Deception 2: The Balfour Deception

Peloni:  Here is the second installment of Joseph Shellim’s 12 Deceptions, an excerpt from his important work, “Philistine-To-Palestine”.  We are posting one Deception each, and here is a link to the previous installment:

Deception 1: The Name Deception

Joseph Shellim | October 5, 2024

Leopold Amery, Secretary to the British War Cabinet of 1917, testifies under oath to the Anglo American Committee of Inquiry in January 1946 in the approving of the Balfour Declaration, and of  Britain’s overturning of her pledge made to the Jews. Secretary Amery: 

• “The phrase ‘the establishment in Palestine of a National Home for the Jewish people’ was intended  and understood by all concerned to mean at the time of the Balfour Declaration that Palestine would  ultimately become a ‘Jewish Commonwealth’ or a ‘Jewish State’, if only Jews came and settled there  in sufficient numbers.” 

Jordan: A British Corruption. 
Emery’s claims thereby make the creation of Jordan, not Israel, as an entity borne of corruption, one  that emerged not by a nativity premise but of the overturning of a treaty by Britain. Namely, Emery is  saying Jordan is an illegal state created by the splitting of Palestine by dishonoring a legal treaty, and  thereby the charges on Israel as an occupier in Palestine are based on corruption. A 2-state division of  Palestine was not intended by the original Balfour Declaration. Indeed, the Jordanian monarch is a  Saudi with no connectivity of a heritage in Palestine, the land first allocated in as one only state for the  Jews; it is a British stratagem of ‘leave them fighting’ and ever in conflict. Nor was there any  requirement of a 22nd regime state in the Middle East. Emery’s testifying correctly aligned with Lord  Balfour’s views, as well as that of Churchill, the Emir Faisal and the response of betrayal by the Jews  to Britain’s flaunting of its treaty. 

Emery’s statement of oath marks the whole of Palestine as allocated for the Jews, with no mention of  divisions or of an Arab kingdom in Palestine. Its flaunting explains an array of deceptions targeting the  Jews, including Britain’s follow-up White Paper Policy and the creation of West Bank; thereby the  Balfour’s corruption did not occur because of the failure of Jews to settle in sufficient numbers; indeed, they were fully denied this option. Emery’s 1946 statement exposes the British guile that claims to wait  until the Jewish population increases, while also restraining it with its White Paper policy. Britain will  overturn any possibility of the Jews acquiring sufficient numbers in contradiction of the Balfour  Mandate; its actions will pursue the reverse. 

• Although the issue of the Balfour corruption is in a state of suppression and historical denial by  many, there is more than sufficient evidence Britain sold out the Jews when oil was discovered, then  encouraged the in-flow of Arabs in the land allocated for the Jews to settle, causing untold damage to  numerous other Arab and non-Arab groups in Arabia aside from the Jews. The creation of Jordan on  80% of the land pledged to the Jews for ‘one only Jewish state’ in Palestine affirms the Balfour  deception, one that will reduce the mandated home for the Jews to a dangerously minuscule size, then  extend this action with a series of de-legitimizing name changes, further land reductionisms and a mass  immigration of Arabs. That this was a catastrophic century of two world wars, with nations confronting  existential situations and the greatest loss of lives among all recorded warfare, Britain’s obsession and  determination of focusing on an insignificant home for the Jews is both inexplicable and self evident.  That Britain possessed a great disdain of a Jewish state, equating the Jews as equal enemies as the  Nazis, is given by Britain’s own representatives in de-classified archives. 

Christian Support of Britain. 
The enormity of the Balfour Declaration’s deception is grossly underplayed by the leaders in the  Christian community, one that has promoted a worldly opinion of its adverse provisions that became  comprehensively accepted by the Christian people. The hidden deceptions are seldom in the vista, thereby requiring persistent research encumbrances despite that Israel is made as one of the most  reported issues. It appears the result of both the political and theological impacts sustained from age old times, and ushered via the corruptions of solemn pledges. The Balfour corruption’s moral factor  was varied from a people also having possession of other countries to go to, as is seen of the Christian  and Islamic faiths; the Jews had no other country to go to other than a return to their historical home;  they were fleeing Europe and Arabia, with all Christian countries slamming their doors shut to Jews on  Britain’s dictates and they obliged its dictum. While Britain had bigger issues in Europe, and the Arabs  had likewise with the Ottomans, yet it is the Jews that become centre stage in this calamitous century.  Every Christian country turned refugee ships back to Germany. France will deport 75, 000 Jews to the  Nazi death camps. With Britain the instigator of barring Jews returning to Palestine, became the worst  offender with some half million Jewish lives denied:

• “British post-war immigration policy deliberately excluded Jews. The process was designed to keep  out large numbers of European Jews – perhaps 10 times as many as it let in. Around 70,000 had been  admitted by the outbreak of the war, but British Jewish associations had some half a million more case  files of those who had not.” – (We’ve been here before, Anne Karpf, The Guardian, 8 June 2002.) 

The flaunting of a solemn official pledge made before the world was not a necessary prudent deed  within a precarious world war scenario, but one bordering on a premise of annihilation. The barring  entry to Jews fleeing W.W.2 Europe emerged after the Balfour’s granting and the subsequent carving  away of 80% of Palestine, nullifying any justification of such an action; what is not accounted is  Britain’s own measures to justify its direction. The British actions are the definitive and substantial  cause of the Holocaust’s large human toll, and the sell-out to a Caliphate doctrine in Arabia; the latter  will also be the chief cause of the Caliphate’s global extension. The Balfour Declaration’s corruption  should be seen as an enormous error and as the primal cause and reasoning of this conflict. The world  would be a different one had Britain been halted from corrupting a solemn treaty made before the  nations. That this conflict’s true reason is not confronted and is flaunted from the discourse aligns why  this conflict’s resolving is far away and extending; it is un-feasible to negate what Britain so strongly  fostered and legitimized against the Jews in Arabia from its advance outside Arabia. 

The Balfour’s corruption also accounts for the aftermath of a conflict that continued and enlarged and  promises to continue impervious to any other means of restitution. Its cause has no alignment with  Israel or the Arab rejection syndrome, and should be directed solely to a British flaunting of its own  pledges and proclamations and those who supported its flaunting. Here, the resorting to Zionist plot  recourse is fully devoid of any credibility and only entrenches the deception of shying away of its true  causes; such applies even where the entire Middle East is seen as a Caliphate region, for this has  extending agendas. The Zionists executed positive agreements with the Arab sectors and were  welcomed as the sole benefactors of all of Palestine. The British decisions against the Jewish state are  conducive to other reasoning; the inflaming of a precarious situation’s exploiting as a war stratagem  can be retrospectively realized today. 

In 1920, three years after issuing its Balfour Declaration, the British overturned its formal pledge made  to the Jews, dividing the landmass of Palestine into two states containing what became Modern Israel  and a new state called Trans-Jordan; it was formalized as the Kingdom of Jordan in 1948 with the  British removing some 80% of Palestine, defining its action as a ‘historic 2-state compromise’.  Significantly of this proclamation, the term ‘Arabs’ is used for the people of Jordan, affirming they  were not known or regarded as ‘Palestinians’ in this juncture of the 20th Century. Although some  previous Arab rejectionist movements attempted to align themselves to the name Palestine, the  usurping of this name as a propaganda strategy was initiated by Arafat in the 1960’s, a protégé of Hajj Amin. In 1948, the name ‘Palestine’ was aligned only with the Jews and the land allocated for them  when the Kingdom of Jordan was created.

• “Before local Jews began calling themselves Israelis in 1948 (when the name “Israel” was chosen for  the newly-established Jewish State), the term “Palestine” applied almost exclusively to Jews and the  institutions founded by new Jewish immigrants in the first half of the 20th century, before the state’s  independence.” – (Eli E. Hertz; Myths and Facts) 

In 1948, Britain was not confused that the creation of Jordan was granted as a new implement, namely  a compromise of the Balfour Mandate’s one state in Palestine; it is the first time that ‘Two states’ are  called for in Palestine. Although Trans-Jordan was implemented in 1923, it was a deviation from the  Balfour Declaration of 1917 with the discovery of oil as its true cause, incurred at the expense of the  Jews as Britain’s soft target: 

• “In 1923 the British “chopped off 75% of the proposed Jewish Palestinian homeland to form an Arab  Palestinian nation of “Trans-Jordan,” meaning “across the Jordan River”. The British, due to the large  oil deposits being discovered throughout the Arab Middle East turned a blind eye (‘to Arab rejection of  a Jewish state’). Although Churchill stated that the Mandate “is not susceptible of change” the British  sliced 76% of the land, east of the Jordan River” – (The Division of the Mandate for Palestine;  Jerusalem Org). 

It is now known by the amendments that all of Palestine was marked as one only Jewish state; and that  the Balfour Declaration was overturned three months after the San Remo Conference by Britain, not  the Arabs: 

• The Treaty of San Remo and the Palestine Mandate. “At the allied conference at San Remo, in  April 1920, at which the Allied Powers determined the fate of the former Turkish possessions, the  Balfour Declaration was approved, and it was agreed that a mandate to Britain should be formally  given by the League of Nations over the area which now comprises Israel, Jordan and the Golan  Heights, which was to be called the “Mandate of Palestine”. The Balfour Declaration was to apply to  the whole of the mandated territory. The Treaty also contemplated an “appropriate Jewish agency” to  represent the Jewish population and this was established as the elected Jewish authority in Palestine  under the title of “the Jewish Agency”. (Conflicting Arab and Jewish Responses to the Balfour  Declaration; IJS Org) 
• “The treaty of San Remo which was ratified by the League of Nations in July 1922 was therefore  amended in September 1922. The British Mandate still extended over the whole of Palestine on both  sides of the Jordan River, but a clause was added excluding Transjordan from the operation of the  Balfour Declaration, which was therefore now limited to the western side of the river.” – (The Arab Israeli Conflict Part 2: Building Tension in Palestine 1918-1939) 
• “I want to underline that the primary objective of the Mandate for Palestine was to grant political  rights in respect to Palestine, to the Jewish people (later called as the UN). Following the conquering of  the Ottoman Empire in WW1, the rights of all the nations in Arabia were granted at the San Remo  Conference in 1920; 21 Arab states and one Jewish state were born here and ratified by the League if  Nations (later the UN), as binding and irreversible laws.” – (Dr. Jaques Gauthier; International Human  Rights lawyer and 25-year expert on Jerusalem under international law) 
• “The League of Nations voted on a very special resolution. It decided to give recognition to the  ‘historical rights of the Jewish people, to reconstitute their national home. They are recognizing a pre existing right and not creating a new right. In other words, the historical rights of the Jewish people to  this land were recognized by the great powers of the time.” – (Dore Gold, Former Israeli UN Amb.) 
• The new turning of the Balfour was proclaimed by Britain as a ‘compromise’. The overwhelmed  Jews had few choices here, except to display their deep shock at this new proclamation: 
• “It will be a historic compromise to grant two states in Palestine – one for the Jews and one for the  Arabs” – (Sir Winston Churchill)

What Compromise? 
The term ‘compromise’ for the removal of 80% of a small land underlines its inappropriate, even  confounding summation of Britain’s choice of words; it begs, what percentage is not a compromise?  Thereby, the creation of Jordan was the first 2-state division of this landmass and intended for ‘the  Arabs in Palestine’ – a people yet not called by its derivative adjective Palestinian; Churchill and other  British Ministers will confirm the Arabs are not natives but who descended as waves of new  immigrants in the land. Now, some 20% of the landmass was allocated for the Jews, namely all land  west, or trans (‘beyond’), of the Jordan River. Aside from Secretary Amery’s oath identifying the  Balfour Declaration was intended for one only Jewish state in Palestine, the continuing deception later  by the British condoning additional 2-states in the same landmass again, namely the support of a 3- state in the newly created West Bank and accounting this as a 2-state, exposes the first 2-state  deception. The usage of the term ‘historical compromise’ which removed 75% of the land allocated to  the Jews can thus be viewed as an infamy. 

The First Cause of the Conflict. 
The Balfour corruption, or the division of Palestine into new states and new regions, can well be  considered as the true cause of this conflict and the support of its underlined Caliphate. These divisions  diminished the land portions of the Jews by more than 78% in favor of the Arabs, although Palestine  was allocated as the national home of the Jews, and the Arabs accorded vast lands and countries in  Arabia; it also disregarded the agreements and declarations between the Arab and Zionist sectors that  accepted all of Palestine as one state for the Jews. In 1917 there was no stated premise or requirement  of Jordan in the Balfour Declaration, as indeed it should have been explicitly included; its absence  renders Jordan’s creation as a violation. An analogy is a home purchase contract which does not cater  to its sub-divisions. The situation does not change if the contract was altered by one party, and when its  recipient has no choice options. Nor was the name Palestinian referred to Arabs in these contracts;  these are the same people who Britain will later allocate the name it previously designated exclusively  to the Jews. 

When Arabs Became Palestinians. 
The 1960’s mark the juncture of the 20th Century when Jews are Palestinians, and Arabs are Arabs, and  the turnaround by the British of this name transfer. There is no recorded history of such a people; it is a  political decision that emerged from a meeting of Arab states at a conference initiated by Egypt’s  President Nasser in 1964; it will result in the focused name of the Palestinian Authority with Arafat its  leader. Thereby, prior to 1960, there was no Arab Palestinian nativity by this name or by any historical  census accounts when both Jordan and West Bank were created. Now, there was no illegal occupation  of Palestinian lands; the reverse is the case, whereby the historical and allocated lands of the Jews were  occupied by the Arabs, namely what became the West Bank now illegally occupied by Egypt and  Jordan. This was thus not about land, a factor fully known to Britain who will still support the name  and occupation of the West Bank; again, the Balfour deception becomes clearer throughout Britain’s  actions. Hereafter, Britain will fully endorse the transfer of the name Palestinian from Jews to Arabs,  arguably the greatest historical mendacity as her response to the Holocaust. 

Subsequent to the name Palestine being a heritage mark of Judea, the historical homeland of the Jews  till the 1960’s, its reversal underlies the inherent calamitous foundation of the position undertaken by  the British. The new designation of Arabs as Palestinians marks the premise Israel is illegally  occupying its own historical homeland; it is thereby also the cause of questioning Israel’s right to exist.  In effect, Israel is asked to forgo a 4,000-year heritage for a new one created in the 20th Century by  another people. Charging the Jews with denying their heritage is a fully misguided enterprise and clarifies the intractability of this conflict. Thereby, the Balfour corruption is the first and primal  deception of this conflict and should be viewed as a most foreboding agenda, one that requires its long  due merited exposition by the Christian community. 

Why Did Britain Create Jordan? 
The 2-state division of Palestine was and remains highly questionable of its requirement and why it  was implemented. Its exaggerated size allocation of land depletion did not cease. Soon thereafter,  Jordan illegal annexation west of the river also removed the most sacred land portions of the Jews; it  symbolized the geographical and heritage demise for the Jewish state. Despite the volatile scenario of  this region, Britain was not without adequate measures of response in rejecting the division of  Palestine. A host of new Arab states were created that did not make Jordan’s creation a requirement of  additional land at the expense of the Jews, nor were a host of other non-Arab inhabitants of this region  catered to by an additional Arab country in Palestine; they eagerly flocked to Palestine away from the  regime states created by Britain. 

Thereby ‘why create Jordan’ is a legitimate issue. It says that Britain given full control of this region as  performing inappropriately. The creation of Jordan had no connectivity with displaced peoples and  points only to Britain’s own interests. Jordan will bar the Arabs west of the river entry the first 2-state  division, contradicting the only reasoning given of its creation. 

Israel will hereafter lose her land and incur a refugee issue resultant from the most dubious causes of  any refugees in recorded history; thereby why did Britain create Jordan. The underlying reason for Britain creating Jordan is best understood by her own aggressive promotion of sending Arabs in this  region; a future deal had already been worked out of another state in Palestine. 

Now, land was the only facility the Arabs did not need, and the only one the Jews could not survive  without; they were fleeing both Europe and Arab controlled states in Arabia, both parties, Britain and  the Arabs being fully aware the Jews faced a potential extermination premise at this juncture of history.  No means of reasoning should transcend justification of genocide; indeed, the causes of the enormous  human toll of the holocaust derived from here; it was followed alongside a declared Arabian genocide  that the Jews narrowly averted. 

The carving away of such a large portion for Jordan was a calamity for the Jews. Britain’s lack of first  insisting and overseeing the Arabs west of the river, the leftover portion for Israel, be transferred to the  state of Jordan exposed a dark side of Britain; it contradicted why Jordan was explicitly created;  namely, Britain’s historic 2-state compromise in Palestine – ‘one state for the Jews and one for the  Arabs’. The West Bank that Britain supported called for a 3-state in Palestine, and the Jews made as  the violators and occupiers of their most sacred land portion. The rejectionist doctrines against a non Arab state cannot be made as its justification; the hostile situation is the very reason Britain should  have protected the Jewish state, not intensify its already precarious situation. Such basic protection for  the Jews was Britain’s fundamental responsibility in its role as a caretaker of this war’s aftermath, one  akin to being the captain of a ship in distress; Britain abandoned this ship after causing its distress  numerously and successively. The corruption of the Balfour that created Jordan, which the Jews  accepted, was by no means limited to the ceasing of further demands. 

Had the British intended to foster a harmonious outcome, as should have been expected of such a  worldly and experienced controlling power, there was not an absence of positive factors at her disposal  to adequately do so. It says Britain had her own self serving motives that transcended all else; the Jews  were seen as expendable by the caretaker of this region. Britain will later justify her deeds against the  Jews both in Europe and Arabia using the war priorities, which were indeed tremendous and  existential, when sons and daughters from many faraway lands of Australia, New Zealand and America contributed great effort and lives, as did also the Jews. Yet Britain’s deeds merit careful evaluation and  scrutiny; Britain had to undertake much manipulation and severe impropriety against the Jews to  justify her deeds and these were not resultant from the war priorities; they began and continued long  after both world wars’ impacts and indicate a variant underbelly of reasoning of her actions. 

Now there was no war and no issue of Palestinians; Britain acted in opposition of the 1917 Emir Faisal  agreement with the Jews after the 1914 ending of W.W.1, as well as the corruption of the Balfour  Declaration made with the Jews; similarly, West Bank emerged after WW2. The Balfour Declaration  was corrupted by editing the original text, affirming this was not subsequent to any war priorities. It came with the discovery of oil. 

Britain’s Subversive Textual Reading. 
The original text: 

• “Though the Balfour Declaration went through several drafts, the final version was issued on  November 2, 1917, in a letter from Balfour to Lord Rothschild, president of the British Zionist  Federation.” – (By Jennifer Rosenberg, 20th Century History Expert). 

The altered text: 

• “The original text of the declaration had read “Palestine should be reconstituted as the National Home  of the Jewish people.” After Montagu’s attack, the text was changed to read “the establishment in Palestine of a Home for the Jewish people.” The single word “in” was used subsequently to justify  removing all of Transjordan from the British Mandate that resulted from the Balfour Declaration. – [Chaim Weizmann, Trial and Error, 1949, p 257; Ami Isseroff, History of Zionism and the Creation of  Israel] 

The change from THE to IN was perfect guile; now any number of states can be created in Palestine, in  affect rendering Palestine in the Balfour Declaration’s ‘the national home for the Jewish people’ as a  mockery. All that was hereafter required was to change the term Palestine from referring to Arabs  instead of the Jews. Historically, Palestine was always referred to as the name of the Jewish homeland  in all British documents, in 1917, 1920, 1939 and 1948; it denoted only one understanding of the term  ‘the national home for the Jewish people’. 

In 1917, the Jews saw the term ‘National’ signified ‘one only state’ in Palestine. Indeed, any  reasonable reading should say the same, especially so after Britain provided only one state in all the  other states she created in Arabia; it renders more than one state in Palestine an anomaly. 

The alteration also rendered the 1917 agreement reached between the Arab and Zionist sectors as  disregarded or negated, and emerged in direct contradiction of Lord Balfour’s determinations which  allocated all of Palestine as the Jewish state. While Lord Balfour dismissed even autonomous facilities  for the Arab people within Palestine in 1917, the British were creating a new independent state in  Palestine in 1920 to carve away 75% of its landmass. A most renowned British author, whose book of  history affirms the original allocation of Palestine for the Jews, states of this matter, namely that all of  Palestine, not part of Palestine, was earmarked for the Jews as a separate state from the Arab states: 

• “Palestine was made a separate state within the British sphere, earmarked as a national home for the  Jews. “(The Outline of History’, by H.G. Wells) 

In 1917, Jordan was not on the horizon in the Balfour text. The British were well aware that the Arabs  who have accumulated in Palestine were recent immigrants; this growth was fully fostered and  collaborated in by Britain against a state for the Jews. Britain will actively encourage thousands of  Arabs into Palestine when she should have done the reverse to uphold her pledge to the Jews. The  Arabs will be told a Jewish state will be foiled from happening. Thereby, the development of this land by the Jews attracted a large in-flow of migrants from many surrounding lands with British strong  assistance. These will become the substantial account of Palestinian refugees and made as Israel’s  problem. 

Thus, Britain’s allocation of Jordan to a Saudi with no connection to Palestine or Palestinians will bar  entry to the state created precisely for the Arab in-flow, in direct contradiction of Britain’s 2-state  proclamation, and with British support; this became the corruption of ‘one state for the Jews and one  for the Arabs’ (Churchill). Thereby did Britain corrupt the Balfour Declaration numerously throughout  her actions. 

Surprisingly, Britain, the most proficient in her own English language and who re-mastered the Balfour  text, did not see “the establishment in Palestine of a Home for the Jewish people” as did the Jews, or  Lord Balfour, the Emir Faisal, and Secretary Emery; or else Britain claimed not to see. The Jews  conducted global protests of the Balfour corruption, but to no avail. That the situation began to change  from the Jews’ understanding of the Balfour text is seen in Britain’s intense debate over a stray word or  two which may justify a reversal of its reading. It is self-negating if the term ‘national’ can subsist with  more than one such entity in the same land. How many ‘national homes’ did Britain declare in Saudi  Arabia and Iraq, for example; and why later emphasize the term ‘two states’ as a new ‘historical  compromise’ – an acknowledged departure from the Mandate, and self evident of its altered process. 

A ‘2-state’ in Palestine is not seen in the original texts when it should have been explicitly included  should this be its intention; thereby, there would be no requirement for a proclamation of a new  ‘historic compromise’. More logically, the 2-state division would have been made in the same year of  the Declaration in 1917, with no need for the determined meetings of negotiations between the Arab  and Zionists whereby the whole of Palestine as one Jewish state was accepted. Instead, the British  invested much endeavor and extraordinary debates of the Balfour text alterations that ensued. These  were hinged on the grammatical articles of A, IN and THE prefixes, namely of ‘The’ (one only) or ‘A’ (one of many) national homes in Palestine, a disingenuous employ considering that numerous 2-state  requirements would render the Mandate superfluous. That such a debate ensued and was deliberated in  the formation of a new textual reading affirms its underlying agenda of things to come. 

Drafting the Balfour Texts.
The British devoted much effort over the following decades to deny that a  state was the intention by the term ‘a national home’ of the Palestine landmass; that this pertains to  many states in Palestine and that the size of the additional states have no bearing. Thereby a Jewish  state can be reduced to any size, even one that could not be sustainable or viable. However, in private  many British officials agreed with the interpretation of the Jews that one only state would be  established when a Jewish majority was achieved. The initial draft of the declaration, contained in a  letter sent by Rothschild to Balfour, referred to the principles: 

• “that Palestine should be reconstituted as the National Home of the Jewish people.” Thereby, in the  final text ‘the’ was replaced with ‘a’; it offset committing the entirety of Palestine to the Jews as the  purpose in the original version. 
• “Similarly, an early draft did not include the commitment, which was later added and solely applying  to a home for the Jews: “that nothing should be done which might prejudice the rights of the non Jewish communities.” 

These focused and determined changes came about by Britain using the stray urgings of Edwin Samuel  Montagu as its excuse, namely an influential anti-Zionist Jew in the British Administration and  Secretary of the State for India, who merely expressed concern that the declaration without those  changes could result in increased anti-Semitic persecution. Britain chose such urging as its own fully  intended justification to turn the meaning of its Balfour Mandate; else this would not have been utilized. – (United Nations Special Committee on Palestine, UN Document A/364, 3 September 1947;  Mansfield, Peter (1922). The Arabs. London Penguin Books. Pp.176-177). 

Here, the inserted requirement not to prejudice the rights of non-Jewish inhabitants is correct and not  the issue; its absence in all the other Arab states created by Britain is a serious issue. It allowed severe  human rights abuses, expulsions and property confiscations for the Jews and all other non-Arab groups  of the region. The Jews of Arabia will barely escape the same faith in Arabia as in Europe. 

The alterations affirm that the original Mandate was for one only Jewish state, and that Britain engaged  in guile after oil was discovered in Arabia; else Britain could not plausibly be swayed by a remark of  Montagu which would negate a treaty made with the Jews. Indeed, the tremendous reduction of land  only rendered the Jews’ plight more susceptible to attack, affirming this was an incorrect action.  Britain was not lacking knowledge of the consequences of carving away over three-quarters of a small  land, placing Israel in a situation that was unsustainable; its justification appears lacking of credibility.  Britain’s further lack of action of insisting Jordan must receive the Arabs East of the river affirmed  Britain’s deception, even of its own new pledge of a 2-state, the only given reason for creating Jordan.  The inaction of Jordan’s annexation questions the reason for creating this state; except that it will  become the means for a 3-state in a new region called as ‘West Bank’, and soon thereafter the sudden  emergence of a new Palestinian people two decades later. Both were anti-Israel implements. Thereby,  the resultant situation for the Jews was far removed from the Balfour texts, with prominent Arab  figures agreeing that Jordan was a fictional country and that Palestine was originally allotted as one  only state for the Jews: 

• “There was never any country called Jordan, these are all bogus names. They (Arabs) have taken that  land and called it the British Mandate for Palestine, which is again an artificial name. There was the  Balfour Mandate which included all that land including Jordan to the Jews.” – (Secular Jordanian  Leader Mudar Zahran; The Glazov Gang, Nov 8, 2013). 

A 3-State in Palestine. 
The reasoning for replacing the article ‘The’ with ‘In’ becomes clearer. The first 2-state, itself an  illegal action borne out of overturning the Balfour treaty by grammatical subversion, will again be  rendered obsolete. Hereafter, Britain’s ‘one state for the Jews and one for the Arabs’ will be flaunted,  this time by mathematical subversion. As a U.N. Security Council member, Britain’s first 2-state  creation of Jordan can be seen as a deception by her follow-up support of an additional state in the  same land. In direct contradiction of her revised 2-state that created Trans-Jordan east of the river, a 3- state will emerge, accompanied by the usurping of the term Palestinian for the first time in the 1960s; it  will be presented to the world as a native people displaced by Israel and made as international law. 

The follow-up support of an additional state in the same land affirms the 2-state deception; that no  Arabs with the title of Palestinian existed before affirms the nativity deception. Seen retrospectively,  Britain de-legitimized Israel’s rights as subservient and expendable after the creation of 21 Arab states.  While Jordan’s annexation was declared illegal by the UN and the Arab states, Britain’s inaction to  protect Israel from a 3-state will ensure this conflict will be rendered irresolvable. 

In the aftermath of the Balfour corruption, the Jews will face Britain’s most devastating deed. 

Episode 3: The White Paper Deception
[See Next week]

Link to Joseph Shellim’s book, Philistine-To-Palestine: Exposing the World’s Biggest Deception. Library Edition: One Book Makes “You” The Expert,  on Amazon: