Recent comments in /f/todayilearned

zollandd t1_jcp0upg wrote

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

daveashaw t1_jcowuk0 wrote

They also didn't want an Arab revolt. The Jewish community leaders and the Arab community leaders would sit down regularly with the British authorities, who were just trying to stop stuff from getting blown up, both literally and figuratively. No wonder the British ran for the exits as soon as they could.

10

ChemoDrugs t1_jcor4dh wrote

The fact that they limited jewish asylum seekers trying to enter Palestine to just 15,000 a year during the late 1930’s through the 1940’s. Because money.

Edit: I’m not sure what you down voters expected other than a factual answer.

Edit 2: I’ll keep my statement but also admit to oversimplifying the complex problem.

−5

Impressive_Pin_7767 t1_jcnsgwf wrote

The British really fucked up the Middle East. In order to fight the Ottoman Empire that was in modern day Iran they recruited both Jewish people and Arabs and promised them both land in modern day Israel. Then when they were successful in defeating the Ottoman Empire, they refused to give either group the land they promised and their occupation of modern day Iran was so brutal that millions of people died.

76