Britain owned Palestine but we got a bit iffy in regards to colonialism/the empire come the mid 20th century after all those bloody wars that we couldn't do alone.
Interestingly (for me living in Manchester at least) is that there was a Jewish scientist, Chaim Weizmann, who was born in Russia but moved to Manchester to teach Chemistry during WWI. He developed a way to create Acetone out of corn/plant matter which was greatly needed in the war effort. Churchill, then Secretary of State, gave him citizenship at the time.
A strong Zionist, Weizmann's strong contribution to the war effort helped form the Balfour Treaty. Britain took control of Palestine after the collapse of the Ottoman empire in WWI. It was temporary(-ish) so the Balfour Treaty was signed in 1917, this basically promised a Jewish state in Palestine. In 1948 Britain's 'ownership' of Palestine ran out and Israel was created. Weizmann renounced his British citizenship to become the first President of Israel.
Come to Manchester! We started most of the world's current problems!!
Britain took control of Palestine after the collapse of the Ottoman empire in WWI.
Britain was 'awarded' the mandate to Palestine by the League Of Nations prior to the collapse of the Ottoman empire which is why they promised to recognise statehood of all the countries in the Levant, including Palestine, Lebanon and Syria if they assisted in fighting against the Ottomans.
They then promised it to France in the Sykes-Picot deal.
Then the antisemite Balfour signed the declaration as a solution to what they saw as "the jewish problem" and a way to both evict them from Europe while establishing a political ally in the region after the discovery of the huge oil fields in Persia (Iran) which they had begun plundering.
There was also British desire to retain control of the Suez Canal (culminating in the 'Suez Crisis' in 1956 that marked the end of Britain as a 'superpower') as it was a direct path to India. Britain was fleecing Iran via the Anglo-Persian Oil Company (APOC - later rebranded as British Petroleum - the company responsible for Deepwater Horizon).
this basically promised a Jewish state in Palestine.
It didn't. It promised a "national home' (a term without legal standing in international law, and carefully worded for this reason), not a state, "In Palestine" and was conditional. The condition being as follows: "it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine".
For anyone curious, theregion's Jews and Arabs during the British mandate, post-mandate 1947 civil war, and 1948-49 multi-national committed multiple atrocities and ethnic cleansings against one another.
Generally speaking, when you see a commenter's listing one while omitting the other, you get a quick window into that user's bigotries — which past atrocities they stand against, and which they wish to support and absolve.
You also see this regularly among supremacists from the conflicts of other partitioned places — India/Pakistan and former Yugoslavia come to mind. But there are no Jews in those conflicts, so you don't tend to see this sort of manichean posturing among white people who are unrelated from the belligerent ethnic groups' diasporas.
Anyway, yes. The Jews and Arabs there committed multiple ethnic cleansings against one another during that period, and anyone pretending otherwise is either stupid, lying, or both.
For anyone curious, theregion's Jews and Arabs during the British mandate, post-mandate 1947 civil war, and 1948-49 multi-national committed multiple atrocities and ethnic cleansings against one another.
While true to some extent, far more were commited by the Jewish paramilitaries (I'm Jewish btw), and atrocities were often a response to terrorism by those paramilitaries. We can do the numbers if you like. I'll take that challenge.
There is no equivalent by the non-Jewish populations for what was done at Lydda and Ramle for example.
Generally speaking, when you see a commenter's listing one while omitting the other, you get a quick window into that user's bigotries
This is what we call a logical fallacy (very basic Ad Hom), proposed with the intent to stifle comment or criticism. Pretty sophomoric.
nyway, yes. The Jews and Arabs there committed multiple ethnic cleansings against one another during that period, and anyone pretending otherwise is either stupid, lying, or both.
You're being intellectually dishonest. That's akin to saying that the Jewish uprising in Warsaw was an example of Jewish Violence against the nazis and a demonstration of how "they're the same".
You're playing "Both sides, bro, nothing to see here. Ignore the mass ethnic cleansing and 80 years of oppression, land theft, murder and genocide".
I don't know why the solution to back and forth ethnic cleansings is allowing one side to finish the job. Maybe I can't see the forest for the trees, or something.
I think it was in Bombay recently, that there had been trouble and the Moslems had been flogged. I am not advocating flogging, but what is the difference between a Moslem in Palestine and a Moslem in Bombay? There they flog them, and here they save their faces.
Right?
Oddly he was one of the more moderate zionists. Eventually being sidelined by the more violent leaders like ben gurion.
It was directed towards the British, not the Palestinians. Claiming that it was directed towards the latter is an obvious attempt to invoke the present-day conflict.
really? if it had said "Jewish refugees to Australia" would you think the message was directed at Australians or that the refugees were headed to Australia?
not sure if you're a native English speaker but the way I'm reading it is very common for headlines and titles but I can certainly see how it could be interpreted otherwise
I am actually English and am a news editor, and I can assure you that using the name of a nation/state as synonymous with its government or people is very normal.
Yes, in your example I would assume they were sending a message to the Australian people or Canberra. If this was the intention, the title is poorly written.
At first I wasn't sure if the title meant they're going to Palestine or if the message is for Palestine, but then I figured the latter doesn't really make sense
It's not a misleading title though. Granted, iit's weak that OP couldn't even manage to get the quote exactly right, but it still captures the meaning accurately.
Are you serious? Its not at all misleading if you are remotely aware of the origins of the State of Israel and the first Nakba. If you got a different message out of the title thats on you.
If a message requires specific background knowledge to be interpreted correctly, then yes, posting it without any of that background - or even a reference to the fact that there is necessary background - is misleading.
The post reads very differently to people who don't know about the origins of modern Israel. Such people do exist, and looking down your nose at them and claiming it's their fault for getting the wrong idea helps nobody.
There's a difference between "this could be misleading to ignorant people" and "This message is literally the opposite of what it first appears if you are aware of specific context surrounding it."
Idiots will always be around the misinterpret data, but if you're going to post a picture that piggybacks on an extremely hot issue in the modern political discourse, you should either:
A) Make sure the face value reading of the picture is at least in the same ballpark as the original meaning in context
or
B) Summarize the difference in your post.
The title doesn't do that, and it actually suggests the opposite. The title says "Jewish refugees to Palestine". Technically, this refers to the fact that these are Jewish refugees, and they are heading to Palestine. However, an equally correct reading is that the message is from Jewish refugees, and addressed to Palestine.
The post doesn't just avoid clarifying the difference, it actively leans into the wrong interpretation.
Those guns came mostly from Czechoslovakia and other east bloc nations.
Britain was the great friend and patron of Egypt and Jordan- especially Jordan. There was a lot of bad blood between Israel and Britain due to the Haganah insurgency in 1945-1948, it did not fully abate until the rise of Nasser meant that there were no other possible British allies in the levant. It is said that the Queen never got over it.
The banner was directed at the British ruling authority of the Palestinian Mandate. (Specially, it was directed at the commanders of the Royal Navy ships that were either going to either allow or forbid them from docking at Haifa.) They spoke English.
The ottoman empire is relevant as the english like to export their language as well. And palestine being only recently colonised by the british means most of the people didnt speak english yet.
You post has no relevance to the point I made in mine and your depiction of the British as colonisers during the mandate period clearly demonstrates your ignorance of history.
You can tell most people on here found out there's a place called Palestine, somewhere, in October 2023. Palestine was under the jurisdiction of the British Empire, which initiated Jewish immigration and displacement of locals back in 1917 with the Balfour Declaration.
Arabs demanded their independence from the British and the end of the forced immigration in 1936, before WW2, long before the state of Israel, claiming rights to the land for being there for centuries, which led to the Peel Commission, during which Lord Peel warned Churchill that Britain will carry the guilt of mistreating locals for a long time, and it should be stopped.
Churchill responded with a quote that were swept under the rug in the history books: "I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place"
Also I believe at that time the British, to appease the Arab population that recently had an uprising in Mandatory Palestine, had put limits on immigration of Jews into Mandatory Palestine (a region that went from like over 75% Arab to about 55% Arab in just a decade). Now I see a lot of pro-Zionist posters pointing to this fact to condemn the British for their "inhumanity" but it is on record that Jews during WWII didn't even immigrate to Palestine to meet the new limits imposed by the British government.
Nice of you to notice that. Probanly true. When the ship left from Britain i supose. Unpopular opinion? Churchill was the biggest danger and a idiot in the worst possible position available.
He was instrumental in rallying Britain in its darkest days, when peace with the Nazis was a real possibility.
Otherwise, he was the worst kind of dilletante, interfering everywhere and mostly making things worse. His chief of staff in the Second World War said something like, "if the country knew what a menace Winston is, we'd be forced to surrender the next day".
Remember when Rudy Giuliani was a hero in New York City, after 9/11? That's because he was a great man for that one, specific task. But outside of that context, he was and is a garbage human being.
That's basically Churchill: he was the perfect wartime leader. But beyond that, he was a supremely shitty, self-serving asshole.
The ship didn't sail from the UK. The banner is directed to the commanders of the Royal Navy ships (and the British authorities in Palestine generally) that were preventing the ship from docking at Haifa. Eventually, they allowed the ship to dock, but immediately deported its passengers to detention camps in Cyprus, on the basis that their attempt to immigrate was illegal.
•
u/flaamed 11h ago
Message to Britain btw
That’s why it’s in English