You missed out on Ireland.
And Cyprus
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
Another similar example of this but different government is United Fruit(backed by US) and all the bloodshed and violence they caused. Look up their Banana Massacre section in their wikipedia entry.
Granted it’s not exactly the same playbook but it’s definitely from the imperialist portfolio, massive violence is always in the best interests of large industry close with their government.
Ok, how does this require Israel? I feel like conflict in the Muslim world is rather harmful to economic outlook.
deleted by creator
It was literally their stated strategy back when they were honest about their colonialism.
Also, divide and conquer is a strategy as old as warfare itself.
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.
Well the “one” state solution of East and West Pakistan was also not the best…
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?
???
Israel Palestine is famously NOT an actual 2 state solution.
Nor did the Brits implement what happened in Palestine. They couldn’t find a good solution referred the problem to the UN, the UN told them to get out, and so did both the Palestinians and the Jewish population, so they did, without actually implementing any solution themselves.
Israel Palestine is famously NOT an actual 2 state solution.
Israel-Palestine was famously an attempted 2-state solution, hence the '48 war.
Nor did the Brits implement what happened in Palestine. They couldn’t find a good solution referred the problem to the UN, the UN told them to get out, and so did both the Palestinians and the Jewish population, so they did, without actually implementing any solution themselves.
… except the Brits, by the provisions of the Balfour Declaration, spent a good ~30 years tepidly supporting the development of conditions for an emigrant Jewish state in Palestine. That they couldn’t find a good solution (or, rather, wanted to absolve themselves of having to make any decision in that shitshow) after destabilizing the region like that is not a “Whoops, guess it’s not our fault” moment.
On the whole, I don’t actually mean this to imply that the British Empire was some exceptionally monstrous entity. It resembled, largely, the average empire of the period; mostly neither better nor worse.
But these are major fuck-ups directly related to British intervention, and we’re memeing here, so it’s a little funny that they did it fucking twice.
Feel free to dab on the Americans or the French in response if you like, but this is a definite British fuck-up here.
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?
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
deleted by creator
