Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
UNITED STATES OF ISLAM ARMY
#61
WATCH CAREFULLY THE AFGHANISTAN THEATRE WHICH IS KNOWN AS KHURASAN IN THE AHADITH. THIS AREA WILL BE CLEARED OF ALL ENEMIES OF ISLAM AND IS DESTINED TO BE THE FORTRESS OF ISLAM IN END TIMES. THE BRITISH WERE VANQUISHED IN THE 19TH CENTURY AND THE RUSSIANS IN THE 20TH CENTURY  AND NOW  THE AMERICAN EMPIRE SURRENDERS. IF INDIA NOW DARES ENTER THIS GRAVEYARD THE JIHAD THAT WILL BE DECLARED AGAINST IT WILL NOT END UNTIL DELHI FALLS. THE ANTI-ISLAMIC INDIAN HINDUTVA REGIME SHOULD NOT PONDER THE RISKS OF CONQUEST BUT IT'S OWN DEMISE IF IT MAKES THE WRONG DECISION. HAVE THE INDIANS FORGOTTEN PANIPAT? THEY SHOULD MULL OVER THAT DECISIVE DEFEAT.      

 

AFGHAN ARMY CHIEF IS GOING TO VISIT INDIA FOR ASKING FOR INDIAN ARMY's SERVICES



A ONE TO ONE MEETING BETWEEN THE TURKISH PRESIDENT AND ANOTHER GROUP





AN EXCLUSIVE REPORT ABOUT THE US ARMY WHO SPENT 20 YEARS OF FIGHTING





THE STRATEGY OF US ARMY DID NOT WORK DESPITE SPENDING BILLIONS
Reply
#62
AFGHANISTAN IS DESTINED TO BE A FRONTLINE IN THE DEFENCE OF THE UMMAH IN END TIMES. THE DEFEATED AMERICANS ARE USING B 52S AGAINST THE VICTORIOUS TALIBAN SWEEPING THE COUNTRY TO SUPPORT THEIR PROXY GOVERNMENT. THIS WAS TO BE EXPECTED BY THE TWO FORKED TONGUE AMERICANS.

THE COWARDS THAT THEY ARE IS REFLECTED IN THEIR AERIAL BOMBING USING THE AIRSPACE OF AT LEAST TWO MUSLIM COUNTRIES. THE TALIBAN MAY HAVE A MILITARY SURPRISE YET AGAINST THESE TYRANTS WHO NEED TO BE RELEGATED TO THE DUSTBIN OF HISTORY. THE AMERICANS NEED TO BE HUMILIATED NOW BY THE DOWNING OF A B 52 AND SENT PACKING HOME.

PAKISTAN'S MILITARY AND IMRAN KHAN NEED TO CLOSE PAKISTANI AIRSPACE TO ANY FURTHER UNILATERAL AMERICAN VIOLATION. PAKISTAN CAN NOT AFFORD TO FIGHT AMERICAN WARS AND PAKISTANI SOVEREIGNTY NEEDS TO BE DEFENDED AT ALL COSTS.  PAKISTAN CAN NOT SUSTAIN ITSELF BY HAVING BOTH IT'S EASTERN AND WESTERN BORDERS UNDER THREAT.

ASHRAF GHANI HAS TO RESIGN TO SETTLE DOWN THINGS
IMRAN KHAN TO US




US MUST NOT USE PAKISTANI AIRSPACE AFTER AUGUST AGAINST AFGHANISTAN


 





US B52 TO FACE NEW MISSILE AS AFGHAN GROUP IS AT KABUL's GATE 


HOW US CONDUCTED TWO STRIKES USING B-52 BOMBERS THROUGH PAKISTANI AIR SPACE



JOE BIDEN ORDERS TO USE B-52 BOMBERS USING PAKISTANI AIRSPACE FOR STRIKE



IMRAN KHAN VISITS PESHAWAR CORPS HQ ALONG GENERAL BAJWA



ORYA MAQBOOL JAN's ANALYSIS ON THE SITUATION IN AFGHANISTAN

9 August 2021




THE NON TALIBAN TALIBAN :
THE HAQQANI NETWORK ITS ROLE IN POST US AFGHANISTAN



US FORCE AND BADRI FORCE CAME FACE TO FACE  WHILST  US LEAVES NOW

Reply
#63
IS THE LIFE OF OMAR A MIRROR OF THE IMMINENT ARRIVAL OF IMAM MAHDI ON THE WORLD STAGE?  YOU DECIDE

OMAR SERIES


Farouk Omar is a historical Arab series co-produced (2012) by MBC1 and Qatar TV and directed by Hatem Ali, which is based on one of the best companions of Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him) and the 2nd Caliph of the Islamic state, Umar Ibn Al-Khattab (May Allah be pleased with him) .


A 30-episode series showcasing the various events during the life of Umar Ibn Al-Khattab (May Allah be pleased with him) from his pre-Islamic days till his assassination. The series depends solely on established historical facts hence didn't face criticism in terms of its content as past movies on similar subjects did.



The series commences with the 23 year of Hijra at Makkah, where the Muslim pilgrims have come together for the Hajj. In midst of them, we can see Umar Ibn Al Khattab (May Allah be pleased with him) supplicating to the Lord while doing the Tawaaf around the Ka'abah. On the return journey to Medinah from Makkah, they pass by a group of people tending to their camels in the desert. Umar (May Allah be pleased with him) reminisces his past days, when he used to tend to his father Al-Khattab's camels in the desert, and how his father used to work him to exhaustion and beat him up if he slackened.

However, now after his embracing Islam how life has changed for him with no one to stand between him and his Lord. The series then takes you on a historical ride as memories come gushing back to Umar (May Allah be pleased with him) about the various events that happened during his lifetime.







Series Titles:
Reply
#64
TURKEY’s LATEST TECHNOLOGY TAKES THE STAGE AT THE INTERNATIONAL DEFENCE INDUSTRY FAIR

[/size]




TURKEY SHOWS OFF ITS MILITARY MUSCLE AT THE ISTANBUL ARMS EXPO




WORLD STARTS ACKNOWLEDGING SUCCESS OF TURKISH DRONES, SAYS PRESIDENT
When Turkey completes ongoing projects in next 3-5 years, it will be most advanced country in field of drones, says Erdogan


https://www.aa.com.tr/en/turkey/world-st...nt/2351895

With its unmanned combat aerial vehicle Akinci, Turkey has become one of the world’s three most advanced countries in combat drone technology, Erdogan said, adding the world speaks about "the success of the armed drones used in the fight against terrorism, as well as in many conflict areas from Syria to Karabakh."


The world has started acknowledging the success of Turkey’s unmanned aerial combat vehicles, the country’s president said on Tuesday. He was speaking at a ceremony at the National Defense University.


Noting that Turkey has become a country that can produce many defense industry products ranging from tanks to cannons, missiles to radar, bombs to rifles, he said: "In the next three to five years, I hope that when we complete our projects … by protecting the country’s climate of stability and trust, we will be at the top of the list in this field."

On July 8, the Bayraktar Akinci made Turkish aviation history by climbing to 38,039 feet (11,594 meters) – a new record – in a flight that lasted for 25 hours and 46 minutes.The Akinci, which to date has made 874 sorties in test and training flights, hit its targets with full accuracy in a July 5 firing test with warhead ammunition developed by Turkish rocket producer Roketsan.


AZERBAIJAN CELEBRATES FIRST ANNIVERSARY OF END OF WAR WITH ARMENIA
Reply
#65
TURKEY PUSHES FORWARD IN INNOVATION AND SELF SUFFICIENCY IN DRONE TECHNOLOGY. THIS IS A GREAT EXAMPLE OF WHAT THE UMMAH NEEDS TO DO TO SAFEGUARD IT'S TERRITORIAL SOVEREIGNTY. THERE ARE MANY LESSONS TO BE LEARNT FROM THIS SUCCESS STORY  


AKINCI DOCUMENTARY



HOW BAYRAKTAR TB2 HAS BECOME ONE OF THE MOST FEARED DRONES IN THE WORLD




TURKEY'S RISE TO MAJOR GLOBAL DRONE POWER



DECODED: TURKEY`s DRONE POWER



TURKEY's DRONES : A GAME CHANGER






HOW TURKEY'S INDEPENDENT DEFENSE INDUSTRY GROWTH
Reply
#66
THE MOMENT WHEN Dr ABDUL QADEER KHAN AND MUSHARRAF SAVED PAKISTAN


Dr ABDUL QADEER KHAN WARNED ZIA UL HAQ ABOUT INDIA AND PAKISTAN




HOW DR ABDUL QADEER WAS ON THE LIST OF ISRAEL WHILE WORKING FOR PAKISTAN 








ABDUL QADEER KHAN: NUCLEAR HERO IN PAKISTAN,
VILLAIN TO THE WEST
Revered in Pakistan, Khan was seen by West as dangerous renegade for smuggling nuclear technology to other countries.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/10/1...o-the-west


He was seen as a national hero for bringing the country up to par with neighbours India in the atomic field and making its defences “impregnable”.  Abdul Qadeer Khan, revered as the father of Pakistan’s nuclear programme, died on Sunday. He was lauded in Pakistan for transforming it into the world’s first Islamic nuclear weapons power. But he was seen by the West as a dangerous renegade responsible for smuggling technology to rogue states.

The nuclear scientist died at 85 in the capital, Islamabad, after recently being hospitalised with COVID-19.  But he found himself in the crosshairs of controversy when he was accused of illegally proliferating nuclear technology to Iran, Libya and North Korea.


Khan was placed under effective house arrest in Islamabad in 2004 after he admitted running
a proliferation network to the three countries. In 2006 he was diagnosed with prostate cancer, but recovered after surgery. A court ended his house arrest in February 2009, but his movements were strictly guarded, and he was accompanied by authorities every time
he  left his home in an upmarket sector of leafy Islamabad.Security personnel stand guard near the residence of late Pakistani nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan after his death



Crucial contribution

Born in Bhopal, India, on April 1, 1936, Khan was just a young boy when his family migrated to Pakistan during the bloody 1947 partition of the sub-continent at the end of British colonial rule. He completed a science degree at Karachi University in 1960, then went on to study metallurgical engineering in Berlin before completing advanced studies in the Netherlands and Belgium.


The crucial contribution to Pakistan’s nuclear programme was the procurement of a blueprint for uranium centrifuges, which transform uranium into weapons-grade fuel for nuclear fissile material. He was charged with stealing it from the Netherlands while working for Anglo-Dutch-German nuclear engineering consortium Urenco, and bringing it back to Pakistan in 1976.


On his return to Pakistan, then-PM Zulfikar Ali Bhutto put Khan in charge of the government’s nascent uranium enrichment project. By 1978, his team had enriched uranium and by 1984 they were ready to detonate a nuclear device, Khan later said in a newspaper interview.The 1998 nuclear test saw Pakistan slapped with international sanctions and sent its economy into freefall. Khan’s aura began to dim in March 2001 when then-President Pervez Musharraf, reportedly under United States pressure, removed him from the chairmanship of Kahuta Research Laboratories and made him a special adviser.


But Pakistan’s nuclear establishment never expected to see its most revered hero subjected to questioning. The move came after Islamabad received a letter from the International Atomic Energy Agency, a United Nations watchdog, containing allegations that Pakistani scientists were the source of sold-off nuclear knowledge.


Khan said in a speech to the Pakistan Institute of National Affairs in 1990 that he had dealings on world markets while developing Pakistan’s nuclear programme.“It was not possible for us to make each and every piece of equipment within the country,” he said. ‘I saved the country’ Khan was pardoned by Musharraf after his confession but later retracted his remarks.



“I saved the country for the first time when I made Pakistan a nuclear nation and saved it again when I confessed and took the whole blame on myself,” Khan told AFP news agency in an interview in 2008 while under effective house arrest.


The scientist believed in nuclear defence as the best deterrent.After Pakistan carried out atomic tests in 1998 in response to tests by India, Khan said Pakistan “never wanted to make nuclear weapons, it was forced to do so”.


Nearly a decade ago, Khan tried his luck in the political arena, forming a party – the Tehreek-e-Tahafuz Pakistan (Save Pakistan Movement) – in July 2012 in hopes of winning votes

on the basis of the respect he still commands in Pakistan.But he dissolved it a year later after none of its 111 candidates won a seat in national elections.


Khan also stirred a new controversy that same year when,in an interview with Urdu newspaper Daily Jang, he said he transferred nuclear technology to two countries on the direction of slain prime minister Benazir Bhutto. He did not name the countries,nor did he say when Bhutto, the twice-elected PM who was assassinated in 2007, had supposedly issued the orders.


“I was not independent but was bound to abide by the orders of the prime minister,” he was quoted as saying.Bhutto’s Pakistan Peoples Party denied the claim as “baseless and unfounded”.  



None of the controversies appear to have dented Khan’s popularity, even years on. He regularly wrote op-ed pieces, often preaching the value of a scientific education, for the popular Jang group of newspapers. Many schools, universities, institutes and charity hospitals across Pakistan are named after him, his portrait decorating their signs, stationery and websites.






NUCLEAR SCIENTIST DR ABDUL QADEER LAID TO REST IN ISLAMABAD 
https://www.dawn.com/news/1651191/nuclea...-islamabad

Nuclear scientist Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan passed away in Islamabad on Sunday morning at the age of 85. He was given a state funeral at Faisal Mosque before being laid to rest at the H-8 graveyard.


According to Radio Pakistan, he was admitted to a local hospital where his health deteriorated early morning. PTV said that he died after being transferred to a hospital with lung problems. A large number of people, including cabinet members, parliamentarians and military officers, attended the funeral prayers.

Interior Minister Sheikh Rashid Ahmed earlier said that under the directions issued by Prime Minister Imran Khan, Dr Khan was given a state funeral. Speaking to the media in Islamabad, he said that the premier had directed cabinet ministers to attend the funeral. The interior minister said that the Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee and the services chiefs would also  be in attendance.


Rashid said two graves were prepared; one at Faisal Mosque and another at the H-8 graveyard. He later said his family decided that as per his will he would be buried at the H-8 graveyard. "The whole nation is grieving," the minister said, adding that the flag would be flown at half-mast. He said that he had also directed law enforcement agencies and the Islamabad commissioner to make security arrangements.



'National icon for Pakistanis'

Prime Minister Imran Khan said Dr Khan was loved by the nation because of his critical contribution in making Pakistan a nuclear weapon state. "This has provided us security 
against an aggressive much larger nuclear neighbour. For the people of Pakistan he was a national icon," he said, adding that he would be buried in Faisal Mosque "as per his wishes". President Dr Arif Alvi said that he had personally known Dr Khan since 1982. "He helped us develop nation-saving nuclear deterrence, and a grateful nation will never forget his services  in this regard," he said.



Last month, Dr Khan had complained that neither PM Imran nor any of his cabinet members inquired after his health while he was under treatment at a hospital. According to the state-run Associated Press of Pakistan, Dr Khan had been admitted to Khan Research Laboratories Hospital on August 26 after he tested positive for Covid-19. Later, he was shifted to a military hospital in Rawalpindi but was discharged after recovering from the virus.



'A huge loss for Pakistan'

According to a statement issued by the Inter-Services Public Relations (ISPR), Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee General Nadeem Raza and all services chiefs expressed sorrow over Dr Khan's passing. The ISPR statement also quoted Chief of Army Staff General Qamar Javed Bajwa as saying that he had rendered invaluable services to strengthen Pakistan's defence capabilities. Leader of the Opposition in the National Assembly Shehbaz Sharif said that the nation had lost "a true benefactor who served the motherland with heart and soul." "The passing of Dr Khan is a huge loss for the country. His role in making Pakistan an atomic power remains central," he said.



Defence Minister Pervez Khattak said he was "deeply grieved" over his passing and called it  a "great loss".  "Pakistan will forever honour his services to the nation! The nation is heavily indebted to him for his contributions in enhancing our defence capabilities," he said.



Planning and Development Minister Asad Umar said that Dr Khan had played an important role in making the country "invincible". He also offered prayers for the deceased. Born in 1936 in Bhopal, India, Dr Khan had immigrated along with his family to Pakistan in 1947 after partition of the subcontinent. He did a science degree at Karachi University in 1960, then went on to study metallurgical engineering in Berlin before completing advanced studies in the Netherlands and Belgium. After learning of India's nuclear test in 1974, he had joined the nation's clandestine efforts to develop nuclear power. He had founded the Khan Research Laboratories in 1976 and was its chief scientist and director for many years, according to 
Radio Pakistan. He was awarded the Nishan-i-Imtiaz for his services to the country.


In 2004, Dr Khan was at the centre of a massive global nuclear proliferation scandal. In a series of dramatic developments, he was accused by then army chief and president Pervez Musharraf of running a rogue proliferation network for nuclear material. Shortly after Musharraf’s announcement, a recorded confession by Khan was aired in which he took sole responsibility for all the nuclear proliferation that had been revealed. He was subsequently placed under house arrest. A court ended his house arrest[/url] in February 2009, but his movements were strictly guarded, and he was accompanied by authorities every time he left his home in Islamabad. Later, he had filed a plea in the Lahore High Court seeking enforcement of his fundamental rights, including free movement. The LHC had rejected the plea in 2019 on the grounds that it lacked jurisdiction in view of special security measures adopted by the state.

He had then moved the Supreme Court against the LHC's decision, which had asked the attorney general to meet the nuclear scientist and allay his concerns.
Reply
#67
ONE OF THE MAJOR FACETS OF MODERN WARFARE IS THE UNKNOWN ONE INVOLVING INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES AND THEIR PIVOTAL ROLE.  THESE HAVE BEEN UTILISED EXTENSIVELY BY EASTERN AND WESTERN NONMUSLIM POWERS AGAINST THE UMMAH. AS THE MIDDLE EAST IS THE CENTRAL FRONT OF CONFRONTATION IT IS IMPORTANT TO REHEARSE AND REVIEW WHAT HAPPENED THERE AS THE RAMIFICATIONS OF THE PAST ARE STILL BEING FELT NOW.

LAWRENCE OF ARABIA
The Seven Pillars of Wisdom Documentary


THE HEROIC DEFENDER OF MEDINAH - FAHREDDIN PASHA


THE LOYAL DEFENDER OF AL AQSA :  CORPORAL HASAN









WORLD WAR ONE SOWED THE SEEDS OF TODAYS MIDDLE EAST
http://www.hizb.org.uk/in-depth/world-wa...iddle-east

The present day misery of Gaza, Syria and Iraq began in that war. As most people know, 2014 is the centenary of the start of World War One. A few people in Britain have attempted rewriting history to present a justification for this war. They are those who generally supported the costly military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq in this present century. Others have embarked on a critical reflection about the horrors of a war that saw tens of millions killed and injured and question – looking at Gaza and Syria – whether the world has learnt any lessons at all.

It isn’t right to disrespect those who died in that war or their families’ recollections of individual acts of valor. But at the same time it isn’t wrong to disrespect the likes of Lloyd George, Kitchener, Curzon and Balfour who sent millions to die in a war that had little to do with ‘national security’; instead everything was to do with securing Britain’s position in Europe and interests across the world. The memories of the dead and injured are certainly not served by selective omission or rewriting of history.

So, it is worth reflecting on the legacies of this war that still resonates today. Namely that World War One shaped the chaos, oppression and conflict of the modern Middle East; and laid the seeds for the Zionist occupation of Palestine.

Sowing the seeds of misery – Sykes-Picot, Client-Regimes and the Abolition of the Caliphate

The modern Middle East is rife with wars, oppression and injustice. It is a series of nation states artificially constructed in the aftermath of World War One. They are ruled by client regimes, initially installed at that time, that serve themselves as well as a narrow elite and foreign interests – instead of serving the people of the region. These rulers are widely hated by the people they preside over. They use their armed forces for two main purposes. Firstly, to suppress their own populations – particularly when they see a flicker of political criticism or Islamic sentiments; and secondly to serve any Western military interests that are asked of them.

The most enduring of these client-regimes are the Kingdoms of Saudi Arabia and Jordan. Saudi Arabia was conceived in Britain’s foreign office around a century ago and has since then squandered huge amounts of material wealth. Its ruling family has enjoyed close ties with Britain and the United States ever since. Jordan is a similar family business, installed by the British after World War One. Britain installed members of the same family, widely seen as traitors to Islam and Muslims, to rule Iraq and briefly Syria – only to see their dynasty toppled in these places by coups and counter-coups variously sponsored by the Britain and the US.

It is worth reflecting that people living under the Ottoman state – even in its era of decline – enjoyed more stable and less oppressive lives than people living in the Middle East over the past century. For several centuries prior to that, under the Caliphate, the region was the home of a great civilization that presented a unique society in which communities of different racial and religious backgrounds lived peacefully and in harmony.

In his 2009 essay, ‘Islam and its Discontents’, Brenden Clifford of the Bevin Society wrote:

Islam, one of the major cultures of the world, has been without a state to uphold its position in the world-order for close on 90 years. The Islamic state was destroyed by Britain in the course of the war, which it declared on Germany in 1914. It has been argued that the destruction of the Islamic state was one of the purposes for which Britain declared war on Germany. And the destruction of the Islamic state appears to me to be the ultimate cause of the condition of the world which the USA and Britain call the War on Terror.

He reminds the reader that:

‘A little over a century ago the German Kaiser paid a state visit to the Ottoman Empire, met the Sultan, and declared that a strong Muslim state was a necessary part of any stable order in the world’.

German policy as set out by Count Von Moltke (later a Field Marshal of the German state) in his Essays, Speeches, And Memoirs, 1893 (Vol 1, p272) argued that it was possible to regenerate the Ottoman Empire as such from Islamic roots.

The British fear the impact of this in relation to its colonies – in particular in India – so pursued a policy of expansion of their Empire from India to Egypt. Indeed, once the Ottomans did enter the war, declaring it to be a Jihad, Kitchener had real fears this call would spread to India, Egypt and Sudan.

But at the outset of the war, the Ottoman policy was neutrality. It was in no financial or political position to engage in a war. However, Britain refused to accept this position and refused to accept any overtures of alliance with it – and set about provocation of the Ottoman state, particularly through allying with a hostile Russia.

By 5th November 1914, Britain declared war, in conjunction with Russia, by alleging an Ottoman attack on Russia in the Black Sea. Clifford writes scathingly that it was ‘an allegation made so obscurely and furtively that there is reason to suspect that it was comparable to Hitler’s allegation of a Polish attack on Germany in September 1939’!

Failing to see the expected rapid collapse of the Ottoman defences, Britain found allies in the form of Sharif Hussein – the ancestor of the Jordanian dynasty and Ibn Saud – the founder of modern day Saudi Arabia.

In 1916, under the Sykes Picot accord, the British and French governments agreed to a division of the spoils of the Middle East between the two states, drawing ‘a line in the sand’ between Acre and Kirkuk – the British to take what was south of the line, and the French what was north of it.

After much wheeling, dealing and double crossing between the two, the regions of Syria and Lebanon fell to France, whilst Transjordan, Iraq and the Hejaz went to Britain. The original agreements were meant to share Palestine. Britain managed to secure a mandate over the region, but was later forced by America and France to share the newly discovered oil revenues from Mosul shortly after the war.

The events of the war and the subsequent ‘peace conferences’ afterwards not only carved up the Ottoman state, it precipitated a collapse internally, ending with the abolition of the Caliphate in 1924.

The following 90 years have seen wars between these artificially constructed states; repressive regimes tyrannising their people; the material wealth of the region haemorrhaging away from the people who had a right over it; and various periods of occupation.

From pre-Balfour Declaration to the Zionist Occupation of Palestine

Before World War One, British imperial strategists took account of the implications of potential scenarios within the Middle East. Addressing the 1907 Imperial Conference in London, Britain’s Prime Minister Henry Campbell Bannerman expressed these fears and called for a commission to look at the question of how to prevent the fall of their empire. The report recommended:

1) To promote disintegration, division and separation in the region.

2) To establish artificial political entities that would be under the authority of the imperialist countries.

3) To fight any kind of unity – whether intellectual, religious or historical – and taking practical measures to divide the region’s inhabitants.

4) To achieve this, it was proposed that a “buffer state” be established in Palestine, populated by a strong, foreign presence which would be hostile to its neighbors and friendly to European countries and their interests.

Retrospectively, this would appear to have become British Imperial policy from this time – prior to World War One – for several decades thereafter.

Within this context, Arthur Balfour’s letter to Lord Rothschild in 1917, expressing Britain’s support for the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine, becomes easy to understand.
There has been much debate over the years as to what extent the British government of the time really meant this expression of support.

Writing many years later, Sir Anthony Nutting believed that Balfour and others were complicit with the Zionist agenda to evict the Palestinian Arabs from the region – fitting very much with the pre-war policy recommendation to Bannerman to establish the ‘buffer state…populated by a strong, foreign presence’.

But other historians like Jonathan Schneer have viewed the promise to the Zionists as one of a complex series of bargaining moves that sought to variously ‘play’ Zionist Jews and the leaders of the Arab revolt, all in order to maintain British control over Palestine.

Schneer recognizes overlapping interests in that the Zionist movement wanted the Ottomans out of Palestine, whilst the British government wanted the Ottomans out of the whole Middle East – whilst conceding as little influence as possible to France.

His argument is that part of this bargaining process was that Balfour’s promise would tantalize American Jewry into lobbying for the United States to enter the war on Britain’s side against the Ottomans. Yet simultaneously, Britain was secretly negotiating a peace with the Ottomans, ready to ditch Balfour’s promise, in case they did not get support from the United States.

So in effect, at some stage or other between 1916 and 1918, Britain had offered Palestine to different interested parties at different times. As well as offering it to the Zionist lobby there was a dialogue to hand it to the Ottomans had Britain decided to settle for peace prior to American entry in the war. There had been a verbal promise to Sharif Hussein that it would be part of his territory, as well as having agreed to share with the French under the original terms of the Sykes Picot agreement.

According to historian James Barr the trust between the ‘allies’ of Britain, France and the Zionists was so poor – because of the feeling they had been made too many broken promises – that by 1945 the French were financing Zionist terrorists to attack British troops in Palestine (whilst British soldiers were helping to liberate France from the Nazis).

However, the client Arab regimes accepted humiliation and broken promises with servitude – and showed no real interest in defending or liberating Palestine. From the very first until today they have been the first line of support and defence for ‘Israel’.

One prime example was illustrated in Chaim Weizmann’s diary, where it is recorded that St John Philby, a former British intelligence officer and advisor to Ibn Saud, made a proposal that Ibn Saud should be offered a financial incentive of £20,000,000 in return for his support for a Zionist state. It seems the only reason this didn’t happen was because Weizmann didn’t want to proceed.

Conclusion

So much of the politics of today’s Middle East can be understood from the political intrigues surrounding World War One.
It is imperative that Muslims know the history of that disastrous era and learn real lessons from it in order to understand the neo-colonial games that are played today – that continue to wreak havoc over large parts of the world.

Selected Bibliography

Barr, J – A Line in the Sand  – 2011
Schneer, J – The Balfour Declaration – 2010
Clifford, B – Islam and its Discontents – 2009
Al-Rashid, M – A History of Saudi Arabia –  2010
Nutting, Anthony – Balfour and Palestine – A legacy of deceit – 1975
Weizmann, Chaim – The Letters and Papers of Chaim Weizmann – Vol II
Rotberg, Robert  – Israeli and Palestinian Narratives of Conflict: History’s Double Helix
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)