Britain wanted to use Arabs to protect its interests in the Middle East
Great Britain, for reasons both of fact and sentiment, continues to be with the Arab nation; its favor in 1917 towards Zionism, its resignation to the arrangements of 1920 [at the San Remo Conference?] do not allow it to forget its essential design, which is to entrust the care of its transit interests in the Near East to an alliance with the Arabs; it also emancipated, as soon as it could, Transjordan (treaty of 1928) and Iraq (treaty of 1930); it also ended up during the second world conflict [WW2], as the patron if not the inventor of the 'Arab League,' evolving in the first days of peace [after WW2] towards the even more concrete projects of 'Greater Syria' and 'The Fertile Crescent.' [p 124]
La Grande Bretagne, pour des raisons de fait comme de sentiment, ne cesse pas d'etre avec la nation arabe; sa faveur de 1917 envers le sionisme, sa resignation aux accomodements de 1920 ne lui fait pas oublier son dessin essentiel, qui est de confier a` une alliance arabe le soin de ses interets de transit en Proche-Orient; aussi emancipe-t-elle, de`s qu'elle le peut, Transjordanie (traite de 1928) et Iraq (traite de 1930); aussi aboutira-t-elle , au cours du second conflit mondial, au patronage sinon a` l'invention de la 'Ligue arabe,' pour evoluer aux premiers jours de la paix vers les projets plus concrets encore de la 'Grande Syrie' et du 'Croissant Fertile.'Rondot was not British and was not beholden to the British government. Therefore, he was not compelled or induced to cover up the true British policy in the Middle East. Today, unofficial spokesmen for Britain and unofficial defenders of British policy pretend that Britain was solidly pro-Zionist and pro-Jewish before the rise of the State of Israel. That's just another of the big lies now circulating so widely. The chomskys and edward saids compulsively propound the lie of British favoritism for Zionism, whereas the truth was the opposite. Rondot clearly says that Britain was pro-Arab. Earlier posts on this blog have pointed to British encouragement for establishing the Arab League, while British enthusiasm for the League was greater than that among the Arabs themselves. Britain propounded the Arab League notion at the same time that it was serving as a silent partner in Hitler's Holocaust of the Jews.
[Pierre Rondot, Les Chretiens de l'Orient (Paris: Peyronnet 1966), p 124]
Now, with Condi Rice's tragic Annapolis Conference over, but leaving ominous signs for the future, we can say that the United States seems to be taking over the pro-Arab role of Britain, while the State Department asserts in a pro forma manner that it wants peace for the Jews. Arab spokesmen, Sa'eb Erikat and Nabil Abu Rudeyna, spokesmen for terrorist leader, Mahmud Abbas, are already denying, today, 28 November 2007, that anything agreed on at Annapolis binds them or obliges them in any way and that they made no concessions at Annapolis. We can expect that in the future, the Bush White House and the State Department will criticize or even punish Israel for not fulfilling supposed commitments made by Israel at Annapolis. But they will not criticize or punish the PLO/Arab/PA side for any barbarity or violation of commitments. More or less like British policy up to 1948.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Coming: the lies and falsehoods that Annapolis was based on, propaganda, peace follies, Jews in Jerusalem, Hebron and the Land of Israel, etc.