You need to read up on the history of Jewish-Christian relations since the death of Christ.
From what I understand it's mostly persecution of Jews, whether you look at Western Europe or Russia...?
Middle East Politics
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
From what I understand it's mostly persecution of Jews, whether you look at Western Europe or Russia...?
Yeah, of course there were times and places when the Jews were able to carve out space for themselves to survive in peace and sometimes even prosperity, but the 'highlights' of the run of the history are extremely ugly episodes of persecution, expulsions and massacres, the exception being modern-day Western Europe and the USA.
Some Israeli democracy in action
A lot of words, a lot of nonsense. To simplify, essentially what you are relying on is the phrase "establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people" and interpreting it in such a way as to mean a Jewish state in the whole of Palestine. But of course, that was never the intention of the drafters of the Mandate as explain by Lord Curzon, British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in 1920 https://www.juancole.com/2010/03/lord-curzon-on-palestine-as-class.html and later confirmed unequivocally in the White paper of 1939.
Yet the original Mandate suggested otherwise.
For example, Art. 5 of the Mandate reads:
"The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of, the Government of any foreign power."
Only when stripped of its meaning or context, is it possible in some cases to conceive of the preposition "in" of the phrase "in Palestine" to mean a part, and not the whole, of Palestine.
One can also draw a logical conclusion as to the meaning of the words "in Palestine" by examining the Mandate itself too.
One, the official title is the "Mandate for Palestine", which suggests the entire area.
Two, the Mandate is entrusted to a Mandatory to administer the "territory of Palestine", which is found in the first recital of the Preamble.
Three, another indication is the found in the fourth recital of the Preamble, where it states that the Principal Allied Powers selected the British to be Mandatory for "Palestine".
Four, Article 2 of the Mandate says that the Mandatory shall be responsible for
"placing the country" under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish National Home, as laid down in the Preamble.
Five, if we combine the first and fourth recitals of the Preamble, together with Article 2, then "Palestine", " Jewish National Home" and "country" must refer to the whole territory.
Six, the context of Article 2 supports the argument that the Jewish National Home is intended to cover the whole of Palestine as an undivided land.
Seven, the Mandate lacked any reference to collective political rights for the Arabs of Palestine. Indeed the only way the British could separate Transjordan was by inserting Article 25, a tailor made provision.
The Draft Mandate was approved by the British Cabinet on Nov. 29/30, 1920. The Draft was submitted to the League of Nations on Dec. 6th, 1920. But the confirmation of the Mandate was delayed for the guts of two years (July 24th, 1922) due to further revisions and amendments by the United States. In short, the content of Curzon's memo may not reflect the final Mandate.
I stand over my previous post. The language and context of the Mandate suggests the whole territory of Palestine would be the Jewish National Home.
Last edited:
The tweet is a shameful attempt at misleading the uninitiated reader. It has the uninitiated reader believing that there was functioning Palestinian Arab government. In reality, it is nothing more than a Mandatory issued document.
If readers look at the document and read the Mandate, they will see it for themselves.
One, the document was issued in 1943 during the Mandate period.
Two, note the signature of the then High Commissioner, Harold MacMichael, on the bottom of the document.
Three, the document is in English, Hebrew and Arabic, as required by Article 22 of the Mandate.
Four, the document is consistent Art. 7 of the Mandate, for "law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine." (Mandatory had legislative powers under Art. 1 of the Mandate).
"Documents revealed yesterday" also sounds a bit dodgy.
Protests in Iran, there are videos all over Twitter:
Seems to be a lot of chanting against specific figures (Rouhani, Khamenei, etc.) and Iran's general involvement abroad.
https://twitter.com/search?f=videos&vertical=news&q=iran protest&src=typd
Should state that some of the accounts posting these videos seem to be MEK.
That point hadn't occurred to me. But seeing as you raised it, I did a search on Google. That part of the tweet is true:
https://www.timesofisrael.com/archi...lation-offers-glimpse-of-founding-generation/
Most of Twitter saying the brothers have been 'retired' and are downplaying reports of an attempted coup.
This man MBS is becoming a menace. He seems to involved in most of the nefarious activities going on there including the Yemen disaster.
He's a young hothead with delusions of grandeur, hence why he genuinely believes he can dive deep into confrontation with Iran in Lebanon.
Hoping it'll be the undoing of the House of Saud. They've gotten too comfortable and complacent being under US protection, it's cultivated an arrogance and a false aura of invinicibility. You'd think Yemen would be a wake up call but apparently not.
Anyway, interesting times ahead.
From reddit:
This will inevitably lead to the overthrow of the government - in the same way as it would if, heaven forfend, there were mass protests against the government in the UK or USA.
Iranians rally in support of government and supreme leader
Thousands take to the streets following anti-government demonstrations in various cities sparked by economic concerns
People attend a pro-government rally in Tehran. Photograph: Ebrahim Noroozi/AP
Thousands take to the streets following anti-government demonstrations in various cities sparked by economic concerns
People attend a pro-government rally in Tehran. Photograph: Ebrahim Noroozi/AP
Supporters of Iran’s government and supreme leader have taken to the streets following protests sparked by anger over the country’s ailing economy that have taken place in major cities over the past two days.
The pro-government rallies on Saturday had been scheduled weeks earlier to commemorate mass demonstrations in 2009 that challenged those who had rejected the re-election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the country’s hardline president who faced fraud allegations.
They took on added significance, however, after the economic protests that began on Thursday, sparked by social media posts and a surge in the price of basic food supplies.
Thousands of people joined the protests, which began in Mashhad, Iran’s second-largest city. The demonstrations also took on a political edge as participants chanted criticism of the country’s president, Hassan Rouhani, and his government. Social media videos showed clashes between protesters and police.
The semi-official Fars news agency said protests had spread on Friday to Qom, the world’s leading centre for Shia scholarship and home to a major shrine.
The demonstrations appear to be the largest wave of protest since nationwide pro-reform unrest in 2009, when the Green Movement arose after Ahmadinejad’s re-election.
Police arrested some protesters, but the country’s Revolutionary Guard and its affiliates have not intervened as they have in other unauthorised demonstrations since the 2009 election.
Washington said it strongly condemned the arrests and was monitoring the protests. The state department spokeswoman Heather Nauert said in a statement that the US urged “all nations to publicly support the Iranian people and their demands for basic rights and an end to corruption”.
Donald Trump tweeted his support for the protests early on Saturday:
It was unclear whether the US’s president’s intervention would have any impact. Iranians are largely skeptical about him because of his refusal to recertify the nuclear deal. Trump’s insistence in an October speech on using the term “Arabian Gulf” also touched a nerve.
Saturday’s pro-government demonstrations were aired live on state television from across the country, showing people waving flags and carrying banners bearing the image of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
About 4,000 people gathered at the Musalla prayer ground in central Tehran. They called for criminal trials for Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mahdi Karroubi, the lGreen Movement leaders who have been under house arrest since 2011. Rouhani, whose administration struck the 2015 nuclear deal with world powers, campaigned on freeing the men, though they remain detained.
Iran’s economy has improved since the nuclear deal, under which the country agreed to limit its enrichment of uranium in exchange for the end of some international sanctions. Tehran now sells oil on the global market and has signed deals worth tens of billions of dollars for western aircraft.
The improvement has not, however, filtered down to the average Iranian. Unemployment remains high and official inflation has crept back up to 10%. A recent increase of up to 40% in the price of eggs and poultry, which a government spokesman blamed on a cull due to avian flu fears, appears to have sparked the protests.
The pro-government rallies on Saturday had been scheduled weeks earlier to commemorate mass demonstrations in 2009 that challenged those who had rejected the re-election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the country’s hardline president who faced fraud allegations.
They took on added significance, however, after the economic protests that began on Thursday, sparked by social media posts and a surge in the price of basic food supplies.
Thousands of people joined the protests, which began in Mashhad, Iran’s second-largest city. The demonstrations also took on a political edge as participants chanted criticism of the country’s president, Hassan Rouhani, and his government. Social media videos showed clashes between protesters and police.
The semi-official Fars news agency said protests had spread on Friday to Qom, the world’s leading centre for Shia scholarship and home to a major shrine.
The demonstrations appear to be the largest wave of protest since nationwide pro-reform unrest in 2009, when the Green Movement arose after Ahmadinejad’s re-election.
Police arrested some protesters, but the country’s Revolutionary Guard and its affiliates have not intervened as they have in other unauthorised demonstrations since the 2009 election.
Washington said it strongly condemned the arrests and was monitoring the protests. The state department spokeswoman Heather Nauert said in a statement that the US urged “all nations to publicly support the Iranian people and their demands for basic rights and an end to corruption”.
Donald Trump tweeted his support for the protests early on Saturday:
It was unclear whether the US’s president’s intervention would have any impact. Iranians are largely skeptical about him because of his refusal to recertify the nuclear deal. Trump’s insistence in an October speech on using the term “Arabian Gulf” also touched a nerve.
Saturday’s pro-government demonstrations were aired live on state television from across the country, showing people waving flags and carrying banners bearing the image of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
About 4,000 people gathered at the Musalla prayer ground in central Tehran. They called for criminal trials for Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mahdi Karroubi, the lGreen Movement leaders who have been under house arrest since 2011. Rouhani, whose administration struck the 2015 nuclear deal with world powers, campaigned on freeing the men, though they remain detained.
Iran’s economy has improved since the nuclear deal, under which the country agreed to limit its enrichment of uranium in exchange for the end of some international sanctions. Tehran now sells oil on the global market and has signed deals worth tens of billions of dollars for western aircraft.
The improvement has not, however, filtered down to the average Iranian. Unemployment remains high and official inflation has crept back up to 10%. A recent increase of up to 40% in the price of eggs and poultry, which a government spokesman blamed on a cull due to avian flu fears, appears to have sparked the protests.
Unverified reports and videos suggesting that the (anti-gov) rallies have spread to Tehran and across most of the country today, and reports of police gunfire and some deaths in provincial areas. Wondering at what point should we start taking this a bit more seriously.
Given the fact that Trump, who usually doesn't care about domestic squabbles in other countries, has already tweeted about it; I'd say its being taken seriously now.
There are videos circulating around twitter of the protests, some of them quite graphic (the shot protesters). It's hard to know the scale of the protests though given how closed off the country is. And for the people to overthrow a government like Iran's it's going to take large numbers or they'll get easily overrun.
Irans on his shitlist. Of course he's tweeting about it.
Trump's opinion or statements on the matter mean nothing to me, or to the average Iranian I'd guess.
Hasn't quite reached tearing down statues anger yet, but the posters seem to be taking a good ripping.
What's causing the unrest? Is it economic?
US reaction will of course matter - as will that of regional countries.
Catchy chant
Yes but it has no bearing on the actual seriousness or extent of the protests, which is what we're all trying to grasp right now. Very hard to get a proper feel for the situation, especially with Twitter and Facebook banned in Iran and the understandable but perhaps misleading over-enthusiasm of some in the Iranian diaspora who are pushing the narrative of a revolution-in-waiting.
I'd say this is as serious as it was a few years ago during previous elections. A signiicant majority of the population are below 30 and want greater say in their governance. Its inevitable that Iran (and Russia) flip at some point in the very near future.
I've watched a good 100 videos of the protests so far and none of them have more than a few hundred people at any given site. They'll need to get a lot bigger if it's going to be successful.