Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

zollandd t1_jcp0upg wrote

Reply to comment by ChemoDrugs in TIL that a famine in Persia (Iran) between 1917–1919 lead to the deaths of an estimated 2 million people. It's an event that hasn't been studied by many historians. by icantthinkofaname940

I agree, no reason to down vote a clarification.

Although, I do think the limit had it's reasons which were arguably quite just. England played a large role in both the spike in Zionism and the decision of Palestine being the location for the new Jewish state. Until they pulled out (immigrants pushing them out) they were overseeing the migration. The indigenous peoples were justifiably upset once they felt the repercussions of the immigration and once they were able to actually read the Balfour declaration and British Mandate. The limit was an agreement between the Palestinians and England.

I think it is more appropriate to censure England for not allowing more refugees into their own country rather than being upset at how few they funneled into someone else's land.

2

ChemoDrugs t1_jcpjqjk wrote

But both can be true. All the allies, not just Britain should have done more. And Britain had plenty to gain by leaning more towards the arabic people. They took the land for money and they tried to maintain control for money. There is no other reason for them to be there other than that.

And if I came across hostile towards you, completely unintentional. Just adding to the conversation.

−1

operating5percpower t1_jcraptw wrote

The British didn't take Palestine for money it literally cost the British tax payer money to hold Palestine. Seeing everything capitalist country do through the eyes of making money is a blind spot that has led to Marxist academic who use such perspective miss calculating the path of event time and again.

1

ChemoDrugs t1_jcrcxdy wrote

Then why did they take over Palestine? What is the end goal if it’s not money?

1