[ArtAllm]

So there's no evidence that the Balfour declaration in any way influenced German or Austro-Hungarain Jews and caused them to become less patriotic. If should also be remembered that inter war German Conservative spent a lot of time whining about Jewish Bolshevism. Um remind me again, who ferried Lenin in a sealed train? Who stuffed Lenin's pockets with gold so he could overthrow the established Conservative order? Who made a peace deal with the Bolsheviks when they could have swatted them away like a fly.

Yes, many German Jews were really German patriots, they were innocent victims of the NS-regime.

Yes, the support of Bolsheviks by the German Kaiser was immoral.

But what has this to do with my arguments about the land theft in Palestine and the cooperation between Zionists and Brits in WWI?

Do you agree that this cooperation was due to the fact, that Zionists needed Palestine, and that they believed that Brits are the better partners for their plan?

If Zionists decided that Germans can conquer for them Palestine (that was impossible, because Turks were the allies of Germans), then USA would never got involved in WWI, Britain would have signed a peace treaty with Germany, there would be no WWII, and the whole history would be totally different.

Can you refute these arguments?

In the new British strategic thinking, the Zionists appeared as a potential ally capable of safeguarding British imperial interests in the region. Furthermore, as British war prospects dimmed throughout 1917, the War Cabinet calculated that supporting a Jewish entity in Palestine would mobilize America's influential Jewish community to support United States intervention in the war and sway the large number of Jewish Bolsheviks who participated in the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution to keep Russia in the war.

Fears were also voiced in the Foreign Office that if Britain did not come out in favor of a Jewish entity in Palestine the Germans would preempt them.
Finally, both Lloyd George and Balfour were devout churchgoers who attached great religious significance to the proposed reinstatement of the Jews in their ancient homeland.

...

The Balfour Declaration radically changed the status of the Zionist movement. It promised support from a major world power and gave the Zionists international recognition. Zionism was transformed by the British pledge from a quixotic dream into a legitimate and achievable undertaking.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso ... y/ww1.html

[pugsville]

Though the Zionist used the argument that support for Zionism would have a political effect in the USA , and the British were to some expect semi convinced by the argument, it turned out to false. US entry into WW1 in no way was influenced by Zionism and the Balfour declaration.

[ArtAllm]

US entry into WW1 in no way was influenced by Zionism ...

Of course it was!
USA promised to remain neutral, the American media even supported Germans in the first year of WWI, because the owners of the American media believed that Russians are treating Jews worse than Germans.

Then, after Zionists reached a deal with Brits, the controlled media in the USA started the demonisation of Germans (Germans eat babies, crucify girls ant other nonsense), and that stampeded the Americans into a war, because American media started publishing the British war propaganda.

We could say the same effect in the Iraqi wars, after a wining women told the American audience that Saddam is killing babies or that Saddam is a threat to USA.

You have to bribe the politicians and to stampede the public into a war.
If you have enough money and control the major media, you can easily do that.

Much of the wartime publishing in Britain was in fact aimed at attracting American support.[16] A 1929 article in the The Nation asserted: "In 1916 the Allies were putting forth every possible atrocity story to win neutral sympathy and American support. We were fed every day [...] stories of Belgian children whose hands were cut off, the Canadian soldier who was crucified to a barn door, the nurses whose breasts were cut off, the German habit of distilling glycerine and fat from their dead in order to obtain lubricants; and all the rest."[16]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rape_o ... propaganda

[pugsville]

No the Jews in america were not organised or supportive of Zionism at the time. Most of the important , well connected or wealthy Jews were pretty much opposed to Zionism both tin Britain and the US. They were a asimulatists they wanted to be accepted as Britons or Americans who just happened to be Jewish and generally felt Zionist was a negative thing that promoted an anti-Semitic response. They did not change their behaviour because of the balfour declaration. Many of them did support settlements in Palestine and gave money for it or it Jewish chariries, but in the main they were opposed to political Zionism. (the triumph of Zionist activists in overcoming the opposition of rich and powerful Jews and the bulk of Jews in Britain and American is some ways very surprising)

American war propaganda was not driven by the Jewish issue. Other issues decided the issue. US economic interests were being hurt by the U boat warfare and in many ways tied the US to the Entente, support for which was just good business. The Germans were killing americans, (and US has always viewed it;s citizens as special and if they wish to sail through a war zone they expect others powers to do everything to ensure their safety).

[ArtAllm]

Well, leading Zionists in the USA and GB reached an agreement, and that is the only thing that matters. The "rank-and-file" Jews had to follow their leaders. Numbers do not matter, the influence of a few powerful Zionists matters.

And Luis Brandeis was an influential American Zionists, who was supported by American financial elite. He influenced Wilson, and that resulted in the Balfour Declaration and in the Paris Peace Conference.
The American Jewish Congress (a tool of Zionism) was created at the same time USA entered WWI, though Wilson was initially assuring that USA will not enter WW1.

While Wilson was assuring Americans that USA will remain neutral, Baruch was appointed as an adviser who became chairman of the War Industrial Board.

I have mentioned only two important figures, and how many players acted behind the scene?

[abu_rashid]

you wish the Arab armies have won one of their wars.

No, I do not wish this. You seem to wish me to wish this though. The Arab armies have no legitimacy, and them "winning" is irrelevant to me. In fact I'm glad they didn't win, lest they attain more legitimacy through their wins.

People like you shouted at the current dicators at the time to march their armies

I consider the Arab dictators to be worse than the Zionists themselves. Clearly you are unable to actually discuss my stated views, so you have resorted to fabricating some views for me, that you feel more comfortable debating against. Pathetic.

[pugsville]

Zionism in America was pretty underdeveloped and only really developed after the US entered the war. The leading Zionists were marginal figures within western Jewry, and almost unknown in financial circles. They were a small minority of western Jews, and almost all the powerful, rich , influential Jews were assimilationists who were pretty much inclined to oppose Zionism. It was only late in the war they managed to get organized and influential in Britain and that was more about the conversion of a few influential men to their cause (mainly non Jews) and in the main neutralization of traditional Jewish organizations.

Just read two books covering a lot of this ground
http://www.amazon.com/The-Balfour-Decla ... 1400065321
http://www.amazon.com/Zionism-Formative ... nism+vital


,

[ArtAllm]

The leading Zionists were marginal figures within western Jewry, and almost unknown in financial circles.

That may be your opinion, but you have to support your opinion with facts.

Untermyer advocated the Zionist liberation movement and was President of the Keren Hayesod, the agency through which the movement was then and still is conducted in America.[11]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Untermyer

Just read two books covering a lot of this ground
http://www.amazon.com/The-Balfour-Decla ... 1400065321
http://www.amazon.com/Zionism-Formative ... nism+vital

If you have really read these books, just provide quotes from them. Thank you.

The Jewish population of the USA increased about ten times between 1880 and 1920, with the immigration of poorer, more liberal and radical, "downtown", Eastern European immigrants fleeing persecution.

It was not until 1912, when the secular "people's lawyer" Louis Brandeis became involved in Zionism, just before the First World War, that Zionism gained significant support.[48]

By 1917, the American Provisional Executive Committee for General Zionist Affairs, which Brandeis chaired had increased American Zionist membership ten times to 200,000 members; "American Jewry thenceforth became the financial center for the world Zionist movement".[49]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Zionism

[pugsville]

How abpout scince you are the one bringing up teh assertion that you provide the evidence that it actually worked that way.

I have a look back when I havet ime but bit busy right now

[Rich]

interesting debate about the importance of Zionist jews in America declaring war on Germany. However even if they were important, I don't see what grounds Gemran Conservatives had for complaining about it. American Zionist Jews had as much right to follow their own selfish agenda in the conflict as everyone else. Every nations and faction had their agenda and special causes including those that stayed neutral.

[ArtAllm]

interesting debate about the importance of Zionist jews in America declaring war on Germany. However even if they were important, I don't see what grounds Gemran Conservatives had for complaining about it.

German conservatives do not complain about it, the discussion is about the creation of Israel.

American Zionist Jews had as much right to follow their own selfish agenda in the conflict as everyone else. Every nations and faction had their agenda and special causes including those that stayed neutral.

Well, Zionists belonged to different nations, and American Zionists were supposed to support the interests of the USA, British Zionists were supposed to support the interests of GB, Soviet Zionists were supposed to support the interests of SU.

There was no nation, called Israel, and Zionists used other nations they lived in, they betrayed these nations to support their own agenda.

There were no military or other miracles in the creation of Israel, because western nations and the SU were subverted by Zionists.

The question is, if the creation of Israel was in the interests of the nations that supported this proposal of UNO to give Palestinian land to Zionists.

You have to distinguish between private interests of politicians (who can be easily bribed), and the interests of the countries these politicians are supposed to represent.

That is what the discussion is about.