|
| Spanish |
| French |
The occupation of Palestine by the Jews hinges on the assumption of their historic connection with the land.
Is this true?
The truth is that the connection to Palestine of even those Jews who can genuinely claim to have Hebrew forebears is tenuous at best because never, at any time, did the Hebrews occupy the whole of Palestine.
In 3000 BC the earliest known inhabitants of the area were the Canaanites, some 1800 years before the first Hebrews.
In about 1730 BC Hebrew tribes came from Ur, having been sold into bondage and they only moved out of Egypt and into Palestine about 1000 BC. The Egyptians called them "Hebrews" which meant "wanderers". At this time the Hebrews settled in mainly unoccupied regions and had neither a kingdom nor a central government.
In 721 BC the kingdom of Israel was destroyed by the Assyrians and the people were carried into bondage. The kingdom became extinct and in its place were four Assyrian provinces.
In 587 BC the Babylonians destroyed Jerusalem and carried the Jews into captivity. This marked the end of Jewish rule in Palestine, but not the end of Jewish presence.
In 538 BC the Babylonians lost Palestine to the Persians and allowed the Jews to return.
In 332 BC Alexander the Great took Palestine from the Persians and a century and a half later the Greeks were confronted with the revolt of the Maccabees.
In 164 BC Judas Maccabee liberated Jerusalem. An event the Jews celebrate in the festival of Hanukka.
But Jewish independence in Jerusalem and some other parts of Palestine did not last. In 124 BC Jerusalem was besieged by the King of Syria. The siege was raised only after the payment of tribute.
Then in 63 BC the Romans captured Palestine and it became, as Judea, a province of the Roman Empire. The Jews revolted against the Romans in AD 66 to 70 and again in AD 132 to 135. In the first revolt Jerusalem was destroyed by Titus. In the second most of the Jews still in Palestine were killed or dispersed to the far corners of the Roman Empire.
In 135 AD Hadrian built a new city of Jerusalem, which he named Aelia Capitolina, and none of the very few Jews who remained in Palestine were allowed to live in it.
Therefore, the Jewish connection with the area as a people lasted little more than six hundred years and ended approximately 2,000 years ago.
In 1846 "Sir" Moses Montefiore made what appears to be a reconnaissance trip to Palestine at the behest of "Lord" Rothschild and reported that the Jewish population of Palestine at that time was around 9,000. These people presumably were residents of long-standing and could justly be called Palestinians.
To that question the answer is "no". In other words they are not by any means all descendants of the Hebrews.
Many are descendants of Jews by conversion in the many lands where they were citizens. Conversions that took place long after the first Jewish presence in Palestine was all but extinguished.
The great majority of Russian, Polish, German and Baltic Jews, (providers at the turn of the nineteenth century, of what can be termed political Zionism's hard-core) descend from the Khazars, a Tartar people of Southern Russia, who were converted in a body to Judaism at the time of Charlemagne (around 740 AD.)
The Khazars were a semi-nomadic Turko-Finnish people who settled between the Volga and the Don. When Khazaria fell to the Mongols in the 13th century, its population of Jewish-convert Khazars moved north-west to become the progenitors of the Ashkenazim Jews. These Khazar Jews greatly outnumbered the racially Hebraic Jews who had reached Europe by other routes and at other periods of history. Therefore the majority of Eastern European Jews were not Semitic and, as most western European Jews came from eastern Europe, they are not Semitic either.
This makes their occupation of Palestine invalid on both counts.
It also explains why there has been such emphasis on the use of the term "anti-Semitic" rather than "anti-Jewish", with the obvious intention of inferring that the Jews are Semites. Correctly "anti-Semitic" can only be used to describe the activities of the Jews against the Arabs, who are a Semitic people and whose uninterrupted presence in the Middle East goes back for millenia.
Undoubtedly casting doubt on the genetics of the Ashkenazim Jews is a sensitive point for Israel. The 2007 film "Borat" of Baron Cohen made an attempt at a spoof - laughter is always a good method of shuffling out of a tricky situation.
In May 9 2007 an article by Steven Plaut "The Khazar Myth and the new Anti-Semitism" appeared on the Jewish Press web site, where the author goes to some length but limited success to disprove the claim that the Ashkenazim Jews are descendants of the Khazars, the Turkic tribe who lived in southern Russia between the Black and Caspian Seas and converted en bloc to Judaism. They are dismissed by him with the words "they were an archaic group of people in central Asia who disappeared a millenium ago". He apparently deems it politic to ignore the Karaim Jews who still live in that area and are some of the descendants of that conversion.
The book of Exodus specifies that the male descendants of Aaron (the brother of Moses) should constitute the priesthood - the Kohabim - "for all time".
In 1997 the world was amazed to learn that the old Bible story had found new and very specific scientific support, the haplotype common to 42% of Ashkenazi levi'im was found to have the same genetic marker, the origins of which appear to derive from Central Asia not from the Middle East. Where did that Central Asian haplotype come from? It looks as though the Khazar Jews created their own native class of levi'im.
An attempt to back away from the lack of Semitic blood with the claim that the Jews are not racist (tell that to the Palestinians)with the statement that anyone who is a genuine convert is welcomed is equally questionable. What then of the increasing division in Israel between those with only one Jewish parent and the true full-blooded Jew? Gentile women who marry a Jew are required to "convert" in order that any children of the marriage will be regarded as Jews.Why are the Ethiopian Jews side-tracked? Their conversion to Judaism is so ancient that they know nothing of the Talmud?
The Jewish claim to Palestine viewed from any aspect is not only shaky but would be laughable if it hadn't caused so much misery to the legitimate occupants of the country. It would be equally justifiable (and equally ridiculous) for the descendants of the Celts, i.e. the Irish, the Scots and the Welsh to transport themselves lock-stock-and-barrel to the area of La Tene and Halstatt in Europe, from which their ancestors originally came.
Having established, factually, that the alleged claim of the Jews to Palestine hinges on a fictitious premise, how then did the creation of Israel come about?
It has to be remembered that both Britain and the United States, who were major players in the politics, were (and are) in the hands of the Jewish Money Power.
In the case of Britain this situation had been developing since the Napoleonic Wars, bearing in mind that money-lenders benefit from war. Nathan Rothschild, had good reason to say :
"I care not what puppet is put on the throne of England to rule the empire on which the sun never sets. The man who controls Britain's money supply controls the empire, and I control the British money supply."
On June 20 1934 Lloyd George, the British Prime Minister said:
"Britain is the slave of an international financial block."
The United States of America, would soon follow suit.
The plans for the creation of the Federal Reserve (which was neither federal nor a reserve and is a privately owned institution) were set in motion at a secret meeting in 1910 on Jekyl Island, Georgia, by a group of bankers and politicans, which included "Colonel" Edward Mandell House,(the "colonel" was an honorary title in the Texas militia given in return for help in supporting the Texas Governor James S. Hogg.)
The Federal Reserve Act was pushed through quickly on December 23, 1913, just before the Christmas break and effectively transferred the power to create money from the American Government to a private group of bankers.
Of which Congressman Charles A. Lindbergh Sr. (father of the aviator) said:
"This act establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President signs this act the Invisible Government by the money power, proven to exist by the Money Trust Investigation, will be legalised."
President Woodrow Wilson's rise to power was extraordinary. In 1909 he was president of Princeton University, four years later as the protege of "Colonel" House he had become President of the United States and the signatory of the Federal Reserve Act.
In 1916, three years later, he observed:
"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation therefore and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilised world. No longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.
In 1920 Congressman Louis T. McFadden, Chairman of the House Committee on Banking and Currency notes:
" When the Federal Reserve Act was passed, the people of these United States did not perceive that a world banking system was being set up here. A super-state controlled by International Bankers and international industrialists acting together to enslave the world for their own pleasure. Every effort has been made by the Fed to conceal its powers, but the truth is - the Fed has usurped the Government. It controls everything here and it controls all our foreign relations. It makes and break governments at will. "
He went on to say concerning the Great Depression and the country's acceptance of FDR's New Deal:
"It was no accident. It was a carefully contrived occurrence. The International Bankers sought to bring about a condition of despair here so they might emerge as the rulers of us all.
In 1933 in a letter to "Colonel" Edward M. House , President Franklin Roosevelt wrote:
"The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centres has owned the Government since the days of Andrew Jackson."
In 1897 under the auspices of Theodor Herzl, after private conversations with "Lord" Rothschild the idea of the creation of a national home for the Jews raised its head.
That the idea was not new is proved by the visit (already mentioned) to Palestine by "Sir" Moses Montefiore in 1846.
It was obvious to make the project viable, given the shakiness of the validity of the claim and the fact that there were only 9,000 Jews actually living there, that the number of Jews in Palestine had somehow to be increased.
Already, in the second half of the 19th century, some Jews had been settled there in communities founded by "Sir" Moses Montefiore and funded by "Lord" Rothschild .
As Palestine was part of the Turkish Empire, then in the final throes of collapse, Herzl approached the Sultan of Turkey, Abdul Hamid, and offered him a deal: In exchange for allowing Jews into Palestine the World Zionist Organisation would take up the Turkish Empire's foreign debts.
The Sultan replied: "My people fought for this land and fertilised it with their blood. Let the Jews keep their millions."
Herzl then tried first the Kaiser then the Tsar both of whom were anxious to be rid of their Jewish inhabitants who were a disruptive element in their countries and proponents of the New World Order (i.e. Global Power by international Jewry). These attempts also fell through.
Between 1881 and 1915 3,000,000 Jews left Russia in search of a better life in western Europe. (It should be remembered that the Russian Revolution of 1919 was Jewish inspired and Jewish operated.) Approximately half of these ended up in the United States.
Between 1933, when Hitler came into power, and 1936 when the Palestinians rebelled, the number of Jews in Palestine almost doubled from just over 200,000 to 400,000.
But the trump card had yet to be played. The "Holocaust" with the hype of Jewish propaganda in a Jewish controlled press supplied the Jews with what they needed - immigrants for Israel.
That however came later and much duplicity and chicanery had yet to lead the way.
On the 21st October 1914, with the war under way and six days before Britain declared war on Turkey, Hussein, leader of the Hashemites, received a message from Lord Kitchener, Secretary of State for War. The essence of his message to Hussein was a pledge of British support for Arab independence if the Arabs revolted against the Turks and entered into the war on the side of Britain and her allies.
Hussein wanted a specific commitment of outright independence for the Arabs. To strengthen his hand he went through the motions of joining the Jihad that the Turks had proclaimed against Britain and her allies.
On the 23th May 1915, in what came to be known as the Damascus Protocol, Arab leaders stated the terms on which, under Hussein's leadership, they would revolt against their Turkish masters.
There followed a protracted correspondence between Hussein and General Sir Henry McMahon, (who, it should be noted was a freemason) Britain's High Commissioner in Egypt. Nearly a year later Hussein was satisfied that he had secured from Britain a specific and irrefutable commitment to Arab independence.
In the years to come the Zionists, supported by the British, claimed that the letters which formed the basis of Britain's commitment to Arab independence had excluded Palestine, but the eventual publication of all the documents proved that Palestine was included in the McMahon Independence promise.
The Arabs honoured their part of the bargain, Britain did not.
By throwing in their lot with the allies, the Arabs changed the balance of power in the Middle East. Arab participation in the war enabled the British to withstand the German effort to blockade the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean. The Arabs also drew off considerable Turkish forces.
Britain's Foreign Secretary at that time was Arthur James Balfour, who was purported to have anti-Jewish views and for that reason was supportive of the Zionist idea in order to prevent more Jews coming into Britain.
Britain's support for Zionism's political ambitions was made public on 2 November 1917, in the form of a short letter from the Foreign Secretary to "Baron" Lionel Rothschild. Herzl had died in 1904 and the Zionist leader was now Dr. Chaim Weizmann and it was Weizmann and his associates, not British Foreign Office officials, who had done the drafting. Balfour's main contribution was his signature. The actual text of what came to be called the Balfour Declaration read:
"Dear Lord Rothschild,I have much pleasure in conveying to you on behalf of His Majesty's Government the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations, which has been submitted to and approved by the Cabinet.
His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object. It being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.
I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.
Yours sincerely,
Arthur James Balfour."
It should be noted that the word "Arab" did not feature in this remarkable document. This omission was obviously deliberate.
The author of the Balfour Declaration, Leopold Amery, was Jewish, according to Professor Rubenstein of modern history at the University of Wales. As the assistant secretary to the British war cabinet in 1917, Amery also helped to create the Jewish Legion. The Legion became the first organized Jewish fighting force since Roman times, and the precursor to the Israeli Defense Force (IDF). Rubinstein's research revealed that Amery's mother was named Elisabeth Joanna Saphir, and the family lived in Pest, which later became Budapest, and the city's first Jewish quarter. He also found that her parents were both Jewish, and that Amery changed his middle name from Moritz to Maurice. This helped him disguise his identity.
At that time (1917) the Arab population of Palestine constituted 93 per cent of the population.
The truth of the matter was the British Government had absolutely no right over Palestine. The Balfour Declaration was in fact legally impotent.
Another remarkable characteristic of this "document" was the way it concealed from public view the reality of the situation in Palestine.
But the Jewish leaders were not concerned with legality or moral rights, what they wanted was a document that allowed them to assert that their claim to Palestine had been recognised by a major power.
After his declaration that Britain viewed with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, Balfour sent an alarmed Hussein a message: "His Majesty's Government confirms previous pledges respecting the independence of the Arab countries."
In the "American Zionist": of October 1953 a former President of the Zionist organisation, Rabbi Emanuel Newman said: "Britain's need of support provided the Zionists with the bargaining power that they required."
On the lst April 1917, when the German submarine attack was at its greatest, the British Admiralty was considering the prospect of surrender.
The allies had exhausted their means of paying for essential supplies from America and, without huge loans, Britain would not have been able to sustain the war.
Loans for which Britain is still paying to-day.
Before entering the war, President Woodrow Wilson had to be sure he could mobilise the vast resources, both financial and economic. that would be required and there, ready to do the job, was Bernard Mannes Baruch.
In December 1917, the US Government moved with determination to establish complete control over every important aspect of economic life. In the "land of the free", opposition to the war was sternly suppressed first by the Espionage Act of 1917 then by an even more severe Sedition Act of 1918 .
On the Western front the main impact of the infusion of American ground forces of up to 1,200,000 men in September 1918 was a psychological one.
On the 11th November 1918 the ceasefire was announced and the Paris peace talks in January 1919 were attended by the allied leaders, including President Wilson (with his minder Col. House ) plus Paul Warburg partner of the firm Kuhn, Loeb and Co., and Bernard Mannes Baruch.
In 1918 a newspaper story (it should be remembered that even then the Press was under Jewish control) claimed that President Wilson had expressed his personal approval of Zionism's claim that the Jews of the world had historic title to Palestine and furthermore the President had been persuaded that the allied nations with the fullest concurrence of the American government should lay the foundation of a Jewish commonwealth in Palestine.
On the 16th April, 1918 President Wilson issued the following statement to the Peace Commissioners. A document which was not made public for fifty-five years:
"Of course I did not use any of the words quoted in the enclosed and they do not purport indeed to be my words, but I did in substance say what is quoted, though the expression "foundation of a Jewish Commonwealth" goes a little further than my idea at that time. All that I meant was to corroborate our expressed acquiescence in the position of the British Government in regard to the future of Palestine."
The Treaty of Versailles was signed on the 28th June 1919 but peace was not finally declared with the Turks until the 24th July 1923.
The way the spoils of the Ottoman Empire were to be shared was made public on the 19th May 1920. Britain was to have the Mandate to rule Palestine and to the Mandate was to be attached a rider that would require Britain to apply the Balfour Declaration.
The truth was that the people of Palestine, the overwhelming Arab majority, had been ignored.
In Britain the House of Lords opposed the incorporation of the Balfour Declaration in the Mandate. The truth was the British Government did not possess the power any more than the League of Nations to dispose of Palestine.
The justification for Britain to continue occupation of Palestine after World War 1 was by right of possession of a Mandate endorsed by the League of Nations. The Mandate gave the British enterprise the appearance of legality but it is not one that stood the test of examination as debates in the House of Lords indicated.
As it happened neither the Balfour Declaration nor the Mandate were approved. The policy was never endorsed by the British people, who in fact had no knowledge of what had been done and was being done in their name.
Balfour said himself on the 11th August 1919:
"In Palestine we do not propose even to go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country. The four great powers are committed to Zionism and Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long tradition, in present needs and future hopes of far profounder import than the desire, prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land."
To reduce the prospect of violent Arab challenge to the occupation of Palestine and its predominant influence in the region as a whole, Britain had to mend its fences with the Hashemites, whose leader, Hussein, it had betrayed. The fence mending was to be in the form of a reward to Hussein's two sons, Faisal and Abdullah,
Faisal was to be King of Iraq and Abdullah to be king of a part of Palestine to be called Trans Jordan.
The sons were well rewarded but because of the strategic importance of Saudi Arabia it was still necessary for Britain to have Hussein's good will. The man most likely to obtain Hussein's co-operation was T. H. Lawrence. On behalf of the British Government he travelled to Jeddah in July.
Hussein however refused to sign the treaty because it required him to accept the British Mandate of Palestine and thus the creation there of a Jewish homeland.
On the 3rd October 1924 Hussein abdicated and went into exile in Cyprus. Initial Palestinian resistance to the Mandate took the form of non-cooperation with the occupying British but as Britain allowed more and more Jews into Palestine non- cooperation turned into demonstration.
The first Palestine riots under British rule took place some time before they had the Mandate. They were sparked by the arrival in 1919 and 1920 of more than 10,000 Jewish immigrants from Russia.
1929 saw the first big explosion of anti-Jewish Palestinian rage
It is certain that without the British presence the Jews could not have entrenched themselves in Palestine. On their own the Palestinians could have pushed them out.
The continued immigration of Jews into Palestine served to convince the Arabs that Britain was secretly committed to the creation of a Jewish state.
A full scale strike in 1936 was the beginning of rebellion by the Palestinians. Britain's first response was to appoint a Royal Commission. Her next response was to declare war on the Palestinians.
By early 1939, preoccupied with the task of appeasing Hitler, Neville Chamberlain's government was ready to talk to the Arabs about what was needed to be done to end the confrontation.
As first priority the conference set up a Committee, whose members included the Lord Chancellor, Vincent Caldecot, to examine the Hussein /McMahon correspondence of 1915/1916, the Lord Chancellor, probably appalled by the British duplicity, admitted that the Arab point of view proved to have greater force than had appeared heretofore.
When the Committee finished its work, it unanimously reported in 1939 that His Majesty's Government was not free to dispose of Palestine without regard to the wishes of the inhabitants of Palestine.
Six weeks later on the 17th May 1939, the Colonial Secretary, Malcolm MacDonald, unveiled a White Paper setting out Britain's new policy for Palestine. A policy that the Zionists regarded as, and proclaimed to be, a betrayal of Britain's promise to them.
The 1939 White Paper said:
"His Majesty's Government now declare unequivocally that it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish state."
The Jews rejected the White Paper and accused Britain of betraying them, although they were no doubt pleased to note that, when the House of Commons approved the White Paper and the new policy, Churchill was amongst those who opposed it.
As a concession to the Zionists the White Paper also stated that Britain would permit a total of 25,000 more Jews to enter Palestine over the next five years.
In 1941, in America, neutral still, the Zionists stepped up their pressure to get President Roosevelt's administration committed to supporting Zionism right or wrong in an expanded set of demands for what it wanted in Palestine.
Dating back to 1922 there had been competition between Democrats and Republicans to see who could promise the Zionists most in return for votes and election campaign funds.
Shortly after America entered the war, Roosevelt agreed in principle with Churchill that they needed to say something that would lower the rising temperature of Arab anger. After lengthy consultations in London and Washington, the text of a joint Anglo American statement was prepared for release to the public. It assured both Arabs and Jews that solutions to the Palestine problem were being delayed until after the war and no decisions about the future would be released without prior consultation with both.
Roosevelt, for reasons of domestic politics, acquiesced in the suppression of the joint Anglo-American statement.
In 1942 the first conference of the American Zionist movement took place in New York. The conference approved the following programme:
"1. That the gates of Palestine be opened to Jewish immigration."2. That the Jewish Agency would be vested with control of immigration into Palestine and with the necessary authority for up-building the country, including the developement of its unoccupied and uncultivated land.
3. That Palestine, all of it, be established as a Jewish Commonwealth integrated into the structure of a new democratic world."
In December 1942 American Zionists fired what was effectively the first shot in the campaign to have Roosevelt to do their bidding. It took the form of a joint statement signed by 63 senators and 181 members of the House of Representatives. It called on the President to restore the Jewish homeland.
Instead of doing that President Roosevelt sent a special emissary for talks with Ibn Saud . The State Department's special emissary was Colonel Harold B. Hoskins.
President Roosevelt's input into the Hoskins' mission was to suggest that Ibn Saud be asked to consider that he should meet Weizmann . Ibn Saud rejected the idea of a meeting. He told Hoskins that during the first year of the war Weizmann had impugned his character and motives by attempting to bribe him with an offer of twenty million pounds sterling. Ibn Saud had been told, he advised Hoskins, that Weizmann's promised payment had been guaranteed by President Roosevelt himself. Roosevelt was furious at such a suggestion. But was he telling the truth?
At this point America's Zionist leaders were not too dismayed by Roosevelt's refusal to commit himself to their cause.
1944 was election year and Zionism's leaders knew that during the election campaign many candidates running for office including their party leaders would be at their most vulnerable. At the time offical statistics showed that America's Jews were about 3 per cent of the population and were contributing nearly fifty per cent to the campaign funds.
To create a pressure point in the 1944 campaign the Zionist lobby arranged for the Wright Compton resolution to be introduced to Congress, it called for unrestricted Jewish immigration to Palestine and the establishment of a Jewish Commonwealth there.
The State Department was so alarmed that it sought and obtained President Roosevelt's approval to issue the suppressed Anglo American statement, but, before it could be used, Roosevelt was obliged to receive two of America's most powerful Jewish leaders, Rabbi Stephen Wise and Rabbi Abba Hillel Silver .
The two Rabbis emerged from their meeting with Roosevelt to proclaim to the waiting media and through it to the world that the President confirmed his support for Zionism. In other words President Roosevelt was for a Jewish state.
New York's Governor Dewey, running against Roosevelt, and pressed by Rabbi Silver subsequently made it clear that the Commonwealth was to be Jewish one. Thus in complete ignorance of what the Palestine problem was all about the people of America were offered a choice between Pro Zionism and Pro Zionism.
The previous year the National Executive of the British Labour Party, then in Zionism's pocket and about to take power after Churchill, had called for the Arabs to be transferred out of Palestine.
At the Yalta Conference Churchill, Stalin and Roosevelt had settled their differences about setting up the UN , whose charter came into force on the 24th October 1945.
Roosevelt knew as did everyone else that a resolution of the problem by the UN, representing the will of the organised international community at the time, would not concur with the Jews - provided that is, that they were permitted to vote freely.
On the return journey home from Yalta President Roosevelt met Ibn Saud and confirmed that no resolutions would be taken without consultation with the Arabs and Jews.
Unfortunately the first thing President Roosevelt did when he got back to Washington after his meeting with Ibn Saud was to authorise Rabbi Wise to say that he, the President, was still in favour of unrestricted Jewish immigration to Palestine and the creation there of a Jewish state.
On the 10th March President Roosevelt received letters from King Ibn Saud and other Arab leaders, detailing the Arab case.
In his letters of reply to Ibn Saud and the other Arab leaders, President Roosevelt repeated in writing more or less what he had said to the Saudi monarch face-to-face that no decision would be taken to the basic Palestine situation without full consultation with both Arabs and Jews and that he would take no action which might prove hostile to the Arab people.
His letters were dated 5th April 1945. They were not transmitted until the 10th April. Two days later he was dead.
What explains President Roosevelt's double game?
Was it domestic considerations prior to the election, in other words campaign funds and votes? Or something else?
By 1939 Zionism had established enough of a presence in Palestine and sufficient lobbying power in America for its propaganda machine to turn what was to become to be regarded as the Nazi "holocaust" to full advantage.
At the core of Zionist mythology about what happened when Hitler came into power is the assertion sometimes stated, always implied, that Zionism did what it did in Palestine because it had no choice because the world refused to give sanctuary to European Jews who were fleeing from the Nazi terror. That is far from the truth.
The truth is that there was a serious intention to rescue Jews and give them sanctuary in countries other than Palestine but that this was frustrated - sabotaged is not too strong a word - by Zionism and there is no mystery why. Zionism saw the "Holocaust" as the event that would give them the number of Jewish immigrants they needed to establish and sustain their state.
Of even greater significance is the statement by Ben Gurion in 1938, warning his leadership colleagues about something that could not be allowed to happen:
"If we allow a separation from the refugee problem and the Palestine problem, we are risking the existence of Zionism."
In other words the last thing they wanted was for the Jews to go anywhere else but Palestine.
The principal architect of the first plan to rescue Europe's uprooted Jews was America's President Roosevelt. He was in office from 1933 until he died of a massive cerebral haemmorage during his fourth term in 1945.
The scheme he favoured was generous worldwide political asylum. He sent his friend and confidante Morris Ernst , a New York attorney. to London to sound out whether Britain would be prepared to take in 100,000 or even 200,000 of Europe's uprooted Jews.
Ernst approached his Jewish friends to try and get support for a worldwide programme of rescue, as he described it himself in his book, this was the response he got: "I was thrown out of the parlours of friends of mine who very frankly said" 'Morris this is treason. You are undermining the Zionist movement.' " He also said he found everywhere a deep, genuine almost fanatical emotional vested interest in putting over the Zionist movement in men "who were little concerned about human life, if it is not their own."
The main deal the Zionists struck with the Nazis was enshrined in the famous Transfer Agreement. In return for being allowed to send money and people to Palestine and having some Jewish property in Germany protected, Germany's Zionists agreed to take no part in and actually to oppose an international boycott of Nazi Germany's exports. As part of the deal the Zionists also agreed not to resist the Nazis.
In January 1939, Avraham Stern (later known as Yitzhak Shamir ) the leader of the Jewish Terrorist group, the Stern Gang, met two important Nazis, one of whom, Otto von Hentig, was regarded as a "philo Zionist" on account of his preference for sending Jews off to Palestine in return for money.
The outcome of their discussions was nothing less than a proposal of an alliance between the Stern Gang and Hitler's Third Reich. The document setting out Shamir's proposals was found in the files of the German Embassy in Ankara dated 11th January 1941. It said in part the following:
"...proceeding from these considerations the NMO in Palestine under the conditions of the national aspirations of the Israeli Freedom Movement are recognised on the side of the German Reich offers to take part in the war on Germany's side... The indirect participation of the Israeli Freedom Movement in the New Order in Europe already in the preparatory stage will be linked with the positive solution of the European Jewish problem in conformity with the above-mentioned national aspirations of the Jewish people. This would extraordinarily strengthen the moral basis of the New Order in the eyes of all humanity."
Subsequently at a Zionist Conference Enzo Sereni said:
"We have nothing to be ashamed of in the fact that we use the persecution of the Jews in Germany for the up-building of Palestine."
By 1945 President Truman was not yet submissive enough to support the idea of a Jewish state but under pressure he was prepared to push Britain on the matter of Jewish refugees - those European Jews who had survived the "holocaust".
At that time the first official figures of the total number of displaced persons, i.e. those made refugees by Hitler, showed that the refugees were from many lands, mainly from Austria, Germany, Hungary , Roumania and the Baltic countries . In numbers the three main groups assembled in refugee camps were Jews: 226,000, Protestants: 100,000, Catholics: 500,000.
On 29th October Attlee's reply to Truman's request for 100,000 immigration certificates was in the form of a memorandum written by Britain's Ambassador in Washington, Lord Halifax, to Secretary of State, Byrne, the memorandum called for an urgent Anglo American Committee of Enquiry to examine the question of Jewish immigration. It was also suggested that the Committee should examine the possibility of Jewish immigration to countries other than Palestine.
Halifax also conveyed the British impression that, if the Jewish refugees themselves were consulted, they would express the preference of not going to Palestine but returning to the homelands from whence they came or starting a new life in America.
Such a solution to the Jewish refugee problem would have destroyed Zionism's most powerful weapon, the Nazi Holocaust's political and emotional blackmail card. At the very least the Jews would have been put into the position in which they would not have the influence needed to determine America's foreign policy agenda for the Middle East.
Halifax also told Byrnes that the Jews were using every possible means to stop their fellow Jews from leaving Palestine to go back to Europe.
On the 22nd December 1945 President Truman took a major initiative, he directed all appropriate federal authorities to speed up in every way to facilitate full immigration to the United States under existing quota laws. As, during the war, these quotas were not taken up, it was possible that up to 400,000 refugees could be given visas for a new life in the USA as American citizens. That was nearly twice the number of Jewish refugees in the camps of liberated Europe.
Such a solution to the refugee problem, if it had been implemented, would have definitely destroyed Zionism's most powerful weapon.
The six British and six American members of the Anglo American Committee of Enquiry on Palestine began their work in early January 1946.
One of the Committee's ten recommendations said yes to the immediate issuance of entrance certificates into Palestine for 100,000 another said "no" to the creation of a Jewish state.
It also fell short of what the Arabs wanted and not only because of the 100,000 extra immigrants. There was also a "no" to a Arab state.
But on any reading of the Report it was also a "no" to the Zionist enterprise. As a consequence President Truman was too frightened to say that a Jewish state was out of the question. In panic British and American diplomacy went through the motions of cobbling together another scheme which was to surface as the Morrison/Grady plan. Herbert Morrison was the leader of the British Labour Party. Henry F. Grady had been appointed by President Truman to serve on his special Committee on Palestine.
It recommended a Federal State of Palestine with separate Arab and Jewish cantons and, if the Arabs could not be made to accept that, an Arab state.
It too rejected the idea of a Jewish state.
Rabbi Silver acknowledged that, if legislation was successfully introduced into Congress to allow a great number of European Jewish refugees to enter the USA, Zionism might well be finished as probably the majority of Americans who up to this point had been supporting Zionism for emotional reasons on account of the reports of slaughter and suffering would have regarded the refugee problem as having been settled. In effect he was saying that if legislation to solve the refugee problem was introduced to Congress they had to use all their influence to see that it was not enacted.
The Zionists said not a word in support of the Jews of Europe for whom the visas were required . The truth was that the Zionists looked upon the Jewish refugees of liberated Europe as grist for their mill to create a Jewish state in Palestine.
In Palestine the British were failing to stop the violent confrontation between Arabs and Jews escalating . In Europe Zionism had established a well organised railway to Palestine. And Jews from all over Europe were moved to ports on the Mediterranean and from these ports vessels of all kinds many of them unseaworthy in which Jews were being shipped in appalling squalor to Palestine..
At this point the policy was to dare the British to stop the illegal Jewish immigrants at sea and if they made it to Palestine to prevent the Jews on board from entering the Holy Land.
The Zionist strategy presented Britain with a stark choice on the matter of illegal immigration. The immensely powerful images in words and pictures of confrontation of armed British forces sending back the immigrant ships resulted, as the Zionists knew it would, with most Americans seeing the struggle for Palestine as nothing more than a noble heroic epic effort by the Jewish survivors of Hitler's "gas" chambers to obtain back their ancient homeland. The fact that most, if not all, the Jewish refugees were the descendants of those who had converted to Judaism long after the fall of the kingdom of Israel and who had no claim on Palestine was not known to Americans.
At this point Britain decided that the burden of being responsible for the future of Palestine was too great for it to carry and it dumped the problem of what to do about the Holy Land into the lap of the UN.
When it was still the number one power in the world, Britain had given Zionism what it wanted: recognition, and thus a degree of spurious legitimacy.
Forty years on with the British Empire in decline Zionism was about to demonstrate that it had no use of any power on earth and that it was capable in defiance of international law and against the wishes of the organised international community of getting what it wanted.
If the Government in London had ordered the British forces to take whatever action was necessary to smash the terror networks that were then in operation there would have been a tidal wave of protests in America that would have caused President Truman to have ordered Britain to stop and he would have had the leverage to make it obey.
As a consequence of World War II Britain was just about bankrupt and already in debt to America and to have the certain prospect of reconstruction recovery Britain's was in desparate need of further financial American assistance which was to come in the form of Britain's share of the 17 billion dollars of the American sponsored European recovery programme which became known as the Marshall Plan.
By breaking Britain's will to hang on in Palestine the second thing on the agenda of Zionism's terrorists was driving the Arabs out.
When on the 3rd October 1924, Hussein abdicated and went into exile in Cyprus, initial Palestinian resistance to the Mandate took the form of non-cooperation with the occupying British but as Britain allowed more and more Jews into Palestine non- cooperation turned into demonstration.
The first Palestine riots under British rule took place some time before they had the Mandate. They were sparked off by the arrival in 1919 and 1920 of the 10,000-plus Jewish immigrants from Russia.
1929 saw the first big explosion of anti-Zionist Palestine rage.
It is certain that without the British presence Zionism could not have entrenched itself in Palestine. On their own the Palestinians could have pushed the Zionists out.
When Britain handed the problem of what to do about Palestine to the infant United Nations there were two Jewish terrorist organisations in the Holy Land. The NMO and the Stern Gang, whose head was Yitzhak Shamir who specialised in assassination.
Down the years that followed Zionism indignantly denied the Stern Gang's dealings with Germany and Mussolini's Fascists and was very successful in getting the truth about the episode suppressed. Goys who tried to tell the truth were denounced as being rabidly "anti-Semitic".
The announcement to the world that Zionism's terrorists were in business came in the form of the assassination in Cairo on the 6th November 1944 of Lord Moyne, Britain's Resident Minister in the Middle East.
On the 9th April 1948 the deliberate massacre at Deir Yassin of 254 Palestinians, women, children and old men by the Jews was designed to create fear amongst the Palestinians. On the 29th November of the previous year, 1947, the UN General Assembly on a rigged vote had passed a resolution to partition Palestine. The original intention was the creation of an Arab State and a Jewish State and would come into effect when the British Mandate expired at midnight on the 15th May 1948.
The UN was unable to implement the partition resolution and it was vitiated. As a consequence the question of what to do about Palestine was still without an answer.That however was of no concern to the Jews in Palestine. They were intending to declare unilaterally the coming into being of their state on the 15th May. In other words they were intending to proceed as though the participation plan had not been vitiated.
By April 1948 as a result of Jewish immigration, legal and illegal, nearly two-thirds of the inhabitants of what had become Greater Jerusalem were Jewish. After the Balfour Declaration the Zionists had given priority to building up their numbers in Jerusalem, Ben Gurion's intention was to seize all of Jerusalem as soon as possible after the Jewish State came into being then to say to the world "there is no point in discussing the matter of Jerusalem, we Jews now control all of it."
To prevent such a Zionist fait accompli the Palestinian Resistance fighters under Abdul Khadir Husseini had set up defensive positions around Jerusalem. In December 1947 following the UN's rigged vote at the UN on the partition, the news of Abdul Khadir's return to his native Palestine had inspired the Palestinian masses to believe for the first time in nearly a decade that their cause was not a lost one .
Abdul Khadir had returned in secret because he had been banned from returning by the British. He had returned to lead the resistance organisation of his exiled cousin Haj Amin Husseini , the Mufti, the banished Haj Amin was also head of the Arab higher committee.
Abdul Khadir was capable of reading the Jewish mind. He had warned the Arab league that Kastel would be the first objective of Jewish forces when they made their push to capture and control all of Jerusalem.
He believed that, had the Arab States through the Arab League armed the Palestinians to enable them to conduct their own struggle in a serious way, the Jews would not have had the upper hand in Palestine. As it happened the Arab League was not willing to arm the Palestinians and the prospect of the Palestinians remaining in control of their own destiny died when Abdul Khadir was killed at Kastel, after that they were at the mercy of the League. It was working against popular sentiment through the Arab world to the script written for it by Britain which required the Arab League as the umbrella institution of the Arab States to prevent the Palestinian resistance movement from becoming a serious factor in a very dangerous situation.
The reason the British gave for their insistence for the Arab League to not arm Palestine's own resistance movement was Haj Husseini's wartime relationship with Hitler, and, more particularly, because his cousin Abdul Khadir and some of his lieutenants had had military training in Germany.
Behind closed doors the British argument to the Arab League came down to this in the wake of the Nazi Holocaust and given the support Zionism was enjoying because of it - in America especially - there would be little sympathy for the cause of the Arabs in Palestine because they were led by Hitler's collaborators.
It was an argument the Arab League accepted mainly because the Arabs were in desparate need of Britain's good will and assistance.
The Zionists were the first to turn to terrorism.
Abdul Khadir had believed it was important that only the Zionists be seen and labelled as terrorists. He had wanted his Palestinians to be seen and engaged in a conventional and clean fight for their homeland and their rights.
It was only after a wave of Zionist terror bombings that Abdul Khadir ordered they should reply in kind.
After Britain dumped the problem of what to do about Palestine into the lap of the United Nations Zionist terrorism on the ground in the Holy Land was matched by a Zionist campaign of intimidation and threats designed to bend the world body to Jewish wishes.
The UN General Assembly was convened to consider what to do about Palestine on 29th April 1947.
While the Truman administration waited for the UN's recommendations the President took what amounted to a vow of silence.
On the 3rd September two recommendations were offered to the General Assembly. The first, the majority plan, proposed the termination of the Mandate and the partition of Palestine and the creation of a Jewish and Arab State with an economic union between them. Jerusalem would become an international city administered by the UN.
The second, the minority plan, put forward by India, Yugoslavia and Iran, also envisaged the termination of the Mandate but it was against partition. It proposed a unitary Palestine and the creation of an Arab and Jewish state in a federal structure with Jerusalem its capital. This was in effect the fall back position by those Arab leaders who knew they had to face reality.
Britain admitted that the partition plan had not been impartially drawn up, this was a diplomatic way of saying that by fair means or foul the Jewish influence on the majority of the special committee's members had been suffiicient that their recommendation would favour the Jews at the expense of the Arabs.
The partition plan proposal was that 56.4 percent of Palestine should be given for a Jewish state to a people many of whom were recently arrived alien immigrants who constituted 33 per cent of the population and owned 5.67 of the land. The Arabs were not only the overwhelming majority in the territory allotted to them but also a near majority in the territory allotted to the Jews.
The territory allocated to the Jewish state in size was ten times the area owned by the Jews and included the greater part of the valuable coastal area and other fertile areas whereas the Palestinians were left mainly with mountainous and sterile regions.
It was a proposal of injustice on a massive scale.
It was obvious that the partition, if approved and implemented, would make a complete nonsense of the principle of self determination the noble ideal to which the governments of the so-called democratic nations of the west professed they were committed.
The Arabs rejected partition on the grounds that it violated their rights.
Just as Britain with the Balfour Declaration had no right to give away what it did not own so it was with the UN. In fact the United Nations was putting itself above and beyond international law.
The Jews were not satisfied with partition but nevertheless they accepted it for the simple reason that if the Arabs, with 100 per cent of the legal right on their side, did not accept partition, they would be portrayed in Jewish propaganda as rejectors of compromise.
The second reason was that approval by the UN of the Partitions Resolution would give the Jewish state a birth certificate of sorts and thus the appearance of legitimacy, Ben Gurion knew without doubt that a UN decision in their favour would not give the Jewish state legitimacy but possession was nine-tenths of the law.
Before the Minority Report representing a unitary Palestine was confined to the dustbin to leave only the Partition Resolution for a vote in the General Assembly Saudi Arabia's Foreign Minister, Prince Faisal, expressed his willingness to meet Secretary of State Marshall. The implication was that Saudi Arabia the most important and influential of all the Arab States was ready in principle to work for Arab acceptance for the UN Resolution that would establish a Jewish administered entity in Palestine provided it was part of a unitary Palestine.
Despite what King Ibn Saud had said to President Roosevelt and Churchill, the Saudis were realists. They knew that the creation of a Jewish entity in Palestine was inevitable because of the Jewish immigration Britain had allowed to give substance to the Balfour Declaration and because of the Jewish propaganda about Nazi Holocaust. They also knew that the front line Arab States, despite their rhetoric, were in no position to fight and win a war to put an end to the Jewish enterprise.
As his kingdom's foreign minister Faisal foresaw the catastrophe that would happen if the Arabs could not find a way to contain the Jews. He knew that the Jews had no intention of being satisfied with what had been allowed to them in the Partition Plan and that the name of the game was preventing Jewish expansion.
The only way of doing so was by accepting a self-governing Jewish entity within a unitary Palestine. If the Arabs compromised to that extent they would enjoy the goodwill of the western world, the US especially, and that would make it more difficult and hopefully impossible for the Jewish entity once established to seek to take more Arab land by force.
It would not be easy to persuade the Palestinians to give some of their land in the name of political expediency but Saudi Arabia's escalating oil wells would enable it to sweeten the most bitter of pills.
The meeting with Marshall did not take place. Secretary of State Marshall was a seriously good man but he knew the Jews would not consider any compromise Faisal was likely to propose. There was no point in meeting the Saudi Prince to convey that message.
Marshall's own view echoed that of Defence Secretary Forrestal. It was that partition in face of Arab antagonism would create serious trouble in the region.
Faisal's initial assessment of the strength of opposition to the Partition Resolution was correct. In response to Jewish pressure on the Truman administration the critical vote on the resolution was postponed twice because the required two-thirds majority was not there.
After the second postponement Jewish leaders decided to do whatever had to be done to secure the necessary majority. Without the appearance of legitimacy a UN resolution on partition, if approved, would give the Jews, it would be impossible for the Jewish state to obtain the heavy weapons needed to get victory in the coming war with the Arabs.
If it could bend the UN to its will a Jewish state could be created and after its birth the size of it could be decided on the battlefield.
After two postponements the critical vote on the partition was scheduled for the 29th November. As it happened on the day there were 33 votes for the Partition Resolution including those cast by the US and the Soviet Union, 13 against and 10 abstentions. The necessary two thirds majority was achieved - just about.
Britain was one of the 10 member states which abstained.
The Pro-Jewish senators targetted the members of the non-Moslem member states who were in need of American assistance. France for example was asked to contemplate its future without the economic assistance it was due to receive under the Marshall Aid plan. Baruch conveyed that message to the French.
Through Ambassador William Pullitt, Baruch also put pressure on China.
Of all the manoeuvres of the senatorial hit squad the most effective was the telegram signed by all 26 senators which was sent to the representatives of 12 UN delegations a few days before the vote.
It helped to change four "no" votes to "yes" and crucially 7 "no" votes to abstentions. Of the 12 only Greece stuck to its "no" vote.
The countries re-targetted for the final push were Liberia, the Philippines and Haiti. To change Liberia's "no" vote into a "yes" required the services of the Firestone Tyre & Rubber Co.
The Philippines "no" could not have been more explicit on the 26th November three days before the vote the head of the delegation from the Philippines, war hero Carlos Romulo said "I will defend the rights of a people to decide its political future and to reserve the territorial integrity of the land of its birth." Fearing that he might be capable of influencing other delegates, the Zionists made him a special target and he found himself on the receiving end of threats.
It was President Truman himself who gave the best summary explanation of how the President of Haiti had been persuaded to change his mind . On the 11th December he said :"pressure groups will succeed in putting the United Nations out of business if this sort of thing is continued."
It can be said without fear of contradiction that the Partition Resolution would not have been approved by the General Assembly if all the member states of the United Nations had been allowed to vote freely.
Defence Secretary Forrestal said in private and wrote in his diary : "I said that it was a most disastrous and regrettable fact that the foreign policy of this country was determined by the contributions of a particular block might make to the party funds."
The UN General Assembly was convened to consider what to do about Palestine on 29th April 1947.
Still today discussion about what actually happened behind closed doors is not welcomed. The documented truth raises seriously embarrassing and disturbing questions not only about how Israel and the Arab/Israeli conflict were created but also about how America is governed and in particular the quality of its democracy.
But the blackmail card had yet to come. Without the propaganda of the holocaust, Zionism might well have failed.
The question at that moment was which of the two forces would command President Truman - the State Department or the Jews?
James Forrestal was the man who rearmed America's armed forces and became the first US Secretary of Defence . He was a man of principle in Truman's first adminstration. The other was the legendary General George C. Marshall, the US army Chief of Staff during World War 2. and who was Secretary of State when Truman eventually surrendered to Zionism.
A name from Truman's past to remember is that of Eddie Jacobson who became Truman's partner in a Kansas City haberdashery store, It was through him later that Truman spoke to Weizmann and was sufficiently "moved" to slip into the Jewish camp.
There was much concern for those who knew that President Truman was very susceptible to Zionist Lobby pressure.
Meantime the story was put out and not denied by President Truman that a search of the late President Roosevelt's papers had failed to discover any record of a pledge made by him to Ibn Saud about prior consultations with the Arabs. Ibn Saud himself was so disgusted by this propaganda lie that he cabled Truman saying that if the President was not prepared to reveal the truth, he, Ibn Saud, would publish the memorandum of his meeting with President Roosevelt and eventually that is what he did
In theory there was no better man than Marshall to help Truman to keep Zionism in check. His two opponents was David K. Niles and Clarke Clifford whose main task was to advise Truman what to do for the best if he wished to be re-elected for a second spell.
What exactly happened in Washington on the 14th May 1948 is something of a mystery. At about 11.30 in the morning Clifford communicated with Eliahu Epstein , he was the representative in Washington of the Jewish Agency and would later become the first Israeli Ambassador to the United States.
Clifford informed Epstein that the US was prepared to recognise the Jewish state upon the declaration of its independence but the US move would have to be in response to a formal request for recognition from the Government of the new State and the request was wanted that afternoon.
Epstein knew of course that Ben Gurion was intending to make the unilateral declaration of independence at 4 p.m. Palestine time before the start of the Sabbath which would prevent orthodox members of the provisional government-in-waiting from travelling by car or appending a signature to the proclamation of independence but that did not change the technical reality a uinilaterally declared Jewish state would not make a request for recognition until midnight in Palestine, 6 p.m. Washington time.
The two men then agreed that Epstein had the responsibility of fabricating a formal request for recognition i.e. on behalf of a government that did not exist and of a state that did not exist. The fabricated letter of request delivered to Clifford at the White House said that he had been authorised by the non-existent government by the non-existent Jewish state that your government will welcome the Jewish state into the community of nations.
At Clifford's request, in order to improve the prospects of Truman going against the advice of Marshall, Epstein took upon himself the responsibility of declaring that Israel would adopt the boundaries as defined by the Partition Resolution. He also knew of course that Ben Gurion had no such intention.
Why was it necessary to fabricate a request of recognition? Why couldn't President Truman wait for the real thing to come from the provisional Government of the Jewish State?
There is only one plausible answer. The instant that the Jewish State came into existence, making the proceedings of the General Assembly an irrevalance, Truman would come upon the most intense pressure ever to recognise it. If he was then to say he was waiting for a formal request his position could easily be misrepresented, or, more so, if for any reason the provisional government took time to get their act together before the request for recognition was made.
With this scenario Clifford's fear was that the cry would go up that President Truman was reluctant to recognise the Jewish State and that would seriously damage his re-election campaign and the prospects of many other Democrats running for office, but with the fabricated letter of request the President would have scope enough for the sake of appearances to recognise the State within minutes of it coming into being. At a stroke that would remove the Jewish threat to the President and his party.
Perhaps Clifford acted on his own initiative or perhaps President Truman had expressed to Clifford his private fear that if he didn't recognise the Jewish State within minutes of its birth he would be crucified.
There is no record if other members of the government were given notice of the President's decision to give instant recognition to the Jewish State. Early in the afternoon when Epstein was still fabricating the letter Clifford had indicated that the President had still not made up his mind.
In 1968 Arnold Toynbee wrote:
"The reason why the state of Israel exists today and why l,500,000 Palestinians are refugees is that for thirty years Jewish immigration was imposed on the Palestinian Arabs by British military power until the immigrants were sufficiently numerous and sufficiently well armed to be able to fend for themselves with tanks and planes of their own. The tragedy of Palestine is not just a local one. It is a tragedy for the world because it is an injustice. It is a menace to the world's peace."
At 6 p.m. Washington time the British Mandate for Palestine expired and Israel's unilateral declaration of independence became effective and at 6.11 p.m. the US gave the new state de facto recognition in response to Epstein's fabricated request.
All the aforegoing begs the question, why have the Jews/Zionists created Israel - a product of injustice, lies and deceipt - as a national home, whilst at the same time they advocate a One World Government for the rest of humanity?