What is really the point of agreement between British goverment and Sharif Hussein chief of Mecca Did the British misinterpreted their part of the agreement leading to the palestinian conflict nowadays ?
The indications are unequivocal. A society engaged in internal conflict as well as external conflict with its adversaries.
Government ministers engaging in verbal abuse at each other. Far-right protesters attempting to forcibly enter military installations in solidarity with troops who have been accused of committing acts of sexual assault and severe physical abuse. soldiers engaged in conflict with opposing forces attempting to apprehend them. Colonists engaging in combat with military personnel. Rabbis at religious seminaries advising their pupils to refuse military conscription. The systematic extermination of Palestinian individuals, including men, women, and children, with the backing of a significant portion of the population.
Externally, there is a colonial settler state engaged in conflicts with the majority of nations, which is self-destructing and tends to shift responsibility onto others. This government recently assassinated the individual who was representing the Palestinians in ceasefire talks, and it is currently experiencing an explosive decline.
Upon their arrival in Palestine, the Zionists were faced with a decision: either to partner up or to engage in a military takeover. They opted for conquest. They would oppress the Palestinian natives until they reached a point where they could no longer put up any resistance. Israel, being both incapable and unwilling to establish peace, has initiated a series of actions that would ultimately lead to its own downfall.
Ronan Bergman's book, 'Rise Up and Kill First: The Secret History of Israel's Targeted Assassinations,' provides a comprehensive account of Israel's use of various methods to eliminate anyone who opposed Israel’s way. Indeed, a significant number of the victims were actively seeking a nonviolent resolution. Paradoxically, this pursuit of peace rendered them more perilous, since it clashed with Israel's objective of acquiring the entire country, rather than achieving a peaceful settlement. Shaikh Ahmad Yassin and Ismail Haniyeh were both notable individuals.
Research institutes were tasked with developing weapons other than firearms and knives for individual acts of murder. These were heinous and brutal killings, with the dead comprising not just spouses and children but also the residents of specific apartment buildings that were intentionally targeted for bombing.
Bergman occasionally emphasizes a dubious regard for the lives of non-combatant civilians, but the primary objective of eliminating an enemy nearly always took precedence.
Has Israel successfully eliminated its adversaries in the century since the Zionists initiated their military conquest? Has it achieved peacefulness? Has it enhanced the security of Israel for its Jewish population? Has it solidified Israel's position within the framework of Middle Eastern nations? Does it provide a higher level of safety? Has it enhanced Israel's global reputation?
No, the answer to all of these questions is negative. Israel's actions have ultimately led to its own existential crises by causing harm to others. The entity in question has intentionally eliminated all possibilities for peaceful resolutions and has compelled its adversaries to eliminate the Zionist state from the geographical region of the Middle East.
Another distinct state will need to assume its place in history.
Israel is widely despised globally. This is not an expression of anti-Semitism, but rather a result of Israel's malevolent actions throughout the past century. It has garnered widespread animosity. For a considerable period of time, it has served as the standard for racist prejudice and unrelenting brutality. The state is characterized by genocidal tendencies, stemming from an ideology that promotes genocide.
Its sole allies are states that share a common history of genocide. However, genuine friendship is inappropriate when it concerns Israel. This connection is deceptive, originating from the financial influence of Israeli lobbies to manipulate or bribe politicians. They have reached a point where they lack the courage to openly denounce the ongoing genocide happening right in front of them.
However, their political endorsement of Israel does not imply that they have a genuine affinity for or truly align with its principles, as they repeatedly assert. They possess complete knowledge of the crimes it is doing, but prioritizing alignment with the US outweighs the significance of adopting a moral stance against racism, apartheid, occupation, and mass execution.
The United States is the only source of support and assistance for Israel. Devoid of its military, economic, and political backing, which is channeled through other governments, it would be unable to sustain itself. The outcome would be either the collapse of Israel or its compelled acceptance of a peace agreement predicated on the cessation of its status as a Zionist state. Alternatively, Israel may choose to engage in a final battle, resulting in the destruction of all parties involved. The 'Samson option' refers to a weapon that is employed to alert or warn its allies. The phrase 'Don't push us too far' is the way it is expressed. ‘You never know what we might do.’ Undoubtedly, the utilization of nuclear weapons is within the realm of possibility.
Israel was established via the use of deception and deceit by Britain and her Zionist allies. The Balfour Declaration had promised a “national home for the Jewish people,” taking into account that “nothing shall be done that shall prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine.”
At that time, the "non-Jewish communities" that were labeled in a derogatory manner made up ninety percent of the overall population.
The British displayed trickery in their promises to 'the Arabs', as exemplified by their interactions with King Hussein of the Hijaz and his son, the Emir Faisal. Hussein anticipated the establishment of a significant Arab nation spanning from the eastern Mediterranean to Iran and expanding down to the Persian Gulf. However, in his communication with Hussein, Sir Henry McMahon, who was bargaining on the behalf of the British government, only mentioned Arab independence and did not explicitly refer to the creation of a single Arab state or multiple states.
The phrase was intentionally ambiguous, crafted to mislead Hussein, and it was successful. Hussein initiated the Arab revolution against the Ottoman Turks based on his understanding of the promises made to him.
McMahon explicitly excluded several territories from the designated area for Arab independence in their communication. These lands, located to the west of Damascus, Homs, Hama, and Aleppo, “cannot be said to be purely Arab.”
McMahon was speaking of the Christian populations residing mostly along or close to the Syrian shore, based on the false assumption that only Muslims could be referred to as Arabs.
Since Palestine was located to the south of Damascus and was not explicitly excluded by Britain from the region of Arab independence, Hussein had a legitimate expectation that it would also come under Arab governance.
The contact between Emir Faisal, the son of Hussein, and the Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann revealed additional deceit. King Hussein expressed his willingness to accept Jewish settlers in Palestine on the condition that their actions do not undermine Arab interests. He emphasized that they would be treated ‘’brethren’’ and encouraged to contribute to the overall welfare of the region.
Weizmann reiterated to Faisal that the Zionist settlers harbored no intention of forming an autonomous government. Their agreement, dated January 3, 1919, was originally drafted in English and subsequently translated into Arabic by T.E. Lawrence.
Lawrence, a British government informant, was engaging in a complex strategy of showing support for both the Zionists and ‘’the Arabs.’’ The extent to which Faisal comprehended his translation is ambiguous, although he added his signature nonetheless.
The agreement permitted substantial Jewish immigration into Palestine, on the condition that the rights of Arab "tenants and farmers" (a statement that strongly reflects Zionist terminology) were safeguarded and Muslim authority over Muslim holy sites was upheld.
The Zionist settlers would provide aid to the Palestinian Arabs and actively help to the advancement of the future Arab state. Faisal acquiesced to the conditions outlined in the Balfour Declaration, unaware of the true intentions of the British.
The agreement was reached without the involvement or consideration of the Palestinians. It is highly probable that they would have completely opposed Zionist settlement.
The Zionist squad presented the agreement to the Paris Peace Conference, but, they omitted the crucial caveat that Faisal had included. In his caveat, he stated that he agreed with the agreement on the condition that the Arabs were granted their independence. However, he made it clear that if there were any changes or deviations from the terms of Arab independence that he had been led to believe were accepted by the British Foreign Office, he would not be obligated to abide by any part of the current agreement.
Despite his lack of proficiency in English, his advisors were astonished that he had agreed to a deal brokered by two non-natives, Lawrence and Weizmann. However, he assured them that his signature was contingent upon the British government's acknowledgment of Arab autonomy, encompassing Palestine, a notion that he and his father considered unquestionable.
McMahon did not explicitly exclude Palestine from his deal with Hussein since Britain had plans to retain control over Palestine. McMahon was aware that Hussein would never be willing to initiate an Arab uprising against the Turks if Palestine was not included.
Faisal quickly recognized that he was being deceived. Following the presentation of the "radical Zionists" - as he described them - during the peace conference, he expressed to a member of the US delegation that the Zionist settlers in Palestine were distinct from the Jews who were already residing there, “with whom we have been able to live and cooperate on friendly terms.”
Virtually all of the new colonists have arrived with an imperialist mindset. During a subsequent interview, Faisal expressed his concern over the potential establishment of a Zionist state in Palestine, stating that:
“I foresee very serious dangers … it is to be feared that there will be a conflict between them and the other races.”
His fears have been confirmed, but Faisal was unable to foresee the extent of the deaths and devastation caused by the Zionists in Palestine.
The Middle East is currently on the brink of a decisive existential conflict with Israel, which will have a profound impact on the region's future for the next hundred years.