Anaxagoras
Posts: 3086
Joined: 5/9/2009
From: Eire
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: WingedMercury
... responding to Anaxagoral, post 196
The suggestion that US used bribery to get the votes for the partition of Israel is not "bizarre". Let me explain.
The US State Department actually opposed the partition plan, but Truman was in favour. Some think that Truman's humanitarian interest in addressing the plight of Jews after the Holocaust was his main driver. Others suggest that he wished to curry favour with American Jews before the 1948 Presidential election. Both are plausible. Both are likely to have influenced him.
But to get a two-thirds vote in the UN, he needed to pursuade a couple of nations to vote with US or to abstain. The Phillippines switched their position after it was hinted US aid might be affected if Phillippines opposed, and some Latin American countries might have suffered economically if the US pulled the plug on the construction of the Pan-American Highway. Truman eventually got his way.
Whether you call the US financial "threats" bribery or whether you just call it negotiation tactics is up to you. This is the way that super powers and rising super powers work. You will remember US wanted access to Iraq via Turkey, but permission was not forthcoming until US parted with big dollars. And China is not in Africa, India and the Pacific, investing many millions of its spare US dollars for altruistic reasons. They spend the money to get the influence, to get the power, to buy support. Calling this "bribery" is certainly not "bizarre".
You are correct that the US State Department actually opposed the partition plan. Truman did indeed feel motivated by humanitarian interest which is why he helped push through the plan. I did not know he pressured some countries to vote yes so I’ll take your word for it. However citing a hint to the Philippines and suggesting they would stop work on a project relating to some Latin American states doesn’t quite amount to “bribery” which I think is really a strong pejorative word to use. The reality is that such actions are very much a part of the rough and tumble of politics and “diplomatic” negotiation and occur much of the time, not only with super powers. Additionally there was very intensive pressure on countries from those opposing it also. The British were implacably opposed to the existence of Israel going as far as to actually arm the Arabs. In fact Truman said that he and the White House were the target of the most intensive propaganda of his career. The UN committee set up to resolve the conflict recommended partition but the US was not represented on it to avoid bias. Although the passing of the partition plan would have lessened resistance in some quarters to the idea of Israel, and was a very important step in the creation of Israel, as far as I can see for the plan was not put into practice as it was Israel’s declaration of independence after the British left that led to war with the Arab states and then the division of land upon the armistice lines. Soon after that the UN recognised Israel.
quote:
Incidentally, did you know that other lands were suggested to rehouse the Jews after the Holocaust? One suggestion was the North West of Australia, but this was never seriously entertained because the Jews really wanted their promised land, for religious reasons and also because they had a history in the area. If they had accepted the Australian suggestion, instead of having the promised land, they would have had the bountful land, with non-hostile neighbours.
How do you know that there would have been no hostility in Australia if the Jews took some good land there? I assume resentment of the Jewish people is not uncommon in Australia either since it is at its cultural roots a Western Christian country. At the time Jews would have had far less claim to that land then even the white settlers that displaced the aborigines. This resentment would especially be the case if the region was bountiful as it would have been in some demand so why would the Jews not be resented for possessing it? They are the indigenous people of Palestine because that definition includes displaced peoples that have ancient ties to the land – a multiple of the 3,000 years asserted here BTW.
quote:
I cannot completely disagree that "going back in history has a lot of value", but it does depend on the context. In the context in which I was writing, I was saying that history was of little value when you were having just a "tit for tat" argument and throwing insults around. My point was that resolution of the problem was the issue, and to resolve that, we had to forget most of who did what to whom. "Going back in history" is of little value in this context.
You have quoted me out of context. I hope it was an accident on your part.
"Going back in history has a lot of value" when you want to learn why we have come to the present, and it is also of importance if we can learn from history. Take this example. A Soviet friendly government was in control in Kabul, but under attack from the Mujahadin. The Russians came to the aid of the Kabul government, but US did not like the Russians to be too close to the Persian Gulf, so they assisted the Mujahadin in the war with the Afghanistan Government. One of the Mujahadin was Osama bin Laden. The Russians eventually withdrew, a stable anti-Muslim government fell, the Mujahadin took control, but without continued US support, they were overcome by the Taliban. History is full of unintended consequences such as this, and hopefully, nations will learn from these experiences. In this context, history should have a lot of value.
I read over post 168 again and I don’t think I quoted you out of context. I think the way you wrote the post suggested you mingled the argument on here with the argument in the Middle-East so I explained what happened and also addressed the issue of history which is all important in this conflict, see below.
If you were talking about the history of the conflict in the above context also although I see that doesn’t appear to be the case now, myself and others were not so much talking about the history of the conflict unless you are referring to the Gaza war which was only one and a half years ago and the Lebanon war of 2006 to a lesser extent. It is still a political hot potato so it certainly isn’t history in the sense that the issue is still current and not of the past. The tit for tat arguments that occurred here were a result of what I presume was animosity. I don’t want to resurrect those arguments again so won’t go into detail except to say I was tempted to drop it but found some things a bit too unpleasant to leave. In any case we all have a right to defend ourselves if our arguments are made out to be dishonest. It’s not only Hertz’s right to complain on this forum, although I acknowledge it did disrupt the thread somewhat.
If I understand your position now, I would have to say that I partly agree but go much further. To bring resolution to an intensive bitter conflict requires a robust meaningful understanding of wrongs done to whom. History needs to be analysed if people are to accept both justice and injustice that marks not only their own past but the past of the opposing side. Some seeds of understanding need to be planted and hopefully grow with an ongoing dialogue between Israeli’s and Palestinians’s about the conflict. It is only by reconciling ourselves to the past that the present can be understood and then dealt with. That’s the idea the Germans had of mastering the past after their involvement in the Holocaust. The striking situation with the Israeli–Palestinian conflict is how much propaganda there is (unprecedented) and how each side tells a widely divergent narrative. The only way to resolve the issue is for there to be a profound spiritual change. I would place most (but not all) of that need on the side of the Palestinians because Israel has for a long time been an open and sometimes extremely self-critical society.
quote:
I am not quite sure why you say it (it seems like a non-sequitor) that "Israel was not solely created simply because of religious values". I don't think anyone disputes this. I was merely pointing out the difficulty of resolution when religion was involved and I was giving some Jewish examples ("promised land", stairway to heaven). I didn't give any Arab examples because none came to mind at time of writing.
Your posting was, ostensibly, a reply to my post so what is this about "Israel's existence is unacceptable". Israel exists. Get used to it. The solution is not to get rid of it, but to work for a peaceful resolution. Don't put words into my mouth, please. There are enough there already!
Nothing can be presumed in this debate. Many do indeed claim Israel was only founded over a biblical claim. I don't think I put words in your mouth. You referred to the Jewish claim over Jerusalem as being religious and I responded by saying Islam’s claim is also at issue. To simply cite one example and to make it appear (assuming that wasn’t your intention) as if it was the principal source of conflict without mentioning the very well known Islamic claims over Jerusalem and Israel generally, suggested you favoured the Palestinian position. I didn’t suggest you disagreed with Israel’s existence but rather that this was the position of very many in the Islamic world since the state is located in Dar al-Islam.
|
RE: Propaganda and Israel - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread