You must log in or register to comment.
I’m sorry, but they succeeded in both cases, as did the other colonial powers retreating from Asia, Africa, and elsewhere.
The plan was to leave behind regions that could never compete and would be forever unstable.
I always see stuff like this about borders and it makes me wonder what people think the actual borders should be, do people think the borders are obvious? Or does everyone agree 1 state is the solution?
deleted by creator
Separating the cows from the pigs makes sense on a farm, but human beings aren’t cows and pigs. There’s no reason humans should be segregated by ethnicity or religion. Hindus and Muslims are perfectly capable of living together peacefully. Jews and Arabs are perfectly capable of living together peacefully.
What are you saying then? Because it just sounds like you avoided answering a difficult question but judging another decision. Which is my point.
Or are you simply advocating for a world with no boundaries at all?
I prefer a zero state solution, but one state is better than two
To be “fair” to the Brits on both counts, it’s not that partition leads to violence, it’s that colonialism leads to violence.
A lot of things lead to violence. We’re a violent species.
In both examples one of the two states is split geographically which guarantees conflict over the ability to physically move between parts of that state.
deleted by creator
I was under the impression that drawing the lines so as to create never ending conflict was the intention?
Sorry, but what are you talking about? The violence IS the success. Why do you think the British government would have wanted a non violent solution?
What benefit does war in Israel bring? Not every thing that goes horribly wrong was intended to go that wrong.
Destablizing the middle east so its easier to extract oil for… checks notes British Petroluem?
That’s a giant reach.
In April 1951, the Iranian government nationalised the Iranian oil industry by unanimous vote, and the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC) was formed, displacing the AIOC.[44][45] The AIOC withdrew its management from Iran, and Britain organised an effective worldwide embargo of Iranian oil. The British government, which owned the AIOC, contested the nationalisation at the International Court of Justice at The Hague, but its complaint was dismissed.
Prime Minister Churchill asked President Eisenhower for help in overthrowing Mossadeq. The anti-Mossadeq plan was orchestrated under the code-name ‘Operation Ajax’ by CIA, and ‘Operation Boot’ by SIS (MI6). The CIA and the British helped stage a coup in August 1953, the 1953 Iranian coup d’état, which established pro-Western general Fazlollah Zahedi as the new PM, and greatly strengthened the political power of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. The AIOC was able to return to Iran. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BP
AIOC = Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, later known as BP in 1954
Ok, how does this require Israel? I feel like conflict in the Muslim world is rather harmful to economic outlook.
