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.

75 year of Arab Rejection

On this 75 Independence Day let the truth REAL TRUTH be known! 

On November 29, 2022 we marked 75 years since the historic move of the United Nations to FINALLY partition the British Mandate of Palestine into two countries, one Jewish and one Arab. 

The historical vote essentially symbolized the release from the treachery and infidelity, in their "Perfidious Albion" or "promise" of the Balfour Declaration, by the United Kingdom.

The infamous "Balfour Declaration" was a Machiavellian promise essentially made to gain the assistance of the "cabal" that is seen in "World Jewry", in WWI and WWII.  

A promise "supposedly" made to help in the rebirth of the Jewish State to Jewish and Zionist leaders anxious to save precious Jewish lives but negated by the British desire for oil and the foiling of Arab revolts. 

A promise, not unlike those secretly made to the Arabs, and repaid with land from the Mandated Area from the "intended future homeland of the Jews".

Throughout history we have see how England had, as it had done throughout the world, used it's colonies only for their needs and interests. 

So too did England use their area, "Mandated" to them by the League of Nations, as a "forward military base" and essential supply depot in World War II.

How factories and industries created by Jews and Zionists supposedly for the building of a country were cyniclly used in the British war effort. 

How the once beautiful and scenic Haifa Bay and surrounding area were despoiled, ecologically damaged and converted into a terminal and refinary of Iraqi oil, piped in from the distant oil fields of Iraq to supply the needs of the Royal Navy.

How during the years of British control, thousands of Arabs from the surrounding countries flocked unrestricted to the "Mandated Areas" whilst Jewish immigration was restricted and the area given across the Jordan River made "Jew Free"!

It was ONLY when England was bankrupt and it lost the sub-continent of India that the "death crasp" of the Empire called it quits and sent the matter to the UN.

Since the 75th Anniversary of the UN vote we are seeing a deluge of false mendacious lies on ALL forms of media regarding the "Legal creation" of the State of Israel.

Cambridge Professor, Sir Eliahu Lauterpacht, past Judge ad hoc of the International Court of Justice, a renowned expert on international law, clarified that from a legal standpoint, the 1947 UN Partition Resolution had no legislative character to vest territorial rights in either Jews or Arabs. He explained:

"The coming into existence of Israel does not depend legally upon the Resolution. The right of a State to exist flows from its factual existence - especially when that existence is prolonged shows every sign of continuance and is recognized by the generality of nations."

Reviewing Lauterpacht's arguments, Professor Julius Stone, a distinguished authority on the Law of Nations, added that Israel's "legitimacy" or the "legal foundation" for its birth does not reside with the United Nations' Partition Plan, which as a consequence of Arab actions became a dead issue. Professor Julius Stone concluded:."

 "The State of Israel is thus not legally derived from the partition plan, but rests (as do most other states in the world) on assertion of independence by its people and government, on the vindication of that independence by arms against assault by other states, and on the establishment of orderly government within territory under its stable control."

In the Media posts by the "detractors", HOIZs (Haters Of Israel and Zionism), NONE of them mention the basic fact that there was NO representation by a UNITED "Arab of the Mandated Territory" -those whom have usurped the title "Palestinians" in ALL the discussions and committees regarding Partition.

Also pay heed and note that NOT ONE of the detractors mentions that THEIR leadership was divided in an intense rivalrie that existed between competing Arab leaders; the Grand Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini and exiled Iraqi former Prime Minister Rashid Ali. 

The same intense rivalry was reflected in the forces of the Arab Liberation Army (ALA) led by Fawzi al-Qawuqji, who had been awarded the rank of a colonel of the Wehrmacht (German Army) and that of Abd al-Qadir al-Husayni, the Nephew of the Mufti, as the commander of the Army of the Holy War (Jaysh al-Jihad al-Muqaddas) .

Just as Fawzi al-Qawuqji had threatened in August of 1947 that: 

"...should the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine vote go the wrong way, “we will have to initiate total war. We will murder, wreck and ruin everything standing in our way, be it English, American or Jewish" and the final purpose is to "rid Palestine of the Zionist plague."  

Even today this same threat is made by Hamas and the "Palestinians! 

In ALL the media stories and reports we nary see any reference to the historical fact -read truth- that the SEVEN Arab League member countries HAD INVADED the Mandated area intending to divide up the mandated areas between themselves!!

Even fewer mention that the poor execution, carrying out /performance and ignomius defeat by the "Arabs of the mandated areas" during the course of the 1948 war was marked by the personal, family, and political rivalry between al-Qawuqji (who fought mainly in northern Palestine) and al-Husayni, who fought mostly in the Jerusalem area.

Some facts regarding UNGA Resolution 181 November 29th 1947:

The following telegraphic response; to UNGA Resolution 181 November 29th 1947, was sent by the Arab Higher Committee and was received by the Secretary General of the United Nations on January 19th,1948:

(The) Arab Higher Committee is determinded presist [persist] in rejection partition and in refusal recognize UN[O] resolution this respect and anything deriving therefrom[there from]. For these reasons it is unable [to] accept[the] invitation.

The UN Palestine Commission's February 16th,1949 report (A/AC.21/*) to the Security Council noted that Arab-led hostilities were an effort:

"To prevent the implementation of the General Assembly's plan of partition, and to thwart it's objectives by threats of acts of violence, including armed incursions into (Mandate) Palestinian territory.

On May 17th, 1948 - after the invasion began, the Palestine Commission designed to implemant 181 adjourned "sine dine"-Latin for without determining a date after the General Assembly appointed a United Nations Mediator in Palestine,which relieves the United Nations Palestine Commission from the further exercise of its responsibilities.

Denying the Jewish people's right to a state of their own, the Arab countries openly declared their intention of preventing the creation of the Jewish State by all means. 

A wave of violent attacks was launched against the Jewish population and when Israel declared its independence on May 14, 1948, five Arab armies invaded the new state the same night, seeking its annihilation and some 800,000 Jews (refugees) were expelled from Arab countries, finding refuge and were absorbed in Israel. 

The Arab population of the Mandate territory also suffered as a result of the Arab refusal to accept the partition plan. Some 700,000 heeded their leaders' calls to flee or left after being caught up in the fighting. The large numbers who stayed in Israel became full citizens, with equal rights, while their brethren were kept by their Arab hosts in perpetual refugee status to serve as pawns in the political struggle against Israel. 

Furthermore, a July 30th,1949 working paper of the UN Secretariat entitled; "The future of the Arab Palesine and the Question of Partition" noted further that:

"The Arabs rejected the United Nations Partition Plan so that any comment of theirs did not specifically concern the status of the Arab section of Palestine under Partition but rather rejected the scheme in its entirety."

The refusal by the leadership of the Arab population of the mandate territory to accept UNGA Resolution 181 demonstrated that they WERE NOT interested in establishing their own state if it meant allowing the existence of a Jewish state. 

This opposition to acknowledging the right of a Jewish state to exist still lies at the core of the conflict until this very moment!

HaYehudim - We the Nation and People of Israel

Ever since I first started doing "Hasbara" on the Internet in 2005  I have witnessed the spread and "trend" of ignorance and "revisionist anti Israel / anti-Zionistic" rhetoric and teachings. 

In my research I have found that this has been going on now since 1967 ever since Israel successfully defended itself and liberated the areas of Judaea and Shomron, which we were unable to do so in 1948.

This trend is also due to the total neglect and abandonment of the field of "Hasbara" by successive Israeli Governments and clarity of Israel's stance regarding the fate of our Indigenous homeland. 

As for many Jews in the Diaspora, our greatest failure was caused by our parents overwhelming desire to "blend in" and assimilate to negate "Zionism" - to be "faithful citizens" in reponse to the latent anti-Semitism that exists in the world. 

How during the post World War II / Holocaust rush to identify as  "faithful citizens" our parents negated and hid their Jewishness and rushed to embrace secularization. 

There are countless stories, but what stood out to me the most was the volunteer work I did in the summer of 1970 in New York when we would deliver food to elderly Jewish couples -the parents of children who fled New York City to the neighboring states and the wealthy suburbs leaving some of their parents in rat infested decrepit apartment buildings!

Though many of the apartment buildings were utterly disgusting, once you entered the apartment of the elderly mother or father. you entered a lost world, a world of Yiddishkite. As an 18 year old, totally "Driving Miss Daisy" Southern reform and secular Jew I was dumbfounded. You could not "just deliver" the packages of food we brought! My two fellow volunteers would be immersed in such warmth and love of grandparents from a world we never knew, the world of the Shtetl of Galicia. The Jews of the "Old Country". I was embarrased, for I knew nothing, no Hebrew no Yiddush. Even the basic terminology of Jewishness of religious ceremonies to "daven" "Mincha" "Tefliah" or even what a "Tallit" was! 

One can vividly see today the outcome of how our non-Orthodox parents, failed or out right refused to teach their children nor adhere to even the basic rudimentaries of Judaism, are responding! 

In Israel, our greatest success was in the liberation of our indigenous homeland in the immediate aftermath of the Six Day War and our two greatest failures were the failure to "stop" the local Arab populace from fleeing and our establishment of control over the Temple Mount!

Our secondary failure was the makeup of the post 1956 Sinai War  Israeli political system that allowed the spread of the "soul searching among comrages" inspired by those Israeli communists of Mapam and Matzpen who were at a loss when Stalin broke and purged the Jews from the "Party", as part of the embarassment of the defeat of the Soviet Armed Armies.

This "soul" searching spread throughout the "Leftist" -read Labor Party, reached it's peak in the aftermath of the Six Day War in 1967. When those "Labor Party affiliated" Israeli leaders rejected outright any Israeli attempt to annex or cease control over or settlement -read "occupation" of the liberated areas and allowed the void to be filled with the "Big Lie". The "Lie" of Palestine!! 

Israeli leaders failed then to relay the HISTORICAL TRUTH! That Judaea and Shomron ARE (still) part of the Balfour Declaration designated "Homeland" of the Jewish People enshrined by the League of Nations "Mandate" that was given to the British to rule over 

That the Arabs who claim today to be "Palestinians" said zilch, nada to King Abdullah I of Jordan when he invaded and conquered the area in 1948! Nor when he tried to Annex the area.

Israel was a society "drunk" with the financial victory of the Post Six Day War and the control over expansive territory in Sinai, the Golan and the "Disputed Territories" of Judaea and Shomron.  Israel suddenly had a large pool of cheap laborers. Jews from "Arab lands" who had been neglected and held in destain suddenly went up the ladder in society from being the street cleaners and laborers to the "managerial" positions. 

We -those who ARE NOT of the Knitted Kipa modern Orthodox -have failed to impress upon our "secular youth" what life was like as stateless people, and how daily life was prior to the Six Day War!! We need to teach and impress upon each and everyone of them how precious it is to have a "country/home" of our own. 

That as Jews WE CAN BE a "moral nation" and people- a true "light upon other nations", but we must be totally aware of the very real and malicious world we live in!

Though the Nazis were "THE" most "efficient" and most "successful" in their attempt to eradicate us -and when I say US I mean ALL Jews! The very real hatred and despisal known as anti-Semitism is still whispered behind our backs or shouted in our faces, or passed out in leaflets, or posted on Social Media. Anti-Semitism the hatred of Jews exists openly throughout the "Western" "Enlightened World" and it is spreading thanks to OUR failure to unite as one to push back! 

As Jews We -collectively-  cannot afford the luxury of descending into a state of slumber! We must arise -TOGETHER -from the stupor 

We -ALL JEWS MUST remember "WE" -especailly here in Israel,  are surrounded by a people whose basic instincts for utter barbarity are well documented! 

For example here is a portion of transcript from the interrogation of the terrorist Arafat Arfaiah, who murdered 19 year old Ori Ansbacher. In reading it we can learn of the deep hatred and sickness that is taught and exists in the Arabs of "Palestine".

Arfaia: "I made my parents very proud of what I did".

Q: "How do murder and rape cause pride?"

Arfaia: "I didn't just rape someone, I murdered a Jewish woman. You won't be able to understand it because our thinking is different. If you ask anyone if they would be happy to kill a Jew... you will see that I have done everything that Arabs dream of doing".

Q: "Why didn't you just do it a while ago if you so longed for it?"

Arfaia: "This is not what Allah planned for me this murder is the best and most important thing I have done in my life.  If she had stayed alive it would have meant that I had failed in what I had planned and failed in the mission, that was the hardest feeling I felt in my life".

Arfaia: "I planned to enter Jerusalem through the forest to kill Jews ...I wanted to kill multiple Jews and not just one, but when I was there I saw that Allah had sent me the Jewish woman I realized that I had to kill her, this was the fate that Allah summoned me".

"I planned to enter some place to wear a kippa so that they would think I was Jewish and to stab as many Jews as possible to kill them".

"If I hadn't met the girl on the way I would have entered Jerusalem to carry out the attack and murder Jews".

"After I murdered her, I stayed by the body for a while longer, waiting for more Jewish people to come so that I could surprise them and stab them with a knife and kill them...." "If I had died during the attempt to kill more Jews, for me it is a blessed thing because then I would have died as a martyr"

We see by the words of Arafat Arfaiah the deep hatred and sickness within the "Palestinians" the same sickness that is reinforced daily to their children. 

One should take heed and note from this recorded transcript he refers to murdering JEWS and not "Israeli" nor Zionist's nor Settlers as the apologists for falestinian dezinformatsiya claim!

We must live by the words of Zev Jabotinsky, and in the mannerisms of warfare taught to our pre state "Night Squads" by Major General Orde Charles Wingate -A son of missionaries, Wingate carried a Bible wherever he went in pre-state Israel and trumpeted Jewish claims to the land just as British Mandatory policy turned anti-Zionist. 

Wingate, known as the "Known Friend"(Hayedid HaYaduah) strived to remind us of to be like Gideon, Shimeon Bar Kochba and Judah HaMaccabee! To be leaders who are willing to stand boldly -unafraid of death to fight like lions and to be proud Jews.  

Above ALL else we Jews must cease to fight between ourselves! WE all of us must work to stay a people united for only then will AM Yisrael continue to be Alive in Ertzanu!

The phrophetic words of the heathen prophet Balaam

As I was going through, my extensive files of historical writings and information, that I have read and accumulated in my fifty some odd years as a teacher of history, Lately in my "free time" of retirement I find myself drawn to be spokesperson a "Hasbaranik" for Israel. I would define "Hasbaranik" as: "a concientious reader of Social Media News sources who sees the fabrications and mendacious lies of those who post "falestinian dezinformatsiya" and replies to them."

As a very "learned" -educated and knowledgeable from reading ACTUAL historical documents- pro-Zionist Israeli and Jew, I find it my duty to enlighten the passive unknowing "audience" of those who take the "click bait" and are exposed to the utter fabrications and blatant viciously mendacious lies presented by the minions of the "falestinian Nachba Tragedy Tourists™" and their brainwashed and bamboozled sycophants on "Social Media". 

As I was reviewing and reorganizing I came upon this article from several years ago, "The Case for 'Dwelling Alone" by Yehuda Avner who had served on the staff of five prime ministers, including Golda Meir and Menachem Begin.

In light of today's "headlines" of the rise of anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism as well as the isolation and profound criticism of Israel by the UN, I found Avner's words and quotes of those famous Zionist Israeli leaders quite prophetic. Though long this article is well worth the read:

Golda Meir, Israel's most celebrated model of straitlaced probity, once gave a pep talk to 15 diplomatic probationers at the Foreign Ministry in 1958. Clearly wishing to take our measure, she leaned leisurely into her chair, combed back her bund hair with the fingers of both hands, lit up a cigarette, and eyeing us through the flame of the match, said in a Hebrew filled with Milwaukee-sounding pronunciations, "Are you sure you greenhorns want to join the Foreign Service? 

"Representing the Jewish state can be a very lonely experience. I'll tell you why: When I'm at the United Nations I look around me and think to myself, we have no family here. Israel is entirely by itself in the international community, less than popular, and certainly misunderstood.All we have to fall back on is our own Jewish, Zionist faith."

Whereupon, her tone gritty, her fists balled, she proceeded to ask herself;

 "Why should this be?""Why such solitude?"

"Why is it that we are the one country in the world that is Jewish?

"Why are we the one country in the world whose language is Hebrew?"

"Why is it that we have no independent kith and kin, or any historic relationship with any other state, or group of states, or cultures, or religions, or languages; as do say, the Anglo-Saxon nations, or the Christian nations, or the Muslim nations, or the Nordic nations, or the Slav peoples, or the Francophonic nations, or the Spanish-speaking, or the Arabic-speaking, or the Chinese-speaking peoples?"

Here she paused to rummage inside her copious black leather handbag, from the depths of which she extracted a handkerchief with which she blew her bulbous nose, and then, shoulders stooped, face glum, voice pensive, continued;

 "Everybody in the world has sovereign and cultural family except us. Everybody in the United Nations is grouped into blocs bound by a common geography, or religion, or history, or culture, except us. They vote in solidarity, like family.

We belong to no family. Our most natural regional allies - our Arab neighbors - do not want anything to do with us. Indeed, they want to destroy us. So, we really belong nowhere and to no one except to ourselves, impelled by our own Jewish, Zionist faith."

With that, the foreign minister stubbed out her cigarette and brooded over the ashtray, clearly pondering her next thought. When it came her voice was mulish:

"Since we have no blood ties to stand by us in solidarity, we suffer severe diplomatic consequences. 

Nobody recognizes Jerusalem as our capital city. We have no membership in any international regional alliance. We have no membership in any trade area. We enjoy no international recognition of our national medical emblem, the Magen David Adom. We have no accredited membership in any United Nations regional grouping.

Consequently, we are the only UN member that has no prospect of ever becoming a member of the Security Council.

"Of course," she added with a pious smile, "there is one important exception - our natural blood ties with our fellow Jews in the Diaspora. But everywhere they are a minority, and nowhere do they enjoy any form of national or cultural autonomy, let alone sovereignty."

Thus spoke this extraordinary woman, then in her early sixties, making no attempt to answer her own earth-shattering question: why, indeed, was the Jewish state without any sovereign kith or kin in the family of nations? Why was Israel the odd state out?

Years later, when she was prime minister and I a member of her staff, I discovered she had an aversion to analytical, conceptual discourse of any sort. A tough character with a domineering streak, Golda Meir knew to ask the right questions but was wont to simplify the most complex issues and go straight to the crux of the matter for a practical answer. Impatient with the convoluted theorems favored by academics and seasoned career diplomats, she wanted bottom-line answers. And, for her, "Jewish, Zionist faith" was a bottom-line answer.

This enigma, of Israel's diplomatic solitude, once came up for discussion at the Bible study circle which Menachem Begin regularly hosted at his home when he became prime minister in 1977. Every Saturday night 20-odd people, among them Bible scholars of repute, would seat themselves comfortably around the couch on which Mr. Begin sat, and for an hour or so would zestfully delve into an attention-grabbing biblical text.

On the Saturday night in question the chosen text was from the Book of Numbers,chapters 22 to 24, in which the Bible records how, 38 years after the children of Israel embarked on their Exodus from Egypt and two years before entering the Promised Land, the heathen prophet Balaam was coaxed by the Moabite king Balak to curse the advancing Israelites and thereby devastate them. However, Balaam, impelled by God's command, and much to Balak's fury, found himself involuntarily blessing them profusely instead.

The discussion that evening centered primarily on the evocative verse nine of chapter 23, in which Balaam foretells with remarkable prescience the future destiny of the Jewish people, predicting that "this is a people that shall dwell alone and shall not be reckoned among the nations."

Reading the verse out loud, prime minister Begin fixedly peered at the page of his Bible as though studying a museum manuscript and, sounding a mild chuckle, said, 

"One does not have to be a mystic for the imagination to be stirred by such an improbable vision of a nation 'dwelling alone.' What Balaam said is a startlingly accurate prophecy of our Jewish people's experience in all of history."

Professor Ephraim Urbach, a rotund, semi-bald scholar of refinement, wit, and brilliance, cited classic commentators to suggest "dwelling alone" really meant voluntarily setting oneself apart. In other words, the Jewish nation distinguished itself from other peoples by virtue of its distinctive religious and moral laws, and by the fact that it had been chosen by God as the instrument of a Divine purpose within the family of nations.

A woman in her fifties raised a finger for attention. She was fairly tall and lean, her face equine, her dress an unfussy nut brown, her beret a plain gray, her shoes sensible, and her eyes brilliantly intelligent. This was Nehama Leibowitz, famous for her profound biblical scholarship and for her immensely popular weekly Torah discourses, composed in a comprehensive and highly comprehensible style, graspable even to laymen.

Deftly, she drew attention to the verse's grammatical structure, elaborating upon and reinforcing Professor Urbach's comment, explaining that the verb yit'hashav, generally translated in English to mean reckoned - "this is a people that shall not be reckoned among the nations" - was here rendered in the reflexive form [hitpa'el], meaning, "this is a people that does not reckon itself among the nations."

As an aside, she pointed out that this form of that particular Hebrew word - yit'hashav - occurs but once in the whole of Scripture.

Professor Ya'acov Katz, a slight figure with dour features and a deeply analytical disposition, broke in to refer to the eminent talmudist Marcus Jastrow. Citing Jastrow's talmudic sources, Katz showed the hitpa'el of the root word hashav, ["reckon"] signifies "to conspire," meaning that Israel "is a people that dwells alone and does not conspire against other nations."

Another participant, whom everybody knew simply as Srulik - a ginger, bushy-haired archeologist and Bible prodigy in an emerald-green yarmulke which he had picked up at the door - provocatively remarked that whatever which way one interpreted Balaam's prophecy it stamped the Jewish people as an eternally abnormal nation within the family of nations. This flew in the face of the classic Zionist creed which expounded that Zionism's aim was to normalize the Jewish people so that it should become a goy k'chol hagoyim - a nation like other nations.

Indeed, the central thesis of the Zionist theorists and thinkers of the late 19th and the early 20th centuries was that once Jews possessed what every other normal nation possesses - a country of their own - they would automatically become a normal nation within the international community. And the consequence of that, so the classic Zionist theory went, would be that anti-Semitism would wither and die.

To which Dr. Haim Gevrayahu, chairman of the Israel Bible Society, and involved in one way or another in many high-profiled Bible study circles throughout the country, added words to the effect that, in making their confident predictions, one wondered in hindsight what led those brilliant secular Zionist founding fathers of yesteryear to believe that Jewish self-determination would, of itself, lead to national normalization and put an end to anti-Semitism. 

Indeed, were Jews to become a normal people they would cease being Jewish. But that could never happen because nothing could ever put an end to anti-Semitism. In fact, one thing to be learned from the biblical portion under review was that the so-called prophet Balaam was the archetype anti-Semite. His whole intent was to curse the Jews, not to bless them. The blessing was God's doing, not his.

This triggered off a firestorm of controversy because some of the scholars present took the Bible as a paradigm of God's own writing, while others related to it secularly as a piece of extraordinary literature.

Listening attentively, Mr. Begin lowered the temperature by saying in an earnest voice that it could hardly be denied by any reading of the text that the Jewish people did, indeed, live separate, apart, and often alone. And to prove his point he picked up a volume called A People That Dwells Alone. 

This was an anthology of the utterances of Dr. Ya'acov Herzog, confidant of several prime ministers, and universally admired for his remarkable gifts as a diplomat, philosopher, Talmudist, and theologian. Scion of a famous rabbinic family, he was the son of Israel's first chief rabbi, Yitzhak Isaac Halevy Herzog, and younger brother of Chaim, who was to become Israel's sixth president. He died in 1972 at the age of 50. To me, (Yehuda Avner)-he was a mentor, counselor, and tutor.

The prose of Ya'acov Herzog's anthology reads like a great rolling stone, accumulating intellectual threads and philosophic concepts as it gathers momentum and accelerates deeper and deeper into the mysteries of Jewish identity and eternity. And it was one such concept that Menachem Begin chose to quote that night to the members of his Bible study circle. He read:

“The theory of classic Zionism was national normalization. What was wrong with the theory?

It was the belief that the idea of a "people that dwells alone" is an abnormal concept, when in actuality, “a people that dwells alone" is the natural concept of the Jewish people.

That is why this one phrase still describes the totality of the extraordinary phenomenon of Israel's revival. If one asks how the ingathering of the exiles, which no one could have imagined in his wildest dreams, came about, or how the State of Israel could endure
such severe security challenges, or how it has built up such a flourishing economy, or how the unity of the Jewish people throughout the Diaspora has been preserved, one must come back to the primary idea that this is "a people that dwells alone." More than that, one must invoke this phrase not only to understand how the Jews have existed for so long; one must invoke it as a testimony to the Jewish right to exist at all in the land of their rebirth.”

"So, there you have it," concluded Begin, closing the book with a resolute air. "Cease 'dwelling alone' and you cease to exist. What a conundrum!"

The REAL Truth regarding the "Disputed Territories"

As I have stated over and over again the Minions of the Usurpers of Falestine" are like a Tsunami of viral hatred in Talkback sections of ALL news sites. 

I see that almost ever "news article" -read slander and lies- regarding the issues here in tiny Israel are so misconstrued by unscrupulous and unvirtuous news editors and journalists who totally lack the very basic integrity in their relaying of a story that ones brain fries!

As one who consistently states that WORDS DO MATTER!!! and that so does HISTORICALLY RECORDED and DOCUMENTED FACTS! I am sickened that the public of ALL ages is being exposed to the "art of dezinformatsiya" to vilify and negate the existence of the one lone Jewish State!

Besides the endless lies regarding the Temple Mound we are now exposed to the BIG LIE state once more by Palestinian PM Mohammad Shtayyeh:

"This is not a disputed land. Palestine belongs to the Palestinians, and this occupied land will be liberated. Jerusalem is ours, and Palestine is ours."

So world news sources how about the TRUTH for once in your coverage?

1) The Green Line, (pre-)1967 border, or 1949 Armistice border, was intended ONLY as a DEMARCATION line rather than a permanent border between the armies of Israel and those of its neighbors (Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria) after the 1948 Arab–Israeli War.

2) The drawing of the "Green Line" SUPERSED entirely the partition lines proposed and voted on by the United Nations in the Partition Plan of 1947, which the Zionists Jews had accepted in the Israeli Declaration of Independence and founded the sovereign State of Israel. 

3) The Arabs of the Mandated Areas (those who have usurped the term palestine- a long story in of its self) and Arab leaders had repeatedly rejected any permanent partition of Mandatory Palestine and at the 1949 Rhodes Armistice Conference the Arabs INSISTED that they were NOT creating permanent BORDERS. 

4) With the seizure of the area, beyond the "Green Line" to the West Bank of the Jordan River by the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan in 1948. The area came to be designated the West Bank. And furthermore the "Eastern Part" including the ETHNICALLY CLEANSED Jewish Quarter became known euphemistically as "East Jerusalem". The area, though under the control of an Arab nation, the Arabs of the Mandated Area DID NOT assert sovereignty to create a "Palestinian State" from May 1948 - June 1967.

5) Ergo, the Arabs of the Mandated Area DID NOT assert sovereignty leaving the territory as "Terra nullius" which is a Latin term meaning in INTERNATIONAL LAW as 'land belonging to no-one' or land not under the sovereignty or control of any other state or socially or politically organized grouping; or by prescription, where a state acquires territory through a continued period of uncontested sovereignty.

6) This "Terra nullius" area was part of The League of Nations Internationally agreed Mandated Area given as a Mandate to the British to Govern in 1922 as per the preamble which states; "... in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people."  "...recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country;"

7) And as stated in the INTERNATIONAL agreement of the League of Nations in the Treaty of Sèvres (San Remo conference ) and later ratified in the Treaty of Lausanne July 24th 1923. 

THERE IS NO MENTION OF THE "PEOPLE" nor "Sovereign NATION of PALESTINE! 

8) TO CLARIFY what IS MENTIONED is; 

"... it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine," 

9) After the DEFENSIVE Six-Day War, the aforesaid "Mandated area for ‎‎the Jewish Homeland" (Article 8 Mandate for Palestine) was liberated from Jordanian "Occupation" in 1967, the ‎‎‎"West Bank" officially became Israeli territory under Uti ‎possidetis juris (Latin for "as you possess under law"). 

10) INTERNATIONAL LAW and the U.N. Charter states that not all wars are illegal. Indeed the U.N. Charter expressly reaffirms the legality of a defensive war. Since defensive war is not illegal, it follows that the defender’s territorial gains from such a war would not be illegal.

In fact the legality of defensive conquest was endorsed by the International Law Commission, a body created by the General Assembly, and tasked with providing fuller explanations of the legal significance of the U.N. Charter and related documents. All agreed that post-war frontier adjustments were justified to help protect the victim of aggression.

So it is way past time that the REAL TRUTH be told by real News sources, journalists and above ALL else political leaders with integrity!!!