The day Palestine was infected by a virus called Israel

The victims of Europe and the Holocaust decided that they want a state of their own, somewhere, anywhere in the world.

After considering many options (at the expense and with total disregard to whoever may have already lived in the selected lands), Palestine was chosen. Among the Jewish Zionist options were such countries as Argentina, Ghana and other countries.

The Zionist movement arose in late nineteenth-century Europe, influenced by the nationalist ferment sweeping that continent. Zionism acquired its particular focus from the “ancient Jewish longing” for the return to Zion and received a strong impetus from the increasingly intolerable conditions facing the large Jewish community in Tsarist Russia. The movement also developed at the time of major European territorial acquisitions in Asia and Africa, and benefited from the European powers’ competition for influence in the shrinking Ottoman Empire.

One result of this involvement with European expansionism, however, was that the leaders of the nascent nationalist movements in the Middle East viewed Zionism as an adjunct of European colonialism. Moreover, Zionist assertions of the contemporary relevance of the Jews’ historical ties to Palestine, coupled with their land purchases and immigration, alarmed the indigenous population of the Ottoman districts that comprised Palestine. The Jewish community (yishuv) rose from 6 percent of Palestine’s population in 1880 to 10 percent by 1914. Although the numbers were insignificant, the settlers were outspoken enough to arouse the opposition of Arab leaders and induce them to exert counter pressure on the Ottoman regime to prohibit Jewish immigration and land buying.

As early as 1891, a group of Muslim and Christian notables cabled Istanbul, urging the government to prohibit Jewish immigration and land purchase. The resulting edicts radically curtailed land purchases in the Sanjak (district) of JERUSALEM for the next decade. When a Zionist Congress resolution in 1905 called for increased colonization, the Ottoman regime suspended all land transfers to Jews in both the Sanjak of Jerusalem and the Wilayat (province) of Beirut.
After the coup d’etat by the Young Turks in 1908, the Palestinians used their representation in the central parliament and their access to newly opened local newspapers to press their claims and express their concerns. They were particularly vociferous in opposition to discussions that took place between the financially hard-pressed Ottoman regime and Zionist leaders in 1912-13, which would have let the world Zionist Organization purchase crown land (Jiftlik) in the Baysan Valley, along the Jordan River.

The Zionists did not try to quell Palestinian fears, since their concern was to encourage colonization from Europe and to minimize the obstacles in their path. The only effort to meet to discuss Palestinian and Zionist aspirations occurred in the spring of 1914. Its difficulties illustrated the incompatibility in the aims of both sides aspirations. The Palestinians wanted the Zionists to present them with a document that would state

• Zionists precise political ambitions,
• Zionists willingness to open their schools to Palestinians, and
• Zionists intentions of learning Arabic and integrating with the local population.

The Zionists rejected this proposal.

The proclamation of the BALFOUR DECLARATION on November 2, 1917, and the arrival of British troops in Palestine soon after, transformed the political situation. The declaration gave the Zionist movement its long-sought legal status. The qualification that: nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine seemed a relatively insignificant obstacle to the Zionists, especially since it referred only to those communities’: civil and religious rights, not to political or national rights. The subsequent British occupation gave Britain the ability to carry out that pledge and provide the protection necessary for the Zionists to realize their aims.

Chaim Weizmann, president of the World Zionist Organization, placed maximalist demands before the Paris Peace Conference in February 1919. He stated that he expected 70,000 to 80,000 Jewish immigrants to arrive each year in Palestine. When they became the majority, they would form an independent government and Palestine and would become: “as Jewish as England is English”

Weizmann proposed that the boundaries should be the Mediterranean Sea on the west; Sidon, the Litani River, and Mount Hermon on the north; all of Transjordan west of the Hijaz railway on the east; and a line across Sinai from Aqaba to al-Arish on the south. He argued that:

“the boundaries above outlined are what we consider essential for the economic foundation of the country. Palestine must have its natural outlet to the sea and control of its rivers and their headwaters. The boundaries are sketched with the general economic needs and historic traditions of the country in mind.”

Quite an expansionist dream for a Russian Jew!

The irony is that all most Jews living in Israel today are Europeans. Those born in Palestine since 1948 cannot claim the land as theirs. They are Palestinians but of Jewish faith. Does the fact that, say, American Muslims who were born and raised in the USA, have any right to claim America as a “Muslim State?”

Thank You!

The map above (Palestine 1946), published as a United Nation Map number 93 (b) in 1950, clearly proves – when compared to present-day Israelis maps,  that the Nazi-like Zionist simply occupied, terrorized and continue to ethnic cleanse the land of Palestine.

The seven well equipped Arab armies who attempted to destroy the poorly armed and newly founded ‘Jewish State’!

he baseless myth, of how the Arab armies wanted to destroy the ‘Jewish State’, has been propagated in all sectors of the Israeli society, especially in its school system, military boot camps, and media. As it will be proven below, this myth was deemed necessary by most Zionists to legitimize their continued USURPATION of the Palestinian people’s political, civil, and economic rights.

Often when Israelis and Zionists are confronted with facts contrary to their liking, they counter by accusing the sources of fabrication or being part of the “anti-Semitic” Arab propaganda. To avoid such a “confusion”, we’ll directly quote two of the most prominent pro-Israeli historians, Martin Van Creveld (the renowned Israeli military strategist and historian) and Martin Gilbert, who wrote:

• “In the Event of invading [Arab] forces were limited to approximately 30,000 men. The strongest [consider this fact while reading the next quote] single contingent was the Jordanian one, already described. Next came Egyptians with 5,500 men, then the Iraqis with 4,500 who ….. were joined by perhaps 3,000 local irregulars. The total was thus around eight rather under strength brigades, some of them definitely of second-and even third-rate quality. To these must be added approximately 2,000 Lebanese (one brigade) and 6,000 Syrians (three brigades). Thus, even though the Arab countries [population] outnumbered the Yishuv by better then forty-to-one, in terms of military manpower available for combat in Palestine the two sides were fairly evenly matched. As time went on and both sides sent reinforcements the balance changed in the Jews’ favor; by October they had almost 90,000 men and women under arms, the Arabs only 68,000.” (The Sword And The Olive, p. 77-78)
  
• “Senior Hagana commanders met with committee [UN Special Committee On Palestine-UNSCOP] members in Jerusalem’s Talpiot quarter in similarly surreptitious circumstances to express confidence that Jewish forces, which they numbered at 90,000, including 35,000 reservists, could overcome any Arab assault should it come to war.” (Jerusalem Post)
  
• “Ben-Gurion made serious efforts, shortly before the United Nations vote on the Partition proposal, to seek the neutrality of King Abdullah of Transjordan, whose British trained and officered army, the Arab Legion, was the STRONGEST fighting force in the Middle East. The king had long been at loggerheads with Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Mufti of Jerusalem, for the moral leadership of the Arabs of the whole region. Abdullah’s secret interlocutor was to be Golda Meir:”‘ …… He [King Abudullah] soon made the heart of the matter clear: he would not join in any Arab attack on us. He would always remain our friend, he said, and like us, he wanted peace more than anything else. After all, we had a common foe, the Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini.’”(Israel: A History, p.149-150)

• “As for Abdullah’s Arab Legion, it had fought better than any other Arab force. Yet on scarcely any occasion had the Arab Legion attempted to conquer territories allotted to the Jews by the partition plan, preferring to stay on the defensive.” (The Sword And The Olive, p. 95)
  
• “…. there was no common military headquarters, no attempts at coordinating the offenses of the Arab armies, and … not even a regular liaison service for sharing enemy intelligence.” (The Sword And The Olive, p. 83)
  
• “Perhaps the most important [of the Arab armies problems] was a crippled shortage of ammunition, owing to the international arms embargo …, in the case of the Iraqis and Egyptians, long lines of communications. For example, after February 25, 1948, the Arab Legion received no new ammunition for its 20mm guns. Some of the ammunition used by the Iraqi artillery was more than thirty years old; the Syrians had no ammunition for their heavy 155mm guns. Whereas Jewish stockpiles were growing all the times [especially the big arms shipment from Czechoslovakia in May 1948], the enemies were so depleted they stole ammunition shipments for each other. In addition, they were ill-coordinated, technically incompetent, slow, ponderous, badly led, and unable to cope with night operations that willy-nilly, constituted the IDF’s expertise.” (The Sword And The Olive, p. 95-96)
  
• Soon after the execution of Operation Dani in the first half of July 1948, Yigal Allon wrote a Palmach (Haganah’s strike force) report stating that the expulsion of Lydda‘s and Ramla‘s inhabitants had:
  

  “clogged the routes of the advance of the [Transjordan Arab] Legion and had foisted upon the Arab economy the problem of “maintaining another 45,000 souls . . . Moreover, the phenomenon of the flight of tens of thousands will no doubt cause demoralization in every Arab area [the refugees] reach . . . This victory will yet have great effect on other sectors.” (Israel: A History, p. 218 & Benny Morris, p. 211)

Although we disagree with the Arab armies’ statistics (30,000 men) that was presented by Mr. Creveld, the reader could conclude the following:

• The strongest Arab army to enter Palestine was in cahoots with the Israelis from the start. Based on H.M. King Abdullah‘s orders (who also commanded the Iraqi Army in addition to Transjordan’s), the strongest Arab armies did not even encroach on the areas allotted to the Jewish state by the 1947 UN GA Partition plan. On the contrary, the truth was the exact opposite, for example:
  
  1- Lydda, Ramla, and the Triangle Areas were handed over to the Israelis without a fight. Although Transjordan’s Army withdrew based on the orders of H.M. the King, the Iraqi Army (which was positioned few kilometers north in Ras al-’Ayn) was given explicit orders not to intervene (their motto in Arabic was: maku ‘Awamer). It should be noted that these areas used to be densely populated with Palestinians, were fertile, and were strategically located for both Arab and Israeli supply lines.
  
  2- When the Israeli Army attacked the Egyptian (south) and Syrian (northeast) armies in mid-October, 1948, the Iraqi and Jordanian armies were forbidden from opening a third front in the middle and south. The Iraqi Army was capable of splitting Israel in half if it was given the orders, and the Jordanian Army watched from the sidelines as the Israeli Army mauled the Egyptians in southern Hebron and Beersheba areas (Righteous Victims, p. 244). Note that the Iraqi Army was well positioned in the Tulkarm-Jinin areas (southeast of Haifa) which is only 12-14 kilometers from the Mediterranean, click here for a map illustration.
  
• The other strongest Arab armies, Egyptian and Iraqi, had long supply and communication lines away from their bases in their respective countries.
  
• Saudi Arabian and Sudanese armies contributed few thousand soldiers in the middle of the war to shore up the exhausted Egyptian army in southern Palestine.
  
• Under American and French pressure, the Lebanese Army was sidelined from the start, and it did not even cross the international borders. At the most, the Lebanese army provided a mediocre artillery cover to some ALA [Arab Liberation Army] volunteers at the beginning of the war. (Righteous Victims p. 233-234)
  
• When the Arab armies entered Palestine on May 15, 1948, close to 400,000 Palestinian refugees were already ethnically cleansed out of their homes, and they clogged the roads, burdened local economies, and demoralized the Arab populations and armies, as it was admitted by Yigal Allon. In other words, the Palestinian refugees were used as a weapon against Israel’s enemies.
  
• The Arab armies neither coordinated their military operational plans, nor shared military intelligence among themselves. In fact, it wasn’t until April 30, 1948 that the Arab armies’ chiefs of staff met for the first time to work out a plan for military intervention. It’s worth noting that this plan was later wrecked by H.M. King Abdullah, when he made last minute changes just before the entry of any Arab army into British Mandated Palestine. (Simha Flapan, p. 133 & Iron Wall, p. 35)
  
• According to a Jewish Agency assessment of the Arab intentions and capacities, submitted in March 1948, reported that the Arabs chiefs of staff had warned their government against an invasion of Palestine and any lengthy war because of the internal situation in most of the Arab countries. For example, revolt in Yemen kept the Saudis at bay and there was a mass riot in Iraq against the Anglo-Iraqi treaty, (Simha Flapan, p. 123-124)
  
• Yochai Sela of Tel-Aviv University, has provided the following breakdown for the number of Israelis killed during the 1948 war:

Fatality Category	Value	Percentage of Total
Civilians killed*	1,150	20.15%
Military killed	4,558	79.85%
Total	5,708	100%
Soldiers killed between Nov. 30, 1947 – May 15, 1948	1,345**	23.56%
Soldiers killed between May 15, 1948- March 10, 1949	3,213**	56.29%
Killed within the areas designated by the UN	1,581	27.70%
Killed outside the areas designated by the UN	2,759***	48.33%
Killed defending Jewish settlements	984	17.24%
Killed attacking Arab settlements	1,212	21.23%

Source: Simha Flapan, p. 198-199.
* Majority died in Jerusalem
** The number of Israelis killed while fighting the Arab Legion 1,367; the Palestinians, 1,092; the Egyptians, 910; the Syrians, 238; the Iraqis, 241; the Lebanese 129; Qawukji’ ALA, 336, the British 30.
*** Mostly soldiers, non-civilians.

• These statistics clearly show that the number of Israeli soldiers killed in offensive actions were well over 60% (2,759/4,558) of the total Israeli soldiers killed between November 30, 1947 and March 10, 1949. So from the Israeli prospective, the so called “War of Independence” was more offensive than defensive in nature.
  
• The Israelis maximally exploited the rivalry between H.M. the King Abdullah of Transjordan and al-Hajj Amin al-Husseini. For example, before the entry of any Arab armies to Palestine on May 15th, 1948, al-Hajj Amin (who resided at the time in Tyre-southern Lebanon) wanted to declare a provisional Palestinian government in the Galilee, with Safad being its capital. To preempt such a plan, H.M. the King pulled out Transjordan’s irregulars troops out of Safad on May 11th, 1948, which was the primary reason for its falling into Israeli hands few days later (Benny Morris, p. 105). Another good reason that enticed H.M. the King to collaborate with the Jewish Agency was the promise of future payments of $4 million a year for the next subsequent 5 years. (Simha Flapan, p. 138)
  
• Although there was an arms embargo on the warring parties in the Middle East, the embargo negatively affected the Arabs more than the Israelis. While the Arab armies were depleting their arms and ammunitions, the Israeli army was stockpiling weapons and ammunitions from a huge arms shipment from Czechoslovakia that arrived in early May, 1948.
  
• By October 1948, the Israeli army had 90,000 armed men, while the Arab armies had 68,000 armed men.
  
• It’s a fabricated myth that seven well equipped, organized, and coordinated Arab armies attempted to PUSH the poorly armed Jews into the sea, click here to read our rebuttal to this myth.

Ben-Gurion, the first Israeli Prime Minister, recognized that Palestinian nationalism created the very danger he was most afraid of. He knew that the victory in 1948 was achieved not because the Israeli Army was more heroic but because the Arab armies were corrupt and the Arab world was divided. He became obsessed with the fear that a charismatic leader would modernize Arab education, their economies, and unite all the Arab states. He wrote on November 11, 1948:

“The Arab people have been beaten by us. Will they forget it quickly? Seven hundred thousand people beat 30 million. Will they forget this offense? It can be assumed that they have a sense of honor. We will make peace efforts, but two sides are necessary for peace. Is there any security that they will not want to take revenge? Let us recognize the truth: we won not because we performed wonders, but because the Arab army is rotten. Must this rottenness persist forever? The situation in the world beckons towards revenge: there are two blocs; there is fear of world war. This tempts anyone with a grievance. We will always require a superior defensive capability.” (Simha Flapan, p. 238)

Finally, directly quoting the famous Israeli historian Avi Shlaim who stated in his famous Iron Wall book:

• “This popular-heroic-moralistic version of the 1948 war has been used extensively in Israeli propaganda and is still taught in Israeli schools. It is a prime example of the use of a nationalistic version of history in the process of nation building. In a very real sense history is the propaganda of the victors, and the history of the 1948 war is no exception.” (Iron Wall p. 34)

• “Despite all the political miscalculations and failures of those who planned the Sinai Campaign, it is their version that became firmly entrenched in the mind of the overwhelming majority of Israelis. The popular perception of the 1956 war in Israel is that it was a defensive war, a just war, a brilliantly executed war, and a war that achieved nearly all of its objectives. This version of the war was propagated not only by members of the Israeli defense establishment but by a host of sympathetic historians, journalists, and commentators. However deeply cherished, this version does not stand up to scrutiny in the light of the evidence now available. It is a striking example of the way in which history can be manipulated to serve nationalist ends. The official Israeli version of the 1956 war, like that of the 1948 war, is little more than the propaganda of the victor.” (Iron Wall, p. 185)

The Israeli virus that infected a region of 300,000,000 Arab Semites has no room for such foreign and Nazi-like criminals. It is time these “people” move back to their countries of origin (except the descendants of the original Jews who lived in Palestine prior to Zionism’s arrival) or face the erupting Arab revolutions sweeping the Arab world. There will be no mercy then.

Remember: the Jewish “good book” demands that its followers kill with NO MERCY! So, an Eye for an Eye!

And that’s probably  why the Jewish teachings and prophecies expect the demise of “Israel” in the near future!

Independence or Occupation? Zionist Deception; the Stealing of Palestine!

Introduction:

The earliest documented use of the word “Arab” as defining a group of people dates from the 9th century BCE. (Wikipedia: Arab People).

Many scholars derive the entire population of the Mesopotamia from population movements out of Jazirat al-Arab (“island of the Arabs”) – an area between the Red Sea and the Arabian Gulf, with Hadramawt its southern perimeter, extending northward up to the area just east of the Dead Sea Jordan).  Early Semitic peoples from the Ancient Near East, such as the Arameans, Akkadians and Canaanites, built civilizations in Mesopotamia and the Levant; genetically, they often interlapped and mixed. Slowly, however, they lost their political domination of the Near East due to internal turmoil and attacks by non-Semitic peoples.  Although the Semites eventually lost political control of Western Asia to the Persian Empire, the Aramaic language (Aramaic is a Semitic language belonging to the Afroasiatic language family. Within this family, Aramaic belongs to the Semitic subfamily, and more specifically, is a part of the Northwest Semitic group of languages, which also includes Canaanite languages such as Hebrew and Phoenician. Aramaic script was widely adopted for other languages and is ancestral to both the Arabic and Hebrew alphabets) remained the lingua franca of Mesopotamia and the Levant. Aramaic itself was replaced by Greek as Western Asia’s prestige language following the conquest of Alexander III of Macedon.

The first written attestation of the ethnonym “Arab” occurs in an Assyrian inscription of 853 BCE, where Shalmaneser III lists a King Gindibu of mâtu arbâi (Arab land) as among the people he defeated at the Battle of Karkar. Some of the names given in these texts are Aramaic, while others are the first attestations of Proto-Arabic dialects. In fact several different ethnonyms are found in Assyrian texts that are conventionally translated “Arab”: Arabi, Arubu, Aribi and Urbi. Many of the Qedarite queens were also described as queens of the aribi. The Hebrew Bible occasionally refers to Arvi peoples (or variants thereof), translated as “Arab” or “Arabian.”

Zionists insist that Palestine did not exist. Historic maps prove them wrong. They falsely claim that the land was desolate and no one lived in Palestine (notice that they would refer to it by its name) and that they (Zionist and European Jews) were a People without Land who occupied a Land without People. Palestine was always there and under the earliest of “Arabs” rule. It would not have been of interest had it been as barren as they want us to believe!

In 1852 the American writer Bayard Taylor traveled across the Jezreel Valley, which he described in his 1854 book The Lands of the Saracen; or, Pictures of Palestine, Asia Minor, Sicily and Spain as: “one of the richest districts in the world.”, while Lawrence Oliphant, who visited Palestine in 1887, wrote that Palestine’s Valley of Esdraelon was “a huge green lake of waving wheat, with its village-crowned mounds rising from it like islands; and it presents one of the most striking pictures of luxuriant fertility which it is possible to conceive.”

According to Paul Masson, a French economic historian, “wheat shipments from the Palestinian port of Acre had helped to save southern France from famine on numerous occasions in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.“

Palestine under Assyrian Empire

See also: Ancient Arabic inscription found in Jerusalem; 1,100-year-old plaque offers insight into city’s history under Muslim rule.

Palestine: The stealing of Arab Land

The Faisal-Weizmann Agreement was signed on January 3, 1919, by Emir Feisal (son of the King of Hejaz) and Chaim Weizmann (later President of the World Zionist Organization) as part of the Paris Peace Conference, 1919 settling disputes stemming from World War I.  It was a short-lived agreement for “Arab-Jewish cooperation” on the development of a “Jewish homeland” in Palestine  and an “Arab nation” in a large part of the Middle East.

One or more of the Allies may have suggested that a representative of the Zionist Organization secure the agreement. The secret Sykes-Picot Agreement had called for an ‘Arab State or a Confederation of Arab States’… …’under the suzerainty of an Arab chief.’  The French and British also proposed ‘an international administration, the form of which is to be decided upon after consultation with Russia, and subsequently in consultation with the other Allies, and the representatives of the Shereef of Mecca.

1918. Emir Faisal I and Chaim Weizmann (left, also wearing Arab outfit as a sign of "friendship")

Weizmann had complained to the British that the system in Palestine did “not take into account the fact that there is a fundamental qualitative difference between Jew and Arab”

Weizmann first met Faisal in June 1918, during the British advance from the South against the Ottoman Empire in World War I. As leader of an impromptu “Zionist Commission”, Weizmann traveled to southern Transjordan for the meeting.  The intended purpose was to forge an agreement between Faisal and the Zionist movement to support an Arab Kingdom and Jewish settlement in Palestine, respectively. The wishes of the Palestinian Arabs were to be ignored, and, indeed, both men seem to have held the Palestinian Arabs in considerable disdain. Weizmann had called them “treacherous”, “arrogant”, “uneducated”, and “greedy” and had complained to the British that the system in Palestine did “not take into account the fact that there is a fundamental qualitative difference between Jew and Arab”.  After his meeting with Faisal, Weizmann reported that Faisal was “contemptuous of the Palestinian Arabs whom he doesn’t even regard as Arabs.”

Weizmann had assured Faisal that “the Jews did not propose to set up a government of their own but wished to work under British protection, to colonize and develop Palestine without encroaching on any legitimate interests”

In preparation for the meeting, British diplomat Mark Sykes had written to Faisal about the Jewish people “…this race, despised and weak, is universal and all powerful and cannot be put down.”   Under such circumstances, the secret British communication contended, Faisal was well advised to cultivate the Zionist movement as a powerful ally rather than to oppose it. In the event, Weizmann and Faisal established an informal agreement under which Faisal would support dense Jewish settlement in Palestine while the Zionist movement would assist in the development of the vast Arab nation that Faisal hoped to establish.

Weizmann and Faisal met again later in 1918 in London and soon afterwards at the Paris Peace Conference. In their first meeting in June 1918 Weizmann had assured Faisal that “the Jews did not propose to set up a government of their own but wished to work under British protection, to colonize and develop Palestine without encroaching on any legitimate interests”.

They signed the written agreement, which bears their names, on January 3, 1919. The next day, Weizmann arrived in Paris to head the Zionist delegation to the Peace Conference. It was a triumphal moment for Weizmann; it was an accord that climaxed years of negotiations and ceaseless shuttles between the Middle East and the capitals of Western Europe and that promised to usher in an era of peace and cooperation between the two principal ethnic groups of Palestine: Arabs and Jews.

The events immediately after the Paris conference confirmed that it was the Zionists who were treacherous, arrogant  and greedy.

Land Ownership in Palestine 1895-1948

The Agreement

Main points of the agreement:

• The agreement committed both parties to conducting all relations between the groups by the most cordial goodwill and understanding, to work together to encourage immigration of Jews into Palestine on a large scale while protecting the rights of the Arab peasants and tenant farmers, and to safeguard the free practice of religious observances. The Muslim Holy Places were to be under Muslim control.
• The Zionist movement undertook to assist the Arab residents of Palestine and the future Arab state to develop their natural resources and establish a growing economy.
• The boundaries between an Arab State and Palestine should be determined by a Commission after the Paris Peace Conference. [Below is Weizmann's proposed country - totally indifferent from stated Agreement]
  
• The parties committed to carrying into effect the Balfour Declaration of 1917, calling for a Jewish national home in Palestine.
• Disputes were to be submitted to the British Government for arbitration.

Weizmann signed the agreement on behalf of the Zionist Organization, while Faisal signed on behalf of the short-lived Arab Kingdom of Hejaz.

Two weeks prior to signing the agreement, Faisal stated:

The two main branches of the Semitic family, Arabs and Jews, understand one another, and I hope that as a result of interchange of ideas at the Peace Conference, which will be guided by ideals of self-determination and nationality, each nation will make definite progress towards the realization of its aspirations. Arabs are not jealous of Zionist Jews, and intend to give them fair play and the Zionist Jews have assured the Nationalist Arabs of their intention to see that they too have fair play in their respective areas. Turkish intrigue in Palestine has raised jealousy between the Jewish colonists and the local peasants, but the mutual understanding of the aims of Arabs and Jews will at once clear away the last trace of this former bitterness, which, indeed, had already practically disappeared before the war by the work of the Arab Secret Revolutionary Committee, which in Syria and elsewhere laid the foundation of the Arab military successes of the past two years.

The areas discussed were detailed in a letter to Felix Frankfurter, President of the Zionist Organization of America, on March 3, 1919, when Faisal wrote :

“The Arabs, especially the educated among us, look with the deepest sympathy on the Zionist movement. Our deputation here in Paris is fully acquainted with the proposals submitted yesterday by the Zionist Organization to the Peace Conference, and we regard them as moderate and proper.

The proposals submitted by the Zionist Organization to the Peace Conference were:

“The boundaries of Palestine shall follow the general lines set out below: Starting on the North at a point on the Mediterranean Sea in the vicinity South of Sidon and following the watersheds of the foothills of the Lebanon as far as Jisr el Karaon, thence to El Bire following the dividing line between the two basins of the Wadi El Korn and the Wadi Et Teim thence in a southerly direction following the dividing line between the Eastern and Western slopes of the Hermon, to the vicinity West of Beit Jenn, thence Eastward following the northern watersheds of the Nahr Mughaniye close to and west of the Hedjaz Railway. In the East a line close to and West of the Hedjaz Railway terminating in the Gulf of Akaba. In the South a frontier to be agreed upon with the Egyptian Government. In the West the Mediterranean Sea. The details of the delimitations, or any necessary adjustments of detail, shall be settled by a Special Commission on which there shall be Jewish representation

Weizmann's map of Zionist Occupation: Treacherous, Deceptive and Greedy!

The Zionists wanted it all – from the Mediterranean to beyond the River Jordan. Let the Arabs die of thirst – who cared!

Implementation

Faisal conditioned his acceptance on the fulfillment of British wartime promises to the Arabs, who had hoped for independence in a vast part of the Ottoman Empire.  He appended to the typed document a hand-written statement:

“Provided the Arabs obtain their independence as demanded in my [forthcoming] Memorandum dated the 4th of January, 1919, to the Foreign Office of the Government of Great Britain, I shall concur in the above articles.  But if the slightest modification or departure were to be made [regarding our demands], I shall not be then bound by a single word of the present Agreement which shall be deemed void and of no account or validity, and I shall not be answerable in any way whatsoever.”

He must have suspected that the Zionist Jews were liars!

The Faisal-Weizmann agreement survived only a few months.  The outcome of the peace conference itself did not provide the vast Arab state that Faisal desired mainly because the British and French had struck their own secret Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916 dividing the Middle East between their own spheres of influence, and soon Faisal began to express doubts about cooperation with the Zionist movement.  After Faisal was expelled from Syria and given the Kingdom of Iraq, he contended that the conditions he appended were not fulfilled and the treaty therefore moot.

Adding Insult to Injury

St. John Philby, a British representative in Palestine, later stated that Hussein bin Ali, the Sharif of Mecca and King of Hejaz, on whose behalf Faisal was acting, had refused to recognize the agreement as soon as it was brought to his notice.  However, Sharif Hussein formally endorsed the Balfour Declaration in the Treaty of Sèvres of 10 August, 1920, along with the other Allied Powers, as King of Hejaz.

The United Nations Special Committee On Palestine did not regard the agreement as ever being valid, while Weizmann continued to maintain that the treaty was still binding. In 1947 Weizmann explained:

“A postscript was also included in this treaty. This postscript relates to a reservation by King Faisal that he would carry out all the promises in this treaty if and when he would obtain his demands, namely, independence for the Arab countries. I submit that these requirements of King Faisal have at present been realized.  The Arab countries are all independent, and therefore the condition on which depended the fulfillment of this treaty, has come into effect. Therefore, this treaty, to all intents and purposes, should today be a valid document”.

One Can Quickly Conclude

One can quickly conclude – and find it quite obvious then, that the current Arab-Israeli conflict is not as the Zionists had always wished the world to believe! It was not about the UN Partition Plan (later) or the refusal of Arabs to recognize Israel! Although earlier Arab leaders (as well as current ones) were simply traitors, and sold Palestine for a fistful of dollars, Israel was in essence recognized as evident in this agreement and subsequent agreements. But the agreement clearly aspired to something beyond the words and text of the treacherous Zionist agenda and their Nazi-like aspirations.

The Zionist Organization submitted their draft resolutions for consideration by the Peace Conference on February 3, 1919 [one month after the Faisal-Weizmann agreement]! This shortly followed the Conference’s decision that the former Arab provinces of the Ottoman Empire should be separated from it and the newly conceived mandate-system applied to them. [In other words, an opportunity to deceive presented itself while the Zionists could claim total innocence of any intended mischief].

The statement included five main points:

• Recognition of the Jewish people’s “historic title” to Palestine and their right to reconstitute their National Home in Palestine.
• The boundaries of Palestine were to be declared as set out in an attached Schedule. [see MAP Above]
  
• The sovereign possession of Palestine would be vested in the League of Nations and the Government entrusted to Great Britain as Mandatory of the League.
• Other provisions to be inserted by the High Contracting Parties relating to the application of any general conditions attached to mandates, which are suitable to the case in Palestine.
• The mandate shall be subject also to several noted special conditions, including the provision relating to the control of the Holy Places.

Earlier History: Zionist Attempts

Partitioning of the Ottoman Empire

British map showing secret agreements between the Great Powers regarding the disposition of the Ottoman Empire (1915). Palestine is clearly marked. No mention of “Israel.”

The partitioning of the Ottoman Empire led to the rise in the “Middle East” of Western powers, such as Britain and France. The earliest resistance to the influence of these powers came from the Turkish national movement, and became more widespread in the post-Ottoman Middle East after World War II. The partition was planned by Western powers in several agreements concerning the Ottoman Empire made during the war by the Allies. The British and French partitioned the eastern part of the Middle East (also called “Greater Syria”) between them with the Sykes-Picot Agreement. Other secret agreements were concluded with Italy and Russia (see map). The Balfour Declaration Zionist movement to push for a Jewish homeland in the Palestine region, encouraged the international Zionist movement to push for a Jewish homeland in the Palestine region, which was the site of the ancient “Kingdom of Israel” and at the time had a *significant* Jewish minority population with respect to a majority of Arab-Muslim population.  The tsarist regime also had wartime agreements with the Triple Entente on the partitioning of the Ottoman Empire but after the Russian Revolutions, Russia did not participate in the actual partitioning.

Note the source states that there was a significant Jewish minority.  The Zionists want to hide the truth behind such words since the fact is, there were only  83,790 Jews in Palestine in 1922 compared to approximately 660,000 Palestinians (Muslims and Christians). I would say the number was more like negligible!

According to Alexander Scholch, the population of Palestine in 1850 had about 350,000 inhabitants, 30% of whom lived in 13 towns; roughly 85% were Muslims, 11% were Christians and 4% Jews

The “Kingdom of Israel” refers to an era of about 90 years (1030 BC to 930 BC).  Although not “Jewish, ” this  90 year period is used by Zionists as a claim to Palestine! Interesting.

Capital	Geba (1030–1010 BC), Hebron (1010–1003 BC), Jerusalem
Government	Monarchy
King
- 1030 BC – 1010 BC	King Saul
- 1010 BC – 1008 BC	King Ishbaal
- 1008 BC – 970 BC	King David
- 970 BC – 931 BC	King Solomon
- 931 BC – 930 BC	Rehoboam

Historic facts: Judeo-Christianity!

Reading the biblical accounts of the House of Saul, one is overwhelmed with deceit, treachery and violence throughout these periods.  This era, which Jews so proudly refer to, is an era of terror and corruption. If they wish to adopt this part of history as theirs, then “the rest is history.” Literally! For the treacherous and deceptive ways continue to this day.

Biblical and Qur’anic accounts of the Israelites differ. According to the Bible, everyone is either Jewish or Christian! Strangely, Judaism only appeared after Moses death and by the followers who later went astray. Again. David and Solomon for example, are considered great Prophets in Islam and are revered as Prophets who delivered a message of submission to God Almighty: which is what Islam is all about.

Judeo-Christianity is less than 200 years old.  The Jewish Zionism movement has played the key part in assuring its growth.  We see the result in the creation of a new “Christianity” which in its extreme form is known as Christian Zionism. It was first fed by Oxford University Press’s Scofield Reference Bible published in New York in 1908 and updated several times. Bible editors, including Oxford, have failed to correct obvious changes in common usage of words, such as “Jew” and “Israel” that provide misleading, Zionist friendly inferences.

Apostle Paul’s Book of Romans provides an inspiring account of the struggle to convert spiritually empty Israelites and agnostic Greeks to Jesus’ Way in the First Century.  Christian Zionism teaches that Paul was talking about, not his own generation, but  the State of Israel created 1900 years after his death. They argue that Political Israel is uniquely blessed by God, and that Christians must also revere, honor, and love it else they will suffer God’s punishment.

Several words are still found in our Bibles that did not exist at the time of Jesus and his followers, and could not have been words they used, but words that were placed there in the Sixteenth Century versions. Examples are:

Jesus: there was no “J” in the Aramaic, Greek, or Hebrew languages.  I know Arabs named Issa, after Jesus.  However Jesus’ name is not an issue because it has only one meaning.

“Jew”: there was no such word in the First Century.  Not only was there no “J” but it is used in improper historical contexts in the New Testament; The continued misuse of “Jew” in the bibles since 1947 implies that Jews today might be expected to have some of the same gene pool and beliefs as an Israelite of 3000 years ago.  Most do not.

“Judean”: a place that began with the Greek letter Iota (I) and is used in scripture as both a place and a people. This may be the actual word from which the mistranslation of the word Jew is derived.  In many instances the popular translations still use “Jew” where the original Greek text clearly read Ioudaia, or in our vernacular, one who lived in Judea.

“Israel”: does appear in the original Greek New Testament texts, but only as a people, never as a place.  Paul used Israel in several contexts: first as an ancient tribe named after the man, Israel; as the specific belief system or religion of that tribe, as an example, Paul used “Israelite” to describe himself and a few faithful followers of the Abrahamic code; finally, “Israel” means all those of all races who follow the Messiah, Jesus in the New Covenant under God.  Paul does not use Israel as a place or country.

Using Religion as Claim:  The story of Solomon; Qur’an vs. The Bible

In the Qur’an, Sulayman is a son of the Prophet Dawud (King David in Bible). He is told to have learned much from his father, and subsequently made a prophet by Allah and given power over all creatures. Ruling a large kingdom that extended south into Yemen, he was known throughout the lands for his wisdom and fair judgements.

… We raise in rank anyone We will. Your Lord is All-Wise, All-Knowing. We gave him [Abraham] Isaac and Jacob, each of whom We guided. And before him We had guided Noah. And among his descendants were David and Solomon, Job and Joseph, and Moses and Aaron. That is how We recompense the good-doers. And Zachariah, John, Jesus, and Elias-all of them were among the righteous. And Ishmael, Elisha, Jonah, and Lot-all of them We favored over all beings. And some of their forebears, descendants, and brothers-We chose them and guided them to a straight path. (Qur’an, 6:83-87)

See also

The story of Solomon, as told by Biblical verses

The Bible credits Solomon as the builder of the First Temple in Jerusalem, and portrays him as great in wisdom, wealth, and power, but ultimately as a king whose sin, including idolatry and turning away from God, leads to the kingdom being torn in two during the reign of his son Rehoboam.^[2] Solomon is the subject of many other later references and legends.

Solomon had seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines. The wives are described as foreign princesses, including Pharaoh’s daughter and women of Moab, Ammon, Sidon and of the Hittites. These wives are depicted as leading Solomon astray. The only wife that is mentioned by name is Naamah, who is described as the Ammonite.^[4] She was the mother of Solomon’s successor, Rehoboam.

• According to 1 Kings 11:4 Solomon’s “wives turned his heart after other gods”, their own national deities, to whom Solomon built temples, thus incurring divine anger and retribution in the form of the division of the kingdom after Solomon’s death. (1 Kings 11:9-13)

• 1 Kings 11 describes Solomon’s descent into idolatry, particularly his turning after Ashtoreth, the goddess of the Sidonians, and after Milcom, the abomination of the Ammonites.

• In Deuteronomy 17:16-17, a king is commanded not to multiply horses, wives or gold. Solomon sins in all three of these areas. Solomon collects 666 talents of gold each year, (1 Kings 10:14) a huge amount of money for a small nation like Israel. Solomon gathers a large number of horses and chariots and even brings in horses from Egypt. Just as Deuteronomy 17 warns, collecting horses and chariots takes Israel back to Egypt. Finally, Solomon marries foreign women, and these women turn Solomon to other gods.

• According to 1 Kings 11:9-13, it was because of these sins that “the Lord punishes Solomon by tearing the kingdom in two”:^[2]

And the Lord was angry with Solomon, because his heart had turned away from the Lord, the God of Israel, who had appeared to him twice and had commanded him concerning this thing, that he should not go after other gods. But he did not keep what the LORD commanded. Therefore the Lord said to Solomon, “Since this has been your practice and you have not kept my covenant and my statutes that I have commanded you, I will surely tear the kingdom from you and will give it to your servant. Yet for the sake of David your father I will not do it in your days, but I will tear it out of the hand of your son. However, I will not tear away all the kingdom, but I will give one tribe to your son, for the sake of David my servant and for the sake of Jerusalem that I have chosen.

So what was that about “rebuilding the temple?” A Temple of a sinner? Ironic, isn’t it?

See Songs of Solomon

The ultimate truth is that history had been hijacked by Zionism to convince us all that the land is Jewish land. Judaism is not a religion to consider until maybe after the so-called exodus if it ever happened, as Dr. Shlomo Sand points out. The Israelites (sons and tribes of Jacob: Israel) never considered nor called themselves “Jews.”

The “Israelites” history is interesting. One reads nothing in the Bible or the Tanakh other than wars, killing, death and “kingdoms.” These so-called kingdoms were not based on Jewish religious teachings and not even during the times of David and/or the “sinner” Solomon!

The Palestinian Right to Return

Footnotes

1. ^ The Sykes-Picot Agreement
2. ^ ‘The Letters and Papers of Chaim Wizmann’, Weisgal M.W. (ed.), Israel University Press, 1977, pp. 197-206.
3. ^ Chaim Weizmann to Vera Weizmann, ibid, p. 210.
4. ^ Book review, Philip C. Wilcox, Jr., Politicalreviewnet.com/Middle East Policy Journal, quoting ‘Jews and Arabs under the British Mandate’, Tom Segev, Metropolitan Books/Henry Holt & Company, New York, 2000
5. ^ Book Excerpt from A Shattered Peace: Versailles 1919 and the Price We Pay Today, David A. Andelman (Wiley)
6. ^ ‘Jews And Arabs In Syria: The Emir Feisul Looks To A Bright Future’, The Times, Thursday, December 12, 1918; pg. 7; Issue 41971; col B.
7. ^ Letter by Emir Feisal to Felix Frankfurter, published in full at amislam.com (collection of correspondence).
8. ^ Statement of the Zionist Organization regarding Palestine, 3 February, 1919. UNISPAL, accessed 17 August, 2006.
9. ^ Statement of the Zionist Organization Regarding Palestine, MidEast Web, accessed 17 August, 2006.
10. ^ News Chronicle, July 9, 1937, quoted by ‘Palestine, star or crescent?’, Neville Barbour, Odyssey Press, New York, 1947, p. 100
11. ^ Official Records of the Second Session of the General Assembly (A/364), United Nations, September 3, 1947
12. ^ Official records of the Second Session of the General Assembly (A/364/Add.2 PV.21), United Nations, July 8, 1947

References

• Weisgal (Ed.). (1977). Chaim Weizmann to Arthur Balfour, The Letters and Papers of Chaim Weizmann. Series A, Volume VIII. Israel University Press.
• Wikipedia: The Faisal-Weizmann Agreement
• Charles E. Carson: We Hold These Truths