Historical Parallels Between India-Pakastan and Israel

I wrote this letter to the Jerusalem Post which probably won't be published. It should have appeared today, so when I didn't see it, I put my letter on Facebook. Then the Facebook post seems to have disappeared... strange...

So here's what I wrote:

elephant in the room

https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-853271

The Jerusalem Post, Tzvika Klein, among others keep ignoring the most important, and obvious to me, connection between what's happening between India and Pakistan and the Arab war against Israel. Go back to history, post World War Two, August 14, 1947 when Great Britain divided the Indian subcontinent into two unequal parts, one for the Hindus and the other for the Muslims which became India and Pakistan. 

Not long before that, Great Britain began dividing up the British Mandate of Palestine, which was supposed to be for the Jewish People, by importing the Hashemites from Saudi Arabia to rule the eastern bank of the territory and called it Jordan. Afterwards, instead of allowing Jews to establish a country on the entire western part of the Mandate, Britain, along with the newly formed United Nations, allocated a small indefensible bit of the land to the Jews and the rest of they assigned to Arabs to invent an additional Moslem country. Member countries of the UN voted its approval November 29, 1949. That second Arab Moslem country in the mandated land didn't come to be, because there was no actual nation/people there, so when Israel's War for Independence ended Jordan occupied all the territory not in Israel's control.

The wars we've been suffering from since then and what's going on between India and Pakistan are all connected to Britain's and the UN's playing god in distant parts of the world.

It's a shame that Klein and other Jerusalem Post writers keep ignoring this.

Israel-Jordan were Supposed to be Like India-Pakistan, But...

The Indian Ambassador to Israel, Mr. Pavan Kapoor, on far left, at the Menachem Begin Heritage Center. Next to him is American Ambassador to Israel, David Friedman.

A couple of weeks ago, my husband and I attended a diplomatic reception, plus panel discussion at the Menachem Begin Heritage Center. On the panel was the Indian Ambassador to Israel, Mr. Pavan Kapoor.

Before the panel began, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu greeted the honored guests and made a point of saying that Israel and India were established at the same time, India in 1947 and Israel in 1948. It was as I heard him say that when the seeds of this article began to sprout.

Both the Indian subcontinent and Mandate for Palestine had been ruled by Great Britain. Both areas had sizable and violent Muslim populations.

The experts of the time decided to segregate the populations by religion. In the Indian subcontinent two countries, one for Hindus and the other for Muslims, were established. And, yes, this required in some places massive and difficult population transfer. They exist today in rather peacefully, India and Pakistan.

Things were handled slightly differently in  the area called "Palestine." One of the reasons is that in 1921 Great Britain handed the Hashemite Abdullah a very large portion of Mandated Palestine to invent a kingdom for him, all of the land east of the Jordan River. It became known as the Emirate of Transjordan. The "minor" fact that Britain had been mandated by the League of Nations to facilitate the establishment of a Jewish state was ignored. 

The Hashemites had a very difficult time ruling and keeping the peace, even though the veteran population was rather nomadic and very poor. That required Great Britain to continue to play a strong role in propping them up financially and militarily until very recently.

Post-World War Two, at the same time when Britain gave up the Indian subcontinent and India and Pakistan were established, it was also time for them to finally promote the establishment of a Jewish state.

Of course, the simple solution would have been for Britain to complete what they had begun over twenty years earlier, transfer the non-Jewish population to the Moslem Hashemites and allow the Jewish Zionists to build and develop their country in the area from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. But they promoted a new Arab country instead, which they wanted to call Palestine. But there was no such people, history, leadership etc.

Instead, very tiny, disconnected and completely nonviable portions of land were allocated by the newly established United Nations to the Jewish State. Jews were transferred from other areas, but Arabs (Muslims and Christians) were told to stay put. The population transfer was one-sided, which gave a judenrein section to the proposed non-Jewish country while the so-called Jewish state would be forced to include a large antagonistic and extremely violent population. Basically, the Jewish state was established to deconstruct, fail miserably and quickly. In order to speed up the process, Britain armed and supported the Arab uprising, once David Ben-Gurion declared Israeli Independence.

And today we are still suffering from these decisions, policies and events.

Scotland Should Regain its Indpendence

I don't understand the morality behind Great Britain's protests and threats to the Scottish people about their independence bids. Davka Great Britain, the country behind the invention of all sorts of countries and imaginary histories, is having fits because the Scots want to regain their independence.

Analysing the survey, which put yes at 51%, to 49% for no, Kellner wrote:"Seldom has the term 'knife-edge' carried such lethal force. A two-point gap is too small for us to call the outcome."
The speed and size of the collapse in the no campaign's lead is astonishing, Kellner said. "The fact that the contest is too close to call is itself remarkable, as Better Together seemed to have victory in the bag. Month after month, they held a steady lead, averaging no 58%, yes 42%. In the past four weeks, support for the union has drained away at an astonishing rate."

The Scots do have a long history as a separate people, nation, kingdom. According to Wikipedia, it's 2,000, yes, two thousand years old. This chart covers the second half of that time.

That's in total contrast to countries invented by Great Britain, like Jordan, modern Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, India and Pakistan. Don't forget their biggest con on the world, "Arab Palestine," which they have been trying to get as to block a Jewish State for almost a hundred years.

I don't see why Scotland shouldn't be be able to regain independence if the people want. They certainly pass the shared history, culture test unlike most modern nations. And supporting their quest doesn't in any way give legitimacy to the Arabs here. Just the opposite. Contrast documented Scottish History with the faux people of "Palestine," sic.