Thread

I'll give an example. This Balfour declaration was one in a series of declarations made during WW1 that were not really upheld. In the wake of the Great War, Great Britain carved a State of Palestine out from the corresponding provinces during the Ottoman era. And this nascent Palestinian state was placed under the British mandate, like its neighbor Lebanon was placed under the French mandate. This mandate system was something the victorious European nations put in place to make modern nation-states from the territories of the Ottoman empire. And in British Palestine, you had all the institution of a modern state, in which jews participated but the arab palestinians did not, while they had every right because they had every right because they were palestinian citizens just as much jews back then also were palestinian citizens. Yes, the jews of Palestine post ww1 called themselves palestinians and held palestinian passports. But the arab palestinians saw the entire british mandate as a "foreign occupation" to be resisted. So they deliberately did not join into the new order of things, so no one represented their interests because they didn't participate in this new state. Instead, they create nationalists or religious movements and counted on Hitler's support when he rose to power, etc etc. So no, they weren't "erased" or "reduced". You cannot erase a people. Their mistake was not keeping up with the spirit of the time.

You have many provably wrong historical issues in your statement. First, In all other mandates in Arab lands, or anywhere else for that matter, no one forced other peoples onto the land. Only Palestine had to endure multiple migrations of jews from Europe. People of Palestine welcomed them before the Declaration and some time after it, until the jews started to become a force. Then they started to resist. Two, Syrians fought the French, so did Algerians. Iraqis eventually kicked out the Brits. So did all of Africa. Only the Palestinians had to fight two fronts, the Brits and the Jews. Had point 1 not happened, Palestine would've been free by resisting the occupation like every one else. Three, victorious Europeans decided among themselves how to divide the cake. Like what they did in in the Scramble to Africa, there were no considerations to local identities, culture, history, not even geography. So, yes, it is colonization part and parcel. Therefore, four, British mandate is a foreign occupation and a colonizing force by all means of the word. They came with soldiers, and ruled by fire. Again, the French called their rule over Syria a mandate, but were resisted as well. Your choice of Lebanon as an example is a red herring, and I will not discuss it. It's a different situation. Five, Jewish participation in "modern state institutions" was supported by the British simply because the jews were as European as much as the Brits. Palestinians tried to have their institutions that were more in line with their history and culture. But Brits saw that as competition, and suppressed it. Palestinians wanted to modernize the country and state their way, as is their right, but were fought over it. Six, Hitler, strawman argument, came in too late to the story. He has nothing to do with British mandate. In fact he had an agreement with Jews in Palestine at the time to send German jews there. So, Hitler did way more services to Israel than just a meeting with a Palestinian leader that lead to basically nothing. So, you can shove your hasbara false narrative somewhere else. It has no place here.