Israel

justdoit I haven't watched that video (how convenient to blame Britain), can you summarise the argument?

Many British soldiers were murdered out there just trying to keep a civil order, including two sergeants [both aged only 20] that were abducted, hung and had their bodies booby trapped by Irgun in 1947.

The 'west' green lighting collective punishment and another fresh civilian slaughter doesn't strike me as the most sensible policy, though I understand the desire for vengeance - also whether that indangers any hostages too. [what would their relatives be thinking now]

Well, I haven't watched it either but the British governing body were keeping a strict policy of who was allowed in Palestine during and just after WWII. Multiple zionistic (terrorist) organisations obviously didn't agree and were trying to smuggle them in, retaliating on the British when they would send them to camps.

But there's so much that's happened in that small part of the world in the past and once again right now... It's so hard to judge.
 
justdoit I haven't watched that video (how convenient to blame Britain), can you summarise the argument?

Many British soldiers were murdered out there just trying to keep a civil order, including two sergeants [both aged only 20] that were abducted, hung and had their bodies booby trapped by Irgun in 1947.

The 'west' green lighting collective punishment and another fresh civilian slaughter doesn't strike me as the most sensible policy, though I understand the desire for vengeance - also whether that endangers any hostages too. [what would their relatives be thinking now]
m8 is history we cant change it on gambling forum
 
Yes, but I was wondering how Britain was to blame for the israeli-arab conflict, which was the title of the vid you posted. [edit: to be exact 'started']
It's reductive (and incorrect) to state that UK is the blame and/or 'started' the conflict, but its rule of Palestine for thirty years after the First World War, was marred by multiple terrible acts of violence and repression (which weren't even remotely unique in the days of empire, of course) - it is impossible to reasonably conclude that the UK has not played its part in sowing the seeds of the current conflict.

In one Arab uprising alone, British forces are estimated to have killed some 4000-5000 Palestinians, many of whom were civilians, and in many cases in particularly cruel and brutal fashions. This is not a contested or controversial opinion, it is simply a statement of fact.

This is all documented history, and there's a lot of good information out there. It's entirely possible to utterly condemn Hamas's wicked and cruel attacks of a week ago, whilst also seeking to understand the context of the multiple traumas the region has suffered over the centuries, because that will instruct the only hope for peace in the region - a political settlement.

Both these videos are a decent watch. (Note - the second video is age restricted so has to be watched on YT rather than embedded. Whilst it does not contain any particularly graphic footage, it does contain descriptions of some of the atrocities perpetrated by Hamas during last week's attacks, so viewer caution is advised.)


 
Yes, but I was wondering how Britain was to blame for the israeli-arab conflict, which was the title of the vid you posted. [edit: to be exact 'started']
could be clickbait title, no idea all I know British Empire did rule for 12-13 years that part of the world,I was trying to find out how Jewish land it on middle of Arab land, I know Ottoman Empire rule that part but never know they did it for 400 years, British and Ottoman they have cool history
 
I'm vaguely aware some chicanery went down between the french and british after ww1, which interlinks to lawrence of arabia promising the arab/tribal people something in return for help fighting the Turks.

But "Everyone in the region would be singing kumbaya if it wasn't for those damn brits" strikes me as delusional, and an attempt to dodge responsibility, so the whole thing will just carry on because you can't undo whatever 'x,y,z' the brits/french govts did over 100 yrs ago.
 
Yes, but I was wondering how Britain was to blame for the israeli-arab conflict, which was the title of the vid you posted. [edit: to be exact 'started']

It seems the actual video content is centered around blaming Britain. But i personally think most nations always see history differently.

The
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
breakdown with timestamps:

- [00:21] The crisis in the Middle East is often linked to Jewish immigration to Palestine and the formation of Israel, but its roots are found in British political strategies during World War I.

- [00:52] British negotiations during WWI, promising different things to Arab and Jewish populations, led to a troubled history that still impacts the Middle East today.

- [01:17] During WWI, the British, French, and Russians aimed to divide and conquer the Ottoman Empire to fulfill their geopolitical interests.

- [03:58] The Ottoman Empire, an ally of Britain's feared rival Germany, faced its downfall following the inception of WWI.

- [05:23] As the war prolonged unexpectedly, Britain embarked on strategies to expand the conflict and win the war.

- [07:06] British government signed secret treaties with its allies, Russia and Italy, promising them Ottoman territories upon victory, in a bid to strengthen the alliance.

- [10:28] The Arab Nationalist movement, born out of growing Arabic cultural identity within the Ottoman Empire, was seen by the British as a potential ally against the Ottomans.

- [13:30] Sharif Hussain, ruler of Hejaz in western Arabia, offered to raise a substantial Arab force against the Ottomans if the British would support Arab independence.

- [15:19] The Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916 marked a secret negotiation between Britain and France, determining the future distribution of power in the Middle East.

- [18:35] In June 1916, Sheriff Hussein led an Arab revolt against the Ottomans, expecting British support based on previously communicated assurances.

- [24:20] In 1917, the British Government issued the Balfour Declaration, promising to view favorably the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine.

- [28:37] Sheriff Hussein believed Palestine had been promised as part of his deal for Arab independence, leading to potential controversy and conflict given the Balfour Declaration.

- [28:49] The Balfour Declaration, despite not being a treaty or a signed agreement, implied British support for the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine.

- [29:59] The only official treaty Britain had signed regarding Palestine was the Sykes–Picot Agreement with France.

- [31:00] The intelligence report on which Lloyd George based his strategy turned out to be wildly inaccurate. The Bolsheviks in Russia, containing several Jewish figures, were largely anti-Zionist and did not appreciate the Balfour Declaration.

- [33:19] After taking Jerusalem in 1917, the British government sent a message to Arab leaders re-affirming their commitment to Arab independence.

- [37:14] Despite warnings from British General Allenby, Faisal assumed the title of Governor of Damascus and worked towards creating an independent Arab state.

- [39:57] The Balfour Declaration was recognized during the Versailles peace talks, with Balfour stating that Zionism was "rooted in age-long traditions, in present needs, in future hopes" that were of more profound import than the ambitions of the Arabs in Palestine.

- [41:12] The League of Nations was established following the peace conference, and it granted Britain and France mandates to administrate former territories of the Ottoman Empire.

- [42:28] Faisal's rule in Damascus was opposed by the French, leading to his deposition and flight from the city in 1920.

- [44:53] In 1920, the British established an administration in Palestine with no plans for devolving power to the local population.

- [46:04] The Balfour Declaration's promise of a Jewish homeland seemed to be upheld by the British as celebrations and parades supporting Zionist activities were held.

- [48:22] The Balfour Declaration was deemed one of the biggest missteps of British imperial history, leading to a contentious Jewish settlement in Palestine and indirectly influencing the state of Israel's creation.

- [49:56] The British mandate over Palestine ended in 1948 with the establishment of the State of Israel. This sparked the first of several wars between Israel and its Arab neighbors.

- [50:34] British strategies used to win in the First World War indirectly fueled the tension between Arab nationalism and Jewish nationalism, eventually leading to the ongoing struggle experienced in the Middle East.

-----------------------

Key points made in the comments on the YouTube video "How Britain Started the Arab-Israeli Conflict | Free Documentary History":

- Many commenters express opinions sympathetic to the Palestinian people, arguing that they were unfairly displaced from their homeland due to British promises and political maneuvering during WWI and its aftermath. There is criticism of Britain for making conflicting promises to Jews and Arabs and essentially betraying the Arabs.

- Some comments provide historical context about Jewish migration to the region before WWI and note that the roots of the conflict go back much further than Britain's involvement, even thousands of years.

- There is debate around who the rightful inhabitants of the land are - some argue Palestinians are indigenous, others claim Israelis/Jews have the oldest roots.

- Several comments argue that Britain bears significant responsibility for current issues in the region due to its colonial rule and divide-and-conquer strategies that pitted groups against each other.

- Some express hope for peace and understanding between the different groups in the region. Others argue the conflict is intractable and cannot be solved.

- Many appreciate the documentary for providing an overview of the origins of the conflict from a historical perspective. Some criticize perceived biases or omissions.

- Commenters draw parallels to other regional conflicts ignited or exacerbated by British colonial rule and interference, such as in India/Pakistan and Nigeria.

- There is additional context provided around specific events and historical figures like the Balfour Declaration, the Sykes-Picot agreement, etc.

In summary, the comments reflect the complexities and disagreements around this topic, but overall argue Britain bears significant responsibility for sowing the seeds of conflict in the region.

ME: how many comments are there?

AI: Based on my review, there appear to be approximately 190 comments on the YouTube video.
 
It seems the actual video content is centered around blaming Britain. But i personally think most nations always see history differently.

The
You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
breakdown with timestamps:

- [00:21] The crisis in the Middle East is often linked to Jewish immigration to Palestine and the formation of Israel, but its roots are found in British political strategies during World War I.

- [00:52] British negotiations during WWI, promising different things to Arab and Jewish populations, led to a troubled history that still impacts the Middle East today.

- [01:17] During WWI, the British, French, and Russians aimed to divide and conquer the Ottoman Empire to fulfill their geopolitical interests.

- [03:58] The Ottoman Empire, an ally of Britain's feared rival Germany, faced its downfall following the inception of WWI.

- [05:23] As the war prolonged unexpectedly, Britain embarked on strategies to expand the conflict and win the war.

- [07:06] British government signed secret treaties with its allies, Russia and Italy, promising them Ottoman territories upon victory, in a bid to strengthen the alliance.

- [10:28] The Arab Nationalist movement, born out of growing Arabic cultural identity within the Ottoman Empire, was seen by the British as a potential ally against the Ottomans.

- [13:30] Sharif Hussain, ruler of Hejaz in western Arabia, offered to raise a substantial Arab force against the Ottomans if the British would support Arab independence.

- [15:19] The Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916 marked a secret negotiation between Britain and France, determining the future distribution of power in the Middle East.

- [18:35] In June 1916, Sheriff Hussein led an Arab revolt against the Ottomans, expecting British support based on previously communicated assurances.

- [24:20] In 1917, the British Government issued the Balfour Declaration, promising to view favorably the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine.

- [28:37] Sheriff Hussein believed Palestine had been promised as part of his deal for Arab independence, leading to potential controversy and conflict given the Balfour Declaration.

- [28:49] The Balfour Declaration, despite not being a treaty or a signed agreement, implied British support for the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine.

- [29:59] The only official treaty Britain had signed regarding Palestine was the Sykes–Picot Agreement with France.

- [31:00] The intelligence report on which Lloyd George based his strategy turned out to be wildly inaccurate. The Bolsheviks in Russia, containing several Jewish figures, were largely anti-Zionist and did not appreciate the Balfour Declaration.

- [33:19] After taking Jerusalem in 1917, the British government sent a message to Arab leaders re-affirming their commitment to Arab independence.

- [37:14] Despite warnings from British General Allenby, Faisal assumed the title of Governor of Damascus and worked towards creating an independent Arab state.

- [39:57] The Balfour Declaration was recognized during the Versailles peace talks, with Balfour stating that Zionism was "rooted in age-long traditions, in present needs, in future hopes" that were of more profound import than the ambitions of the Arabs in Palestine.

- [41:12] The League of Nations was established following the peace conference, and it granted Britain and France mandates to administrate former territories of the Ottoman Empire.

- [42:28] Faisal's rule in Damascus was opposed by the French, leading to his deposition and flight from the city in 1920.

- [44:53] In 1920, the British established an administration in Palestine with no plans for devolving power to the local population.

- [46:04] The Balfour Declaration's promise of a Jewish homeland seemed to be upheld by the British as celebrations and parades supporting Zionist activities were held.

- [48:22] The Balfour Declaration was deemed one of the biggest missteps of British imperial history, leading to a contentious Jewish settlement in Palestine and indirectly influencing the state of Israel's creation.

- [49:56] The British mandate over Palestine ended in 1948 with the establishment of the State of Israel. This sparked the first of several wars between Israel and its Arab neighbors.

- [50:34] British strategies used to win in the First World War indirectly fueled the tension between Arab nationalism and Jewish nationalism, eventually leading to the ongoing struggle experienced in the Middle East.

-----------------------

Key points made in the comments on the YouTube video "How Britain Started the Arab-Israeli Conflict | Free Documentary History":

- Many commenters express opinions sympathetic to the Palestinian people, arguing that they were unfairly displaced from their homeland due to British promises and political maneuvering during WWI and its aftermath. There is criticism of Britain for making conflicting promises to Jews and Arabs and essentially betraying the Arabs.

- Some comments provide historical context about Jewish migration to the region before WWI and note that the roots of the conflict go back much further than Britain's involvement, even thousands of years.

- There is debate around who the rightful inhabitants of the land are - some argue Palestinians are indigenous, others claim Israelis/Jews have the oldest roots.

- Several comments argue that Britain bears significant responsibility for current issues in the region due to its colonial rule and divide-and-conquer strategies that pitted groups against each other.

- Some express hope for peace and understanding between the different groups in the region. Others argue the conflict is intractable and cannot be solved.

- Many appreciate the documentary for providing an overview of the origins of the conflict from a historical perspective. Some criticize perceived biases or omissions.

- Commenters draw parallels to other regional conflicts ignited or exacerbated by British colonial rule and interference, such as in India/Pakistan and Nigeria.

- There is additional context provided around specific events and historical figures like the Balfour Declaration, the Sykes-Picot agreement, etc.

In summary, the comments reflect the complexities and disagreements around this topic, but overall argue Britain bears significant responsibility for sowing the seeds of conflict in the region.

ME: how many comments are there?

AI: Based on my review, there appear to be approximately 190 comments on the YouTube video.

Thanks for the breakdown, I just haven't got the enthusiasm to watch an hr long vid on this troubled subject - knowing that it will likely have a slant and purpose as well, everything does in terms of media, especially television.

And I see from the timestamps the terrorism against the british troops and governance is not mentioned.

imo the danger of laying the blame on the history of french/uk involvement is the bloodshed just carries on as 'someone else 100 yrs ago is to blame'. [edit: sorry, realise I'm repeating myself a bit here :oops: ]
 
Last edited:
I'm vaguely aware some chicanery went down between the french and british after ww1, which interlinks to lawrence of arabia promising the arab/tribal people something in return for help fighting the Turks.

But "Everyone in the region would be singing kumbaya if it wasn't for those damn brits" strikes me as delusional, and an attempt to dodge responsibility, so the whole thing will just carry on because you can't undo whatever 'x,y,z' the brits/french govts did over 100 yrs ago.
Brits save French even in Malta, they try to take Malta they got stuck they called Brits for help
 
Brits save French even in Malta, they try to take Malta they got stuck they called Brits for help

Oh right I didn't know that history, we did ally as well in the crimean war.

If you go back to the norman times we had monarchy competing for rule over both kingdoms, so there were lots of connections between the countries, and in the crusades fought alongside each other.
 
There is another interesting documentary on Youtube giving a similar background to the one mentioned above.

It starts documenting just pre 1900 up until about 1948. It describes how the British had their part to play (not favourable at all).

Pretty well balanced documentary showing that all parties in this sad saga had their part to play. No winners at all.

 
The UK has an unenviable history there. They in fact ran the Palestine for nearly 30 years, trying to horsetrade between Arab and Jew. There were a few atrocities committed by Jews against British personnel there after WWII, mainly against civilians or off-duty soldiers. As well as the kidnapping and execution of the two sergeants mentioned earlier, there was the King David Hotel atrocity. Yet 20 years later we had supplied Israel with 660 Centurion tanks, yet 6 years later from that refused to supply the more advanced Chieftains and had an arms embargo in place before the 1973 Yom Kippur war. Britian didn't want to upset the arabs too much for oil reasons.
There's also the other events in Persia and Iraq which were under British control in parts, in fact I believe it was Britain who created the Emirate of Kuwait and we saw what happened there in 1990. The French were mainly in Syria and Lebanon. I think Belgium was another state formed by Britain in a treaty as a buffer between France and Netherlands after the Napoleonic wars.
Instead of mineral oil, we got frites, rich chocolate, Plastic Bertrand and Eden Hazard from there so a little more diverse in outcome but still like Kuwait, invaded twice since its inception.

The jewish urgency after WWII was in part due to ships packed with jewish refugees waiting to have somewhere to settle - some had over 1000 on them and were not allowed to unload with terrible conditions on board, for months. Britian did not want them in the UK (as with many other countries) and many were allowed to sail to the US eventually, eventually giving us Jerry Springer and Geoffrey Epstein among others. So Israel was a necessity to cope with the influx and remove political pressure in Europe which was occurring on various governments to refuse them entry in their respective nations.
 
Last edited:
I was watching this last night..Interesting


cant share it is blocked


Not blocked anymore for anybody who wants a view.

p.s. The end is summarised by a chap who states it would be a mistake to blame Britain for the current state of affairs, but it is undeniable that the roots of the problem stemmed from British double-dealing (not verbatim).

Interesting stuff and a fair summary given the way the film explains the events.
 
Last edited:
This makes my blood boil. Hope they lock her up and throw the key away!

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
The most unbelievable thing is that all of the pro Palistinian demonstrations seem to feel that it’s ok for Hamas to shoot party goers, behead children in their bed and kill pensioners where they stand. And they think it’s ok to take hostages to use for bartering.
And when you look at this scum that is doing the protesting it’s mostly 18-30 year old males, if they feel so strongly why don’t they f@@k off back to Gaza to help?
It’s disgusting that these people glorify Hamas and their crimes , and expect Israel to sit and take and do nothing to prevent it happening again.
And my final rant, how can anyone support Jeremy Corbyn’s stance on this, the man yet again shows he cares more for terrorists than he does for his own country
 
That's ok - Suella Braverman said wrongdoers would have the police to deal with!

Expect them to combine their 'Just Stop Oil/ Extinction Rebellion' empathy policing, which involves offering cups of tea to vandals as they desecrate all around them, including historic monuments AND cower for fear of being labelled racist!

Highlights thus far include a policeman on his bike being told "You're dismissed" by mobs and meekly complying, brazenly antagonistic and openly defiant pro-Hamas 'supporters' gobbing off at every turn (there's that world-famous selective Free Speech y'all) and of course the infamous knife-welding mob chasing lone Jew down London street without a copper in sight 🤔

Had some say certain demographics have been brought in en-masse for these very events, evident by the men of 18-35 contingent, with a notable absence of women. It's getting harder to refute those black-pilled takes with accounts like these....
 
Two innocent Swedish people probably football fans, shot dead in Brussels by muslim migrant tonight, sadly yet more European families suffering from the effects multiculturalism. The fact the scumbag has escaped so far and could quite easily be on the next cross-channel invasion wave from France makes me want to puke.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Meister Ratings

Back
Top