@Nastarana

#2.1.1 rests on allegations that British Zionists in high places convinced that convinced the British Govt. in about 1916 that if the allied forces could hang on a bit longer, world wide Zionists would convince/provoke/persuade(take your pick) the then neutral USA to intervene. No link, this is not necessarily a story to which I give much credence.

@arendt I am inclined to think that American Jewish agitation might have been part of the push for intervention, but only part. Many American fortunes were made selling arms--the Bush family's for one. Then, Wilson, a Southern white supremacist, trained at divinity school, Harvard was it?, and one of our worst presidents, IMHO, craved the role of taking enlightenment to Europe's huddled masses. I think he may have had that messianic self righteousness bug worse than GWB.

Then, too, I think there were those who saw a chance to repay what we owed to France.

#2.1.1

The British had a strong Christian Evangelical movement that championed Zionism. Late in the war, when UK was exhausted they floated the Balfour Declaration to engage American support, and after the war used it to control Palestine.

Here is some material that I posted at JPR, which promptly got me thrown out for daring to insist that it was a historical fact that Zionism was originally a pro-Israel movement, not a mere curseword synonymous with (insert your favorite Jewish insult here).

If I get any static about the historical truth of these facts, I will simply be silent. I have gotten fingers chopped off in IP "debates" before. I would rather be have my face eaten by weasels than endure that again.

Thus the view from Whitehall early in 1916: If defeat was not imminent, neither was victory; and the outcome of the war of attrition on the Western Front could not be predicted. The colossal forces in a death-grip across Europe and in Eurasia appeared to have canceled each other out. Only the addition of significant new forces on one side or the other seemed likely to tip the scale. Britain's willingness, beginning early in 1916, to explore seriously some kind of arrangement with "world Jewry" or "Great Jewry" must be understood in this context.[44]

At a War Cabinet meeting, held on 31 October 1917, Balfour suggested that a declaration favourable to Zionist aspirations would allow Great Britain "to carry on extremely useful propaganda both in Russia and America."[45] The cabinet believed that expressing support would appeal to Jews in Germany and America, and help the war effort;[46] they also hoped to encourage support from the large Jewish population in Russia.[45]

According to James Renton, Senior Lecturer at Edge Hill University, and author of The Zionist Masquerade: the Birth of the Anglo-Zionist Alliance: 1914–1918, Prime Minister David Lloyd George of the United Kingdom supported the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine because "it would help secure post-war British control of Palestine, which was strategically important as a buffer to Egypt and the Suez Canal."[47]

Donald M. Lewis. The Origins of Christian Zionism: Lord Shaftesbury and Evangelical Support for a Jewish Homeland. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. xiii + 365 pp. $90.00 (cloth), ISBN 978-0-521-51518-4.

And, just as today, there were realists in the government who realized what a bad idea this was.

In October 1919, Lord Curzon succeeded Balfour as Foreign Secretary. Curzon had opposed the Declaration prior to its publication and therefore determined to pursue a policy in line with its "narrower and more prudent rather than the wider interpretation".[77] Following Bonar Law's appointment as Prime Minister in late 1922, Curzon wrote to Bonar Law that he regarded the Balfour Declaration as "the worst" of Britain's Middle East commitments and "a striking contradiction of our publicly declared principles."[78]

In August 1920, the report of the Palin Commission, the first in a long line of Commissions of Inquiry on the question of Palestine during the Mandate period,[79] noted that "The Balfour Declaration... is undoubtedly the starting point of the whole trouble".
British public and government opinion became increasingly less favourable to the commitment that had been made to Zionist policy. In February 1922, Winston Churchill telegraphed Herbert Samuel asking for cuts in expenditure

Donald M. Lewis. The Origins of Christian Zionism: Lord Shaftesbury and Evangelical Support for a Jewish Homeland. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. xiii + 365 pp. $90.00 (cloth), ISBN 978-0-521-51518-4.

These details are corroborated in "Paris, 1919":

Curzon spoke for many in the Foreign Office when he told Balfour, "Personally, I am so convinced that Palestine will be a rankling thorn in the flesh of whoever is charged with its Mandate, that I would withdraw from this responsibility while we yet can."

Churchill was usually sympathetic to Zionism, but he warned Lloyd George: "Palestine is costing us 6 millions a year to hold. The Zionist movement will cause continued friction with the Arabs. The French ensconced in Syria…are opposed to the Zionist movement and will try to cushion the Arabs off on to us as the real enemy."

(Note: "cushion off" seems to mean that the French will deflect the Arab anger onto the British.)

@arendt

perhaps a billiards or snooker allusion- in the sense of a carom off the bank

#2.1.1

The British had a strong Christian Evangelical movement that championed Zionism. Late in the war, when UK was exhausted they floated the Balfour Declaration to engage American support, and after the war used it to control Palestine.

Here is some material that I posted at JPR, which promptly got me thrown out for daring to insist that it was a historical fact that Zionism was originally a pro-Israel movement, not a mere curseword synonymous with (insert your favorite Jewish insult here).

If I get any static about the historical truth of these facts, I will simply be silent. I have gotten fingers chopped off in IP "debates" before. I would rather be have my face eaten by weasels than endure that again.

Thus the view from Whitehall early in 1916: If defeat was not imminent, neither was victory; and the outcome of the war of attrition on the Western Front could not be predicted. The colossal forces in a death-grip across Europe and in Eurasia appeared to have canceled each other out. Only the addition of significant new forces on one side or the other seemed likely to tip the scale. Britain's willingness, beginning early in 1916, to explore seriously some kind of arrangement with "world Jewry" or "Great Jewry" must be understood in this context.[44]

At a War Cabinet meeting, held on 31 October 1917, Balfour suggested that a declaration favourable to Zionist aspirations would allow Great Britain "to carry on extremely useful propaganda both in Russia and America."[45] The cabinet believed that expressing support would appeal to Jews in Germany and America, and help the war effort;[46] they also hoped to encourage support from the large Jewish population in Russia.[45]

According to James Renton, Senior Lecturer at Edge Hill University, and author of The Zionist Masquerade: the Birth of the Anglo-Zionist Alliance: 1914–1918, Prime Minister David Lloyd George of the United Kingdom supported the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine because "it would help secure post-war British control of Palestine, which was strategically important as a buffer to Egypt and the Suez Canal."[47]

Donald M. Lewis. The Origins of Christian Zionism: Lord Shaftesbury and Evangelical Support for a Jewish Homeland. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. xiii + 365 pp. $90.00 (cloth), ISBN 978-0-521-51518-4.

And, just as today, there were realists in the government who realized what a bad idea this was.

In October 1919, Lord Curzon succeeded Balfour as Foreign Secretary. Curzon had opposed the Declaration prior to its publication and therefore determined to pursue a policy in line with its "narrower and more prudent rather than the wider interpretation".[77] Following Bonar Law's appointment as Prime Minister in late 1922, Curzon wrote to Bonar Law that he regarded the Balfour Declaration as "the worst" of Britain's Middle East commitments and "a striking contradiction of our publicly declared principles."[78]

In August 1920, the report of the Palin Commission, the first in a long line of Commissions of Inquiry on the question of Palestine during the Mandate period,[79] noted that "The Balfour Declaration... is undoubtedly the starting point of the whole trouble".
British public and government opinion became increasingly less favourable to the commitment that had been made to Zionist policy. In February 1922, Winston Churchill telegraphed Herbert Samuel asking for cuts in expenditure

Donald M. Lewis. The Origins of Christian Zionism: Lord Shaftesbury and Evangelical Support for a Jewish Homeland. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010. xiii + 365 pp. $90.00 (cloth), ISBN 978-0-521-51518-4.

These details are corroborated in "Paris, 1919":

Curzon spoke for many in the Foreign Office when he told Balfour, "Personally, I am so convinced that Palestine will be a rankling thorn in the flesh of whoever is charged with its Mandate, that I would withdraw from this responsibility while we yet can."

Churchill was usually sympathetic to Zionism, but he warned Lloyd George: "Palestine is costing us 6 millions a year to hold. The Zionist movement will cause continued friction with the Arabs. The French ensconced in Syria…are opposed to the Zionist movement and will try to cushion the Arabs off on to us as the real enemy."

(Note: "cushion off" seems to mean that the French will deflect the Arab anger onto the British.)

@snoopydawg that's why I unfortunately always take
that for granted. -sigh-

Bottom line Iraq was on dubya/cheney for whatever insane
reason they both nurtured.

#2.1.1

Sorry I can't find it. IIRC, the recent regime change wars was to make Israel the only superpower in the Middle East.
Apologies for not finding that link before I posted my comment.
My understanding of the Iraq war was because Saddam was going to use other currency than the US dollar. Bush might have wanted revenge for his attempt at killing his daddy, but I believe it was more for the oil.
Another reason we were given for the war was because Saddam had used chemical and biological weapons on his citizens.
There are plenty more countries that have killed their citizens or other crimes against humanity, but since they don't live on ToP of oil, we don't defend those people. Hell, we've put some of the dictators in office.

@snoopydawg

#2.1.1

Yeah. I finally found this.

https://zionistreport.com/2017/01/commentary-zionists-stabbed-germany-back/