The origins of the Israel-Palestine conflict | Part 1
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 6 ก.พ. 2024
- The Balfour Declaration was signed in 1917. It set out British support for the creation of a homeland for the Jewish people in Palestine. But when the Balfour declaration was signed the British had already promised Palestine to Arabs as an independent state and promised the French government that it would be an internationally administered zone - and even then, most of the land was still under Ottoman control.
So why did Britain make these three conflicting promises? How did it try to resolve them? And how did Britain’s strategy in the Middle East help to cause a century of conflict?
Lawrence of Arabia explained: www.iwm.org.uk/history/who-wa...
Explore and licence the film clips used in this video from IWM Film:
film.iwmcollections.org.uk/co...
Follow IWM on social media:
/ i_w_m
/ imperialwarmuseums
/ iwm.london
Thanks for watching, look out for part 2 coming soon!
Please remember to be polite in the comments. Any comments that we consider to be offensive or aggressive will be removed.
what a legacy sad but we need to protect it nevertheless
I'm sure they will be very uncontroversial
Good luck 🤞 thanks for covering this.
Good luck 🤞 thanks for covering this.
Thank you
Amazing! I'm looking forward to the second part!
I love your videos. You have helped me learn about history way faster than ever
PART 2 please. amazing clarity
I just discovered your channel and am enjoying listening to this video, a topic I studied as a student.
Having worked in Central Asia, the picture at 6:22 is of a group in Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, or Tajikistan -- I'm going by the architecture and the clothes they wear.
Thanks for creating vids relating to modern day events. Truly educational and entertaining!
Can't wait till the part two. wonderful episode.
Looking forward to seeing the second part!
Highly recommened video. Provides some good elaboration on UK's political strategy in the region.
A clear informational video that shows the history of the region. Looking forward to part two.
Well at the current situation it can be an explosive topic, but very informative to form one's own opinion..
Lol
And there I was thinking that Lieutenant Colonel Arthur Olden took the surrender of Damascus on 1 October 1918, hours before Feisal and Lawrence arrived.
Yes but he left leaving the City unsecured. Feisal and Lawrence took control of the city; effectively it surrendered twice. However, Olden's part has been disgracefully underplayed ever since that day.
Great video but so few views 😢
Pretty much confirms to few truly care about the issue and how it might get resolved.
Wonderful video, as always. Thank you. Note: the bottom part of Africa is not the Horn of Africa.
Just one point; as I understand it, the Sykes-Picot lines were not random doodlings by diplomats, they were based on the Ottoman Administrative regions, as you would expect.
The Ottomans provincial borders were very different
Yes, I think this is correct.
This is actually not true, the city of Rafah was split into two, and divided betw Egypt and mandatory Palastine, after the ottoman defeat in ww1 focourse nobody knew at the time what was being planned for the whole region.
That's not true. The Ottoman administrative borders were very different from the British and French ones.
This seemed to end suddenly. Will there be a second episode?
Yes.
This is by far the best coverage of the conflict I have seen so far. Excellent!
It's biased in places, it decides to focus on some facts while ignoring others.
@@IF18aBut it doesn’t shy away from pointing a big finger at the Brits for having massively contributed to this situation.
its only best because it sings your song, but is it true?
@@IF18a It's always easy to comment like that. Mention those which were ignored, so the picture be even better.
Very very nice video! I found myself wondering what the origins of the Israel Palestine conflict are and needed to know. Now i see that it is more complicated than i first thought and that there are many groups/ countries involved.
Is there an IWM video about TE Lawrence? I’d be interested in that.
There is a movie about it, I don’t how much of it is fictitious but the movie is a great watch!
@@ingGS what is it called
@@disbish5472 Lawrence of Arabia but this channel, Imperial War Museums, has a video on him, too. I recommend the director's cut of Lawrence of Arabia if you look for it. It does maximize Lawrence and minimize the Arab role and, yeah, it omits his awareness of Palestine being promised to the Zionists behind the backs of the Sharif and his sons, but it is still interesting to watch.
I don't remember at what point Lawrence learned that the Palestine part of the land was promised out per Balfour's letters.
There's a movie and a book.
yup
they promised the land to both sides and ran away after their plans blew up in their faces
Please show where Palestine was promised to the Arabs?
Read McMahan-Hussain Correspondence which was in 1915@@shainazion4073
At the very beginning; 00:25@@shainazion4073
@@shainazion4073 did you not watch the video?
Great description of the situation, very impressive
Excellent historical documentary.
👏👏👏
Mr. Editor, a bit of a sudden ending there, combined with the TH-cam advertisement, made it somewhat confusing. Food for thought.
Another interesting presentation...Thank you I WM. ROGER...PEMBROKESHIRE
I have been listening to a podcast, the rest is history, which stated one of the focusing factors for the British to enter the first world was their desire to protect their control of India from the Russians. As you point out the drawing of the middle eastern map was in part due to Britains desire to protect the Suez canal which gave them expedited access to India.
I love how that makes no sense at all. Britain and Russia were on the same side during the First World War, and Russia wouldn't have been able to get to India ever. There is this little thing called the Himalayan Mountain range that would prevent that.
The British were forced into the war because of treaties and alliances - same as the Germans were. Go look at some real history.
@@CedarHunt This is not about WW I, this is the Great Game. British, or East-INdia Company troops have gone into Afghanistan three times over the decades, to make sure to close the door to the INdian subcontinent to Russia.
The Crimean War was also in no small part to check Russian expansionism.
You need to step back and look at the larger picture.
From the day the Brits took over the Suez Canal from the French, they considered it to be of vital strategic interest. There are a few good videos on Ytube dealing with the Suez Canal Crisis from 1956 that could have brought the major powers to the brink of war again.
Even today, the incident with the near-stranded container ship, and, by extension of the canal thru the Red Sea, the missile attacks by the Houthis remind us of the importance of the canal to global commerce.
The Empire Podcast explores the Great Game in detail@@shelbynamels7948
Feels like there should be a part two?
Look at the thumbnail
probably feels like that because it says "part 1" in the thumbnail lol
There is a part 2
Beautifully succinct documentary that explains so much
Excellent video!
Thank you.
Very good and informative video - please do another part, preferably more to cover whole history of Isreali state
Hmmm .... as someone who supports the IWM financially, I'll reflect on this and look forward to part 2's position
Outrageous! *spits out tea*
I’m actually doing my research paper on the Jewish Legion and the controversy of the Balfour Declaration. While pleased at the fact your organisation made this video I do believe some elements could have been expanded upon and one argument made in the video was not properly constructed.
Mainly I wish the story of the Zion Mule Corps and Jewish Legion had actually been expanded upon because what I hope to argue in my paper is that these military units are more crucial to the history of this topic than we think. Mainly because it shows a British engagement with the concept of Zionism going back to the earliest days of the war. For context roughly 50,000 Jews from the Yishuv (the pre state community of Jews in what people call Palestine I’d call the land of Israel) were expelled from the Ottoman empire. The majority made their way to Alexandria where discussion quickly rose to establish a Jewish military unit to serve in the British for an offensive in the Middle East.
Britain had at this time had discussions of forming a Jewish regiment but the community in England at this time leaned more towards wanting to assimilate into English society.
Nether the less in 1915 due to British regulations of admitting foreign soldiers into their ranks. A supply unit was established that would serve at Gallipoli, mainly Cape Helles called the Zion Mule Corps. It was disbanded after the retreat from Gallipoli with 100 servicemen joining a London rifle regiment which would eventually become the basis of the 38th Royal Fusiliers. The first of 3 regiments of the Jewish Legion. The other 2 being the 39th and the 40th Royal Fusiliers.
What’s crucial is the date of the establishment of the 38th. They were established in August of 1917 and a key scholar of this topic: Martin Watts and the primary source from their NCO Lt Col John Henry Patterson: with the Judeans in the Palestine campaign, shows that the 38th was established with the explicit intent to go and fight within the EEF in the Palestine campaign with an aim of the Zionist movement being awarded territory after the war.
My criticism comes from the use of the armband to reach the conclusion that Zionism wasn’t a popular among us during the war. If you had used documentation from Lucien Wolff, the Board of Deputies, the book: we are coming, unafraid: the Jewish legions and the promised land in the First World War, to have made your argument I would have respected it, disagreed with it to some level but found it more able to hold water.
I would counter with evidence that all 3 regiments served under both the British flag and the flag that would become the Israeli flag. Hatikva was sung alongside G-d save the king, recruitment posters I’ve seen for the 39th Royal Fusiliers, displayed in Canada and reports about the unit’s training, the march the 38th had through London and testimony from Patterson I would use to prove this point
I do apologise if I’ve been rude but I believe you could have made your argument better by drawing upon other sources and do believe the role of Jewish military service in the British army during this time needs to be explored more to gain more of a proper understanding to Britain’s decisions
sorry, but zionism was truly not popular and most zionists were perceived like lunatics zealots that you do not want to be associated with. you clearly do not understand that in an age of booming science and innovation, fewer and fewer people were interested in religious ideas and jews were following the trend much faster than any minority around! atheism was very popular among born jews and many of the first wave of communist propagandists were people with jewish background! to them, speaking of ancient temple and chosen land really made no sense!
The Jews needed military experience because they knew that a conflict with the Arabs was going to happen.
The British followed one rule, ”Divide and conquer”
They kinda did the same thing with India and Pakistan
Literally every country than invaded another have aswell - what British did is nothing new
We sold it 3 times 😢
If two fish are fighting in a pond it means the British were there
@@tombearclaw and Malaya!
Echoing the comments of others… what next?
This is fascinating insight into this troubled part of the world.
this is the most neutral presentation of facts on the palestinian conflict by any channel on YT. the channel has no motive and no history of any political leanings except to present history as it was. thank you for presenting history as it was and to let the viewers make their own opinion based on the facts, who grabbed from whom and why the losers are persistent thorns on those who won.
1. Ottoman was once sending letter regarding about if war ever broke out in Europe they wanted to join triple Entente but rejected by British, France, and even Russian Empire because of their objectives doesn't aligned with any triple Entente nation.
2. Of all minister that holding power or we can say Three Giants in ottoman notably Minister of War Enver Pasha, Minister of Naval Djemal Pasha, and minister of interior Talaat Pasha were once students in the British and France studying all sectors then came in contact with nationalism idea.
High production value, great images from the period, but an overly simplistic cherry picked version of events aimed at pinning the current conflict on the British. Perhaps the IWM could make a video about the Rashidun Caliphate of the 7th century, or the subsequent Ottoman Empire’s persecution and massacre of non-Muslim minorities? Maybe then the layman would have a better understanding of the origins of the current conflict in the Middle East.
an excellent and truthful comment
that's because Britain WAS the one to sell it.... Arabs already lived in the area before 7th century, because they were already there when people came from Africa, same with people from the med.
@@Ladybird55505Britain didn’t ‘sell’ the land. They re-established a homeland for the Jews after defeating the Ottoman Empire, which they were obliged to do after the Ottoman’s attacked their ally Russia during WW1. If the Ottoman’s hadn’t attacked Russia the Muslims may still be abusing ‘Dhimmis/Kafirs’ across the entire region, as they had done for centuries.
What everyone miss to mention is that Jordan was part of the british mandate for palestine, so the arabs took 3 times more land than the jews, actually the so called "palestinan" arabs have a state since 1947, it is called Jordan, it has the same flag as the "palestinians" are waving today, the problem is, and the heart of the conflict , that the palestinians dont want a jewish state in that region in any borders or shape, "from the river to the sea" their famous chant makes that clear.
Exactly. That's the missing puzzle piece that founds the widely spread narrative of jewish "colonialism" in "palestine". Sadly this video doesn't account to that at all. Also the historical bounds of jews to that specific land are fatally overlooked and barely mentioned, which makes it seem like Aliyahs and jewish (re)migration to Israel was arbitrary.
It is because European immigrants have no right to usurp the indiginous population, which has lived there uninterrupted for over 5,000 years since the Canaanites.
sorry, but the jewish people simply were not there, so they did not took anything, just made a country as the other new ones in the area with churchill's backing. the jewish people in the area are mostly colonisers of the arab land so that's it. nothing wrong with that, good for them, they managed to fight some wars, win and make a pretty prosperous country for themselves. even today, after 100 years, the british mandate area is still mostly 50-50% jews and palestinian arabs.
@@arbitScaleModels -jewish have right to be in israel and arabs have right to be in arabia,u have to be fair
The river to the sea? You mean that famous speech that Benjamin Netenyahu, gave in the UN? Your silly little username has given away your emotional bias and unnaceptance of facts that dob't support the Jewish narrative...
Sure, I have heard of the Balfour Declaration. But until just now I had never had the chance to read what it actually says. It strikes me that for such an important document, it is surprisingly wishy-washy, to use the preferred academic term.
As a official statement, it simply expresses a preference. It is not a law, a foreign policy objective of the Crown, or a carefully arrived-at, negotiated treaty obligation.'
It simply seems to be a carefully worded, straddle the fence thinking of the Foreign Office, designed not to give too much away to either side, designed to be abandoned or at least modified should shifting circumstances require it.
To make it the cornerstone of British foreign policy, is, to quote Sir Bernard Appleby, to put a burden on it that it is semantically and epistologically not designed to support".
This was actually very intentionally done by the British. They knew how it conflicted with other promises they made, so they left it open to interpretation. Though it was made law in 1923 as part of the Mandate for Palestine. Interestingly though, people argue that the Balfour declaration being made law in Mandatory Palestine was in itself illegal. This is because the governing international law for Mandates which the League of Nations had agreed on, stipulated that countries like Britain were required to act effectively as trustees over their Mandates, and to act in the best interests of the people who lived their, ensuring the right to self determination. Since the Balfour Declaration alienated 90% of the population of Palestine from their political right to self determination, it violated a key component of the governing international law.
The Anti Israel narrative likes to pretend the declaration simply "handed over" the land to the Jews. I wish more people would simply read this short text. The very complicated history of the conflict is twisted to fit the tiktok activists.
ever seen who he addressed it too?
The original title along the lines of “why britain is responsible for the arab-israeli conflict” was accurate. Too bad someone at the IWM lost their nerve.
😂 yes,k I like that one
All the European colonial powers divided up the world by putting into the same territories groups of people who always lived in their own territory. This way, the native groups would fight among themselves rather than attack the colonial powers. That’s why ac
Lord Balfour went to Eton. Anyone else seeing the link between crass incompetent politicians and that establishment?
If only it was an issue of only one school. Rather, it seems more to be a temperamental issue rather than an environmental one. Consider the politicians and aspiring politicians from working class backgrounds at school. It was always the swotty, the snitches, the teacher's pets, the ones determined to make sure all the other children follow the rules. It's clear when you listen to the Labour politicians they have spent most of their lives believing, probably rightly if viewed in terms of academic success, that they are better than their peers. Unfortunately, you tend to find those who come from a less well of background who gain power can be even more tyrannical than the snobs.
Nicola sturgeon springs immediately to mind😂
No, you’re the first person I’ve ever heard make that original and revealing association.
Generally a very balanced and interesting account.
My one quibble - starting in 1914 does rather skew the argument!
It would be equivalent to starting at 1973 - ie that Egypt invaded Israel in the Sinai desert and occupied Israeli land! Very disingenuous I’m sure everyone would agree.
The point being - where you start the story massively changes perception.
What you missed is that the Jews in Israel were occupied by a foreign power (Rome) and over time were kicked out of their homeland by many peoples - including by the Arabs. The Arab colonisation of the levant and North Africa often gets a free pass.
But if people have a lawful claim to land they were kicked out of (think Palestinian refugees, Ukrainian refugees etc) then how long does it last and why have you picked that time?
It’s a messy situation - and frankly trying to blame Britain for the mess rather absolves all the actual people on the ground fighting over it…
There were other people in Jerusalem before Abraham migrated from Iraq to Jerusalem. You just can't start with Jews were occupied by Rome.
To me, the history of Jewish people pushed out of Israel is widely known, but it's the other side of the history that's over looked. Such as Iran helped Jewish people to move back into ancient Israel, and also helped to build their 2nd Temple. The Iranians actually commissioned for the temple to be built.
IMO after 2,000 years one should be able to get over the fact that ones ancestors had been kicked out from somewhere.
Imagine if every single group which had been kicked out somewhere over the past 2,000 years suddenly start aggressive actions to "return" today...
The history of Europe, especially Eastern Europe, over the last few centuries is a history of displacement, genocide, forced relocation and ethnic cleansing. The grievances are manifold and long=standing.
The key to a peaceful Europe is coming to terms with a status quo instead of nursing those multi=generational grudges. That has allowed most of Europe to enjoy one of its longest periods of peace, ever.
The only parts of Europe that for the last eighty years since the end of WW II experienced the kind of murderous strife that is the historical default were the component states of the former Yugoslavia, and now Ukraine, and the reason for that is to reach back into history for some kind of wrongs that somebody feels needs to be redressed.
That is the situation in today's Palestine. As long as the debate goes back further and further in time to arrive at some type of historical Ground Zero in the search for legitimacy for one's viewpoint, a solution for the future will always prove elusive.
2000+ years ago
Are we the bad guys ?
That's how you get an empire.
I would say it wasn't "Us" as it was our ancestors but the bigger picture here is people want to blame someone for invading and taking land when that's exactly what ALL humans have been doing since the beginning of mankind, so there is no good guy or bad guy in that sense
@@John14-6...except that when “we” continue to fund imperial endeavors and destabilization in the region, you can’t really blame any ancestors. Neocolonialism exists.
lmao I love that sketch with David Mitchell 🤣
Thank you for the video
The flippant drawing of borders were the British’s specialty. I wouldn’t be surprised if they meticulously planned it this way.
I was thinking the same...sounds liek what they did in Africa
If it's not your land how do you promise it to someone else ! ! !
With imperialism
A story that needs to be told. Thank you.
1:25 wrong map for the Russian Empire in 1914.
10:59 it's pronounced Mesopotamia (meaning "between the rivers"), not "Mesopotania"
Thanks Britain.
Why do you write Israel-Palestine if hamas attacked first? Or is it différent in english?
The maps drawn post war were erroneous, Syria and Lebanon were not split yet, and the NW corner of Syria was not yet taken out.
It’s easy to promise things to others that isn’t yours
I see you don't understand about how power politics and The Great Game works.
Whose was it? The ottomans?
That area was very clearly under British control.
That’s what I’m thinking
Royal Navy 1904 - 1926 changed from coal to oil
Good relations with Arabs were essential
Also, there were many politicians who loved Arabic culture -
Anthony Eden spoke Arabic and was enraptured by the culture
Many British simply "Didn't like Jews"
Britain was NOT pro-Zionism : some folks were, most weren't
I'll just remind us all the Trans- Jordan Memorandum at the Cairo Conference of 1922, in which the Britts, rulers of Palestine, together with the Arab League States, takes off the Eastern part of palestine know as Jordan today from the equation of the "Jewish Homeland in Palestine" from the 1917 Balfour Dec.
Those of you that are really interested in the facts and history read 'Paris 1919' and 'Desert Queen' the life story of Gertrude Bell. I am afraid our children protesting today have no idea how the Middle East was created.
Fantastic video!!! Never knew that 🇯🇴🇵🇸 were one state then divided into two
I am sure that the uprising involving Faisal also involved an obscure, unknown British officer and his Rolls Royce armoured cars, I am trying to remember his name, but clearly, I am not the only one to forget to mention T E Lawrence "of Arabia"?
which one the one that mysteriously went missing on writing advice to Britian that they shouldn't splitting it this way?
Perhaps they wanted to spend more time on less common knowledge aspects of the history
GREAT COVERAGE, THANK YOU
Palestine. Iraq. Afghanistan. Ireland. India. Pakistan. South Africa. Zimbabwe. Kenya. Burma. Malaya....... there is a direct link with imperialistic failed british rule and current day wars
yup, and thats why the Brits are sooooo desperate to cling to their colional power
Us lol
It's more to the situation than British involvement now...but its no surprise about this information.
They don't call the Union Jack a Butchers Apron for nothing hey.
How on earth did you get out an informative video with the current UK government's culture wars going on? I really do admire your integrity and courage, for the truth belongs to those with money in this modern world.
Culture wars in Britain? Surely not. I'm an American who lived in Britain for over ten years and nothing I saw there even remotely compares to the American culture wars.
There's just the old knee-jerk nationalism where some British people want to be way more of an isolated, insular nation than Britain ever has been and is realistic, given economic and political links to the Continent and world
Lovely of the Brits to make ''Plans'' for another people without asking first.
Now what's that called in other circles??
In 1988 the Palestine National Council meeting in Algiers proclaimed the establishment of the State of Palestine. The Security Council demanded Israel withdraw its forces “forthwith and unconditionally” from Lebanon up to its internationally recognized boundaries. 06 June 1982.
This is what people should be watching not tiktoks
your mind will explode when you find out this is whats on tiktok....
So the British will clean up their mess and all will be well.
Maybe a single secular state called Balfouria would work.
yeah put it in texas, the americans seem happy to play puppet to them
Doesn't need a 15-minute explanation to answer the question.
I can do it in a second:
Yes.
No.
Too bad this hasn't been put out years ago, year after year.
If you compare the treaties of Versailles, (the harshness of which is attributed to the rise of Hitler) Saint-Germain, Trianon and Sevres, it's very easy to distinguish the extreme amount of racism inherent in the European mindset of the period: Germany lost a minimum amount of land and Austria was disbanded to give the locals their own states while Turkey lost pretty much everything except a small portion of lowest value rural inner Anatolia and any non-Christian locals were instead colonized by Britain and France.
I'm Turkish. Making the loss of land a race thing isn't fair. Racism isn't that significant in such decision making. All partition decisions were strategic and based on reason. Consider this: If there was racism, why did they support Arabs?
1919 Versailles : Lloyd George was poor on geography - he though Mecca was in Syria
But he was hot on bible studies : he suggested Israel's borders should run from "Ham to Beersheba". Civil servants had to trawl the archives to find ancient maps.
Hindsight.
🤔 If I start my own religion and get a few thousand followers, can I then decide it's actually a nationality and demand a piece of someone elses land?
According to Zionism: yes you can
That's exactly the story of Muslim Arab conquests from the 7th century onward: inventing a religion on the Arabian Peninsula, getting followers in various tribes, Arabizing native peoples of the Middle East and beyond and claiming vast swaths of lands in the Middle East and North Africa.
@@carolinescheffer3780 consider thinking before commenting. Jews are an ethnoreligious group separated by world history. It's not just a made up nationality.
Of course you can. You just might not win.
judaism has been an ethno-religion throught almost the entirety of its history
Huge deaths to draw lines on a map
...and there were never any deaths before that? The people there at the time wasn't the result of "huge deaths"?
If anything drawing up borders prevented the coming conflict from getting really bad. There's always gonna be a vacuum of power with the British Empire leaving.
@@TheSm1thers Yes, and there already was a power vacuum due to the recoil and then dissolution of the Ottoman Empire...which had first created a synthetic and unsustainable situation in the region. Anyone claiming that the starting point with which Britain was working with would've been a "natural state of things" is a total lie!
Lads we did it again!
I hope that part 2 will deal with:
1. Did the colonial powers have a right to do the division? It is not addressed strongly enough;
2. Was Palestine empty land, and how does Asher Ginsberg’s observations of Palestine in 1891 relate to this notion;
3. There were serious fights between Jewish settlers and native Arabs in Palestine throughout the 1930s. It is glossed over, thereby underplaying the beginnings of the illegal land claims of the Zionists;
4. There were about 4 or 5 Zionist terror groups, among them the father of Benjamin Netanyahu and Menachem Begin, who famously claimed to be the original terr0rist;
5. Why was the Balfour Declaration addressed to Rothschild, in particular, and was that part of a deal to bring America in to support the British in the war? This piece doesn’t adequately deal with the background to the conflicting promises and why the Brits ultimately favoured the Zionists.
6. This piece also does not adequately deal with the root cause of the current conflict, the Zionists’ master plan of establishing Greater Israel. It is the fulcrum of the manifesto of the Likud Party, founded by Begin.
It is a matter of emphasis and important to understand the degree of culpability of not just the British Empire but also those currently in power in Israel who continue to push the Greater Israel agenda.
Certainly, the land of Palestine was not empty. It had approximately 900,000 Palestinians, Muslims, Christians, and Jews.
@@noraibrahim8862it didn't even have that population in the first British census on 1922. The land was highly underpopulated and had less than 350,000 people in it for over 1000 years before 1860.
Israel accept s it doesn't have the totality of its land. Just the scraps. The Arab Palestinians should have done the same - greater Palestine was Jordan Lebanon and Southern Syria. The region given to them at Partition in 1948. Furthermore, as Zuheir Mohsen of the PLO stated: Palestinian people does not exist … there is no differences between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians, and Lebanese", though Palestinian identity would be emphasised for political reasons. In a March 1977 interview with the Dutch newspaper Trouw he stated that "between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese there are no differences. We are all part of one people, the Arab nation [...] Just for political reasons we carefully underwrite our Palestinian identity. Because it is of national interest for the Arabs to advocate the existence of Palestinians to balance Zionism. Yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity exists only for tactical reasons"...
and the way he addresses these will give the legitimacy to his channel becasue we know that answers here.
It's amazing that the Small Country of Britain and there politicians and Policy's had so much to do with what is still happening in our World 🌎 😮
Their power came from their control of world trade for centuries. It's also the reason why the US is in that position.
It's the golden rule. He who controls the gold, makes the rules.
But you cannot keep rehashing mistakes of the past and dwell on history, the Brits keep saying!
It's amazing, the amount of good and civilization they brought to the world!
@@pritapp788 Where are you from?
Size doesn't matter; the small city of Rome comes to mind here, far smaller than Britain.
Brits should've done the moral thing and not partition arab land they won from the ottomans
They didnt. Read the whole of the Balfour Declaration
It was NOT Arab lands, it was Ottoman Turkish lands.
There was also an involvement from British Baptists in Zionism
A a major factor behind the suffering and divide to this day 😕
Not at all. Only losers blame UK for today's woes
@thekneidlachengineer6038
I mean it is their fault that they occupied the land instead of giving the arabs independence
If two fish are fighting in a pond it means the British were there.
Or the two fish were fighting before the British were there...then carried on after they left
Notice that the word Palestinians never appears in the document. Why? Because that description did not exist until the 1960s. They were simply Arab peoples.
absolutely
1:17 Why does that say Mumbai? It should be Bombay.
Nice explantion 'history is fact
So just when did the British and thier thoughts etc supersede the promises that God had already made to Abraham in reference to all his descendants. And the British certainly were not the first to call that land Palestine . A quick check of history will clarify that .
still dont get it
This video insists on separating Levantine Christians from Arabs, all are Arabs, some are Muslims and some are Christians
Israel is a historical provable contemporary of Egypt and Babilon, so very much before Rome or Palestine!
Be ashamed!
The conflict originated well before the times you speak of. This war began with Abraham, this is because he married an Egyptian slave named Hagar because his wife Sarah was barren. Hagar bore him a son named Ishmael. Later God made a covenant with Abraham and Sarah was able to conceive to him a son named Isaac. God choose to continue the covenant with Isaac and Ishmael tried to kill Isaac when Ishmael was 17 and Isaac only 2. Sarah and Abraham cast out Hagar and Ishmael. Ishmaels decendants are the islamists and Isaac's decendants are the Jews. You think we have more of a role in this than we do. This war is because of polygamy and God said they would be at war until Jesus returns. The prophecies are playing out still.
Why did war stop for 350 years during the Ottoman control. I never heard of Jesus returning then. Was the Ottoman Emperor Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent Jesus??? Incredible stuff.
How many Jews and Christians currently are living in Iran, Egypt, Jordan, Sudan, Libya, Syria, and Afghanistan?
Less than ONE PERCENT.
What happened to all those people? Forced out?
What’s currently happening in Nigeria? in churches in Nigeria?
Next explain Lebanon
It was also formed by Britain’s mandate with a Christian majority until the early 1980s
The problem that I have what give the British empire the right on the land of Palestine? Especially give it to someone else.
Are you that devoid of historical knowledge? The Ottomans signed All their lands over to the Allies after WW1. The Allies gave the responsibility of the lands to the League of Nations. The League of Nations created 3 Mandates out of the former Ottoman lands, the Mandate of Mesopotamia (Iraq), the Mandate of Syria and Lebanon, and the Mandate of Palestine.
The British were made the administrators of the Mandate of Palestine. The first thing the British did was illegally give the Arab Hashemites 77% of the Mandate of Palestine, leaving Only 23% to become the future Jewish state.
The Entire League of Nations voted unanimously for the Mandate of Palestine Charter which had one mission only;
*_"Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country"_*
There was NO other people spoken of in the Mandate of Palestine Charter except the *_"non-Jewish communities in Palestine."_*
So - although I would say a minor factor - - it wrought some very precarious and unhappy consequences in the years and decades to follow! It might have even been a complication with the Ukrainian matter of a couple of years ago. Though I don't think it's entirely so! Undoubtedly things came to a head in Gaza. There's a good reason why we shouldn't have done it! Caution was left to one side due to the First World War! Hmm! Some very complicated consequences for sure! Coming up to today in 2024! It's likely to end badly for many people on this planet! I'd like to hope that it won't be too serious but unfortunately it will be!
i suppose we could all start wondering 🤔 what’s going to become of the country-soon-to-be-formerly-known-as-Israel ?
Palestine wasn't Britain's to give a way in the first place.
Correct. Abraham purchased the Land of Israel from the previous inhabitants (an example: Genesis 23:3) and bequeathed it to his son Isaac who bequeathed it to his son Jacob who bequeathed it to his sons known as the Twelve Tribes of Jacob, that is, the Jewish people.
What's more, look in the Jewish Bible and see how many mentions there are of Jerusalem and the Land of Israel.
God Almighty the Creator gave the Land of Israel to the Jews.
@@MHPloni-kl5ec *Bro's quoting the Bible like it's historical fact. LOL!*
They had kicked out the Ottomans, so it was.
Your argument fails as there is no such thing as God. The land belongs to all peoples.
Nor was it the Arab's to take.
Well really, it was the mongols that obliterated the Middle East. If not for the Mongols, the Middle East would probably have remained strong and able to self determin.
Britain created trouble in all over the land they ruled .Devide& Rule was their motto. Separated Brunei from Malaysia, KUWAIT from IRAQ , created major conflict in Cyprus in between Greek & Turkish speakers. Seperated Sudan& Egypt , India & pakistan .US their foreign policy is also devide and rule.
Britain handed over the flag to America
The Ottomans were the failed colonial power that led to the British having to divide these lands up. Why no blame resting on Turkey?
Ottomans didn't allow Jewish imigration nor did they make any false promises. British took over these lands, brought jews in, betrayed all sides, placed them in conflict with eachother and left irresponsibly.
Not sure why you didn't cover the massacres of the jews in the 1800's in Israel or the mass migration of arabs after the Balfour declaration