Reflections on Israel, UN rule, terror groups and freedom fighters and tribalism.

Remove all ads!

What in the nine hells are you talking about?

Let me explain: Folke Bernadotte, Count of Wisborg had distinguished himself negotiating the release of about 31,000 prisoners from German concentration camps during World War II, including 423 Danish Jews. Because of his integrity and skill as a negotiator, he was unanimously chosen to be the United Nations Security Council mediator in the Arab-Israeli conflict of 1947-1948. He was assassinated in Jerusalem in 1948 by the militant Zionist group Lehi.

Bernadotte's sin was that he pursued the goal of establishing UN rule over British Mandate territory to defuse the conflict by injecting the UN as a neutral arbiter.

That was irreconcilable with the Zionist goal of the establishment of a Jewish state, so it was decided he had to die. The idea of UN rule died with him and the Israeli army creating facts on the ground. The UN never got a chance to botch anything since there never was UN rule in Israel or around it.

Just to complete the picture: Bernadotte's murder was ordered, among others, by future Prime Minister of Israel Yitzhak Shamir. Israel granted a general amnesty to Lehi members on February 14, 1949. In 1980 the group was honored by the institution of the Lehi ribbon, a military decoration awarded "for military service towards the establishment of the State of Israel".

A short while back I found this excellent commentary on the Jerusalem Post, titled Rattling the Cage: One man’s terrorist, that puts the murder of Bernadotte into context

On an unrelated note, try find such an article in an American Newspaper, let alone a conservative one.

h/t to Wiki

 

Hasn't this been the case all along? You are now painted, together with anyone who doesn't solely condemnt Palestinian violence, as a terrorist lover or even anti-semite. Any attempt at looking or describing the situation in Israel from a neutral stand point somehow puts you squarely in the Palestinian camp. I don't know if this is a conscious strategy but if it is it is very succesful and probably one of the great reasons why very little has happened and why Israel has had free reign for decades. Israel has plenty of supporters while the Palestinians, if they are lucky, have to rely on people who try to be neutral.

I don't think any discussion about this issue doesn't sooner or later end up in the people not supporting Israel 100% being called either terrorist sympathizer or anti-semite or both. It is very aggressive and it works, it keeps anyone critizising Israel in a reasonable manner on the defensive.

 

As per your suggestion, here's my response again:

Ragusa, Folke Bernadotte didn't come into things until the UN had already messed things up. And the League of Nations screwed things up before that. Of course, the whole area and issue was a mess even before that, but the international community (read: Europe) volunteered to stick it's nose into the region and ended up getting bitten. Specifically, they can probably be blamed (from certain perspectives) for starting both the Arab-Israeli War and the Six Day War (sparked over UN resolutions and propositions, but the powder keg was already there).

I'm not saying the UN is to blame for any of this, really, just that we've tried their rule and they didn't really do any better.

 

In the nine hells! Get your history straight!

NOG, you are aware that the United Nations (UN) were formed on January 1, 1942, about three weeks after Pearl Harbour - when Zionists and Arabs had already spent two decades taking turns in mutual violence? And then your reference to the League of Nations (LoN)? Yikes!

In 1923 the LoN, gave, to be very very brief, as a result of the Paris peace conference(s) (Keyword 'Versailles'; and subsequent conferences) that, among other things, also dismembered the Ottoman Empire, Palestine as mandate to Great Britain. In doing so they simply acknowledged the fact of the British conquest of 1917 and their subsequent military administration over the conquered territory. The succession of rule was from the Ottoman Empire straight to the Brits. That British control then was repackaged as a 'mandate' doesn't change that. If anyone screwed up, and I don't say that, it can only have been the Brits, or the Ottomans, but not the LoN. The LoN didn't even have hand let alone a say in what happened in Mandate Palestine.

While the UN after 1946 became a successor in spirit to the LoN, her origins lie elsewhere. The UN started as the the Atlantic Charter on January 1, 1942. It was Roosevelt who referred to it as the 'United Nations' - united against Japan and Germany. That is still manifest in the text of the UN Charter when it speaks of 'enemy states' (Art. 53 par. 2). To make it short as well, the death of Bernadotte made sure that UN rule never even got a chance to fix or screw up anything there.

You are badly conflating a lot of things (check title of post).

 

But the UN is such a great "talking point" for some who need a scapegoat for failed foreign policy. The historical detail and specifics are not as important as the overall idea that blame be assinged onto the outsiders who dare to "stick their noses" into such matters of international importance. The UN "botched it?" Well of course, enough said. The historical details on that matter?

 

Ragusa, while things aren't as simple as I said, they aren't as simple as you said either. Britain's mandate (through the LoN or not) fed directly into the UN's relationship with Israel. Britain did some terrible things to the Jews in Palestine under their 'mandate', insisted on continuing that mandate against a UN declaration, then surrendered the area to the surrounding Muslim nations, and when the UN comes in to settle things, they send... yet another Brit. You may wonder why the Zionists didn't cry for joy, but I don't.

 

NOG,
Bernadotte was a Swede. Just sayin' ...

 

As Ragusa said Bernadotte was a Swede and someone who helped save thousands of Jews from the holocaust and therefore the UN probably thought he was someone the Israelis would respect. To be quite frank Folke Bernadotte was probably the best possible choice to negotiate the situation and his credibility clearly was a threat to the Zionists who might be forced to compromise, so they decided to murder him instead.

Really, sometimes I have to wonder your eagerness to dispute an issue where your knowledge seems to be shaky at best.

 

Those pesky historical details again....

 

I read an article that had an interesting argument. he said that in order for peace to be achieved in the Middle East, everyone needs to forget what has or has not been done in the past and start working toward a solution that will bring peace and potential for everyone in the area. The author believed that such was possible, but incredibly difficult. He talked about problem solving techniques and such, and how problems rarely get solved by repeated, endless reiterations of past wrongs.

I agree with him, but I am less hopeful of it actually happening. I'll try to find the link.

 

as much as I'd like to agree, there will always be forces on both sides which will work to actively prevent it.

 

Another thing I wanted to say was that some people seem to suggest that if Israel took unilateral action and started playing 100% by the rules, things would change and their enemies would come around.

I think that's BS.

You simply cannot win at a game when you play by the rules all the time and your opponent cheats all the time. It's that simple. So in the face of people who would quite cheerfully violate every international law on the books without feeling any qualms, the Israeli's are in a really lousy, uncomfortable position. They too have to 'get dirty' from time to time in order to stay alive. To me, that's a cold, hard fact. To quote my previous post,

emphasis added for this post. Unilateral action on the part of the Israeli's will achieve nothing.

 

Well, I wouldn't worry, since we know that will never happen anyway.

 

... I could have sworn I read on Wikipedia or another online encyclopedia that Bernadotte was a British lord or something. Yeah, that does change things.

Ok, so the Brits screwed things up. Or, screwed things up more.

 

Who says it's the Arabs who are cheating? A strong case can be made that it is actually the other way around.

 

he didnt say that Israel are playing by the rules

what he said is that people want Israel to be the only side to take the action and in doing so they believe that this will all end, which of course is BS, the arabs will simply be in a better position to carry out their holy war against Israel.

 

Holy war? You mean the war to reclaim the land which they were living on before the Jews stole it?

 

which land and how long ago?

 

well, that land has switched hands alot over the past 30000 years, so I just wanted to know why you consider the land to belong to the Palestinians?
especially since the entire land of canaan was semitic about 4000 years ago and settled by 12 tribes of Israel, even Philistine was semitic.

so try for once to explain your position instead of attacking others, you dont seem to give a crap about the suffering of the people, more soemthing about ownership an government of a piece land.