Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: OK. I'll say it. Yes, I'd rather risk Iran having nukes than [View all]polly7
(20,582 posts)167. I think you should find a bit more credible sources.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour_Declaration
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_of_Palestine

After WWII the partition plan
Main articles: 1947 UN Partition Plan and 1947-1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine
The UN Partition Plan
The Balfour Declaration (dated 2 November 1917) was a letter from the United Kingdom's Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour to Baron Rothschild (Walter Rothschild, 2nd Baron Rothschild), a leader of the British Jewish community, for transmission to the Zionist Federation of Great Britain and Ireland.
His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.[1]
His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.[1]
"The records of discussions that led up to the final text of the Balfour Declaration clarifies some details of its wording. The phrase "national home" was intentionally used instead of "state" because of opposition to the Zionist program within the British Cabinet. Following discussion of the initial draft the Cabinet Secretary, Mark Sykes, met with the Zionist negotiators to clarify their aims. His official report back to the Cabinet categorically stated that the Zionists did not want "to set up a Jewish Republic or any other form of state in Palestine or in any part of Palestine".[16] Both the Zionist Organization and the British government devoted efforts over the following decades, including Winston Churchill's 1922 White Paper, to denying that a state was the intention.[17] However, in private, many British officials agreed with the interpretation of the Zionists that a state would be established when a Jewish majority was achieved.[18]
The initial draft of the declaration, contained in a letter sent by Rothschild to Balfour, referred to the principle "that Palestine should be reconstituted as the National Home of the Jewish people."[19] In the final text, the word that was replaced with in to avoid committing the entirety of Palestine to this purpose. Similarly, an early draft did not include the commitment that nothing should be done which might prejudice the rights of the non-Jewish communities. These changes came about partly as the result of the urgings of Edwin Samuel Montagu, an influential anti-Zionist Jew and secretary of state for India, who was concerned that the declaration without those changes could result in increased anti-Semitic persecution. The draft was circulated and during October the government received replies from various representatives of the Jewish community. Lord Rothschild took exception to the new proviso on the basis that it presupposed the possibility of a danger to non-Zionists, which he denied.[20]"
The initial draft of the declaration, contained in a letter sent by Rothschild to Balfour, referred to the principle "that Palestine should be reconstituted as the National Home of the Jewish people."[19] In the final text, the word that was replaced with in to avoid committing the entirety of Palestine to this purpose. Similarly, an early draft did not include the commitment that nothing should be done which might prejudice the rights of the non-Jewish communities. These changes came about partly as the result of the urgings of Edwin Samuel Montagu, an influential anti-Zionist Jew and secretary of state for India, who was concerned that the declaration without those changes could result in increased anti-Semitic persecution. The draft was circulated and during October the government received replies from various representatives of the Jewish community. Lord Rothschild took exception to the new proviso on the basis that it presupposed the possibility of a danger to non-Zionists, which he denied.[20]"
Reaction to the Declaration
[edit]Arab opposition
The Arabs expressed disapproval in November 1918 at the parade marking the first anniversary of the Balfour Declaration. The Muslim-Christian Association protested the carrying of new "white and blue banners with two inverted triangles in the middle".
...we always sympathized profoundly with the persecuted Jews and their misfortunes in other countries... but there is wide difference between such sympathy and the acceptance of such a nation...ruling over us and disposing of our affairs.[26]
[edit]Arab opposition
The Arabs expressed disapproval in November 1918 at the parade marking the first anniversary of the Balfour Declaration. The Muslim-Christian Association protested the carrying of new "white and blue banners with two inverted triangles in the middle".
...we always sympathized profoundly with the persecuted Jews and their misfortunes in other countries... but there is wide difference between such sympathy and the acceptance of such a nation...ruling over us and disposing of our affairs.[26]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_of_Palestine
Mandatory Palestine (in its official languages: English: Palestine,[1] Arabic: فلسطين, Filasţīn; Hebrew: פָּלֶשְׂתִּינָה (א"י
, Palestína (EY), EY standing for Eretz Yisrael) was a geopolitic entity under British administration, carved out of Ottoman Southern Syria after World War I. British civil administration in Palestine operated from 1920 until 1948. This administration was formalised with the League of Nations' consent in 1923 under the British Mandate for Palestine which covered two administrative areas. The land west of the Jordan River, known as Palestine, was under direct British administration until 1948, while the land east of the Jordan was a semi-autonomous region known as Transjordan, under the rule of the Hashemite family from the Hijaz, and gained independence in 1946.[2]
After WWII the partition plan
Main articles: 1947 UN Partition Plan and 1947-1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine
The UN Partition Plan
The Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry in 1946 was a joint attempt by Britain and the United States to agree on a policy regarding the admission of Jews to Palestine. In April, the Committee reported that its members had arrived at a unanimous decision. The Committee approved the American recommendation of the immediate acceptance of 100,000 Jewish refugees from Europe into Palestine. It also recommended that there be no Arab, and no Jewish State. The Committee stated that "in order to dispose, once and for all, of the exclusive claims of Jews and Arabs to Palestine, we regard it as essential that a clear statement of principle should be made that Jew shall not dominate Arab and Arab shall not dominate Jew in Palestine." U.S. President Harry S. Truman angered the British Labour Party by issuing a statement supporting the 100,000 refugees but refusing to acknowledge the rest of the committee's findings. Britain had asked for U.S assistance in implementing the recommendations. The U.S. War Department had said earlier that to assist Britain in maintaining order against an Arab revolt, an open-ended U.S. commitment of 300,000 troops would be necessary. The immediate admission of 100,000 new Jewish immigrants would almost certainly have provoked an Arab uprising.[28]
These events were the decisive factors that forced Britain to announce their desire to terminate the Palestine Mandate and place the Question of Palestine before the United Nations, the successor to the League of Nations. The UN created UNSCOP (the UN Special Committee on Palestine) on 15 May 1947, with representatives from 11 countries. UNSCOP conducted hearings and made a general survey of the situation in Palestine, and issued its report on 31 August. Seven members (Canada, Czechoslovakia, Guatemala, Netherlands, Peru, Sweden, and Uruguay) recommended the creation of independent Arab and Jewish states, with Jerusalem to be placed under international administration. Three members (India, Iran, and Yugoslavia) supported the creation of a single federal state containing both Jewish and Arab constituent states. Australia abstained.
These events were the decisive factors that forced Britain to announce their desire to terminate the Palestine Mandate and place the Question of Palestine before the United Nations, the successor to the League of Nations. The UN created UNSCOP (the UN Special Committee on Palestine) on 15 May 1947, with representatives from 11 countries. UNSCOP conducted hearings and made a general survey of the situation in Palestine, and issued its report on 31 August. Seven members (Canada, Czechoslovakia, Guatemala, Netherlands, Peru, Sweden, and Uruguay) recommended the creation of independent Arab and Jewish states, with Jerusalem to be placed under international administration. Three members (India, Iran, and Yugoslavia) supported the creation of a single federal state containing both Jewish and Arab constituent states. Australia abstained.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
174 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
If Israel can live with the Pakistani/Saudi bomb, they can learn to live with the Persian bomb, too
leveymg
Sep 2012
#1
Stop allowing Jewish settlers to take over Palestinian land would at least help.
randome
Sep 2012
#87
You mean like at the Olympics in '72? Lod Airport? Hebrew University? Pan Am 103? School
WinkyDink
Sep 2012
#46
Well they do although it really isnt necessary if you have nuclear capability. nm
rhett o rick
Sep 2012
#41
Israel is the only country over there I have heard threatening to nuke Iran's
sabrina 1
Sep 2012
#91
That talk is for domestic consumption. It appeals to the conservative base in Iran and
alfredo
Sep 2012
#95
Aren't we? Israel has used the threat against its neighbors as blackmail against us more than once
leveymg
Sep 2012
#30
First of all, Iran hasn't been "Persia" for centuries. Secondly, who are you to say what another
WinkyDink
Sep 2012
#5
I have every fucking right in the world to say what I wish about this matter, dear.
cali
Sep 2012
#11
Yes, of course; you are not the Leader of the Free World, are you? I'm not talking about Free Speech
WinkyDink
Sep 2012
#48
Actually, I have always wondered why some countries can have them and some can't. Always
Laura PourMeADrink
Sep 2012
#44
Actually, America is the last nation which can be considered to have moral authority to speak to the
Skidmore
Sep 2012
#122
which would include telling another nation what technology they may develop
magical thyme
Sep 2012
#20
I was speaking, specifically, of an American telling israel what to do or not to do. And yes, that
WinkyDink
Sep 2012
#47
I don't believe I said that. But "not for anything"? You need a bigger imagination.
WinkyDink
Sep 2012
#53
You are fundamentally incorrect. No USSR leader said any such thing. The MOST that was said
WinkyDink
Sep 2012
#8
Nothing short of a full fledged invasion and occupation of Iran will stop them from getting nukes.
redgreenandblue
Sep 2012
#14
Your thinking not your shot gun skills. I quess you weren't on the Fight Deck Mission Accomplished
bahrbearian
Sep 2012
#58
It depends on whether by "win" you just mean the initial fighting or include the occupation.
JHB
Sep 2012
#109
i dont know if theyare try to get the bomb or not, but if they are, i bet money it's for something
dionysus
Sep 2012
#28
"the Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time"
ronnie624
Sep 2012
#61
They could have attacked and killed most of the Israeli people already if they wanted.
former-republican
Sep 2012
#34
Well, when Ahmadinejad denied the Holocaust, and Netanyahu waved the Auchwitz plans at him,
Nye Bevan
Sep 2012
#80
Using a nuclear bomb on Israel would make the country uninhabitable for decades.
randome
Sep 2012
#59
I would think the capability of building those kind of delivery systems would take years.
randome
Sep 2012
#73
I agree, but Israel isn't going to allow that, so other opinions are irrelevant. n/t
Waiting For Everyman
Sep 2012
#81
In short, right or wrong, an attack on Iran will be a F'en mess for years. Another win for religion.
RKP5637
Sep 2012
#83
Oh, are we supposed to suspend posting about politics during Rosh Hashanah?
progressoid
Sep 2012
#110
Only religious fanatics and lunatics would ever use them....people like Harry Truman.
Tierra_y_Libertad
Sep 2012
#117
Surely you're not so naive as to think if Truman hadn't used them then no one else would have in the
cherokeeprogressive
Sep 2012
#132
Because until it was used the first time, no one really knew what it was capable of.
cherokeeprogressive
Sep 2012
#134
I'm guessing it's possible the Bomb Damage Assessments were inconclusive.
cherokeeprogressive
Sep 2012
#170