Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 08/10/2025 7:29:49 AM PDT by silent majority rising
The term "British Palestine" refers to the period of the British Mandate for Palestine, which lasted from 1920 to 1948. During this time, Britain administered the territory that had been part of the Ottoman Empire. The name "Palestine" was used as the official name for this geopolitical entity.
There has never been a 'Nation or Country' of Palestine. It is a region that was designated in times before the Common Era.
The earliest known references to the region are found in Egyptian and Assyrian inscriptions from the 12th to 8th centuries BCE, using terms like "Peleset" and "Palashtu" to refer to a people and a land. However, the term "Palaistine" as a geographical designation for the entire region between Phoenicia and Egypt first appeared in the 5th century BCE in the writings of the Greek historian Herodotus. Later, the Roman Empire, after suppressing the Bar Kokhba revolt in 135 CE, renamed the province of Judaea to "Syria Palaestina." This was done to sever the connection between the Jewish people and the land. The name "Palaestina" was then used to define the region in the Byzantine period, which was further divided into several provinces. Palestine's use as the official name for a distinct political entity in the 20th century is tied directly to the British Mandate.
The use of "Palestine" as the official name for the British Mandate territory was not the decision of a single individual, but rather a reflection of the name's historical usage and the geopolitical context of the time. The name was already in common use in English and Arabic and was used to refer to the region for centuries.
When the British took control of the area after World War I, the name "Palestine" was a pre-existing geographical designation. This was solidified by the League of Nations, which formally granted the "Mandate for Palestine" to Great Britain in 1922. The term was used in the official documents of the Mandate, which stipulated that the name of the territory would be "Palestine," and that it would have English, Arabic, and Hebrew as official languages. The British authorities also formally decided in 1926 to use the traditional Arabic equivalent, "Filasṭīn," and its Hebrew transcription, "Pālēśtīnā."
The Levant is a geographical and cultural region located in the Eastern Mediterranean. While its precise boundaries can vary, it is generally understood to include the land bordering the eastern shores of the Mediterranean Sea. This region is often considered to include modern-day Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, and Palestine.
The term "Levant" itself comes from a French word meaning "to rise," referring to the direction of the sunrise, or the East, from the perspective of Europe. It has been used for centuries to describe this area.
So, when the British and French 'carved up' the Middle East between the British and French, the French termed the entire area "The Levant", and Britain staked its control over the Mandatory Palestine.
Unfortunately, the map of the area with Christian and Jewish references were made in Britain and distributed all over the world in Christian Bibles, thus cementing the false legitimacy of Palestine.
The interesting thing was to observe what happened between 1923 and 1940, with Ze'ev Jabotinsky. Who was Jabotinsky? Ze'ev Jabotinsky was a prominent Zionist leader, writer, orator, and soldier. Born in Russia in 1880, he became a central figure in the Zionist movement, advocating for a revision of its mainstream political direction. The Revisionist Movement Jabotinsky is best known as the founder of Revisionist Zionism. He believed that the Zionist goal of establishing a Jewish state required a more assertive and militaristic approach. Unlike the more diplomatic and socialist-leaning mainstream Zionists led by figures like David Ben-Gurion, Jabotinsky argued that a Jewish state should be established on both sides of the Jordan River and that a strong, unassailable Jewish military force—an "iron wall"—was necessary to convince the Arab population to accept Jewish sovereignty. He was a vocal opponent of what he saw as a weak Zionist policy toward British rule and Arab aggression in Palestine. Key Activities and Legacy Jabotinsky's political and military activities included: Founding the Jewish Legion: During World War I, he co-founded the Jewish Legion, a group of Jewish soldiers within the British Army that fought for the liberation of Palestine from Ottoman rule. Betar Youth Movement: In 1923, he established the Betar youth movement, which aimed to instill a nationalistic and military spirit in its members. Irgun: He later became the commander of the Irgun, a militant Zionist organization that used armed force against both British authorities and Arab groups. Political Ideology: His ideology was based on a national liberalism that emphasized individual rights and the establishment of a welfare state, but it was also fiercely nationalistic. He is considered the ideological father of Israel's political right-wing, and his legacy continues to influence the Likud party. He died in 1940 and, according to his will, his remains were reburied in Jerusalem on Mount Herzl after the establishment of the State of Israel. Ze'ev Jabotinsky's message to Jews was rooted in a sense of urgency and a firm belief in the necessity of Jewish self-reliance and statehood. His ideology, known as Revisionist Zionism, differed from the mainstream Zionist movement of his time and can be summarized by several key points:
Jewish Statehood is an Absolute Necessity: Jabotinsky believed that the only lasting solution to antisemitism and the vulnerability of Jews in the diaspora was the establishment of a sovereign Jewish state in the Land of Israel. He saw this not as a distant ideal, but as an immediate and essential goal.
The "Iron Wall" and Uncompromising Strength: Jabotinsky famously articulated his "Iron Wall" theory, arguing that a voluntary agreement with the Arab population of Palestine was impossible. He believed that the Arabs would only accept the existence of a Jewish state after a strong, unassailable "iron wall" of Jewish military and political power had been established, demonstrating that their opposition would not succeed. Only then, he argued, would they be willing to negotiate on terms of mutual respect and equal rights.
Mass Immigration and a Jewish Majority: He stressed the critical importance of large-scale Jewish immigration to Palestine to create a Jewish majority. He saw the Jews of Eastern Europe as being in grave danger and called for their "evacuation" to Palestine before what he prophetically referred to as a coming "catastrophe."
Jewish Self-Defense: Jabotinsky was a strong advocate for Jewish self-defense. He was instrumental in forming the Jewish Legion during World War I and later the Betar youth movement and the Irgun paramilitary organization, with the belief that Jews must be able to defend themselves and their national aspirations through military force.
Equal Rights for Minorities: While he was a firm proponent of a Jewish state, Jabotinsky also articulated a vision of a state that would guarantee equal rights for its Arab citizens. He believed in the principle of national rights for all nationalities living in the same state and stated that the future Jewish government would ensure that the Arab minority would not be rendered defenseless.
The British Mandate officially came into effect in September 1923, following the approval of the League of Nations. This marked the transition from British military rule to a civil administration.
Now the British refused to let Jews immigrate to 'British Palestine' because the Arabs pressured them not to. Also, this happened all over the world, including the US. The Arabs NEVER wanted a Jewish State, for any reason, and the Abraham Accords is a beautiful agreement to bridge the gap to mutual existence. That is why Hamas chose October 7th, 2023 to implement their 'final solution' to the Jewish Problem - 100 years after the British Mandate became the Law of the Land.
In the period leading up to October 7, 2023, the Abraham Accords—agreements that normalized diplomatic relations between Israel and several Arab nations—were on a trajectory of significant expansion. The most notable development was the active and widely reported progress toward a potential normalization deal between Israel and Saudi Arabia. This was seen as a major diplomatic breakthrough that would have fundamentally reshaped the regional geopolitical landscape.
The strike by Hamas on October 7, 2023, was widely seen as an attempt to sabotage this normalization process. The core reasons for this, from the perspective of Hamas and its key backer, Iran, are as follows:
Undermining the Abraham Accords: The Abraham Accords were based on the idea that Arab states could pursue their own national interests, including economic and security cooperation with Israel, without a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The potential of a Saudi-Israel deal, in particular, would have been a major blow to the Palestinian cause, as it would have sidelined it from the regional diplomatic agenda and weakened the position of Palestinians.
Reasserting the Palestinian Cause: The attack was a violent and shocking way to force the Palestinian issue back into the international spotlight. By launching a large-scale, brutal assault, Hamas knew it would provoke a massive Israeli response in Gaza, which would in turn galvanize support for the Palestinian cause among Arab populations and make it politically untenable for Arab leaders to continue normalizing relations with Israel.
Iran's Strategic Interests: Iran, a primary adversary of Israel and a key supporter of Hamas, also had a strong interest in preventing the normalization deal. An alliance between Israel and Saudi Arabia, a regional rival of Iran, would have created a powerful security bloc against Iran and its proxies. By supporting the Hamas attack, Iran was able to disrupt this emerging alliance and demonstrate its own capacity to destabilize the region, thereby strengthening its position in the "Axis of Resistance" against Israel.
Internal Palestinian Politics: Some analysts also suggest that the attack was partly driven by a desire for Hamas to reassert its dominance over other Palestinian factions and show itself as the primary force of resistance against Israel.
So Great Britain is currently trying to duplicate the strategy of 1940 with a "Two State Solution" because like then, they are facing enormous pressure from the Arabs to destroy the Jewish State and disperse Jews around the world, again. There are many in the US who are falling for this trap also.
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
It is perjorative because it is in the context of Britain and France’s agreement for the division of the Middle East was based on their colonies that each previously controlled. They created the nation/state divisions by the Sykes/Picot Agreement: The key terms of the agreement were to:
Create Spheres of Influence: The Arab lands of the Ottoman Empire were to be divided into French and British “spheres of influence” and “control.”
French Control: France was to be given direct control over southeastern Turkey, the Kurdistan region, Syria, and Lebanon.
British Control: Britain was to get direct control over what is now southern Iraq, Jordan, and a small area that included the ports of Acre and Haifa in modern-day Israel to give them access to the Mediterranean Sea.
International Administration: An international administration would be established for the area of Palestine.
Arab State/Confederation: Both Britain and France agreed to recognize and protect an independent Arab state or a confederation of Arab states in a large inland area of the Middle East. However, in this region, France would have priority of enterprise and loans in the north, and Britain would have the same priority in the south.
It’s important to note that the agreement largely disregarded the aspirations of Arab nationalists who were hoping for an independent Arab state. The borders drawn in the Sykes-Picot Agreement laid the foundation for the modern borders of Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria. The subsequent Russian Revolution in 1917 and the Ottoman Empire’s eventual defeat led to some modifications of the agreement’s terms, but its general framework had a lasting impact on the region.
General Allenby concluded the Conquest of the Turkish-Ottoman Empire in 1917, when General Allenby entered Jerusalem on a horse. His name, Allenby, was translated into Arabic as Alla Bey, or the Son of God, so they thought the Christian Messiah had entered at that time and they laid down their weapons. The British Mandate that was established in 1920 was created along the lines of the Sykes-Picot Agreement, in which France administered Lebanon and Britain administered Israel, part of Syria, and Saudi Arabia. Before then, there were no borders of these nations. So yes, the idea of British colonization was a bit perjorative because they are trying to regain the glory of the first half of the 20th Century.
More than just the British and French, as other once-colonial powers now long failed cannot see a future for themselves. Sadly it will be even more infected with gathering Islam and publicly decadent homosexuality, which will become a potent social friction as the years pass.
Arabs link their attacks to key historical dates in many cases. For Instance, the 9/11 attack might have been picked for Sept. 11th because the construction of the Pentagon began on September 11, 1941, exactly sixty years before the massive attack on 9/11. October 7th, 2023 was 100 years after the British Mandate became law, on Simchat Torah, which is the Jewish Holiday that signifies when the Torah was given on Mount Sinai. In other words, also the day that the Legal tender for Israel was given to the Jews by God. So yes, I believe there are always reasons that Arabs pick dates to attack. 1973 was during Yom Kippur, or the Jewish New Year, etc.
Simple question to the world: How far back in time? 2000 years ago, the area in question was Roman. There are entire lists of countries that land was controlled by prior to the modern era.
So, how far back in time do you want to go?
I was being nice.
Not to mention that early Arabic lacked diacritics, which of course change meanings.
End game? This is all public relations wrapping Jew hatred into a somehow justified socio-political "thing."
Basic History for the Uninformed:
1. Before Israel, there was a British mandate, not a Palestinian state.
2. Before the British Mandate, there was the Ottoman Empire, not a Palestinian state.
3. Before the Ottoman Empire, there was the Islamic state of the Mamluks of Egypt, not a Palestinian state.
4. Before the Islamic state of the Mamluks of Egypt, there was the Ayubid-Kurdish Empire, not a Palestinian state.
5. Before the Ayubid Empire, there was the Crusader Frankish and the Christian Kingdom of Jerusalem, not a Palestinian state.
6. Before the Kingdom of Jerusalem, there were the Umayyad and Fatimid empires, not a Palestinian state.
7. Before the Umayyad and Fatimid empires, there was the Byzantine empire, not a Palestinian state.
8. there was the Sassanid-Persian Empire before the Byzantine Empire, not a Palestinian state.
9. Before the Sassanid-Persian Empire, there was the Byzantine Empire again, not a Palestinian state.
10. there was the Roman Empire, not a Palestinian state, before the Byzantine Empire.
11. Before the Roman Empire, there was the Jewish Hasmonean state, not a Palestinian state.
12. Before the Jewish Hasmonean state was the Hellenistic Seleucid Empire, not a Palestinian state.
13. Before the Hellenistic Seleucid empire, there was Alexander the Great’s empire, not a Palestinian state.
14. Before Alexander the Great, there was the Persian Empire, not a Palestinian state.
15. Before the Persian Empire, there was the Babylonian Empire, not a Palestinian state.
16. Before the Babylonian Empire, the kingdoms of Israel and Judah were not Palestinian states.
17. Before the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah, there was the Kingdom of Israel, not a Palestinian state.
18. Before the Kingdom of Israel, there was the theocracy of the twelve tribes of Israel, not a Palestinian state.
19. Before the theocracy of the twelve tribes of Israel, there was an agglomeration of independent Canaanite city-kingdoms, not a Palestinian state.
There have been many governments there, but never a Palestine.
"...from the 12th to 8th centuries BCE BC..."
"...after suppressing the Bar Kokhba revolt in 135 CE AD 135"
FIFY
Excellent!
I understand your point, however I have run into this recently, and on a personal level, in the context of my family history.
Someone contacted me personally and is asking for reparations for actions taken 7+ generations back. The assumption was and is that there was wealth (including mineral wealth) accrued by one family. Land has also been accrued by the same family. And an apology is owed by the church where a daughter of the said family attended because her husband was the reverend there.
In the documentation provided to me, the claimant used the term “Colonizer” and “Slaver” (the patriarch owned several slaves which were freed by his widow some time after his death). Note that the slaves were not enslaved by him - he simply bought them.
Those terms are perjorative and emotionally laden, and when someone uses them, I stop listening.
Sounds like South Africa to me - with the key difference being that the European settlers in South Africa (and Rhodesia) were not native to the area. They developed it from wilderness, and that had to count for a lot, but it was essentially empty land. In Israel the Jews not only made the land productive, but they ARE the native population.
I understand your point as well. But the Sun never set on the British Empire, and they colonize to the ends of the earth. And now, they have become a shell of their greatness and tradition. Liberalism has killed them. And to use Israel to revive the last vestiges of their tradition, is, in a word, perjorative. I am selective on which Empire that I hold contempt for.
Because they could.
Israel should never give up Judea and Samaria.
it’s heart of israel.
they already got a two state solution as the Arabs got Jordan.
I don’t mind the annotation “BCE” ... I just expand it to “Before the Christian Era”.
While I wasn’t paying attention did muslim arabs develope a temporal transporter and travel back in time before 610 AD to perform this amazing colonization???
NO...
Every nation under islam today is that way from conquest.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.