Hur England olagligt gav bort 80% av det judiska hemlandet.

En kunnig genomgång av några händelser i det Palestinska Mandatet, med många fakta som EUs och Sveriges politiker antingen inte har en aning om eller vägrar acceptera. Man ser Englands lömskhet när de skulle vara mandatmakt.

Confusion and Trust

MAY 29, 2015, 3:26 PM


BLOGGER

Alex RoseAlex Rose was born in South Africa in 1935 and lived there until departing for the US in 1977 where… [More]
Follow or contact:


It cannot be denied by any sane person that the public is subjected to regular reversal of positions as stated by leading political individuals, not least of all the prime minister. Words should have meaning, but seldom do. The much touted “2 state solution” is absolutely not as such, but in fact this amounts to 3 Palestinian states without a single Jew in any of them; East Palestine [Jordan], West Palestine [Judea & Sumaria], and South Palestine [the Gaza Strip], “living beside” a single Jewish state consisting of 20% Arabs. How many of our legislators understand this?

Not so long ago, Netanyahu considered the importance of making known our legitimate rights to the Land of Israel as historically defined by an issuance of the Levy Report, but then withdrew the idea, presumably adhering to a safe “politically correct” position. For years, beyond the Begin-Shamir era, the world has become accustomed to the Arab states & their PLO/PA proxies demanding rights while their Israeli counterparts would belabor their interest in “peace”.


Legitimate historians know that the Palestine Mandate is a bonafide legal document which cannot be annulled and yet for us, the guilt ridden people, who would dare to draw attention to its relevant context as of now? Transjordan was created by British fiat through the injection of Article 25 as an attachment to the Mandate with the words, “In the territories lying between the Jordan & the eastern boundary of Palestine as ultimately determined, the Mandatory shall be entitled, withe 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 & 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 & 18.

Two questions emerge. How could Article 25 supersede Article 5 which charges the Mandatory with being responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign power? Article 15 concerns itself with discrimination “on the ground of race, religion or language”. What then are Jews who were prohibited entry to Transjordan?

Even more revealing are the words “to postpone or withhold application” which surely suggests temporary action. How convenient to overlook this stipulation with the declaration of Jordan replacing Transjordan !! There is a vast available history on the gyrations & transitions from the cis Jordan separation to Transjordan through to Jordan’s declaration which remains in a shortfall in the making of Israel’s case to the UN, EU and US. Both Isaiah Friedman [British Pan-Arab Policy 1915 – 1922] & Uriel Dann [Studies in the History of Transjordan, 1920 – 1949, The Making of a State, Westview] serve as excellent sources in reviewing the subject period..

Chapter 11 in Friedman’s book covers the episode on Transjordania & Palestine in full, and in particular Article 25. We find that Friedman agreed that it conflicted with “the basic obligation under which the British government had accepted the Mandate.” We learn further of the unpublished pledge made by HMJ to support the independence of the Arabs in Transjordania. Its legality had been discussed at the Peace Conference at which the Allied Powers did not recognize it.To understand the deliberate distortion, we find in the concluding statement of the 1937 Peel Commission, the words,”The field in which the Jewish National Home was to be established was understood at the time of the Balfour Declaration to be the whole of historic Palestine & the Zionists were seriously disappointed when Trans-Jordan was cut away from the field under Article 25.”

Subsequently, the Zionists accepted the separation but protested against the policy of a deliberate exclusion of Jews from settling there while the Transjordanian Arabs had the right to move to Palestine [Israel] without passports. In the July 1929 words of M. Rappard, Chairman of the Permanent Mandates Commission, agreeing with the Zionists, ” If it was a question of general exclusion [of Jews from Trans-Jordan], the terms of the Mandate have been broken.”

Richard Meinertzhagen, who was invited by Churchill to join his staff in 1921 at the Colonial Office as military adviser was deeply disappointed with Churchill’s decision with regard to Trans-Jordan. By way of a conclusion to this episode, his views as expressed below provide significant insights, given the blind repetitive meanderings of present say politicians as they embrace the shopworn ” two states” failed process:

“Both Lloyd George & Balfour told me that in giving the Jews [sic] their national home in Palestine, the Biblical Palestine, that is to say the whole of the country occupied by the Jewish tribes, including Moab & Ammon. But Churchill encouraged by Lawrence, gave the whole of Trans-Jordan to that miserable Abdullah, thus depriving Israel of a vital territory & allowing a complete encirclement of Israel by Arabs.——I remonstrated -He put on that ridiculous bull dog expression, but nothing could be done to remedy Churchill’s stupidity.”

†England †Churchill †araber  †Antisemitism †Israel. .........