The minute British started messing up with the Holy Land the British Empire ceased and dissolved. This is what happens to anyone who divides God's Land. Blessings from Poland
Jeremiah 49:1 - belongs to tribe of Gad and so does most of the northern parts east of the Jordan, north of Moab
LoN was founded by Rockefeller (Standard Oil). So were the UN, the WHO, CFR, Trilateral, Tavistock, Johns Hopkins, & WEF (through David Rockefeller's friend Kissinger's protege Klaus Schwab). They also funded Otmar von Verschuer's Twin Studies (which Mengele continued
Correction. The Golan Heights was part of the French mandate as was Lebanon and Syria.
Nomadic tribes are not nations. Nations can only arise from settled populations who produce surpluses and are able to to exchange goods with other settled populations. Banditry and pillage only produce anarchy, destruction and enslavement. Jordan didn't want the landless peasants left over from the Ottoman days, most of whom were shipped into the eastern Med coastline from surrounding regions only when the Ottomans wanted them to work the land so they(the Ottomans) could extract some profits. The actual landholders were Turks living in places like Istanbul, Cairo and Ankyra
Jordan existed under the name of Sham, part of historical Sham, long before the 5th century BC. - Al-Sham or Shām (شام), is the Arabic term for the Greater Syria region, that is called in English the Levant or the eastern Mediterranean, including the modern countries of Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Palestine, Jordan, Cyprus and Turkey's Hatay Province.Other synonyms of Sham or Al-Sham are Greater Syria or Syria-Palestine.[2] The region boundaries have changed throughout history. In modern times, the term "Syria" alone is used to refer to the Syrian Arab Republic
The British Empire as with previous hegemons was not sustainable nor with few exceptions profitable, however their decline from Empire could have been much graceful and less jarring than it proved to be. It would have roughly taken Hashem for example deciding a different outcome to the 1944 US election and Robert A. Taft’s ideas for support of Israel and financial gift (instead of loan) to Britain to reach prominence with other knock-on effects (assuming they were more than just words in the context of the period).
Provided of course they made the right decisions from pre-WW1 during the 2nd industrial revolution of 1870-1914 (where they fell behind Germany and US) to WW2. Such as ignoring Ernest Richmond's advice to Herbert Samuel after the 1920 Nebi Musa riots by appointing Nashashibi-backed Hussam ad-Din Jarallah as Mufti (who won the elections instead of 3rd place Amin Al-Husseini), up to side-lining John Bagot Glubb after WW2 and everything else in between the mandate period (including preventing Jews from fleeing Europe, etc).
Fwiw John Glubb of all people wrote a book called Fate of Empires, noticing like everyone else up to the present that virtually all Empires have an in-built civilizational life cycle as seen in the aphorism "Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times".
Though not all civilisations are able to recover or achieve their previous statue after experiencing their metaphorical Lentil Stew moment, where they discarded the very things (e.g. Torah-rooted idea of national election, knowledge, character traits, etc) that propelled them to success (or those traits over time became a liability).
In theory would the above also tie into the idea of the Jewish people in Galut being tasked elevating the sparks, regaining aspects that were originally part of Israel simply by always being present in a civilisation's inevitable Lentil Stew moment to pick up the discarded baton?
Seem to recall reading a similar theme years back regarding Israel's sojourn in Egypt. Where although it was destined for Israel to experience slavery at the hands of the Egyptians, it was down to the latter (perhaps as a moral test?) to set the tone of how it was supposed to occur, being either according to base human nature via Jew-hatred (being such that it lasted sooner) or relatively more benign akin to how Eliphaz (who Esau sent to kill) was satisfied by his uncle Jacob's argument that a poor man is counted as a dead man.
1 comment:
The British Empire as with previous hegemons was not sustainable nor with few exceptions profitable, however their decline from Empire could have been much graceful and less jarring than it proved to be. It would have roughly taken Hashem for example deciding a different outcome to the 1944 US election and Robert A. Taft’s ideas for support of Israel and financial gift (instead of loan) to Britain to reach prominence with other knock-on effects (assuming they were more than just words in the context of the period).
Provided of course they made the right decisions from pre-WW1 during the 2nd industrial revolution of 1870-1914 (where they fell behind Germany and US) to WW2. Such as ignoring Ernest Richmond's advice to Herbert Samuel after the 1920 Nebi Musa riots by appointing Nashashibi-backed Hussam ad-Din Jarallah as Mufti (who won the elections instead of 3rd place Amin Al-Husseini), up to side-lining John Bagot Glubb after WW2 and everything else in between the mandate period (including preventing Jews from fleeing Europe, etc).
Fwiw John Glubb of all people wrote a book called Fate of Empires, noticing like everyone else up to the present that virtually all Empires have an in-built civilizational life cycle as seen in the aphorism "Hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, and weak men create hard times".
Though not all civilisations are able to recover or achieve their previous statue after experiencing their metaphorical Lentil Stew moment, where they discarded the very things (e.g. Torah-rooted idea of national election, knowledge, character traits, etc) that propelled them to success (or those traits over time became a liability).
In theory would the above also tie into the idea of the Jewish people in Galut being tasked elevating the sparks, regaining aspects that were originally part of Israel simply by always being present in a civilisation's inevitable Lentil Stew moment to pick up the discarded baton?
Seem to recall reading a similar theme years back regarding Israel's sojourn in Egypt. Where although it was destined for Israel to experience slavery at the hands of the Egyptians, it was down to the latter (perhaps as a moral test?) to set the tone of how it was supposed to occur, being either according to base human nature via Jew-hatred (being such that it lasted sooner) or relatively more benign akin to how Eliphaz (who Esau sent to kill) was satisfied by his uncle Jacob's argument that a poor man is counted as a dead man.
Post a Comment