No Happy Birthday
Monday, July 28, 2008 10:16 AM
Arabs had lived in Palestine always,
under many occupiers;
under the Assyrians, Babylonians, Romans;
the Turks, the Crusaders, the British;
always they had tilled their fields and their olive and orange groves
and paid their taxes;
but in 1948 the Jews of Palestine forced out the British,
who had put them there.
Now there was the new State of Israel,
and almost at once the Palestinians were forced
from their fields and their groves and their cottages.
They have never returned.
For half a century, they have been confined to a cluster of desolate refugee camps
where somehow they have retained a spirit and a national identity.
--From an unpublished monograph,
"Politics and Religion in the Middle East"
by Mark Sykes, grandson of Sir Mark Sykes,
negotiator of the 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement
which divided the Middle East between France and England after World War I.
Sir Mark was also the probable ghost-writer of the Balfour Declaration (1917)
for Prime Minister Lloyd George and Foreign Secretary Lord Arthur Balfour.
Life is beautiful, and the world is a bright and shining place, by and large. But the current situation in Palestine and in the greater Middle East is not beautiful. During this triumphal year of 2008, in which the Zionists celebrate the 60th birthday of their handiwork, I have been wondering what I could possibly write that would add more substance and insight to what has already been written about the “Enterprise of Israel”.
It is a hugely important topic, about which critical, honest discourse has been marginalized and neglected here in Ex America. It goes especially unaddressed during any election year. This means it is almost never addressed. Why? Because in every second year in the United States there is a national contest for politicians seeking jobs in Washington, in either the Congress, the Senate or the White House. We are in such a year.
I prefer the term "Enterprise of Israel"--as distinct from the "Jewish State" or the "State of Israel"--because the two latter concepts attach a veneer of legitimacy to something which is now essentially a gigantic crime scene, created by an international confidence trick of long standing, to which official Washington--Republicans and Democrats alike--has granted the full faith, credit and reputation of the American people. Arguably, it is the biggest political scandal in U.S. history, still with no end in sight. Certainly it is the second biggest foreign policy scandal, with FDR’s deceit about the attack on Pearl Harbor taking first place honors.
Should there remain any lingering doubts about this, a quick glance at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s website--highlighting the over-the-top, pandering speeches of B. Obama, H.R. Clinton, J. McCain et alia at AIPAC’s June 2-4, 2008 power confabulation in Washington--should be sufficient to erase those doubts lickety-split. The subornation of American foreign policy in the Middle East is obvious. The White House and Capitol Hill are in the bag to the “Israel Lobby”, no matter which political party or which candidate for President wins in November.
When I cite a recent bizarre revelation regarding Zionism in action, it is not out of hypocrisy or nastiness, nor is it a gesture to highlight solely the negative aspects of Zionism, while ignoring the good parts. In the grand scheme of things, it is all bad, and has been ab initio. I am referring in this instance to Jewish "settlers" in occupied Palestine, on the West Bank, and to their method of disposing of their raw sewage onto adjacent Palestinian lands. Read the story by Johann Hari in The Independent of London, dated April 28th, 2008. Here’s a sample:
“Across the occupied West Bank, raw untreated sewage is pumped every day out of the Jewish settlements, along large metal pipes, straight onto Palestinian land. From there, it can enter the groundwater and the reservoirs, and become a poison.
“Standing near one of these long, stinking brown-and-yellow rivers of waste recently, the local chief medical officer, Dr Bassam Said Nadi, explained to me: ‘Recently there were very heavy rains.... I knew that if we didn't act, people would die. We had to alert everyone not to drink the water for over a week, and distribute bottles. We were lucky it was spotted. Next time...’ He shook his head in fear. This is no freak: a 2004 report by Friends of the Earth found that only six per cent of Israeli settlements adequately treat their sewage.”
The term "ideologically driven"--a term routinely applied to "the settlers"--is little more than a euphemism for "clinically insane" or simply “nuts”. The same euphemism in a similar way could be applied to the entire Zionist experiment. If Zionism is a form of nationalism, as some say, then it is nationalism taken beyond all reason and with no scruples, evincing a closed mindset and a modus operandi comparable to that of the international communist movement in days of yore. All means justify the end. The only reality is a make-believe, alternative reality, to which outsiders must pay obeisance, especially ambitious American politicians on the take or on the make.
True, there are a number of fair-minded critics (mostly on the Left) in America and Europe who--although mindful of the thought police and powers-that-be in Ex-America, and in England, Germany, and France--are still prepared to point out the myriad outrages of the "Jewish State". The problem is, they appear incapable of taking the next logical step, to wit, drawing the appropriate conclusions from these accumulated, ungodly facts, and condemning the whole enterprise. There is a disconnect.
The fact is, the outrages of Zion are not isolated aberrations, and they have been staring everybody in the face for a very long time. They are part of a consistent pattern, going back decades, and not confined in time to the "present day" or in physical space to the "occupied territories" seized, expropriated and occupied in the 1967 war, or even to the so-called "war of independence" of 1948.
Speaking of which--meaning the year 1948 and the anniversary which is being celebrated--the most concise, no-nonsense, objective description of what actually happened can be found in a little known essay by Dr. Salman Abu-Sitta, President of the Palestine Land Society, London. The title is “The Palestinians Right of Return: The Unfulfilled Human Right”. Here’s an excerpt:
“The mid-twentieth century was a watershed...millions of people broke free of the evils imposed by man on man...international organisations in health, education, science, labour and other fields have been formed under the banner of the UN to serve all humanity.
“It was a great promise for the future of the world, all the world that is, except Palestine. While the enslaved people in the world are enjoying their freedom, the opposite was happening in Palestine. The national majority of the inhabitants of Palestine, who lived there from time immemorial and have never left it en masse, suddenly found themselves in 1948 the victims of the largest planned ethnic cleansing operation in modern history...
“Who did this? The latent settler European colonial movement which came from the very same European countries which now proclaimed the rule of law and justice. Soldiers, money, ideology and political clout have been extracted by Jewish Europeans from the old colonial powers and thrust themselves on a new part of Asia, while other European soldiers and colonial officers were leaving it.
“It was an aberration of history. It was an anomaly in colonial history itself and a challenge to the very same elementary principles of justice for which the UN was created, not to speak of the geopolitical odds it had to overcome...
“Al Nakba (catastrophe) is a word, which entered the dictionary, like intifida (the uprising) and became ingrained in the Palestinian collective memory. Unlike other colonial settler movements, the Zionist colonial movement sought to eliminate the natives from their homeland, not by a gradual process of expansion, but by a predetermined and carefully executed plan.”
If the truth be told, like just stated by Abu-Sitta, the entire country of Palestine is occupied territory. The nightmare of Zionism did not start in 1967 or with the ascendancy of the rapacious Likud party in the aftermath of that war, which eventually led to the enthronement of the unindicted war criminal, Ariel Sharon. Or in 1948 with Al Nakba. No, Zionism is all of a piece, going back to the days of the 1917 Balfour Declaration, and to its subsequent implementation by Colonial Secretary Winston Churchill and Prime Minister Lloyd George in the aftermath of World War I. This is the genesis of the conflict and the reason for the present-day world crisis emanating from the Middle East.
Note the installation of Zionist operative Mr. Herbert Samuel as the first "British High Commissioner" of Palestine in 1920 and the Cairo Conference of 1921 presided over by Churchill. Both were a consequence of the Balfour Declaration and the British "victory" in World War I. Why, you might ask, should all of this "ancient history" be viewed in such a negative light? Indeed, why should it be dredged up at all?
“Let me count the ways” is the answer to the first question. “Where to begin?” is the answer to the second. It has made possible everything we witness and deplore today, in a post colonial and post communist world. By this I include not just the murder and dispossession of the Palestinians ongoing, and the military occupation of all of Palestine, but also many collateral events, big and small, outside of Palestine proper. In fine, Zionism has destabilized the world.
Take, for instance, the gruesome Iran-Iraq war of the 1980's, in which Tel Aviv and Washington supplied both sides. How was this war initiated and why was it allowed to drag on for such a long time? The Tel-Aviv/Washington axis determined that it should. How did this benefit the people of America, not to mention the Iranians and the Iraqis? Cui bono?
Take, for another instance, the American debacle in Iraq, obviously a complete waste of American resources, which has cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, going back to "Operation Desert Storm" of 1991 and then the subsequent, murderous Clinton economic sanctions which, according to Madeleine Albright, were worth it. [Watch the video.] A disgrace. One American soldier killed or wounded in Iraq is one too many. Why Iraq?
The mendacious and shameless American "neocons" are operatives of the U.S. Israel Lobby and work for Tel Aviv. That much at least is clear. Zionist strategists long regarded Iraq as a rival and a potential threat to their “Greater Israel” agenda. Tel Aviv therefore mandated the liquidation of oil-rich Iraq as an independent nation-state. Hence, the exaggerated brouhaha over Iraq's attempted annexation of the British-concocted, factitious state of Kuwait in 1990-91. Hence, after a decade of murderous sanctions, the launching of "Operation Iraqi Freedom" in 2003 under a miasma of lies to finish the job.
Or take 9/11, the most outstanding example of destabilization since the end of the Cold War. Ask yourself, what could possibly have motivated Arabs to do that? Palestine is a big part of the answer, and the most obvious. The bizarre reason Bush and Cheney gave us was that “They hate our democracy.” That is not the correct answer. Moreover, Bush and Cheney knew it was not the correct answer, as did most of Washington officialdom, especially members of Congress.
Take those for starters, and then contemplate the utterly dishonest and grotesquely hypocritical campaign now underway by the Bush/Cheney White House to demonize and vilify Iran for pursuing nuclear energy to generate electricity, with the open threat by Tel Aviv and Washington to bomb Iran (perhaps with tactical nuclear weapons) if it does not renounce its rights as a signatory to the Treaty on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) which is overseen by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
All of this wholesale insanity is, at bottom, nothing more than ramification and collateral damage from the long-term designs upon Palestine, and from the ethnic cleansing of its native inhabitants, by East European Zionist Jews, who got their collective foot in the door in 1916-17 in wartime London, capital of the British Empire, the largest empire the world has ever seen.
The difficulties the British ruling establishment had created for itself and France by going to war against Germany and Austria over an incident in the Balkans in 1914--an assassination of the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne by Serb extremists--created the opening. By the end of 1916 John Bull had all but lost that senseless war to a resurgent Germany under Kaiser Wilhelm II who was leading the Central Powers.
Whitehall was desperate for a solution, a way out. A new Prime Minister, David Lloyd George, came to power on December 7th, 1916. The only conceivable, practical solution (aside from a negotiated peace based on status quo ante, which Germany had proposed) was the formal entry of America into the war on the western front in France to defeat Germany in the field and save the gentlemen in London from embarrassment and banishment from the halls of power.
And how could that be accomplished? How was it, in fact, accomplished? First ask yourself, what would have prompted a declaration about Palestine by England in the midst of a European war? Was it a bolt from out of the blue, an altruistic démarche, detached from contemporaneous events, initiated by an English foreign secretary? Most unlikely. The British Empire had not been built by altruism, and was not known for its goodwill gestures.
As orchestrated by PM Lloyd George--who had been a lawyer representing the World Zionist Conference since 1903--a deal was struck to turn Palestine, a province of the Ottoman Empire, over to the Zionists at the conclusion of the war in exchange for Zionist influence at the highest levels in Washington to arrange for Woodrow Wilson to abandon the cloak of formal neutrality and bring America directly into the European conflict.
British Empire propaganda, the Anglophiles in America, the setting-up of the Lusitania by First Lord of the Admiralty Winston Churchill in the summer of 1915, the arm-twisting by the influential Wall Street banking house of J.P. Morgan--which was the financial and purchasing agent for the British government in America--had laid the groundwork, but these factors had not proved sufficient to get the job done. England and France needed American troops on the ground in France in 1917 to turn the tide, not more loans.
At the end of the day, it took the blandishments and machinations of U.S. Zionist luminaries like Judge Lewis Brandeis, Henry Morgenthau, Sr., Samuel Untermeyer, Felix Frankfurter, and Rabbi Steven Wise to close the deal. The Balfour Declaration, dated November 2nd, 1917 came seven months after Woodrow Wilson’s April 2nd, 1917 address to a Joint Session of Congress seeking a U.S. Declaration of War. It was a quid pro quo. Read Wilson’s long-winded speech. It is blather. This was simply a war of choice with a hidden agenda, like “Operation Iraqi Freedom”. Like, indeed, most if not all of Washington’s wars since.
[In point of fact, safe behind its oceanic buffers, at no time in the twentieth century did the continental U.S. face the prospect of a military invasion from any country or combination of counties. There was no danger. The last time a major power invaded the U.S. was in the summer of 1814, when British troops ransacked Washington and torched most of its public building.
Does anyone think that New York and Washington would have been attacked on September 11th, 2001 if Washington had not abandoned in 1917 its traditional policy of benevolent non-interventionism, as enunciated by Washington, Adams and Jefferson?]
If the above conclusions sound far-fetched, I would only request that the reader, before rejecting them out of hand, go to Amazon.com and buy a copy of The Palestine Diary 1914-1945 (2006) by diplomatic historian, Dr. Robert John. It has a foreword by the famous British historian, Arnold J. Toynbee. I would say that my overall attitude on the Palestine question and Zionism, as it relates to Britain and America, has been paramountly influenced by this book.
John wrote a much smaller book, Behind the Balfour Declaration, The Hidden Origins of Today’s Mideast Crisis (1988) which could be regarded as a kind of precis of the Palestine Diary. It is out of print and difficult to find. The best summary of his research and outlook can be gathered from his essay “The Balfour Declaration” which you can download here.
It should be apparent, then, that the 1917 American connection to the success of Zionism was all important. Accordingly, the negative aspects of Zionism have been two-pronged, significant and far-reaching.
First, there is the all-too-blatant adverse consequences for the immediate victims on the ground, viz., the Palestinians Arabs, whose land has been taken and whose rights have been violated--as well as for the Arabs nearby in Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, and Iraq, who have been impacted by events in Palestine. When I say impacted, I mean hammered. That's the first prong. It could be filed under the "facts on the ground" dossier.
Second, there is the larger issue of the adverse consequences for the West and humanity at large, due to the wholesale distortion of European and American history thanks to Zionist intrigue and to the alliance of Zionism with unscrupulous, opportunistic “useful idiots” in the West, like the aforementioned Lloyd George, Arthur Balfour, Winston Churchill, Woodrow Wilson, etc., culminating at the present moment with Dick Cheney, G.W. Bush, Hillary and Bill Clinton, the U.S. Congress and Senate, etc., to wit, the entire Washington establishment.
We have reached the point in world history where America has been reduced, for all intents and purposes, to a client state of Israel, with the EU, led by Germany and its gaga Chancellor, Angela Merkel, acting as an eager factotum and enabler. As I state in the Unauthorized World Situation Report (2005), "Israel is not the result of natural historical developments in the Middle East in the aftermath of World War II, as is commonly assumed. It is the sole result of Zionist influence in powers centers outside of the Middle East going back to 1917."
The Zionists did not conspire to start the Great War, but they did determined its outcome by manipulating President Woodrow Wilson, who dragged a reluctant America into war in 1917 after running for re-election in 1916 on a platform of neutrality and keeping America out of the European conflict. By doing that, the Zionists insured the triumph of Marxism in Russia and made World War II, or at least another European war, inevitable.
That is correct. In large part, the blame for World War II can be credited to the Zionists. Why? You have a right to ask. Here’s why. Hitler, Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt played their part, but without Zionism or, if you will, the “Enterprise of Israel”, at work behind the scenes, the circumstances would not have been put into place--these being the collapse of the Central Powers in 1918 and the perfidious 1919 Treaty of Versailles--which insured a second major conflagration on the European continent. The Second World War was a direct result of the contrived outcome of the Great War, which outcome was directly accomplished by America’s contrived, conspired intervention in that war.
This situation may not even be a matter, necessarily, of deliberate intent; but it is a clear case of cause and effect by the parties involved. The observation in the Christian gospels remains valid: they know not what they do.
In the years 1916-17, without Chaim Weizmann, Herbert Samuel, and Nahum Sokolow in London; and without the aforementioned Louis D. Brandeis, Henry Morgenthau, Sr., and Felix Frankfurter in Washington, all working to drag America into the war on the side of England and France, Kaiser Wilhelm II and Germany would have survived intact and so would Austria-Hungary under the Hapsburgs. Furthermore, as a member of the Central Powers, the Ottoman Empire would not have been carved up by England and France, as set forth in 1915 by Sykes-Picot.
We would be contemplating, therefore, an entirely different map of the Middle East today, one in which Washington played a small part, if any at all. There would be a Jewish presence in the Holy Land to the same extent that there would be a Moslem and Christian one. There would not be an ethnocentric garrison state in Palestine dictating American foreign policy and holding EU foreign policy hostage.
After a negotiated peace treaty--as distinct from a Diktat which Versailles represented--the British imperialists finally would have had to recognize their limitations. London would have been forced to conclude that the game of trying to play god with Europe, and with the world beyond Europe, was over at long last.
The era of Albion Perfide might have ended. This would have been a good development for England and its intercontinental empire, and of course for Europe as a whole. But what happened? Just the opposite.
The dynasties in Berlin and Vienna were gratuitously destroyed, thanks to American military intervention. John Bull was re-empowered, as it were, and was given a new lease to continue its merry, self-destructive way on the world's stage with a completely false sense of its own importance and power.
All of this was thanks to the acolytes of Zionism. Or more precisely, it was the practical result of an alliance of convenience between the declining British Empire and Zionism, for which the Balfour Declaration was the receipt.
The Balfour Declaration, a unilateral statement of intent, about which none of the Arabs fighting for England against the Turks were consulted or even informed, provided the quasi-legal framework for the eventual takeover of Palestine. This fraud was given a further legalistic gloss by the ratification of a British "mandate" over Palestine by the League of Nations in 1922.
The League was completely controlled by England and France, the “victorious powers”, both of whom were intent on dividing central Europe, at the expense of Germany and Austria, and expanding their colonial assets and arrangements outside of Europe.
As a gratuity for tipping the scales of war, the Zionists got Palestine, under the aegis and protection of the British Empire.
Even though it "goes without saying", it is nevertheless important to state that none of the guilty parties--the British imperialists, the French revanchists, the Zionists or Wilson--could have foreseen or appreciated the down-the-road consequences of America's underhanded entry into the Great War.
Still, this does not erase their historical responsibility for dragging America into the war, predicated on the dishonest bargain of the Palestine give-away.
Wilson's entry opened the mother of all Pandora's boxes, leading ultimately, inter alia, to the rise of Adolf Hitler, the Great Depression, World War II, the 1948 Al Nakba for the Palestinians, and to the present set of explosive circumstances in the Middle East, built upon a series of past injustices and armed conflicts, which has the potential to devolve into Armageddon.
All of this was avoidable, and may have been the result of one man’s foolishness--that of Woodrow Wilson, whose presidency is a welter of contradictions and so remains an enigma to this day.
Allow me to close with yet another quote from The Unauthorized World Situation Report, this time from the Epilogue:
“With respect to justice and self-preservation, humanity should be very much concerned and, indeed, alarmed by the English, Jewish and American track record to date in the Middle East.
“Unless some kind of genuine restitution is contemplated in the Twenty-First Century for what Whitehall, the Zionists, the White House and the U.S. Congress have collectively done to the Palestinians since 1920, it will hardly matter how many Arab countries that Washington and Tel Aviv decide to invade, or how many Islamic terrorists they lock up or assassinate in the process.
“From the point of view of the West, the exercise will be an expensive, self-defeating waste of time, fighting fire with gasoline. The pre-existing cycle of retribution and violence will continue to the horizon.”
Copyright 2008 Patrick Foy