Woooo-dawgie! Ever since the commemoration of the move of the United States’ embassy to Jerusalem, which coincided with Israel’s 70^th anniversary as an independent state, and the corresponding Palestinian violence on the ground, there has been a fierce, vitriolic uproar of competing narratives.

Observing the spectacle, I’ve reached an unpleasant conclusion: there is an inexcusably large number of people operating under false information, an indefensibly great number of people inflicted by historical illiteracy.

The most obvious manifestation of the historical ignorance of our body politic is the belief that Palestine was once a sovereign country, the land having been wrongfully stolen by the evil Israeli stormtroopers…. or something.

Is there any truth to this?

Well, if you answered this question with, “Yes,” you need to grab a glass of water and prepare to swallow today’s Red Pill.

First, it is important to know that there has never – not ever – been any autonomous country of Palestine.

Second, it is important to know that, since the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in WWI, the Arab Palestinians have obstinately, doggedly, repeatedly refused a multitude of generous offers of compromise, including the establishment of their own independent, Arabic country.

As Allen H. Luxenberg of George Washington University explains the above two points [1]:

Historic Palestine as we know it today is derived from a map drawn up by the British at the end of World War I—in particular by British Christians whose understanding of the geography of Palestine was largely based on the Bible, which, as we all know, is derived from the Jews. 

So, it is the height of irony when we hear the militant Islamists of Hamas insisting that any compromise about the land that constitutes “historic Palestine” is impossible, for, as they argue, the entire land is a waqf, or Islamic trust, bestowed by God.  Think about it: a border drawn by British Christians based on their reading of the Jewish Bible is now interpreted by Muslim fundamentalists as God-given and unchangeable!

…In fact, historically, there was never an independent country named Palestine.  There was for a time a Roman province named Palestine, when the Romans bestowed that name in the second century A.D. on an area that was previously called Judea, and which had been sovereign for a time.  Having defeated the Jews in what the ancient historian Josephus labeled “the Jewish Wars,” the Romans then expelled the Jews from Jerusalem and renamed the province after the Jews’ historic archenemy, the Philistines.

I’ve compiled a timeline of events, complete with maps, to elucidate the pertinent history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (1880-1946). (For the sake of brevity, a follow-up piece will cover the 1947 United Nations passage of the Two-State Solution and the Establishment of Israel.)

SEGMENT 1: OTTOMAN RULE

THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE
16th Century	The Middle East, part of North Africa, and parts of Europe belong to the Turkish Ottoman Empire.
1880	Jewish population one again becomes the majority in Jerusalem.
1891	By 1891, the number of Jewish immigrants into the area known as Palestine (referred to by the local Arab population as Lower Syria) equaled the number of Jews moving out of the area.
1891	Disturbed by the rising number of Jewish citizens, local Arab notables called upon their Ottoman administrators, demanding Jewish immigration to the area be banned and that the sale of land to Jews be prohibited. “In response, the Turks briefly suspended Jewish immigration, a ban lifted only when Jews agreed to pay a per capita bribe.” [2]
29 Oct. 1914	The “Ottoman Surprise Attack” – The Ottoman Empire enters WWI with an attack on Russia’s Black Sea coast. This attack and the series of events that followed would ultimate lead to the defeat and dissolution of the Ottoman Empire.
1 Nov. 1914	Russia declares war on the Ottomans.
5 Nov. 1914	Britain and France, Russia’s allies, declare war on the Ottomans. Swaths of Ottoman land were quickly captured. [3]
	(See the map below.)
1917	British capture Jerusalem, ending Ottoman rule. [4]

SEGMENT 2: BRITISH MANDATE

BRITISH-CONTROLLED MANDATE OF PALESTINE
♦ 1917	The Balfour Declaration: The British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Arthur Balfour, issued instructions for what was to be done with the former Ottoman Empire territory known as Palestine, now controlled by Great Britain.
	(See the map below.)
1919	Versailles Peace Conference decides that the Ottoman Empire’s land which had been conquered during the war would not be returned to Ottoman rule.

1919	The League of Nations was established as to prevent further war.
♦ 1921	Arab Executive Committee demands the British halt all Jewish immigration to the territory which the British now label “Palestine.” The committee also demands the British rescind the Balfour Declaration and, then, appoint a national Palestinian legislative parliament controlled by the Arab population. [5] Arabs riot in Jaffa and other cities.
1921	The British temporarily halted Jewish immigration in response to the Arab Executive Committee’s demands. I addition, the British convened the 1921 Haycraft Commission of Inquiry to examine Arab violence which had broken out across the area. The Haycraft Commission rules that the Arabs had been responsible for the intense outbreak of Arab-on-Jew violence.
♦ 1921	In the fall of 1921, Winston Churchill invited Arab and Jewish Palestinians to come together in hope that a peaceful coexistence would be negotiated between the parties. For months upon months, the Arab Palestinians doggedly refused to join any discussion involving Jews. [6]
♦ Feb. 1922	Winston Churchill offered to establish a legislative body as the Arab Palestinians had requested. However, the Arabs refused, because the legislative body included provisions for Jewish representations. [7]
July 1922	The League of Nations officially entrusts Britain with as the administrator of the Palestinian Mandate. [8] Britain was called upon to facilitate the creation of a Jewish National Homeland as was ordered by the Balfour Declaration. [9]
	(See the map below.)
♦ Sept. 1922	The very first plan for the partition of Palestine is proposed, often referred to as The Churchill White Paper: Great Britain, along with the League of Nations, attempts to strike a compromise in Palestine by dividing the single state into two territories: one Jewish Palestinian Home Land and one Arab Palestinian Home Land. [10]
	In an effort to forge a compromise, the British chose to divide the “Palestine” Mandate into two halves (east and west) along the line of the Jordan River. The terms of the partition were as follows: The Jewish Palestinians agreed to the terms of the Churchill White Paper. The Arab Palestinians, however, vehemently rejected it
	The terms of the partition were as follows: “Jews were prohibited from settling in 77 percent of Mandate Palestine—all the territory east of the Jordan River . They were allowed to settle anywhere in western Palestine (including today’s Israel proper, the West Bank and Gaza .) Thus, Eastern Palestine, renamed Transjordan , was removed from the area that was set aside for the Jewish National Home in the historic Balfour Declaration and handed over to the Emir Abdullah. This split was viewed as the “definitive Palestinian Settlement,” with Transjordan as ‘the Arab National Home,’ parallel to the Jewish National Home on the West Bank of the Jordan River all the way to the Mediterranean Sea (from the river to the sea).” [11]
	(See the map below.)
♦ 1923	The British administration suspends the Palestinian constitution due to the Arab Palestinians’ refusal to cooperate.

1936-1939	The Peel Commission is formed to investigate the Arab riots. The Commission was also tasked with making recommendations for a peaceful coexistence of Arab and Jewish Palestinians in Western Palestine.
♦ 1937	The Mufti presents Arabs’ demands to the Peel Commission. The demands were as follows [15]:
	1) the abandonment of all plans for a Jewish Home;
	2) a cessation of and prohibition on all Jewish immigration to the entire territory, as well as a ban on all land purchases to Jews;
	3) and the immediate end to the British Mandate, to be replaced by a pro-British, Arab regime.
	4)*There was a fourth condition desired by the Mufti: a decrease in the number of Jews already living in the Palestine Mandate.
	After a Peel Commission member questioned the Mufti about decreasing the number of Jews, the Mufti frankly responded to the commissioners that some Jews would simply have to leave, either “kindly or painfully.” [16]
♦ July 1937	The Peel Commission “issued its recommendations: to abolish the Mandate and partition the country between the two peoples. Only a zone between Jaffa and Jerusalem would remain under the British mandate and international supervision.” [17]
	“The Jewish state would include the coastal strip stretching from Mount Carmel to south of Be’er Tuvia, as well as the Jezreel Valley and the Galilee. The Arab state was to include the hill regions, Judea and Samaria, and the Negev. Until the establishment of the two states, the commission recommended, Jews should be prohibited from purchasing land in the area allocated to the Arab state.” [18]
	(See the map below.)
	The British authorities accepted the recommendations of the Peel Commission, the Zionists, displeased, requested the opportunity to negotiate further, and the Arabs immediately rejected the committee’s report in its entirety. [19]
♦ Sept. 1937	Meeting in Syria, 450 delegates of the Arab National Congress officially reject the Peel Commission’s plan.
	The Arab Revolt was resumed. Those targeted with violence included Jews, as well as moderate Arabs who were open to compromise.
	Approximately 25% of the Arabs who lost their lives during the 1936 to 1936 revolts were killed by their fellow Palestinian Arabs. [20] The plan was then shelved.

Oct. 1945	The United Nations is founded.
23 Oct. 1946	The first ever United Nations meeting is help in New York.
1946	Two more plans are proposed for the establishment of peace and stability and British Mandated Palestine. Both plans rested as single-state solution, and both called for increased Jewish immigration to alleviate the plight of displaced Jews, a result of the Holocaust. Both plans are explained below:
♦ Apr. 1946	1) The Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry Plan (April):
	This plan called for equal representation and equal powers for Jews and Arabs. It called for the issuance of “100,000 certificates for immigration to Palestine be issued immediately and that the U.S. and British governments try to find new places for the Displaced Persons, in addition to Palestine. Future immigration to Palestine should be regulated by the Mandatory administration, and the land transfer regulations of 1940, which forbade the sale of land in certain parts of the country to Jews, should be annulled.” [24]
	(See the map below.)
	“The White Paper of 1939, and the drastic limitation of Jewish immigration and of land sales to Jews which followed, met the Arab view only in part. The Arabs would have gone much further. The demands voiced by their leaders are for immediate independence, for the final cessation of Jewish immigration and for the prohibition of all land sales by Arabs to Jews,” the report explained. [25]
	Failure: The Jewish Agency for Palestine accepted the plan; the Arab rejected it. The report notes that, since the very beginning of the British Mandate, the Arabs had vocally and firmly held a stance in opposition to all possibilities of allowing a Jewish Homeland. [25] Furthermore, the British continued the White Paper’s strict immigration limitations. [26]
♦ July 1946	2) The Morrison-Grady Plan (July):
	The scheme called “for the division of Palestine into four provinces: an Arab province, consisting of about 40% of the area; a Jewish province, with 17%, and two British provinces – the Jerusalem district and the Negev – covering 43% of the area. A British high commissioner, assisted by a nominated executive council, would head the central government. The Arab and Jewish provinces would have elected legislatures, with executives appointed by the high commissioner from among their members. The powers of these executives would be very limited…” [27]
	(See the map below.)
	Failure: The plan was rejected by both Arabs and Jews.

It was after the failure of these talks that the British then handed the “Palestine Problem” over to the United Nation for final resolution.

From there, this story really gets interesting… but that’s for next time.

(To be continued…)

Citations (in order of usage):

[1] “The Ironic History of Palestine,” Alan H. Luxenberg, George Washington University, retrieved at: https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/139168

[2] Avraham Yaari, The Goodly Heritage: Memoirs Describing the Life of the Jewish Community of Eretz Yisrael from the 17th to 20th Century , Jerusalem, ZOA 1958, pp. 215-16.

[3] “History of the Ottoman Empire”  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Ottoman_Empire_during_World_War_I

[4] Unrest & Realignment in the Middle East (1914-1918 CE) : http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/timeline-for-the-history-of-judaism

[5] Christopher Sykes, Cross Roads to Israel – Palestine from Balfour to Bevin, Collins London 1965, p. 59

[6] Ibid. pp. 71-72

[7] Christopher Sykes, Cross Roads to Israel – Palestine from Balfour to Bevin, Collins London 1965, p. 81.

[8] “League of Nation,” retrieved at: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/league-of-nations

[9]  “British-Palestine Mandate,” retrieved at: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/history-and-overview-of-the-british-palestine-mandate

[10] “The Churchill White Paper,” retrieved at: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/churchill-white-paper-1922

[11] “Rejectionism,” retrieved at: http://www.mythsandfacts.org/Conflict/6/rejectionism.htm

[12] Christopher Sykes, p. 128.

[13] “The Arab Revolt,” retrieved at: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-1936-arab-riots

[14] See [11]

[15] Christopher Sykes, p. 174.

[16] Ibid. p. 174.

[17] “British Palestine Mandate: The Peel Commission”: retrieved at http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-peel-commission

[18] Ibid.

[19] Christopher Sykes, p. 185

[20] Christopher Sykes, p. 188.

[21] “British Palestine Mandate: The British White Papers”: retrieved at http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-british-white-papers

[22] “British White Papers: Zionist Reaction to the White Paper (1939)”: retrieved at http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/zionist-reaction-to-the-white-paper-of-1939

[23] See [20].

[24] “Pre-state Israel: The Anglo-American Committee (1946)”: retrieved at http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/the-anglo-american-committee

[25] “Report of the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry”: retrieved at http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/psychological-analysis-of-hitler-s-life-and-legend

[26] See [24].

[27] “Palestine, Partition and Partition Plans”: retrieved at http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/palestine-partition-and-partition-plans

In a move that will doubtlessly give Muslim apologists around the world an apoplexy, President Trump withdrew the United States from the deal made with Iran under the Obama Administration which was theoretically supposed to prevent the world’s largest state-sponsor of terrorism from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Instead, as the President made clear in his announcement, the Iranian regime has gained momentum toward developing nuclear weapons as well as the missile technology needed to deliver warheads around the world.

Calling the deal “defective at its core,” President Donald Trump gave his multitude of reasons to withdraw from the deal and to impose sanctions upon the radical Islamic regime. Trump also made a series of promises that made it clear that he would not tolerate Iran from advancing their nuclear weapons program. He also left the door open to renegotiating the deal in the future, and even seemed confident that Iran WOULD seek such a deal in the future.

Presidents are supposed to remain optimistic, and Trump did a good job in this respect by leaving that door to renegotiating open. However, it is quite possible that the President himself didn’t believe his own optimism. Iran has never negotiated in good faith with the world before, and they are unlikely to start now.

President Trump touted his ongoing success with the North Korean regime to prop up the idea that new sanctions will force Iran back to the bargaining table. On its face, this seems like it could be done. After all, Trump has accomplished on the Korean Peninsula more than six decades worth of Presidents combined.

That said, the circumstances are somewhat different in Iran than they are in North Korea. For one thing, Iran has large oil and natural gas reserves, which allows them to generate foreign currency at a level North Korea cannot come close to matching. Further, while North Korea is controlled by a brutal dictator, we have seen circumstances over the decades where Communist ideology has been overturned in favor of capitalism based simply on the fact that the latter works, and the former does not. Iran, however, is not just dictated by Marxism, but rather by radical Islamic fundamentalism, which has never been overcome except by force of arms.

Only time will tell how all this plays out.

In the meantime, there is, sadly, little the President can do to recoup the billions of dollars given to Iran by his predecessor. That money is gone, and has undoubtedly been used not only to further Iran’s nuclear ambitions, but to fund radical Islamic terrorism across the Middle East and around the world.

What the President CAN do is order a full investigation of the circumstances surrounding the giving of billions of taxpayer dollars to the murderous regime, and if evidence is found of wrongdoing, prosecute those US officials and former officials who had a hand in what is tantamount to treason. While the money will still be gone, having been used for evil, such prosecution could discourage future US Administrations from acting so willfully against the best interests of the American People and the world.

Former White House National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes would be an excellent person with whom to start the investigation, and Secretary John Kerry as well as former President Obama himself may need to be called to account. I, for one, am not holding my breath on the Obama Administration being held to account for any of its multiple crimes, but it WOULD be nice.

Too often we find ourselves in emotive cycles. For instance, mass shootings are used by the anti-gun crowd as a means to motivate a legislative attack on our Second Amendment. Likewise, chemical weapon incidences in Syria are similarly used to create an emotionally based reason to use military action. We are quick to assume that the Assad regime was responsible for the previous high profile uses of chemical weapons in the Syrian Civil War. This started under the Obama administration with his famous “Red Line” blunder in which he declared any use of chemical warfare unacceptable even if against the Al Qaeda affiliates or the JV team, ISIS. Trump, in contrast, followed through on Obama’s blunders, when the cycle repeated itself again.

A little over a year ago there was a chemical weapons attack in Khan Sheikhoun, in a province most openly ruled by the rebrandings of Al Qaeda. This incident led to Trump ordering airstrikes on Syria betraying his campaign promise of staying out of Syria. This attack was carried out under false and premature pretenses. This is an instance where the intelligence community says one thing but evidence says another. But before you defend the intelligence community’s infallibility, look back to how they insisted the DNC was hacked despite the lack of evidence, specifically from the server, that a hack took place. And so the Russian Farce Began. Theodore Postol, a professor at MIT and former DoD scientific adviser pointed out the staged nature of the evidence regarding sarin gas attack in 2017. He ultimately showed that the crater and canister that is credited with the chemical weapons rocket was detonated from the ground, not the air. Read more about his findings here. The point is: the emotive response automatically assumes that the Assad regime carried out the attack. There have been many chemical weapons uses in the war, but only about three or four have gotten media notoriety. I don’t deny that the Syrian Arab Army has used chemical weapons ever, but I seriously doubt the nonstrategic use of chemical weapons that occurred in these notorious incidences. Though as described below, this incident had a strategic outcome.

With the most recent incidence, guilt has already been pointed at Assad restarting the cycle. I don’t care to defend Assad in this instance. I do however want to call Trump and his supporters out on their own support of globalism. So let’s assume Assad carried out this attack. Let’s assume Assad gassed Al Qaeda territories a day after launching a new offensive and because he did, the terrorists surrendered. Why should we care?

The easiest reason to dismiss is that striking Assad is beneficial to America’s Middle Eastern strategy. This would imply that there has been a strategy in the Middle East. But even if we soften strategy to “interests” striking Assad is counter to America’s interest. Al Qaeda has lost in Syria and is clinging to certain besieged areas. In the particular area of this incident the group that was beseiged was called the “Army of Islam”. How does weakening the army that has done more to fight Al Qaeda and ISIS than the US in the last decade benefit Americans or their interests? If Hezbollah, a terror organization sponsored and allied with Assad, were alleged to have been responsible, this would be a different story. But instead, we target the one belligerent in the Syrian Civil War that can actually stabilize the region, even if slowly.

You could then claim about civilian deaths which have been a constant theme in this war on all sides. Most recently, this year Turkey has taken to slaughtering Kurds in its land grab of Northern Syria, but Donald Trump doesn’t seem to care about the death toll there. Nor have other brutalities in Syria been enough for Trump or Obama, to act. Assad, along with every belligerent, has killed civilians in this war. Why are these deaths special? News flash they aren’t. A person is a person is a person. A person dies whether being shot, stabbed or gassed. The people who died in the gas attack were no more important than the people who died in gunfire or strategic bombing. Every person has a moral worth that is irrelevant to their cause of death. So this isn’t about civilian deaths. This is about chemical weapons in and of themselves.

So now that we established Trump attacked Syria because of chemical weapons, now lets dive in to why he’s a globalist for it. Trump wanted to send a message that the use of chemical weapons is unacceptable. But why is it unacceptable? What makes chemical weapons different than bullets and shells. Why is gas morally reprehensible and incendiary bombs permissible? There is no logical way to construct an argument that chemical weapons are impermissible while nuclear, radiological, and biological aren’t (though biological weapons are difficult if not impossible to control thus having little strategic use.) If we are to accept that weapons of mass destruction are morally wrong to ever use, then it would be inconsistent to not favor disarmament. Furthermore as Americans we would have to admit that the use of atomic bombs was a immoral decision if we do insist that the use of WMDs is morally impermissible.

I refuse to accept these premises and rewrite history in a globalist politically correct way. So why are chemical weapons such a big deal? The short answer is that the UN says they are a big deal. After World War 1, the League of Nations sought to outlaw chemical warfare and war in general. The ladder was ineffective. Though chemical weapons didn’t see as much light in World War 2, more extreme weapons did. Since its founding, the UN has sought to control what weapons a country can have. In addition to chemical weapons, there’s the anti-nuclear proliferation treaty. Article V of the NPT requires disarmament which nuclear nations have thus far refused. Some nuclear nations tolerate this treaty because they don’t want have-nots to get nukes. Others such as Israel, India, and Pakistan recognize that the UN wants to place limitations on their self defense capabilities. UN limitations on chemical weapons are similarly globalist schemes for the UN to encroach on a nation’s sovereignty. Chemical weapon use is wrong according to international law, not in and of themselves. As Ben Shapiro noted:

One of the arguments for intervention in Syria is that if we do nothing to reimpose the Obama red line in Syria, chemical weapons use will become more common. That’s probably true. But it’s also true that if someone attacked Americans with chemical weapons, we would end them. Furthermore, not all chemical weapons are the same: some are indeed weapons of mass destruction, but others are not as dangerous in scope as cluster bombs. Do the 500,000 dead in Syria’s civil war care whether they were killed by Russian cluster bombs or sarin gas?

So when Trump attacked Syria, he wasn’t responding to a threat nor can we really say it was about the people killed. He was upholding the UN’s power which Syria defied. This is where Trump goes full globalist. Never go full globalist. To repeat myself: he had the United State’s military attack another country because of a violation of international law! In the United States, international law has very little power here. This was established in Medellin v Texas. The globalist community cares not about American interests. Do we not remember when the UN condemned America’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital? It was allowed by Congress for decades. The UN would want nothing more than for America to relinquish its power.

Globalist First

All of Trump’s talk of nationalism is really a farce. He had our military act on a globalist cause, not “America First”. Trump may talk tough on tariffs, but globalism isn’t really about economics, its about sovereignty. Being “tough” on China doesn’t benefit America First. Instead these tariffs are now the biggest  threat to our economic security coming out of the Great Recession. Bombing Syria doesn’t benefit America first. It benefits Turkey and their terrorists. It benefits the UN. Trump wasted military resources doing the UN’s bidding instead of making America or its allies safer. Trump upheld UN norms instead of his lawful duties as defined by Congress and the US Constitution.

In an America First foreign policy, we would have seen if the President had gone through America first. Congress. Instead Trump relied on a thumbs up which he got from the globalist community.