God's Kingdom Ministries
Serious Bible Study



Chapter 7: The British and South African Factor


One of the authors of this paper is South African and a serious student of the relevance of South Africa (both historically and currently), to the present world order. And Palestine is an obvious focal point in that order.


Firstly, why do we combine Britain and South Africa, in the same chapter – they are after all completely independent nations? Well, for the period of history to which this paper makes specific reference, their affairs were so closely intertwined, that the simplest way to deal with the issues, is conjointly.

Secondly, there is an unusually intense correlation between South African history over the last 130 odd years and that of “Israel.” From here on in we shall refer to this phenomena as the “twinning” between the two states, for the sake of convenience.

What Predates Semitic?

Since the Jews place so much store on their ancient “entitlement” to the land of “Israel,” let us talk “ancient.”

The concept of ancient history (as far back as we can possibly know or plausibly construct), is founded in Africa, not the Middle East. With all due respect, Africans understand land (for we are the very womb of life) and to whom it really belongs:

Psalms 24:1-2 “The earth is the LORD's, and all its fullness, the world and those who dwell therein. For He has founded it upon the seas and established it upon the waters.” New King James Version

Africa represents 20% of the earth’s usable land area and is rich in natural resources including arable land, water, oil, natural gas, minerals, forests and wildlife. The continent holds a huge proportion of the world’s natural resources, both renewables and non-renewables.

Africa is home to some 30% of the world’s mineral reserves, 8% of the world’s natural gas and 12% of the world’s oil reserves. The continent has 40% of the world’s gold and up to 90% of its chromium and platinum. The largest reserves of cobalt, diamonds, platinum and uranium in the world are in Africa. It holds 65% of the world’s arable land and 10% of the planet’s internal renewable fresh water source.


Humans first evolved in Africa, and much of human evolution occurred on the continent. The fossils of early humans who lived between 6 and 2 million years ago come entirely from Africa.

Southern Africa as a Sub-set of Africa

If continental Africa is a primordial first in creation order, this phenomenon concentrates still further in the Southern sub-continent, not to the exclusion of the rest of the continent, but as a matter of relative weighting.

The San or Saan peoples, are members of various Khoisan-speaking indigenous hunter-gatherer groups that are the first nations of Southern Africa, and whose territories historically spanned Botswana, Namibia, Angola, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Lesotho and South Africa, as they are called today.

Various Y chromosome studies show that the San carry some of the most divergent (oldest) human Y-chromosome haplogroups. These haplogroups are specific sub-groups of haplogroups A and B, the two earliest branches on the human Y-chromosome tree.

Mitochondrial DNA studies also provide evidence that the San carry high frequencies of the earliest haplogroup branches in the human mitochondrial DNA tree. This DNA is inherited only from one's mother. The most divergent (oldest) mitochondrial haplogroup, L0D, has been identified at its highest frequencies in the southern African San groups.

A set of tools almost identical to that used by the modern San and dating to 44,000 BCE was discovered at Border Cave in KwaZulu-Natal in 2012.

A maximum of 120 000 San exists today, predominantly in Botswana, then Namibia, South Africa and a very small quantity in Zimbabwe/Angola.


The point being that when it comes to disputes relating to ancient land, South Africa has the credentials to speak to these matters, both from a creation order perspective and as a consequence of the many disastrous political events in its more recent history, which “twin” with the “Israel” / Palestinian issue.

Like Palestine, South Africa Experienced British Colonialization / Imperialism

Great Britain has over 100 former colonies, located all over the world. The first of these colonies were in North America, being the 13 colonies that would eventually constitute the founding states of the USA. The USA secured its independence from Great Britain in 1776.

The Cape and Natal were British colonies and later the Union of South Africa, constituted by force in 1910, was in effect a British colony until it became a republic in 1961. Palestine, we also know what it is to have a political solution forced upon us with complete disregard for the centuries (even millennial) old inhabitants of the land!

Arguably the most powerful British Imperialist of all times, Cecil John Rhodes, established his economic and political base in Southern Africa, whose influence persists to this day through inter alia the Rhodes Scholarship and carefully planned occultic structures that Rhodes set into place before his death.



South African Natural Assets and their Exploitation by Global Imperialists

The three greatest treasure stories of known human history, involve (or in one instance, was reliant upon) South Africa, namely the Cape Sea trade route, diamonds and gold.

It doesn’t take much to figure out that since this is an unprecedented phenomenon, Southern Africa is a marker in both ancient and modern times.

Consider the four contemporary revolutions:

Early Industrial Revolution;

Advanced Industrial Revolution;

Data/Financialisation Revolution;

4th Industrial Revolution.

This document cannot be distracted by an essay in support of the following statement, but the wealth of South Africa (concentrated as it was by Rothschild and JP Morgan interventionism), by and large funded the Advanced Industrial Revolution and thus the foundations of the so called “Western” world as we know it today. Not that this was to the benefit of the average South African however, as it regrettably left a legacy of abject poverty for the most part. Palestine, we also know the stench of grinding poverty, from one generation to the next!

Three Wars and the Creation of a New World Order

New World Orders don’t emerge willingly, they are coerced, militarily, politically or economically (or any combination of the foregoing) and generally at extreme human cost.

The first of these three wars was about gold and the second two (really one war split into two halves with an intervening truce of some 20 years, as it were), a clash of empires.

Anglo Boer War

The lure of commandeering the greatest gold strike in history, was simply too much for the British Empire. What followed was an indescribable tragedy (how else to describe any war), a summary of which is set out below:

When the fighting began in October 1899, the British confidently expected their troops to victoriously conclude the conflict by Christmas. But this proved to be the longest, costliest, bloodiest and most humiliating war fought by Britain between 1815 and 1914. Even though the military forces mobilized in South Africa by the world's greatest imperial power outnumbered the Boer fighters by nearly five to one, they required almost three years to completely subdue the tough pioneer people of fewer than half a million.

Britain deployed some 336,000 imperial and 83,000 colonial troops: 448,000 altogether. Of this force, 22,000 found a grave in South Africa, 14,000 of them succumbing to sickness. For their part, the two Boer republics were able to mobilize 87,360 fighters, a force that included 2,120 foreign volunteers and 13,300 Boer-related Afrikaners from the British-ruled Cape and Natal provinces. In addition to the more than 7,000 Boer fighters who lost their lives, some 28,000 Boers perished in the British concentration camps under heinous conditions, nearly all of them women and children.

The war's non-human costs were similarly appalling. As part of Lord Kitchener's "scorched-earth" campaign, British troops wrought terrible destruction throughout the rural Boer areas, especially in the Orange Free State. Outside of the largest towns, hardly a building was left intact. Perhaps a tenth of the pre-war horses, cows and other farm stock remained. In much of the Boer lands, no crops had been sown for two years.

Even by the standards of the time (and certainly by those of today), British political and military leaders committed frightful war crimes and crimes against humanity, crimes for which no one was ever brought to account. General Kitchener, for one, was never punished for introducing measures that even a later British prime minister called "methods of barbarism." To the contrary, after concluding his South African service, he was named a viscount and a field marshal, and then, at the outbreak of the First World War, was appointed Secretary of War. Upon his death in 1916, he was remembered not as a criminal, but rather idolized as a personification of British virtue and rectitude.

In a sense, the Anglo-Boer conflict was less a war between combatants, than a military campaign against civilians – how deeply does that correlate with the “Israel”/Palestinian conflict? The number of Boer women and children who perished in the concentration camps was four times as large as the number of Boer fighting men who died (of all causes) during the war. In fact, more children under the age of 16 perished in the British concentration camps, than men were killed in action on both sides – what words can possibly describe the extent of that crime against humanity!

The boundless greed of Jewish "gold bugs", coincided with the imperialistic aims of British Colonial Secretary Joseph Chamberlain, the dreams of gold and diamond baron Cecil Rhodes, and the political ambitions of Lord Alfred Milner. On the altar of their avarice and ambition, they sacrificed the lives of some 30,000 people who wanted only to live in freedom, as well as 22,000 young men of Britain and her dominions.

At its core, Britain's leaders were willing to sacrifice the lives of many of their own sons and to kill men, women and children in a far-away continent, to add to the wealth and power of an already immensely wealthy and powerful worldwide empire. Few wars during the past one hundred odd years were as avoidable, or as patently crass in its motivation, as was the South African War (Anglo Boer War) of 1899-1902.”





To the Jews, we say, “South Africans have had their own holocaust and its scars still run deep” and to the Palestinians we say, “We know what it means to have our children and women murdered, with absolutely no recourse to international justice.”

Just one of the many child holocaust victims!


For all its horror, arguably the greatest manifestation thereof was the platform/momentum it provided for the issuance of the Balfour Declaration in 1917, the consequences of which, humanity still lives with today.


For all its horror in turn, arguably its greatest and on-going manifestation, was the momentum it provided for the official end to the British Mandate in Palestine at midnight on May 14, 1948, just ahead of which, David Ben-Gurion declared the establishment of a Jewish state, to be called “Israel”.

Zionism – A New World Order

Funny thing is that Zionism has never been about the interests of the average modern-day Jew, only about the egregious greed of the elite and the massive centralisation of global wealth and power, thereby enslaving humanity at large.

South Africa – First Manifestation of The Large-Scale use of the Word “Zionism” in a So-Called Christian Context

What another extraordinary twinning, although Christian Zionism was in fact not about Jewry in South Africa.

John G Lake was a Canadian/American missionary who brought Zionism/Pentecostalism to Southern Africa from 1908-1913, he having been earlier influenced by Charles Parham and also having spent some years in Zion, Illinois. He started the “Apostolic Faith Mission” (“AFM”), by which name it is still known in South Africa today and indeed in other countries in the world. Thus, the very first planting of Pentecostalism emerging from the early 1900s in America, outside of America, but from America, was in South Africa.

Lake is an extremely controversial figure. This paper however does not opine on his ministry, save for its principle outcomes over time in South/ern Africa.

The years 1902 to 1910 were seminal in South African history. The ZAR (Zuid Afrikaanse Republiek, or the Transvaal Republic) and the Orange Free State, had been brutally subjugated in a war entirely directed at stealing Gold and in a manner later described as “methods of barbarism”.

This unleashed a torrent of evil and bitterness, never properly addressed during the aforesaid 8-year period, so that when the “Union of South Africa” was eventually proclaimed in 1910 (the first time South Africa came into existence), it had been constructed on the poorest of foundations – pure evil in fact. Palestinians can you relate?

To make matters even worse, it was the British who permitted the formation of the “Union” based on the political exclusion of the majority Black/Mixed Race peoples/Other minorities, and so whilst Apartheid was formalised in name and expanded in statute, by the Afrikaners post 1948, they (the British) were palpably culpable of initiating the origins of this crime against humanity. Thus, one crime against humanity in the Anglo Boer war cascaded into another, only this time on a much larger scale and with consequences that have yet to be resolved – Apartheid in South Africa (26th May 1948) and then too in Palestine (14th May 1948). Can there be any doubt about the twinning now?

At the time of Lake’s ministry in South/ern Africa, a prophetic healing intervention was critically needed (a “repairing of the breach”) and with due respect to Lake, he in fact only added to the Apartheid origins, as evidenced by the principle legacy of his work – a Black break-away faction of the AFM in 1919, occasioned by the refusal of the White leadership to eliminate discrimination (over which discrimination Lake had originally presided) and known originally as the Zion Apostolic Faith Mission. It attempted to emulate the John Alexander Dowie “Zion City”, Illinois, in Lesotho.


The Zion Apostolic Faith Mission was destined to later splinter itself. However between the two splinter groups (Zion Christian Church – ZCC, and Zimbabwean Zion Apostolic Faith Mission – ZZAFM), it has become the largest African initiated church operating across Southern Africa.

The ZCC was affected by a leadership succession struggle when its founder passed away and so today, it has split too. According to the 2001 South African Census, its membership stood at a cumulative 4.97 million. Today, the number of ZCC members is most likely between 8 and 10 million (again cumulatively), according to figures provided by Neal Collins from The New Age and Alex Matlala from The Citizen, two South African newspapers. Doctrinally, the ZCC is a matrix of many influences and the term “Christian” (in its name) should be construed in its ubiquitous context.


Lake therefore ultimately fathered two “churches” In South/ern Africa – the largely white dominated AFM and the black ZCC/ZZAFM, the latter inevitably adding to the spiritual gravitas of the twentieth/twenty first century Zionistic phenomenon, in whatsoever context this may be construed, the most important perhaps being yet another example of the twinning affect.


Field Marshall Jan Christian Smuts

By any standards, one of the Twentieth Century’s most prominent/influential geniuses and leaders. Albert Einstein was one to recognise this, for example.

Smuts was initially the Attorney General of the ZAR (he being legally qualified) and then in the Anglo Boer war, became a General. He consistently clashed with Milner in the build-up to the Anglo Boer War, as an advisor to President Kruger.

Smuts was an important participant during the development of the Union of South Africa and made personal representations to British Parliamentarians that they should exclude Blacks/Mixed Races/Other Minorities from the franchise, which position ultimately carried the day when the Union was proclaimed.

Despite local opposition and the fact that a mere 12 years before, the Boers and the British had themselves been at war with one another, Smuts supported the notion of joining Britain in WWI. Smuts became a member of the British war cabinet in 1917 till 1919, at the invitation of the then Prime Minster, David Lloyd George, where he was to encounter Milner again.

He was the Prime Minister of South Africa from 1919 to 1924 and then again from 1939 to 1948.

On 24 May 1941 Smuts was appointed a Field Marshal of the British Army, which appointment he carried contemporaneously with being the South African Prime Minister. He was considered to be the most appropriate successor to Winston Churchill during WWII, were anything to happen to the British Prime Minister. This idea was sponsored by Sir John Colville, Churchill's private secretary.

In 1948, he was elected Chancellor of the University of Cambridge, becoming the first person from outside the United Kingdom to hold that position and held it until his death.

Smuts was, furthermore, directly involved in the following:

The only signatory to have personally attended the peace conferences and signed the resulting treaties, terminating the Anglo Boer War, WWI and WWII;

A major contributor to the architecture of the Balfour Declaration (ironically in tandem with Lord Milner), in support of Lord Balfour;

The author of the League of Nations constitution, a task given to him at the insistence of amongst others, President Woodrow Wilson, with whom he had a most cordial relationship;

Contributor to the preamble of the United Nations constitution.

Smuts’ connection with Zionism, is best summarised by an article from the Jerusalem Post, which we quote:

“While I have no objection to Daniel P. Moynihan being honoured by the state of Israel in any way which Gil Troy would deem fit, I take great exception to the fact that Moynihan’s name is even mentioned in the same context as that of the late Honourable Jan Christian Smuts.”

Smuts was an international statesman of great repute who bestrode the world political stage like a colossus for the first half of the 20th century, while Daniel Moynihan was, at best, thrust onto the world stage for a short period as the United States ambassador to the United Nations. The only commonality I have found, is that prime minister David Lloyd George sent Smuts to Ireland in 1921 for discussions aimed at ending the violence with Irish nationalist leader Eamon de Valera, while 60 years later in 1981, Moynihan, together with other Irish American politicians, Ted Kennedy and Tip O’Neill, established a bipartisan group to promote peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland. Neither Smuts nor Moynihan were particularly successful in that worthy endeavour.

Gen. Jan Christiaan Smuts was the architect of the Union of South Africa, established in 1910 as a self-governing dominion of the United Kingdom, becoming a totally committed and loyal Anglophile, despite having fought against the British during the Anglo Boer War (1898-1901). Smuts enjoyed a great friendship with Chaim Weizmann, which lasted from their first meeting in London during WWI, until Smuts’ death in 1950.

Smuts and Weizmann had much in common, sharing a great interest in science, with Smuts becoming the first president of the British Association for the Advancement of Science in 1931. Weizmann was a Zionist. Smuts, as a devoted Christian, held a firm belief in the right of the Jewish people to their homeland in Palestine.

Smuts was partial toward the Jews and Jewish problems globally, being sympathetic to Jewish immigration to South Africa as early as 1910. In 1917, as Minister of Defense, in which capacity he would become a member of the Imperial War Cabinet in Britain, he promised the South African Zionist Federation that he would support the movement for a Jewish Homeland in Palestine. Shortly after his appointment to the war cabinet, he met with, and developed his lasting friendship with Weizmann, and lent his not-insignificant support to the process and final promulgation of the Balfour Declaration in November 1917.

Following the end of hostilities in 1918, which brought the First World War to an end, a peace conference was held at Versailles in France on January 19, 1919, between the victorious Allied Forces and the defeated Central Powers, which had been led by Germany. The product of this conference was the Versailles Peace Treaty, with the Balfour Declaration granting a homeland to the Jewish people as one of its many clauses – this, at the insistence of Jan Smuts.

Versailles was followed by the San Remo Conference, which lasted from April 19-26, 1920, and was also attended by Smuts. The primary objective of this conference was to ratify the terms of the Treaty of Versailles and to establish the League of Nations. Here again, Smuts insisted that the Balfour Declaration be embodied in the clauses establishing the League of Nations, with Smuts the author of its constitution.

The San Remo Resolution, as well as Article 22 of the newly established League of Nations, incorporated the Balfour Declaration, with the resolution officially designated the Smuts Resolution. This resolution was the basis for the establishment of the mandate system that led to the British Mandate over Palestine and but for the stubborn intransigence of the British Government, should have rapidly led to a self-governing Jewish state in the whole territory between the Jordan River and the sea

This British intransigence and a failure to keep to the terms of the Article 22 as soon as was practical, resulted in the impasse that lasted until the United Nations, successor to the League of Nations, passed the historic partition vote on November 29, 1947. This was not the fault of Smuts, who repeatedly approached successive British governments on behalf of the South African Zionist Federation, protesting the various white papers limiting Jewish immigration to Palestine.

While it must be said that Smuts voted to restrict Jewish immigration to South Africa in 1936, he had a choice of bringing down the coalition government or going along with his coalition partners at this point.

His record prior to that vote and subsequent record, are totally at odds with his support for that contentious Immigration Bill.

Smuts led the move for South Africa to enter WWII as a British ally against the wishes of his coalition partners, who voted against a Declaration of War on Germany. However, they were defeated, leading to the end of the coalition and the establishment of the Reformed National Party, which would win the 1948 election on an apartheid-policy ticket.

The war years saw Smuts once again as an influential member of Winston Churchill’s British war cabinet. Churchill had a great admiration for Smuts and valued his opinion above all others. Following the end of hostilities in September 1945, the United Nations was established on October 24, 1945, with the objective of preventing future global conflicts. Smuts was once again present and was the author of the Preamble to the Constitution of the United Nations. Smuts was the only politician to serve in the British war cabinet in both the First and the Second World Wars.

He was the only politician to sign the peace treaties ending global conflict after both world wars and was the only signatory to the establishment of both the League of Nations and the United Nations, a truly amazing record to say the least.

South Africa, with Jan Smuts as Prime Minister, voted in favour of the partition of Palestine to ensure the establishment of a Jewish homeland. David Ben-Gurion made the famous Declaration of Israeli Independence on May 14, 1948, and Smuts granted de facto recognition to the State of “Israel” 10 days later, May 24. His successor, prime minister Dr. D.F. Malan, granted de jure recognition on Israel’s first Independence Day, May 14, 1949. Malan later became the first foreign head of state to visit Israel in 1953. Authors note: How ironical – the apartheid twins already colluding!

Smuts is also accused by Troy of being a racist, not without foundation. But his conduct must be judged in the context of his times. Black South Africans definitely had more rights and less restrictions under Smuts than under successive Nationalist Party governments. Smuts acknowledged that the restrictions on blacks had to be reduced, but that this would have to be done under controlled circumstances. Accusations of racism against a South African prime minister for his actions in the 1940s, based on contemporary standards, is unfair and borders on bias.

The move of the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem is vitally important to Israel. There is no denying the significant role Daniel P. Moynihan played over the years, albeit unsuccessfully, trying to influence a succession of presidents to move the embassy. The role played by Moynihan in the move, however, does not remotely bear comparison to the roles played by Smuts in the Balfour Declaration, at the Versailles Conference, the San Remo Conference, the League of Nations and later at the United Nations, regarding the formation of the State of Israel.

Find another street to honour Moynihan, but the German Colony Street honouring Smuts must stay the German Colony street, honouring a great friend of the Jewish people. And let’s not forget Smuts Boulevard in Tel Aviv and Kibbutz Ramat Yohanan (Smuts) in northern Israel.”

There can simply be no debate as to how significant Smuts’ contribution was to the birth of apartheid “Israel”.




Lord Alfred Milner

Milner was the Governor of the Cape and then High Commissioner of South Africa, appointed by Joseph Chamberlain, Colonial Secretary in the British cabinet at the time. It was he who precipitated the Anglo Boer War, oversaw it and organised reconstruction after the war.

On leaving South Africa in 1905, Speaking to the Bloemfontein Town Council, Milner said: “My work has been constantly directed to a great and distant end – the establishment in South Africa of a civilized and progressive community, one from Cape Town to the Zambezi, independent in the management of its own affairs, but still remaining by its own firm desire, a member of the great community of free nations gathered together under the British flag. That has been the object of all my efforts. It is my object still.”

In his farewell speech, delivered in Johannesburg on March 21, 1905, Milner said: “British and Dutch can, without loss of integrity, without any sacrifice of their individual traditions, united in loyal devotion to an Empire-State, in which Great Britain and South Africa would be partners, work loyally together for the good of South Africa as a member of a greater whole. And so, you see, the true Imperialist is also the best South African.”

Milner returned to government in England in 1914 to serve on various committees dealing with the First World War and became a member of the War Council in 1916. He became Minister of War in April 1918 and later Secretary of State for the Colonies.

Experience in South Africa had shown Milner that underlying the difficulties of the colonies, was the wider problem of imperial unity. In his farewell speech at Johannesburg, he concluded: “When we who call ourselves Imperialists, talk of the British Empire, we think of a group of states bound, not in an alliance or alliances that can be made and unmade, but in a permanent organic union. Of such a union the dominions of the sovereign as they exist to-day are only the raw material.”

Milner was an author of the Balfour Declaration, although issued in the name of Balfour. What measure of fate then that Milner and Smuts became the co-joint principal architects of the Balfour Declaration and the subsequent apartheid states of S.A. and “Israel.”

Right until the end of his life, Lord Milner would call himself a "British race patriot" with grand dreams of a global Imperial parliament, headquartered in London. He retired in February 1921, but remained active in the work of the Rhodes Trust, till his death in 1925.



The Balfour Declaration

It is now apparent what role Smuts and Milner played in the development of the Balfour Declaration and British imperialism in general.

Prior to the declaration, about 8,000 of Britain's 300,000 Jews (2.7%) belonged to a Zionist organisation. Globally, as of 1913 (the last known date prior to the declaration), the equivalent figure was approximately 1% of the Jewish population. Only 24,000 Jews were living in Palestine at the time of the emergence of Zionism within the world's Jewish communities (the last two decades of the 19th century). Zionism was thus a cultivated movement, commencing from a very narrow base, a fact which is not lost on many orthodox Jews.

Brief History Leading to the Balfour Declaration

Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann, later President of the World Zionist Organisation and first President of “Israel,” moved from Switzerland to the UK in 1904 and met Arthur Balfour.

In January 1914, Weizmann met Baron de Rothschild, a member of the French branch of the Rothschilds and a leading proponent of Zionism.

This connection was to bear fruit later that year when the Baron's son, James de Rothschild, requested a meeting with Weizmann on 25 November 1914, to enlist him in influencing those deemed to be receptive within the British government to their agenda of a "Jewish State" in Palestine.

Through James's wife, Weizmann was to meet Rózsika Rothschild, who introduced him to the English branch of the family, which was later to become the most powerful of the Rothschild family branches and a significant Zionism power base.

What were British motives behind the declaration?

They believed that expressing support would appeal to Jews in Germany and the United States, given two of Woodrow Wilson's closest advisors were known to be avid Zionists (America was an important war ally). However, American Zionism was still in its infancy – in 1914, the Zionist Federation had only 12,000 members, despite an American Jewish population of three million (0.4%).

They also hoped to encourage support from the large Jewish population in Russia, another important war ally.

The British hoped to pre-empt expected French pressure for an international administration in Palestine.

The Balfour Declaration had long-lasting Consequences

It greatly increased popular support for Zionism within Jewish communities worldwide, and became a core component of the British Mandate for Palestine, the founding document of Mandatory Palestine, which later became “Israel” and the Palestinian territories.

Britain's involvement in the Declaration became one of the most controversial parts of its Empire's history and damaged its reputation in the Middle East for generations, if not up to this very day.

According to historian Elizabeth Monroe, "measured by British interests alone, the declaration was one of the greatest mistakes in its imperial history."

The 2010 study by Jonathan Schneer, a specialist in modern British history, concluded that because the build-up to the declaration was characterized by "contradictions, deceptions, misinterpretations, and wishful thinking", the declaration sowed dragon's teeth and "produced a murderous harvest, which we go on harvesting even today".

The Balfour Declaration is considered the principal cause of the ongoing Israeli/Palestinian conflict, often described as the “world's most intractable conflict.

Brief Post Balfour Declaration History

Starting in 1920, intercommunal conflict in Mandatory Palestine broke out. The "dual obligation" to the two communities, quickly proved to be untenable.

The British subsequently concluded that it was impossible for them to pacify the two communities in Palestine by using different messages for different audiences.

The Palestine Royal Commission, in making the first official proposal for partition of the region, referred to these requirements as "contradictory obligations", and that the "disease is so deep-rooted that, in our firm conviction, the only hope of a cure lies in a surgical operation".

Following the 1936–1939 Arab revolt in Palestine, and as worldwide tensions rose in the build-up to the Second World War, the British Parliament approved the White Paper of 1939 (their last formal statement of governing policy in Mandatory Palestine) declaring that Palestine should not become a Jewish State and placing restrictions on Jewish immigration. Whilst the British considered this consistent with the Balfour Declaration's commitment to protecting the rights of non-Jews, many Zionists saw it as a repudiation of the declaration.

Although this policy lasted until the British surrendered the Mandate in 1948, it served only to highlight the fundamental difficulties Britain had in carrying out its Mandate obligations.


Britain was in fact one hundred percent correct in determining that what would later be referred to as the “two state system” was in fact a contradictory obligation – it was and never will be a sustainable solution. But the damage had already been done, for Zionism was rampant by then and in no small part, arising from the Balfour Declaration. At least Britain acted with some decorum at the end, but the Zionist machine was by that stage waging its own war against Britain – in fact, the original terrorists of Palestine were Zionists!

The Severing of Diplomatic Relations by South Africa with “Israel”

South Africans in general, have very little for which to thank its present Government (the ANC), and that is an exceptionally polite way of stating the facts.

However, we can certainly be grateful for the principled stand that the S.A. Government has taken in respect of the Palestinian matter – they have severed all diplomatic ties with “Israel” i.e. they will simply not condone the present conduct of the “Israeli” Government. No equivocation – the S.A. embassy in “Israel” has been closed and likewise the “Israeli” embassy in South Africa. In diplomatic parlance, this is the strongest protest that one can tender. To the best of the writer’s knowledge, no other nation in the world has adopted such a clear stance with “Israel” at this time.

The S.A. Government may never know it, but this action has saved South Africa from multiple unknown future negative impacts, because the twinning between the two states has finally been deactivated. There are still some roots which remain, but they will be attended to, make no mistake – more of that in Chapter 12, however.