Peloni: Here is the fourth installment of Joseph Shellim’s 12 Deceptions, an excerpt from his important work, “Philistine-To-Palestine”. We are posting one Deception each, and here the links to the previous installments:
Deception 1: The Name Deception
Joseph Shellim | October 20, 2024
- “There was no intention in 1920 of forming the territory east of the river Jordan into an independent Arab state.” – (Kirkbride, Alexander; A crackle of thorns, London, 1956 p 19)
Was Jordan’s Creation Legal?
Kirkbride’s remark is important in its alluding to the corruption of the Balfour Declaration. It gives an underlying premise of the flaunting of Britain’s 1920 pledge and overturning its text three years later; Jordan and any divisions in Palestine was not intended in the 1917 Belfour Declaration. It is also the year when oil reserves became a prominent factor. Britain’s entrusted responsibility was to act as a fair and honest care-taker of all groups in this region, and for the Jews to rely on it with all their future on the line. Equally, it was the situation of the Jews to rely, trust and to depend on the pledges of Great Britain, a foremost Christian nation that was law based, a worldly power and empire given the appointment to settle this reason. For the Jews this was an existential matter.
The creation of Jordan de-legitimatized the veracity of a solemn worldly proclamation given to the Jews, a legal treaty; it’s flaunting foretold a syndrome of deceit. It required the over-turning of an agreement that assured a calamitous situation of a people already encumbered in a precarious situation. The flaunting, qualifies for consideration as an illegal action based on its ‘under duress’ accommodation, and its violation of the human rights of the Jews; especially so in the aftermath of the Balfour text corruption, an indicator of its underlying intent.
Although any alignment with the Holocaust appears an extremely controversial view at this time, Britain will appoint Hajj Amin as Jerusalem’s mayor and Chamberlain will issue two White Papers with Hitler; both anticipated inevitable consequences for the Jews, in Europe and Arabia. (“The White Paper Deception”). Whether by default or otherwise, the creation of Jordan thereby represents a larger template of the reason why its over-turning was a paradigm shift. In its wake emerged the White Paper Policy and the extensive Jewish human toll of the Holocaust, the West Bank annexation and the emergence of Arab Palestinians.
The First Cause.
The creation of Jordan and the division of Palestine can be viewed as the first cause of the Middle East Conflict and the flaunting of a pledge; it will have global impact and be deflected away from Britain. Yet there were sufficient reasons for Britain to regret and reconsider the Balfour corruption; instead this was promoted with greater zeal with disastrous results for the Jews, and by default, also impacting Christians and Arabs negatively. It is also the factor that legitimized and fueled a Caliphate premise in the Middle East. The land occupation was reversed on the Jews instead of the Arabs; and the refugee issue was allotted to Arabs instead of the Jews. Britain supported all those corruptions by bypassing the positive agreements with the Emir Faisal in 1919 and aligns with the most radical groups of the region.
Britain’s inaction in protecting the security and rights of the Jews was absent in numerous instances. The creation of Jordan caused an endorsement of a continuing thread of actions negating Israel’s existence. The over-turning of the Balfour was followed by a White Paper directed at the Jews in 1939; then the establishing of Trans-Jordan as an independent new state in 1946; then the illegal annexation west of the river in 1948 that became the West Bank; it was followed in 1967 with the transfer of the name Palestinian from Jews to Arabs and the pursuit in the splitting of Israel’s 3,000-year capital.
That the creation of Jordan as the 22nd Arab state was a 2-state deception is borne out by another state west of the river as still accounted as a 2-state; because a 3-state allocation highlights Britain’s 2-state that created Jordan as an open deception. Thereby, Britain, the first nation to approve of the term West Bank, promotes a 3-state in Palestine as a 2-state. None in the Christian community confronted this guile; a formal group called the Oslo Accords will give it worldly respectability. A continuation of 2- states in the same land is an indisputable code for the destruction of Israel.
All of these actions can be viewed as resultant from the primal corruption of Britain’s 1917 Balfour Declaration; none of these would have occurred had Britain upheld her pledges. Equally, had the division of Palestine been rejected by the veto powers, none of deeds that continued thereafter would have been possible. Thereby, based on the Balfour corruption, Jordan can be seen as a superfluous and fictitious state with no history, one created solely to appease the Arabs for Britain’s interests.
There was no shortage of lands for the Arab people. Jordan was created as ‘one state for the Arabs in Palestine’, yet Britain failed to confront Jordan’s illegal annexation west of the river and Jordan’s barring of the Arabs from the new state. These are illegal deeds, at least from the view of the stated declarations and pledges made by Britain. No nation should be held above the law; yet none of Britain’s corruptions have seen a place in the discourse of this conflict, and such an outcome is unlikely notwithstanding its continuing global impacts.
The Judiciary/Ethical Application.
The term ‘illegal or disputed occupation’ as international law is based on a manipulated historicity, and thereby an inversion of the charge. Jordan illegally annexed west of the river and illegally changed its name to West Bank, covering this land’s 3,000 year Hebrew town names. Name changes do not change history, or render an illegal charge to be transferred from the perpetrator to the victim, as is presented. It is how the term West Bank was implanted by Jordan via an illegal annexation and thus illegal in itself as the correct view. The official term of ‘Disputed Territory’ is often presented as Illegal and Occupied Territory; nor did these territories belong to the Arabs claiming them. Such deceptions are easily verifiable despite the enormous efforts to cover them by overwhelming the internet with terms such as ‘Illegal Settlements’ and ‘Occupied Palestinian Territory.’ These are deceptions that have been thrust upon a worldly multitude. In its wake an ill-famed propaganda enterprise developed to cover the British deeds. Legitimate organizations such as encyclopedias ought not to favor a majority or a political enterprise when describing history, but rather to be relied upon to define history by its validating and un-biased historical markers. An example:
- Quote: “The Israeli-Occupied Territories are the territories occupied by Israel during the Six-Day War of 1967 from Egypt, Jordan and Syria. They consist of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, much of the Golan Heights, the Gaza Strip, and until 1982, the Sinai Peninsula” – (Richard Falk, UN Rapporteur; Wikipedia.)
Such reporting gives an incorrect impression, one made by gross omissions. The impacting factor of Jordan’s illegal annexation of land west of the river, which predates 1967, is not included here as its opening preamble, or that this portion of land was legally allocated to Israel in 1917 (The Balfour Declaration) and in 1920 (The Palestine Mandate). West of the River refers to the land portion Jordan re-named as ‘West Bank’ by an illegal annexation, as is also stated in the UN archives. The choosing of preferred quotes and ignoring those of Mandates, international law advocates, even British Ministers is an un-balanced historical view:
- “The Jewish right of settlement in the whole of ‘western’ Palestine – the area ‘west of the Jordan’ – are parts of the mandate territory, now legally occupied by Israel with the consent of the Security Council.” – (‘The Future of Palestine’, Professor Eugene Rostow, Institute for National Strategic Studies, November 1993. U.S. Under-Secretary of State for Political Affairs, major text producer of UN Resolution 242.) [italics are added as pointers]
- “The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign power. (‘Non-Jewish foreign power’)” – (Article 5 of the Palestine Mandate)
Although stated elsewhere in the same encyclopedia, it gives an incorrect report when omitted from its chapter titled as “Israeli-Occupied Territories”; it appears elsewhere, not in the subject “Israel Occupied Territories.”, but in another section:
- “The annexation by Jordan was regarded as illegal and void by the Arab League and others. (“Occupation of the West Bank”; George Washington University. Law School (2005). George Washington International Law Review; George Washington University. p. 390.).
- Why then does the same encyclopedia use the heading ‘Israeli Occupied Territory’ elsewhere, instead of ‘Jordan’s Illegally Occupied Territory’. The description used does not begin with this history and can thereby render a miss-leading understanding. Correctly, the heading should be “Jordan’s Illegal Occupation of Judah and Samaria,” which is then the legitimate reporting of this history, because the names were changed under an illegal annexation. A host of worldly recognized sources affirm Jordan’s illegal annexation of land allocated to the Jews:
- “This purported annexation was, however, widely regarded as illegal and void, by the Arab League and others, and was recognized only by Britain, Iraq and Pakistan. – (Benveni? tî, Ey?l 2004, The international law of occupation; Princeton University Press, p.108)
- “The mandate implicitly denies Arab claims to national political rights in the area in favor of the Jews; the mandated territory was in effect reserved to the Jewish people for their self-determination and political development, in acknowledgment of the historic connection of the Jewish people to the land.” – (Lord Curzon, British Foreign Minister)
- “One of the biggest lies, which is feeding the wild incitement campaign that Israel has been dealing with over the last few years, is that Israel is unlawfully occupying Judea and Samaria, and that the presence of the settlements and of Israelis in Judea and Samaria is a violation of international law.” William Jacobson, professor at Cornell Law School and author of the blog Legal Insurrection, told The Blaze that there are “serious and substantial arguments that Israel does not illegally occupy the West Bank, as well as that Israel has not illegally transferred population into that territory.” – (‘Challenging the Long-Held Notion That Israeli Settlements Are ‘Illegal’; The Blaze, Feb. 24, 2014)
It is incumbent on an encyclopedia to include aligning and relevant contextual reporting of history; Jordan’s annexation and the original name of the territories are absent, thereby it is a diminished historical account. The same should also apply with the term Palestinian when directed away from Israel, because the Jews were exclusively referred to by this name for 2,000 years prior to the 1960’s and such is not an irrelevant factor; it should be included in the definition of this name. Nor should an encyclopedia call first century Judea as Palestine, even if this is a widespread anomaly; ‘first century Palestine’ is a historical impossibility because this name was anointed on Judea in the second century; using a quote of the 5th century as its claim is also an incorrect employ (See “The Herodotus Deception”).
A host of prominent scholars and professors possessing this region’s first-hand knowledge have vouched the affects of the corruptions engaged in with history when it relates to Israel:
- “This fictitious history, which ignores all historical documentation and established historical methods, is based on systematic distortions of both ancient and modern history with the aim of denying Israel’s right to exist.” – [Fabricating Palestinian History, by David Bukay, Professor of Middle East Studies, University of Haifa, author of Islamic Fundamentalism and the Arab Political Culture/ Middle-East Quarterly, 2012]
- “Egypt & Jordan illegally occupied Gaza, East Jerusalem and the southern towns to preclude the creation of Israel.” – (Anthropologist & Historian Francisco Gil-White)
- “Any attempt to negate the Jewish people’s right to Palestine, and to deny them access and control in the area designated for the Jewish people by the League of Nations is a serious infringement of international law.” – (“Mandate for Palestine – The Legal Aspects of Jewish Rights”; Myths and Facts; by Eli E. Hertz)
- “The “Palestinians” never had a legitimate claim to statehood in the first place. The “Palestinians” are Arabs, and Arabs already have 22 states. They will not get yet another inside Israeli lands. Any Palestinian wishing to enjoy national sovereignty is free to move to one of those 22 Arab states, but no Arab sovereignty will exist in Israeli territory, meaning the lands between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. The West Bank belongs to Israel and is Israeli in all ways. The West Bank is part of the Jewish national homeland, always was, and always will be.” – (By Steven Plaut American-born Israeli associate professor of Business Administration at the University of Haifa and a writer; Time to Annex Judea and Samaria January, 17, 2013).
The Theological/Moral Application.
Aside from the legal view concerning mandates, there is also a theological premise based on its moral ethicality. Instead of justly safe-guarding the basic human rights of the Jews and honoring Mandates, they were subjected to numerous existential abuses promoted by Britain and the Arab ruling figureheads. By the fostering of the names West Bank and Arab Palestinians, the Jews were presented as the occupiers instead of the victims, enabling a reversal of both history and theology. Placing no equivalent conditions on the Arab states as were placed on Israel was a disregarding of the human rights of the Jewish refugees fleeing Europe; and the declaring by Britain that East Jerusalem as not a part of Israel, whereby no nation can survive such a premise, aligns with a destructive enterprise.
The Third Commandment in the Decalogue, observed in all Christian judiciary institutions, is a law about honesty, and correctly placed before all other moral and ethical laws in the bible. ‘In vain’ refers to the flaunting of a vow such as a declaration made before the nations of the world:
- “Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh His name in vain.” [Ex.20:6]
- “Thou shall not bear false witness.” (Ex. 20:12)
Did Britain Commit Crimes?
Britain’s deeds against the Jews can and should be questioned; especially so by the British people and the Christian community. The division of Palestine was a violation of the Balfour Declaration and the rights and safe-guard of the Jews. So was the White Paper Policy; both are enormous crimes. Chamberlain’s White Paper that caused great calamity to many nations in W.W.2 has been appraised as a monumental error of trust, its primal blame resting on the deceit perpetrated by Hitler. Britain’s other White Paper that targeted the Jews in Palestine was also a deceit, perhaps even more odiously by the absence of its confronting. Britain exploited her position as the controller of colonies and regimes, enjoying immunity for numerous wrong deeds against the Jews.
Thereby, the worldly multitude did not find Britain’s act of barring Jews entry in Palestine or Jordan’s creation as a corruption of her pledges; nor did they question why the only land allocated to the Jews was focused on to house the Arabs and not one of the numerous new Arab states. Merit is due to many British citizens who made great effort to expose their leaders’ deceit; many also travelled to Israel to commemorate their grievances with ceremonies of apologies.
The creating of Jordan is a direct response to appeasing Arab demands for oil acquisitions and of a subsequent new Caliphate doctrine that has resurfaced in the Middle East. It is thus a vital and appropriate issue requiring examination why the Jews were targeted as no other nation.
Did Britain Commit Grave Crimes?
The White Paper Policy and Jordan’s creation remain among the foremost un-confronted crimes of the modern world by both a judiciary and theological accounting. Here, a play of words was utilized deceptively in overturning the otherwise understood terms of ‘one Jewish state in Palestine’, and became interpreted by destructive premises of continuing 2-state demands and the splitting asunder of Israel’s capital; no nation can withstand such an onslaught.
Britain’s Balfour Declaration clearly becomes superfluous if numerous states in Palestine become its definition and aims, even the denial of Israel’s right to exist. Thus the Jews were subjected to guile, with the Balfour reading’s desecration not being about land or displaced Arab peoples, as has been disclosed in the charters of numerous groups in the region. Here, a land displacement and nativity can only legitimately apply to the plight of the Jews; the Arabs qualifying the least of a requirement for more land or a refugee’s status. Nor can any Christians validate the historical Hebrew town’s name and symbol replacements perpetrated under Britain’s watch.
Oil.
Jordan was created because at Damean well No. 7, Arabian oil was discovered in commercial quantities in what is today Saudi Arabia; herein was the testing of Britain. Oil added the incentive to appease the newly created regime states with all their demands being met. There are moral and ethical limitations what can be accepted as reasonable to attain a nation’s priority interests; Britain display none when it applied to the Jews, and by default caused damage to all peoples in the region. Thereby, the charge of illegal land occupation on Israel is a distortion of the facts; oil was used to inflict great crimes on the Jews and by default it promoted a Caliphate requirement.
Britain cooperated with such Arab demands in Palestine, as is assessed in Joan Peter’s acclaimed book which portrays Britain as encouraging a mass immigration of Arabs into Palestine, in contradiction of Britain’s Balfour Mandate pledge and its textual reading. Peter’s book also meticulously overturns the Arab displacement and nativity charges, as does the British Peel Commission:
- “Peters demonstrates that Jews did not displace Arabs in Palestine – just the reverse: Arabs displaced Jews.” (Orbituary, Joan Peters, United with Israel)
- “The Arab population shows a remarkable increase, partly due to the import of Jewish capital into Palestine and the growth of the [Jewish] National Home…” (The Peel Commission Report – 1937)
- Peters’ findings appear historically correct; the Jews have no history of acquiring another people’s lands and are theologically commanded against it; the reverse applies with a Caliphate doctrine. Britain’s fostering of the Arabs to mass migrate to Palestine was thereby an existential attack on the Jews; it aligns with Britain’s White Paper and the reason of Britain’s inaction when the Arabs were barred by Jordan from entry in violation of Britain’s 2-state pledge and in contradiction of Jordan’s creation: why create a 2-state if the Arabs remain in the Jewish state and are barred from entering the Arab state?
Thereby, Britain opened the means for the rejection of a Jewish state in Arabia by misappropriating the rights and the land allocated for the Jews, in a situation when the reverse decisions should have been adopted. Historically, Britain’s negative deeds toward the Jews date back to the 13th Century, with the first expulsion of Jews exiled by Rome and the false charges of blood libels made on fully innocent people that caused many to perish by burning. Yet as an appointed caretaker in the 20th Century such history should have been cast aside; it was not.[18]
- The thread of deeds committed by Britain became the subsequent premise for a Caliphate provision that denies not only the Jews, but all peoples of different faiths in Arabia, regardless that they are among Arabia’s oldest inhabitants. There was no requirement of land by the Arabs in the 20th Century; thus Britain, who was successful in over-turning the Ottoman Caliphate that rejected any non-Arab state in Arabia, was also successful in fostering its replacement with another Arab Caliphate provision in its place.
The Brotherhood.
The Islamic Brotherhood emerged under Britain’s watch. The appointing of Hajj Amin as the mayor of Jerusalem, instead of a Jewish mayor that would align with the Balfour Pledge, will be followed by calamity for the Jews and all people of the region. These indicate errors that assisted the pogroms against the Jews and the declaration of Palestine’s first land division in 1922 emerging; it was a legitimizing of a violent rejection of a Jewish state, one spurred by Hajj Amin in opposition to previous agreements between the Jews and the Arabs. In 1928, Hassan al-Banna, an Egyptian school teacher and scholar, will introduce a new trans-national organization with the motto of its namesake: “Believers are but Brothers”. Thereby, non-believers, those of any other form of belief were fully compromised.
The Brotherhood will proclaim its Caliphate doctrine as the rejection of a Jewish state’s right to exist, and it will later usurp another peoples’ name as its strategic weapon via Arafat. The name Palestinian became the deception to charge Israel of occupying its own lands and used as a covert means to cover its Caliphate goal. The name Palestinian was disdained before its emergence in the 1960’s because it was the symbol of the Jews.
Britain maintained its inaction of both the rejection of its own pledge of a home in Palestine for the Jews, and the usurping of the historical names that belonged to the Jews for 2,000 years. Britain thereby contradicted history and all her documentation thus far issued, promoting a heritage denial of the Jews. The acceptance by Christians of such a name usurping of Palestinian by the Arabs is arguably one of the great astonishments in recorded history. It began with an adjective that became enormously successful with the support of the Christian community; it is the source that invented a new native people that proclaimed the displacement of another native people.
Herein was History over-turned; herein was Rome’s name change stratagem reverted against the Jews. It is a faithful juncture and marks a foreboding history that evolved; here was the Arab Palestinian phenomenon invented.
Cometh the New Palestinians.
- Before the creation of Israel, it was actually the Jews who were referred to as Palestinians, not the Arabs. As a matter of fact, Arabs did not accept being called “Palestinians” because they did not want to be associated with Jews or with the British Mandate for Palestine: “We are not Jews, we are Arabs”, they used to say in answer.” Prior to 1967, no news headlines ever referred to Arabs as “Palestinians”. The Middle East conflict was known as the Arab-Israeli Conflict and not the “Palestinian”-Israeli conflict.” – (“When the Arabs Became the “Palestinians” – The Invention of a People”; By Michelle Cohen)
The term Palestinian evolved from the premise of a Caliphate doctrine that sought to negate a state for the Jews; and thereby also of all other groups than the Arabs. There was never an Arab people called as Palestinian prior to the 1960’s; indeed, every British document allocated this name exclusively to Jews and the home of the Jews. A new group will utilize the power of names as weapons and un-historical slogans such as time-immemorial, West Bank, illegal land occupation, native Palestinian displacement; even denials of the Roman Exile of the Jews, the Jerusalem Temple, the Holocaust and that Jews are not Jews. It will achieve the support of Britain and Europe at the UN and attain a worldly multitude in its inculcation. Yet in 1948, the term Palestine is again directed by Britain as a 2-state for and of the Jews in its proclamations of the Kingdom of Jordan. Now, in 1948, the reference of Arabs as Palestinians is still yet notably absent:
- “It will be a historic compromise to grant two states in Palestine, one for the Jews and one for the Arabs.” – (Churchill; 1948).
It is at this faithful juncture of history when Jordan emerged as a UN ratified state, as was the changing of this region’s name to West Bank that its underlying agenda will unfold. From here will emerge a newly invented Palestinian people, as a historical changing of the guards. From here an ancient historical name is going to be transferred from one people to another new group and they will be assigned via the UN as natives Palestinians in opposition to the historical nativity of the Jews. None will assign this juncture as the source point of Christianity’s depletion from the region; blaming the Jews will become the preferred targeting than blaming Britain. This onus must correctly rest on Britain, it’s correction is due by the British people themselves, as was seen by the honorable British Army officers and citizens who journeyed to Haifa and acknowledged Britain’s errors of the White Paper; theirs is a message to all British people, and by extension to the worldly community.
The advent of a worldly multitude that followed evolved from Britain’s legitimizing of West Bank and of a new Palestinian people; it said the pre-1960 Jewish Palestinians were occupying the post-1960 Arab Palestinian land. It rendered the proclamations of Lord Balfour and Sir Winston Churchill as deceit. Britain’s accepting of Arabs as Palestinians made the Jews as illegal occupiers of the land of the Jews, even a mockery of Britain’s treaties and her history before the world of nations. It is highly implausible its consequences were not devised by a war strategy of extermination derived from the Roman era.[19]
Churchill also turned, succumbing to the higher devotion of greed; in effect rendering the edited Balfour Declaration as referring to numerous states in Palestine, that the Arab population must be handed rights, ignoring the enormous lands handed them and targeted the Jews. Here, a Jewish state, minuscule as she is, cannot be Jewish; a fully disingenuous charge considering the Jews faced an existential crises and Britain acting as a super power controlling numerous colonies. Churchill’s new view harbors formidable omens, in effect negating a Jewish state in contradiction of all earlier proclamations:
- “Palestine should not be “as Jewish as England is English.”
Jordanians are not Palestinian.
Britain’s secret pledges to the Arabs will materialize; waves of anti-Israel slogans and UN Resolutions will result. Alongside the 2-state called Jordan, a new 3-state will be claimed of the Jews and it will be accounted as a 2-state. Aside from the poor arithmetic, the question for whom is another state west of the river claimed, considering that Jordan was created to house the Arabs in Palestine (‘One state for the Arabs and one for the Jews/Churchill). This anomaly will spur the separating the Arabs west and east of the river with the usurping of the Palestinian.
Here, Jordan cannot and should not be confused as the Palestinian 2-State or any of Jordan’s Arabs as being Palestinian, even as many in Israel have become overwhelmed to accept. The historical integrity fully negates any Arabs as Palestinians; such can be concluded to all who investigate this history as an improvised falsehood of the 1960’s and a device intended against the State of Israel.
Arabs Palestinians never existed, nor are they natives of Palestine. Thereby this name’s usurping becomes a detrimental attack on Israel as its only agenda. There is no historical validation to a claim of any Arabs as aligned with the name Palestine or ‘Palestinian’. Such was not in the historical lexicon when Trans-Jordan was created in 1922, nor when the Kingdom of Jordan was formalized in 1948, nor in 1951 when the term West Bank was enacted, or during the previous Ottoman period; it is a recently robbed name promoted to overturn 2,000 years of history.
All honest Christians and Arabs know this truth and that Jews are not occupying Arab lands, the inference of the term ‘Arab Palestinians’. Britain has caused Christians and Muslims to contradict their own scriptures and history, even flaunting her own treaties as a war stratagem to ‘leave them fighting’. It is the reason this presentation cannot condone or participate in this great deception, one that impacts Christians and Arabs more so than Israel and has caused many disasters in the modern world.
- “And thereafter We [Allah] said to the Children of Israel: ‘Dwell securely in the Promised Land. And when the last warning will come to pass, we will gather you together in a mingled crowd’.” – Qur’an 17:104
- “Get up, take the child and his mother and go to the land of Israel.” (Matt.2:20)
- Israel developed into a United Kingdom under the leadership of King David (c.1000-960 BCE) (Ancient History Encly.)
- “From the end of the Jewish state in antiquity to the beginning of British rule, the area now designated by the name Palestine was not a country and had no frontiers, only administrative boundaries.” — Professor Bernard Lewis, Commentary Magazine, 1975)
- The Philistines were not Arabs; they were not Semites. They had no connection, ethnic, linguistic or historical with Arabia or Arabs. (Tzemach Institute for Biblical Studies)
- The British chose to call the land they mandated as Palestine, and the Arabs picked it up as their nation’s supposed ancient name, though they couldn’t even pronounce it correctly and turned it into Falastin a fictional entity.” — (Golda Meir. by Sarah Honig, Jerusalem Post, 1995)
The usurping of these historical symbols from the Jews is a formidable attack and designed to render Israel as forever occupying Arab land; its over-turning is incumbent on the honorable British and Arab people, and all Christians who hold the truth will set them free, and by the world community. Jordan and West Bank are not Palestinian and never were as such; Palestinian was the British name for the Jews and the name applied by Rome on Judea, the homeland of the Jews; it held for 2,000 years. There can be no positive outcome of covering one falsehood with another; there was never an Arab group at any time in history that was referred to as Palestinians; this name was exclusively applied to the Jews and their homeland.
Thus the usurping of the terms West Bank and Palestinian are aligned as new un-historical deceptions. The Royal house of Jordan is not from this region; it was transferred here by Britain from the Hashemite family of Saudi Arabia, itself a new state, its royal status also newly created in 1933. There is an absolute dearth of history here relating to the name Palestinian; Britain committed a host of corruptions to cover her Jordan deception. Prominent figures that deal with worldly issues say so:
- “75% of what the League of Nations promised the Jews in an invitation to return to their homeland was sold behind their backs creating the country of Jordan.” – (Israel and the Palestinians; Correcting Horrible Historical Revision”; Courtesy The Bob Siegel Radio Show, March 22, 2015.)
Cause and Effects.
The error of corrupting the Balfour Declaration of 1917 cannot be overly emphasized as the cause of a tragic global catastrophe. The issue cannot be resolved without its overturning. The Balfour corruption and the White Paper Policy caused a monumental human toll that contributed to one of history’s darkest periods; its impressions extend to numerous other trajectories and a host of other lands and people who become targeted by this error; arguably, its direst victims in the Middle East are the Arabs themselves, whose history will become compromised.
- While other Christian countries were engulfed in two world wars and unable to respond to Britain’s deeds, there has been sufficient time to reappraise the silence in correcting past errors. Thus a great fog shrouds this juncture of history and the deeds of Britain extending further afield. Consider the period and its transit epochs.
The period of the Balfour Declaration came three years into the First World War in 1917; the 22 regimes that Britain created emerged from its aftermath, as did the premise of a new Caliphate that will replace a conquered one. The impacts were not limited to the Jews; the Arab people of the region were also compromised by deceptions, their freedoms and rights diminished, their plight remaining of internal ethnic battles resultant from inappropriate border lines drawn by Britain based on oil deposits instead of maintaining harmony of the people; the Arab states were not obligated by Britain to adhere to basic human rights laws for its people. The internal Arab group’s discordances have extended beyond the Middle East borders in a chaotic rage that blames one and all for their woes. These results were not caused by Israel but the assigned caretaker of the region. Many assisted Britain in prevailing over the Ottoman Empire in WW1, then again in WW2 against the Nazi axle. Many became ensnared in a web of British agreements that culminated in the present world order. The Jews became the soft target of Britain’s most focused victim as its continuing legacy. This history’s accounting is incumbent to be recalled for those not made privy to it.
World War 1.
It began in July 28, 1914, with Britain allied with France, Russia, Italy, Belgium, Japan and then with America as a late entry in the war. The Ottomans (Turkey) sided with the German-Austria-Hungary Bulgaria axle. Britain’s war strategy focused on the softest enemy, directed at the non-Arab Turkish Ottomans, an invasive power that now occupied most of the Arabian region with its Caliphate doctrine intended as an extension into Europe; the Ottomans conquered the Christian Byzantine Empire in 1204.
The British employed necessary guile that resulted in victory and the felling of the Ottoman Empire with positive and negative merits; they committed overlapping and contradictory pledges to all parties that assisted her in a complex triangle of agendas to gain their support in the war against the Turks.
- Britain recruited the assistance of the Arab armies who sought an Islamic Caliphate mode in opposition to the Ottomans for an independent Arab rule of Arabia; it denied any other peoples’ rights to a state in this region. The Arabs were enticed by Britain with an approval of understandings of what they understood as a new Arab Caliphate provision; that all of the region would be handed to them. The British also invited the participation of the French who had interests in Syria, and the assistance of the Jews who had earnestly pursued a return to their historical land for many centuries and were now facing rising anti-Semitism in Europe. The Jews were given their much awaited pledge of a return of their historical homeland with American backing; thereby did the Balfour Declaration assure a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Herzl’s willing of his dream to happen was now on the horizon for the Jews after a 2,000-year exile from their ancestral land.
The Arabs were promised independence and the Arabian territories for their assistance against the Ottoman Empire; France was promised Syria and Lebanon as its part in W.W.1; and the Jews were promised Palestine for their assistance in using Zionist advocating by their strong American lobbies to bring America into the war, and by enlisting in the British armies. Britain strongly pursued control of Iraq for its vast oil resources. It was a recipe for conflict whereby each was convinced of pledges given them by Britain without disclosing such secret overlapping pledges also made to any of the other parties. The strategy was successful in prevailing over the tottering Ottoman Empire, while it incurred a host of other problematic legacies.
- When Britain won the war against the Turkish Ottomans and her contradicting pledges discovered, revolts erupted in Syria and Lebanon, as these were allocated to France; these states were in Arabia and also pledged to the Arabs. Riots also erupted in Palestine, whereby the Arabs also saw their cause of controlling all of Arabia as flaunted by pledges made to the Jews in the Balfour Mandate. In Palestine, the Jews constituted only 10% of the population, their numbers always being historically small, and the Arab population grown to some 700,000 by a focused migration from the surrounding regions. This was a migration caused by this land becoming highly developed by the Jews for the first time after many centuries of neglect. Britain’s fostering of the Arabs to hinder the Jewish state, in contradiction of its pledges to the Jews, also assisted the migrant inflow. When this war ended and the British issued her Balfour Declaration in 1917, the fostering of a mass migration of Arabs will unfold a series of duplicitous deeds by Britain toward the Jews; all of these were preventable with minimal management. The Jews and the Arabs had already executed agreements, with no inclusion for a division of Palestine and no mention of Jordan or Arab Palestinians as a distinct new group. In the interim of W.W.1 and W.W.2 these treaties were enacted:
- 1920: The Balfour Declaration of 1917 was reaffirmed by the Conference of the Principal Allied Powers at San Remo.
- June 1922: “It is essential that it should know that the ‘National home of the Jews’ is in Palestine as of right and not on sufferance.” – (Winston Churchill British Secretary of State for the Colonies.)
- July 24, 1922: “Whereas recognition has been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country.” – (by The League of Nations, the previous body of the UN, executed unanimously by 51 nations)
The creation of a 2-state and the White Paper emerged after new discoveries of oil. West Bank and Arabs called as Palestinians yet did not yet occur in this period; now, Palestine was referred exclusively to the Jews. Not a single Arab Palestinian existed till the 1960’s, nor the PA Authority, despite the formidable diatribe of Hajj Amin against the Jews. Now only the Jews were Palestinians.
World War II.
Although the Arabs were deceived by Britain, as were all other parties, their determined struggles to reject Israel had no legal, moral or historical grounds, nor one made out of necessity; it was based solely on a new interpretation of theology, substantially promoted by Hajj Amin and the affiliated Brotherhood of Egypt. Outside of a violent view of theology, the Arabs should have accepted Israel’s return, as was acknowledged by the Ottomans and the Emir Faisal; the Arab peoples were amply rewarded with numerous new states; more than twenty were created, most of which never existing before. Thus Britain substantially performed the independent region of states it pledged to the Arab peoples.
Thereby, the Jews, who accepted a land loss of 80%, should have been allowed to have a small state; for just as the Arabs claimed displacement by the Ottomans, so were the Jews by such invasive powers foreign to Arabia, namely by the Greeks, Romans, the Crusaders and the Ottomans. The Jews never abandoned their homeland and maintained a small presence at all times, even under harsh conditions. Thus the Arab rejection was based not on their displacement, but the disregarding of the displacement of the Jews; it was the Arabs, not the Jews, occupying another peoples’ land. It is proof this was a Caliphate doctrine, not of land occupation. By default, Britain supported a Caliphate doctrine when she flaunted the treaties made to the Jews. The denial of Jewish nativity by the Arabs, even one that the Quran states was the homeland of the Jews, was exploited fully by Britain and numerous Arab groups, with a global indifference to the plight of the Jews. While the Jews encountered a rejection by the Arabs, they were not invaders or occupiers of another peoples’ land by any accounting. Israel was returned legally via both the British and the UN, with the international community of all nations and states voting in the motion that returned the Jews to their historical homeland.
Thereby, Israel is not an occupier of Arab lands; the reverse is the historical position whereby the Arabs invaded the land of the Jews in the 7th Century and erected a Mosque on the Jerusalem Temple site that Rome destroyed. There was at all times a Jewish presence in Palestine; not all Jews left Palestine in the exiles caused by Babylon and Rome. The Jews never abandoned their land at any time before and thereafter the Ottoman period, affirming their nativity rights as subsisting of their historical homeland for 3,000 years. Thereby those Jews who returned from Europe and the Middle East were not invaders but returnees to their ancestral homeland; the Arabs were the invaders because the Jews at no time left their ancestral land:
- “The Romans sent the Jews into exile again for 1,878 years. However, for all that time there was a Jewish presence” – (Emanuel A. Winston, a Middle East analyst & commentator, January 7, 2001)
Scriptures have Tests.
All Arab states are well aware of Israel’s historical position via ancient and modern history of the ownership of this small landmass being that of the Jews, as is also inscribed in both the Christian and Islamic Scriptures, and by the archives of the Greeks and the Romans. The rejection of a legally appointed Jewish state, one that has a validated historical ownership to this land, inclines with no other reasoning than a theological Caliphate doctrine. Thereby this is not about Israel’s occupation of Arab lands; it is a worldly issue of a theological rejection that impacts all groups of humanity. The narratives of all scriptures say their revered figureheads were tested of the path they choose to see how they turn, as should be true with the nations. Adam and Eve were tested; Abraham was tested concerning Sodom and of slaughtering his son as a sacrifice; King David was tested; Queen Esther was tested. So are the nations also tested. In 1948 a historical truth and a biblical prophecy will become validated as a testing of the nations embedded in the Middle East conflict; the ground will talk.
The Omen of the Scrolls.
A theological premise is heavily under-laid in this region’s peoples, and it drives their politics. Certainly, a message did emerge at this time, one deemed among the greatest historical finds in archaeology; yet its message in emerging when it did was not understood or denied by the nations. Its theological impact may be even greater for all parties’ considerations. Discovered by an Arab youth, the Dead Sea Scrolls exposed and aligned with the historical return of the Jews; both occurred the same year wherein a large parcel of ancient archives of the Hebrew Bible became un-earthed as Israel was re-established. The Scrolls fully represented a historical truth; an omen that transcended all parties, nations and the UN.
As with Moses being distracted by a lost sheep only to be directed to a burning bush that doesn’t burn, so was an Arab youth distracted by the sound of a shattering jar when he pursued a lost sheep in the Qumran hills. The Scroll’s ancient writings verified an exacting replication of today’s Hebrew Bible, with a predicted prophecy of the re-emerging of the Jews’ homeland. Here, an ancient theological scripture became an empirical historical exposition.
This was not an adverse message for any other people or belief, as the return of a small group of people and a minuscule landmass cannot be accounted as a threat; numerous new states were created for the Arabs and a minuscule portion was left for the Jews.
The Scrolls proclaimed both past history of the exile that forcefully uprooted the Jews from their land and their return, answering the denial of this land’s ownership. It comes from a scripture that is validated and acknowledged by all three religions that emerged in this region with regard the term ‘Israel in their own land’ and a prediction it contained in hard writ; one also acknowledged in the New Testament and the Quran:
- “I will plant Israel in their own land, never again to be uprooted from the land I have given them,” says the Lord your God. (Amos 9:14).
The Scrolls emerged amidst actions by the world community that rendered Israel’s re-emergence as a most implausible one. Simultaneously, a new region in the most sacred heart-line of Israel will also emerge, one devised by Jordan. Britain’s condoning of a fictional region called as West Bank on the most sacred portion of the Jews sought to overturn history and usher a host of wars, creating an irresolvable catastrophe. It is a war stratagem of ‘Leave them divided and ever fighting’ and it was successful; but not without impacting of global and inter-religious consequences. The Scrolls most impacting omen pertained to the illegal annexation of land west of the Jordan and the covering of its 3,000 year Hebrew town names.
Episode 5. The ‘West Bank’ Deception.
[See Next week]
Link to Joseph Shellim’s book, on Amazon:
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.