What right did Britain had to grant someone els country to jews

[nahtanbob]

they had every right.... indians attest to that. They stand with Israel... phullll sapport sirrr......

just like the English shot 120+ protesting indians armitisr and starve to death 2 million Bengalis in WW2 to ensure adequate supplies for the North African army...

All in the name of King and Country

too bad Germans and Japanese did not lay a hand on you. you would be counting dead in tens of millions.
count your blessings

Wondering why no one has brought this up yet -

What right did Britain had to grant someone els country to jews/muslims/shias/sunnis?​

might is right

 

[MajesticPug]

Been reading into this, please correct me if I'm wrong, the British were in charge of administering the area but went to the UN in 47 asking them ro resolve the issue. It was the UNSCOP (United Nations Special Committee on Palestine) that proposed dividing the area which was accepted by the Israeli delegation and rejected by the Arab/Palestinian delegation, and the situation as we know it today started then.

Surprised to find out that UNSCOP was comprised of members from Australia, Canada, Guatemala, India, Czechoslovakia, Iran, Netherlands, Peru, Sweden, Uruguay and Yugoslavia.

Disclaimer: none of the above was written to show support for either side, not my circus, not my monkeys.

All of these countries' (except probably Australia) economies had fell into the hands of the Jews to some degree prior to WWII. They of course want to get the Jews out without doing the same way Hitler did. The list didn't include any Arab nation and that was not a legitimate UNSCOP. The power broker behind the UNSCOP decision was the US and the victims were set up to be Arabs because oil was what the US and the West want to control.

Britsh had no right, and no right to set up all of its former colonies into decades of disputes and wars. This include the arbitrary drawing of the border of India into China's lands.

 

[_killuminati_]

https://x.com/asim_bcn/status/1717078814478533078?s=48&t=RfTC7wdC32d5WmqLjOMXnQ

Alex do not understand English.

They didn't have any right but "right" was not a universally-accepted term back then as it is now. What Britain had was economic, diplomatic and military strength, much greater than their victims, that allowed them to change maps as they saw fit.

An important idea people often miss out on is a question many victims aught to ask themselves instead before pointing the finger: why were you so weak to resist? And if you attempt to answer this question, you'll realize that the fault isn't of Britain.

Byzantines resisted for centuries to prevent Turkmen from settling in their lands, but the latter eventually overwhelmed the former who had become internally weak. The Vietnamese successfully resisted the Mongol invasions. This has been happening for millenia all over the world.

 

[LeGenD]

https://x.com/asim_bcn/status/1717078814478533078?s=48&t=RfTC7wdC32d5WmqLjOMXnQ

Alex do not understand English.

Greece, the first Ottoman territory to gain independence (1830), set precedents in establishing government by non-natives, introducing religious and legal institutions based on European models and working single-mindedly to instill national identity in its population. Almost a century later, King Faysal I (r. 1921–1933) of Iraq followed a similar path, albeit under British direction. The Republic of Turkey was founded in 1922 and offered a slight variation on the pattern in that it built on selected legacies from the late Ottoman Empire. It was the only post-Ottoman country founded primarily by internal effort rather than by European intervention, and the national identity it worked to entrench in the population drew upon the political ideas of the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP), which had dominated Ottoman government from 1908 to 1918. Despite that continuity, the republican government pursued the agenda of tearing down Ottoman institutions and rebuilding state and society as national projects. Such nation-building ultimately succeeded, producing its own instabilities; in new post-Ottoman countries, such as Greece, Iraq, and Turkey, social and political re-engineering aroused resistance within the population.

https://academic.oup.com/edited-volume/34731/chapter-abstract/296504868?redirectedFrom=fulltext&login=false

-----

In the 1917 Balfour Declaration, Britain recognised the Jews as a people and promised them a national home in Palestine. Although not legally binding in 1917, the Balfour Declaration was of cardinal importance in providing international political support for the idea of recreating a Jewish national home in Palestine. The Declaration was at first a conditional promise, but subsequent to the Declaration, Turkey renounced its claim to Palestine and Britain took control of the whole of Palestine and was in a position to implement it. The Declaration subsequently obtained binding international legal status in the San Remo Resolution and in the 1922 League of Nations Mandate for Palestine. The Balfour Declaration obliged the British Government to preserve the individual rights of the Arab population of Palestine but did not recognise them as a people or promise them national rights, although they constituted a majority of the population at the time. This caused anger amongst the Arab population of Palestine and contradicted the Arab interpretation of the McMahon Hussein correspondence, whereby Palestine was to be part of an independent Arab State.

The Zionist Movement and the 1917 Balfour Declaration (Chapter 3) - International Law and the Arab-Israeli Conflict

International Law and the Arab-Israeli Conflict - April 2022

www.cambridge.org

-----

The end of the Palestine mandate and the chaos surrounding it had significant implications for both neighbouring Transjordan and British imperial interests in the Middle East. This chapter explores how the two allies sought to deal with this issue. Based on significant new sources, it corroborates Avi Shlaim's disputed claim that Britain gave King Abdullah the 'green light' to use the Arab Legion to occupy the areas of Palestine allotted to the Arab state by the UN, thus creating an enlarged Jordanian state alongside a new Jewish state, Israel. Paying particular attention to the role of Glubb and the Arab Legion during the first, civil war phase of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, this chapter reveals that, after a meeting between the British Foreign Secretary, the Jordanian Prime Minister, and Glubb in February 1948, the Arab Legion commander actively sought to thwart the efforts of the Arab irregular forces and find a military accord with the Zionists. Glubb was not the architect of the Greater Transjordan scheme, as some have argued, but he was responsible for its implementation. In 1948 Glubb and the Arab Legion emerged as crucial tools for securing British and Jordanian interests in post-mandate Palestine.

The Partition of Palestine, the Greater Transjordan Solution, and the Newfound Significance of Glubb Pasha and the Arab Legion (Chapter 2) - Glubb Pasha and the Arab Legion

Glubb Pasha and the Arab Legion - April 2017

www.cambridge.org

-----

A reason given for a power in the United Nations to partition Palestine was that Palestine lacked standing as a state. In response, it was said that Palestine was a state; hence, any division of its territory by the United Nations would violate Palestine’s sovereignty. As result of the peace treaty with Turkey, the Treaty of Lausanne of 1923, it was argued in support of this position, Palestine became a state, as did the other Arab territories taken from Turkey. The Treaty of Lausanne provided renunciation of sovereign to Palestine. When Palestine’s status became an issue in a case before the Permanent Court of International Justice, the Court found Palestine to be a state. When Palestine’s status became an issue in regard to tariffs being legislated by Britain, the major powers indicated that Palestine was a state.

Was Palestine a State? (Chapter 16) - The Legality of a Jewish State

The Legality of a Jewish State - December 2021

www.cambridge.org

-----

The 1937 Peel Commission proposal for the partition of British mandatory Palestine has generally been framed as the precursor to the United Nations partition plan of 1947. This article demonstrates the importance of tracing the roots of the 1937 Peel Commission plan back to conversations taking place in the Colonial Office and government of Palestine as early as 1929. A close analysis of dialogues over territorial division and of preliminary partition plans, particularly those drawn up by L. G. Archer Cust and D. G. Harris, leads to the conclusion that Britain's focus on the ideal of representative government played a primary role in the development of partition proposals. This article argues that inter-ethnic violence played a much smaller role in the development of partition proposals than has previously been thought. Instead, partition was proposed as a solution to the political implications of non-representative government in Palestine, a topic constantly in the spotlight thanks to the League of Nations.

BRITISH PLANS FOR THE PARTITION OF PALESTINE, 1929–1938* | The Historical Journal | Cambridge Core

BRITISH PLANS FOR THE PARTITION OF PALESTINE, 1929–1938* - Volume 52 Issue 1

www.cambridge.org

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

It was Business Deal @ time of war , deals are made to seek advantage


The Circumstances
There was a Draw between British-French (Coalition) vs Germany/Austria Hungry Kingdom/Ottoman Empire. Russia had withdrawn from Coalition of British/French because Russian's elected a new government and it was not interested in war anymore




What Britain Wanted
Britain wanted USA involved in war , Zionist Org in USA had considerable wealth in USA , and the influence was considerable enough that Queen Assigned the Local British Negotiator to take letter from Queen indicating agreement - to Give Zionist Group access to Palestine

"Big point , British Intelligence and Queen decided , it was beneficial to be-friend Zionist Org in order to get USA involved in World War 1 "

Note: British Empire was spread across the globe (Asia-Africa-North America-Europe) at that time Queen thought lets be friend with Zionist Organization

Note: It is hard to imagine how much wealth the group controls considering they were already influential back in 1900 No one has ever done a study to really examine how much wealth lies in hand of Zionist Org

• Britain Got material support , Raw resources to use for Weapon constructed
• They got Man power from USA as soldiers
• They got Bullets , Helmets and guns
• Britain - Turkey had a long term animosity , and Britain saw Ottoman Empire as a Old friend turned rival and wanted to break it down to manageable smaller countries
  • Creation of Egypt
  • Creation of Syria
  • Creation of Lebanon
  • Creation of Palestine
  • Creation of Baghdad (They had interest in Baghdad due to presence of Oil there)

What Zionist Org Got

• Access to Ottoman Territory , called Palestine
• They got Moral Support from British to setup a settlement
• Zionist settlers had further financial / weapon support coming from USA

What USA got

• Well they basically got involved because , apparently Germany Submarines sank Merchant ships belonging to USA
• USA was major industrial power in 1900
• USA initially has indicated the Local Residents of Palestine will remain there
• America was generally not involved in Heavy Battles directly in WW1 as it was too far away from Europe

USA was like a cheat code in WW1 , as it had endless resources , industrial base to help
British/France in WW1


Britain-USA have fought wars before , so it was no easy task to get USA involved in war helping Britain

• The American Revolutionary War (April 19, 1775 – September 3, 1783)
• Most people in USA were not interested in going to war in Europe until the Media Kicked in (Newspapers)

 

[PradoTLC]

too bad Germans and Japanese did not lay a hand on you. you would be counting dead in tens of millions.
count your blessings

You clearly didn’t understand what I said …

 

[One_Nation]

Wondering why no one has brought this up yet -

What right did Britain had to grant someone els country to jews/muslims/shias/sunnis?​

You conveniently removed Hindu from your list.

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

People have to realize British "Empire" has played the game of civilization for Long time

When you you own / win a Territory , yes you can give it to anyone you like if it gives you tactical advantage and that is what they did in WW1

In WW1 Palestine was a Bargaining Chip for British , to get help from USA who of course were heavily influenced by Zionist Org

British Empire at it's Peak

Even after Giving Independence to Pakistan-India-Bangladesh
And much of Africa , rather then fight the locals as French did in Algeria they allowed these colonies to decolonize

• Had it not for the WWII Likely Africa would have been French/British Colony

Don't believe the stories in Media and Moves about , Big Bad wolf Nazi , this or that
This image is the reality who was colonizing Africa and Asia


The Empire decided to keep Canada/Australia , because these regions are rich in Natural Resources for 2000 years , why worry about some desert area in Africa



While they may have f up Palestine but they gave up Africa to the locals and same with India-Pakistan (West/East)


Yes it is unfortunate what is happening with Palestine today but ... it was a bargining chip for them

 

[Cash GK]

Wouldn't the other countries mentioned be as accountable then as Britain? I'm not looking at debating the consequences of past actions here, merely if it's right to just hold Britain solely accountable without holding the UN as well.

Problem is uk still stands with its mistake. They not ready to rectify the mistake. They still stand with this brutal occupation

 

[Cash GK]

Mostly we talking no sense. This video make sense after Crusade wars... I stand on my point this land will not see the peace as three major Religions are fighting and second. Catholic christians and jews are together in this. Now it is Chinese and ordox Christians are going to side with Muslims as it it situated on very special place to control economic routs..

https://twitter.com/x/status/1714726198775791981

 

[Cash GK]

It was Business Deal @ time of war , deals are made to seek advantage


The Circumstances
There was a Draw between British-French (Coalition) vs Germany/Austria Hungry Kingdom/Ottoman Empire. Russia had withdrawn from Coalition of British/French because Russian's elected a new government and it was not interested in war anymore




What Britain Wanted
Britain wanted USA involved in war , Zionist Org in USA had considerable wealth in USA , and the influence was considerable enough that Queen Assigned the Local British Negotiator to take letter from Queen indicating agreement - to Give Zionist Group access to Palestine

"Big point , British Intelligence and Queen decided , it was beneficial to be-friend Zionist Org in order to get USA involved in World War 1 "

Note: British Empire was spread across the globe (Asia-Africa-North America-Europe) at that time Queen thought lets be friend with Zionist Organization

Note: It is hard to imagine how much wealth the group controls considering they were already influential back in 1900 No one has ever done a study to really examine how much wealth lies in hand of Zionist Org

• Britain Got material support , Raw resources to use for Weapon constructed
• They got Man power from USA as soldiers
• They got Bullets , Helmets and guns
• Britain - Turkey had a long term animosity , and Britain saw Ottoman Empire as a Old friend turned rival and wanted to break it down to manageable smaller countries
  • Creation of Egypt
  • Creation of Syria
  • Creation of Lebanon
  • Creation of Palestine
  • Creation of Baghdad (They had interest in Baghdad due to presence of Oil there)

What Zionist Org Got

• Access to Ottoman Territory , called Palestine
• They got Moral Support from British to setup a settlement
• Zionist settlers had further financial / weapon support coming from USA

What USA got

• Well they basically got involved because , apparently Germany Submarines sank Merchant ships belonging to USA
• USA was major industrial power in 1900
• USA initially has indicated the Local Residents of Palestine will remain there
• America was generally not involved in Heavy Battles directly in WW1 as it was too far away from Europe

USA was like a cheat code in WW1 , as it had endless resources , industrial base to help
British/France in WW1


Britain-USA have fought wars before , so it was no easy task to get USA involved in war helping Britain

• The American Revolutionary War (April 19, 1775 – September 3, 1783)
• Most people in USA were not interested in going to war in Europe until the Media Kicked in (Newspapers)

Arab Isreal war total man power came from Europe and usa as curasde and they were battle harden with experience of world wars... other hands arabs did not had big wars for centuries. So defeat was confirmed. This times arabs had war experience as well since the Iraq War they are in wars as well and rise of Iran and qatar is supper amazing. Turkey and azari fought as well. Second information availability is great for people around the world.
USA recent loses in wars make thing easy for rest of the world. Their fear is gone.

Now question is where stands MBS asim munier (means some of Pakistani generals and UAE leaders.) These three are traitors among muslims.

 

[AZADPAKISTAN2009]

1967 was was war between Heavily armed nation and group of Arab nations with Outdated weapon

1- Weapon Supply
2- Food Supply
3- Air Intelligence / Radar Surveillance , and possibly high altitude viewing the ground

Most of the Weaponry with Arab countries was rather old or outdated
Lack of swift resupply and replenishment and lack of food for forward lines/ water



a) I don't suggest any war in 1967 was Solution
b) The only solution is a two stable states side by side given chance to build their own communities and live their lives


Muslim civilization of past allowed Jewish people to live in Palestine area because it was not an issue

• Desire for Peace should not be confused with , idea 1 side can commit genocide

 

[Khan_patriot]

People need to understand, the world is a very brutal place where the weak will always be exploited and subjugated by the strong. Britain did it because it suited them and it could, plain and simple.

 

[GriffinsRule]

https://x.com/asim_bcn/status/1717078814478533078?s=48&t=RfTC7wdC32d5WmqLjOMXnQ

Alex do not understand English.

Might is their right. It's how it works

 

[Cash GK]

1967 was was war between Heavily armed nation and group of Arab nations with Outdated weapon

1- Weapon Supply
2- Food Supply
3- Air Intelligence / Radar Surveillance , and possibly high altitude viewing the ground

Most of the Weaponry with Arab countries was rather old or outdated
Lack of swift resupply and replenishment and lack of food for forward lines/ water



a) I don't suggest any war in 1967 was Solution
b) The only solution is a two stable states side by side given chance to build their own communities and live their lives


Muslim civilization of past allowed Jewish people to live in Palestine area because it was not an issue

• Desire for Peace should not be confused with , idea 1 side can commit genocide

You dont understand. Land of Jerusalem will not see the peace as three ibramic religions are fighting for their supremacy and land is life line for western economic control on world. It saw peace only in muslim times. When ever west took control over it they slaughter Muslims there.