World News

False beliefs in favor of British and Palestinian monarchy | Israel

Last month, when Israeli weapons destroyed homes in Gaza, one of two areas where Palestinians were oppressed in recent years, the British government was once again in power. to prove its past good versus those who want to count on its bad ones. #BritishEmpire went viral on Twitter even though Gaza burned.

The irony is connected: the further refinement of British royal history confirms that the criticism of what Israel did as “permanent colonists” failed to settle in many places. Instead of defaming Israel, Britain’s policies have been said to be legitimate. The British government’s Balfour Declaration declaring support for the “establishment of a Jewish Jewish settlement in Palestine” in 1917 is said to have laid the foundation for a Jewish state in the Middle East and to provide a legitimate opportunity for the establishment of an Israeli state. Awareness of the moral crisis and the implications of this declaration may help to dispel the stalwart beliefs of the British monarchy and the dangerous presence of Israel in Palestine.

The Balfour Declaration was one of several “promises” made by the British during the First World War over the Ottoman Empire, while the British did so in defense of the way to India and the oil-rich Gulf. In order to make the Arabs a part of it, he promised the Sharifian rulers of the Hejaz, on the Arabian Peninsula, an independent kingdom that stretches from Palestine to Damascus. At the same time, in secret negotiations with the French and Russians to divide the territory, he promised to make Palestine a part of the world. When Russia withdrew from the war in October 1917, it saw the need to urgently defend Britain in the Middle East with a new promise, this time to the Zionist movement. Palestine thus became a threefold promise – a sufficient reason to doubt the sanctity of any promise.

The new pledge was written by a British foreign secretary, led by Conservative Arthur James Balfour. Known as the “bloody Blofour” in oppressing the Irish people who wanted more freedom as the secretary general of Ireland, Balfour was brave enough to oppose him. He was also a philosopher who was skeptical of speculation and fascination with the occult – as well as the powerful occult ideas of other groups. The idea that the promise to the Zionists would protect the Middle East from them arose out of his anti-Semitic views, which he shared with other British politicians, that the Jews were in control of government opinion and global finance. Balfour reckoned that his false statements would promote American and German Jewish ideas on the basis of the Allies, as well as to curb the exodus of unwanted Jews from Eastern Europe to Britain.

The proclamation was in line with the British colonial nation that made history of the brutal occupation of Kenya and other territories. What the British thought of Palestine as something they could promise any group without consulting the common people was also shocking to the emperor. The difference here is that Jewish and non-British citizens can take on a “civilized career” – and live faithfully next to the Suez Canal. The declaration implies that the Jews were of a higher status and culture than the citizens of Palestine, just as it claims that the Jews were not in Europe properly and at risk.

Not everyone in the British government shared this idea. India’s secretary of state, Edwin Montagu, was Jewish and found the proclamation to be anti-Semitic. “Later Jews will be considered foreigners in all countries except Palestine,” he feared. He stressed that members of his family did not have a “show group” with Jewish families elsewhere: “It is not true to say that the English-speaking Christian and the French-French are of the same race.” Montagu feared that the proclamation would mean “Jews should be placed in a preferred place” in Palestine, and that Muslims and Christians would be made to “make way for the Jews”. He foresaw: “When the Jews are told that Palestine is their homeland, every country will want to expel its Jewish citizens, and you will find that Palestine expels its citizens.”

At that time Montagu was proclaiming the Montagu Declaration, promising the Indians independence they Loyalty in battle. Those who were careful, especially Balfour’s, persuaded them to accept this anti-colonial claim, saying that the Indians could not do this. That’s the kind of imperialist Balfour was.

After the war, the British kept all their promises of war in the Middle East: They offered their ideas to the French by allowing Prince Sharifian Faisal to establish a government in Damascus, but then allowed the French to leave Faisal, to give free hand in oil-rich Mosul. Faisal was instead crowned the king of Iraq under British rule – even during the war he promised to gain his independence in Iraq. Britain ruled directly from Palestine (no part of the world) – proving that the Baldour Declaration’s unwillingness on the part of the nation meant nothing to improve Jewish politics. In 1921, Britain annexed Jordan from Palestine without realizing it was breaking into a Jewish home. The 1930 White Paper moved away from the idea of ​​being a Jewish house. The Zionist cry forced the British government to withdraw the paper.

When Hitler came to power, hundreds of thousands of desperate European Jews who closed the doors to Britain and the US arrived in Palestine. Homeless and poor, the Palestinians rebelled in 1936. The British began to use the brutal, dangerous and destructive methods developed in Ireland and Iraq, which strengthened the post-Israeli military system.

The British changed the policy in 1937 and 1939, in exchange for Jews and Arabs. Winston Churchill was in the process of advising on Palestinian policy when he reiterated the colonial defense in 1937: “I do not know … that a great mistake has been made against the Red Indians of America, or the black people of Australia. he has come, and he has come to replace it. ”He found the Jewish settlement in Palestine to be the same as the earlier crimes, including the meaning of murder.

Meanwhile, Hitler also oversees the assassination of Native Americans as an example as a result of being pregnant in Lebensraum and began to use the violent ideas of colonial settlement in Europe itself. Churchill envied Hitler, giving him another title in his 1937 book, Great Contemporaries. Although the British people today celebrate Churchill in the defeat of Nazism, they have not explicitly opposed the colonial settlement ideology established by Nazism.

British religious advocates have instead given up their power to protect Cecil Rhodes, another colonial activist, even though a cautious committee has recommended that his statue be removed from Oriel College in Oxford. Rhodes said: “We are the best race in the world and … when we live in this world it is very good for the people.” His own company killed thousands of Tables by establishing Rhodesian citizens. As prime minister of the Cape Colony, he has also laid the groundwork for apartheid in South Africa – where the modern Israeli government is portrayed – to usurp non-white people and take their place. Even the British people who lived there were angry with what they did.

Recently, former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum told CNN that the successors had made the US “worthless,… there was nothing here”, ending not only the existence of American culture and life but also the memory of the great atrocities that befell them, CNN in response to pressure from people, including the Native American Journalists Association.

Britain’s major news outlets, such as The Times, continue to provide opportunities for apologists to lean on colonialism. Last month, the Guardian regretted supporting the Balfour Declaration in 1917, when its editor wrote: “The Arabs in Palestine are … very low.” It is time for a great deal of opposition, no doubt of his false promise and the idea of ​​colonial settlement on which his foundation was founded.

Britain’s pledges of war were not based on ideology but were designed to help and stabilize racist ideologies – not the sanctity. In addition, the proclamation included the use of sarcastic language and affirmed that “nothing will be done to undermine the natural and religious rights of non-Jews in Palestine.” Balfour’s Conservatism was about avoiding radical change. The proclamation was made to remain unfulfilled, as were wartime promises to the Sharifian. There is little to the origins, colonialism, and anti-Semitism to offer the legitimacy – other than the sanctity – that exists in some places today.

The British established colonial settlements in Palestine carelessly and recklessly as they did in Australia and New Zealand as well as in Kenya and Rhodesia. The Israeli violence in Gaza is not only a defense but also a long-standing issue of long-term stability since the European colonial period. Contrary to British beliefs, colonialism was a brutal cleansing process based on apartheid. US support for Israel’s intervention in the Palestinian territories is backed by one British-occupied country. Not surprisingly, the aid was very generous during the Trump administration, which was also proud of being white and senior in North America. Reading the history of colonialism is important to read with the colonists themselves.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the editor of Al Jazeera.

Source link

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Back to top button