Well, not quite. But, from 26th July I plan a new blog focussed on those 100 days u7p to 2nd November.
There’ll be some comment, but mostly I’ll be putting infront of people archival material to show something of the true nature of British diplomacy and Zionist attitudes during them period up to Balfour’s letter and to the declaration of the ‘Jewish State’.
It’s not publishhed yet, so, what this space…
This is an edited re-post as we approach the centenary of BALFOUR
The correspondence between the Sharif of Mecca (Husayni, or Hussein) and Sir Henry McMahon, HM High Commissioner in Egypt, is clear: Great Britain…
promised an independent Arab nation in the whole of the Arabian peninsula bounded on the West by the Red Sea and Mediterranean, on the South by the Indian Ocean, on the East by the Arabian Gulf and the border with Iran-Persia, and the North along a line just south of parallel 37, subject to minor exceptions which included Basra and Bahgdad; the Trucial States, and certain coastal districts to the west of Damascus, Homs, Ham and Aleppo.
Earl Grey, Foreign Secretary during WW1, stated to Parliament in 1923
“I think we are placed in considerable difficulty by the Balfour declaration itself. … it promised a Zionist home without prejudice to the civil and religious rights of the population of Palestine. A Zionist home, my Lords, undoubtedly means or implies a Zionist Government over the district in which the hoome is placed, and if 93% of the population of Palestine are Arabs, I do not see how you can establish other than an Arab Government without prejudice to their civil rights. … I do see that the situation is an exceedlingly difficult one, when it (Balfour) is compared with the pledges which were undoubtedly given to the Arabs.” Quite so!
In the same debate Lord Buckmaster remarked, “I think we ought to say what we mean, and I think we ought to do what we say…. We certainly meant what we said in 1915. We did not do what we said in 1918″ and concluded that the British government should “go back to obedience to the promise that we gave at a moment when we were gravely beset by difficulties, to the relief of which the Arab help in no slight degree contributed”
On April 27th 1920 Field Marshall Viscount Allenby wrote (by telegram) to Emit Feisal:
“As regards Palestine you have always been aware (he was not), that His Majsty’s Government were pledged to creating a national home for the Jews in Palestine, an intention in which administration acquiesced. His Majesty’s Government will regard themselves as under an obligation which will be confirmed by terms of mandate to safeguard in fullest manner the interests of indigenous inhabitants of the country.”
In his reply, amongst other things Feisal points out:
“As regards … the creation of a national home for Jews in Palestine … all that I have admitted is to safeguard rights of Jews in that country as much as rights of indigenous Arab inhabitants are safeguarded and to allow same rights and privileges. Arabs of Palestine, both Christian and Mahommedan, have repeatedly availed themselves of every opportunity against any agreement or pledge that they would make their motherland the national home of Israelites.”
Britain promised Palestine to the Arabs, we lied and we broke covenant. Scripturally, God regards any promise as made through him. We have taken in vain the Name of The Lord. Christ have mercy.
If you who are still wondering why the Mufti hated the British and sought help from Hitler in the 1930’s perhaps you should seek help not from history but from an analyst.
What is it about British and American parliamentarians, and Israel?
I’ve come to the conclusion that, with some notable exceptions, they’re scared stiff and playing safe. Even those who aren’t entirely sure whether God exists seem to have opted for the ‘insurance’ of keeping on God’s side and not offending ‘God’s people’. It’s the safe side: if God exists then being nice to his folk registers on the plus side of your account.
It’s all because of the dodgy dossier; no not that one, this is a much earlier one, and I don’t mean the Bible! Any sensible Christian, indeed, many sensible Jews, must conclude that being God’s people wasn’t primarily to do with ethnicity but with behaviour. (Not, please note my evangelical friends, that our behaviour saves us: it doesn’t. But our behaviour reflects, albiet in a glass darkly, what we believe. Shouldn’t it?).
The dodgy dossier runs like this: “the Jews are God’s chosen people, God made them a promise and now he’s keeping it, don’t get in His way”. Alongside this is the claim, “it was our land 2000 – 2500 years ago, we were kicked out, we’re entitled to go back”.
What is remarkable about these claims is that anyone should take them seriously, especially as a justification, following a half century of industrial killing, for the dispossesion, ethnic cleansing, persecution and oppression of another people. A people, we should note, who themselves have claim to have been on that land for 2000 years and more.
Starting with the last claim; why should this people group be granted a ‘right of return’ that is not available to e.g. Aborigines, American Indians, Celts, Palestinians, etc.? But, further, there is a) no evidence to support the claim of ‘being kicked out’ , it didn’t happen, and b) no evidence for this people group’s presence in Palestine 2000 – 2500 years ago as possessors. It’s questionable they were there as occupiers. Which takes us to the Bible.
Here the issue is also quite straightforward. The covenant between God and Abraham-Jacob/Israel was demonstrably conditional. Israel, the 12-tribe collective, broke covenant and, as promised, were expelled from the land, (on which a great deal more could be said). The prophetic promise of return was evidently conditional – it was in peace and upon penitence and dependence on God and God’s Messiah, (not much evidence of that in the ‘do-it-yourself’ Zionist programme!). The old, broken, covenant would be transformed by the New Covenant of the heart.
The Christian faith is that Jesus, the Jewish Messiah, has sealed the New Covenant in his blood. Those who have the faith of Abraham, whether of Hebrew descent or not, put their trust in Jesus Messiah as people of God, a continous and direct line of a believing remnant in every generation from Abraham to today.
If, by the way, you sincerely wish to ‘bless Israel’, and you should, pray that God’s people will act like God’s people following the example of Jesus. And if you wish to bless the State of Israel (along with USA, UK, France, Germany, Turkey, Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia etc. ) and you should, you’ll do that best by speaking truth, which is what our politicians ought to be doing, even if it upsets the zionists.
So, please tell your MP or Congressman/Senator to get their facts straight and to do justice and act mercifully. If they wish to serve God’s people Zionism is the opposite, the wrong direction. And bringing peace in Palestine is very likely to mitigate the Middle Eastern irritation with European (which includes USA) imperialism!
A Final (I hope) post on this subject!
Any fair-minded person reading the correspondence between the Sharif of Mecca (Husayni, or Hussein) and Sir Henry McMahon, HM High Commissioner in Egypt, must conclude that Hussein had been promised an independent Arab nation in the whole of the Arabian peninsula bounded on the West by the Red Sea and Mediterranean, on the South by the Indian Ocean, on the East by the Arabian Gulf and the border with Iran-Persia, and the North along a line just south of parallel 37, subject to the following exceptions. Britain claimed special rights over Basra and Bahgdad; the Trucial States were excluded and it was claimed by Britain that districts to the west of Damascus, Homs, Ham and Aleppo, not being wholly Arab and being a French interest must also be excluded. As far as Palestine was concerned, it didn’t rate a mention, although special international arrangements were suggested for Jerusalem.
Reading the submissions and conclusions of the Parliamentary Committee of March 1939 into this affair is fascinating. Included are extracts from a debate in Parliament held in 1923. Earl Grey, Foreign Secretary during WW1 is quoted, “I think we are placed in considerable difficulty by the Balfour declaration itself. … it promised a Zionist home without prejudice to the civil and religious rights of the population of Palestine. A Zionist home, my Lords, undoubtedly means or implies a Zionist Government over the district in which te hoome is placed, and if 93% of the population of Palestine are Arabs, I do not see how you can establish other than an Arab Government without prejudice to their civil rights. … I do see that the situation is an exceedlingly difficult one, when it (Balkour) is compared with the pledges which were undoubtedly given to the Arabs.” Quite so!
In the same debate Lord Buckmaster remarked that there was nothing “in the nature of casual inconsistency” but “that a deliberate pledge has been given on the one hand, which has been abandoned on the other”. He then summed up his view, ” I think we ought to say what we mean, and I think we ought to do what we say…. We certainly meant what we said in 1915. We did not do what we said in 1918″ and concluded that the British government should “go back to obedience to the promise that we gave at a moment when we were gravely beset by difficulties, to the relief of which the Arab help in no slight degree contributed”
Buckmaster was naive, Britain did not mean what it said in 1915, at least as far as the Eastern portions of the peninsula. In 1915 Britain had already concluded a treaty with Bin Saud who was to rule the Nejd, a significant area of East-Central Arabia. In a speech of 5th January 1918 the British Prime Minister declared “Arabia, Armenia, Mesopotamia, Syria and Palestine are, in our judgement, entitled to a recognition of their separate national identities.” There is much more, but how much evidence do we need. Britain promised Palestine to the Arabs, we either lied, or we broke covenant,
If you who are still wondering why the Mufti hated the British and sought help from Hitler in the 1930’s perhaps you should seek help not from history but an analyst, (you may interpret that however you wish).
Shortly before Nakba day I posted In Memorium. One response seemed to accuse me of defending, even celebrating immorality. I don’t propose to ‘approve’ the comment since it would occupy the equivalent of 2 pages. But the assertions within it cannot be allowed to stand without response, for the Palestinians are found collectively culpable, through their leaders, for the Holocaust. ‘They knew, they could have acted, they didn’t because of anti-Semitism’. This is the kind of ‘history’ that is taught to Israeli children and it simply is not true.
So, if you are interested, I am making the ‘Comment’ available,together with my response. It runs to 7 pages. The pdf can be found here Memorium-response .
My wife hates going to a souk. It’s not just the noise, it’s the constant hassle – people trying to sell you stuff, in broken English. I love it. What we have to understand is that the Arabs do it differently. On holiday, tourists want the experience and maybe to buy a few souvenirs. We see something beautiful and want to look at it. The shopkeeper sees us looking and thinks, “Ah, that’s what she was looking for”, so when he tries to sell it to us he gets confused because we don’t seem to understand the process. Buying and selling in the Arab world is not merely a business transaction it is personal and, often, communal.
Read the account of Abraham’s purchase of a cave to bury his wife, Sarah, in Genesis chapter 23. From the first seven verses we could get the impresion that Abraham is asking and the Hittites are agreeing the land as a gift. Verse 8 to 11 continue the impression with Abraham saying “I’ll give you the market price” & Ephron’s reply “No, I give it”. In the end, there is agreement, Abraham will have the field and cave and Ephron will receive his asking price of ‘four hundred shekels of silver’.
It is worth bearing that in mind when reading the McMahon-Husseini correspondence. (this can be found as an appendix in ‘The Arab Awakening: the story of the Arab National Movement’ by George Antonius. pub.1938 or in the British Library Archives). Whilst couched in ‘diplomatic niceties’, from the first letter, from Amir Abdullah to Mr. Ronald Storrs and the subsequent ‘Notes’ between Sharif Husain (sic) and Sir Henry McMahon, they are very much to the point. In my view McMahon’s Note dated October 24, 1915 gave Husain to understand that Great Britain agreed to independence for the larger part of the Arabian peninsula, excepting Baghdad and Basra, Alexandretta, and ‘portions of Syria lying to the west of the districts of Damascus, Homs, Hama and Aleppo’. That is to say, an independent Arab state including today’s Saudi Arabia, the Sinai, Israel-Palestine, Jordan, Syria, excepting the coastal regions, Iraq, excepting Baghdad & Basra, Kuwait and a small portion of southern Turkey.
It is interesting to note Chaim Weizmann’s conversations with Husseini’s brother, Feisal and their agreement that the Jews and Arabs could work together. Weizmann obscures the Zionist intent to create a Jewish state, while his attitude to democracy and to Arabs is evident in his reaction to the British proposal for a legislative council with Arabs (by far the majority of the population) as a majority; ‘I had pointed out that to talk of elected Arabs representing their people was to contradict the democratic principle which it was supposed to further’. This at a time when in Britain women had not yet been granted the vote might be regarded as typical imperialist arrogance. And from a European from Russia where even today democracy is a strange animal. For the Zionists democracy must wait until they formed the majority, or, when war in 1939 prevented, they would wait, continue with terror then obtain the land by force.
Dave Carter's Blog 
Recent Comments