How do you like the new look? Feedback please.

26 June 2018


The Visit to the Middle East by a Nice Young British member of the Royal Family is Being Used by Britain via the British Ambassador to Insert the British Once Again in Middle East Affairs
  • Is this a Political Double Cross; Who are the Voices Behind this political maneuver?
  • Was this discussed between PM Netanyahu and PM May on his recent visit to England?
  • Does this mean that the Oslo Accords is no longer valid; what prior governing statutes or law will be enacted? (enter the British)
* * *
According to the Oslo Accords, Judea and Samaria are not "Occupied Palestinian Territories", but "disputed territories" whose status is to be decided as the outcome of permanent status negotiations.

[By Ezequiel Doiny at arutzsheva] The British ambassador to Israel on Thursday defended describing Jerusalem’s Old City as being part of the “Occupied Palestinian Territories” in the itinerary for Prince William’s upcoming visit to Israel and the West Bank.

“All the terminology that was used in the program was consistent with years of practice by British governments. It’s consistent with British government policy,” Ambassador David Quarrey said.

However, didn’t Ottoman Rule and the laws that applied then, 
become the prior governing laws?

This is untrue: According to the Oslo II Accords signed in 1995 between Israel and the Palestinian Authority (and brokered by the Quartet of which Britain was a member, ) the 'West Bank' is not "occupied Palestinian territory".

Oslo II divided the "West Bank" into Areas A, B, C:

Area A - under full civil and security control by the Palestinian Authority): about 3% of the 'West Bank'

Area B - under Palestinian civil control and joint Israeli-Palestinian security control: about 22% of the West Bank lands (but A and B have 96% of the Arab population).

Area C - under full Israeli civil and security control: initially about 72–74% of the 'West Bank' land, but only 4% of the Palestinian Arab population. All the Jewish communities in the 'West Bank' are located there.

Calling the 'West Bank' and Jerusalem's Old City "Occupied Palestinian Territories" is not "consistent with years of practice by British Governments" as Ambassador Quarrey [stated]. [. . .]

What is consistent is British support for the Arabs,
"Britain's imperial history in the region left an important institutional legacy in the Foreign Office...Britain maintained very close relations with Gulf Arab rulers, and there remained large number of diplomats learning Arabic and spending much of their carers in one of Britain's 22 missions to Arab States. By contrast there are relatively few diplomats with experience of Israel. Given the importance of contacts in the Arab World, a posting in Israel was for many years regarded as an unhelpful career move for a British diplomat…"

To further understand Britain's anti-Israel bias it is important to consider how the British invented the Arab Kingdom of Jordan.

In 1916, before WWI ended, the British and the French signed the secret Sikes-Pikot agreement defining their proposed spheres of influence in the Middle East if they won the war. According to the agreement, France was allocated to Northern Iraq, Syria and Lebanon, while the British would rule over Palestine and southern Iraq.

The McMahon-Hussein correspondence (1915) reveals details of a secret deal between Sir Henry McMahon, High Commissioner of the UK in Egypt, and the Sharif of Mecca, Hussain Bin Ali, by which the British would give control of lands captured from the Ottoman Empire to the Arabs (Palestine was included within the boundaries that were proposed by Hussein) if the Arabs assisted the British in fighting the Turks during WWI.

In 1921 the UK created the Emirate of Transjordan (Jordan) in the land of Mandatory Palestine east of the Jordan River and appointed Abdullah, son of the Shariff of Mecca, as King of Jordan. Britain also appointed Abdullah’s brother Faisal as King of Iraq. Jordan was officially under British Mandate Palestine and obtained independence in 1946.

The Palestinian Arabs already have a State in Jordan, the Palestinians and Jordanians are one people. On November 24, 2017 Petra, the official Jordanian news agency reported that “Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, on Friday said that Jordanians and Palestinians are “one people living in two states”, appreciating His Majesty King Abdullah II, who spared no occasion to defend the Palestinian cause and Jerusalem before the world. The Palestinian leader’s remarks came as he received Amman Mayor, Yousef Shawarbeh, in Ramallah, in the presence of Jordan’s ambassador in Palestine Khaled Shawabkeh…”

Here they come again: 

Perhaps the British want to inter(fere)vene in the Middle East as an (overt) act against President Trump’s supporting the Jews and Israel. The British have ‘interfered' with most of the world’s countries and they are no better off for it.

A new study has found that at various times the British have invaded almost 90 per cent of the countries around the globe. The analysis of the histories of the almost 200 countries in the world found only 22 which have never experienced an invasion by the British. telegraph

Among these was the British colonization of the Americas Wikipedia. And we know how that turned out. Maybe after Iran (Rial Collapse) Britain will be next?


yaak said...

The Duke of Cambridge is named after Cambridge, England.
Near Cambridge, England is the Gog Magog Hills.
Yehezkel 38:18 tells what will occur when Gog comes upon the Land of Israel.

(OK, it's a stretch, but IMHO, an interesting one.)

PetMonkey said...

The balding idiot is an absolute tool (I know this as I'm British!). Since the expensive farce of the recent royal wedding, the public are losing patience with this inbred bunch of freeloaders. There are also terrible problems here with immigration (Muslim in particular), lack of Brexit and seething anger against a tone-deaf political class who are taxing us into oblivion to pay for their virtue signalling ideas. All in all, it's not a happy country at the moment. My only consolation about the Middle East trip is that when this society turns over (inevitable if it carries on as it is) then the elite will get what's coming to them. The Brits are mostly apathetic and tolerant, but once roused, can be a violent and determined force.

Anonymous said...

The British don't change. Wherever they had a foothold, they're like the muslims who feel it is theirs forever. They didn't forgive the Jews for coming home and retaking their G-D given Land.
Also interesting comment by above commenter. Think (pray) the Geulah is right around the corner.