The Truth about Hezbollah and Israel

As a long time resident of Ma'alot going on my fiftieth year I have witnessed the absurdity of the so called "Plight of the Palestinian's" and the recent history of Lebanon.

When I first arrived in Ma'alot in March of 1976 it was nearly a year after the horrific "Massacre in Ma'alot" on May 15, 1974 where a forced rescue ended in the cold-blooded murder of the civilian hostages by the remorseless Palestinian terrorists hostage takers. 

The attack was carried out by three "Arab-Israelis" who joined the  (DFLP) the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine:

Ali Ahmad Hasan al-Atmah (Linou), was 27 years old and he was born in Haifa.

Ziyad Abdar-Rahim Ka’ik (Ziyad) was 22 years old he had been born in Taibe. In his youth he had been involved with criminal activities and he had a police record as a juvenile delinquent and he had been placed in a institute for juvenile delinquents “Achvah” near Akko-Acre. According to the records of the Israeli Police upon his release he joined a criminal gang that specialized in burglaries. He also became a journeyman in laying tile floors for contractors in the area of Netanyah.

Muhammad Muslih Salim Dardour (Harbi), 20 years old, the youngest member of the group was born in Beit Hanina a neighborhood North East Jerusalem.

These three terrorists went to Lebanon to join the "Resistance" and received training in "Palestinian refugee camps" in the "No Man's" land of southern Lebanon known as "Fatahland". 

After the "Arabs of the Mandated Areas" catastrohic lost-read failure to commit a very real "Genocide"; in the extermination of ALL the Jews of the newly (UNR181) partitioned "Mandated Areas" know as the "Nakba" in the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. Lebanon became home to more than 110,000 Palestinian refugees. 

These refugees as ALL "Palestinian Refugees" in ALL ARAB lands, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt and Jordan have NEVER been absorbed and assimilated as productive citizens. 

In the aftermath of the establishment of the state and in total difference to those  "Palestinian Refugees", some 900,000 "Mizrachi Jews of Arab Lands" were "ETNICALLY CLEANSED" robbed of their property, businesses, and possessions and expelled from their homes from 1949-1964. 

In total indeference to the treatment of fellow Moslems and Arabs,  who were enclosed within fenced in UNWRA camps. These new immigrant Jews were absorbed by Israel as citizens. They were housed initially in "Transit Camps", due to the lack of homes. These corrigated metal hut and tent refugee encampments formed the basis of the  "Development Town" project to create new towns like Ma'alot in the prepheral areas of the country. 

These communities mostly comprised of Jews of Arab lands, many of whom had lived in rural areas where they were severly mistreated and uneducated, were in need of assistance in their assimilation -especially in their process of modernization and education. 

Many of the more French or English colonialized educated and wealthy Jews choose to immigrate to other countries or to move to other sections of Israel. Leaving a cultural as well as social problem that hindered Israel's development for decades.

Lebanon

After the infamous "Black September" of 1970, the southern part of the "sovereign nation of Lebanon" was subverted to a terrorist stronghold by Yasser Arafat and the PLO -Palestinian Liberation Organization by the large influx of  some 300,000 Palestinians that had been displaced from "Palestine" aka Jordan by the forces loyal to the imposed Hashemite King Hussein.

From 1967 until 1982, many numerous murderous attacks were launched from this area into Israel unhindered by the Lebanese forces or the UN "Peace Keeping forces".

"Operation Litani" of 1978 was provoked by the "Coastal Road Massacre" of 38 Israeli civilians, including 13 children. The intended purpose of "Operation Litani" was to clear the PLO out of Fatahland but was not allowed ro be completed by pressure brought on Israel to make a "ceasefire".

"Operation Litani" ended under intensive pressure from the US and the UN for a "Ceasefire" and the "United Nations" Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) was created after the incursion, following the adoption of United Nations Security Council Resolution 425 in March 1978: 

"to confirm Israeli withdrawal from Southern Lebanon, restore international peace and security(sic), and help the government of Lebanon restore its effective authority in the area."

In reality the PLO under the "watchful eyes" of UNIFIL, returned to the area with a vengenace and brought with them Soviet made 133mm artillery, Katyusha rockets and multiple launch trucks and 122mm mortars. 

Not content with terrorist infiltrations Arafat unleashed his arsenal of artillery and katyushas to fire indiscriminately almost nightly into Israel at civilian targets under the "watchful eyes" of the UNIFIL.

Israeli Concern For It's People

"Fortunately" the leadership of the Jewish state were wise and caring enough to construct public bomb shelters to protect it's citizens, especially in those areas neighborhood where older housing did not have any. 

Post 1967 apartment buildings were required to have a bomb shelter for all the residents. Needless to say "public" or "joint" bomb shelters lack privacy and are noisy and are not made for a stay of long extended peiods like that of "todays" "Secure room" which are available in all of todays new housing. 

In the post SCUD missile 1991 "Desert Storm" period newer housing starts by private contractors vied for providing a "secure room" in their new individual apartment housing. Since then standards for built in a "secure room"have increased.

Regretfully, for those of us who live in the prepheral areas, the once infamous "Development Towns". Our homes were built during the monetary crisis of the late 1950's early 1960's when construction mateials were scant. In my neighborhood of two floor apartments . that are 52 sq meters or 552 sq feet each; compare to average American   882 square feet. Bomb shelters were only constucted for neighborhoods in the post Six Day War period comprized of a single large underground room and toilets.

So when the shelling became increasingly a "nightly thing" each night from 1980 -1982, my wife and new born son would go downstairs to the bomb shelter to sleep in safety with the other wives and children of the building. 

We husbands and new fathers would stand guard in posts on the outskirts of Ma'alot, or in my case as a combat medic man the emergency medical center.

In 2006 during the "Second War" in Lebanon during the war, the Hezbollah rocket force fired between 3,970 and 4,228 rockets at a rate of more than 100 per day, unprecedented since the Iran–Iraq War. About 95% of these were 122 mm (4.8 in) Katyusha artillery rockets, which carried warheads up to 30 kg (66 lb) and had a range of up to 30 km (19 mi). Of those 1686 explosive ladened rockets were fired at Ma'alot, 6 landed less than 50 meters from my home.

The only difference is now we have the Iron Dome system which has been actively shooting down those missile/rockets fired at us.

Lebanon Now

In June of 1982 Israel could take it no longer after gunmen from Abu Nidal's organization attempted to assassinate Shlomo Argov, Israel's ambassador to the United Kingdom and the 1982 Lebanon War, dubbed Operation Peace for Galilee began.

From Wikkipedia:

"After attacking the PLO – as well as Syrian, leftist, and Muslim Lebanese forces – the Israeli military, in cooperation with their Maronite allies and the self-styled Free Lebanon State, occupied southern Lebanon, eventually surrounding the PLO and elements of the Syrian Army. Surrounded in West Beirut and subjected to heavy bombardment, the PLO forces and their allies negotiated passage from Lebanon with the aid of United States Special Envoy Philip Habib and the protection of international peacekeepers. The PLO, under the chairmanship of Yasser Arafat, had relocated its headquarters to Tripoli in June 1982. By expelling the PLO, removing Syrian influence over Lebanon, and installing a pro-Israeli Christian government led by President Bachir Gemayel, Israel hoped to sign a treaty which Begin promised would give Israel "forty years of peace". 

Following the assassination of Gemayel in September 1982, Israel's position in Beirut became untenable and the signing of a peace treaty became increasingly unlikely. 

Outrage following the IDF's role in the Phalangist-perpetrated Sabra and Shatila massacre of Palestinians and Lebanese Shias, as well as Israeli popular disillusionment with the war, led to a gradual withdrawal from Beirut to the areas claimed by the Free Lebanon State in southern Lebanon (later to become the South Lebanon security belt), which was initiated following the 17 May Agreement and Syria's change of attitude towards the PLO.

After Israeli forces withdrew from most of Lebanon, the War of the Camps broke out between Lebanese factions, the remains of the PLO and Syrian forces, in which Syria fought its former Palestinian allies. 

At the same time, Shi'a militant groups began consolidating and waging a low-intensity guerrilla war against the Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon, leading to 15 years of low-scale armed conflict. The Lebanese Civil War would continue until 1990, at which point Syria had established complete dominance over Lebanon."

What Wikkipedia fails to elaborate on is that most of the area south of Beirut to the Israeli border was an area where members of the Shi'ite branch of Islam reside. 

And as the Israeli government favoured a close relationship with the Lebanese  Maronite Phalange Christian forces over that with the depressed and oppressed poorer Shi'ite minority animosity towards Israel grew.

As I mentioned in my other posts in addtion to this issue of the status of Christians within the Arab world. There has ALWAYS been a conflict within Islam between the majority Sunni Muslims who believe that the Prophet did not explicitly declare a successor and the Shia Muslims who believe that the Prophet publicly designated his cousin and son-in-law, Hazrat Ali, as the first in a line of hereditary Imams from the Prophet's family to lead the community after him.

With the "triumphant return" to Iran in February 1979 of the leading scholar of Shia Islam Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, whose first name means "spirit of Allah" he created a theocracy in Iran based on the Velayat-e faqih or guardianship of the Islamic Jurist. 

This is a concept in "Twelver Shia Islamic law" which holds that until the reappearance of the "infallible Imam", at least some of the "religious and social affairs" of the Muslim world should be administered by righteous Shi'i jurists.

It is out of this Shi'ite belief that Hezbollah the party of God (Hizb Allah) declared its existence on 16 February 1985. 

The sons of the ummah (Muslim community) established "The Hizballah Program" with the aid of the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in order to spread the Islamic Revolution which follows a distinct version of Islamic Shia ideology.

According to "The Hezbollah Program" the principles of its ideology are: 

To expel Americans, the French and their allies definitely from Lebanon, putting an end to any colonialist entity on our land.

To submit the phalanges to a just power and bring them all to justice for the crimes they have perpetrated against Muslims and Christians.

To permit all the sons of our people to determine their future and to choose in all the liberty the form of government their desire. We call upon all of them to pick the option of Islamic government which, alone, is capable of guaranteeing justice and liberty for all. Only an Islamic regime can stop any future tentative attempts of imperialistic infiltration onto our country.

The current leader Hassan Nasrallah has described Hezbollah's ideology as having "two main axis: 

firstly, a belief in the rule by the just juris consult and adherence to Khomeini's leadership; and 

secondly, lay down the basis of a Muslim state which plays a central role in the world, as well as the continued need to struggle against the Israeli enemy"

Hezbollah views its conflict with Israel and the Jewish people as religiously motivated. 

The history of the Arab-Israeli conflict to them is a repeat of the negative interactions between the Jews of medieval Arabia and Muhammad and the early umma described in the Koran and other classical Islamic texts. 

God, according to Hezbollah theology, cursed all Jews as blasphemers damned for all time and throughout history.  Hezbollah (as well as the political/religious leaders of Iran) believe that the destruction of Israel will bring about the "reappearance of the Imam (the Shiite Islamic Messiah)"

Furthermore, the elimination of the state of Israel has been a primary goal for Hezbollah. 

Hezbollah not only opposes the government and policies of the State of Israel, but also each and every Jewish civilian who lives in Israel. 

Its 1985 manifesto reportedly states "our struggle will end only when this entity [Israel] is obliterated. We recognize no treaty with it, no ceasefire, and no peace agreements."

Truth and Self-Reliance

 It is now Day #16 .....

Mark Twain once stated;

“A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes.”

Now I know I had said I would go live 'everyday". However, on Shabbat -Saturday, when I tried to sleep, my head was very heavy from not getting what is called REM -(Rapid Eye Movement sleep) -deep restful sleep and I just laid in bed and let the two old guys continue to fight it out between themselves as they argued over everything.

In the end I awoke and sat on the edge of my bed and had to force myself to get up to let out (my nemesis) Marley the 12-year-old family dog downstairs to let out "Momma's Baby" aka the "Terror Dawg of Kitty Kats" to our backyard-his potty.

 And as he was outside, I took my medicines and insulin and put on the Tami4 water bar to heat up water and turned on the TV. As I stood making my cup of coffee, I was flipping between the news in Hebrew on our stations to be updated. Once my cup of coffee was made, I changed to see what is being said in the "Western world" news media- CNN BBC MSNBC NBC.

I let the dog in and sat drinking my coffee flipping through the channels as I watched the news....I was grew sick.

ALL you saw was: Gaza devastation, Gaza refugees, Gazans "murdered" by Israeli bombing, destroyed homes, “broken lives, "murdered children and babies" -Pallywood falestinian dezinformatsiya at its best. News coverage that would have made Lavrentiy Pavlovich Beria, chief of the People's Commissariat for Internal Affairs (NKVD) overjoyed!

And then I saw the focus on American college/university students demonstrating together with BLM activists and Arab/Moslem Immigrants who have flooded the world.

ALL of them marching, chanting; "From the river to the Sea, Palestine will be free!" Screaming and accusing us in Israel of being "Genocidal Occupationalist Settler's members of an Apartheid regime” totally brainwashed by mendacious lies from "UNWRA recipients-read descendants- of the self-inflicted Castration and Fantasia of Nachbaland™.

 I sat there in total amazement of how there are major network news reports with "pro-Palestinian guests" who are free to blatantly lie and complain that we have the "Iron Dome" system to prevent our Israel civilian population from being shot at and murdered.

Nary a word of how the vast majority of the Israelis are running to bomb shelters as rockets rain down.

What they readily show is OUR retaliatory strikes against launch sites, which can be seen in the videos in crowded residential areas using ordinary Gaza residents as "Human Shields", as a "Blatant War Crime"!

 Then I see members of the US House of representatives, Senate and celebrities also regurgitating the same.

"THE" most disgusting news item that I witnessed was the JINOs who took over the Rotunda in the US House of Congress to demand that Israel "ceasefire". God forbid they should contemplate that we in Israel are under indiscriminant mortar and rocket fire.

These pseudo-Jews -who explicitly for "effect" wore Jewish ritual prayer shawls, wore Kipot and were seen blowing shofars to "emphasize that they were "Jews". Members of the notorious anti-Israel "Jewish Voice of Peace" (read Kapo's Inc.) under the auspices of the six Democratic members of the U.S. House of Representatives known as the "Squad":  Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts, Rashida Tlaib of Michigan, Jamaal Bowman of New York and Cori Bush of Missouri.

These brainwashed and hate filled fools made this "publicity stunt" were calling for an Israeli "ceasefire" and the "genocidal murder" of the people of Gaza.

The JVP -an oxymoron - are infamously famous for their "Not in my Name", "As a Jew", anti-Israel and anti-Zionist. These Jews in name only (JINOs) are especially overly extremely hateful of Jews who have returned to our ancestral lands in Judaea.

Nary a time have they ever acknowledged the fact of the reasoning for the creation of the Jewish State and the historical background of Israel's creation.

They are oblivious to the historically document truth of the ethnic cleansing of 900,000 of their fellow Jews, who had lived for generations in Arab lands who "cast out" deprived of all they possessed who were absorbed as full citizens in the one Jewish State.

They consistently ignore the barbarity of terrorism and lies.

Why?

I can only deduce it is caused by profound Parasitic Ostrich Syndrome which is associated Kumbayaism and (RBDD) - Rectal Brain Displacement Disorder.

In all these news broadcasts I watched and the coverage of the massive demonstrations, nary one word is mentioned of how all this began nor of the continual launching of indiscriminate explosive laden rockets, mortar rounds, anti-tank missiles and attempts to infiltrate from Gaza and Lebanon to murder and butcher Israeli civilian citizens as was done to 1400 Israelis on Saturday October 7th -Jew and Arab alike.

And then yesterday I saw the report of the brutal murder of Samantha Woll, the president of the board of the Isaac Agree Downtown Synagogue, which is in downtown Detroit and was a staunch supporter of Rashida Tlaib!

As I did my "due diligence" I saw where Tlaib posted on her Facebook page that she was a friend of #SamanthaWoll but she conveniently left out the fact that Samantha was Jewish and the President of a local synagogue in her district.

Given Rashida’s recent inflammatory comments and lies about Israel, Rashida Tlaib has Woll's blood on her hands.

As one news guest on MSNBC stated; "Peace will come when the "Jewish" State of Israel is eradicated and replaced by a "Democratic Palestinian State".

As a Jew, a father and grandfather what I see is a world once more indifferent to the plight of Jews. Once again, a world oblivious to the truth brainwashed with hatred and despicable mendacious lies.

The momentary sense of guilt of the world in the aftermath of World War II, as I mentioned in a recent post. Of how only by the courage and bravery of Dwight D Eisenhower to call for the truth of the barbarity of abject hatred of Jews to be recorded for posterity is Holocaust denial dampened.

How in a momentary lapse of humanity and righteousness the members of the UN voted that fateful Novemebr of 1947 on "Partition" allowing the recreation and rebirth of our indigenous homeland.

How at the cost of nearly every Jew in Europe and Russia only then when confronted with the photographic and well documented eyewitness -by non-Jews (like we are experiencing now) did the world awaken to the cost of world apathy to the plight of Jews.

What awoke the world in 1945 was the truth of horrific anti-Semitism that was allowed to occur in a "modern country" that turned on its Jewish citizens and then to ethnically cleanse most of Europe and Russia in a highly organized and well planned and laid out scheme to exterminate the ENTIRE "Jewish race".

The so called "journalists" and TV news people of the world blatantly continue to turn a blind eye to the well documented historical facts. Nary a word is ever mentioned of the complicity of the "Arabs of the Mandated Area of Palestine" with the Nazi regime and the pressure brought upon the British "The Mandatory" that led to the closure of the gates to our promised "Jewish Homeland" in the British "White Paper" thereby condemning Jews to death as the world joined in by collectively closed the gates

As I wrote in one of my blog entries of Britannia had made a "Declaration" to win the hearts and minds of the Zionists believing in the "ability" of the Zionists to gain influence and sympathy of "World Jewry" as that expressed in the nefarious "Protocols of the Elders of Zion".

How England used its influence and power to gain the "Stewardship" over the previous Ottoman Turkish areas for their own nefarious reasons.

How upon being granted the "Mandatory" they turned around and paid off their WWI Arab ally by giving over 2/3rd of the territory assigned them by the League of Nations EAST of the Jordan river with the added stipulation that it be "Jew Free".

How the British used the idea of "Perfidious Albion" or treachery of the "Balfour Declaration" to gain the Mandate over "Palestine" to use it as a forward military bastion to guard the Suez Canal. 

How the British readily acquiesced to the Arabs every demand and only gave up when they were bankrupt at the end of WWII and had lost their far eastern holdings in India and were no longer in need of the Suez Canal and the once formable British Navy was downsized.

Yes, we Jews especially we Israeli Jews have learned the "hard way" that when it comes to WHO to depend on. We appreciate deeply the help from the USA. However, when it comes to our survival we will need to do so alone. 

“If you want a thing done well, do it yourself.”- Napoleon Bonaparte

 

 

 

Peace and the lessons of The Treaty of Hudaybiyya

 I made a recent post regarding the words of General Dwight D Eisenhower and President Biden which was intended to show of the extremity that is required by "our side -read the Jews- whereby the testimony of actual world leaders is needed to confirm the truth that what happened to our people actually happened.

THEN (in 1945)

"But the most interesting -- although horrible -- sight that I encountered during the trip was a visit to a German internment camp near Gotha. The things I saw beggar description. While I was touring the camp I encountered three men who had been inmates and by one ruse or another had made their escape. I interviewed them through an interpreter. The visual evidence and the verbal testimony of starvation, cruelty and bestiality were so overpowering as to leave me a bit sick. In one room, where they [there] were piled up twenty or thirty naked men, killed by starvation, George Patton would not even enter. He said he would get sick if he did so. I made the visit deliberately, in order to be in position to give first-hand evidence of these things if ever, in the future, there develops a tendency to charge these allegations merely to 'propaganda'."
Letter, DDE to George C. Marshall, 4/15/45 [The Papers of Dwight David Eisenhower, The War Years IV, doc #2418]

"We continue to uncover German concentration camps for political prisoners in which conditions of indescribable horror prevail. I have visited one of these myself and I assure you that whatever has been printed on them to date has been understatement. If you would see any advantage in asking about a dozen leaders of Congress and a dozen prominent editors to make a short visit to this theater in a couple of C-54's, I will arrange to have them conducted to one of these places where the evidence of bestiality and cruelty is so overpowering as to leave no doubt in their minds about the normal practices of the Germans in these camps."
Cable, DDE to George C. Marshall, 4/19/45 [The Papers of Dwight David Eisenhower, The War Years IV, doc #2424]

"When I found the first camp like that I think I never was so angry in my life. The bestiality displayed there was not merely piled up bodies of people that had starved to death, but to follow out the road and see where they tried to evacuate them so they could still work, you could see where they sprawled on the road. You could go to their burial pits and see horrors that really I wouldn't even want to begin to describe. I think people ought to know about such things. It explains something of my attitude toward the German war criminal. I believe he must be punished, and I will hold out for that forever." commander of Allied Forces Europe Dwight D Eisenhower Press conference, 6/18/45 [DDE's Pre-Presidential Papers, Principal File, Box 156, Press Statements and Releases, 1944-46 (1)]

NOW

“Rape, beheadings, bodies burned alive — Hamas committed atrocities that recall the worst ravages of ISIS,” Biden said, “unleashing pure, unadulterated evil on the world. There’s no rationalizing it.”
"For me as the U.S. president there's no higher priority than the release and safe return of all these hostages," he said of the fate of those abducted by terrorists.
“They will never be truly gone,” he said of those over 1,400 who perished in the massacre, which he linked with the Nazi Holocaust. “There’s something that is never fully lost, your love for them and their love for you."
Yet the present crisis will be nothing like the Holocaust, Biden said, because among others the Jewish people have the backing of their American allies.
“We will not stand by and do nothing again. Not today, not tomorrow, not ever,” he said.
“The State of Israel was born to be a safe place for the Jewish people. While it may not feel that way today… Israel must again be a safe place for the Jewish people.”
President Joe Biden's speech in Israel 18th Oct 2023

How this same message was echoed in the words President Bill Clinton expressed in his keynote address at the opening of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, in Washington, D.C., on April 22, 1993:

“those of us here today representing the nations of the West,”(who) …” must live forever with this knowledge--even as our fragmentary awareness of crimes grew into indisputable facts, far too little was done.”

Even now after the murderous barbarity of the 7th of October the empathy of the world is focused on the "Palestinians" and their "plight".

It is beyond belief how many major sources for control over the "minds of men" are siding with the "Palestinians" where ONLY after actual visual proof is given even words are not believed.
It is sickingly beyond belief how the word social media is bamboozled and brainwashed with a false narrative, flooded and focused on the stories of the lies behind the misery of the poor people of Gaza.

Historically documented facts of how we Jews, who are indigenous to the land and have one place to call home are blatantly ignored.
How a totally false narrative of how Jews and Arabs lived side by side in peace prior to the arrival of the "Zionists" has been spread.

Nary a word is given regarding the denial that the "Arabs of the Mandated Areas"are those who began this entire conflict by rejecting the UNR 181 Partition which “recommended the creation of independent Arab and Jewish States".

So what truly is the issue? As Gavin Kadey recently posted in his article entitled; "What The West Doesn’t Get About the Middle East" is that it all stems from from the Moslem conquest of our homeland by the forces of Islam in 635CE making iy the territory of Islam (Dar al-Islam).
For the "Palestinians" -Hamas- Israel belongs to the territory of war (Dar al-Harb – the area controlled by infidels), due to its conquest of what have historically been viewed as Islamic Palestinian lands. This idea, which relies on al-Qaradawi ruling that Israel is an enemy of Islam and the Muslim nation (against which a jihad must be fought).
The laws of jihad or holy war if necessary and there is no other choice then one can take a break, agree to a "Hudna" ceasefire or sign an agreement all based on "The Treaty of Hudaybiyya" between Muhammad, son of Abdullah, and Suhail, son of 'Amr [the envoy of Mecca] in 628CE.

In his article "Islamic Peace Treaties," John F. Schmidt argued that a Muslim "makes a peace treaty with an opponent with the sole purpose of suddenly destroying his treaty partner in an overwhelming surprise attack."

In an article entitled "I Believe Arafat," Dr. Mordechai Kedar wrote about Yasser Arafat's (May 15, 2002) address to the Palestinian Legislative Council in Ramallah on the occasion of the 54th anniversary of the 1948 Nakba.
Dr. Kedar had this to say about Arafat's position:

"I do indeed believe Arafat's message: He does wish to come to an agreement with the Israelis, but, as he points out to his followers, any agreement with non-Muslims… is simply a modern version of Hudaybiyya. As such, in accordance with Islamic principles which form the basis of the political culture in the Arab sphere, such a commitment may (or must) be broken at the right time."

Like Kedar, Schmidt draws the conclusion that Arafat's reference to al-Hudaybiyya is intended to rally Muslims behind the Oslo Accords, only to betray them later on:

John F. Schmidt stated that treachery was the expressed goal of Yasser Arafat, and the so called "Palestinian Authority" in the signing of the Oslo Accords. We glean this fact from Arafat's reference to "al-Hudaybiyya" in explaining himself in numerous public appearences before his Islamic supporters.

In all the attempts that we Israelis have attempted to make "Peace" with the "Palestinians" in which they have shown the world a false front to elicit support by those naive and unknowning of the Islamic Arabic culure and society.

Western leaders who are NOT educated in the intricacies of Islam will never understand with whom we are dealing with.

The Mandated Area of Palestine and Jordan

"IF" the world were "JUST" and upheld REAL DOCUMENTED agreements, the whole fallacy of the "Fantasia" of Arab "Palestine" would be clear to one and all.

In his role as Secretary of State for War, Churchill had since 1919 been arguing for withdrawal from the Middle East territories since it would involve Britain "in immense expense for military establishments and development work far exceeding any possibiity of return" and in 1920 in regards to Palestine:

"The Palestine venture is the most difficult to withdraw from and the one which will certainly never yield any profit of a material kind." 

On 14 February 1921, Churchill took over at the Colonial Office tasked with making economies in the Middle East. He arranged for the conference at Cairo with a view to this end as well as making an Anglo-Arab settlement. 

In the course of a report to parliament on 14 June 1921 that dealt with the outcomes of the conference, Churchill said:

We are leaning strongly to what I may call the Sherifian solution, both in Mesopotamia, to which the Emir Feisal is proceeding, and in Trans-Jordania, where the Emir Abdullah is now in charge. We are also giving aid and assistance to King Hussein, the Sherif of Mecca, whose State and whose finances have been grievously affected by the interruption of the pilgrimage, in which our Mohammedan countrymen are so deeply interested, and which we desire to see resumed. The repercussion of this Sherifian policy upon the other Arab chiefs must be carefully watched. 

The Sharifian or Sherifian Solution, (Arabic: الحلول الشريفية) as first put forward by T. E. Lawrence in 1918, was a plan to install three of Sharif Hussein's four sons as heads of state in newly created countries across the Middle East: his second son Abdullah ruling Baghdad and Lower Mesopotamia, his third son Faisal in Syria, and his fourth son Zeid in Upper Mesopotamia. The Sharif himself would not wield any political power in these places, and his first son, Ali would be his successor in Hejaz. 

Faisal was the first of Hussein's sons to gain an official role, in what was known as the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration (OETA) East, a joint Arab-British military administration. 

The Arab and British armies entered Damascus on 1 October 1918, and on 3 October 1918 Ali Rida al-Rikabi was appointed Military Governor of OETA East. Faisal entered Damascus as on 4 October and appointed Rikabi Chief of the Council of Directors (i.e. prime minister) of Syria. The territory consisted of the Ottoman Damascus Vilayet and the southern part of the Aleppo Vilayet. The area of Ma'an and Aqaba became subject of a dispute. 

Faisal consistently maintained that the Sykes-Picot Blue Zone was part of the area promised to Hussein in the McMahon-Hussein correspondence. On 15 September 1919, Lloyd George and Clemenceau reached an agreement whereby British forces were to be withdrawn starting on 1 November. As a result, OETA East became a sole Arab administration on 26 November 1919.

Meantime, Faisal was called to London, arriving there on 18 September 1919 and it was ultimately explained to him that he would have to make the best of it that he could with the French. While in London Faisal was given copies of all of the McMahon-Hussein correspondence that until then he had not been fully apprised of; according to his biographer, Faisal believed that he had been misled by his father and by Abdullah in this regard. Faisal arrived in Paris to attend the Versailles Peace negotiations on October 20,1919.

After receiving authorization on December 19,1919 from Hussein to enter into official discussions, Faisal, together with Haidar and General Gabriel Haddad, met on 23 December with Sir John Tilley, Hubert Young and Kinahan Cornwallis. In this meeting, there was a frank exchange of views wherein Tilley, representing Curzon, raised the issue of Hussein's signature to the Treaty of Sèvres and Faisal explained that Hussein would not sign until he was sure about Britain's intention to fulfill its promises to him. There were discussions about the McMahon-Hussein correspondence and its meaning and an agreement to set out English and Arabic versions side by side to see if anything might be resolved. 

Faisal and Clemenceau finally agreed on 6 January 1920, that France would permit limited independence of Syria with Faisal as king provided Syria remained under French tutelage, Syria to accept the French mandate and control of Syria's foreign policy.

The political scene in Damascus was dominated by three organizations, al-Nadi al-'Arabi (the Arab Club with strong Palestinian connections), Hizbal-Istiqlal al-'Arabi (the Arab Independence Party connected to al-Fatat) and Al-'Ahd (an Iraqi-run officers association). 

After returning to Damascus on 16 January, Faisal then proved unable to convince these supporters of the merits of his arrangement with Clemenceau and the Syrian National Congress on 8 March 1920 declared Faisal King of the Arab Kingdom of Syria over the whole of the OETA East area, which was a joint British, French and Arab military administration over Levantine provinces, which included "Southern Syria" (Palestine).

Lord Curzon  who was Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs disapproved and asked Faisal to take up his case with the Supreme Council. Curzon met with the French ambassador on 30 March and noted that the £100K monthly Anglo-French subsidy to Faisal had not been paid since the end of 1919 and should not be paid if Faisal pursues an "unfriendly and independent policy". 

In April 1920 the San Remo conference handed the French a Mandate for Syria; Faisal was invited to attend but did not do so, Nuri al-Said, Rustam Haidar and Najib Shuqayr attended informally, arriving nearly a week late and remained isolated from the main decisions of the conference. 

On 11 May, Millerand (who had replaced Clemenceau on 20 January) wrote:

"...the French government could not agree any longer to the daily violation of the principles of the agreement accepted by the Emir... Faysal cannot be at one and the same time representative of the king of Hejaz, of Pan-Arab claims and prince of Syria, placed under French mandate."

On 26 April 1920, Hussein told Allenby that he claimed the exclusive right of representation at the Versailles Peace Conference, that he appointed Abdullah to replace Faisal and on 23 May 1920, he cabled to Lloyd George "in view of the decisions taken by the Syrian Congress, Faisal cannot speak on Syria's behalf." 

By early February 1921 the British had concluded that "the Sherif's influence has now completely replaced that of the local governments and of the British advisers in Trans-Jordania, and [that] it must be realised that if and when Abdullah does advance northwards in the spring, he will be considered by the majority of the population to be the ruler of that country."

Abdullah arrived in Amman on 2 March and sent Awni Abd al-Hadi to Jerusalem to reassure Herbert Samuel, the first High Commissioner for Palestine. Samuel had insisted that Transjordan would not be used as a base from which to attack Syria and asked that Abdullah await Churchill's arrival at Cairo. 

Between 28 and 30 March, Churchill had three meetings with Abdullah. Churchill proposed to constitute Transjordan as an Arab province under an Arab Governor, who would recognise British control over his Administration and be responsible to the High Commissioners for Palestine and Transjordan. Abdullah argued that he should be given control of the entire area of Mandate Palestine responsible to the High Commissioner. Alternatively he advocated a union with the territory promised to his brother (Iraq). Churchill rejected both demands.

 

It must be noted that, King Hussein refused to ratify the Treaty of Versailles in 1919 and in February 1921, he stated that he could not be expected to "affix his name to  the Treaty of Sèvres a document assigning Palestine to the Zionists and Syria to foreigners." .

Responding to Abdullah's fear for a Jewish kingdom west of the Jordan, Churchill decreed it was not only not contemplated:

"...that hundreds and thousands of Jews were going to pour into the country in a very short time and dominate the existing population",

but even was quite impossible.

"Jewish immigration would be a very slow process and the rights of the existing non-Jewish population would be strictly preserved. ...Trans-Jordania would not be included in the present administrative system of Palestine, and therefore the Zionist clauses of the mandate would not apply. Hebrew would not be made an official language in Trans-Jordania, and the local Government would not be expected to adopt any measures to promote Jewish immigration and colonisation."

About British policy in Palestine, Herbert Samuel added that:

"There was no question of setting up a Jewish Government there ... No land would be taken from any Arab, nor would the Moslem religion be touched in any way."

The British were intent on securing Arab, in particular, Hussein's approval of the Mandates, especially the Palestine Mandate. Hussein had not ratified Versailles nor had he signed Sèvres or otherwise accepted the Mandates. 

Hussein's signature could have quieted the parliamentary factions as stated in the House of Lords by Lord Lamington that openly opposed the Balfour Declaration and who repeatedly alleged unfulfilled pledges to the Arabs.

"We have done this undoubtedly to support the Jews. Some time ago there appeared an article in The Times saying that the arrangements made at the Peace Conference in Paris were really the work of the Jews. In this country some of our chief offices of State are now held by the Jews, and we are undoubtedly under a great debt to those of the Jewish persuasion for carrying on the usages, customs, and government of civilisation. Therefore we cannot disregard them, or treat them in the way that other countries have done. I should be very sorry to see us do it. Still, we are now undertaking a distinct burden of government on behalf of the Jews, and not on behalf of British interests. That must be remembered, and the country should realise it, whenever there is any declaration of our policy in Palestine.

The position in Palestine has not been made any easier by the claims of the extreme Zionists, which have already been alluded to by Lord Sydenham. I do not think he mentioned one fact, that one of their leaders has said that all the present good land under cultivation, or land that could be cultivated without some extensive scheme of irrigation, is already held by owners, and, inasmuch as they are not making the best possible use of that land, three-fourths of it should be taken away from them and handed over to Jewish settlers, and only one quarter left to the present holders, who are not tilling the land properly. Lord Sydenham has also told us that they claim all uncultivated land."

"The best solution—I do not say it is an adequate one —is that you should give some confidence to the Arabs by saying that the administration of the country will be carried on in some degree by Arabs, Jews, and Christians as far as possible in proportion to the number of those different creeds in that country, and that the administration will be conducted under the suzerainty of the Emir Feisal. That is the only possible chance of peace there. If you do not do that I should look with dismay on what may happen to Palestine in the future. If  you do it, you will be redeeming the pledges you have made time after time.

I know the Emir Feisal. I have had frequent conversations with him and his, representatives, and I am confident that they will faithfully discharge any agreement you enter into with the Jews and others as to their special rights and prerogatives; but it is impossible to conceive that you will have peace in Palestine so long as there is the idea prevalent that the whole of that country is going to be under Jewish control. If you do not mean that, what do you mean? A "Jewish home" is too narrow a term to convey any other meaning, I believe it to be the views of eminent Zionists that they should obtain practical control of Palestine."

This parlimentary questioning undermined the fragile structure of Churchill's Sherifian solution that was partially based on the idea of a web of family relationships. 

The region that became known as the Emirate of Transjordan was separated from the area of the French Mandate after the French defeated King Faisal at the Battle of Maysalun in July of 1920.

For a time, the area had no established ruler nor occupying power nad had become a no man's land or, as Sir Herbert Samuel put it, "..left politically derelict". Hussein continued in his refusal to recognize any of the Mandates that he perceived as being his domain. 

During the period that the San Remo conference -as part of a peace treaty with the Ottoman Turkish Empire established the "Mandate for Palestine" and gave the United Kingdom of Great Britain the status of the "Mandatory Power" over the entire region. 

The "Mandate for Palestine" was a "League of Nations" (forerunner to the United Nations today) "stewardship" given to the United Kingdom (British) to  administrate the territories of the geographical area collectively known as "Palestine". The part west of the Jordan river became designated as "Palestine" and the area EAST of the Jordan river became known as Transjordan, both of which had been conceded by the Ottoman Empire following the end of World War I in 1918. 

The mandate was assigned to Britain by the San Remo conference in April 1920, after France's concession in the 1918 Clemenceau–Lloyd George Agreement of the previously-agreed "international administration" of Palestine under the Sykes–Picot Agreement. 

As Abdullah I,  had entered the region in November 1920 the British were anxious to get Faisal's approval to the British Stewardship over the Palestinian Mandate. In doing so the British claimed that TE Lawerence, who was the translator for Faisal, had written a letter to Churchill, from February 17th, 1921, whereby Faisal; "had agreed to abandon all claims to Palestine in return for Arab sovereignty in Iraq, Trans-Jordan and Syria.  

Later in the month a conference was held with the British during which it was agreed that Abdullah bin Hussein would administer the territory under the auspices of the British Mandate for Palestine with a fully autonomous governing system.

As part of the agreement Britain  withheld those articles of the Mandate concerning a Jewish national home and relegated all the area East of the Jordan river as "Jew Free" and the Amirate of Trans-Jordan, was a "protectorate" created by the British on 11 April 1921. 

(Pictured here are T E Lawerence King Abullah I and General Edmund Allenby in Jerusalem 1919) 

On 2 March 1921 a conference was held in Amman with the British during which it was agreed that Abdullah bin Hussein would administer the territory under the auspices of the British Mandate for Palestine with a fully autonomous governing system. As part of the agreement Britain negated those articles of the Mandate concerning a Jewish national home and relegated all the area East of the Jordan river as "Jew Free".

On 21 March 1921, the Foreign and Colonial office legal advisers decided to introduce Article 25 into the Mandate for Palestine, which brought Transjordan under the Palestine mandate and stated that in that territory, Britain could 'postpone or withhold' those articles of the Mandate concerning a Jewish national home.

The "Mandatory Power"-Great Britain according to Art 25 of the Mandate, chose to avoid the conflict with the Hashemites in "Transjordan" and "ceded" any definite connection between it and the area of "Western Palestine" therefore creating on April 1921 the "British protectorate" officially known as The Emirate of Transjordan (Arabic: إمارة شرق الأردن‎ Imārat Sharq al-Urdun lit.).

ART. 25.

In the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of Palestine as ultimately determined, the Mandatory shall be entitled, with the consent of the Council of the League of Nations, to postpone or withhold application of such provisions of this mandate as he may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions, and to make such provision for the administration of the territories as he may consider suitable to those conditions, provided that no action shall be taken which is inconsistent with the provisions of Articles 15, 16 and 18.(* see below) 

In the British White Paper of June 1922, orchestrated by the Secretary of State for the Colonies Winston Churchill, Gertrude Bell and TE Lawrence (pictured to the left) it states: 

"the terms of the (Balfour)  Declaration referred to, do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded `in Palestine.'"...

"Further, it is contemplated that the status of all citizens of Palestine in the eyes of the law shall be Palestinian,(meaning Jew and Arab alike)"

When it is asked what is meant by the development of the Jewish National Home in Palestine, it may be answered that it is not the imposition of a Jewish nationality upon the inhabitants of Palestine as a whole, but the further development of the existing Jewish community, with the assistance of Jews in other parts of the world, in order that it may become a centre in which the Jewish people as a whole may take, on grounds of religion and race, an interest and a pride. 

But in order that this community should have the best prospect of free development and provide a full opportunity for the Jewish people to display its capacities, it is essential that it should know that it is in Palestine as of right and not on the sufferance. 

That is the reason why it is necessary that the existence of a Jewish National Home in Palestine should be internationally guaranteed, and that it should be formally recognized to rest upon ancient historic connection."

In a letter dated the 24th October, 1915, from Sir Henry McMahon, His Majesty's High Commissioner in Egypt, to the Sharif of Mecca, now King Hussein of the Kingdom of the Hejaz. The United Kingdom / Great Britain (holder of the Mandate from the league of Nations), agreed to an "independent national government" to be established in the Mandated Palestine Territory EAST of the Jordan(river). 

As to the remainder of the Mandated Palestine Territory, "west of the Jordan",it is intended by the League of Nations and the Balfour Declaration to be converted into a Jewish National Home and was, "...thus excluded from Sir. Henry McMahon's pledge."

The Hashemite dynasty ruled the protectorate, as well as the neighbouring Mandatory Iraq and, until 1925, the Kingdom of Hejaz to the south. On 25 May 1946, the emirate became the "Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan", achieving full independence on 17 June 1946 when in accordance with the Treaty of London ratifications were exchanged in Amman. In 1949, it was constitutionally renamed the "Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan", commonly referred to as Jordan.

Articles from the Mandate For Palestine

ART. 15.

The Mandatory shall see that complete freedom of conscience and the free exercise of all forms of worship, subject only to the maintenance of public order and morals, are ensured to all. No discrimination of any kind shall be made between the inhabitants of Palestine on the ground of race, religion or language. No person shall be excluded from Palestine on the sole ground of his religious belief.

The right of each community to maintain its own schools for the education of its own members in its own language, while conforming to such educational requirements of a general nature as the Administration may impose, shall not be denied or impaired.

ART. 16.

The Mandatory shall be responsible for exercising such supervision over religious or eleemosynary bodies of all faiths in Palestine as may be required for the maintenance of public order and good government. Subject to such supervision, no measures shall be taken in Palestine to obstruct or interfere with the enterprise of such bodies or to discriminate against any representative or member of them on the ground of his religion or nationality.

ART. 18.

The Mandatory shall see that there is no discrimination in Palestine against the nationals of any State Member of the League of Nations (including companies incorporated under its laws) as compared with those of the Mandatory or of any foreign State in matters concerning taxation, commerce or navigation, the exercise of industries or professions, or in the treatment of merchant vessels or civil aircraft. Similarly, there shall be no discrimination in Palestine against goods originating in or destined for any of the said States, and there shall be freedom of transit under equitable conditions across the mandated area.

Subject as aforesaid and to the other provisions of this mandate, the Administration of Palestine may, on the advice of the Mandatory, impose such taxes and customs duties as it may consider necessary, and take such steps as it may think best to promote the development of the natural resources of the country and to safeguard the interests of the population. It may also, on the advice of the Mandatory, conclude a special customs agreement with any State the territory of which in 1914 was wholly included in Asiatic Turkey or Arabia.

"Perfidious Albion" and the Mandate for Palestine

 In replying to a comment by a friend on Facebook who wrote: 

"I honestly don't understand how they drew the border between Jordan and Iraq up north, Jordan's shape makes no sense to me."

Why England demanded the Mandate over Palestine 

As a (highly paid Oh, how I wish!!!) Hasbarnik and "historian", I wanted to draw everyones attention to historically recorded facts and the nefarious act of "Perfidious Albion", used by the British.

I especially want to point out British Imperial interests in the 

events surrounding the "Balfour  Declaration" and the creation of the League of Nations and the eventual division of the Ottoman Turkish Empire as outlined in the De Bunsen Committee report on 30 June 1915 that called for the creation of a decentralised, federal Ottoman state in Asia.

Background:

What initially drove the British to control the area of "Palestine" was the guarding of the "Gateway to India".

Since the opening of the Suez Canal on 17 November 1869, the Middle East had become the gateway to India, so who controlled the lands adjacent to the canal, and what happened there, was of vital importance. It had long been obvious that the Ottoman Empire – the famous “Sick man of Europe” – would eventually collapse. The burning question was what would succeed it. 

To the alarm of Britain and France, Russia was keen to extend her influence into the Levant, and the general thrust of British foreign policy was aimed at preventing that happening. Initially, Britain supported attempts to prop up and reform the Ottoman regime, but when it became clear that these were not going to work, the problem became how she could shape the post-Ottoman world to suit her own ends. Balfour and others took the view that if the Zionists were allowed to build up a Jewish “state”, with British support and encouragement, they would be reliable allies in the region.

Allow me to insert here that the highly Machevallian manuvers behind Lord Arthur James Balfour's Declaration, "MAY" have been based or in part influenced by his fundamentalist Christian belief, the culmination of four hundred years of British Christian Zionism prevelant in the British aristocracy and upper class British political establishment. 

At the same time one should note as well as the existence of a vile trope of European antisemitism articulated in the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", first published in Russia in 1903, which claimed there was a secret Jewish conspiracy to dominate the world present among many of the British aristocracy and upper class British political establishment.  . 

The extent to which elements of  the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" were a malicious parody of Herzl’s Judenstaat, and the Zionist Congresses were the “reality” behind the alleged meetings of the Elders of Zion.

By issuing the Balfour Declaration, a great power had gone public with its support for the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine as was mentioned in Der Judenstaat (1896), which would form for (Christian) Europe “an integral part of its defensive wall in Asia . . . an outpost of civilization against barbarism”.

Gertrude Bell & TE Lawrence

It should be noted that Britain saw to it that the Declaration: "...in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people" was included the terms of the Mandated region that the League of Nations gave it to administer to elicit symapthy supposedly from the "Jewish Cabal".

Once the Mandate was given to Britain suddenly the British Administration began to "back peddle" on their promises. 

Specifically as TE Lawernce, Gertrude Bell-( who openly hated Jews) who was managing

control of Mesopotamia as its Oriental Secretary alongside the Military Governor and Lord Curzon claimed there was; "...uncertainty and unrest among certain sections of the population". 

Because of this, and to sooth Arab emotions, the British Issued the "White Paper of June 1922" where the wording of the Balfour Declaration is reviewed in vague terms; 

"...“a national home” was capable of both statist and non-statist interpretations". 

"the terms of the (Balfour) Declaration referred to, do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded `in Palestine.'

"Further, it is contemplated that the status of all citizens of Palestine in the eyes of the law shall be Palestinian,(meaning Jew and Arab alike)"

When it is asked what is meant by the development of the Jewish National Home in Palestine, it may be answered that it is not the imposition of a Jewish nationality upon the inhabitants of Palestine as a whole, but the further development of the existing Jewish community, with the assistance of Jews in other parts of the world, in order that it may become a centre in which the Jewish people as a whole may take, on grounds of religion and race, an interest and a pride. 

But in order that this community should have the best prospect of free development and provide a full opportunity for the Jewish people to display its capacities, it is essential that it should know that it is in Palestine as of right and not on the sufferance. 

That is the reason why it is necessary that the existence of a Jewish National Home in Palestine should be internationally guaranteed, and that it should be formally recognized to rest upon ancient historic connection."

Pictured to the right; Emir Abdullah receiving the British Colonial Secretary, Winston Churchill, and his wife Clementine, upon their arrival in Cairo for the conference .  

It needs to be noted that the nefarious "White Paper" also reconfirmed the promise made to the Arabs in a letter, dated the 24th October, 1915, from Sir Henry McMahon, 

"His Majesty's High Commissioner in Egypt, to the Sharif of Mecca, now King Hussein of the Kingdom of the Hejaz agreed to an "independent national government" to be established in the Mandated Palestine Territory EAST of the Jordan(river). As to the remainder of the Mandated Palestine Territory "west of the Jordan" it is intended by the League of Nations and the Balfour Declaration to be converted into a Jewish National Home and was thus excluded from Sir. Henry McMahon's pledge.

As to WHAT drove British Machiavellianism?

From my extensive research of historical records British aims in the Middle East were driven by both the strategic importance of the Suez Canal and to assertain the continual supply of oil from the vast oil fields of Kirkuk and Persia for the Royal Fleet and the British military.

It was these two reasons that drove British demands during negotiations in San Remo for the Treaty of Serves, for the assignment of Mandated regions as outlined in the De Bunsen committee report "Committee of Imperial Defence: Asiatic Turkey, Report of a Committee" which was issued on 30 June 1915. The 

"Concerning Palestine it reported that it would be “...idle for His Majesty’s Government to claim the retention of Palestine in their sphere. Palestine must be recognized as a country whose destiny must be the subject of special negotiations, in which both belligerents and neutrals are alike interested”. 

In case of the partition or zones of influence options then the Committee defined a British sphere of influence that included Palestine while accepting that there were relevant French and Russian, as well as Islamic interests in Jerusalem and the Holy Places."

"Britania rules the waves": 

Regarding the urgent need for secure sources of fuel oil:

When the industrial revolution ended the “Age of Sail,” coal that fired the boilers of steam-powered ships became a major strategic resource. 

Worldwide “coaling stations” were essential for major naval powers like England at a time when oil was little more than a lubricant or a resource for making lamp kerosene.

Oil production began in the United States in 1859, but as Pennsylvania oilfield discoveries continued, Congress in 1866 appropriated $5,000 to evaluate petroleum as a potential replacement for coal to fire the Navy’s boilers. 

The conclusion arrived at by US Admiral George Henry Preble; 

“Was that convenience, health, comfort and safety were against the use of petroleum in steam-vessels,” and that “The only advantage shown was a not very important reduction in the bulk and weight of fuel carried,”

As the leaders in naval, trade and industrial power Great Britain had control of massive local coaling resources which served to strengthen its grasp of power. With supplies of coal on hand the Admiralty in Great Britain also resisted making the coal to oil switch.

What changed the minds of the "world sea powers" about using coal for fuel was the Spanish-American War of 1898.

For the first time, coal-fired war vessels had to fight far from the continental shores. Despite American victories in Manila Bay in the Philippines and Santiago de Cuba, hard strategic lessons were learned by the U.S. Navy about fueling coal-powered battleships. 

Because of this need to change to fuel oil naval ships in a message to Congress by President Taft on December 6, 1910 stated: 

"As not only the largest owner of oil lands, but as a prospective large consumer of oil by reason of the increasing use of fuel oil by the Navy, the federal government is directly concerned both in encouraging rational development and at the same time insuring the longest possible life to the oil supply."

This message to the US Congress of the need to achieve secure sources of oil was heard and understood by British Admirals and the Admiralty in England. The Admiralty had also closely observed the actions of the US Navy during the Spanish-American War of 1898 and the awarness of the American administration to the change realized that: 

“Despite the many advantages that oil held over coal for naval ships (cleaner, easier to refuel, more powerful, etc.), the fact that Britain did not own a supply of oil made the decision to switch painful necessity.”

Thereupon, the British government sought a majority share of the Anglo-Iranian oil company, and the age of ‘petro-politics’ began.”

"THE" major "wake-up call" to instigate the need for a rapid change over from coal to oil in England was the Agadir Crisis of April 1911 which had a profound effect ob Britain's Home Secretary Winston Churchill who "awoke" to the realization that the Royal Navy must convert its power source from coal to oil, to preserve its supremacy. 

In June 1914, Winston Churchill convinced the House of Commons to authorise the government purchase of a 51 percent share in the profits of oil produced by the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, to secure continued oil access for the Royal Navy.

Until then, the locally abundant coal readily available Welsh Coal fields was favoured over imported oil from the area of Kirkuk in Persia.)

Subsequently, when asked by Prime Minister H. H. Asquith to become First Lord of the Admiralty, Churchill accepted despite his previous views about the need for naval expansion

Winston Churchill as the initiator of the change in the Royal Navy as First Lord of the Admiralty, was convinced that speed and efficiency offered by oil convinced him that "Mastery itself was the prize of the venture." 

As First Lord of the Admiralty, Churchill knew that England "MUST" achieve control over the oil fields of Kirkuk in Persia. 

It was this knowledge as British Colonial Secretary at the 1921 Cairo Conference that influenced the manuevers by the British in it's dealing with the Arabs in the designation and control over the specific Mandated Areas assigned by the League of Nations to ascertain the flow of oil through the Trans Arabian Pipeline (TAP line). 

Also known as the Kirkuk/Iraq–Haifa oil pipeline or Mediterranean pipeline it allowed the flow of crude oil from the oil fields in Kirkuk, located in the former Ottoman vilayet of Mosul in northern Iraq, through Transjordan to Haifa in the then Britsh Mandated Area of  Palestine (now in the territory of Israel). 

Instead of the time consuming expensive transfer to ships for a long voyage or by  tanker trucks by land. The oil was piped directly to Haifa where it was distilled in the Haifa refineries, stored in tanks, and then put in tankers for shipment to Europe.

The pipeline was built by the Iraq Petroleum Company between 1932 and 1934, and was operational between 1935 and 1948 during which period most of the area through which the pipeline passed was under a British mandate approved by the League of Nations.

The pipeline and the Haifa refineries were considered so strategically important by the British Government, that what was once a beautiful "natural harbor" with pristine beaches was horribly defaced by the Mandate power (England)  forever solely to provide much of the fuel needs of the British and American forces in the Mediterranean before and during World War II. 

It is highly important to note that in the late nineteenth century the major naval powers began a naval race to construct new types of warships like the HMS Dreadnought of the British Navy launched in 1906, and the USS Texas launched in 1912, also known as Battleship Texas. The Royal Navy had 22 dreadnoughts (another 13 were completed during World War I), Germany built a total of 19 (five completed after 1914) and the United States completed 22 (14 of them after 1914). Japan and Italy built six, while Russia and France each built seven.

Many civilian ships also slowly converted from coal to oil. Since oil has a higher energy density than coal and more energy can be obtained from the same capacity, it was possible to reduce the size of the fuel tank on board and expand cargo space. It also meant a significant reduction in the number of crew members required as it negated the need to load coal and throw coal into the boiler.

The development of internal combustion engines led to the introduction of marine diesel engines, and ships began to convert their main engines to them, which had significantly higher fuel efficiency compared to the external combustion engines such as reciprocating steam engines or steam turbines.