The spiritual and prophetic significance of San Remo

Seaside signing that sealed Jewish state’s legitimacy

The fallout from British betrayal of the Mandate

We mark the centenary of the San Remo Resolution with several relevant reviews

Obligations of the Mandate for Palestine

The San Remo Conference of April 1920

An opportunity is approaching that our new PM would do well to take.

Next week Britain will have a new Prime Minister and the first question he should be asking is, “Is there any word from the Lord?” This was the question King Zedekiah put to the Prophet Jeremiah shortly before the Babylonians broke through the walls of Jerusalem and began its destruction. What is God saying to Britain in these incredible days as the Brexit saga races towards the final conflict or consummation?

Several things have come to my notice in the last few days that may be significant. I was looking through some old papers and came across my notes of visiting the elderly leader (Mother Barbara) of the Russian convent in the Garden of Gethsemane in Jerusalem back in the early 1980s. I heard how, as a young lady of 22 in Russia, she had met with Bishop Aristocoli who had given her the now-famous prophecy known as The 1911 Mother Barbara Prophecy (reprinted below).

I had not read it for many years but I remembered that some of its remarkable predictions have already come true, particularly the prophecy that Great Britain, whose empire covered one third of the world’s land space, would lose all her colonies and “come to almost total ruin”.

In last week’s editorial I spoke about the astonishing collapse of the British Empire, saying that it was largely due to the abandonment of our Judeo-Christian heritage. Then on Monday a friend telephoned from Italy. She lives in San Remo and reminded me that next April will be the centenary of the San Remo Resolution, which established in international law the legitimacy of the Arab states and Britain’s Balfour Declaration, heralding the re-establishment of a Jewish homeland in what is now the State of Israel. 

Britain’s Sacred Trust

San Remo delegates, 1920, including David Lloyd George.

The San Remo Conference of Allied leaders and international lawyers was an extension of the Paris Peace Conference of 1919. The purpose was to set up three Mandates, one over Syria and Lebanon, one over Mesopotamia (Iraq/Iran) and one over Palestine – both East and West of the River Jordon. The Mandate for Palestine was entrusted to Great Britain as a “sacred trust of civilisation”¹ in respect of “the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people”.²

This was a binding resolution with all the force of international law. It was affirmed the following year by Winston Churchill, who told an Arab delegation in Jerusalem:

It is manifestly right that the Jews who are scattered all over the world should have a national centre and a national home where some of them may be reunited. And where else could that be but in the land of Palestine, with which for more than 3000 years they have been intimately and profoundly associated?³

The San Remo resolution was a binding resolution with all the force of international law.

Churchill also issued the following statement in 1922, as British Secretary of State for the Colonies:

When it is asked what is meant by the development of the Jewish National Home in Palestine, it may be answered that it is not the imposition of a Jewish nationality upon the inhabitants of Palestine as a whole, but the further development of the existing Jewish community, with the assistance of Jews in other parts of the world, in order that it may become a centre in which the Jewish people as a whole may take, on grounds of religion and race, an interest and a pride. But in order that this community should have the best prospect of free development and provide a full opportunity for the Jewish people to display its capacities, it is essential that it should know that it is in Palestine as of right and not on sufferance. That is the reason why it is necessary that the existence of a Jewish National Home in Palestine should be internationally guaranteed and that it should be formally recognized to rest upon ancient historic connection.

Is it just a coincidence that the steep decline in the fortunes of Great Britain began in the 1920s (with the Great Depression and the General Strike) when Britain failed to meet its 'sacred trust' for a Jewish homeland by establishing the State of Israel?

Britain not only reneged on its promises in the 1920s and throughout the 1930s,⁴ but was still favouring the Arabs and resisting Jewish settlement in the early days after the Second World War – turning away leaking old ships loaded with Holocaust survivors seeking refuge in what had been promised as their new homeland – ships that sank in the Mediterranean with the loss of all those on board! Other Jewish would-be-immigrants were actually forcibly sent back to Germany, which was surely the height of inhumanity!

Having sold the Jewish people for barrels of oil, Britain under Prime Minister Clement Attlee (a Jew-hating atheist, like some in the modern Labour Party) actually refused to vote for the establishment of the State of Israel in the United Nations in 1947. We did not dare to vote against the resolution and offend the USA – but in order not to offend the Arabs and endanger our oil supplies, we abstained!!! From that day the British Empire rapidly disappeared from the map of the world.

No! I’m not making a case for colonialism! It was right that ex-colonial countries should have their independence and the freedom to develop in accordance with their own cultures, and I think we should applaud and do all we can to strengthen the ties between nations in the British Commonwealth. But I also think that the fortunes of the United Kingdom have been adversely affected by breaking our promises to Israel and the Jewish people, which were a ‘sacred trust’.

Is it just a coincidence that the steep decline in the fortunes of Great Britain began when we failed to meet our 'sacred trust' for a Jewish homeland by establishing the State of Israel?

Testing Times Ahead

I also believe that the next six or nine months are going to be times of incredible turmoil in the UK when we may indeed, as foretold in The Mother Barbara Prophecy, come perilously close to ‘total ruin’.

But the centenary of the San Remo Resolution in April 2020 will provide an opportunity for Britain to repent publicly of her broken promises and the anti-Semitism that has driven our Foreign Office since the 1920s (brilliantly portrayed in one of the 1990s TV episodes of Yes, Prime Minister⁵). Will our new Government, under a new Prime Minister, have the courage to confess the sins of the past? 

Theresa May, at her last Prime Minister’s Question Time this week, called upon Jeremy Corbyn to clear anti-Semitism out of the Labour Party – but will our new Prime Minister have the courage to risk the wrath of the Arab world and send a delegation to San Remo to clear the conscience of the nation? I believe the Lord may be saying that such repentance, though not enough to save Britain from the consequences of our unrighteous laws, would nevertheless be a vital step in the right direction.

Please join us in prayer as we seek the right way forward in this issue. Maybe someone will start a petition calling upon the Government to send an official British delegation to attend the 2020 San Remo Centenary to acknowledge publicly our historic wrongs.

The 1911 Mother Barbara Prophecy

This prophecy was given to Mother Barbara in 1911 by Bishop Aristocoli in Russia, shortly before his death and before she settled in Jerusalem:

“Tell the women they must belong absolutely to God. They must believe in the great things that are happening and that God is doing on the earth. They must prepare their souls, their children and their husbands. And they will have very much work to do for God. Oh, what a great work the women will have to do in the end times, and the men will follow them.

Not one country will be without trial – do not be frightened of anything you will hear. An evil will shortly take Russia and wherever this evil goes, rivers of blood will flow. This evil will take the whole world and where ever it goes, rivers of blood will flow because of it. It is not the Russian soul, but an imposition on the Russian soul. It is not an ideology, or philosophy, but a spirit from hell.

In the last days Germany will be divided in two. France will just be nothing. Italy will be judged by natural disasters. Britain will lose her empire and all her colonies and will come to almost total ruin, but will be saved by praying women. America will feed the world, but will finally collapse. Russia and China will destroy each other. Finally, Russia will be free and from her, believers will go forth and turn many from the nations to God.”

Cover of Eli Hertz's book on the legal aspects of the Jewish claim to the Land. Maps show the region before and after the division of British Mandate land to create Transjordan.

References

1 Article 22, Covenant of the League of Nations, signed in Paris, 1919.

2 San Remo Resolution, 1920. Read the full text here.

3 Taken from ‘Winston Churchill in Jerusalem, 1921’, Manchester Conservatives.

4 E.g. ceding 70% of the Mandate land to the Arabs (Transjordan, now Jordan). We recommend The Forsaken Promise (DVD) from Hatikvah Films for a fuller exploration of this issue.

5 ‘A Victory for Democracy’. Watch in full here.

Foreign Secretary regrets our turning back refugees from Nazi-occupied Europe

Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt’s apology over Britain’s treatment of Jews during the Mandate of Palestine is an encouraging development to be greatly applauded.

But it has been a long time in coming. Not from him, I mean, but from successive British Governments. He is believed to be the first holder of this office to have acknowledged our criminal behaviour over the plight of Jewish refugees trying to escape the Nazis.

Described by Mr Hunt as a ‘black moment’ in history, it involved denying entrance to the very homeland we had pledged to help recreate for the Jews at the time they needed it most. And Britain has been under a curse ever since, fulfilling the negative part of Genesis 12:3 – that those who curse the seed of Abraham would face judgment.

Mr Hunt was addressing the annual Parliamentary reception of Conservative Friends of Israel, hailing the “very strong relationship” between Britain and Israel and declaring Israel’s right to self-defence as being “absolutely unconditional”.

But he added: “There have been some black moments when we have done the wrong thing such as the 1939 White Paper which capped the number of visas issued to Jews wanting to go to the British mandate of Palestine.”¹

A Step in the Right Direction

Anne Heelis, who heads up a group² dedicated to comforting those who suffered as a result of British Mandate policies, said this “wonderful development” had come just a day after confession for our role was made during a Holocaust memorial service in Northern Ireland.

“Hundreds of thousands of Jewish people could have escaped death in the Nazi concentration camps if they had been allowed free entry into their ancient homeland, but Britain cruelly blocked this way of escape by severely restricting Jewish immigration,” Anne said.

Those who had been praying for a change of heart were “deeply grateful” for this development, but though Mr Hunt’s remarks were “most welcome”, they did not amount to an apology.

The Foreign Secretary’s apology over Britain’s treatment of Jews during the British Mandate is an encouraging development to be greatly applauded – although it is just the start of what is needed.

“They are indeed a wonderful answer to prayer and a great encouragement to continue praying with broken hearts for our Government to make a full apology to Israel. There is still a deep wound in the heart of many Israelis as a result of Britain’s misconduct of the Mandate.”

Rosie Ross, whose organisation Repairing the Breach has also been working with those who suffered under the Mandate, said Mr Hunt’s statement was “a major breakthrough” that was clearly an answer to prayer, some of which has been specifically targeted at the Foreign Office.

She plans to thank Mr Hunt personally and also looks forward to a full apology.

Reneging on Our Promise

The Atlit detention camp, near the port of Haifa, where many ‘illegal immigrants’ were held by the British. Photo: Gemma Blech.

Because the 1917 Balfour Declaration – promising to do all we could to aid Jewish repatriation – had subsequently been legitimised both by the 1920 Treaty of San Remo and the League of Nations in 1922, Britain had all the delegated power she needed to rescue many thousands of God’s chosen people from disaster.

But she failed to act because of Arab opposition, choosing to pursue a policy of appeasement that had never worked with Hitler. And we are still suffering the consequences, with the Middle East up in flames, the rest of Europe in turmoil and Britain in particular in a state of utter chaos and bewilderment.

We lost our empire, beginning with India in 1947, along with much of our power and influence and, as we succumbed increasingly to secularisation, we broke loose from our moral moorings. We also lost our sovereignty as we got sucked into the godless European whirlpool which further weakened our Judeo-Christian foundations.

All this leaves us frantically splashing about in an ocean of confusion with our political elite engaged in a desperate bid to avoid carrying out the people’s wish of regaining our national pride.

Blessing or Curse?

I pray that Mr Hunt will stick to his guns, and I would like to encourage him by emphasising the undeniable link – at both an individual and a national level – between political longevity and treatment of the Jews.

It is worth noting, for example, that the three longest-serving British Prime Ministers of the modern era – Harold Wilson, Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair – were unflinching in their support for the Jews. I mentioned Wilson last week (see The Forgotten Friend of Israel). Mrs Thatcher not only helped save a Jewish girl’s life from the Holocaust but also served her strongly Jewish constituency faithfully throughout her Parliamentary career. Mr Blair inaugurated the annual Holocaust Memorial Day to help ensure it doesn’t happen again.

Britain had all the delegated power she needed to rescue many thousands of God’s chosen people from disaster, but she failed to act because of Arab opposition, choosing to pursue a policy of appeasement.

Others, including Neville Chamberlain, Anthony Eden, James Callaghan and even Winston Churchill, disappeared from the political scene after letting God’s ancient people down.³

Where are the great empires of the past – Egyptian, Assyrian, Babylonian, Greek and Roman – who have treated the ‘apple of God’s eye’ (Zech 2:8) with disdain? They are buried in the dust of history.

Operation Mordechai

With this in mind, Christians United for Israel UK has launched ‘Operation Mordecai’ to highlight the threat to Israel and the West posed by Iran, with the primary aim of ensuring that Britain positions itself on the right side of history by defending Israel against tyranny.

The campaign takes its inspiration from the biblical account of Esther’s cousin Mordecai who, having heard of a plot to annihilate the Jews, sought the Lord, warned about what was planned and took action.

Let’s not go the way of Ireland, Amnesty International or Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party. Ireland is currently pushing through legislation designed to boycott the sale of Israeli products from so-called “illegal settlements in occupied territories”.⁴ They are referring to Judea and Samaria, which is the heart of Israel though obviously disputed by those who oppose the Jewish right to the land (which, as I said, is theirs by international treaty as well as God’s sovereign word).

Amnesty International is calling for a boycott of Israel’s tourism industry in the same region, accusing them of “occupation, human rights violations and war crimes”.⁵

Paul Charney, chairman of the Zionist Federation of the UK and Ireland, said the humanitarian organisation thus demonstrates its lack of neutrality by whitewashing any Palestinian culpability for the conflict.

“Amnesty must recognise the incitement, the children’s television programmes encouraging violence and terrorism, and the salaries to convicted terrorists under the Palestinian Authority’s ‘Pay to Slay’ policy, to name but a few of the many disgraces which bear much responsibility for the current situation.”

He added that such boycotts harm the very people they wish to help.

Friend or Foe?

Returning to our relationship with the Jewish state, Labour ties with its sister party in Israel were officially cut last year over its handling of anti-Semitism, which bodes ill for any potential Labour-led British Government.

It was in 2016 that Mr Corbyn refused an invitation from Isaac Herzog, then leader of Israel’s Labour Party, to visit Israel and tour the Yad Vashem Holocaust museum.

Herzog, now Chairman of the Jewish Agency for Israel, is reported to be “extremely distraught” by what is happening in Britain’s Labour Party.⁶

Christians United for Israel UK has launched ‘Operation Mordecai’ to ensure that Britain positions itself on the right side of history by defending Israel against tyranny.

So should we be. And our Foreign Office has a bad record of dealings with Israel; so let’s hope Mr Hunt’s statement signals a turning of the tide.

For we do not wish to be numbered among Israel’s enemies, of whom the Psalmist wrote: “’Come’, they say, ‘let us destroy them as a nation, that the name of Israel be remembered no more.’” (Ps 83:4).

And Psalm 146 adds: “Do not put your trust in princes, in mortal men, who cannot save. When their spirit departs, they return to the ground; on that very day their plans come to nothing” (verses 3-4).

References

1 United with Israel, 1 February 2019.

2 Nachamu Ami (Comfort ye my people – Isaiah 40:1).

3 Pawson, D. Defending Christian Zionism. Terra Nova Publications, p152/3.

4 Haaretz, 29 November 2018.

5 United with Israel, 30 January 2019.

6 Jerusalem News Network, 30 January 2019, quoting the Jerusalem Post.

Simon Pease reviews ‘A New Apostolic Reformation?’ by RD Geivett and H Pivec (Weaver Book Company, 2014).

Geivett’s and Pivec’s book, investigating the teachings of the so-called ‘New Apostolic Reformation’ (NAR), has already garnered widespread critical acclaim, with reviewers asserting that this work provides a much-needed service to the Church. This reviewer concurs.

The ‘NAR’ is a short-hand term for a loose, unofficial collection of ministries, individuals and teachings, largely emanating from the USA, which have combined over the last 30 years to become a highly pervasive influence in the worldwide Church. However, as the authors point out, many Christians who are influenced by the NAR are not even aware of its existence.

In this helpful and balanced book, Geivett and Pivec draw together the various strands of this movement and systematically review its core beliefs, which owe significantly to the 1930s Latter Rain Movement and associated ‘revivals’ such as the Toronto ‘Blessing’.

Hyper-Dominionism

The authors acknowledge that they faced a challenging task researching the NAR as a whole. In contrast to a denomination, it is harder to pin down a formal set of beliefs within this nebulous-yet-influential movement.
In essence, NAR teaching asserts that God is raising up an end times generation of apostles and prophets, to whom the Holy Spirit is revealing ‘new truth’. These apostles and prophets will lead a massive revival, demonstrate extraordinary miraculous powers, and assume worldly positions of power in spheres such as Government, education, the media, arts, etc in order to bring the Kingdom of God on earth.¹

Geivett’s and Pivec’s book, investigating the teachings of the so-called ‘New Apostolic Reformation’, provides a much-needed service to the Church.

In traversing NAR beliefs, which can be summed up as hyper-dominionism (though Geivett and Pivec do not use this term), the authors reference and quote a variety of sources, most frequently C Peter Wagner. The most extreme example provided is of Bill Hamon, who teaches that end times apostles and prophets will attain immortality and perfect health before Jesus returns. Although some within the NAR reject these ideas, they nevertheless align with the overall direction of the movement.

Systematic Comparison with Scripture

Geivett and Pivec have written a clear and accessible work. Their respective backgrounds as university professor and investigative journalist are clearly visible in the book’s neatly arranged structure and evidence-based approach.

The impetus for writing the book arose from an enquiry by an ordinary Christian directed to Holly Pivec when she was a university magazine editor. The book itself is simply dedicated ‘To the Church, the Bride of Christ’, though it is probably geared more towards church leaders, being quite an academic work. Seemingly recognising this, the authors have written a complementary book entitled ‘God’s Super-Apostles’, together with a study guide, which provide a brief introduction to the NAR, with personal stories and recommendations for responding to the movement’s teachings – evidently aimed at a broader readership than the one currently reviewed.

The first three chapters of ‘A New Apostolic Reformation?’ are devoted to explaining what the NAR is, its extraordinary influence (both within the worldwide Church and as a political force in the USA) and the highly organised strategies it has adopted to become so powerful within mainstream Christianity.

The book then systematically examines key NAR teachings, following each with a summary of biblical teaching and a comparison between the two. Invariably NAR teaching is revealed to fail the crucial litmus test of Scripture.

The book systematically examines key NAR teachings, which invariably are revealed to fail the crucial litmus test of Scripture.

The authors also counteract NAR teachings by referring to other commentators within mainstream Pentecostalism and the charismatic movement – presumably because their belief in modern-day gifts of the Spirit makes them the closest Church streams to the NAR and their views might therefore carry greater weight with the reader.

In so doing, Geivett and Pivec ensure that the book’s powerful critique is not damaged by getting side-tracked into debates such as cessationism. They also work to ensure that believers caught up in the NAR movement will not be alienated by the book, stating clearly that they consider NAR leaders to be genuinely committed believers, though never beyond reproach.

Opportunities Missed

Despite its excellence, the book does miss a couple of good opportunities. For example, the authors point out that the NAR now has its own Bible, the ‘Passion Translation’, written deliberately to promote their theology. So brazen is this ‘translation’ in its re-writing of Scripture that at least an appendix with some choice quotations would have been valuable.

In the same way, there is the occasional passing comment regarding the similarity of NAR practices to the New Age movement - but this theme is never developed. To their credit, however, an appendix is devoted to Todd Bentley’s commissioning by ‘apostolic decree’ and his rapid demise, highlighting spectacularly why NAR leaders’ claim to speak authoritatively for God is flawed.

Unlike other books on this topic, which tend to focus on the bizarre spiritual practices and unorthodox teachings of one particular ministry or leader (e.g. Bill Johnson and Bethel Church), here is a comprehensive overview of the entire movement that is highly recommended to help counteract NAR teachings within the Church.

‘A New Apostolic Reformation? A Biblical Response to a Worldwide Movement’ (272pp, paperback) is available from ICM Books for £12.99. Also on Amazon Kindle.

Notes

1 The clearest theological expression of this teaching is found in the ‘Seven Mountain Mandate’, in which mountains represent these spheres of cultural influence.

An excerpt from Sandra Teplinsky’s book ‘Why Still Care About Israel’. Part I of II.

Last week on Prophecy Today UK we reviewed ‘Why Still Care About Israel’ as part of our ongoing coverage of Israel’s 70^th anniversary. This week, we are pleased to bring you the first of a two-part excerpt from this book (taken from chapter 10), focusing particularly on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Please see the base of the page for more information about the author. Reprinted with permission.

 Israeli Statehood and the Arab/Palestinian Plight

“Be transformed by the renewing of your mind.” Romans 12:2

A true story opens on May 14, 1948, as the Jewish people prepare to declare a state. The air is electric. After two thousand years of exile, the sons and daughters of Jacob have come home. High-pitched excitement circles the globe.

That morning, Israel's founding father and first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, pores over maps showing the array of Arab armies poised to attack. The Jews are outnumbered 100 to 1.¹ “I feel like a mourner at a wedding," he writes in his diary.²

In a few hours Ben-Gurion will deliver Israel’s Declaration of Independence. He scribbles down notes for his speech on the only writing material at hand - sheets of toilet paper.^a

At exactly 4:00pm, he steps to the podium in an overcrowded hall in Tel Aviv, before a hushed audience. This is the moment for which millions of Jews have lived and died. As Ben-Gurion reads the Israeli Declaration of Independence, those present cling to his every word. He speaks of Bible history and the Jews’ undying hope to return to their ancestral home. Then with prophetic clarity Ben-Gurion decrees: “By virtue of the natural and historic right of the Jewish people…we hereby proclaim the establishment of the Jewish state in Palestine, to be called the State of Israel…for the fulfillment of the dream of generations—the redemption of Israel.”

At once, cheers and tears resound. Golda Meir, who would later serve as prime minister, cannot stop crying. Her sobs, she explains, are for the many who should have been there, but are no more.³ According to the nation’s chief rabbi, “The dawn of redemption has broken.”⁴

As the Jewish people prepare to declare a state, the air is electric. After two thousand years of exile, the sons and daughters of Jacob have come home. High-pitched excitement circles the globe.

Euphoria erupts in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, where traffic stops as streets swell with singing and dancing. But the party is soon interrupted. Sirens wail to warn of Egyptian bombers overhead. Joining them are the armies of Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq, together with militants from throughout the Arab world. All have a common goal: to annihilate the Jewish state in Allah’s name.⁵ The War of Independence has begun. Happy birthday, Israel.

Since 1948, tomes have been written on the history of Israel’s restoration, and the Islamist/Arab/Palestinian resistance against it. Time and space permit us to summarise only basic facts (for more detail, please refer to the notes at www.whystillcareaboutisrael.com). I think you will discover a surprising perspective on today’s conflict emerges when you consider the context from which it arose. You will see that Israel is not so much in a fight for land as for her life - and that changes everything.

Palestinian History: The Back Story

In the first century AD, Israel was renamed Palestine by the Romans who conquered her. This was done in derisive remembrance of the Jews’ former - and extinct - enemy, the Philistines. The Philistines had by then already died out, so despite the similarity in name, they are not related to the Palestinians of today.^b Collectively, Palestinians have no traceable ancient tie to the land of Israel and never identified as a self-governing people group. Like other Arabs in the Middle East, most of their ancestors dwelt as scattered family tribes on lands they often did not personally own. Generally, they coexisted alongside Jews who had, in small numbers, lived in Palestine since biblical times on inherited or legally purchased land.⁶ But periodically, Islamic terror would erupt⁷ and jihadi expropriation of Jewish real estate took place.⁸

From the 1500s up until World War I, the entire Middle East was ruled by the Ottoman Turkish Empire, a type of Muslim caliphate. No autonomous Arab state was on the map; most Arabs belonged to nomadic tribes wandering all over the Middle East.^c At the same time, hundreds of thousands of Jews also lived in the region under Ottoman rule. According to a census taken in 1882, approximately 25,000 of them lived in Palestine, along with 260,000 Arabs.⁹ As tourists and pilgrims testified, Palestine was by then mostly desolate and depopulated,¹⁰ a far cry from the land of milk and honey it had once been for millions of Jews.

Israel is not so much in a fight for land as for her life - and that changes everything.

By the early 1900s, Palestinian Arab identity was said to be extremely mixed.¹¹ Persons counted as indigenous Palestinian Arabs included ethnic Balkans, Greeks, Syrians, Latins, Turks, Armenians, Italians, Persians, Kurds, Germans, Afghans, Circassians, Bosnians, Sudanese, Samaritans, Algerians, Tartars and others.¹² An official British document published in 1920 stated the majority of people living in Palestine were not indigenous Arabs but only Arabic-speaking.¹³

When Zionist pioneers began arriving in the early twentieth century, the number of Arabs immigrating to Palestine also sharply increased. With Jews from the West came new job opportunities, vastly improved medical care and a higher standard of living, all of which attracted their tribal neighbors.¹⁴ Once inside Israel, most Arab immigrants continued living as bedouin, built simple villages or served for decades as tenants on farmlands owned by others. Later, countless more poured in from surrounding countries - not to carry on normal lives but to fight the formation of a Jewish state.¹⁵ Together with the small indigenous Arab population, these individuals and their descendants comprise the Palestinian people of today.

Palestinians are not, as some have rather unkindly said, “an invented people". They are flesh-and-blood human beings created in God’s image, with inherent dignity and worth. Though most of their ancestors came from across the Middle East and even beyond, they did form an identifiable collective by the mid-twentieth century. Palestinians are not the first people group formed by the force of history. They are, however, the only modern group whose creation and self-definition, as one Palestinian journalist writes,¹⁶ rests largely on the planned elimination of another, namely Israel - or as they prefer to call her, “the Zionist entity."

Zionism and the Reestablishment of a Jewish State

Zionism is defined, in a broad secular sense, as the national liberation movement of the Jewish people. The Zionist movement contends that the Jewish nation, like every other indigenous people, is entitled to live autonomously in its ancestral homeland. As such, Zionism cannot be viewed as something separate from the Jewish people and nation-state. To be anti-Zionist is akin to being anti-Israel and, to a degree, anti-Jewish.

Zionism is not and has never been entirely secular; a strong religious element has always underlain it.^d Officially launched in 1896, modern-day Zionism involves the return of the Jewish people to their God-given ancestral homeland.^e The name of the movement derives from the Bible, where Zion is used over 150 times. “You will arise and have compassion on Zion; for it is time to show favour to her; the appointed time has come…For the LORD will rebuild Zion and appear in his glory” (Psalm 102:13, 16). Zionism precipitates His Kingdom glory.

Palestinians are not the first people group formed by the force of history. They are, however, the only modern group whose creation and self-definition rests largely on the planned elimination of another, namely Israel.

In rebuilding Zion, Sovereign God has worked through nations and human beings. The modern story starts with World War I, when the Ottoman Turks aligned with Axis nations, and collectively they lost the war. As a result, the Allies dismantled the Ottoman Empire and created Syria, Lebanon, Iran and Iraq for the Arabs and Persians to inhabit.^f In an international agreement known as the San Remo Resolution of 1920, they set Palestine aside for the Jews.^g Great Britain was made responsible for implementing the resolution by unanimous vote of the League of Nations, predecessor organisation to the UN. The League of Nations directive, called the Mandate for Palestine, reserved explicitly for the Jews not just present-day Israel, but all of Judea, Samaria, Gaza and Jordan.¹⁷

The Mandate for Palestine was scarcely issued when Palestinian Arabs began rioting and conducting terror operations in protest of it. The deadly terror had nothing to do with occupation, settlements or allegedly disproportionate military force. From the beginning, Islamic terror had everything to do with opposing the existence of a Jewish state.

In an effort to appease Palestinian Arabs - and although international law forbade such an action^h - Great Britain unilaterally took back 78 percent of the land allotted to the Jews. She then gave it to Palestinian Arabs—specifically to create a Palestinian state. Today that state is known as Jordan. Palestinian Arabs were expected to move to Jordan, and any Jews living in Jordan would relocate to the 22 percent of land remaining from the San Remo and Mandatory allotments. A smaller section of land in the Golan Heights, originally designated for the Jews, was also given away by Britain to Syria. But appeasement did not work - which we would do well to remember. Those who forget history, it is said, are doomed to repeat it. The acts we engage in for appeasement today, Britain’s Winston Churchill presciently forewarned, we will have to remedy at far greater cost and remorse tomorrow.¹⁸

Not surprisingly, after Jordan was established, Palestinian rioting and terror killings of Jews persisted.ⁱ An exasperated Great Britain finally turned the political foray over to the UN (when the League of Nations failed to prevent World War II, the UN was formed to replace it). The UN’s charter required that it adopt all laws and resolutions passed by the League of Nations. So when it inherited the Mandate for Palestine, the UN became responsible for creating a Jewish state.

As you can see, plans for the reestablishment of Israel were underway well before the onset of World War II. Israel’s right to exist by international law is not fundamentally based on the Nazi Holocaust, as compelling a cause as that is from a humanitarian point of view. Certainly, the Holocaust demonstrated the need for a Jewish state to protect Jewish lives. But if we believe Israel’s right to exist is rooted in a compassionate response to the Holocaust, when that compassion wears off, so will our belief that Israel has a right to exist. Israel’s fundamental right to exist under international law rests on the recognition of the Jews’ ancestral, sovereign control over identifiable land that, since their forced removal from it, remained sparsely occupied and mostly undeveloped.

Israel’s right to exist by international law is not fundamentally based on the Nazi Holocaust, as compelling a cause as that is from a humanitarian point of view.

Notwithstanding Israel’s historical and legal right to the land, and dismissing international commitments to the Jews, the UN continued with a policy of Arab appeasement. In 1947, it partitioned the remaining 22 percent of the original Mandate for a Jewish homeland into two proposed states: one for Jews and yet another, second state for Palestinian Arabs. The Partition Plan, also called UN Resolution 181, recognized the Jews’ right to sovereign control over a sliver of space amounting to a mere 10 percent of the original British Mandate. It offered the Arabs who lived within Mandate territory a state - in addition to Jordan - consisting of Judea, Samaria and Gaza.

Zionist pioneers felt it best to accept the UN’s offer. Ten percent of the Promised Land after nearly two thousand years was better than zero. Moreover, they had no political clout or practical means with which to resist whatever the world community told them to do. The Arabs, however, thoroughly rejected the Partition Plan, which legally voided the offer to them. Ninety percent of the land, they insisted, was not enough. They wanted it all - an empire spanning the entire Middle East, leaving no place on earth for the Jews. They mobilised for a war against Israel they felt certain they would win. The world wondered, much as it does today. Will Israel survive?

Israel's Rebirth—Into War

Israel did not want the War of Independence to occur and tried extremely hard to prevent it.¹⁹ When her every effort toward peace was rebuffed, Ben-Gurion extended a final appeal to the Arabs in his Declaration of Independence speech:

We yet call upon the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve the ways of peace and play their part in the development of the State, on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its bodies and institutions…We extend our hand in peace and neighborliness to all the neighboring states and their peoples, and invite them to co-operate with the independent Jewish nation for the common good of all.²⁰

The same invitation had been offered daily for weeks.^j British Mandate authorities who were stationed on the ground testified: “Every effort is being made by the Jews to persuade the Arab populace to stay and carry on with their normal lives…and to be assured that their lives and interests will be safe.”²¹ Most, however, chose to flee, creating a local refugee crisis that would upend history. A Palestinian priest who watched the events unfold stated, “[The Arabs] fled in spite of the fact the Jewish authorities guaranteed their safety and rights as citizens of Israel.”²²

Arab-Nazi Alliance

Why did so many Palestinians run from their homes and livelihoods? An overlooked historical fact is perhaps one of the most pivotal and still fuels the conflict today. An unshakeable Islamic/Arab-Nazi alliance predated World War II, and as a result of it, many Arabs vehemently despised and feared the Jews.

Early in his career, Hitler formed a pact with Jerusalem’s grand mufti, Haj Amin al-Husseini. The notoriously anti-Semitic mufti held religious and political sway over Muslims throughout Palestine and the larger Middle East. He and Hitler schemed together to annihilate the Jewish people worldwide. The fuehrer would focus on Europe and the extraordinarily influential mufti would target Palestine’s growing Jewish population.²³

An unshakeable Islamic/Arab-Nazi alliance predated World War II, and as a result of it, many Arabs vehemently despised and feared the Jews.

Building on fundamental Islam’s anti-Jewish ideology, Husseini mobilized an Arab militia, which served as a formal Nazi brigade. Supplied with German weaponry, the brigade murdered Palestinian Jews in acts of heinous terror throughout World War II.²⁴ To keep the violence going, Husseini saturated the Middle East with lies about the Zionists via propaganda broadcasts radioed in from Berlin.^k So after the Holocaust ended in Europe, he and other Arab leaders hoped to immediately start another.

Creating a Refugee Crisis

When, to their profound dismay, Israel declared statehood, Palestinian Arabs panicked. An estimated 600,000 to 700,000 fled.^{25 l} Approximately 150,000 to 160,000 chose to remain inside the Jewish state.²⁶ Today, they and their descendants enjoy full democratic rights of Israeli citizenship, including a standard of living much higher than that of their brethren anywhere else in North Africa or the Middle East.

Under the influence of Muslim/Nazi anti-Semitism, the majority of Arabs who left their homes did so because their leaders told them to. Evacuations were ordered to make way for approaching armies that would quickly destroy the Jewish state.^m Arab leaders boasted that lsrael would be “driven into the [Mediterranean] sea" within a few days. Accordingly, the Higher Arab Executive gave Palestinians a choice: Quit and run, or accept Jewish protection and be regarded as a renegade in the Arab world that would imminently take over. The Arab National Committee in Jerusalem ordered its constituency out of their homes, adding “Any opposition to this order…is an obstacle to the holy war…and will hamper the operations of the fighters in these districts.”²⁷

The Arab Legion and Arab Liberation Army directed whole-sale civilian flight form entire villages. Leaders like Iraqi prime minister Nuri Said warned, “We will smash the country with our guns and obliterate every place the Jews seek shelter. The Arabs should conduct their wives and children to safe areas until the fighting has died down.”²⁸ To ensure compliance, some leaders planted rumours of Israeli terror operations and non-existent atrocities.^{29 n} Shortly after the war – which to their deep humiliation they did not win – Arab leaders freely admitted to having created the refugee crisis.^o Mahmoud Abbas,^p who would later serve as president of the PA, confessed:

The Arab armies entered Palestine to protect the Palestinians from the Zionist tyranny, but instead they abandoned them, forced them to emigrate and leave their homeland, and threw them into prisons similar to the ghettos in which the Jews used to live.³⁰

Next week: Part II concludes the chapter, looking in more depth at the refugee crisis (including claims of Israeli atrocities) and the attempts at peace settlements since.

About the author: Sandra Teplinsky is a Messianic Jew who lives in Jerusalem and teaches about Israel. With her husband, Sandra runs a ministry called Light of Zion. Find out more about the book 'Why Still Care About Israel?' on its website.

References

Letters a-p refer to notes on this page.

1 The Peace Encyclopedia: Palestine, 2002.

2 Charly Wegman, “Friday May 14, 1948: Israel’s Debut”, Agence France Presse-English, 1998; Benny Morris, 1948: A History of the First Arab-Israeli War (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008), 178-79.

3 Golda Meir, My Life (London: Futura Publications, 1989), 186.

4 Mark Lacqueur, “The Struggle for a Jewish State,” The Palestine-Israel Journal.

5 Palestine Post [predecessor to the Jerusalem Post], May 16, 1948.

6 Jewish Virtual Library, “Demography of Palestine & Israel, the West Bank and Gaza”.

7 Peters, From Time Immemorial, 392.

8 Benzion Dinur, “From the Conquest of the Land of Israel by the Arabs to the Crusades”, Israel in the Diaspora, Vol. 1 (Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1960), 27-30, as cited in Netanyahu, A Durable Peace, 27.

9 Howard M. Sachar, A History of Israel from the Rise of Zionism to Our Time, 2nd ed. (New York: Knopf, 1996), 24, 167.

10 Michael Rydelnik, Understanding the Arab-Israeli Conflict: What the Head-Lines Haven’t Told You (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2004), 58-59. Israel consisted mostly of swampland, desert and barren wasteland due to the Ottoman policy of denuding forests through the centuries. Peters, From Time Immemorial, 221-68.

11 Peters, From Time Immemorial, 156-7, citing Jacob de Haas, History of Palestine (New York: Macmillan, 1934), 145, 258.

12 Peters, From Time Immemorial, 155-56, citing The Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1911 ed. While some of Peters’ research is disputed, it has also been recently corroborated.

13 Peters, From Time Immemorial, 157.

14 Peters, From Time Immemorial, 223, 396; Shimon Apisdorf, Judaism in a Nutshell: Israel (Pikesville, Md.: Leviathan Press, 2003), 62-64; see generally Walter Lowdermilk, Palestine: Land of Promise (London: Victor Gollancz Ltd., 1944).

15 Netanyahu, A Durable Peace, 84.

16 Ray Hanania, “The Wandering Palestinians”, Jerusalem Post, December 20, 2011.

17 See Howard Grief, The Legal Foundations and Borders of Israel Under International Law (Jerusalem: Mazo Publishers, 2008); Martin Gilbert, The Arab-Israeli Conflict: Its History in Maps (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1974), 10-11.

18 As quoted in Peters, From Time Immemorial, 412.

19 Efraim Karsh, Palestine Betrayed (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2010), 21-38.

20 The New Palestine 38, no. 18 (May 18, 1948): 1.

21 British Superintendent of Police Memo, Haifa, April 26, 1948, as quoted in Samuel Katz, Battleground: Fact and Fantasy in Palestine (New York: Bantam Books, 1973), 19.

22 Monsignor George Hakim, Greek Catholic Bishop of Galilee, New York Herald Tribune, June 30, 1949.

23 Wistrich, A Lethal Obsession, 662-683, referencing Joseph Schechtman, Mufti and the Feuhrer (Loneon: Thomas Yoseloff Publishers, 1965), 139ff., 147-52; Karsh, Palestine Betrayed, 16-20, 30, 62-63.

24 Karsh, Palestine Betrayed, 62-63.

25 Peters, From Time Immemorial, 16; Benny Morris, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem Revisited (Cambridge, Mass.; Cambridge University Press, 2004), 603-04; Karsh, Palestine Betrayed, 264-272, see also 8-15.

26 See for example Morris, Palestinian Refugee Problem, 588-89; Gilbert, The Arab Israeli Conflict, 57.

27 As reported in Middle Eastern Studies, January 1986, cited in Mitchell G. Bard, “The Palestinian Refugees,” Jewish Virtual Library, accessed April 30, 2013.

28 Myron Kaufman, The Coming Destruction of Israel (New York: American Library, 1970), 26-27, cited in Bard, “The Palestinian Refugees”; Iraqi prime minister Nimr el-Hawari, Sir Am Nakbah (Nazareth, Israel: 1952), as cited in “Refugees Forever?,” International Jerusalem Post, February 21, 2003, special supplement.

29 Karsh, Betrayed, 241-42.

30 Reported in Falastin a-Thaura, March 1973, as cited by Mitchell G. Bard, “The Refugees”. Myths and Facts Online, Jewish Virtual Library, accessed April 30, 2013.