 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
Between the British and the Israelis: What is it about the Middle East that the British don’t understand?
The attitude of the British to Israel may seem baffling. The British initially helped to facilitate the creation of Israel; they backed away when the Arab
protested eventually abandoning the area. They supported the UN two state solutions in the region which the Arabs rejected. They witnessed the
Arabs countries annexing ‘Palestinian’ land after the 1948 war and how they lost the territories in warring against Israel in 1967. They watched as
the Palestinian Liberation Organization used Lebanon before 1982 as a launch pad to attack Israel. Now a majority of the British like most of their
European counterpart views Israel as aggressors in a war that they did not start, and occupiers in on territories that were taken in the defence of
their very existence. In the recent conflict with Hezbollah, some British were actually behaving as if they wish Hezbollah will defeat and occupy Israel.
The BBC was like a satellite of Almanar (Hezbollah) Television; Reporters like Robert Frisk of the UK Independent and Alex Rossi of Sky News
dishing out biased reports. Many people called on Tony Blair to break with the United States, condemn Israel and call for a cease fire. 1000
academics who seem to know no history signed a declaration condemning Israel. Thank God (if they believe in one) they have a smart Prime
Minister; otherwise they would have realised the irrelevance of their country on the World stage. And you keep asking; exactly what part of the Middle
East history the British do not understand?
Before the creation of Israel in 1947 as a nation state there was no modern country called Israel and there was no country called Palestine. These
two names only exist as a matter of ancient history. The British captured the whole region comprising the present day Israel and the areas occupied
by the Palestinians from the Ottoman Empire in 1918. Before that event the British, had through what is known has the Balfour Declaration,
promised to establish a homeland for the Jews who also constituted a fraction of the people represented in the region. However under the British
mandate and during the holocaust in Germany the British tried to stem the tide of Jews fleeing to Palestine from the pogrom; sending them instead
to Cyprus and other parts of Europe because of Arab concerns. World opinion was against this action taken by the British. However the British
attempt to please the Arab came too late as many desperate Jews still found their way to Palestine. In this scenario was sown the modern day Arab
hatred for the Jews.
The British abandon their mandate in the area in 1947 (apparently hoping the Arabs would annihilate the Jews and the problem would be solved?
That was not however the case). The UN decided on a two state solution in the region as a way to stop the spiralling conflict between the Arab and
the Jews. This plan was supported by the UK as one of the Great Powers then. Majority of the Jews supported the idea while the Arabs rejected it
outright. On the date of the British withdrawal, the Jews declared the creation of the state of Israel.
The neighbouring Arab countries of Egypt, Syria, Transjordan, Lebanon and Iraq, supported by others immediately attacked Israel but lost the
ensuing war. Following this war an agreement was reached between the warring parties. However instead of allowing for the creation of a Palestine
State, the Arab countries decided to annex the land upon which a Palestinian state could have been created. Jordan took a large chunk of land
including East Jerusalem and the West Bank. Egypt captured Gaza strip. In 1967, Egypt, Jordan Syria and Iraq again decided to go to war with Israel
(Six day War). Following their defeat by Israel, they lost territories including the West Bank, Gaza Strip, the Golan Heights and the Sinai Peninsula to
Israel.
So who prevented the creation of a Palestinian States? People should read their history.
The problem in the Middle East started primarily as a result of the duplicity of the British in the Middle East. Instead of facing reality they still follow
the path of duplicity. Blaming Israel for fighting back when attacked; blaming foreign policy when their citizens turn terrorists; blaming Tony Blair
when their untrained children turn into hooded gangsters.
Many intractable conflicts in Africa today are as a result of the duplicity of the Europeans in Africa. The British have stored up explosive problem for
the future in countries like Nigeria. They have no real solution to any problem. Yet they keep blaming the US for everything. (I guess they are actually
envious of the Americans)
The lesson in all of this is that international politics is not discussing the weather or celebrity gossip or following the Royal’s story. The British
should be worrying about the nest of terrorists festering in their country. (They should in fact realize that it is not about foreign policy, the
fundamentalist probably take a look at them and think: we can snatch this country from this sex crazed, celebrity worshipping, drug infested,
‘godless’ people and make it part of Andalusia!) Or are the Brits hoping to sacrifice Israel for ‘peace’?
(c) 2006 Olufemi Amao
The attitude of the British to Israel may seem baffling. The British initially helped to facilitate the creation of Israel; they backed away when the Arab
protested eventually abandoning the area. They supported the UN two state solutions in the region which the Arabs rejected. They witnessed the
Arabs countries annexing ‘Palestinian’ land after the 1948 war and how they lost the territories in warring against Israel in 1967. They watched as
the Palestinian Liberation Organization used Lebanon before 1982 as a launch pad to attack Israel. Now a majority of the British like most of their
European counterpart views Israel as aggressors in a war that they did not start, and occupiers in on territories that were taken in the defence of
their very existence. In the recent conflict with Hezbollah, some British were actually behaving as if they wish Hezbollah will defeat and occupy Israel.
The BBC was like a satellite of Almanar (Hezbollah) Television; Reporters like Robert Frisk of the UK Independent and Alex Rossi of Sky News
dishing out biased reports. Many people called on Tony Blair to break with the United States, condemn Israel and call for a cease fire. 1000
academics who seem to know no history signed a declaration condemning Israel. Thank God (if they believe in one) they have a smart Prime
Minister; otherwise they would have realised the irrelevance of their country on the World stage. And you keep asking; exactly what part of the Middle
East history the British do not understand?
Before the creation of Israel in 1947 as a nation state there was no modern country called Israel and there was no country called Palestine. These
two names only exist as a matter of ancient history. The British captured the whole region comprising the present day Israel and the areas occupied
by the Palestinians from the Ottoman Empire in 1918. Before that event the British, had through what is known has the Balfour Declaration,
promised to establish a homeland for the Jews who also constituted a fraction of the people represented in the region. However under the British
mandate and during the holocaust in Germany the British tried to stem the tide of Jews fleeing to Palestine from the pogrom; sending them instead
to Cyprus and other parts of Europe because of Arab concerns. World opinion was against this action taken by the British. However the British
attempt to please the Arab came too late as many desperate Jews still found their way to Palestine. In this scenario was sown the modern day Arab
hatred for the Jews.
The British abandon their mandate in the area in 1947 (apparently hoping the Arabs would annihilate the Jews and the problem would be solved?
That was not however the case). The UN decided on a two state solution in the region as a way to stop the spiralling conflict between the Arab and
the Jews. This plan was supported by the UK as one of the Great Powers then. Majority of the Jews supported the idea while the Arabs rejected it
outright. On the date of the British withdrawal, the Jews declared the creation of the state of Israel.
The neighbouring Arab countries of Egypt, Syria, Transjordan, Lebanon and Iraq, supported by others immediately attacked Israel but lost the
ensuing war. Following this war an agreement was reached between the warring parties. However instead of allowing for the creation of a Palestine
State, the Arab countries decided to annex the land upon which a Palestinian state could have been created. Jordan took a large chunk of land
including East Jerusalem and the West Bank. Egypt captured Gaza strip. In 1967, Egypt, Jordan Syria and Iraq again decided to go to war with Israel
(Six day War). Following their defeat by Israel, they lost territories including the West Bank, Gaza Strip, the Golan Heights and the Sinai Peninsula to
Israel.
So who prevented the creation of a Palestinian States? People should read their history.
The problem in the Middle East started primarily as a result of the duplicity of the British in the Middle East. Instead of facing reality they still follow
the path of duplicity. Blaming Israel for fighting back when attacked; blaming foreign policy when their citizens turn terrorists; blaming Tony Blair
when their untrained children turn into hooded gangsters.
Many intractable conflicts in Africa today are as a result of the duplicity of the Europeans in Africa. The British have stored up explosive problem for
the future in countries like Nigeria. They have no real solution to any problem. Yet they keep blaming the US for everything. (I guess they are actually
envious of the Americans)
The lesson in all of this is that international politics is not discussing the weather or celebrity gossip or following the Royal’s story. The British
should be worrying about the nest of terrorists festering in their country. (They should in fact realize that it is not about foreign policy, the
fundamentalist probably take a look at them and think: we can snatch this country from this sex crazed, celebrity worshipping, drug infested,
‘godless’ people and make it part of Andalusia!) Or are the Brits hoping to sacrifice Israel for ‘peace’?
(c) 2006 Olufemi Amao
ANALYSING THE ‘STRATEGIC VICTORY’ OF HEZBOLLAH IN THE ISRAELI- HEZBOLLAH CONFLICT
A 34 days bloody war have just ended in the Middle East between the soldiers of the state of Israel and the
‘fighters/resistances/terrorists’ (depending on who is speaking) Hezbollah of Lebanon. Close to 1000
Lebanese lost their lives, undisclosed numbers of Hezbollah men were killed; the whole of South Lebanon and
South Beirut were left in ruins. Israel lost 118 soldiers, 41 civilians and several buildings brought down by
Hezbollah rockets. Hezbollah leader declared a strategic victory. Fireworks went out all over Beirut. The
question is what has Hezbollah won? Read more
Also published on opinioneditorials.com on 17/08/06: http://www.opinioneditorials.
com/freedomwriters/oamao_20060817.html
A 34 days bloody war have just ended in the Middle East between the soldiers of the state of Israel and the
‘fighters/resistances/terrorists’ (depending on who is speaking) Hezbollah of Lebanon. Close to 1000
Lebanese lost their lives, undisclosed numbers of Hezbollah men were killed; the whole of South Lebanon and
South Beirut were left in ruins. Israel lost 118 soldiers, 41 civilians and several buildings brought down by
Hezbollah rockets. Hezbollah leader declared a strategic victory. Fireworks went out all over Beirut. The
question is what has Hezbollah won? Read more
Also published on opinioneditorials.com on 17/08/06: http://www.opinioneditorials.
com/freedomwriters/oamao_20060817.html
UK AND WORLD AFFAIRS
| The Sixty One Irish Academics and the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict The enormity of the dispute between the Israelis and the Palestinians is not in doubt. I presume that every right thinking person knows or should know that achieving peace between Israel and Palestine is non negotiable. But how each nation state and institutions within each state contribute to the search for solution must be subjected to careful scrutiny so that we would be able to appreciate the contribution of every initiative to the solution or otherwise of the problem. The news in the last few days is that 61 Irish Academics have called on the European Union to impose a moratorium of financial supports on Israel until it ends the ‘occupation of Palestinian territories’. Quite apart from this incident there have been attempt to isolate Israel culturally and some are working hard to discourage people from buying Israeli products. Taking such drastic step as the 61 Irish academics propose presupposes that Israel is in the wrong. While many Europeans have accused the US of being biased in favour of Israel in its several attempts to end the Middle East crisis, it is curious to observe that the alternative approach coming out of Europe is not to be impartial but to demonize Israel. Assuming that the US is wrong in its approach, is Europe any better by taking the other extreme? When people make allegations of occupation against Israel they tend to ignore the history leading to the alleged occupation and conveniently cast Israel as an aggressor. The Irish academics talked about Israel withdrawing from occupied territories. Such nebulous position is unhelpful. They should clarify what they mean by occupied territories: Is it has defined by Hezbollah and Iran in which case Israel should not be in that region at all? Or by Hamas? Some have likened the situation in the Middles East to Apartheid South Africa. But any diligent student of history will know that South Africa was a case of foreigners taking over land to which they have no historical linkage and attempted to racially segregate the black original owners of the land. You cannot say the same of the Israelis. The problem in the Middle East is not a race issue neither is it religious. Unfortunately many have struggled to turn the problem into what it is not. Arabs live in Israel, work in Israel, worship freely in Israel and participate in government in Israel. In how many Middle East countries can you say the same of Israelis? What is needed in the Middle East is ideas on how to delineate a two state solution and let the extremist on all sides know that wishing the other out of existence is not on the table. If some Europeans have some better ideas than the US let them work it out. But attacking the US and calling for needless boycott is unhelpful. And may I observe that if push come to shove Israel would probably survive despite the boycott from some certain quarters. 26/06/2006 Also published in opinioneditorials.com http://www.opinioneditorials.com/freedomwriters/oamao_20060926.html |
| Breaking News! Now published by Routledge: Corporate Social Responsibility, Human Rights and the Law: Multinational Corporations in Developing Countries by Olufemi Amao This book explores the interface between CSR, human rights and the law in the context of multinational corporations in developing countries. Order on Amazon.co.uk. |
| Reviewing the UK 2010 Election : Mugabe Elements As a commonwealth citizen, I voted for the second time in the UK election this year. That is 50% more times than I have voted in elections in my country having decided in 1993 to stop voting. (What is the point in voting in fraudulent and corrupt elections?) It is a refreshing experience for me to cast my vote here knowing that it will be counted. All credit to the British people and their electoral system. (I heard some people in the course of the election comparing the British system to Kenya or even Zimbabwe! I am sure those people don’t know what they are talking about. In those countries they count dead bodies not votes!) However, there are some ‘Mugabe’ elements in this election: 1. A partisan and biased media doing the bidding of unseen masters exemplified by Adam Boulton of Sky News’ one sided and aggressive style of reporting. (By the way I have completely lost all respect for Sky News) 2. Suspiciously skewed opinion polls deployed tactically to shape outcome of events 3. Disenfranchisement of some voters on the night of the election 4. The obsession with the market as opposed to people 14/05/09 |
| Mugabe Style taking root? It has been reported that the new prime minister, David Cameron is tinkering with the electoral rules to ensure that his coalition government survives even if it loses its majority! Now this is real Mugabe style politics in a western country! Somebody is learning some few tricks from African despots! 15/05/10 |
