The beginnings of the palestine issue

[P F Tinmore]

The disintegration of the Ottoman Empire

By the turn of the century, the "Eastern question" was a predominant concern of European diplomacy, as the Great Powers manoeuvred to establish control or spheres of influence over territories of the declining Ottoman Empire. "The dynamics of the Eastern question thus lay in Europe" 1/ and the issue finally was resolved by the defeat of Turkey in the First World War.

While the war was at its height and the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire became clearly imminent, the Entente Powers already were negotiating over rival territorial ambitions. In 1916 negotiations between Britain, France and Russia, later also including Italy, led to the secret Sykes-Picot agreement on the allocation of Ottoman Arab territories to spheres of influence of the European Powers (annex I). Since places sacred to three world religions were located there, an international régime was initially envisaged for Palestine which, however, eventually was to come under British control.

Although the European Powers sought to establish spheres of influence, they recognized that sovereignty would rest with the rulers and people of the Arab territories, and the Sykes-Picot agreement specified recognition of an "independent Arab State" or "confederation of Arab States". This reflected the recognition of regional realities, since the force of emergent Arab nationalism constituted a major challenge to the supra-national Ottoman Empire. Arab nationalism sought manifestation in the form of sovereign, independent national States on the European model. Great Britain's aims in the war linked with these Arab national aspirations and led to assurances of sovereign independence for the Arab peoples after the defeat of the Axis Powers.

The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem - CEIRPP, DPR study, part I: 1917-1947 (30 June 1978)

 

[georgephillip]

The European Powers drew some lines on a map at the conclusion of the War to End All Wars in hopes of controlling the profits of Middle Eastern oil. Nearly a hundred years later the US and NATO have decided to redraw some of the lines:

https://www.google.com/search?q=free+kurdistan&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=qEirUYuwD8XHigKZhoGgDg&ved=0CDoQsAQ&biw=853&bih=605#facrc=_&imgrc=QqWiesfxqOWOyM%3A%3BCZSogl6UAK3-LM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.peyamaazadi.org%252Ffoto%252FFreeKurdistan.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.peyamaazadi.org%252Findex.php%253Fnewlang%253Denglish%3B310%3B261

"Free" Kurdistan may emerge from the chaos of Iraq, Iran, and Syria.
Palestinians are just as deserving of a sovereign state as the Kurds, and the fate of both nations might hinge on the current stand-off between Russia and NATO over the demise of Syria.

 

[P F Tinmore]

This is the UN's version of the history of the Palestine problem.
------------------
Anglo-Arab understandings on Arab independence

These assurances appear in correspondence 2/ during 1915-1916 between Sir Henry McMahon, British High Commissioner in Egypt, and Sherif Husain, Emir of Mecca, who held the special status of the Keeper of Islam's most holy cities. He thus acted as a representative of the Arab peoples, although not exercising formal political suzerainty over them all.

In the course of the protracted correspondence, the Sherif unequivocally demanded "independence of the Arab countries", specifying in detail the boundaries of the territories in question, which clearly included Palestine. McMahon confirmed that "Great Britain is prepared to recognize and support the independence of the Arabs in all the regions within the limits demanded by the Sherif of Mecca".

To assuage Arab apprehensions aroused by the revelation of the Sykes-Picot agreement by the Soviet Government after the 1917 revolution, and by certain conflicting statements of British policy (see sect. II below), further assurances followed concerning the future of Arab territories.

A special message (of 4 January 1918) from the British Government, carried personally by Commander David George Hogarth to Sherif Husain, stated that "the Entente Powers are determined that the Arab race shall be given full opportunity of once again forming a nation in the world ... So far as Palestine is concerned, we are determined that no people shall be subject to another". 3/

Six months after General Allenby's forces had occupied Jerusalem, another declaration, referring to "areas formerly under Ottoman dominion, occupied by the Allied Forces during the present war", announced "... the wish and desire of His Majesty's Government that the future government of these regions should be based upon the principle of the consent of the governed, and this policy has and will continue to have support of His Majesty's Government". 4/

A joint Anglo-French declaration (7 November 1918) was more exhaustive and specific, affecting both British and French spheres of interest (the term "Syria" still being considered to include Lebanon and Palestine):

"The object aimed at by France and Great Britain in prosecuting in the East the War let loose by the ambition of Germany is the complete and definite emancipation of the [Arab] peoples and the establishment of national governments and administrations deriving their authority from the initiative and free choice of the indigenous populations.

"In order to carry out these intentions, France and Great Britain are at one in encouraging and assisting the establishment of the indigenous governments and administrations in Syria and Mesopotamia now liberated by the Allies, and in the territories the liberation of which they are engaged in securing, and recognizing these as soon as they are actually established." 5/

The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem - CEIRPP, DPR study, part I: 1917-1947 (30 June 1978)

 

[ForeverYoung436]

This is the UN's version of the history of the Palestine problem.
------------------
Anglo-Arab understandings on Arab independence

These assurances appear in correspondence 2/ during 1915-1916 between Sir Henry McMahon, British High Commissioner in Egypt, and Sherif Husain, Emir of Mecca, who held the special status of the Keeper of Islam's most holy cities. He thus acted as a representative of the Arab peoples, although not exercising formal political suzerainty over them all.

In the course of the protracted correspondence, the Sherif unequivocally demanded "independence of the Arab countries", specifying in detail the boundaries of the territories in question, which clearly included Palestine. McMahon confirmed that "Great Britain is prepared to recognize and support the independence of the Arabs in all the regions within the limits demanded by the Sherif of Mecca".

To assuage Arab apprehensions aroused by the revelation of the Sykes-Picot agreement by the Soviet Government after the 1917 revolution, and by certain conflicting statements of British policy (see sect. II below), further assurances followed concerning the future of Arab territories.

A special message (of 4 January 1918) from the British Government, carried personally by Commander David George Hogarth to Sherif Husain, stated that "the Entente Powers are determined that the Arab race shall be given full opportunity of once again forming a nation in the world ... So far as Palestine is concerned, we are determined that no people shall be subject to another". 3/

Six months after General Allenby's forces had occupied Jerusalem, another declaration, referring to "areas formerly under Ottoman dominion, occupied by the Allied Forces during the present war", announced "... the wish and desire of His Majesty's Government that the future government of these regions should be based upon the principle of the consent of the governed, and this policy has and will continue to have support of His Majesty's Government". 4/

A joint Anglo-French declaration (7 November 1918) was more exhaustive and specific, affecting both British and French spheres of interest (the term "Syria" still being considered to include Lebanon and Palestine):

"The object aimed at by France and Great Britain in prosecuting in the East the War let loose by the ambition of Germany is the complete and definite emancipation of the [Arab] peoples and the establishment of national governments and administrations deriving their authority from the initiative and free choice of the indigenous populations.

"In order to carry out these intentions, France and Great Britain are at one in encouraging and assisting the establishment of the indigenous governments and administrations in Syria and Mesopotamia now liberated by the Allies, and in the territories the liberation of which they are engaged in securing, and recognizing these as soon as they are actually established." 5/

The Origins and Evolution of the Palestine Problem - CEIRPP, DPR study, part I: 1917-1947 (30 June 1978)

What enormous Palestinian identity--in some of the texts, it's mentioned only as a part of Syria!

 

[Roudy]

Palestinians are the newest of all the peoples on the face of the Earth, and began to exist in a single day by a kind of supernatural phenomenon that is unique in the whole history of mankind:

“Why is it that on June 4th 1967 I was a Jordanian and overnight I became a Palestinian?”
“We did not particularly mind Jordanian rule. The teaching of the destruction of Israel was a definite part of the curriculum, but we considered ourselves Jordanian until the Jews returned to Jerusalem. Then all of the sudden we were Palestinians - they removed the star from the Jordanian flag and all at once we had a Palestinian flag”.
“When I finally realized the lies and myths I was taught, it is my duty as a righteous person to speak out”.

This declaration by a true "Palestinian" should have some significance for a sincerely neutral observer. Indeed, there is no such a thing like a Palestinian people, or a Palestinian culture, or a Palestinian language, or a Palestinian history. There has never been any Palestinian state, neither any Palestinian archaeological find nor coinage. The present-day "Palestinians" are an Arab people, with Arab culture, Arabic language and Arab history. They have their own Arab states from where they came into the Land of Israel about one century ago to contrast the Jewish immigration. That is the historical truth. They were Jordanians (another recent British invention, as there has never been any people known as "Jordanians"), and after the Six-Day War in which Israel utterly defeated the coalition of nine Arab states and took legitimate possession of Judea and Samaria, the Arab dwellers in those regions underwent a kind of anthropological miracle and discovered that they were Palestinians - something they did not know the day before. Of course, these people having a new identity had to build themselves a history, namely, had to steal some others' history, and the only way that the victims of the theft would not complain is if those victims do no longer exist. Therefore, the Palestinian leaders claimed two contradictory lineages from ancient peoples that inhabited in the Land of Israel: the Canaanites and the Philistines. Let us consider both of them before going on with the Palestinian issue.

 

[RoccoR]

georgephillip; et al,

There is no significant oil or gas deposits anywhere in the former Mandate of Palestine.

None of the surrounding states (Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, or Egypt) are of consequence yet - in that crude oil energy resource.

The European Powers drew some lines on a map at the conclusion of the War to End All Wars in hopes of controlling the profits of Middle Eastern oil. Nearly a hundred years later the US and NATO have decided to redraw some of the lines:

"Free" Kurdistan may emerge from the chaos of Iraq, Iran, and Syria.
Palestinians are just as deserving of a sovereign state as the Kurds, and the fate of both nations might hinge on the current stand-off between Russia and NATO over the demise of Syria.

(COMMENT)

The idea behind Kurdistan, as a state, went to the side when the Treaty of Sevres (1920) was superseded by the Treaty of Lausanne (1923). During the period of WWI, there were many proposals and many maps drawn in connection with those proposals; but none of them had anything to do with allocating oil discoveries in or around the former Mandate of Palestine.

Why don't we move forward in time and deal with the reality of today?

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

Roudy, et al,

Well, that is sort of an outcome, and consequence of war.

• Q1: “Why is it that on June 4th 1967 I was a Jordanian and overnight I became a Palestinian?”
• STATEMENT: “We did not particularly mind Jordanian rule. The teaching of the destruction of Israel was a definite part of the curriculum, but we considered ourselves Jordanian until the Jews returned to Jerusalem. Then all of the sudden we were Palestinians - they removed the star from the Jordanian flag and all at once we had a Palestinian flag”.
• STATEMENT: “When I finally realized the lies and myths I was taught, it is my duty as a righteous person to speak out”.

(OPINION)

• A1: Technically, you did not stop being Jordanian until October 26, 1994, the date the Israeli-Jordanian Peace Treaty went into effect.
  • Treaty of Peace Between The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan And The State of Israel October 26, 1994

(COMMENT)

I'm not sure I can comment on the "feelings you have."

The 1967 War was initiated by Jordan. The Israelis met with the King of Jordan and explained that the War was between Egypt and Israel. If Jordan makes no Hostile move, then Israel will not move against Jordan. But, Jordan did not stay out of the conflict.

[ame="http://youtu.be/9P4Zwd4MJRw"]The Reasons Behind The Arab Defeat In 1967 War - part(4/5)[/ame]​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[ForeverYoung436]

Palestinians are the newest of all the peoples on the face of the Earth, and began to exist in a single day by a kind of supernatural phenomenon that is unique in the whole history of mankind:

“Why is it that on June 4th 1967 I was a Jordanian and overnight I became a Palestinian?”
“We did not particularly mind Jordanian rule. The teaching of the destruction of Israel was a definite part of the curriculum, but we considered ourselves Jordanian until the Jews returned to Jerusalem. Then all of the sudden we were Palestinians - they removed the star from the Jordanian flag and all at once we had a Palestinian flag”.
“When I finally realized the lies and myths I was taught, it is my duty as a righteous person to speak out”.

This declaration by a true "Palestinian" should have some significance for a sincerely neutral observer. Indeed, there is no such a thing like a Palestinian people, or a Palestinian culture, or a Palestinian language, or a Palestinian history. There has never been any Palestinian state, neither any Palestinian archaeological find nor coinage. The present-day "Palestinians" are an Arab people, with Arab culture, Arabic language and Arab history. They have their own Arab states from where they came into the Land of Israel about one century ago to contrast the Jewish immigration. That is the historical truth. They were Jordanians (another recent British invention, as there has never been any people known as "Jordanians"), and after the Six-Day War in which Israel utterly defeated the coalition of nine Arab states and took legitimate possession of Judea and Samaria, the Arab dwellers in those regions underwent a kind of anthropological miracle and discovered that they were Palestinians - something they did not know the day before. Of course, these people having a new identity had to build themselves a history, namely, had to steal some others' history, and the only way that the victims of the theft would not complain is if those victims do no longer exist. Therefore, the Palestinian leaders claimed two contradictory lineages from ancient peoples that inhabited in the Land of Israel: the Canaanites and the Philistines. Let us consider both of them before going on with the Palestinian issue.

Roudy, do you have the link to this article? I like history, and want to read further about the Canaanites and Philistines.

 

[MJB12741]

The first part stated by the OP is true. The Palestinians got screwed but good, first in their war with their Muslim brothers the Turks during the breakup of the Ottoman Empire & then by the British & French with the Sykes-Picot agreement. And to this day the Palestinians & their supporters blame Israel for what happened during the early 1900s long before the UN vote to re-establish Israel in 1947. It's called Palestinian mentality.

 

[georgephillip]

georgephillip; et al,

There is no significant oil or gas deposits anywhere in the former Mandate of Palestine.

None of the surrounding states (Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, or Egypt) are of consequence yet - in that crude oil energy resource.

The European Powers drew some lines on a map at the conclusion of the War to End All Wars in hopes of controlling the profits of Middle Eastern oil. Nearly a hundred years later the US and NATO have decided to redraw some of the lines:

"Free" Kurdistan may emerge from the chaos of Iraq, Iran, and Syria.
Palestinians are just as deserving of a sovereign state as the Kurds, and the fate of both nations might hinge on the current stand-off between Russia and NATO over the demise of Syria.

(COMMENT)

The idea behind Kurdistan, as a state, went to the side when the Treaty of Sevres (1920) was superseded by the Treaty of Lausanne (1923). During the period of WWI, there were many proposals and many maps drawn in connection with those proposals; but none of them had anything to do with allocating oil discoveries in or around the former Mandate of Palestine.

Why don't we move forward in time and deal with the reality of today?

Most Respectfully,
R

Right after you give me your interpretation of what Sir Ronald meant in 1922, since the control of Arab land today is at least as important as it was then to those getting rich from arm sales and oil sales:

"Sir Ronald Storrs, the first Governor of Jerusalem, certainly had no illusions about what a 'Jewish homeland' in Palestine meant for the British Empire: 'It will form for England,' he said, 'a little loyal Jewish Ulster in a sea of potentially hostile Arabism.'”

"Storrs’ analogy was no accident. Ireland was where the English invented the tactic of divide and conquer, and where the devastating effectiveness of using foreign settlers to drive a wedge between the colonial rulers and the colonized made it a template for worldwide imperial rule."

Israel today isn't so much an English Ulster as it is an American Sparta, and I strongly suspect you knew that long before I did.

Divide and Conquer as Imperial Rules | FPIF

 

[MHunterB]

Georgie, just one problem with your article and its source: It is liable to be a Soviet propaganda center.

Institute for Policy Studies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Harvey Klehr, professor of politics and history at Emory University, in his 1988 book Far Left of Center: The American Radical Left Today said that IPS "serves as an intellectual nerve center for the radical movement, ranging from nuclear and anti-intervention issues to support for Marxist insurgencies".[13] Joshua Muravchik, a former scholar with the American Enterprise Institute has also accused the institute of communist sympathies.[14] Furthermore, it has been accused by the FBI of being a "think factory" that helps to "train extremists who incite violence in U.S. cities, and whose educational research serves as a cover for intrigue, and political agitation."[15]

In 1974, the Institute created an "Organizing Committee for the Fifth Estate" as part of its "Center for National Security Studies" which published (and still publishes) the magazine CounterSpy. CounterSpy has in turn been the subject of scrutiny by officials and intelligence agencies, who claim that the magazine's "driving force"[16] was ex-CIA agent and alleged Cuban/KGB agent[17][18][19] Philip Agee, and was accused by US President George H.W. Bush[20] and others[21] of leading to the murder of the then CIA Station Chief in Greece, Richard S. Welch.

In his book The KGB and Soviet Disinformation: An Insider's View Ladislav Bittman, a former StB agent who worked in misinformation operations, covered the IPS's role in the Soviet intelligence network.[22][23] Bittman argued that IPS was one of the several liberal think tanks that acted as pro-Soviet propaganda agencies, but his own assertions may have been counterpropaganda themselves.[24] Brian Crozier, director of the London-based Institute for the Study of Conflict, described IPS as the "perfect intellectual front for Soviet activities which would be resisted if they were to originate openly from the KGB".[25]

Incidentally, Georgie - the ideas of a long-ago British 'Governor' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Ronald_Storrs about the nature of Israel are hardly relevant compared to the current will of the Israeli people. I feel you demonstrate a profound contempt for the State of Israel, Jewish people and for history itself by continuing to drag in such moldy old nonsense as though it's somehow meaningful.

 

[georgephillip]

Are you disputing the existence of Sir Ronald Storrs or the Ulster Plantation?

"Ariel Sharon and former Prime Minister Menachem Begin normally take credit for creating the 'facts on the ground' policies that have poured more than 420,000 settlers into the Occupied Territories.

"But they were simply copying Charles I, the English King, who in 1609 forcibly removed the O’Neill and O’Donnell clans from the north of Ireland, moved in 20,000 English and Scottish Protestants, and founded the Plantation of Ulster.

"The 'removal' was never really meant to cleanse Ulster of the Irish. Native labor was essential to the Plantation’s success and within 15 years more than 4,000 native Irish tenants and their families were back in Ulster.

"But they lived in a land divided into religious castes, with the Protestant invaders on top and the Catholic natives on the bottom.

"Protestants were awarded the 'Ulster privilege' which gave them special access to land and lower rents, and also served to divide them from the native Catholics.

"The 'Ulster Privilege' is not dissimilar to the kind of “privilege” Israeli settlers enjoy in the Territories today, where their mortgages are cheap, their taxes lower and their education subsidized.

Divide and Conquer as Imperial Rules | FPIF

 

[RoccoR]

georgephillip; et al,

To understand a man like Sir Ronald Storrs, KCMG, CBE, you have to divorce your mind of the history you know after 1920. You have to think like a 19th Century aristocrat and a turn-of-the-Century Knight's Commander (of St Michael and St George). He was to become an Oriental Secretary, and finally a Military Governor - in the Service of an Empire where the Sun never sets. You have to be able to understand what it means to be ruled by the "King of over-Kings."

Right after you give me your interpretation of what Sir Ronald meant in 1922, since the control of Arab land today is at least as important as it was then to those getting rich from arm sales and oil sales:

"Sir Ronald Storrs, the first Governor of Jerusalem, certainly had no illusions about what a 'Jewish homeland' in Palestine meant for the British Empire: 'It will form for England,' he said, 'a little loyal Jewish Ulster in a sea of potentially hostile Arabism.'”

(COMMENT)

Sir Ronald Storrs was a man proud of the British Empire, and believed that whatever the foreign service effort -- it was for the betterment of the Empire. What he conveys to me is --- that the Middle East would one day, become and asset to the UK.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[MHunterB]

Are you disputing the existence of Sir Ronald Storrs or the Ulster Plantation?

Obviously not: I was commenting that your use of Storrs' quote was irrelevant, and your 'example' of Ulster asinine and idiotic. It's sad that you feel the need to be so disingenuous in your 'reply'.

That all you can manage is to post the same silly stuff from the same scurrilous 'source' suggests to me that you rely on propaganda and agenda rather than facts. I'm bored with reading the same propaganda shit: don't you have any of your own words to use in a discussion?

"Ariel Sharon and former Prime Minister Menachem Begin normally take credit for creating the 'facts on the ground' policies that have poured more than 420,000 settlers into the Occupied Territories.

"But they were simply copying Charles I, the English King, who in 1609 forcibly removed the O’Neill and O’Donnell clans from the north of Ireland, moved in 20,000 English and Scottish Protestants, and founded the Plantation of Ulster.

"The 'removal' was never really meant to cleanse Ulster of the Irish. Native labor was essential to the Plantation’s success and within 15 years more than 4,000 native Irish tenants and their families were back in Ulster.

"But they lived in a land divided into religious castes, with the Protestant invaders on top and the Catholic natives on the bottom.

"Protestants were awarded the 'Ulster privilege' which gave them special access to land and lower rents, and also served to divide them from the native Catholics.

"The 'Ulster Privilege' is not dissimilar to the kind of “privilege” Israeli settlers enjoy in the Territories today, where their mortgages are cheap, their taxes lower and their education subsidized.

Divide and Conquer as Imperial Rules | FPIF

.

 

[toastman]

Are you disputing the existence of Sir Ronald Storrs or the Ulster Plantation?

Obviously not: I was commenting that your use of Storrs' quote was irrelevant, and your 'example' of Ulster asinine and idiotic. It's sad that you feel the need to be so disingenuous in your 'reply'.

That all you can manage is to post the same silly stuff from the same scurrilous 'source' suggests to me that you rely on propaganda and agenda rather than facts. I'm bored with reading the same propaganda shit: don't you have any of your own words to use in a discussion?

"Ariel Sharon and former Prime Minister Menachem Begin normally take credit for creating the 'facts on the ground' policies that have poured more than 420,000 settlers into the Occupied Territories.

"But they were simply copying Charles I, the English King, who in 1609 forcibly removed the O’Neill and O’Donnell clans from the north of Ireland, moved in 20,000 English and Scottish Protestants, and founded the Plantation of Ulster.

"The 'removal' was never really meant to cleanse Ulster of the Irish. Native labor was essential to the Plantation’s success and within 15 years more than 4,000 native Irish tenants and their families were back in Ulster.

"But they lived in a land divided into religious castes, with the Protestant invaders on top and the Catholic natives on the bottom.

"Protestants were awarded the 'Ulster privilege' which gave them special access to land and lower rents, and also served to divide them from the native Catholics.

"The 'Ulster Privilege' is not dissimilar to the kind of “privilege” Israeli settlers enjoy in the Territories today, where their mortgages are cheap, their taxes lower and their education subsidized.

Divide and Conquer as Imperial Rules | FPIF

.

He never has anything to say for himself. In fact, if he replies to this post, he will likely be quoting some article that he considers valid

 

[MHunterB]

georgephillip; et al,

To understand a man like Sir Ronald Storrs, KCMG, CBE, you have to divorce your mind of the history you know after 1920. You have to think like a 19th Century aristocrat and a turn-of-the-Century Knight's Commander (of St Michael and St George). He was to become an Oriental Secretary, and finally a Military Governor - in the Service of an Empire where the Sun never sets. You have to be able to understand what it means to be ruled by the "King of over-Kings."

Right after you give me your interpretation of what Sir Ronald meant in 1922, since the control of Arab land today is at least as important as it was then to those getting rich from arm sales and oil sales:

"Sir Ronald Storrs, the first Governor of Jerusalem, certainly had no illusions about what a 'Jewish homeland' in Palestine meant for the British Empire: 'It will form for England,' he said, 'a little loyal Jewish Ulster in a sea of potentially hostile Arabism.'”

(COMMENT)

Sir Ronald Storrs was a man proud of the British Empire, and believed that whatever the foreign service effort -- it was for the betterment of the Empire. What he conveys to me is --- that the Middle East would one day, become and asset to the UK.

Most Respectfully,
R

Rocco, I agree: Storrs could only envision the UK being in *control* of said Jewish homeland state. I don't think he was capable of imagining that the Israelis would come to disrespect and scorn British imperialism as much as any other 'wogs' ever had.

The fact is, the 'Jewish homeland' never became a loyal member of the Commonwealth - nor was that supposed to be the goal.

 

[MJB12741]

Unlike the Palestinians, the Israeli's never massacred each other over who would rule Israel.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Unlike the Palestinians, the Israeli's never massacred each other over who would rule Israel.

Israel never had a foreign power pay one group to attack another.

 

[MJB12741]

May both sides in the Syrian massacre reign victorious. LET THERE BE PEACE ALREADY!

Unlike the Palestinians, the Israeli's never massacred each other over who would rule Israel.

Israel never had a foreign power pay one group to attack another.