginning in 1095, the crusaders conquered Palestine and the surrounding areas. Initially savage toward Muslims and Jews, crusader rule eventually seems to have brought a measure of good administration before it was eventually eliminated by Salah-e-din and his successors.
Palestine changed hands several times among Muslim conquerors, the last of whom were the Turks. These divisions became important in assessing the meaning of promises in the Sykes-Picot agreement and Husayn-MacMahon letters.
So this is how it stood at the beginning of and into WWI
The Sykes Picot agreement, concluded in 1916, divided the Middle East into areas of influence for France, Great Britain and others, giving the French control over modern Syria and Lebanon. Most of Palestine was to have been under international control. Though the agreement mentions the possibility of cessions by either side to an Arab state, it in fact made it impossible for Great Britain to honor the promises made by Sir Henry McMahon to Sheriff Hussayn in 1915. The agreement excluded the districts “west of the districts of Damascus, Homs, Hama and Aleppo” as specified in the Hussayn-McMahon agreement, extending the line south so that Palestine was excluded from Arab control. However, the agreement also excluded two much larger areas that would be under direct British and French control, and split the Arab area into zones of British and French influence that would preclude full independence.
At the commencement of hostilities in World War I, both Britain and Germany attempted to gain the sympathies of the Arabs with promises of national independence, and to enlist the sympathies of the Zionists as well. The Germans were the first to make such proposals and proposed quite detailed plans for subverting British influence in Egypt and subverting Russian influence in Persia. These plans were subsequently frustrated because their Ottoman allies were reluctant to support Arab nationalism, fearing that the ideology would spread to their own empire as well. The quasi-independent Sherifian monarchy of the Hijaz in Saudi Arabia was a target initially of German favors, and later got the attention of the British led by Colonel T.E. Lawrence. The Germans wanted Husayn to subvert British and Russian interests in Persia and Iraq, while the British sought to persuade him to mobilize the Arabs for an attack against the Turks.
By 1915, the British had become increasingly interested in Arabia. Acting on behalf of the British Government, Sir Henry McMahon promised Sherif Husayn (Hussein) of Mecca, Arab control over the whole of areas to be liberated from Turkey, except an area to the West of Syria defined as follows:
“The two districts of Mersina and Alexandretta and portions of Syria lying to the west of the districts of Damascus, Homs, Hama and Aleppo cannot be said to be purely Arab, and should be excluded from the limits demanded.”
and some other minor concessions. The area was only defined approximately.
With WWI basically in a stallmate, the allies solicated Arab invertion against the Ottoman Empire, with the promise of idenpendance. With the Arabs fighting against the Central Powers, the stallmate was broken. The Arab Revolt was a major cause of the Ottoman Empire’s defeat. The revolts started with the Battle of Mecca by Sherif Hussain of Mecca with the help of Britain in June 1916, and ended with the Ottoman surrender of Damascus. Fakhri Pasha the Ottoman commander of Medina showed stubborn resistance for over two and half years during the Siege of Medina, which ended in January of 1919.
Meanwhile, behind the Arabs backs, former British PM Balfour contionued his service to the British gaovernemtn as Foreign Secretary with his most notable act being the issuance of the Balfour Declaration of 1917, a letter to Lord Rothschild promising the Jews a “national home” in Palestine, then part of the Ottoman Empire.
November 2nd, 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
Arthur James Balfour
So as far as the Arabs are concenred, the lies and deceit began.
Leading up to this point there was a The Zionist Revolution1897-1917
During the 19th century the spread of Enlightenment ideals across Europe led to the emancipation of Jews across the continent. It also led to a counter-reaction of Europeans who sought to prevent Jews from being granted citizenship and who saw them as an alien, non-European community. Opponents of Jewish civil rights called themselves antisemites and became increasingly well organized as the century wore on. In Tzarist Russia, the government actively encouraged programs in an effort to divert popular resentment at the government and to drive out the Jewish population.
Among the millions of Jews who fled Russia, a small section headed for Palestine. Mikveh Israel was founded in 1870 by Alliance Israelite Universelle, followed by Petah Tikva (1878), Rishon LeZion (1882), and other agricultural communities founded by the members of Bilu and Hovevei Zion.
Growing antisemitism, pogroms and the birth of new nations across Europe led to an increase in the number of Jews who considered the possibility of re-establishing themselves as an independent nation. Left-wing antisemitism and the desire to preserve their identity led some socialist Jews to seek solutions within their own community.
In 1897, the First Zionist Congress proclaimed the decision “to establish a home for the Jewish people in Eretz-Israel secured under public law.” Zionism attracted religious Jews, secular nationalists and left-wing socialists. Socialists aimed to reclaim the land by working on it and formed collectives.
British desire to gain Jewish support in the fight against Germany, and support for Zionism from Prime-Minister Lloyd-George led to foreign minister, Lord Balfour making the Balfour Declaration of 1917.
After WWI Palistine became a Britsh protectorate from 1917 until 1945 under a British Mandate for a Jewish National Home
The League of Nations formally assigned the Palestine mandate to the United Kingdom, endorsing the terms of the Balfour Declaration and additionally requiring the British to set up the Jewish Agency that would administer Jewish affairs in Palestine. An additional treaty was signed with the USA (which did not join the League of Nations) in which the USA endorsed the terms of the mandate.
It is interesting to note that all connisions granted by the British went to Jews, completely ignoring the Palinstains, which resulted in the Jews have complete control over basically all the infrastructure and commerance.
Jewish immigration grew slowly in the 1920s. However, the increased persecution of European Jews by the European Fascist powers (such as the Third Reich) resulted in a marked increase in Jewish immigration, aggravating the already heightened communal tensions.
Growing Jewish migration led to increasing Arab fury at the incursion on Palestine, resulting in large-scale rebellion.
Concerned that sympathy for the Palestinian Arabs would damage Anglo-Arab/Muslim relations, Britain responded by creating a Royal Commission chaired by Lord Peel. The Peel Commission recommended the partition of Palestine into two separate autonomous regions for Jews and Arabs, with Britain maintaining overall control over the territory. However, the increasing probability of major war in Europe prompted Britain to focus on Arab goodwill. The result was the 1939 White Paper which restricted Jewish immigration to 75,000 over the next five years (further levels requiring Arab consent) and the promise to establish an independent Palestine under Arab majority rule within the next ten years.
Beginning in 1945 the Jewish uprising against British rule began.
After the end of World War II, The British Labour Party won the elections in Britain with a manifesto which included a promise to create a Jewish state in Palestine and rescind the 1939 White Paper. However the Labour Foreign Minister, Ernest Bevin, decided to persist with existing policy, due to the continued importance of cordial Anglo-Arab relations to British strategic concerns throughout the region.
Following the near-extermination of European Jews by the Nazis, the American Jewish community expressed increasingly vocal support of the Zionist movement. President Harry Truman, mindful of the large Jewish population in the U.S. and anxious to establish a more secure American presence in the region, encouraged Britain in October 1946 to implement a liberal immigration policy to replace constrictions imposed by the 1939 White Paper. Truman was also a keen supporter of the establishment of a Jewish state in Canaan/Palestine.
In response to Truman’s overtures, the British decided to allow an Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry to investigate possible solutions to the problem of re-locating Jewish refugees. The committee recommended that 100,000 Jews be immediately allowed entry to Palestine and the British government reneged on its promise to Truman, rejecting further Jewish immigration.
In 1946 widespread publicity surrounding the Kielce Pogrom in Poland resulted in a massive wave of Jews seeking to escape Europe (such pogroms were still taking place in Eastern Europe ). In Palestine, Jewish militias (the Haganah, Etzel and Lehi) decided to form a unified Jewish resistance movement against the British. Meanwhile illegal immigration activity grew leading to British counter measures against the Jewish community.
In June 1946 the British arrested thousands of Jews, including the leadership of the Jewish Agency, holding them without trial. Jewish terrorist groups responded in July 1946 by bombing the British Military Headquarters in Palestine at the King David Hotel bombing, killing 92 (most of them civilians). This was an act of terrorism by the Jews, one of many.
In the days following the attack, Tel-Aviv was placed under curfew and over 120,000 were interrogated. The British government took the decision to imprison illegal Jewish immigrants to Palestine, holding them indefinitely and without trial on Cyprus. The prisoners were mostly holocaust survivors, including children and orphans. The camps were funded by taxation of the Jewish community in Palestine. Prisoners subsequently began to be released and allowed to move to Palestine at a rate of 750 a month.
Intensifying hostility between the Jewish independence movement and British forces resulted in increased concern over the wider implications of British policy in Palestine. Support for either side would undermine either Anglo-American or Anglo-Arab relations, both of which were vital to Britain’s post-war international strategy. As a result Ernest Bevin announced the decision to refer the Palestine problem to the UN, which maintained overall responsibility for the region.
In September 1947 the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) reported in favour of partition in Palestine, a suggestion ratified by the UN General Assembly on November 29, 1947. The result would be the creation of two states, one Arab and one Jewish, with the city of Jerusalem to be under the direct administration of the United Nations.
The General Assembly resolution required Britain to allow unrestricted Jewish migration into a port on the coast, however Britain refused to implement the resolution and continued to incarcerate Jewish migrants in Cyprus.
The rest of the story of the Israeli independent state is well know, including the ongoing sequence of war, battles, incursions, ….
However what is seldom discussed is Israelis defiance of 68 UN resolutions. You use Iraq’s failure to comply with UN resolutions as justification for the US’s invasion and over through of Saddam Hessian, therefore it would seems logical that the US’s and other World powers would be even more justified to invade Israel, who we all know possesses WMD.
The UN Security Council has passed well over 100 resolutions which either either criticized and opposed the actions of Israel, of which at least . The US is soley responsible for the veto of at least an additional 40 Secuity Council resoluations. The General Assembly has also passed over 400 against Israel in which Israel was condemned over 320 times.
You agrue international law is based on the will of all nations, and not just a few. It would seems that by the action of the UN, Israel is in violation of will of the pordamance of nations and thus its people. Remember that it was a UN resolution that justified the formation of Israel in the first place.
You state: “People like to point an accusing finger at Israel and say they kill innocent Palestinians. Do they now? What innocent Palestinians are we talking about? Women and children? There have been women suicide bombers.” So the justificatins is that since a few Palestinian women have been involved in terrorist that Israelis can justify killing them all?
In fact, the Palestinians seek to pervert international law and hide behind it by attacking like cowardly terrorists rather than putting on military uniforms and fighting. “Hmm, seems to me like the Hammas militery recently kicked some Israeli tails, and these are clearly military acts.
Also, put our place in Palistianian shoes. The Israelis control every aspect of their lives, including what and who can come and go. When they attempt to form a militery it faces sancations from all sides and can only covertly obtain weapons to allow them to defend themselves, while the US sends millions in militery aid. Put a few Americans in the same situation and you damn well know they would revert to whatever means possible, including act of terror to defend themselves. Please do not take me wrong, I do NOT condone act of terror on either side, but I can certainly understand why Palistians have resorted to such deplorable acts which are carried out by a few, who the Palistians consider freedom fighters. Who has and is helping the Paliatians by providing basic services, food, medical care, schools, etc., certainly not the US or Israel, it these same groups we label as terrorist
“Clearly, Israeli soldiers and civilians are differentiated.” Are they now, as far as I know every Israeli is required to service their time in the Israeli militery and are subject to recall at anytime. From this perspective all Israelis are part of the militery, with the exception of the youth.
“ I have heard accusations that Israelis targeted civilians in Lebanon. But much of it is unsubstantiated, and we never see video of it taking place.” … “As a policy however, the national army of Israel does not purposely target civilians. In fact, there have been many instances that show great restraint by Israeli defense forces…” Living in Saudi Arabia I can turn to almost any Arab TV station and open any Arab news paper and I can see the carnage od Israeli attacks on civilians. Yes, some is colaterial damage, but much is not and is a result of Israel forcing large polpulations into small areas which results in Palistian militians being imbeeded with them. Sorry, but I cannot justify the slaughter of 100’s to take out a few.
“Israel is not perfect, and I have never believed that. But they are civilized, certainly more than the Palestinians act. The Palestinians cannot accept that their side lost in war. They are acting like spoiled brats, clamoring for more than they have a right to when the truth is that Israel has no obligation to give them anything.” So they are to ignore that fact that Israel continues with settlement on Palistianian lands. That the Isralis carve up their lands and prevent their free movement. That the Israelis have kept memebers of familiies seperated for years. I do think Israel has an obligation to them, to allow them to govern themselves and freedoms granted to solvern nations.
“If terrorism is something that subverts international law, and you have a nation that is led by a terrorist government, does that nation then have any legitimacy? No, they don’t. Do they have a right to seek intervention or cooperation or oportection from those nations who have agreed to and that participate in the international community of nations that abide by international law when they themselves subvert it, ignore it, and stand against it? No, they do not.” So please explain the Ameican freedom fighters, the Boston Tea Party, …. As far as the British were concerned, Our own American revolutionist were terrorist. But I understand that the wimmer of wars writes the history.
I can dispute most of that you say about the Palistians and Israelis, line by line, but I have the feeling that you truly believe what you say and you are certinaly entiltled to your opinion, the same as I. I will only ask that truly consider all the facts and not just the prejudices of the US Jewish media.
If you have not read, please read Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid by Jimmy Carter. He is the first person of authority from the US who is brave enough to tell the story as it is. Crater is undoubtedly one of the great humanitarians of our time and as President one of his most important accomplishments as President was the Camp David Accords. He does a much better job than I will ever be able to in pointing out the disparites between what the US people are being feed and reality.
As far as the invasion of Iraq, you expound on how the invasion was nothing more than an extension of the first Gulf War. Interesting argument, but I saw none, except for the UK, of the coalition of nations which supported the first Gulf War, including the UN, supporting Bush’s War. This alone would seem to show this was most definitely not an extension, but a pure act of unilateral aggression by Bush and his neo-conservatives. The argument that the means justifies the end is a very slippery slope and flows against all the ideals for which the US presumably stand for and can just as well be used as against as for us. This war was justified on lies or half truths which have all proven to be false. If Bush would have made the argument that the Baghdad régime was bad and had to toppled and the US people bought into is one thing, but not lying to us. I am actually very surprised that he hasn’t been impeached over this whole affair. I would have had more respect for the man if he would have bluntly said that the US is the mightiest nation in the World and we will therefore dominate the world by world conquest, starting with Iraq, signaling to the rest of the world to fall in line or you maybe next. We had more justification to invade N. Korea than Iraq. The world and the US is certainly not safer due to his actions.
9.
Sean Wilson | March 8, 2008 at 6:36 pm
Sandmansa—an excellent summary of the regions history. thank you for sharing it. However it is not a complete history either, and leaves out some things of importance. I would like to make notice of just a few points, some of which you yourself point out and others which you and your friend may be unaware of.
1. The Hebrew were in the region of Palestine before the Arab people were.
2. Just FYI, in regards to Hamoukar, current archeology suggests not that it was founded by the Uruk, but that it was in fact attacked by the Uruk–as evidence of a large scale battle taking place has emerged. Hamoukar was well established before 3500 BC and it was at that time that it was destroyed by the Uruk according to archaeological evidence.
3. As far as I know, no one has ever suggested the Hebrews were in the land of ancient Canaan first. The Phoenicians and Amorites both lived there, and the Philistines (a Mycenean people) lived in the immediate area as well…as did the Hebrew at some point. However, it is historically clear that they were there before those calling themselves Palestinians today were there.
4. You yourself admit that the region has changed hands many times. This is what happens under conquest, during the rise and fall of nations and empires. The world acknowledges that this happens and of course history shows us it is quite common. It drives home the point that “who is there” controls a given region and not “who was there.” The legitimacy of nations comes from their existence and their ability to wield such power necessary to maintain their existence.
5. As you yourself point out and recognize, the Jews are in their homeland of old. As I mentioned previously, no one said they were the first in the area, but they are the people with the oldest claim to it that still exist as a separate, identifiable people.
6. As you have pointed out, it was the work of the Roman Empire which allowed the Arabs to settle in the area…this of course being much later than the existence of the Hebrew/Jewish kingdoms. Now, if you are saying this—as the result of conquest and war by the Romans—is justified, then present day Israel is every bit as justified by war and conquest of the Israelis or other western powers.
7. As you point out, Arabs willing agreed to conditions and terms the Allied powers offered in return for help in WWI. Who had control of the regions? The European powers. It was theirs to do with as they pleased. Broken promise this and different agreement that…Arabs have complained about that ever since, but the simple fact is that by right of conquest and war, the Allied powers had control of the region and did with it as they pleased—one thing which was to reestablish a Jewish homeland. Various Muslim factions had controlled or lost control of the region as you point out since the latter part of the 7th century.
The simple fact is that the Arabs wanted something they thought they were entitled to and did not get it. Just as they continue to do today.
By all means, I look forward to you refuting or correcting my points one by one if you so choose, because I am quite sure I can cite historical documents and agreements and incidents that will allow for countering any argument you make. Which is my whole point—the conflict is childish and ridiculous. However, the one thing you cannot deny because history shows it to be true is that the Jews living in Israel have an older claim to the region than the Arabs.
You can say it was interrupted, or that they were expelled or make any other argument for the justification of Palestinians living there today to have some sort of legitimate claim—but if you do, then those very same reason must also apply and be suitable for claims by the Israelis. The only reason any Arabs or Muslim people have any claim to the region is by conquest and invasion…the very reason they deny Israel’s legitimate claim on their ancestral homeland.
And yet, the Israelis defeated all those Arab nations around them in war, and have every bit a legitimate claim as any Muslim people have ever had to the region.
Onto the modern situation…and Palestinian terrorism.
The Palestinian people have a choice whether or not to tolerate and accept militiamen and terrorists among them. If they do so, they condone their actions. They could stop supporting them, but don’t and will not since they are Arabs who want to kill Jews.
As to seeing carnage of Israeli attacks, are you speaking of the aftermath, or attacks as they take place? Please feel free to use the contact form or post a comment and point me to video footage showing an Israeli attack against civilians in progress and I will be the first to gladly point out such monstrous behavior and help spread the word.
Remember, it is one thing to target civilians deliberately and quite another when they are killed in urban fighting in the middle of battles. Hamas and Hezbollah both purposely target civilians, and they do not have a policy prohibiting the targeting of civilians, so please, don’t play moral equivalency games where the loss of life is concerned—you only devalue all life by doing so. There will always be unfortunate civilian casualties in war even though they were not deliberately targeted, and that is terrible—whether they are Palestinians, Israelis, Japanese, Americans or whomever. However, to purposely target civilians is an abominable and inhuman act.
I gladly point out that there are even American soldiers who have done this sort of thing in Iraq and I am glad to hear when they are imprisoned, stripped of rank and discharged from the branch they served in. I do not want those sort of people representing me, the Army I served in, my nation or its values. Palestinians shouldn’t want such people representing them either…and yet they choose to accept such behavior. That is revolting and barbarous and not worthy of a civilized nation, and if you do not agree that it is, then I am fine in labeling you as both of those things right along with the Palestinians who do (and I recognize that there are those who do not accept such things as legitimate).
Palestinians have had considerable foreign aid in many forms from Western governments and will have access to much, much more of it when they have a civilized government that is not run by terrorists.
Now you are being simply ridiculous. Many nations require people to serve. Are all those served in the past in the military then in nations? Please stop using ridiculous arguments. Are you telling me Israeli housewives who may have served in the military are cleaning house while wearing military uniforms? Such ridiculous assertions only make your position weaker and undermines the credibility of other arguments you may make. By your arguments then, the majority of civilian populations of Arab and Islamic states are likewise in the military and legitimate targets, is this correct? Or, do you care to revise such a careless statement?
And has a single UN resolution authorized the use of force against Israel? Please point it out to me. There are UN resolutions condemning terrorism and yet Arab nations still support terrorist organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah…feel free to explain that while you’re at it.
I can point out nations that are just as responsible for blocking or vetoing UN Security Council resolutions against other nations—Russia and China come to mind. What’s your point?
And you are wrong, it was not a UN resolution that justified the creation of Israel. The Jews created their own state by force of arms. The resolution was certainly one example of international justification, but the nations which held sway over the region and had the Jews settling there long before the resolution had already given their own approval…such as in the Balfour Declaration you pointed out.
Odd that you point it out, though, as the same UN resolution in 1947 also agreed to the creation of a Palestinian/Arab state. This whole thing could have been off to a good start half a century ago, except that Arab leaders were intolerant of the idea of a Jewish state in land where the Jews historically lived and had kingdoms previously. All very circular reasoning, don’t you think?
Arabs not wanting Jews living in lands they felt belonged to them…and yet Muslims were nothing more than one in a long series of conquerors of the region. The Arab and Muslim worlds have both lived in denial for 1500 years about many things in history. The very things they claim entitle them to want to destroy Israel and gives them a better claim to the lands occupied by Israel in fact give every bit as much and a better claim to that land to the Israelis.
As to the war in Iraq being an extension of the first Gulf War, that is precisely what it is. And if the entire coalition but for a handful lacked the will to go back in and finish the job, it in no way takes away from the legitimacy or the right of those who did have the will to do so. I am not arguing that the end justifies the means at all, as I know too well that “slippery slope.” What I am arguing is that no matter how poorly one presents or words the argument for justification it does not in any way diminish the facts pertaining to a thing.
The legal justification was there in the form of conditions for cessation of hostilities which the Iraqi government failed to fulfill, and it does not matter if the Bush administration attempted to make additional justifications. Whether they made them or not—and let us recall that they were not outright lies, but while evidence suggested a low probability of finding WMD’s, there did however remain a slim chance.
Those arguing Bush lied outright are manipulating perception just as he did. Intelligence agencies did suggest the possibility, even if unlikely. When making national defense policy, you cannot afford to wait for and should not always wait for complete information. By then, it is often too late. History has shown this to be prudent, and it is not hard to find examples where Islamic governments—just like any other—have waged wars based on misinterpretations, poor judgment, deception, lies, and simple outright aggression.
Indeed, the end does not justify the means. But that also means that if the “end” is the preservation of Arab or Islamic pride that the means of terrorism in the Palestinian territories is not justified…nor the invasion of Kuwait, nor the gassing of Kurds. You are right, it applies to all.
As to Bush being proven to have lied, people can argue that for ages. Even if intel suggested it unlikely that we would find the WMD’s some in the intelligence community suggested might exist, the possibility was still there. Coupled with the other facts which you seem to ignore, such as the fact there were terrorists in Iraq and that Iraq had supported some terrorists, and that they failed to comply with terms they agreed to…we were more than justified in invading Iraq. Certainly, the Iraqi people, by their support for their government and their countrymen in the military of Iraq that raped, dismembered, pillaged, and otherwise destroyed Kuwait ceded their moral claim to innocence long before the US invasion in 2003.
Interestingly enough, North Korea is now complying much better with international will and relations are starting to show small signs of improving. However, just yesterday, there were reports that North Korean forces shot and killed 13 men and 2 women for trying to leave North Korea for China.
As to Jimmy Carter…please…the man may have good humanitarian intentions, but when it comes to understanding foreign policy, his record is pretty dismal. This is the same president who let our citizens languish as hostages for a good portion of his Presidency. He put a grain embargo on the Soviet Union…yet sold them microchips for missile guidance systems.
More personally, I and many of my fellow infantrymen laughed as Jimmy Carter said on TV, speaking during a visit of his to the Balkans back in the mid 1990s, how there were no American combat units north of the Imjin River in South Korea. We of course were eating our lunch in our chow hall north of the Imjin River where we were based and patrolled and lived and trained. We got to watch the North Korean flag waving in the air not too far away just minutes later walking outside the dining facility. Jimmy Carter is as big a “liar” as any American President and had an incredibly weak foreign policy.