EXCLUSIVE: Brooklyn rabbi charged with teen sex assault gets 60 days in jail; DA ripped for offering light plea deal

EXCLUSIVE: Brooklyn rabbi charged with teen sex assault gets 60 days in jail; DA ripped for offering light plea deal

NYC PAPERS OUT. Social media use restricted to low res file max 184 x 128 pixels and 72 dpi

Yoel Malik got a generous plea deal after the victims declined to move forward with the case, officials said.

(ANTHONY LANZILOTE/FOR NEW YORK DAILY NEWS)

A Brooklyn rabbi charged with sexually abusing four teenage boys in a hotel was sentenced to just 60 days in jail and six years of probation.Yoel Malik, 33, a member of the Satmar Hasidic sect, was given the generous plea deal after the victims were extremely reluctant to testify publicly, according to a law enforcement source familiar with the case.

In 2013, Malik was charged with 28 criminal counts and shamelessly blamed his underage victims for trying to seduce him, police sources said.

BROOKLYN RABBI CHARGED WITH HAVING SEX WITH TEENAGE BOY

The boys were all students at Ohr Hameir, a now-shuttered Satmar yeshiva in Borough Park. The alleged victims were between 13 and 16 when the incidents occurred.

NYC PAPERS OUT. Social media use restricted to low res file max 184 x 128 pixels and 72 dpi

In 2013, Yoel Malik was charged with 28 criminal counts and shamelessly blamed his underage victims for trying to seduce him, police sources said.

(ANTHONY LANZILOTE/FOR NEW YORK DAILY NEWS)

The rabbi was accused of groping all four boys in motels, prosecutors said after his arrest.

The twisted teacher also allegedly forced two of the boys to perform oral sex on him.

One of the victims was also forced to perform oral sex on Malik inside his car parked near a cemetery on a separate occasion, according to prosecutors.

In 2014, he pleaded guilty to a felony, luring a child, and a misdemeanor count of sexual misconduct, records show.

Over the past two years, he completed a series of probation requirements, including a sex offender class and staying away from children, court records show.

Advocates for child sex-abuse victims questioned the deal that Brooklyn DA Ken Thompson (pictured) offered Malik. 

Advocates for child sex-abuse victims questioned the deal that Brooklyn DA Ken Thompson (pictured) offered Malik.

(JULIA XANTHOS/NEW YORK DAILY NEWS)

As part of the deal, the felony was dismissed upon completion of probation supervision. On Tuesday, he was sent to Rikers Island for 60 days for the misdemeanor offense.

Advocates for child sex-abuse victims questioned the deal. “What DA (Kenneth) Thompson has done is inexplicable,” said Ben Hirsch, a spokesman for Survivors for Justice. “Through unexplained plea deals such as this, he has effectively quashed any willingness on the part of victims to come forward.”

Malik’s lawyer, Roger Adler, said sarcastically: “I will concede he wasn’t burnt at the stake. He wasn’t stoned running through the village.”

It’s a “significant” punishment when any first-time offender gets sentenced to jail, he added.

Tags:
RELIGION
SEX CRIMES
CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN
NEW YORK SEXUAL ASSAULTS
DAILY NEWS EXCLUSIVES

torah-satan

Are all human beings, jews and Gentiles, equal? 

“As will be further clarified, this outlook completely contradicts the Torah of Moses, and stems from an absolute lack of knowledge, permeated with foreign Western “values.”


Rabbi Yosef: Treating gentiles violates Sabbath

5 Votes

Shas’ leader says religious physicians cannot violate Sabbath in order to save gentiles’ lives, but offers halachic solution to avoid legal repercussions

Ynet

What should religious doctors do if a gentile is injured in a car accident on Shabbat and is rushed to the hospital? According to Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, this does not warrant violating the sanctity of the Sabbath.

During a class on Sabbath halacha relating to religious physicians, the spiritual leader of Shas said that while doctors are expected to do everything in their power – even if it requires violating the Sabbath – in order to save Jews whose lives are in danger, the same does not apply for gentiles.

“If a gentile were to get injured in a car accident during Sabbath, and he is brought to the hospital – Israel must not treat him,” he said, explaining that “if the particular procedures come from rabbis (de-rabbanan), then they might be permitted, but if they stem from prohibitions in the Torah (de-‘oraita), then they are not allowed, as the Torah forbids to violate the Sabbath for gentiles.”

Rabbi Yosef expounded on the problem, saying that the Mishnah Berurah explicitly says that “all religious physicians who treat gentiles on the Sabbath or violating the Sabbath; however, in reality the patients are brought to the hospital and must be treated. The doctors’ license says they must treat all patients without distinction of faith or race, and if they don’t, the State could revoke their license and also punish them. So what should the poor doctors do?”

The rabbi offered a halachic solution that follows a rule by which if a single person is doing the act, he is violating the Sabbath, while if two people are doing it together, they are exempt.

“The doctor who needs to operate will call on another doctor, or nurse, to hold the scalpel together and make the incision,” said Rabbi Yosef, saying that “it is necessary in order for religious physicians to refrain from being put on trial for distinguishing between a Jew and a gentile on Sabbath.”

Under the Heel of the Rothschilds

By Arch Stanton

And one man, Donald Trump, is supposed to reverse all this?” — Arch Stanton

That America is on “life support” has been clear for a long time—in fact, ever since the Swinging Sixties and the end of the Vietnam war. America’s rapidly deteriorating condition of the late seventies is what led to my search for what happened to the promise of “the American dream”.

What I cannot comprehend is all this wringing of hands, rending of garments and gnashing of teeth. It’s like that old scorpion story. Didn’t America know what was going on before Trump was elected to ride on its back? Apparently not.

Observe: the Rothschilds consolidated their European holdings of wealth and power by the late 1700s. By the turn of that century, they virtually owned, and most certainly controlled Britain, the sole superpower of the day, a global power on whose colonial holdings “the sun never set.”

The Rothschilds also exercised considerable influence over the outcome of the Napoleonic wars (1803-1815) that served to strangle the rise of another potential superpower: France. The financial power of the Rothschilds had originally been based in France, but when Napoleon began to resist their economic plans for his country, the Rothschilds diverted money to Britain and stirred up conflict between Britain and its traditional enemy France. The result: the demise of Napoleonic power at the battle of Waterloo (1815).

From that point on, Rothschild power grew by leaps and bounds. They played a critical part in fomenting and influencing the American revolution (1765-1783), the war of 1812 between America and Britain, the Mexican-American war of the late 1840s, and the American “Civil War” of 1861-1865.

By this time, the Rothschilds had begun expanding their parasitical power base to the “New world.” These wars reflected their emerging interest in America and their gradual abandonment of Britain as their center of power. With the Jews it has always been about war, war, war and more war. Since the day Jews fabricated their Torah, it’s always been about bloody war.

By the end of the 19th century, the Rothschilds had begun consolidating their control over America. Around the same time, a small portion of their global plan was unveiled by the sensational publication  of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion (1903), since conveniently dismissed as a “forgery”.

A scant twelve years after the new century began, the Rothschilds’ full economic control over America was finally accomplished with the enactment of the Federal Reserve Act (December 1913). Within seven months of that Act, the world was at war, dragging America (with its massive army of two million troops) into the bloodshed. This was in April, 1917.

The Federal Reserve act was the very same Br’er Rabbit scheme replayed with Trump’s election.

Jewish economic influence then fomented two of the most murderous wars in history, first one in 1914 and then a second in 1939, a scant quarter of a century after the first major killing campaign. From the very beginning of the century, brush wars raged throughout the century in places like the Philippines and South America.

In spite of this headline in a major newspaper in March 1933, you will still hear Jews hotly deny that they had anything to do with starting WWII. Regarded as an “anti-Semitic canard”, any public statement along the lines that Jews helped to kickstart the bloodbath of WWII can lead to loss of employment, social ostracism and other dreadful sanctions. The truth is no defense.

Just after the midpoint of the century’s global wars came the “sexual revolution” of the 1960s. This was a thinly disguised, Jewish, cultural Marxist revolution that served to destroy American culture, reducing it to one of ignorant, stupid, rutting beasts that have now taken over the country, willingly marching in  lockstep behind the Jews’ unanimous cry for more warring bloodshed around the planet.

So there should not be the slightest surprise in finding the world in its present uproar, with war once again on the horizon. Thanks to the Jews’ destabilizing wars and revolutions, almost all the Near East has been destabilized and destroyed. The secondary effect of this destruction has been the unrestricted flooding of Europe with immigrants, thereby destabilizing and destroying most of Europe and its different cultures.

You are naturally not allowed to say that the Jews had anything to do with the “migrant crisis”—unless of course you happen to be an extraordinarily foolish Jew who lets the cat out of the bag by openly blabbing about Jewish responsibility for this major catastrophe:

36-SECOND VIDEO

Thanks to Jewish economic control that enabled them to eviscerate American manufacturing and industry—with a tidy profit to Jewish middle-men—America is now fully dependent on global trade for its survival. America can no longer survive without a constant infusion of foreign trade that is completely controlled by Jewish economic policy.

And one man, Donald Trump, is supposed to reverse all this?

How can anyone be so naive as to believe that any one person, or even a small group of people, could ever reverse this continuous parade of long-standing historical trends that began with the Rothschilds’ accumulation of a major portion of the world’s wealth?

This should be especially obvious considering Jews have all the wealth to fund their agenda with, while the goyim are left with little more than angry words.

LD comments: I revealed in a recent article that the Rothschild family is widely reported to own as much as the rest of the world’s 7.5 billion people put together, if not more:

Jews make up 11% of the world’s billionaires, so the Jews are doing exceptionally well given that they make up only 0.2% of the world’s population. (Source)

Jews make up only 2% of America’s population; but according to a recent Forbes Israel list, they make up a whopping 24% of American billionaires. Out of 442 US billionaires, 105 were Jews. (Source). With such enormous wealth concentrated in the hands of American Jews, is it any wonder they own the mass media and major corporations as well as have huge reserves left over for the bribery and corruption of American politicians?

The statement that the Rothschild family alone owns FIVE times as much as the combined wealth of the world’s EIGHT wealthiest billionaires in the world combined, is obviously calculated to create unbounded astonishment at the vast wealth of the Rothschilds. And yet to many astute observers the statement will be seen as a deliberate underestimate of Rothschild wealth.

It is widely known—or at any rate, suspected—that the Rothschilds own roughly $500 TRILLION. This amounts to exactly half of the $1000 trillion owned by the rest of the world’s 7.5 billion population. (See here) [LD]

ARCH  STANTON (continues) :  It must surely be obvious to all that the world is running straight, narrow and true on rails paid for by Rothschild money. What I see in all this brouhaha about Donald Trump is exactly what was to be expected, i.e., another Jewish dog-and-pony show intended to occupy the public while other, far more critical, events pass unnoticed.

This is exactly the way Jews have been playing the deception game since the days of the Old Testament when they marched around Jericho singing, shouting and blowing horns to disguise their sappers undermining Jericho’s fortifying walls.

Jews pride themselves on their magical acumen. Magicians base their act on deception. Hey, look at what this hand is doing! —so you don’t notice what the other hand is up to! This is the game being enacted now in the Trump charade, n’est-ce pas?

From the beginning of their rise to a global, economic power, the Rothschilds and their Jewish henchmen have been calling the shots like the global criminal mafia they have always been. Whether the world recognizes this and takes action to excise this virulent, diseased parasite or suffer the terminal consequences of watching the big game on television while the world goes up in flames, remains to be seen.

If past performance is an indication of future outcome, the world can expect a nuclear war any time soon. So far, Jews have a better performance record at creating war then a Warren Buffet fund has at creating wealth.

Why complicate this issue when it’s really simple?

The American dream, thanks to the machinations of the Rothschilds and their minions, has now morphed into a full-blown nightmare.

Lady Michele Renouf: British military policy of targeting civilians in the WWII air war against Germany. She concludes that it was the Germans who, by definition, were the true victims of an actual “holocaust”

The Real Holocaust Victims Were the Victims of British Firebombing in World War II

VIDEO: Excerpts from a presentation by Lady Michele Renouf, speaking in Vancouver, reporting on a recent “Identitarian” conference in Mexico during which the true events of World War II were discussed in relation to understanding current affairs in modern day Europe.  She spoke of “swindle-speak” and  the historical misappropriation of terms by the media and enemies of truth, providing the term “holocaust” (a burnt whole offering) as a major example. She cited historical facts concerning the British military policy of targeting civilians in the WWII air war against Germany, and she concludes that it was the Germans who, by definition,  were the true victims of an actual “holocaust”.  She referred to Churchill’s policy, to “baste” the Germans and burn them alive. Thus, she said, “the German people should rightfully reclaim this term for themselves”. She then quoted Dennis Richards, Official Historian of the R.A.F. who admitted that the British initiated the air war, targeting civilians, in order to goad Hitler into bombing England in retaliation.

Regarding effective activism in terms of “Identitarianism”, from her own expertise in the advertising industry, she says that in order to reach the general public with the message, it is important to not use the adversary’s terminology, to not act and dress as they wish, and of not adopt archaic or nostalgic symbolism which the enemies of truth have already demonized. She urges civility and creativity in order to appeal to the wider audience with one’s message and opposes the “Neo-Nazi” look and methods.

I attended this presentation and was involved in the Q&A segment, included in this video. One should not assume, however, that I necessarily subscribe to the “Identitarian” viewpoint. My issue is and remains “Justice for Germans” with the caveat, that humanity as whole will also benefit from understanding the truth about Hitler, National Socialism and World War II.  I was, however, much impressed with her presentation. My main reason for attending was my great respect for her, in light of all of her activism on behalf of the German people and for Our Fallen over many years, and indeed, for all of humanity against our common enemy or “our predator” as she calls them.Her contention that the “Holocaust” happened to the German people echoes my own sentiments. This is also evidenced in the documentary film “Hellstorm“.

It was delightful to re-acquaint myself with her since our last meeting nearly 4 years ago. We spent several hours chatting privately after the event had concluded, and I shared with her some of what I have done in that time, including the founding of The Truth and Justice for Germans Society. She read the mandate and constitution, and she endorses it, saying “it is long overdue” and she wondered “why has it not been done before?” Other TJGS members were also in attendance and greatly appreciated her presentation.

Related Info: http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Identitarianism

Lady Michele’s main website: http://tellingfilms.co.uk/

Posted in Activism, Bombing, England, Germany, holocaust, Video, War Crimes, World War II | Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

Allied Use of Delay-Action Bombs (aka Long-Term Chemical Detonator Bombs) and their Effects

Contrary to the claims of the “Court Historians”, the Allied Terror-Bombing Campaign was not intended for the destruction military targets, as my previous post demonstrate, but rather, to “de-house” and to kill as many German civilians as possible.

“Court Historians” are the intellectual bodyguards of the State. They shape and defend the “official line” or interpretation on the State’s wars, its presidential regimes, or other key historical events and public policies. As a result they enjoy high esteem and recognition in the mainstream media and academia. As defenders of the status quo they frequently attack and label their critics as “conspiracy theorists,” “revisionists,” “isolationists,” “appeasers,” “anti-intellectuals,” or other boogie men, rather than engage in civil discourse or discussion.
http://www.houseofpaine.org/court_historians.html

British documents as referred to by David Irving (and many other Non-Court Historians), and many quotes from the British military leadership confirm that the British and later also the Americans, deliberately targeted civilians, contrary to International Law.  (See Dehousing Paper) Further proof of this, however, is in the routine use of Delay-Action Bombs by the Allies.

Many of the bombs which were dropped upon German cities contained a perfidious mechanism which, rather than exploding immediately upon contact with the ground or with buildings, were designed to explode hours or days later, thereby causing harm to survivors when they had emerged from their bomb shelters and cellars. They also caused serious danger to the Fire Fighters and Rescue personnel, sometimes killing them or making their duties virtually impossible to carry out. Both the British and Americans had these types of ordinances in their arsenals and also and frequently deployed them. Yes, this is how the so-called “good guys” and “liberators” waged war.

The chemical-mechanical fuse devices contained in them were housed in the rear portion of a standard aerial bomb. However, added protection using artificial materials (celluloids) were built in to prevent an immediate explosion upon impact. A glass ampule, located in the rear section, which contained acetone would instead break open upon impact and then slowly begin to dissolve a series of the protective celluloid plates or barriers,  which barricaded the explosive materials, eventually triggering the firing pin and then finally detonating the bomb at a later point in time. The time of detonation was dependant upon how long it took for the acetone to dissolve the celluloid barriers. The speed of this chain of could also be varied according to the number or thickness of the barriers and / or the strength of the acetone contained in the glass ampule.  Thus, they could be designed to detonate in any time frame ranging from several hours to a week. These Delay-Action Bombs can only be regarded as murderous weapons of terror and mass destruction.  (Weitere Infos auf Deutsch, siehe:http://de.metapedia.org/wiki/Alliierter_Bombenterror)

Many such bombs, however, did not explode at all and are still being dug up today on German soil by farmers or in the course of road construction, the building of railways or the digging of tunnels for underground public transportation lines, etc. These have also frequently been found in rivers and canals. These bombs are, however, no less deadly than the day they were dropped, over 70 years ago. As a result, and to this day, “bomb alarms” are still a common occurrence in German cities and towns, resulting in sections of towns to be evacuated, roads to be closed and rail transportation to be halted for hours while highly trained bomb-disposal experts attempt to diffuse them, move them, or to detonate them on the spot. They could, however,  under the right conditions, still explode spontaneously.

Finding unexploded German ordinance on British soil is, by comparison, a more rare occurrence.  Whenever one is found, it is usually in London. This speaks to the fact that the German side did not use Delay-Action Bombs, as claimed by Wikipedia (without citation) for example, and also to the fact that England was never bombed to anywhere near the same extent as Germany.  Nonetheless, when a single unexploded World War II German bomb is discovered in England, as was recently the case in London on March 22, 2015, it is an international “sensation” and news reports of this are carried world wide, apparently as proof of the barbarism of the “evil Nazis”. See my web search for news reports here: https://startpage.com/do/search?q=London+unexploded+German+bomb&lui=english

By contrast, it is rarely reported in the international media when unexploded British or American bombs are found on German soil. Why? Perhaps because it is such a common occurrence. Perhaps because they don’t want the world to know and to understand the full extent of the criminal Allied Terror Bombing Campaign and the types of bombs that were used. Or perhaps because, “it happened to evil Germans who deserved it, and so who cares”? One recent exception, however, appeared in the Wall Street Journal:

German City Evacuated After Unexploded World War II Bomb Is Found – Officials cleared 20,000 people from area surrounding Cologne’s Mülheim bridge (WSJ |May 27th, 2015)

Excerpts: “Seven decades since the end of World War II, unexploded bombs from are still found regularly throughout Germany, a legacy of the Allies’ sustained bombing campaign aimed at destroying German industry [a big lie, as exposed in the my previous posts] and breaking domestic morale. In Cologne alone, 25 bombs on average are discovered and deactivated each year, so far without causing any incident, city officials say. “

“Most large and midsize German cities were subject to bombing campaigns in the later phase of the war, leading to casualties estimated between 305,000 and 600,000 people, according to various historical records. [These are typical, deliberately downsized BRD stats]. In May 1942, Cologne became the first German urban area to face mass-scale bombing [refers to the Area Bombing Directive of Feb. 14th, 1942 and does not consider earlier bombings of German cities] when British Royal Air Force bombers dropped more than 1,400 tons of ordnance on the city. Allied forces bombarded the city 262 times during the war, city spokeswoman Sabine Wotzlaw said.”

(Be sure to also read the “who cares” type of comments posted by the WSJ readers)

Here is an exceptionally good and thorough article:

Nobody Knows How Many Unexploded Bombs Are Hidden Under Berlin – Vice.com – April 14, 2014, By Katie Engelhart

The Reichstag after the Allied bombing of Berlin (Photo via)

In the thick of WWII, Allied pilots dropped some 2 million tons (estimates vary) of bombs on German soil. Most of the bombs exploded, but up to 15 percent were duds and failed to detonate on impact. Today, these unexploded relics lie waiting. Experts figure that up to 250,000 live bombs remain scattered around Germany, and barely a week goes by without a bomb squad being summoned to one of them—unearthed, perhaps, by a hapless construction worker or a farmer tending to his fields.

Authorities take precautions, but there are still accidents. Bombs go off suddenly and sometimes people die. Though most of the Great War’s combatants are long dead, WWII’s casualty list keeps growing. Over the last few years, the presence of unexploded ordnance (UXO) has become a more pressing problem. As WWII bombs grow old, their stabilizing agents begin to decompose and they become sensitive to the tiniest of tremors. As this happens, the risk of spontaneous explosion increases.

This situation isn’t unique to rural backwaters, either. Berlin, which was bombed to shit between 1940 and 1945, hosts an estimated 2,000 to 4,000 unexploded bombs (in addition to loads of unexploded grenades, rockets, artillery shells, mortars, mines, etc.) with around ten to 15 live bombs found in the capital each year…

CONTINUE READING HERE: http://www.vice.com/read/unexploded-wwii-bombs-germany

Also note that the Inglorious Bastard ALL LIES bear no responsibility even today for the cost of the bomb disposal operations. Nor do these occupiers, who still have armies on German soil today, send any of their own teams to disarm and dispose of their World War II bombs which they dropped. Meanwhile, the Germans today pay, and pay, and pay to apparently anyone who makes a claim against them, absorbs countless refugees from other countries, sends money and arms to IsraHell, and continually props up other failing EU states, all the while being continually smacked in the face with World War II Lies and Propaganda. The outright theft of German territory is not even discussed, much less compensation for our lost lands, or to the millions of Germans who were ethnically cleansed. And to date, no member of the ALL LIES has ever been tried for a War Crime or Crime Against Humanity, in spite of all of the overwhelming body of evidence.

So, did the war really end in 1945? Were the Germans in fact “liberated”? And was this really “the good war”? Or was it just the model for future wars against all nations who defend themselves against the tyranny of the International Bankster Gangsters and their New World Order agenda?

Related previous post:  A MOST UNCIVILIZED MEANS OF WARFARE – Genocidal British Bombing Policy During World War II

Posted in Bombing, Churchill, England, Germany, USA, War Crimes, World War II | Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,

Churchill’s Policy of Deliberately Bombing German Civilians – A British War Crime

Video: Excerpts from a presentation by historian David Irving from the late 1980s / early 90s in Germany in which he explains how it was the British who started the aerial bombing and the targeting of civilians, and how it was Churchill, from the beginning, who made it British policy, knowing full well that it was a war crime. The intent was to eventually force Hitler to retaliate in kind. Hitler, himself, had always opposed the targeting of civilian populations, even long before the war. Moreover, this was a deliberate policy of subverting Hitler’s attempts to make peace by instigating hatred of the Germans in England. Irving provides some details of Hitler’s peace initiatives and terms. It is well documented that Hitler and had always sought friendship with England. It was the British war mongers in Parliament, however, who long before 1939 had been instigating for war. Statistics are also provided here which demonstrate how little damage was actually done to German industry and military production as compared to the monstrous destruction of German cities and towns, resulting in heavy civilian casualties.

Still more to follow on this topic!

 

Posted in Bombing, Churchill, England, Germany, Policies, Video, War Crimes, World War II | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

Who Started the Bombing of Cities and Targeting of Civilians in World War II?

Cologne bombed outIt is widely believed to this day that the Germans instigated the aerial bombing campaign against European and British cities, and thus “got what they deserved” in kind. Often cited are the German bombings of  Warsaw and Rotterdam. These two instances of bombings are not in dispute, however, the context must be considered. The details are seldom discussed, and hence, little known. The rules of warfare must also be considered. The deliberate targeting of civilians was indeed a “war crime”. The Hague conventions tolerated the bombing of cities IF they were under military occupation (ie “defended”), which was the case with both Warsaw or Rotterdam.

The Hague Conventions for Land Warfare (which Germany was a signatory to) stated:

 Article 25
The attack or bombardment of towns, villages, habitations or buildings which are not defended, is prohibited.
Article 26
The Commander of an attacking force, before commencing a bombardment, except in the case of an assault, should do all he can to warn the authorities.
Article 27
In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps should be taken to spare as far as possible edifices devoted to religion, art, science, and charity, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not used at the same time for military purposes.

The besieged should indicate these buildings or places by some particular and visible signs, which should previously be notified to the assailants.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/hague02.asp

In the cases of both Warsaw and Rotterdam, the bombing was not intentionally to target civilians. Indeed, Hitler had long campaigned against such actions in warfare and at the commencement of hostilities with Poland, he gave explicit orders to the Luftwaffe to not target civilians, and they adhered strictly to this order.  In Warsaw, however, the Polish army retreated into the city and turned it into fortress. In essence, they took the city and the population as a hostage. They were given several ultimatums to surrender, with reasonable time to do so, but they refused. Flyers were also dropped from the air to warn civilians of the imminent danger. All prudent measures were taken. While civilians indeed died, they were not intentionally targeted. The aim of the bombing was to force a surrender of the Polish forces which were holed up there. That was not, according to the international law, a “war crime”.  Here, one may also question why Hitler felt compelled to attack Poland in the first place. I have covered this in numerous past posts, however, to understand this fully, I recommend reading:

100 Documents on the Origin of the War (German White Book) pdf

The situation in Rotterdam was very similar. A group of Dutch resistance fighters that fought at the Grebbeberg took refuge in Rotterdam. This eventually resulted in a German ultimatum that if the Grebbeberg resistance did not cease, Rotterdam would be bombed. The resisters finally complied and the bombing raid was to called off at the last minute. However, there was a communications problem. Ground flares intended to call off the attack were not seen or by one of the inbound bomber formations and Rotterdam was thus inadvertently bombed. About 900 people died and 80,000 people became homeless as a result of ensuing fires which were NOT caused by incendiaries, but rather, by hazardous materials stored on the ground. Mainstream history confirms that:

“Student radioed to postpone the planned attack. When the message reached KG 54’s command post, the Kommodore, Oberst Walter Lackner, was already approaching Rotterdam and his aircraft had reeled in their long-range aerials. Haze and smoke obscured the target; to ensure that Dutch defences were hit Lackner brought his formation down to 2,300 ft (700 m).[27] German forces on the Noordereiland fired flares[28] to prevent friendly fire — after three aircraft of the southern formation had already unloaded, the remaining 24 from the southern bomber formation under Oberstleutnant Otto Höhne aborted their attack. The larger formation came from the north-east, out of position to spot red flares launched from the south side of the city, and proceeded with their attack. Fifty-four He 111s dropped low to release 97 tonnes (213,848 lb) of bombs, mostly in the heart of the city.[29]

Why the formation had not received the abort order sooner remains controversial. Oberst Lackner of the largest formation claimed that his crews were unable to spot red flares due to bad visibility caused by humidity and dense smoke of burning constructions and subsequently needed to decrease altitude to 2,000 feet.[30] But the red flare, which Lackner failed to see, might have also been used by the Germans to show their location in the city to avoid friendly fire. An official German form designated red as the colour for that purpose.[31]”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotterdam_Blitz

While the details of what actually happened versus what was supposed to happen (or not happen) remain somewhat sketchy, it was clearly a military vs military attack, and not intended to deliberately target the civilian population of Rotterdam. This, however, will inevitably beg the question “why did the Germans invade peaceful, neutral Holland? Surely they had no right to do so!”  This question must be answered with another question. Why did the neutral Dutch permit the RAF to use its airspace to attack the German cities of the Ruhr Valley? Why did they not defend their stated neutrality?  The German White Book Nr.8 – The Sole Responsibility of England for the Bombing War (1943) indicates numerous instances of British bombers attacking German cities in the Ruhr from the direction of neutral Belgium and Holland. To my knowledge, this book is not available in an English translation.

Weissbuch_Nr.8_Alleinschuld_England

Indeed, the British Expeditionary Force planned to attack Germany through these countries, which were apparently not opposed, while still maintaining their declaration of neutrality. Germany was therefore not obliged to respect their proclaimed neutrality in defence of its own sovereign territory.

It must also be noted that Germany did not bomb the city of Paris (or other major French cities). Why not? Because the French declared them to be “free cities”.  In other words not occupied by the French military  or “not defended”. Thus they and their cultural artifacts, architecture etc were protected and would not be bombed by the Luftwaffe. That, however, did not dissuade the British and Americans from bombing Paris and other French cities later, thereby destroying cultural artifacts and killing many thousands of French civilians in the name of “liberation”.

The British bombing of German cities started well before Churchill even became Prime Minister, on Sept. 5th, 1939 at Wilhelmshaven. Then resumed again with ferocious intensity in the Spring of 1940 and increased with the advent of the unelected Churchill’s rise to power.

“On 3 September 1939 the French and British empires had declared war on Germany and England’s Royal Air Force began attacking German warships along the German coast with the North Sea. The attacks by the Royal Air Force (RAF) on German cities began with the attack on Wilhelmshaven on 5 September 1939. Eight months later, on the 9th of May 1940 began the German offensive in the West. On the 11th of May the British Cabinet decided to unleash the Bomber Command on the air war against the German hinterland. The following night British planes aimlessly dropped bombs for the first time on residential areas of Mönchengladbach-Rheydt. And from then on made such attacks on cities in the Ruhr area night after night. Up to the 13th of May 1940, i.e. two days later, the German side registered a total of 51 British air attacks on non-military targets plus 14 attacks on military targets such as bridges, railway tracks, defense and industrial plants.The first carpet bombing of a German city was in the night of the 15th to 16th of May 1940 in Duisburg. After that the RAF committed repeated air attacks on German cities. The night of the 24th of August 1940 – bombs meant to be dropped on the Thameshaven oil storage depot and on the Short’s factory at Rochester, by mistake or simply because they were randomly unloaded in order to escape fighters, fell on the City of London and nine other districts inside the Greater London area. Incendiaries lit fires in Bethnal Green, and St.Giles’ Church in Cripplegate was damaged. Oxford Street department stores were damaged. Nine people were killed and 58 injured. On the 25th of August 1940, British bombers attacked Berlin by night, and indeed not even to target important military targets, because the Royal Airforce (RAF) was not even capable, having not developed any bomb-targeting devices. On the 6th to the 7th of September 1940, a German air raid on London took place – but specifically on military targets such as ports, railway stations, war factories and power stations. Crews were expressly prohibited to drop their bombs on residential areas, because thereby, no ‘war deciding’ successes could be expected.”

http://www.scribd.com/doc/87187334/Churchill-the-Warmonger-Started-the-Bombing-on-Cities-First  (includes the German text, although I am still looking for the original source. I have contacted the person who posted this for his assistance and am awaiting a reply. I will update this post if and when I receive the requested info).

Regarding England, the fact is, that Germany endured a solid 5 months of bombing of its cities and civilians before responding in kind. The city of Coventry endured a mere 380 dead. While regrettable, that was absolutely minuscule in comparison to the bombing of hundreds of German cities and towns, and the casualties which the German side endured by this unprovoked, criminal British policy of targeting civilians.

For those who read German, I also recommend reading:

ERICH KERN. Verbrechen am deutschen Volk. Eine Dokumentation alliierter Grausamkeiten. 1964. VERLAG K. W. SCHÜTZ • GÖTTINGEN

Kern__Erich_-_Verbrechen_am_deutschen_Volk (pdf)

More to come on this topic.

Posted in Bombing, Churchill, England, Germany, Hitler, World War II | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

A MOST UNCIVILIZED MEANS OF WARFARE – Genocidal British Bombing Policy During World War II

Aachen-1945-Elisenbrunnen[J4G Exclusive, courtesy of Mike Walsh]  During World War Two more bombs by weight were dropped on the city of Berlin than were released on the whole of Great Britain during the entire war. All German towns and cities above 50,000 populations were from 50% to 80% destroyed. The great city of Dresden, dubbed the Florence of Northern Europe, was incinerated. Up to 300,000 civilians lost their lives.

Hamburg, one of Europe’s greatest and most beautiful cities, was torched. Genghis Khan would have exulted in the methodical razing of an entire city and the destruction of its population. The only surviving building was the city’s cathedral. This ecclesiastical wonder was saved not because of its spiritual symbolism. It survived only because it served the Royal Air Force (RAF) and United States Air Force (USAF) as a bombing run marker.

By no stretch of the imagination could such total destruction be written off as legitimate. Entire areas of Hamburg and other European cities, that offered no war value, were similarly destroyed. Furthermore, such total destruction of infrastructure and innocent lives cannot be dismissed by the ‘they started it first’ false argument. Nor can it be dismissed as a tit-for-tat bombing. In this one German city alone, over just a few nights in July 1943, the number of dead exceeded the entire military and civilian death toll of Britain during the war.

The Economist September 1941 conceded that just 2% of (British) real estate had been destroyed by German bombing. The article included a note that commented on ‘the furious pace at speculators who were buying the bombed sites for a song’. This situation remained largely unchanged until the end of the war. Germany never engaged in blanket or terror bombing, nor was it Germany that dropped atomic bombs on two of Japan’s most beautiful cities. Cities that incidentally were the only two Christian cities in Japan.

Hamburg. Operation Gomorrah. July 1943. Following the RAF raids the volcanic flames were hurled 5,000 feet into the sky, four times the height of New York’s Empire State Building. With the consequential gases, they rose as high again, and caused meteorological reaction high as the earth’s stratosphere.

Between 1940 and 1945, sixty-one German cities with a total population of 25 million souls were destroyed or devastated in a bombing campaign initiated by the English government. Destruction on this scale had no other purpose than the indiscriminate mass murder of as many German people as possible quite regardless of their civilian status. One of the campaign’s main aims was to reduce the German population (genocide) and furthermore reduce its capacity to become a trade rival to Britain. The bombing campaign led to Luftwaffe bombing of Britain in retaliation. This resulted in 60,000 British civilians’ deaths and 86,000 injured.

THE MOST UNCIVILIZED FORM OF WARFARE

The eminent British war historian and strategist, Captain Sir Basil Liddell Hart declared that through this strategy, victory had been achieved “through practicing the most uncivilized means of warfare that the world had known since the Mongol invasions.” – The Evolution of Warfare. Baber & Faber, 1946, p.75. “It was absolutely contrary to international law.” – Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain. “The British Government would never resort to the deliberate attack on women and children for the purposes of mere terrorism.” – Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain before he was ousted as Prime Minister.

Winston Churchill’s enthusiasm for the deliberate destruction of civilian populations could be traced back to his comment: “The air opened paths along which death and terror could be carried far behind the lines of the actual enemy; to women, children, the aged, the sick, who in earlier struggles would perforce have been left untouched.” – Winston Churchill, The Great War. Vol. 3 P1602.

The German chancellor, on the other hand, was repelled by the mere thought of targeting civilians. “The construction of bombing airplanes would soon be abandoned as superfluous and ineffective if bombing as such were branded as an illegal barbarity. If, through the Red Cross Convention, it definitely turned out possible to prevent the killing of a defenseless wounded man or prisoner, then it ought to be equally possible, by analogous convention, and finally to stop the bombing of equally defenseless civil populations.” – German Chancellor Adolf Hitler.

“Hitler only undertook the bombing of British civilian targets reluctantly three months after the RAF had commenced bombing German civilian targets. Hitler would have been willing at any time to stop the slaughter. Hitler was genuinely anxious to reach with Britain an agreement confining the action of aircraft to battle zones.” – J. M Spaight. CB. CBE. Bombing Vindicated, p.47. Principal Secretary to the Air Ministry.

The first breach of international law: “This raid on the night of May 11 1940, although in itself trivial, was an epoch-marking event since it was the first deliberate breach of the fundamental rule of civilized warfare that hostilities must only be waged against the enemy combatant forces. Their flight marked the end of an epoch which had lasted for two and one-half centuries.” – F. J. P Veale, Advance to Barbarism, p.172.

“The first ‘area’ air attack of the war was carried out by 134 British bombers on the German city of Mannheim on the 16 December 1940. The object of this attack, as Air Chief Marshall Peirse later explained, was, ‘to concentrate the maximum amount of damage in the center of the town,” – The Strategic Air Offensive Against Germany. (H. M Stationery Office, London, 1961).

As early as 1953 H. M Stationery Office published the first volume of a work, The Royal Air Force, 1939 – 1945, The Fight at Odds. P.122 described as ‘officially commissioned and based throughout on official documents which had been read and approved by the Air Ministry Historical Branch. Its author, Dennis Richards, reveals that: “If the Royal Air Force raided the Ruhr, destroying oil plants with its most accurately placed bombs and urban property with those that went astray, the outcry for retaliation against Britain might prove too strong for the German generals to resist. Indeed, Hitler himself would probably lead the clamor. The attack on the Ruhr was therefore an informal invitation to the Luftwaffe to bomb London.”

“We began to bomb objectives on the German mainland before the Germans began to bomb objectives on the British mainland.” – J. M. Spaight, CB. CBE. Principal Secretary to the Air Ministry.
“Because we were doubtful about the psychological effect of propagandist distortion of the truth that it was we who started the strategic bombing offensive, we have shrunk from giving our great decision of May 11 1940, the publicity it deserves.” – Bombing Vindicated. J.M. Spaight, CB. CBE. Principal Secretary to the Air Ministry.

“Air Marshall Tedder made every effort to be a worthy pupil of his superior, Prime Minister Winston Churchill. The Marshall told high British officers that Germany had lost the war because she had not followed the principle of total warfare.” – New York Times, January 10 1946.

“Retaliation was certain if we carried the war into Germany… there was a reasonable possibility that our capital and industrial centers would not have been attacked if we had continued to refrain from attacking those of Germany.” – J. M. Spaight, CB. CBE. Principal Secretary to the Air Ministry.

“The primary purpose of these raids was to goad the Germans into undertaking reprisal raids of a similar character on Britain. Such raids would arouse intense indignation in Britain against Germany and so create a war psychosis without which it would be impossible to carry on a modern war.” – Dennis Richards, the Royal Air Force 1939 – 1945. The Fight at Odds. H. M Stationery Office.

“It gave Coventry and Birmingham, Sheffield and Southampton, the right to look Kiev and Kharkov, Stalingrad and Sevastopol, in the face. Our Soviet allies would be less critical of our inactivity if they had understood what we had done.” – J. M. Spaight, CB. CBE. Principal Secretary to the Air Ministry.

THE TRUTH HIDDEN FROM THE BRITISH PUBLIC

“It is one of the greatest triumphs of modern emotional engineering that, in spite of the plain facts of the case which could never be disguised or even materially distorted, the British public, throughout the Blitz Period (1940 – 1941), remained convinced that the entire responsibility for their sufferings it was undergoing rested on the German leaders.”

“Too high praise cannot, therefore, be lavished on the British emotional engineers for the infinite skill with which the public mind was conditioned prior to and during a period of unparalleled strain.” – Advance to Barbarism, P. 168. Mitre Press, London. F. J. P Veale, British Jurist.

The bombing of the English city Coventry, a city with a manufacturing base is often claimed to be ‘our Dresden’. It is difficult to imagine a more ignorant riposte. “The inhabitants of Coventry, for example, continued to imagine that their sufferings were due to the innate villainy of Adolf Hitler without a suspicion that a decision, splendid or otherwise, of the British War Cabinet, was the decisive factor in the case.” – F. J. P Veale. Advance to Barbarism, P.169.

“One of the most unhealthy features of the bombing offensive was that the War Cabinet – and in particular the Secretary for Air, Archibald Sinclair (later Lord Thurso), felt it necessary to repudiate publicly the orders which they themselves had given to Bomber Command.” – R. H. S Crosman. Labor Minister of Housing. Sunday Telegraph, October 1 1961.

“Is terror bombing now part of our policy? Why is it that the people of this country who are supposed to be responsible for what is going on, are the only people who may not know what is being done in their name?”

“On the other hand, if terror bombing be part of our policy, why was this statement put out at all? I think we shall live to rue the day we did this, and that it (he bombing of Dresden) will stand for all time as a blot on our escutcheon.” – Richard Stokes, MP.

This Member of Parliament was referring to the Associated Press Correspondent of Supreme Allied Headquarters in Paris. This had gloated. “This unprecedented assault in daylight on the refugee-crowded capital, fleeing from the Soviet Red Army tide in the East. The report had been widely broadcast in America, and by Paris Radio. It was suppressed in Britain for fear of public revulsion.”

“Thus, in a minute dated 28 February 1943, Sir Archibald Sinclair explained to Sir Charles Portal, Chief of the Air Staff, that it was necessary to stifle all public discussion on the subject because if the truth had been disclosed in response to the inquiries being made by influential political and religious leaders, their inevitable condemnation would impair the morale of the bomber crews and consequently their bombing efficiency.” – F. J. P Veale, Advance to Barbarism, p.29.

WORKING CLASS TARGETED FOR HIGH KILL RATIOS

“The third and last phase of the British air offensive against Germany began in March 1942 with the adoption of the Lindemann Plan by the British War Cabinet, and continued with undiminished ferocity until the end of the war in May, 1945.

The bombing during this period was not, as the Germans complained, indiscriminate. On the contrary. It was concentrated on working class houses because, as Professor Lindemann maintained, a higher percentage of bloodshed per ton of explosives dropped could be expected from bombing houses built close together, rather than by bombing higher class houses surrounded by gardens.” – Advance to Barbarism, F. J. P Veale, British Author and Jurist.

SLAYING IN THE NAME OF THE LORD

“I am in full agreement (of terror bombing). I am all for the bombing of working class areas in German cities. I am a Cromwellian – I believe in ‘slaying in the name of the Lord!” – Sir. Archibald Sinclair, British RAF Secretary for Air.

WOMEN AND CHILDREN TO BE SLAIN AS A PRIORITY

“They (the British Air Chiefs) argued that the desired result, of reducing German industrial production, would be more readily achieved if the homes of the workers in the factories were destroyed; if the workers were kept busy arranging for the burial of their wives and children, output might reasonably be expected to fall.” – Advance to Barbarism, F. J. P Veale; Distinguished British Jurist.

***

Mike Walsh, a journalist, author and researcher has studied and published his books on the political history of the 20th Century for over 40 years. In addition, he has contributed hundreds of articles to international media. An Irish citizen of considerable revolutionary pedigree, Michael Walsh has an international reputation also as a poet.

Currently he has published four titles covering the vexed questions of the Reich and World War Two. These best-selling books are available on Amazon Books and Kindle. “Heroes of the Reich”, “The All Lies Invasion”, “Heroes Hang When Traitors Triumph”, and “Thus Sprach der Fuhrer”. Further titles will follow in 2015 and 2016.

Heroes of the ReichThe Reich catapulted otherwise quite ordinary people into international acclaim. HEROES OF THE REICH is neither a military nor political history of the men and woman of many nations who gave their loyalty and in many cases their lives to the Führer’s Reich. HEROES OF THE REICH reveals the true accounts of political and military icons, fabulous artistes, great musicians, the ordinary people who withstood to their deaths the overwhelming onslaught of the combined forces of the British, Soviet and American Empires. HEROES OF THE REICH marks 82 years since the German leader, Adolf Hitler was elected, 70 years since the end of the Reich. Hitler’s triumph was that he alone laid claim to be the only true democrat in the War of the Dictators. Soviet leader Joe Stalin, a Georgian, was never elected. Nor was half-American British Premier Winston Churchill. Whilst U.S. President Roosevelt was narrowly elected, it was afterwards conceded that it was his empty promise not to involve the American people in another European war that achieved his ‘victory.’  Order at Amazon

My thanks to Mike for the article, his books, and his years of dedication to the truth! ~ J4G

Posted in Churchill, Germany, Great Britain, Policies, War Crimes, World War II | Tagged , , , , , , , , ,

The Clinton system to discredit Donald Trump

Thierry Meyssan — Voltairenet.org Feb 28, 2017

This article is a warning – in November 2016, a vast system of agitation and propaganda was set up in order to destroy the reputation and the authority of President Donald Trump as soon as he arrived in the White House. It is the first time that such a campaign has been scientifically organised against a President of the United States, and with such resources. Yes, we are indeed entering a post-Truth age, but the distribution of rôles is not what you may think it is.

David Brock is considered to be one of the masters of agit-prop (agitation & propaganda) in the 21st century. A personality devoid of scruples, he is able to defend a cause as well as destroy it, according to the needs of his employer. He is at the head of an empire of mass manipulation.

The campaign waged against the new President of the United States by the sponsors of Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and the destruction of the Greater Middle East is on-going. After the Womens’ March on 22 January, a March for Science is scheduled to be held not only in the USA, but also throughout the Western world on 22 April. It’s goal is to show that Donald Trump is not only a misogynist, but also an obscurantist.

The fact that he is the ex-organiser of the Miss Universe pageant, and that his third wedding was to a model, is apparently enough to prove that he holds women in contempt. The fact that the President contests the rôle played by Barack Obama in the creation of the Chicago Climate Exchange (a long time before his Presidency) and rejects the idea that climatic disturbances are caused by the expulsion of carbon into the atmosphere attest to the fact that he understands nothing about science.

In order to convince US public opinion of the President’s insanity – a man who says that he hopes for peace with his enemies, and wants to collaborate with them in universal economic prosperity – one of the greatest specialists of agit-prop (agitation & propaganda), David Brock, set up an impressive system even before Trump’s investiture.

At the time when he was working for the Republicans, Brock launched a campaign against President Bill Clinton which would eventually become Troopergate, the Whitewater affair, and the Lewinsky affair. Having changed his colours, he is today in the service of Hillary Clinton, for whom he has already organised not only the demolition of Mitt Romney’s candidacy but also her riposte in the affair of the assassination of the US ambassador in Benghazi. During the first round of primaries, it was Brock who directed the attacks against Bernie Sanders. The National Review qualified Brock as «a right-wing assassin who has become a left-wing assassin».

It is important to remember that the two procedures of destitution of a serving President initiated since the Second World War were set in motion for the benefit of the deep state, and not at all for the benefit of democracy. So Watergate was entirely managed by a certgain «Deep Throat» who, 33 years later, was revealed to be Mark Felt, the assistant of J. Edgar Hoover, Director of the FBI. As for the Lewinsky affair, it was simply a way of forcing Bill Clinton to accept the war against Yugoslavia.

The current campaign is organised in secret by four associations:

- Media Matters is tasked with picking up on Donald Trump’s mistakes. You read his bulletin every day in your newspapers – the President can’t be trusted, he got this or that point wrong.

- American Bridge 21st Century has collected more than 2,000 hours of videos showing Donald Trump over the years, and more than 18,000 hours of other videos of the members of his cabinet. It has at its disposition sophisticated technological equipment designed for the Department of Defense – allegedly not in working order – which enables it to look for contradictions between their older declarations and their current positions. It should be extending its work to 1,200 of the new President’s collaborators.

- Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington — CREW is a firm of high level lawyers tasked with tracking anything that could create a scandal in the Trump administration. Most of the lawyers in this association work pro bono, for the cause. These are the people who prepared the case for Bob Ferguson, the Chief Prosecutor of the state of Washington, against the immigration decree (Executive Order 13769).

- Shareblue is an electronic army which has already connected with 162 million internauts in the USA. It’s job is to spread pre-ordained themes, for example:
• Trump is authoritarian and a thief.
• Trump is under the influence of Vladimir Putin.
• Trump is a weak and quick-tempered personality, he’s a manic-depressive.
• Trump was not elected by the majority of US citizens, and is therefore illegitimate.
• His Vice-President, Mike Pence, is a fascist.
• Trump is a billionaire who will constantly be faced with conflicts of interest between his personal affairs and those of state.
• Trump is a puppet of the Koch brothers, who are famous for sponsoring the extreme right.
• Trump is a white supremacist and a threat to minorities.
• Anti-Trump opposition just keeps growing outside Washington.
• To save democracy, let’s support the democrataic parliamentarians who are attacking Trump, and let’s demolish those who are co-operating with him.
• Overthrowing Trump will take time, so don’t let’s weaken in our resolve.

This association will produce the newsletters and 30-second videos. It will base itself on two other groups – a company which makes documentary videos, The American Independent, and a statistical unit, Benchmark Politics.

The whole of this system – which was set up during the transitional period, that is to say before Donald Trump’s arrival at the White House – already employed more than 300 specialists to which should be added numerous voluteer workers. Its annual budget, initially calculated at 35 million dollars, was increased to the level of about 100 million dollars.

Destroying the image – and thus the authority – of the President of the United States, before he has had the time to do anything at all, can have serious consequences. By eliminating Saddam Hussein and Mouamar Kadhafi, the CIA plunged their two countries into a long period of chaos, and the «land of Liberty» itself may suffer severe damage from such an operation. This type of mass manipulation technique has never before been levelled at a head of state in the Western world.

For the moment, the plan is working – no political leader in the world has dared to celebrate the election of Donald Trump, with the exception of Vladimir Putin and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Translation
Pete Kimberley

Source
Al-Watan (Syria)

 

Source


Deep State War? Russian Officials Keep Dying Unexpectedly

Tyler Durden — Zero Hedge Feb 27, 2017

Six Russian diplomats have died in the last 60 days. As Axios notes, all but one died on foreign soil. Some were shot, while other causes of death are unknown. Note that a few deaths have been labeled “heart attacks” or “brief illnesses.”

'We die in Aleppo, you die here,' gunman reportedly shouts

  1. You probably remember Russia’s Ambassador to Turkey, Andrei Karlov — he was assassinated by a police officer at a photo exhibit in Ankara on December 19.
  2. On the same day, another diplomat, Peter Polshikov, was shot dead in his Moscow apartment. The gun was found under the bathroom sink but the circumstances of the death were under investigation. Polshikov served as a senior figure in the Latin American department of the Foreign Ministry.
  3. Russia’s Ambassador to the United Nations, Vitaly Churkin, died in New York this past week. Churkin was rushed to the hospital from his office at Russia’s UN mission. Initial reports said he suffered a heart attack, and the medical examiner is investigating the death, according to CBS.
  4. Russia’s Ambassador to India, Alexander Kadakin, died after a “brief illness January 27, which The Hindu said he had been suffering from for a few weeks.
  5. Russian Consul in Athens, Greece, Andrei Malanin, was found dead in his apartment January 9. A Greek police official said there was “no evidence of a break-in.” But Malanin lived on a heavily guarded street. The cause of death needed further investigation, per an AFP report. Malanin served during a time of easing relations between Greece and Russia when Greece was increasingly critiqued by the EU and NATO.
  6. Ex-KGB chief Oleg Erovinkin, who was suspected of helping draft the Trump dossier, was found dead in the back of his car December 26, according to The Telegraph. Erovinkin also was an aide to former deputy prime minister Igor Sechin, who now heads up state-owned Rosneft.

If we go back further than 60 days…

  1. On the morning of U.S. Election Day, Russian diplomat Sergei Krivov was found unconscious at the Russian Consulate in New York and died on the scene. Initial reports said Krivov fell from the roof and had blunt force injuries, but Russian officials said he died from a heart attack. BuzzFeed reports Krivov may have been a Consular Duty Commander, which would have put him in charge of preventing sabotage or espionage.
  2. In November 2015, a senior adviser to Putin, Mikhail Lesin, who was also the founder of the media company RT, was found dead in a Washington hotel room according to the NYT. The Russian media said it was a “heart attack,” but the medical examiner said it was “blunt force injuries.”
  3. If you go back a few months prior in September 2016, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s driver was killed too in a freak car accident while driving the Russian President’s official black BMW  to add to the insanity.

CCTV catches Putin's driver crash in Moscow last Sept. Click to enlarge

If you include these three additional deaths that’s a total of nine Russian officials that have died over the past 2 years that WeAreChange.com’s Aaron Kesel knows of – he notes there could be more.

As Kesel explains, it’s worth noting that governments, specifically the CIA, have for long periods of time had chemical concoctions that can induce a full systematic shutdown of a person’s nervous system and in some cases cause someone’s’ heart to explode.

Former CIA employee Mary Embree discusses the infamous heart attack gun and how she was tasked with finding a chemical concoction that would cause a heart attack. The weapon was first made public during the Church Committee hearings in 1975 by former CIA director William Colby. It was said to be very lethal and untraceable, by using this weapon a murder is made to look natural while the poison dissolves in hours.

.

It seems highly unlikely and improbable to write off that six Russian officials would die in under 60 days in such an influx in various different mysterious ways without a catalyst. And let’s not forget RT founder and former Putin aide Mikhail Lesin was found dead in 2015 from a blunt weapon that was originally blamed on a heart attack so assassination can’t be taken off the table and ruled out in any of these cases. Turkey and Russia already accused NATO of a false flag attack killing Karlov the Russian-Turkish Ambassador. NATO also had a dead diplomat Yves Chandelon mysteriously die of a gunshot wound to the head in his car a week before the death of Karlov. Chandelon was the Chief Auditor in charge Of Counterterrorism funding.

“Turkey and Russia have the will not to be deceived by this false flag attack,” they said.

Don’t forget that on Christmas day, a Russian military jet went down over the Black Sea, killing 60 members of the Red Army choir and 33 others that just adds to the massive coincidence list.

On a final note, former acting director of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Michael Morell openly conspired to “covertly” kill Russians and Iranians in Syria in an August 2016 interview with Charlie Rose. While Morell was talking about killing Russian and Iranian soldiers it is definitely a strange piece to add to this puzzle.

.

Are we witnessing a battle between the deep state and Russia in a spy versus spy plotline or is this all just a freak coincidence?

Source


PizzaGate: What is known so far

——————————————————————————————————-

 

Teddy Roosevelt, Mark Twain and the Fight Over American Imperialism

 

Photo

Adm. George Dewey and Marines in the Philippines shortly after the defeat of the Spanish, 1898.CreditBettmann/Getty Images

THE TRUE FLAG
Theodore Roosevelt, Mark Twain, and the Birth of American Empire
By Stephen Kinzer
Illustrated. 306 pp. Henry Holt & Company. $28.

America’s turn from isolationism to foreign interventionism, often attributed to World War II, was the result of the Spanish-American War and the subsequent American conquest of the Philippines. That is the thesis of the journalist and historian Stephen Kinzer in “The True Flag: Theodore Roosevelt, Mark Twain, and the Birth of American Empire.” All foreign policy debates since 1898 have echoed the themes of that era, Kinzer asserts. “Only once before — in the period when the United States was founded — have so many brilliant Americans so eloquently debated a question so fraught with meaning for all humanity.”

On May 1, 1898, during the Spanish-American War, Adm. George Dewey’s warships crippled the Spanish fleet in Manila Bay in the Philippines, a Spanish colony soon to become an American protectorate until after World War II. On Sept. 30, 1899, in a triumphal parade in New York City, the admiral passed under the Dewey Arch, which stretched across Fifth Avenue at 24th Street. According to Kinzer, “It was modeled after the first-century Arch of Titus in Rome but was more ornate.” But as American forces in the Philippines turned from liberators into conquerors, using torture techniques like “the water cure” and engaging in massacres of insurgents fighting for independence, even some of the architects of the intervention had second thoughts. President McKinley, who had ordered the conquest of the Philippines, speculated: “If old Dewey had just sailed away when he smashed that Spanish fleet, what a lot of trouble he would have saved us.”

The Dewey Arch, initially built of plaster and wood, never became a permanent monument in New York City. Instead, Kinzer writes, “the City Council decided that demolition was the only option and, as The New York Times reported, ‘One morning the work lay on the ground in a hundred pieces.’ ”

Continue reading the main story

In the debate about the Spanish-American War and the conversion of the United States into a regional and global great power, the Anti-Imperialist League attracted most of America’s leading writers and reformers. Some, like the German-American senator from Missouri, Carl Schurz, were veterans of the campaign against slavery. Others, like Jane Addams, were leaders of the woman suffrage movement and other contemporary progressive reform causes. Many Southerners opposed American control of Cuba and the Philippines as well, for fear that granting their nonwhite populations rights would undermine white supremacy in the United States. And the anti-imperialists also included labor leaders like Samuel Gompers, who was concerned about the effect on American wages of immigration from the Philippines: “If these new islands are to become ours . . . can we hope to close the floodgates of immigration from the hordes of Chinese and the semisavage races coming from what will then be part of our own country?”

Supporters of the annexation of the Philippines similarly tossed out various arguments, like access to Asian markets and the uplifting of the Filipinos themselves. Theodore Roosevelt, whose participation in the war against Spain in Cuba made him a celebrity and put him on the path to the vice presidency and then the presidency, denied that the Spanish-American War and the war in the Philippines broke with American history. In 1899 in a speech titled “The Strenuous Life,” Roosevelt thundered at the anti-imperialists: “Their doctrines, if carried out, would make it incumbent upon us to leave the Apaches of Arizona to work out their own salvation, and to decline to interfere in a single Indian reservation. Their doctrines condemn your forefathers and mine for ever having settled in these United States.”

Roosevelt and the imperialists found their greatest nemesis in Mark Twain. Twain condemned all efforts by Western nations to carve up the non-Western world. Writing of the Boxer rebellion against Europeans and Americans in China, he declared: “My sympathies are with the Chinese. They have been villainously dealt with by the sceptered thieves of Europe, and I hope they will drive all of the foreigners out and keep them out for good.” Twain’s genius for satire showed in his widely publicized polemics for the anti-imperialist cause. In a 1901 essay for the North American Review, reprinted as a pamphlet by the Anti-Imperialist League, Twain said: “And as for a flag for the Philippine Province, it is easily managed. We can have a special one — our states do it: We can have just our usual flag, with the white stripes painted black and the stars replaced by the skull and crossbones.”

But Kinzer is not content to retell the story of the controversy over annexation of the Philippines. He tries to promote an overarching theory of United States foreign policy, and he cites the former Marine Gen. Smedley Butler, who in the 1930s bitterly described his military service in the Philippines, Cuba, China, Haiti, Mexico and Central America as that of a “gangster for capitalism” and “a high-class muscleman for big business.” Recycling the arguments of the venerable anti-interventionist tradition, Kinzer quotes figures like Senator Gerald Nye of North Dakota, who blamed commercial interests for American participation in World War I, and post-1945 advocates of close Soviet-American ties like Henry Wallace and Paul Robeson. In this way, the rich detail of Kinzer’s account of the debate over American imperialism at the turn of the 20th century gives way to a hasty revisionist account of United States foreign policy as a series of imperial follies, in which the wars of presidents from Franklin Roosevelt to Barack Obama whiz past. All of American foreign policy for more than a century is attributed to some vague mix of business greed and arrogant folly.

Kinzer is free to make this case, but it should not have been tacked on to the conclusion of the book. His own account does not support the idea that business interests drove the United States to go to war with Spain and against the Filipino independence movement. Kinzer himself notes, “Businessmen as a class were at first reluctant to join the rush to war, but by midsummer many had been won over.” Andrew Carnegie was a passionate anti-imperialist, and Mark Hanna, identified with the interests of big business and banking, despised Theodore Roosevelt and thought him dangerous.

Kinzer points to the Massachusetts senator Henry Cabot Lodge who, along with his friend Roosevelt, was one of the champions of what was called a “large” foreign policy: “With our protective tariff wall around the Philippine Islands, its 10 million inhabitants, as they advance in civilization, would have to buy our goods, and we should have so much additional market for our home manufactures.” But this was an argument to be made for public consumption and hardly reflected Lodge’s worldview. He was part of a group of mostly patrician neo-Hamiltonians, including Roosevelt and the naval historian Alfred Thayer Mahan, who sought to turn the United States into a great military power. They were not agents of American export lobbies.

Kinzer omits any discussion of the turn-of-the-century rivalries between the United States and other great powers, in the Caribbean, Central America and the Pacific. He does not even mention one of the most famous incidents of the war in the Philippines — the confrontation in Manila Bay between Admiral Dewey’s American fleet and the German fleet under Adm. Otto von Diederichs in Manila Bay in 1898. But as the Cambridge History of Latin America tells us, “German-American rivalry was an important factor underlying the expanded role of the United States in the Caribbean-Central American region. The German admiralty did not hide its desire for bases in the Caribbean to control an isthmian canal, and to American leaders it seemed that the German-American naval confrontations that had occurred in the Samoan Islands (1888) and Manila Bay (1898) might be repeated much closer to home.” Indeed, in 1903 the German admiralty devised Operations Plan III, which “envisaged the occupation of Puerto Rico . . . and the utilization of bases on the island to conduct a naval offensive against the United States.” “The True Flag” works better as a history of polemics than as a polemical history.

#OscarsSoJewish: 89th Oscars Ceremony Scores Second Worst Ratings Ever

Eric Striker
Daily Stormer
February 28, 2017


Jimmy Kimmel, boring musicals about how fabulous famous people are and a night of Donald Trump bashing – nothing could save the Oscars.

For the 89th time in a row, Jews swept the Academy Awards, but this time, nobody cared.

This edition of the award ceremony had the second worst ratings since Nielsen started keeping track in 1974. As usual, the (((Fake News Media))) refuses to report why exactly millions of Americans didn’t bother tuning in, except as a “theory.”

It’s not that they can’t handle the truth, it’s that they have an agenda to protect, and under this umbrella is the dishonest notion that elite Beverly Hills Jews are the cultural vanguard and conscience of America.

New York Times:

The only Oscars broadcast to fare worse was the 2008 show, which had 32 million viewers and aired shortly after a writers’ strike had ended.

Last year, ABC secured broadcast rights for the show until 2028 — at a cost of roughly $75 million a year — and through the contract negotiations, the network was given a bit more creative input into the show. To wit, ABC got the host it long wanted: its late night star, Jimmy Kimmel.

There will most likely be a number of theories as to why viewership has dropped. Last year, the controversy surrounding #OscarsSoWhite, a movement on social media aimed at the lack of diversity among the nominees, led to speculation that viewers could be turned off by the prospect of an hourslong civics lecture. This year brought the prospect of political speeches aimed at the Trump administration from an entertainment industry that largely opposes the president.

Ratings are also often driven by the popularity of the movies in contention. “Moonlight,” which won the best picture award, was a favorite in big cities like Chicago, Los Angeles, New York and San Francisco but was ignored by much of the heartland.

I’m not prejudiced enough to dismiss every single movie or TV show about black people as bad. For example, “The Wire” and “Ghostdog” were pretty good. But judging from the vox populi reviews of “Moonlight,” a film about MoonCrickets that the New York Times claims went over “the Heartlands’” (read: white people’s) head. It’s obvious that this was an affirmative action victory in response to a phony media campaign.

But hey, there is something to the fact that Hollywood lacks diversity. Up on stage to receive the statuette for best picture (“Moonlight”) was Jeremy Kleiner, a Jewish producer who specializes in making politically anti-white movies aimed at inciting black violence (he won best picture in 2014 for “12 Years A Slave” and was nominated in 2015 for “Selma”).

With Gentiles being locked out of Hollywood, they are flocking to other parts of the country to continue cultivating the kind of well-written content (The Walking Dead, Breaking Bad, Westworld, etc.) Jews have killed with their transparent politicking.

It goes without saying that people like TWD writer Frank Darabont and Breaking Bad creator Vince Gilligan are hardline leftists, but even with their unrealistically diverse characters and gay/feminist propaganda, their shows lack the kind of gut-wrenching anti-white invective Jew-produced films like “Get Out” embody.

For this reason, Hollywood’s days are numbered.

It’s too bad Frank Davi’s idea wasn’t put into action:

Canada’s own immigration ban

OPINIONCANADAYESTERDAY

Canada is trying to be an example for the world by welcoming refugees, but its doors are still not open to Roma.

A Roma pilgrim lights a candle during the annual festival held in the Catholic chapel of Szentkut in Csatka, Hungary, September 2016 [Zoltan Balogh/EPA]
A Roma pilgrim lights a candle during the annual festival held in the Catholic chapel of Szentkut in Csatka, Hungary, September 2016 [Zoltan Balogh/EPA]

by

Dafina Savic is the founder of Romanipe, a not-for-profit organisation seeking to fight discrimination against Roma.

by

Debbie Folaron is associate professor in Translation Studies at Concordia University, Montreal, Canada.

While the world is outraged, and rightly so, by recent policies south of its border, we are quick to forget that not too long ago the Canadian government imposed its own ban of sorts, one that aimed to restrict entry into the country of a specific group of people fleeing persecution.

It did so on the premise that these people were “bogus refugees” undeserving of Canada’s protection and explicitly targeted them as “criminals”.

Earlier this month, Anthony Housefather, Member of Parliament for Mount Royal delivered a poignant speech during the emergency debate on the executive order signed by United States President Donald Trump to ban refugees and immigrants of Muslim-majority countries from entering the US.

Housefather shed light on Canada’s own issues of xenophobia and the politics of fear. From the Chinese Exclusion Act, to the rejection of Jewish refugees aboard the St. Louis, he cited example after example of the darker side of Canada’s past.

And although these historic examples rung strong and true, where was mention of the more recent instances of injustice and discrimination in Canadian immigration policy?

Canada’s dark secrets

In 2013, financed with Canadian taxpayer money, the government initiated a billboard campaign in the predominant countries of origin of Roma claimants.

It sought to deliberately deter Roma from seeking asylum in Canada, stating that “people who make a [refugee] claim without sound reasons will be processed faster and deported faster.”

The billboards were placed in countries such as Hungary, a country which is still listed as “safe” under the current government.

Until the federal court deemed it unconstitutional in 2015, refugee claimants from the Designated Country of Origin (DCO) list were denied their right to appeal in cases of rejection, so as to avoid “abuse” of the system.

The Conservative government’s policy and rhetoric targeting Roma asylum seekers as “bogus and fraudulent refugees “undeserving of Canada’s protection” were not only effective in blocking Roma from entering the country.

They also served to embed in Canadian media and political discourse the very stereotypes and hate Roma were seeking to flee in their countries of origin.

OPINION: Warning – Canada is not what you think it is

In this climate of animosity and hostile attitudes towards Roma, many Roma refugee claimants were being taken advantage of by their legal representatives and subjected to biased decision-making at the Immigration and Refugee Board.

Despite increasing refugee acceptance numbers under the current administration, Canadian authorities continue to practise racial profiling against Roma. In 2015, dozens of Hungarian Roma with valid travel documents were prevented from boarding flights to Canada for allegedly lacking proper documentation to enter the country due to their Roma ethnicity.

Without a thorough review of the policy in Canada, Roma refugees fleeing persecution and racism in Europe will be left behind while our very own ban will be left unaddressed.

With little attention from the media, in May 2016 the Canadian government reinstated visas on Bulgaria and Romania to curb Roma immigration.

However, with European Union hesitation and the diplomatic sensitivities surrounding the Canadian-EU Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), the move proved to be problematic, and the Trudeau administration was forced to lift the visa requirements on those countries.

Such disagreements regarding CETA ratification are reminiscent of the pressures that had stalled the agreement under the previous government and which eventually led to the imposition of discriminatory policy measures against Roma refugees.

However, the more it changes, the more it’s the same thing. While Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was in Europe in mid-February to finalise the CETA agreement, all issues affecting Roma were left off the agenda and conveniently unaddressed.

A ‘two-tier’ refugee system

Despite recent court decisions and widespread criticism that the DCO creates a “two-tier” refugee system, the “Safe Country” Review Panel was recently dropped from the mandate of the current Minister of Immigration Ahmed Hussen.

This not only means that the DCO list will remain as is, but also that no panel of experts will be delegated to review and reassess the human rights situation of the countries listed.

While a designated “Safe Country” may be safe for most of its inhabitants, it is by no means safe for all. Without a thorough review of the policy in Canada, Roma refugees fleeing persecution and racism in Europe will be left behind while our very own ban will be left unaddressed.

As raised in a recent opinion article published by Al Jazeera, Roma are often made to be the culprits of anti-refugee sentiment in Europe, while they are fleeing those very issues. Even in situations of violent conflict certain populations are not granted equal attention, treatment and compassion.

Noteworthy is the European Roma Rights Centre (ERRC)’s report that the Domari populations, who have been present in the Middle East for thousands of years, have been equally, if not doubly, affected by the ongoing crisis and violence in the region.

According to a 2014 ERRC report, out of the estimated one million registered and unregistered refugees from Turkey, some 30,000 were of Domari origin. Political polarisation and ethnic and religious divisions often make it impossible for Syrian Domari populations to stay in official refugee camps.

OPINION: Why are Roma blamed for Europe’s rejection of refugees?

After meeting with President Trump, Trudeau reiterated that we ought to be an example for the world by being the open country we are. Now is a crucial time for Trudeau to demonstrate his and the country’s true commitment to refugees.

A step in the right direction would be to end the two-tier Designated Countries of Origin system and suspend the Safe Third Country Agreement with the US, and to implement authentic review and assessment of each refugee claimant’s case on the basis of merit.

Only then can the light of true justice prevail, and hope be given to Roma and others who have suffered the consequences of Canada’s failed legal system. It is, indeed, only by facing our darker moments that we can hope to learn from them.

Dafina Savic is the founder of Romanipe, a Montreal-based, not-for-profit organisation seeking to fight discrimination against Roma worldwide.

Debbie Folaron is associate professor in Translation Studies at Concordia University, Montreal, Canada.

Cristina Ruscio holds a Master of Laws (LLM); Comparative Law, Economics and Finance. During her studies, she worked as a legal aid.

The views expressed in this article are the authors’ own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial policy.


Canada Israel 1262e

In recent days I discovered that the Canadian branch of the Israeli-US-based Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith is reporting that I am “well known for using academic credentials to deny the Holocaust.” On August 29, Daniel Leons-Marder mirrored the Canadian B’nai Brith report under the title, Facebook Allows “Kill All Jews” Post on Wall of Canadian Professor. In an item Leons-Marder claims has been shared 11,000 times, he asserted “B’nai Brith Canada reported the image, which was ruled acceptable [by Facebook] within two hours, when it was alerted to it having been posted on the Facebook page of Canadian Academic Professor Anthony Hall, who is a holocaust denier.”

FB allows 66848

The B’nai Brith’s Aug. 29 announcement starts with a bald statement that “Police have launched an investigation into an antisemitic Facebook post that was exposed by B’nai Brith Canada last Friday.” The earlier August 26 statement emphasized the role of Facebook, introducing me in the controversy as being “well known for using [my] academic credentials to deny the Holocaust and promote 9/11 conspiracy theories.”

fb Hall 44cca

Under the headline, “Killing Jews Is Now an Acceptable Message, Facebook Says,” the B’nai Brith announced,

“Antisemitism in all forms is rampant on social media, but this is the clearest, most obvious kind of antisemitism one could possibly create,” said Michael Mostyn, B’nai Brith CEO. “The classification of this as antisemitic cannot be challenged, and the fact that this promotes violence towards Jews is beyond dispute. Regardless, Facebook has deemed it acceptable despite its ‘community standards’ containing clear provisions against hate speech. The Jewish community deserves no less protection or respect than any other when it comes to hate speech and threats of violence.”

“Every year, upon publication of our Annual Audit of Antisemitic Incidents, a contingent of detractors accuses us of saying the sky is falling, and that antisemitism does not exist in Canada,” said Amanda Hohmann, National Director of B’nai Brith’s League for Human Rights. “Content like this is proof positive that not only antisemitism of a genocidal nature exists in Canada, but the systems that are supposed to protect us from racist hate speech don’t consider hatred of Jews to be problematic.”

B’nai Brith has reported the post to Lethbridge Police Services.

fb BB 22ad8

The Canadian B’nai Brith’s post, together with those of others that have mirrored B’nai Brith’s announcement, constitute the first time I have seen myself described in print as a ‘holocaust denier.” What is the definition used by the thought police to decide who is or is not a “holocaust denier? Are there many holocausts or only one? Who owns the term, “holocaust?” If there are exclusive rights, how were they obtained?

In the eyes of the B’nai Brith, is a “holocaust denier” anyone who disagrees with any element, large or small, of its favored historical interpretation? Is the B’nai Brith naturally hostile to anyone that retains independent, evidence-based perspectives on some of the most fraught issues of historical interpretation in contemporary times?

What is behind the creation of the original post that set the controversy in motion? Who created it and why? Is this whole episode an engineered crisis? Is one of its purposes to fend off the criticisms of those that accuse the B’nai Brith and related Zionist agencies of claiming “the sky is falling” with their Orwellian system of Annual Audits of Antisemitic Incidents. Please see below the map published to present cartographic interpretations by the Coordination Forum for Countering Antisemitism.

Map BB 9fccd

As shall be explained below, the B’nai Brith has failed to perform due diligence in its handling of this matter. Its officers did not even attempt back up their provocative characterizations of me with even a shred of genuine evidence. The organization opted instead to exploit for its own political agenda the shock value inherent in the vile contents of an item allegedly posted, apparently very briefly, on my FB page. The item is said to have been posted by Glen Davidson. I did not ever see it on my FB page. I did not invite nor did I even have any knowledge of it until recently.

In its material the B’nai Brith describe the post as a “depiction of a White man assaulting an Orthodox Jew accompanied by a lengthy, violent anti-Semitic screed beside the photograph.” Here is the post, which I first saw sometime early in September as part of a smear piece published about me at “Aussie Dave’s” Israellycool.

Hall BB 01a73

To reiterate and to be absolutely clear, I did not post this social media item myself. I did not create it or solicit it. I do not approve of its contents. In fact I of course strongly condemn the message conveyed in both the image and the text. Due diligence demands, however, that I look further into this matter.

The B’nai Brith in Action

My initial research into the item’s content is leading me to the opinion that the image probably emerges from some sort of staged situation, one that seems to include the application of photo shop techniques. The most basic questions that must now be pressed concern the source of the atrocious text. From whence does it originate? Certainly I did not write it. Glen Davidson did not write it. Who did write it and why? Not once yet have I seen this deeper question posed by those who are exploiting the vile item to dramatize a real or concocted dispute with Facebook.

Quite possibly by design, the miniscule, densely compressed text is very difficult to read especially on small digital devices. Could this attribute be because the text was conceived not as a means of winning adherents but rather as a justification for political actions like the B’nai Brith’s current hate speech campaign highlighting my academic position at the University of Lethbridge?

I first saw the item among a number of screen shots all dedicated to “Aussie Dave’s” nomination of me as “Anti-Zionist-Not-Anti-Semite of the Day.”

Hall Zionism bf767

I remember being particular interested in the part of the post that mentioned Ryan Bellerose, a Metis man and convert to Judaism who has recently been hired as the B’nai Brith’s new Western Canadian representative. Most of my attention zeroed in on Aussie Dave’s suggestion to his readers that they communications to the president of my University, Dr. Mike Mahon. I also took note of a screen shot of an item on U of L letterhead where Dr. Mahon responds to  “JP.” Who is “JP”?

I can trace one thread of this matter’s origins to a recorded telephone call I listened to a year ago. Its source was Amanda Hohmann, National Director of B’nai Brith’s League for Human Rights. In August of 2015 Ms. Hohmann telephoned the manager of a community venue in downtown Edmonton Alberta. Ms. Hohmann aim on behalf of her employer was to shut down a book promotion event. At the time Dr. Barrett along with his wife, two sons a dog and me were touring Alberta to call attention to an edited text entitled We Are Not Charlie Hebdo. Dr. Barrett edited the volume to which I had contributed an article.

The venue’s manager, Richard Awid, taped Ms. Hohmann’s intervention and subsequently played it back for me. Here is how I described this part of the episode in an article entitled “B’nai Brith Moves to Quash Free Speech in Canada,”

Mr. Awid was somewhat dumbfounded that a small event at his community hall, “one of 100 such venues in Edmonton,” would elicit such an intense response from a very powerful organization in Toronto. He played back to me on his answering machine a recorded message he received at about 9 am on August 12 from Amanda Hohmann. Ms. Hohmann explained that she had received “a few complaints” about “Mr.” Kevin Barrett on the B’nai Brith’s “anti-hate hotline.” (1-416-633-6224; 1-800-892-2624)

Ms. Hohmann asserted that

“Mr. Barrett is a known anti-semite conspiracy theorist, a Holocaust Denier, and 9/11 Denier and all sorts of other things.”

Ms. Hohmann made no effort whatsoever to give background proof of her allegations or to identify the sources of the supposed “complaints.” Nevertheless she proposed to Mr. Awid that he should “cancel the event and let Mr. Barrett know he is not welcome in Edmonton.”

Hohmann 4485a

In this telephone call the B’nai Brith’s “human rights” director tried to defame a colleague offering absolutely no proof whatsoever to provide evidentiary backing for her directive from Toronto that Dr. Barrett should not be welcome in Alberta’s capital. I believe the Western world currently supports many Amanda Hohmanns paid very well to target and slander regularly individuals like Dr. Kevin Barrett.

Are the protagonists in these ugly witch hunts ever held accountable for the excesses? Are there any constraints on the increasingly severe incursions of the Zionist thought police? What remedies are or are not available for the likes of Dr. Barrett who is a Muslim man. Along with the rest of the omma, Dr. Barrett and his family are regularly subjected to heavy does of “hate speech” and sometimes worse?

When Richard Awid, a Muslim himself, did not adhere to Ms. Hohmann’s instructions, the B’nai Brith was able to send in a representative of the “hate speech” unit of the Edmonton police. The officer monitored the first part of the event and then left after informing Dr. Barrett that our presentation deemed was not to be hate speech by the police force he represented. I recall wondering at the time, does that bizarre episode foreshadow an era when all university classes will be policed by officials answerable to agencies like the B’nai Brith? Is that where this is leading?

The B’nai Brith has been front and center in Canada’s increasingly notorious record of aggressively policing citizens for supposed thought crimes and speech crimes. The B’nai Brith’s assault on free speech in Canada includes among its objects for criminalization Doug Collins, Malcolm Ross, Jim Keegstra, Ernst Zundel, Terry Tremaine, David Ahenakew and, most recently, Arthur Topham.

Topham 62b25

The case against Arthur Topham and his Radical Press is still ongoing. By following at a distance the tawdry prosecution of the self-employed reporter, publisher, editor and carpenter in Quesnel British Columbia, I was made aware of a very significant text published in 1941. Theodore Kaufman’s Germany Must Perish outlines an extremely ruthless strategy of genocidal destruction of a whole people. Has this classic description of genocidal intent and methodology been ever given prominence in a school curriculum in Canada?

My reading of an Internet copy of the text, one that became integral to the proceedings of the Topham trial, caused me to reflect on how one-sided the whole discourse on genocide is becoming. The suffering of one group is highlighted and elevated above all others while the suffering and assaults imposed on other groups is often downplayed, ignored or even denigrated. I had no idea before the B’nai Brith-instigated prosecution of Arthur Topham that there was such a detailed plan to annihilate the entire German people.

I only recently have become fully aware of the extent of the murder, rape and pillage of several millions of Germans after 1945 in American prisoner war camps and in orgies of Soviet-instigated ethnic cleansing in Eastern Europe. Where are the museums to promote public education about these crimes against humanity? Where is the museum to commemorate the horrendous intergenerational genocide of perhaps a hundred million Indigenous peoples in the Holocaust of the Americas since 1492? Will future You Tubers make videos to ask elderly members of today’s generation what they did or didn’t do about the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians now underway in order to clear the way for Greater Israel?

Free speech 8de57

Thought Police Wreaking Havoc on Campus

The B’nai Brith is becoming especially aggressive in campaigns to have individuals fired from their work for expounding historical interpretations it does not like. The B’nai Brith boasted menacingly on September 15 of having destroyed the career of Nikolas Balakas, a long-serving lab technician at York University’s Department of Astronomy and Physics. The announcement that Canada’s most ruthless thought police agency had succeeded in its campaign to get York University to fire its employee was written by Aidan Fishman. Mr. Fishman is Campus Advocacy Coordinator of B’nai Brith Canada.

After counting coup on Mr. Balaras’s dismissal, Mr. Fishman concludes with the following plea that the University of Lethbridge should follow York University’s example. The B’nai Brith official wrote,

“Unfortunately not every administration is prepared to act with such decisiveness [as that of York University], as the ongoing saga surrounding Professor Anthony Hall at Lethbridge University shows. I hope that the administration in Lethbridge can use the excellent example set by York University on this matter, and take appropriate steps to ensure that their students are not similarly subjected to hatred and antisemitism on campus.”

Who is the real author of this “ongoing saga?” Where is the proof as of today that University of Lethbridge students are being subjected “to hatred and anti-Semitism on campus.” I have not once seen this kind of language appear in 26 years of teaching evaluations. Where is there any accountability for floating this kind of vicious agenda of smear? The intrusion into this matter of a B’nai Brith official described as Campus Advocacy Coordinator is, as far as I know, setting precedents at my school. What is the nature of the “advocacy” Mr. Fishman is “coordinating”?

The effort of B’nai Brith’s “campus coordinator” and possibly others of his group to inject themselves into the internal governance of the University of Lethbridge brings to mind a similar controversy brewing at Oberlin College. Oberlin College is a renowned Liberal Arts school in Ohio whose origins long predate the American Civil War. There Dr. Joy Karega has been suspended with pay from her teaching position as a result of a controversy also involving Facebook posts. I have written a lengthy open latter on the matter to Oberlin President, Dr. Marvin Krislov. The text, which has been mirrored on other web sites, was first published at American Herald Tribune.

Karega AHT 95018

In my effort to reach out to President Krislov, Dr. Karega and the other students and faculty involved in what has definitely become a fiasco for the Oberlin community, I proposed in my open letter that we all work together to mount a joint academic conference. I proposed that my own Liberal Education program at the University of Lethbridge ally itself with the embattled Liberal Arts College in Ohio to organize an event aimed at bringing thoughtful academic commentary to address a mounting crisis in higher education in North America.

I hereby invite Aiden Fishman to join this initiative and thereby embark on a constructive course rather than the trajectory of negativity implicit in his present preoccupation with hate talk and advocacy for division. Of course Mr. Fishman is far from alone in the type of “advocacy” in which he is engaged. There is a barrage of interventions currently underway from organizations like the AMCHA Initiative, the Simon Wiesenthal Center for Campus Outreach, Hillel, the American Jewish Congress, David Horowitz’s FrontPage and Daniel Pipes’ Campus Watch to mention only a few. As currently on full public display at Oberlin College, these well-funded and deeply staffed interventions invariably wreak havoc on the principles of academic freedom and civil academic discourse on campus?

I suggested the following title for the event.

Anti-Semitic Conspiracy Theories:

A Rational or Irrational Phrase in Academic Discourse?

In my research research into the Joy Karega/Oberlin debacle I became aware of the concerted campaign in 2014 to destroy the career of Prof. William I. Robinson. Dr. Robinson is Professor of Sociology at the University of California at Santa Barbara. Like Dr. Joy Karega, Dr. Steven Salaita, Dr. Hatem Bazian, Dr. Rabab Abdulhadi, Dr. Richard Falk, me and many others, Dr. Robinson includes in the curriculum some focus on the plight of Palestinian people.

Caption: Prof. Richard Falk, Former UN Rapporteur and Princeton University Professor of International Law, Speaks on the Issue of Academic Freedom at the University of California at Santa Barbara

The sociologist refused to back down from incorporating in his teaching critical perspectives on the harsh treatment of Palestinians especially in Gaza and the so-called Occupied Territories. Amidst proliferating Jewish settlements and the constant repressions of the Israeli police state, many Palestinians continue to eke out marginal existences on the heavily militarized lands set aside for them by the United Nations in Resolution 181. Resolution 181, an international instrument calling for partition of Palestine and UN trusteeship over Jerusalem, constitutes the primary law at the roots of the Israeli entity in its present form.

Abdulhadi 1ed77

Robinson books 2ccbc

Prof. Robinson has written of his ordeal in August of 2014 on Truthout. In an article entitled “Repression Escalates on US Campuses,” the sociologist explains,

The persecution to which I was subjected involved a litany of harassment, slander, defamation of character and all kinds of threats against the university by outside forces if I was not dismissed, as well as hate mail and death threats from unknown sources. More insidiously, it involved a shameful collaboration between a number of university officials and outside forces from the Israel lobby as the university administration stood by silently, making a mockery of academic freedom.

The disciplinary procedure initiated against me by UCSB officials involved a host of irregularities, violations of the university’s own procedures, breaches of confidentiality, denial of due process, conflicts of interest, failure of disclosure, improper political surveillance, abuses of power and position, unwarranted interference in curriculum and teaching and so on. As I would discover during the course of the ordeal, individuals inside the university and in positions of authority had linked up with agents of the lobby outside the university in setting out to prosecute me.

Will the same toolbox of wrecking instruments deployed at the University of California be shipped in from the United States and unpacked at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta Canada? Will the administration of my own school continue to uphold the University of Lethbridge’s good reputation as an institution of higher education where the vital principles of academic freedom and civil academic discourse are expressed and defended?

On several occasions I have publicly lauded the U of L for creating an environment of academic freedom. I made this observation, for instance, at the University of Lethbridge’s book event when in 2011 my volume, Earth into Property, was launched. In this 900+ page peer-reviewed academic text published by McGill-Queen’s University Press, I incorporate analysis that the B’nai Brith flippantly trivializes as “9/11 conspiracy theories.”

Deeply corrupt agencies like the B’nai Brith have a lot to lose when the basic facts about what really happened on 9/11–who did what to whom—become the common knowledge of the general public. That day may be approaching far faster than those hiding behind the tired old memes about “conspiracy theories” anticipate.

How much longer can the evidence of 9/11 be concealed behind the ruthless kind of ad hominem attacks that have become the well known-specialty of the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith in all its many constituent parts? How much longer will the public tolerate the hate propaganda and professional assaults that are obliterating the fundamental integrity of so many of our most important institutions?

What other lies and deceptions are being fed to the public on a regular basis? What is the level of public confidence these days in the trustworthiness of society’s key institutions including government, media, police and agencies of higher education? Who can say public confidence in these entities is high?

What is the appropriate role for universities in addressing issues of officialdom’s fraud and malfeasance especially in situations that have large implications for public policy? If even tenured university faculty can be intimidated into shying away from the professional responsibility to distinguish truth from falsehood, but especially in situations that threaten power’s imperatives, who will perform this vital function? Politicians? Talking heads on TV? Who will speak truth to the unaccountable power that the B’nai Brith in its current reckless demeanor so abundantly epitomizes?

Ritual Defamation in the Social Media Circus

To return to the Facebook post that lies at the root of this controversy, I have already publicly condemned the contents of the offending item in the September 16 edition of False Flag Weekly News. I currently co-host this regular broadcast along with one of its founding partners, Dr. Kevin Barrett.

I noticed a reference to my public condemnation of the item in question in the comments section of the B’nai Brith’s own web post of August 29. A commenter going by the name of Andrew Blair observes,

It is important to realize that Professor Hall publicly condemns that image and text. Go to False Flag Weekly, at minute 36, to see and hear his denunciation.When I put on my “fairness” glasses and look at that image I see Tony Hall in the headlock, and the arms locking his head are the image and the text. Does anyone else see that, or are my “fairness” glasses defective?

“Andrew Blair’s” question certainly resonates with me. The B’nai Brith’s description of the image in its news announcements refers to “a White man assaulting an Orthodox Jew.” Is the Orthodox Jew not a White man too? What is there to say that the aggressor in this image is not Cherokee or Mohawk or Palestinian for that matter?

What are the politics of the B’nai Brith’s choice of words in its racialized approach to its public announcement highlighting this inflammatory image? What effect is being sought? Did the image emerge from a real or staged situation? If it was the former, what was the event? Where did it happen? Who took the photograph? Have the investigators in the B’nai Brith-police-hate-crime-complex explored such matters.

Is the B’nai Brith’s emphasis on “police investigations” itself a staged tactic of sorts? Is it meant to dramatize the main story line aimed ultimately at seizing control of strategic instruments of Internet comminication. The subplot, which is certainly intended to harm me personally and professionally, is that crazed and genocidal anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists– even “holocaust deniers”— are running around loose with full Internet access even in Lethbridge Alberta?

My own best best assessment is that the offending social media item seems likely to have been produced by photo shop juxtapositions of different images. The “White man’s” head and the “Orthodox Jew’s” crushed glasses both look like inserts. The white wing of the victim’s crushed and displaced glasses seems to have been drawn in. There are signs of graphic tinkering in the relationship between the huge muscular arm in the forefront and the squeezed face of the suffering victim.

The reversal of Talmudic-style contempt for the Other (the Goy) cries out the pictured message of Jewish victimhood. The provocative power of the image is reinforced by the B’nai Brith’s very racialized description. In my recent research I have discovered that this image and others images very much like—images that often feature the same racist “White man”— show up in on many Internet posts, even one I found translated into German.

Garisson 2191d

Ben Garisson fa323

Where the picture provides the main message, the text provides the “evidence” of the antisemitism that the B’nai Brith and its allied agencies are simultaneously engaged in inventing, cultivating, spotlighting and publicly combating. What justification would there be for the existence of the  Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith without the métier of antisemitism?  The primary essence of the B’nai B’rith entities is to advance the agendas of the Israeli entity in the Diaspora, in other words in Canada, USA, Britain, France. Australia, and many other countries.

The text in the offending item is perhaps the most appalling excerpt of gutter prose I have ever seen. Its contents are so reprehensible that they demand careful consideration. Like an illegal drug planted by corrupt police on a targeted individual, the reprehensible social media item has been metaphorically put on my digital front door step and then advertised by the B’nai Brith to advance its own political agenda. I am left with little alternative but to respond as decently and as conscientiously to a crime in progress.

The author, it is claimed by the item’s creator, is Ben “Tel Aviv Terror” Garrison. This Garrison person has many nicknames. He is made to exclaim,

“There was never a Holocaust, but there should have been and, rest assured, there WILL be, as you serpentine kikes richly deserve one. I will not rest until every single filthy. Parasitic kike is rounded up and slaughtered like the vermin they are. The White man has had more than enough of International Jewry and we are fully prepared to smite the parasite for the millionth time. The greedy, hook nosed kikes know that there days are numbered and, unlike in the past, they now have nowhere to run. This time, there will be no kikes left alive to spead around the planet like cockroaches. We will get them ALL into the oven and their putrid memory will finally be erased from the planet once and for all. Like all parasites the Jew will continue to reproduce until every last one has been wiped out. This is why it is crucial that all kikes are ruthlessly and mercilesslt butchered for the good of us all. KILL ALL JEWS NOW! EVERY LAST ONE!” Ben “Tel Aviv Terror” Garrison

What kind of demented mind would come up with such a macabre celebration of envisaged mass murder? What would be the motivation to pen such a blatant incitement to hate and slaughter of a specific people?

My research into the offending item’s origins quickly led me to the many Internet profiles and posts of Ben Garrison. Ben Garrison is apparently a real person who lives in Montana. It turns out that this Ben Garrison, the sole named individual in the miniature text of the offending Facebook post, is also the aggressor in the photo shopped image. Adorned with dark glasses and a cowboy hat, Garrison is pictured as (in the words of B’nai Brith) as “the White man assaulting an Orthodox Jew.”

Ben Garrison

The real life Ben Garrison is often described as a libertarian political satirist. He is a prolific cartoonist whose cartoon and personal images lie at the center of an increasingly contentious media circus. Significantly Facebook figures centrally in the many-faceted narrative of Ben Garrison. Perhaps his Facebook connection is a major reason why B’nai Brith and related agencies chose Garrison’s Internet personae as poster boy for its hate speech campaign of fund raising and ritual defamation.

Holocaust Studies experts at Tel-Aviv University are among the most outspoken proponents of the view that Ben Garrison is indeed the kind of bigoted psychopath who would in real life utter provocations to the genocide of Jews. These Israeli academicians would probably argue it is entirely in character for Ben Garrison to have actually have declared with sincerity, “Kill All Jews.” The hypothesis that Ben Garrison’s racist screed should be taken at face value is implicit in the wording and headlines of the posts by B’nai Brith, Daniel Leons-Marder’s Everyday Antisemitism and the Coordination Forum for Countering Antisemitism.

The smear campaign’s architects and engineers are attempting a controlled demolition of my reputation in their quest to harness Facebook more fully to their own agendas. These architects and engineers count among their allies the creators and authors at Encyclopedia dramatica, Of Ben Garrison the encyclopedia’s drama experts report, “Scholars from Tel-Aviv University’s Center for Holocaust Studies have ominously described him [Ben Garrison] as the most racist man in the universe, and the biggest existential threat to the Jews since Hitler.”

This characterization runs counter to the dominant view that Garrison is “the Internet’s most trolled cartoonist.” According to a Breitbart article entitled “Ben Garrison: How the Internet Made a Fake White Supremacist”,

Montana-based artist Ben Garrison isn’t a violent Neo-Nazi, or even a white nationalist. He’s a polite, accomplished cartoonist, with no history of overt or covert racism. His true political leanings are libertarian, anti-elitist, and anti-globalist. Garrison is, in fact, the victim of one the most extraordinary and longest-running smear campaigns on the internet.

For a mixture of amusement and spite, in a trolling spree that has lasted over six years, thousands of online pranksters and real neo-Nazis have been remixing his cartoons into racist caricatures. Most Ben Garrison cartoons attack the government, corporations, and political movements.

However, almost immediately after one is published, it is remixed into a new version that attacks Jews, African-Americans, or other minorities. These are rapidly disseminated in troll communities and sometimes become more widely-shared than the originals.

Garrison cartoons 53de5

Garrison cartoon 2db39

If Breitbart has it right and Tel-Aviv’s Center for Holocaust Studies has it wrong, then the real Ben Garrison could not have written the disgusting text that goes along with the offensive image of the cartoonist putting his victim in a headlock. If Ben Garrison is not to be understood as the kind of person who could have come up with the wording replicated and publicized by Amanda Hohmann, Daniel Leons-Marder,and B’nai Brith’s CEO, Michael Mostyn, then these individuals are involved in a telling case of false flag deception.

Given the nature of their dubious employment in what Norman Finkelstein has labeled the “Holocaust Industry,” I find it difficult to believe that these individuals as well as their bosses, underlings and associates were not aware of the controversy swirling around Ben Garrison. After all, I was able to discovered the basic outlines of the Garrison controversy in a few google searches after viewing the posts featuring Mostyn’s, Hohmann’s and Leons-Marder’s comments. Is this group merely incompetent? Are its members part of a concerted agenda to change the public policies of many agencies, including those of the Canadian government, Facebook and the University of Lethbridge, through calculated misrepresentations, frauds and incitements?

In an Internet post entitled “Ben Garrison on Trolls” the Montana cartoonist is said to speak for himself. Interestingly, Garrison’s observations begin with his reference to the very same Facebook reference to “community standards” that supposedly initiated the B’nai Brith’s slander of me.

“This page wasn’t removed. We reviewed the page you reported for harassment. Since it did not violate our community standards, we did not remove it. Thanks for your report.”

This is the message [writes Ben Garrison] I received after reporting a hate page on Facebook. Near the top of the hate page was a statement that encouraged the extermination of all Jews. Along with that statement was a photo of my face and the name Ben Garrison. Trolls had stolen my artwork and photos from my blog, my cartoon site as well as my fine art site and had concocted an entire page devoted to spewing libelous hate. The troll entity called the page ‘Ben Garrison Cartoons—the Official Site.’  The trolls had stamped the name ‘Ben Garrison’ onto as many hateful images as possible throughout the page. How does one stop such blatant libel? Where do these trolls come from? Is it even possible to track them down? Why do they do such terrible things? Why me?

As I found out, it’s not just me. Many others have suffered the same outrageous indignity. It appears that trolls are no longer content merely talk to each other on sordid sites such as ‘4chan’ or ‘Stormfront.’ They want to go mainstream.  Therefore, social media are a natural target for them. Do they really believe the vitriolic memes they are shoveling, or are they merely playing an elaborate prank? It doesn’t matter. Their memes of hate must not go mainstream. Facebook must wake up and block the hate before it gets established. Hate speech is not free speech. Hate speech is blind, one-dimensional blackness. It is not reasoned debate.  It loudly shouts for the murder of human beings and Facebook is providing them a megaphone for that purpose.

In my view the largest weight of available evidence points to the conclusion that Ben Garrison did not write the “Kill All Jews” commentary. If Ben Garrison did not write the planted text, then who did?

Could the B’nai Brith’s highlighted social media item have been produced by a Zionist group, agency or individual? Why might partisans of Israel do such a thing? Could it be to provide the ammunition for smear campaigns directed against individuals and groups that criticize Israel? Could it be to create incidents to justify appeals for money such as those accompanying the B’nai Brith’s slanderous posts aimed at damaging the reputation of the University of Lethbridge and my tenured academic role in it as a 26-year member of the Arts and Science Faculty?

Worse, much worse, can be envisaged. Could it be that the production and planting of the of the Ben Garrison post as well as others like it might be deployed to provide “evidence” in thought crime and speech crime litigation, the ultimate specialty and raison d’etre of the B’nai Brith?  It is easy to imagine how such an outlandish and extravagant expression of hostility as that said to come from Garrison could be rendered useful to Crown prosecutors serving the Zionist masters.

Regardless of its source, there is no doubt that the Ben Garrison post could conceivably be exploited as a tailor made item to assist Crown prosecutors serving the agenda of B’nai Brith and related agencies. Such an item could definitely be deployed in a litigious assault on designated targets in order to establish webs of connection linking alleged hate speech with genocidal intent as well as the semantic nuke in the Zionist arsenal of weaponized words.

The conspiracy to advance the public perception that the engineered phrase, “holocaust denial,” has any internal and external coherence as an outlawed category of forbidden thought and speech runs absolutely contrary to the intellectual viability of the academy as well as the health of society more generally. The basic premise of the world’s most fraught term creates a false dichotomy that is coming to epitomize the decline of evidence-based rationality beneath the ascent of a new kind of orthodoxy combining both religious and secular elements.

Those that want to entrench and enforce an outlawed realm of forbidden thought and articulation brandish the weaponized term like an ideological sniper on steroids. They have no interest in providing definitions of where orthodoxy ends and where denial begins. As I am discovering by raising even a simple call for “open debate” on the main platform of Zionism’s unaccountable power, there are harsh new authoritarian forces that need to be called to account if we are even to slow down the police state incursions in our post-911 world.

The new configurations of authority are extending to important agencies like the Royal Canadian Legion, Jasper National Park, and the Alberta Society of Fiddlers. Those overseeing these important institutions are made to feel empowered to impose arbitrary sanctions and punishments against an individual who dared to question enshrined orthodoxy.

The message is made clear that the vibrance of art and culture, the wellbeing of veterans as well as the need to protect some of Alberta’s most majestic Alpine environments have become secondary commitments. The treatment in Jasper National Park of violinist Monika Schaefer signals the end of our free and democratic society. Our right and need to express independent thought, the starting point of collective self-determination, has has been sacrificed in order to enforce supine obedience to the sanctification of an historical interpretation that must not be held subjected to sceptical scrutiny and reconsideration.

How many are now being held, including some Canadians, in dark European dungeons for questioning any aspect of the unrelenting vilification of Germany as home of the most the most evil society of monsters ever to walk the face of the earth? Will we ever be able to liberate ourselves from the spell that is causing us to become so blind and unresponsive to the holocausts we ourselves are imposing on the natural world and also on the besieged worldwide community of our Muslim brothers and sisters?

What are the chances that the nuclear holocaust currently being promoted by our governors can be held back when those most intent on making war not peace are so firmly in charge? Is there a connection between the decline of the anti-war movement and the rise of the militarized police state currently deploying false flag-induced fears to constrain our ability to think, speak and act in conformity with the imperatives of survival? What we most require at this moment is simple affirmations of life’s beauty and integrity. Instead we are delivered coercive dictates demanding we deny what we our reason and research tells  us to be true.

How did we the academics, but especially we the historians, allow it to happen that a whole category of the European past has been declared off bounds to unfettered discussion and critical investigative scholarship? By allowing this development to proceed, a very sweeping and consequential precedent is being set.

How did we the citizens allow the principle to develop that government can declare that whole subject areas of research and publication to have been so perfectly interpreted, so correctly dealt with in every detail, that no revision and modification of existing conclusions can be allowed. What is the role of the Anti-Defamation League of the B’nai B’rith in enforcing the ruthless bulldozing aside of the most basic foundations of freedom of thought, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and adherence to rigorous standards of scientific inquiry.

The B’nai Brith and Ben Garrison, the poster boy for the Zionist organization’s hate speech campaign, are exactly on the same page when it comes to Facebook. Both Ben Garrison and the B’nai Brith seek to constrain free speech on the Internet more tightly. Is this convergence of agendas a coincidence or are more calculated deceptions at play here? To publicize his desire that Facebook be more proactive in censoring the Internet, Garrison produced the following cartoon.

Ben Garisson Cartoon 61739

Facebook and Israel; Ben Garrison and the B’nai Brith

My FFWN co-host, Dr. Kevin Barrett, has evaluated the evidence surrounding the Garrison post and concluded it was “very likely produced by B’nai Brith itself, or other Zionist extremists of like mind, as a PR operation. No wonder they are “monitoring” the police to make sure they behave themselves.

Presenting his own version of the B’nai Brith’s highlighted image, Dr. Barrett continues

The absurd rant with its lurid references to “greedy hook-nosed kikes” and so on does not pass the smell test. Whoever created this image obviously did not do so with the intention of convincing the public to take action against Jews and/or Zionists. On the contrary, it appears to have been designed for the opposite purpose: To convince the public that crazed, foul-mouthed, murderous anti-Semites are a clear and present danger.

Virtually every time a swastika is spray painted on a synagogue, the culprit turns out to be a “self-hating” Jewish Zionist trying to conjure up the specter of an “anti-Semitic threat.” Would an investigation of the provenance of this image find something similar?

Dr. Barrett observes that“the manufactured incident smearing Tony Hall may be part of a coordinated program, orchestrated from Tel Aviv, to try to stop the rise of the ever-increasing virtual army of pro-Palestine social media users.”

As highlighted in Telesur, the government of Israel and Facebook have been represented at the highest level in a series of meetings aimed at conspiring to hold back the growing flood of social media posts subjecting Israel’s maltreatment of the Palestinians to sceptical public scrutiny.

fb telesur 7fd31

This recent development well demonstrates the specious nature of B’nai Brith’s characterization of Facebook as some kind of rogue agency unwilling to act immediately to pre-empt an existential threat emanating from Lethbridge. More likely the B’nai Brith’s alarmist posts in late August of 2016 were, in part at least, a ploy to divert attention from the reality that social media, but especially Facebook, is more and more being harnessed to Zionist goals and agendas.

Was the B’nai Brith’s deployment of the racist side of Ben Garrison’s dual public personae calculated to serve the double purpose of both smearing me and my school as well as leading interested parties to a surprising “libertarian” voice for the suppression of Internet freedom? What should be done about Internet trolls such as those at the B’nai Brith that have shown themselves to be unrelenting in planting lies and innuendo with the aim of silencing criticism of Israel?

WRITER

Palestinian diaspora creates new political entity

Conference organisers establish new group to represent diaspora communities and strive for greater Palestinian rights.

Leaders of the conference said it was not 'another Palestinian faction' [Al Jazeera]
Leaders of the conference said it was not ‘another Palestinian faction’ [Al Jazeera]

Istanbul, Turkey – After two days of meetings here, the organisers of the Palestinians Abroad Conference have established a new political entity to represent Palestinian diaspora communities and strive for greater Palestinian rights.

Conference leaders said on Sunday that they aspired to play a bigger role in the struggle against Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories, alongside the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO).

They insisted that their new organisation does not aim to replace the PLO  – the organisation that has been representing the Palestinian people since 1964.

“We are trying here to create a supporting structure to be an asset to the PLO, not against it,” said Ribhi Halloum, a former PLO ambassador.

Though still without a formal name, the new organisation called for the end of the Oslo agreement signed between Israel and the PLO in 1993, the restructuring of the PLO on a more representative basis for all Palestinians, and the formation of a democratically elected Palestinian National Council, which is the PLO’s legislative body in exile.


INTERACTIVE: Palestinian Remix


The conference leaders said that the Oslo agreement has destroyed the PLO and created a new class of Palestinian leaders in the occupied territories beholden only to Israeli military will.

The final statement read by Anis al-Qasem, a legal scholar,  blamed PLO leaders for squandering Palestinian historic rights in agreements with Israel that it said prolonged Israeli occupation and worsened Palestinian suffering.

They also asserted the right of Palestinians to resist Israeli occupation, called for the return of refugees to their homes and towns in historic Palestine and said they would strive for Palestinian statehood.

Mounir Shafiq, a Palestinian scholar, said that while Palestinians have the right to all of historic Palestine as a matter of principle, it is not obligatory for individual diaspora communities to adhere to this vision.

“Palestinian diaspora communities are free to work within the norms of their adopted countries,” said Shafiq, who will head the newly established General Secretariat of the Conference.


READ MORE: Palestinian diaspora gathers for a ‘common vision’


Khalid Turaani, a spokesman for the conference, said that while Palestinians insisted on their right to return to their lands, it was up to Israelis to decide their future, not the Palestinians.

Fatah, the main Palestinian faction, issued a statement Sunday attacking the conference accusing it of being an “attempt to divide the Palestinian people.” Other small factions based in Ramallah also criticised the conference calling it “an attack on the PLO.”

“This kind of criticism is unfounded. We as Palestinian diaspora have the right to organise and tell the traditional Palestinian leaders what we think is the best way forward,” Said Ziyad al Aloul, the conference spokesman.

Conference leaders reasserted the right to strive for Palestinian statehood [Al Jazeera]

The conference established a General Commission headed by Palestinian historian Salman abu Sitta and Majed al-Zeer, a Britain-based activist, Naela al-Waari, a  scholar and women’s rights activist, and Saif Abu Kishah, a  youth activist, as his three deputies.

Leaders of the conference said that this was not “yet another Palestinian faction” rather, an independent organisation open to all Palestinians.

The new organisation will be based in Beirut, Lebanon .

Follow Ali Younes on Twitter: @ali_reports

  Inside Story – What happens to global support for two-state solution?

Source: Al Jazeera


Behind the Balfour Declaration

Britain’s Great War Pledge To Lord Rothschild

By Robert John

Acknowledgements

To Benjamin H. Freedman, who committed himself to finding and telling the facts about Zionism and Communism. and encouraged others to do the same. The son of one of the founders of the American Jewish Committee, which for many years was anti-Zionist, Ben Freedman founded the League for Peace with Justice in Palestine in 1946. He gave me copies of materials on the Balfour Declaration which I might never have found on my own and encouraged my own research. (He died in April 1984.)

The Institute for Historical Review is providing means for the better understanding of the events of our time.

Attempts to review historical records impartially often reveal that blame, culpability, or dishonor are not to be attached wholly to one side in the conflicts of the last hundred years. To seek to untangle fact from propaganda is a worthy study, for it increases understanding of how we got where we are and it should help people resist exploitation by powerful and destructive interests in the present and future, by exposing their working in the past.

May I recommend to the Nobel Prize Committee that when the influence of this organization’s historical review and search for truth has prevailed the societies of its contributors — say about 5 years or less from now — that they consider the IHR for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Regrettably, some of the company in that award would be hard to bear!


The Balfour Declaration may be the most extraordinary document produced by any Government in world history. It took the form of a letter from the Government of His Britannic Majesty King George the Fifth, the Government of the largest empire the world has even known, on which — once upon a time — the sun never set; a letter to an international financier of the banking house of Rothschild who had been made a peer of the realm.

Arthur Koestler wrote that in the letter “one nation solemnly promised to a second nation the country of a third.” More than that, the country was still part of the Empire of a fourth, namely Turkey.

It read:

Foreign Office, November 2nd,1917

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.[1]

It was decided by Lord Allenby that the “Declaration” should not then be published in Palestine where his forces were still south of the Gaza-Beersheba line. This was not done until after the establishment of the Civil Administration in 1920.

Then why was the “Declaration” made a year before the end of what was called The Great War?

“The people” were told at the time that it was given as a return for a debt of gratitude which they were supposed to owe to the Zionist leader (and first President of Israel), Chaim Weizman, a Russian-born immigrant to Britain from Germany who was said to have invented a process of fermentation of horse chestnuts into scarce acetone for production of high explosives by the Ministry of Munitions.

This horse chestnut propaganda production was not dislodged from the mass mind by the short bursts of another story which was used officially between the World Wars.

So let us dig into the records and bury the chestnuts forever.

To know where to explore we must stand back from the event and look over some parts of the relevant historical background. The terrain is extensive and the mud deep, so I shall try to proceed by pointing out markers.

Herzl on the Jewish Problem

Support for a “national home” for the Jews in Palestine from the government of the greatest empire in the world was in part a fulfillment of the efforts and scheming of Theodore Herzl (1860-1904), descendant of Sephardim (on his rich father’s side) who had published Der Judenstaat (The Jewish State) in Vienna in l896. It outlined the factors which he believed had created a universal Jewish problem, and offered a program to regulate it through the exodus of unhappy and unwanted Jews to an autonomous territory of their own in a national-socialist setting.

Herzl offered a focus for a Zionist movement founded in Odessa in 1881, which spread rapidly through the Jewish communities of Russia, and small branches which had sprung up in Germany, England and elsewhere. Though “Zion” referred to a geographical location, it functioned as a utopian conception in the myths of traditionalists, modernists and Zionists alike. It was the reverse of everything rejected in the actual Jewish situation in the “Dispersion,” whether oppression or assimilation.

In his diary Herzl describes submitting his draft proposals to the Rothschild Family Council, noting: “I bring to the Rothschilds and the big Jews their historical mission. I shall welcome all men of goodwill — we must be united — and crush all those of bad.” [2]

He read his manuscript “Addressed to the Rothschilds” to a friend, Meyer-Cohn, who said,

Up till now I have believed that we are not a nation — but more than a nation. I believed that we have the historic mission of being the exponents of universalism among the nations and therefore were more than a people identified with a specific land.

Herzl replied:

Nothing prevents us from being and remaining the exponents of a united humanity, when we have a country of our own. To fulfill this mission we do not have to remain literally planted among the nations who hate and despite us. If, in our present circumstances, we wanted to bring about the unity of mankind independent of national boundaries, we would have to combat the ideal of patriotism. The latter, however, will prove stronger than we for innumerable years to come.” [2a]

In this era, there were a number of Christians and Messianic groups who looked for a Jewish “return.” One of these was the Protestant chaplain at the British Embassy in Vienna, who had published a book in 1882: The Restoration of the Jews to Palestine According to the Prophets. Through him, Herzl obtained an audience of the Grand Duke of Baden, and as they waited for their appointment to go to the castle, Herzl said to Chaplain Hechler, ”When I go to Jerusalem I shall take you with me.”

The Duke gave Herzl’s proposal his consideration, and agreed to Herzl’s request that he might refer to it in his meetings outside of Baden. He then used this to open his way to higher levels of power.

Through intermediaries, he endeavoured to ingratiate himself with the Sultan of Turkey by activities designed to reduce the agitation by émigré Armenian committees in London and Brussels for Turkish reforms and cessation of oppression [A] and started a press campaign to calm public opinion in London on the Armenian question. But when offered money for Palestine, the Sultan replied that his people had won their Empire with blood, and owned it. ”The Jews may spend their millions. When my Empire is divided, perhaps they will get Palestine for nothing. But only our corpse can be divided. I will never consent to vivisection. ” [2b]

Herzl met the Papal Nuncio in Vienna and promised the exclusion of Jerusalem, Bethlehem and Nazareth from the Jewish state. He started a Zionist newspaper, Die Welt, and was delighted to hear from the United States that a group of rabbis headed by Dr. Gustave Gottheil favored a Zionist movement. All this, and more, in a few months.

It was Herzl who created the first Zionist Congress at Basel, Switzerland, 29-31 August 1897, [B] There were 197 “delegates”; some were orthodox, some nationalist, liberal, atheist, culturalist, anarchist, socialist and some capitalist.

”We want to lay the foundation stone of the house which is to shelter the Jewish nation,” and ”Zionism seeks to obtain for the Jewish people a publicly recognized, legally secured homeland in Palestine.” declared Herzl. And his anti-assimilationist dictum that “Zionism is a return to the Jewish fold even before it is a return to the Jewish land,” was an expression of his own experience which was extended into the official platform of Zionisn as the aim of “strengthening the Jewish national sentiment and national consciousness.” [3]

Another leading figure who addressed the Congress was Max Nordau, a Hungarian Jewish physician and author, who delivered a polemic against assimilated Jews. “For the first time the Jewish problem was presented forcefully before a European forum,” wrote Weizmann. But the Russian Jews thought Herzl was patronizing them as Askenazim. They found his “western dignity did not sit well with our Russian-Jewish realism; and without wanting to, we could not help irritating him.” [4]

As a result of the Congress, the “Basic Protocol,” keystone of the world Zionist movement, was adopted as follows:

Zionism strives to create for the Jewish people a home in Palestine secured by public law. The Congress contemplates the following means to the attainment of this end:

1. The promotion on suitable lines of the colonization of Palestine by Jewish agricultural and industrial workers.

2. The organization and binding together of the whole of Jewry by means of appropriate institutions, local and international, in accordance with the laws of each country.

3. The strengthening and fostering of Jewish national sentiment and consciousness.

4. Preparatory steps towards obtaining Government consent where necessary to the attainment of the aim of Zionism.[5]

The British Chovevei-Zion Association declined an invitation to be represented at the Congress, and the Executive Committee of the Association of Rabbis in Germany protested that:

1. The efforts of so-called Zionists to found a Jewish national state in Palestine contradict the messianic promise of Judaism as contained in the Holy Writ and in later religious sources.

2. Judaism obligates its adherents to serve with all devotion the Fatherland to which they belong, and to further its national interests with all their heart and with all their strength.

3. However, those noble aims directed toward the colonization of Palestine by Jewish peasants and farmers are not in contradiction to these obligations, because they have no relation whatsoever to the founding of a national state.[6]

In conversation with a delegate at the First Congress, Litman Rosenthal, Herzl said,

It may be that Turkey will refuse or be unable to understand us. This will not discourage us. We will seek other means to accomplish our end. The Orient question is now the question of the day. Sooner or later it will bring about a conflict among the nations. A European war is imminent. . The great European War must come. With my watch in hand do I await this terrible moment. After the great European war is ended the Peace Conference will assemble. We must be ready for that time. We will assuredly be called to this great conference of the nations and we must prove to them the urgent importance of a Zionist solution to the Jewish Question. We must prove to them that the problem of the Orient and Palestine is one with the problem of the Jews — both must be solved together. We must prove to them that the Jewish problem is a world problem and that a world problem must be solved by the world. And the solution must be the return of Palestine to the Jewish people.[American Jewish News, 7 March 1919]

A few months later, in a message to a Jewish conference in London, Herzl wrote “the first moment I entered the Movement my eyes were directed towards England because I saw that by reason of the general situation of things there it was the Archimedean point where the lever could be applied.” Herzl showed his desire for some foothold in England, and also perhaps his respect for London as the world’s financial center, by causing the Jewish Colonial Trust, which was to be the main financial instrument of his Movement, to be incorporated in 1899 as an English company.

Herzl was indefatigable. He offered the Sultan of Turkey help in re-organizing his financial affairs in return for assistance in Jewish settlement in Palestine.[7] To the Kaiser, who visited Palestine in 1888 and again in 1898, [C] he promised support for furthering German interests in the Near East; a similar offer was made to King Edward VII of England; and he personally promised the Pope to respect the holy places of Christendom in return for Vatican support.[D] But only from the Czar did he receive, through the Minister of the Interior, a pledge of “moral and material assistance with respect to the measures taken by the movement which would lead to a diminution of the Jewish population in Russia.” [8]

He reported his work to the Sixth Zionist Congress at Basle on 23 August 1903, but stated, “Zion is not and can never be. It is merely an expedient for colonization purposes, but, be it well understood, an expedient founded on a national and political basis.” [9]

When pressed for Jewish colonization in Palestine, the Turkish Sublime Porte offered a charter for any other Turkish territory [with acceptance by the settlers of Ottoman citizenship] which Herzl refused.[11] The British Establishment, aware of Herzl’s activities through his appearance before the Royal Commission on Alien Immigration, [E] and powerful press organs such as the Daily Chronicle and Pall Mall Gazette which were demanding a conference of the Powers to consider the Zionist program, [12] somewhat characteristically, had shown a willingness to negotiate about a Jewish colony in the Egyptian territory of El-‘Arish on the Turco-Egyptian frontier in the Sinai Peninsula. But the Egyptian Government objected to making Nile water available for irrigation; the Turkish Government, through its Commissioner in Cairo, objected; and the British Agent in Cairo, Lord Cromer, finally advised the scheme’s rejection.[13]

Meanwhile, returning from a visit to British East Africa in the Spring of 1903, Prime Minister Joseph Chamberlain put to Herzl the idea of a Jewish settlement in what was soon to become the Colony of Kenya, but through a misunderstanding Herzl believed that Uganda was intended, and it was referred to as the “Uganda scheme.” Of the part of the conversation on the El-‘Arish proposal, Herzl wrote in his diary that he had told Chamberlain that eventually we shall gain our aims “not from the goodwill but from the jealously of the Powers.” [14] With the failure of the El-‘Arish proposal, Herzl authorized the preparation of a draft scheme for settlement in East Africa. This was prepared by the legal firm of Lloyd George, Roberts and Company, on the instructions of Herzl’s go-between with the British Government, Leopold Greenberg.[15]

Herzl urged acceptance of the “Uganda scheme,” favoring it as a temporary refuge, but he was opposed from all sides, and died suddenly of heart failure on 3 July 1904. Herzl’s death rid the Zionists of an “alien,” and he was replaced by David Wolffsohn (the Litvak [F]).[16]

The “Uganda proposal” split the Zionist movement. Some who favored it formed the Jewish Territorial Organization, under the leadership of Israel Zangwill (1864-1926). For these territorialists, the renunciation of “Zion” was not generally felt as an ideological sacrifice; instead they contended that not mystical claims to “historic attachment” but present conditions should determine the location of a Jewish national homeland.[17]

In Turkey, the “Young Turk” (Committee of Union and Progress) revolution of 1908 was ostensibly a popular movement opposed to foreign influence. However, Jews and crypto-Jews known as Dunmeh had played a leading part in the Revolution.[19]

The Zionists opened a branch of the Anglo-Palestine Bank in the Turkish capital, and the bank became the headquarters of their work in the Ottoman Empire. Victor Jacobson [G] was brought from Beirut, “ostensibly to represent the Anglo-Palestine Company, but really to make Zionist propaganda among the Turkish Jews.” [20] His contacts included both political parties, discussions with Arab members of Parliament from Syria and Palestine, and a general approach to young Ottoman intellectuals through a newspaper issued by the Zionist office.[21] In Turkey, as in Germany, “Their own native Jews were resentful of the attempt to segregate them as Jews and were opposed to the intrusion of Jewish nationalism in their domestic affairs.” Though several periodicals in French “were subvened” by the Zionist-front office under Dr. Victor Jacobson, [22] (the first Zionist who aspired to be not a Zionist leader but a “career” diplomat,) and although he built up good political connections through social contacts, “always avoiding the sharpness of a direct issue, and waiting in patient oriental fashion for the insidious seed of propaganda to fructify,” [23] yet some of those engaged in the work, notably Vladimir (Zev) Jabotinsky (1880-1940), came to despair of success so long as the Ottoman Empire controlled Palestine. They henceforth pinned their hopes on its collapse.[24]

At the Tenth Zionist Congress in 1911, David Wolffsohn, who had succeeded Herzl, said in his presidential address that what the Zionists wanted was not a Jewish state but a homeland, [26] while Max Nordau denounced the “infamous traducers,” who alleged that “the Zionists … wanted to worm their way into Turkey in order to seize Palestine . It is our duty to convince (the Turks) that … they possess in the whole world no more generous and self-sacrificing friends than the Zionists.” [H] [27]

The mild sympathy which the Young Turks had shown for Zionism was replaced by suspicion as growing national unrest threatened the Ottoman Empire, especially in the Balkans. Zionist policy then shifted to the Arabs, so that they might think of Zionism as a possible make-weight against the Turks. But Zionists soon observed that their reception by Arab leaders grew warmer as the Arabs were disappointed in their hopes of gaining concessions from the Turks, but cooled swiftly when these hopes revived. The more than 60 Arab parliamentary delegates in Constantinople and the newly active Arabic press kept up “a drumfire of complaints” against Jewish immigration, land purchase and settlement in Palestine.[28]

“After many years of striving, the conviction was forced upon us that we stood before a blank wall, which it was impossible for us to surmount by ordinary political means,” said Weizmann of the last pre-war Zionist Congress. But the strength of the national will forged for itself two main roads towards its goal — the gradual extension and strengthening of our Yishuv (Hebrew: literally, “settlement,” a collective name for the Jewish settlers) in Palestine and the spreading of the Zionist idea throughout the length and breadth of Jewry.[29]

The Turks were doing all they could to keep Jews out of Palestine. But this barrier was covertly surmounted, partly due to the venality of Turkish officials, [30] (as delicately put in a Zionist report — “it was always possible to get round the individual official with a little artifice”); [32] and partly to the diligence of the Russian consuls in Palestine in protecting Russian Jews and saving them from expulsion.[33]

But if Zionism were to succeed in its ambitions, Ottoman rule of Palestine must end. Arab independence could be prevented by the intervention of England and France, Germany or Russia. The Eastern Jews hated Czarist Russia. With the entente cordiale in existence, it was to be Germany or England, with the odds slightly in Britain’s favor in potential support of the Zionist aim in Palestine, as well as in military power.[I] On the other hand, Zionism was attracting some German and Austrian Jews with important financial interests and had to take into account strong Jewish anti-Zionist opinion in England.

But before Zionism had finally reckoned it could gain no special consideration in Palestine from Turkey, the correspondent of The Times was able to report in a message published 14 April 1911, of the Zionist organ Jeune Turc’s [J] “violent hostility to England” and “its germanophile enthusiasm,” and to the propaganda carried on among Turkish Jews by “German Zionist agents.” When the policy line altered, this impression in England had to be erased.[34] The concern of the majority of rich English Jews was not allayed by articles in the Jewish Chronicle, edited by Leopold Greenberg, pointing out that in the Basle program there was “not a word of any autonomous Jewish state,” [35] and in Die Welt, the official organ of the Movement, the article by Nahum Sokolow, then the General Secretary of the Zionist Organization, in which he protested that there was no truth in the allegation that Zionism aimed at the establishment of an independent Jewish State.[36] Even at the 11th Congress in 1913, Otto Warburg, speaking as chairman of the Zionist Executive, gave assurances of loyalty to Turkey, adding that in colonizing Palestine and developing its resources, Zionists would be making a valuable contribution to the progress of the Turkish Empire.[37]


[A]  A letter entered in Herzl’s diary on 15 May 1896 states that the head of the Armenian movement in London is Avetis Nazarhek, “and he directs the paper Huntchak (The Bell). He will be spoken to.”
[B]  On either side of the main doorway of the hall hung white banners with two blue stripes, and over the doorway was placed a six-pointed “Shield of David.” It was the invention of David Wolffsohn, who employed the colors of the traditional Jewish prayer shawl. Fifty years later, the combined emblems became the flag of the Zionist state. The “Shield of David” is of Assyrian origin: previously a decorative motif or magical emblem. It appeared on the heraldic flag of the Jews in Prague in 1527.
[C]  On the latter trip he was accompanied by his Empress. Their yacht, the Hohenzollern, put in at Haifa, and they were escorted to Jerusalem by 2,000 Turkish soldiers.
[D]  Pope Pius X told him that the Church could not support the return of “infidel Jews” to the Holy Land.[10]
[E]  In 1880, there were about 60,000 Jews in England. Between 1881 and 1905, there was an immigration of some 100,000 Eastern Jews. Though cut by the Aliens Bill of the Balfour Government, which became law in the summer of 1905, immigration continued so that by 1914 there was a Jewish population in England of some 300,000. A leader of the fight against the Aliens Bill and against tightening up naturalization regulations in 1903-1904 was Winston S. Churchill.[18]
[F]  The Eastern Jews referred to each other as “Litvaks” (Lithuania), “Galizianers” (Galicia), “Polaks,” “Hungarians,” and geographical regions of their ancestral origin, e.g., “Pinskers”; never by the term Jew.
[G]  (1869 — 1935). Born in the Crimea, and nurtured in the atmosphere of assimilation and revolutionary agitation in Russia, Jacobson had organized clubs and written about Zionism in Russian Jewish newspapers. After the First World War, the era of the direct and indirect bribe and the contact man gave way to one in which the interests of nationalities, represented by diplomat-attorneys, had to be met, wrote Lipsky: “In this new world into which Jacobson was thrown, he laboured with the delicacy and concentration of an artist . . working persistently and with vision to build up an interest in the cause. He had to win sympathy as well as conviction.” [25]
[H]  In the Zionist Congress of 1911, (22 years before Hitler came to power, and three years before World War I), Nordau said, “How dare the smooth talkers, the clever official blabbers, open their mouths and boast of progress … Here they hold jubilant peace conferences in which they talk against war… But the same righteous governments, who are so nobly, industriously active to establish the eternal peace, are preparing, by their own confession, complete annihilation for six million people, and there is nobody, except the doomed themselves, to raise his voice in protest although this is a worse crime than any war … ” [31]
[I]  Approximate annual expenditure for military purposes by the European Powers in the first years of the century were: France — £38,400,000; Germany — £38,000,000; Italy — £15,000,000; Russia — £43,000,000; United States — £38,300,000; Great Britain — £69,000,000 at pre-1914 values of sterling.
[J]  Its business manager was a German Jew, Sam Hochberg. Among invited contributors was the immensely wealthy Russian Jew Alexander Helphand who, as “Parvus,” was later to suggest to the German left-wing parties that Lenin and his associates be sent to Russia in 1917 to demoralize still further the beaten Russian armies.


The Great War

Until mid-1914, the surface of European diplomatic relations was placid, reflecting successfully negotiated settlements of colonial and other questions. But certain British journalists were charged by their contemporaries “that they deliberately set out to poison Anglo-German relations and to create by their scaremongering such a climate of public opinion that war between the two Great Powers became inevitable.” (The Scaremongers: The Advocacy of War and Rearmament 1896-1914, A. J. A. Morris, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1984)

Were they paid or pure? Every anti-German diatribe in British newspapers added to German government concern as to whether it was part of a policy instigated or condoned by Downing Street. Further, there were groups in every major European country which could see only in war the possible means to further their interests or to thwart the ambitions of their rivals. This is why the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir-apparent to the Austro-Hungarian throne, on 28 June in Sarajevo, soon set Europe crackling with fire, a fire which naturally spread through the lines of communications to colonial territories as far away as China.

On 28 July, Austria declared war on Serbia. Germany sent an ultimatum to Russia threatening hostilities if orders for total mobilization of the Russian army and navy were not countermanded.

A telegram dated 29 July 1914 from the Czar Nicholas to the Emperor Wilhelm, proposing that the Austro-Serbian dispute should be referred to the Hague Tribunal, remained unanswered. At the same time Germany sent a message to France asking if she would remain neutral; but France, which had absorbed issue after issue of Russian railroad bonds in addition to other problems, was unequivocal in supporting Russia. Amid mounting tension and frontier violations, Germany declared war on Russia and France.

The French Chief-of-Staff, General Joseph Joffre, was prepared to march into Belgium if the Germans first violated its neutrality [38] which had been guaranteed by Britain, France, Prussia, Austria and Russia. German troops crossed the Belgian frontier (on 4 August at 8 a.m.) and the United Kingdom declared war on Germany.

First Pledge

Lord Kitchener, who had left London at 11:30 on the morning of 3 August to return to Egypt after leave, was stopped at Dover and put in charge of the War Office.[39] At the first meeting of the War Council he warned his colleagues of a long struggle which would be won not at sea but on land, for which Britain would have to raise an army of millions of men and maintain them in the field for several years.[40] When the defense of Egypt was discussed at the meeting, Winston Churchill suggested that the ideal method of defending Egypt was to attack the Gallipoli Peninsula which, if successful, would give Britain control of the Dardenelles. But this operation was very difficult, and required a large force. He preferred the alternative of a feint at Gallipoli, and a landing at Haifa or some other point on the Syrian coast.

In Turkey, the Sultan had taken the title of Khalif-al-IsIam, or supreme religious leader of Moslems everywhere, and emissaries were dispatched to Arab chiefs with instructions that in the event of Turkey being involved in the European hostilities, they were to declare a jihad, or Moslem holy war. A psychological and physical force which Kitchener of Khartoum, the avenger of General Gordon’s death, understood very well.

Kitchener planned to draw the sting of the jihad, which could affect British-Indian forces and rule in the East, by promoting an Arab revolt to be led by Hussein, who had been allowed by the Turks to assume his hereditary dignity as Sherif of Mecca and titular ruler of the Hejaz. Kitchener cabled on 13 October 1914 to his son, Abdullah, in Mecca, saying that if the Arab nation assisted England in this war, England would guarantee that no internal intervention took place in Arabia, and would give the Arabs every assistance against external aggression.

A series of letters passed between Sherif Hussein and the British Government through Sir Henry McMahon, High Commissioner for Egypt, designed to secure Arab support for the British in the Great War. One dated 24 October 1915 committed HMG to the inclusion of Palestine within the boundaries of Arab independence after the war, but excluded the area now known as Lebanon. This is clearly recognized in a secret “Memorandum on British Commitments to King Hussein” prepared for the inner group at the Peace Conference in 1919. (See Appendix) I found a copy in 1964 among the papers of the late Professor Wm. Westermann, who had been adviser on Turkish affairs to the American Delegation to the Peace Conference.

The Second Pledge

As the major ally, France’s claim to preference in parts of Syria could not be ignored. The British Foreign Minister, Sir Edward Grey, told the French Ambassador in London, Mr. Paul Gambon, on 21 October 1915, of the exchanges of correspondence with Sherif Hussein, and suggested that the two governments arrive at an understanding with their Russian ally on their future interests in the Ottoman Empire.

M. Picot was appointed French representative with Sir Mark Sykes, now Secretary of the British War Cabinet, to define the interests of their countries and to go to Russia to include that country’s views in their agreement.

In the subsequent secret discussions with Foreign Secretary Sazonov, Russia was accorded the occupation of Constantinople, both shores of the Bosporus and some parts of “Turkish” Armenia.[K] France claimed Lebanon and Syria eastwards to Mosul. Palestine did in fact have inhabitants and shrines of the Greek and Russian Orthodox and Armenian churches, and Russia at first claimed a right to the area as their protector. This was countered by Sykes-Picot and the claim was withdrawn to the extent that Russia, in consultation with the other Allies, would only participate in deciding a form of international administration for Palestine.

The Sykes-Picot Agreement was incompatible with the pledges made to the Arabs. When the Turks gave Hussein details of the Agreement after the Russian revolution, he confined his action to a formal repudiation.

Like the Hussein-McMahon Correspondence, the Tripartite Agreement made no mention of concessions to Zionism in the future disposition of Palestine, or even mention of the word “Jew.” However it is now known that before the departure of Sykes [L] for Petrograd on 27 February 1916 for discussions with Sazonov, he was approached with a plan by Herbert Samuel, who had a seat in the Cabinet as President of the Local Government Board and was strongly sympathetic to Herzl’s Zionism.[41]

The plan put forward by Samuel was in the form of a memorandum which Sykes thought prudent to commit to memory and destroy, Commenting on it, Sykes wrote to Samuel suggesting that if Belgium should assume the administration of Palestine it might be more acceptable to France as an alternative to the international administration which she wanted and the Zionists did not.[42] Of boundaries marked on a map attached to the memorandum he wrote, “By excluding Hebron and the East of the Jordan there is less to discuss with the Moslems, as the Mosque of Omar then becomes the only matter of vital importance to discuss with them and further does away with any contact with the bedouins, who never cross the river except on business. I imagine that the principal object of Zionism is the realization of the ideal of an existing center of nationality rather than boundaries or extent of territory. The moment I return I will let you know how things stand at Pd.” [43]

However, in conversations both with Sykes and the French ambassador, Sazonov was careful not to commit himself as to the extent of the Russian interest in Palestine, but made it clear that Russia would have to insist that not only the holy places, but all towns and localities in which there were religious establishments belonging to the Orthodox Church, should be placed under international administration, with a guarantee for free access to the Mediterranean.[44]

Czarist Russia would not agree to a Zionist formula for Palestine; but its days were numbered.

The Third Pledge

In 1914, the central office of the Zionist Organization and the seat of its directorate, the Zionist Executive, were in Berlin. It already had adherents in most Eastern Jewish communities, including all the countries at war, though its main strength was in Russia and Austria-Hungary.[45] Some important institutions, namely, the Jewish Colonial Trust, the Anglo-Palestine Company and the Jewish National Fund, were incorporated in England. Of the Executive, two members (Otto Warburg [M] and Arthur Hantke) were German citizens, three (Yechiel Tschlenow, Nahum Sokolow and Victor Jacobson) were Russians and one (Shmarya Levin) had recently exchanged his Russian for Austro-Hungarian nationality. The 25 members of the General Council included 12 from Germany and Austria-Hungary, 7 from Russia…Chaim Weizmann and Leopold Kessler) from England, and one each from Belgium, France, Holland and Rumania.[46]

Some prominent German Zionists associated themselves with a newly founded organization known as the Komitee fur den Osten, whose aims were: “To place at the disposal of the German Government the special knowledge of the founders and their relations with the Jews in Eastern Europe and in America, so as to contribute to the overthrow of Czarist Russia and to secure the national autonomy of the Jews.” [47]

Influential Zionists outside the Central Powers were disturbed by the activities of the K.f.d.O. and anxious for the Zionist movement not to be compromised. Weizmann’s advice was that the central office be moved from Berlin and that the conduct of Zionist affairs during the war should he entrusted to a provisional executive committee for general Zionist affairs in the United States.

At a conference in New York on 30 August 1914, this committee was set up under the chairmanship of Louis D. Brandeis, with the British-born Dr. Richard Gottheil and Jacob de Haas, Rabbi Stephen Wise and Felix Frankfurter, among his principal lieutenants. For Shmarya Levin, the representative of the Zionist Executive in the United States, and Dr. Judah Magnes, to whom the alliance of England and France with Russia seemed “unholy,” Russian czarism was the enemy against which their force should be pitted.[48] But on 1 October 1914 Gottheil, first President of the Zionist Organization of America, wrote from the Department of Semitic Languages, Columbia University, to Brandeis in Boston enclosing a memorandum on what the organization planned to seek from the belligerents, with respect to the Russian Jews:

We have got to be prepared to work under the Government of any one of the Powers … shall be glad to have any suggestion from you in regard to this memorandum, and shall be glad to know if it meets with your approval. I recognize that I ought not to have put it out without first consulting you; but the exigencies of the situation demanded immediate action. We ought to be fully prepared to take advantage of any occasion that offers itself.[49]

In a speech on 9 November, four days after Britain’s declaration of war on Turkey, Prime Minister Asquith said that the traditional eastern policy had been abandoned and the dismemberment of the Turkish Empire had become a war aim. “It is the Ottoman Government,” he declared, “and not we who have rung the death knell of Ottoman dominion not only in Europe but in Asia.” [50] The statement followed a discussion of the subject at a Cabinet meeting earlier that day, at which we know, from Herbert Samuel’s memoirs, that Lloyd George, who had been retained as legal counsel by the Zionists some years before, [51] “referred to the ultimate destiny of Palestine.” In a talk with Samuel after the meeting, Lloyd George assured him that “he was very keen to see a Jewish state established in Palestine.”

On the same day, Samuel developed the Zionist position more fully in a conversation with the Foreign Secretary, Sir Edward Grey. He spoke of Zionist aspirations for the establishment in Palestine of a Jewish state, and of the importance of its geographical position to the British Empire. Such a state, he said, ”could not be large enough to defend itself.” and it would therefore be essential that it should be by constitution, neutral. Grey asked whether Syria as a whole must necessarily go with Palestine, and Samuel replied that this was not only unnecessary but inadvisable, since it would bring in a large and unassimilable Arab population. ”It would,” he said be a great advantage if the remainder of Syria were annexed by France, as it would be far better for the state to have a European Power as a neighbor than the Turk. ” [52]

In January 1915 Samuel produced a Zionist memorandum on Palestine after discussions with Weizmann and Lloyd George. It contained arguments in favor of combining British annexation of Palestine with British support for Zionist aspirations, and ended with objections to any other solution.[53] Samuel circulated it to his colleagues in the Cabinet. Lloyd George was already a Zionist ”partisan”; Lord Haldane, to whom Weizmann had had access, wrote expressing a friendly interest; [54] though privately expressing Zionist sympathies, the Marquess of Crewe presumably did not express any views in the Cabinet on the memorandum; [55] Zionism had a strong sentimental attraction for Grey[56] but his colleagues, including his cousin Edwin Montagu, did not give him much encouragement. Prime Minister Asquith wrote: “I confess that I am not attracted by the proposed addition to our responsibilities, but it is a curious illustration of Dissy’s favorite maxim that race is everything to find this almost lyrical outburst proceeding from the well-ordered and methodical brain of H.S.” [57]

After further conversations with Lloyd George and Grey.[58] Samuel circulated a revised text to the Cabinet in the middle of March 1915.

It is not known if the memorandum was formally considered by the Cabinet, but Asquith wrote in his diary on 13 March 1915 of Samuel’s “dithyrambic memorandum” of which Lloyd George was ”the only other partisan. ” [59] Certainly, at this time, Zionist claims and aspirations were secondary to British policy towards Russia and the Arabs.

Britain, France and Germany attached considerable importance to the attitudes of Jewry towards them because money and credit were needed for the war. The international banking houses of Lazard Frères, Eugene Mayer, J. & W. Seligman, Speyer Brothers and M.M. Warburg, were all conducting major operations in the United States, as were the Rothschilds through the New York banking house of Kuhn, Loeb & Co.[N] Apart from their goodwill. the votes of America’s Jewish community of 3,000,000 were important to the issue of that country’s intervention or non-intervention in the war, and the provision of military supplies. The great majority represented the one-third of the Jews of Eastern Europe. including Russia, who had left their homelands and come to America between 1880 and 1914. Many detested Czarist Russia and wished to see it destroyed. Of these Jews, not more than 12,000 were enrolled members of the Zionist Organization.[60]

The goodwill of Jewry, and especially America’s Jews, was assessed by both sides in the war as being very important. The once-poor Eastern European Jews had achieved a dominant position in New York’s garment industry. and had become a significant political force. In 1914 they sent a Russian-born socialist to the Congress of the United States. They produced dozens of Yiddish periodicals; they patronized numerous Yiddish theatres and music halls; their sons and daughters were filling the metropolitan colleges and universities.[61]

From the beginning of the war, the German Ambassador in Washington. Count Bernstorff, was provided. by the Komitee fuer den Osten, with an adviser on Jewish Affairs (Isaac Straus); and when the head of the Zionist Agency in Constantinople appealed, in the winter of 1914, to the German Embassy to do what it could to relieve the pressure on the Jews in Palestine, it was reinforced by a similar appeal to Berlin from Bernstorff.[62] In November 1914, therefore, the German Embassy in Constantinople received instructions to recommend that the Turks sanction the re-opening of the Anglo-Palestine Company’s Bank — a key Zionist institution. In December the Embassy made representations which prevented a projected mass deportation of Jews of Russian nationality.[63] In February 1915 German influence helped to save a number of Jews in Palestine from imprisonment or expulsion, and “a dozen or twenty times” the Germans intervened with the Turks at the request of the Zionist office in Turkey, “thus saving and protecting the Yishuv.” [65] The German representations reinforced those of the American Ambassador in Turkey (Henry Morgenthau).[O] [66] Moreover, both the German consulates in Palestine and the head of the German military mission there frequently exerted their influence on behalf of the Jews.[67]

German respect for Jewish goodwill enabled the Constantinople Zionist Agency from December 1914 to use the German diplomatic courier service and telegraphic code for communicating with Berlin and Palestine.[68] On 5 June 1915 Victor Jacobson was received at the German Foreign Office by the Under-Secretary of State (von Zimmerman) and regular contact commenced between the Berlin Zionist Executive (Warburg, Hantke and Jacobson) and the German Foreign Office.[69]

Zionist propagandists in Germany elaborated and publicized the idea that Turkey could become a German satellite and its Empire in Asia made wide open to German enterprise; support for “a revival of Jewish life in Palestine” would form a bastion of German influence in that part of the world.[70] This was followed by solicitation of the German Foreign Office to notify the German consuls in Palestine of the German Government’s friendly interest in Zionism. Such a course was favored by von Neurath [P] when asked by Berlin for his views in October, and in November of 1915, the text for such a document was agreed upon and circulated after the approval of the German Chancellor (Bethmann-Hollweg). It was cautiously and vaguely worded so as not to upset Turkish susceptibilities, stating to the Palestine consuls that the German Government looked favorably on “Jewish activities designed to promote the economic and cultural progress of the Jews in Turkey, and also on the immigration and settlement of Jews from other countries.” [71]

The Zionists felt that an important advance toward a firm German commitment to their aims had been made, but when the Berlin Zionist Executive pressed for a public assurance of sympathy and support, the Government told them to wait until the end of the war, when a victorious Germany would demonstrate its goodwill.[72]

When Zionist leaders in Germany met Jemal Pasha, by arrangement with the Foreign Office, during his visit to Berlin in the summer of 1917, they were told that the existing Jewish population would be treated fairly but that no further Jewish immigrants would he allowed. Jews could settle anywhere else but not in Palestine. The Turkish Government, Jemal Pasha declared, wanted no new nationality problems, nor was it prepared to antagonize the Palestinian Arabs, “who formed the majority of the population and were to a man opposed to Zionism.” [73]

A few weeks after the interview, the Berlin Zionists’ pressure was further weakened by the uncovering by Turkish Intelligence of a Zionist spy ring working for General Allenby’s Intelligence section under an Aaron Aaronssohn. “It is no wonder that the Germans, tempted as they may have been by its advantages, shrank from committing themselves to a pro-Zionist declaration.” [74]

It was fortunate for Zionism that the American Jews as a whole showed no enthusiasm for the Allied cause, wrote Stein, political secretary of the Zionist Organization from 1920 to 1929, “If they had all along been reliable friends, there would have been no need to pay them any special attention.” [75]

In 1914 the French Government had sponsored a visit to the United States by Professor Sylvain Levy and the Grand Rabbi of France with the object of influencing Jewish opinion in their favor, but without success. A year later, it tried to reply to disturbing reports from its embassy in Washington about the sympathies of American Jews [76] by sending a Jew of Hungarian origin (Professor Victor Basch) to the United States in November 1915.[77]

Ostensibly he represented the Ministry of Public Instruction, but his real mission was to influence American Jews through contact with their leaders.[78] Though armed with a message to American Jewry from Prime Minister Briand, he encountered an insuperable obstacle — the Russian alliance. “For Russia there is universal hatred and distrust … We are reproached with one thing only, the persecution of the Russian Jews, which we tolerate — a toleration which makes us accomplices … It is certain that any measures in favor of Jewish emancipation would be equivalent to a great battle lost by Germany.” [79] Basch had to report to French President Poincare the failure of his mission.[80]

At the same time that Basch had been dispatched to the United States, the French Government approved the setting up of a “Comité de propagande Francais aupres des Juifs neutres,” and Jacques Bigart, the Secretary of the Alliance Israelite, accepted a secretaryship of the Comité. Bigart suggested to Lucien Wolf, of the Jewish Conjoint Foreign Committee in London, that a similar committee be set up there. Wolf consulted the Foreign Office and was invited by Lord Robert Cecil to provide a full statement of his views.[81]

In December 1915 Wolf submitted a memorandum in which he analyzed the characteristics of the Jewish population of the United States and reached the conclusion that “the situation, though unsatisfactory, is far from unpromising.” Though disclaiming Zionism, be wrote that “In America, the Zionist organizations have lately captured Jewish opinion.” If a statement of sympathy with their aspirations were made, “I am confident they would sweep the whole of American Jewry into enthusiastic allegiance to their cause.” [82]

Early in 1916 a further memorandum was submitted to the British Foreign Office as a formal communication from the Jewish Conjoint Foreign Committee. This stated that “the London (Conjoint) and Paris Committees formed to influence Jewish opinion in neutral countries in a sense favorable to the Allies” had agreed to make representations to their respective Governments. First, the Russian Government should be urged to ease the position of their Jews by immediate concessions for national-cultural autonomy secondly, “in view of the great organized strength of the Zionists in the United States,” (in fact out of the three million Jews in the U.S. less than 12,000 had enrolled as Zionists in 1913), [83] the Allied Powers should give assurances to the Jews of facilities in Palestine for immigration and colonization, liberal local self-government for Jewish colonists, the establishment of a Jewish university, and for the recognition of Hebrew as one of the vernaculars of the land — in the event of their victory.[84]

On 9 March 1916 the Zionists were informed by the Foreign Office that “your suggested formula is receiving (Sir Edward Grey’s) careful and sympathetic attention, but it is necessary for H.M.G. to consult their Allies on the subject.” [85] A confidential memorandum was accordingly addressed to the Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs in Petrograd, to ascertain his views, though its paternity, seeing that Asquith was still Prime Minister, “remains to be discovered.” [86] No direct reply was received, but in a note addressed to the British and French ambassadors four days later, Sazonov obliquely assented, subject to guarantees for the Orthodox Church and its establishments, to raise no objection to the settlement of Jewish colonists in Palestine.[87]

Nothing came of these proposals. On 4 July the Foreign Office informed the Conjoint Committee that an official announcement of support was inopportune.[88] They must be considered alongside the Sykes-Picot Agreement being negotiated at this time, and the virtual completion of the Hussein-McMahon Correspondence by 10 March 1916, with the hope that an Arab revolt and other measures would bring victory near.

But 1916 was a disastrous year for the Allies. “In the story of the war” wrote Lloyd George,

the end of 1916 found the fortunes of the Allies at their lowest ebb. In the offensives on the western front we had lost three men for every two of the Germans we had put out of action. Over 300,000 British troops were being immobilized for lack of initiative or equipment or both by the Turks in Egypt and Mesopotamia, and for the same reason nearly 400,000 Allied soldiers were for all purposes interned in the malarial plains around Salonika.[89]

The voluntary system of enlistment was abolished, and a mass conscript army of continental pattern was adopted, something which had never before occurred in British history.[Q] [90] German submarine activity in the Atlantic was formidable; nearly 11/2 million tons of merchant shipping had been sunk in 1916 alone. As for paying for the war, the Allies at first had used the huge American debts in Europe to pay for war supplies, but by 1916 the resources of J.P. Morgan and Company, the Allies’ financial and purchasing agents in the United States, were said to be nearly exhausted by increased Allied demands for American credit.[91] There was rebellion in Ireland. Lord Robert Cecil stated to the British Cabinet: “France is within measurable distance of exhaustion. The political outlook of Italy is menacing. Her finance is tottering. In Russia, there is great discouragement. She has long been on the verge of revolution. Even her man-power seems coming near its limits. ” [94]

Secretary of State Kitchener was gone — drowned when the cruiser Hampshire sank on 5 June 1916 off the Orkneys when he was on his way to Archangel and Petrograd to nip the revolution in the bud. He had a better knowledge of the Middle East than anyone else in the Cabinet. The circumstances suggest espionage and treachery. Walter Page, the U.S. Ambassador in London, entered in his diary: “There was a hope and feeling that he (Lord Kitchener) might not come back… as I make out.”

There was a stalemate on all fronts. In Britain, France and Germany, hardly a family numbered all its sons among the living. But the British public — and the French, and the German — were not allowed to know the numbers of the dead and wounded. By restricting war correspondents, the American people were not allowed to know the truth either.

The figures that are known are a recital of horrors.[R]

In these circumstances, a European tradition of negotiated peace in scores of wars, might have led to peace at the end of 1916 or early 1917.

Into this gloomy winter of 1916 walked a new figure. He was James Malcolm, [S] an Oxford educated Armenian [T] who, at the beginning of 1916, with the sanction of the British and Russian Governments, had been appointed by the Armenian Patriarch a member of the Armenian National Delegation to take charge of Armenian interests during and after the war. In this official capacity, and as adviser to the British Government on Eastern affairs, [95] he had frequent contacts with the Cabinet Office, the Foreign Office, the War Office and the French and other Allied embassies in London, and made visits to Paris for consultations with his colleagues and leading French officials. He was passionately devoted to an Allied victory which he hoped would guarantee the national freedom of the Armenians then under Turkish and Russian rule.

Sir Mark Sykes, with whom he was on terms of family friendship, told him that the Cabinet was looking anxiously for United States intervention in the war on the side of the Allies, but when asked what progress was being made in that direction, Sykes shook his head glumly, “Precious little,” he replied.

James Malcolm now suggested to Mark Sykes that the reason why previous overtures to American Jewry to support the Allies had received no attention was because the approach had been made to the wrong people. It was to the Zionist Jews that the British and French Governments should address their parleys.

“You are going the wrong way about it,” said Mr. Malcolm. “You can win the sympathy of certain politically-minded Jews everywhere, and especially in the United States, in one way only, and that is, by offering to try and secure Palestine for them.” [96]

What really weighed most heavily now with Sykes were the terms of the secret Sykes-Picot Agreement. He told Malcolm that to offer to secure Palestine for the Jews was impossible. “Malcolm insisted that there was no other way and urged a Cabinet discussion. A day or two later, Sykes told him that the matter had been mentioned to Lord Milner who had asked for further information. Malcolm pointed out the influence of Judge Brandeis of the American Supreme Court, and his strong Zionist sympathies.” [97]

In the United States, the President’s adviser, Louis D. Brandeis, a leading advocate of Zionism, had been inducted as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court on 5 June 1916. That Wilson was vulnerable was evident, in that as early as 1911, he had made known his profound interest in the Zionist idea and in Jewry.[98]

Malcolm described Wilson as being “attached to Brandeis by ties of peculiar hardness,” a cryptic reference to the story that Wilson had been blackmailed for $40,000 for some hot love letters he had written to his neighbor’s wife when he was President of Princeton. He did not have the money, and the go-between, Samuel Untermeyer, of the law firm of Guggenheim, Untermeyer & Marshall, said he would provide it if Wilson would appoint to the next vacancy on the Supreme Court a nominee selected by Mr. Untermeyer. The money was paid, the letters returned, and Brandeis had been the nominee.

Wilson had written to the Senate, where opposition to the nominee was strong: “I have known him. I have tested him by seeking his advice upon some of the most difficult and perplexing public questions about which it was necessary for me to form a judgment When Brandeis had been approved by the Senate, Wilson wrote to Henry Morgenthau: “I never signed any commission with such satisfaction.” “Relief” might have been a more appropriate word.

The fact that endorsement of Wilson’s nominee by the Senate Judiciary Committee had only been made “after hearings of unprecedented length” [99] was not important. Brandeis had the President’s ear; he was “formally concerned with the Department of State.” [100] This was the significant development, said Malcolm, which compelled a new approach to the Zionists by offering them the key to Palestine.

The British Ambassador to the United States (Sir Cecil Spring-Rice) had written from Washington in January 1914 that “a deputation came down from New York and in two days ‘fixed’ the two Houses so that the President had to renounce the idea of making a new treaty with Russia.” [101] In November 1914 he had written to the British Foreign Secretary of the German Jewish bankers who were extending credits to the German Government and were getting hold of the principal New York papers” thereby “bringing them over as much as they dare to the German side and “toiling in a solid phalanx to compass our destruction.” [102]

This anti-Russian sentiment was part of a deep concern for the well-being of Russian and Polish Jews. Brandeis wrote to his brother from Washington on 8 December 1914: “… You cannot possibly conceive the horrible sufferings of the Jews in Poland and adjacent countries. These changes of control from German to Russian and Polish anti-semitism are bringing miseries as great as the Jews ever suffered in all their exiles.” [U] [103]

In a speech to the Russian Duma on 9 February (27 January Gregorian) 1915, Foreign Minister Sazonov denied the calumnious stories which, he said, were circulated by Germany, of accounts of alleged pogroms against the Jews and of wholesale murders of Jews by the Russian armies. “If the Jewish Population suffered in the war zone, that circumstance unfortunately was inevitably associated with war, and the same conditions applied in equal measure to all people living within the region of military activity.” He added to the rebuttal with accounts of hardship in areas of German military action in Poland, Belgium and Serbia.[104]

It is noteworthy that the chairman of the non-Zionist American Jewish Committee responded to an appeal by the Brandeis group that all American Jews should organize to emphasize Zionist aims in Palestine before the Great Powers in any negotiations during or at the end of the war, by dissociating his community from the suggestion that Jews of other nationalities were to be accorded special status. He said that “the very thought of the mass of the Jews of America having a voice in the matter of deciding the welfare of the Jews in the world made him shrink in horror.”[107]

The new approach to the Zionist movement by Mark Sykes with James Malcolm as preliminary interlocutor took the form of a series of meetings at Chaim Weizmann’s London house, with the knowledge and approval of the Secretary of the War Cabinet, Sir Maurice Hankey.

A Programme for a New Administration of Palestine in Accordance with the Aspirations of the Zionist Movement was issued by the English Political Committee of the Zionist Organization in October 1916, and submitted to the British Foreign Office as a basis for discussion in order to give an official character to the informal house-talks. It included the following:

(1) The Jewish Chartered Company is to have power to exercise the right of pre-emption over Crown and other lands and to acquire for its own use all or any concessions which may at any time be granted by the suzerain government or governments.

(2) The present population, being too small, too poor and too little trained to make rapid progress, requires the introduction of a new and progressive element in the population. (But the rights of minority nationalities were to be protected).

Other Points were, (3) recognition of separate Jewish nationality in Palestine; participation of the Palestine Jewish population in local self-government; (5) Jewish autonomy in purely Jewish affairs; (6) official recognition and legalization of existing Jewish institutions for colonization in Palestine.[108]

This Programme does not appear to have reached Cabinet level at the time it was issued, probably because of Asquith’s known lack of sympathy, but as recorded by Samuel Landman, the Zionist Organization was given official British facilities for its international correspondence.[109]

Lloyd George, an earnest and powerful demagogue, was now prepared to oust Asquith, his chief, by a coup de main. With the death of Kitchener in the summer of 1916, he had passed from Munitions to the War Office and he saw the top of the parliamentary tree within his grasp. In this maneuver he was powerfully aided by the newspaper proprietor Northcliffe, [V] who turned all his publications from The Times downwards to depreciate Asquith, and by the newspaper-owing M.P., Max Aitken (later Lord Beaverbrook).

With public sympathy well prepared, Lloyd George demanded virtual control of war policy. It was intended that Asquith should refuse. He did. Lloyd George resigned. Asquith also resigned to facilitate the reconstruction of the Government. The King then sent for the Conservative leader, Bonar Law, who, as prearranged, advised him to offer the premiership to Lloyd George.[110]

Asquith and Grey were out; Lloyd George and Balfour were in. With Lloyd George as Prime Minister from December 1916, Zionist relations with the British Government developed fast. Lloyd George had been legal counsel for the Zionists, and while Minister of Munitions, had had assistance from the Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann; the new Foreign Minister, Arthur Balfour, was already known for his Zionist sympathies.

The Zionists were undermining the wall between them and their Palestine objective which they had found impossible “to surmount by ordinary political means” prior to the war.[111] Herzl’s suggestion that they would get Palestine “not from the goodwill but from the jealousy of the Powers,” [112] was being made to come true.

The Zionists moved resolutely to exploit the new situation now that the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary were their firm supporters.

Landman, in his Secret History of the Balfour Declaration, wrote:

Through General McDonogh, Director of Military Operations, who was won over by Fitzmaurice (formerly Dragoman of the British Embassy in Constantinople and a friend of James Malcolm), Dr. Weizmann was able, about this time, to secure from the Government the services of half a dozen younger Zionists for active work on behalf of Zionism. At the time, conscription was in force, and only those who were engaged on work of national importance could be released from active service at the Front. I remember Dr. Weizmann writing a letter to General McDonogh and invoking his assistance in obtaining the exemption from active service of Leon Simon, (who later rose to high rank in the Civil Service as Sir Leon Simon, C.B.), Harry Sacher, (on the editorial staff of the Manchester Guardian), Simon Marks, [W] Yamson Tolkowsky and myself. At Dr. Weizmann’s request I was transferred from the War Office (M.I.9), where I was then working, to the Ministry of Propaganda, which was under Lord Northcliffe, and later to the Zionist office, where I commenced work about December 1916. Simon Marks actually arrived at the Office in khaki, and immediately set about the task of organizing the office which, as will be easily understood, had to maintain constant communications with Zionists in most countries.

From that time onwards for several years, Zionism was considered an ally of the British Government, and every help and assistance was forthcoming from each government department. Passport or travel difficulties did not exist when a man was recommended by our office. For instance. a certificate signed by me was accepted by the Home Office at that time as evidence that an Ottoman Jew was to be treated as a friendly alien and not as an enemy, which was the case with the Turkish subjects.


[K]  This new offer to Russia of a direct outlet into the Mediterranean is a measure of the great importance attached by Britain and France to continued and wholehearted Russian participation in the war. British policy from the end of the Napoleonic wars had been directed against Russia’s efforts to extend its conquests to the Golden Horn and the Mediterranean (threatening Egypt and the way to India). For this reason, Britain and France had formed an alliance and fought the Crimean War (1854-56), which ended in the Black Sea being declared neutral; no warships could enter it nor could arsenals be built on its shores.
But Russian concern for the capture of Constantinople was more than economic and strategic. It was not unusual for priests to declare that the Russian people had a sacred duty to drive out the “infidel” Turk and raise the orthodox cross on the dome of Santa Sophia.
In 1877, the Russian armies again moved towards Constantinople with the excuse of avenging cruelties practiced on Christians. Again England frustrated these designs and the aggression ended with the Congress of Berlin, and British occupation of Cyprus.
[L]  Sir Mark Sykes, Secretary of the British War Cabinet, sent to Russia to negotiate the Tripartite (Sykes-Picot) Agreement for the Partition of the Ottoman Empire. M. Picot was the French representative in the negotiations. Neither Hussein nor Sir Henry McMahon were made aware of these secret discussions. Among other things, the agreement called for parts of Palestine to be placed under “an international administration.”
[M]  Of the Warburg international banking family. Although ostensibly a second Secretary in the Wilhelmstrasse, Warburg has been reported as having the same postition in German counterintelligence as Adrmiral Canaris in World War II.
[N]  Jacob Schiff, German-born senior partner in Kuhn, Loeb & Co. and “the most influential figure of his day in American Jewish life,” wrote in The Menorah Journal of April 1915: “It is well known that I am a German sympathizer … England has been contaminated by her alliance with Russia … am quite convinced that in Germany anti-Semitism is a thing of the past.[64] The Jewish Encyclopedia for 1906 states that “Schiff’s firm subscribed for and floated the large Japanese war loan in 1904-05” (for the Russo-Japanese war). “in recognition of which the Mikado conferred on Schiff the second order of the Sacred Treasure of Japan.” Partners with Schiff were Felix M. Warburg and his brother Paul who had come to New York in 1902 from Hamburg, and organized the Federal Reserve System.
[O]  An award for Morgenthau’s heavy financial support for Wilson’s presidential campaign.
[P]  Later, Foreign Minister (1932-38) and Protector of Bohemia (1939-43).
[Q]  Russian nationals resident in the United Kingdom (nearly all of them Jews), not having become British subjects, some 25,000 of military age, still escaped military service.[92] This prompted Jabotinsky and Weizmann to urge the formation of a special brigade for Russian Jews, but the idea not favorably received by the Government, and the Zionists joined non-Zionists in an effort to persuade Russian Jews of military age to volunteer as individuals for service in the British army. The response was negligible, and in July 1917 the Military Service (Conventions with Allies) Act was given Royal assent. Men of military age were invited to serve in the British army or risk deportation to Russia. However, the Russian revolution prevented its unhindered application.[93]
[R]  Half a million Frenchmen were lost in the first four months of war, 1 million lost by the end of 1915, and 5 million by 1918. Who can imagine that the Allies lost 600,000 men in one battle, the Somme, and the British more officers in the first few months than all wars of the previous hundred years put together?
At Stalingrad, in the Second World War, the Wehrmacht had 230,000 men in the field. The German losses at Verdun alone were 325,000 killed or wounded.
By this time a soldier in one of the better divisions could count on a maximum of three months’ service without being killed or wounded, and the life expectancy for an officer at the front was down to five months in an ordinary regiment and six weeks in a crack one.
[S]  See his Origins of the Balfour Declaration: Dr. Weizmann’s Contribution .
[T]  Born in Persia, where his family had settled before Elizabethan days. He was sent to school in England in 1881, being placed in the care of a friend and agent of his family, Sir Albert (Abdullah) Sassoon. Early in 1915, he founded the Russia Society in London among the British public as a means of improving relations between the two countries. Unlike the Zionists, he had no animus towards Czarist Russia.
[U]  A reference to the 1914 invasion of Austria and East Prussia by the Russians with such vigor that many people believed that the “Russian steamroller” would soon reach Berlin and end the war. Only the diversion of whole army divisions from the Western to the Eastern Front under the command of General von Hindenburg saved Berlin, and in turn saved Paris.
There was a direct effort by certain groups to support anti-Imperial activities in Russia from the United States, [105][106] but Brandeis was apparently not implicated.
[V]  Northcliffe was small-minded enough to have Lloyd George called to the telephone, in front of friends, to demonstrate the politician’s need of the Press.
[W]  Associated with Israel M. Sieff, another of Weizmann’s inner circle, in the business which later became Marks & Spencer, Ltd. Sieff was appointed an economic consultant to the U.S. Administration (OPA) in March 1924. As subsequent supporters, with Lord Melchett, of “Political and Economic Planning” (PEP), they exercised considerable influence on British inter-war policy.


The Declaration, 1917

The informal committee of Zionists and Mark Sykes as representative of the British Government, met on 7 February 1917 at the house of Moses Gaster, [X] the Chief Rabbi of the Sephardic (Spanish and Portuguese) congregations in England. Gaster opened the meeting with a statement that stressed Zionist support for British strategic interests in Palestine which were to be an integral part of any agreement between them. As these interests might be considered paramount to British statesmen, support for Zionist aims there, Caster said, was fully justified. Zionism was irrevocably opposed to any internationalization proposals, even an Anglo-French condominium.[113]

Herbert Samuel followed with an expression of the hope that Jews in Palestine would receive full national status, which would be shared by Jews in the Diaspora. The question of conflict of nationality was not mentioned and a succeeding speaker, Harry Sacher, suggested that the sharing should not involve the political implications of citizenship.[114] Weizmann spoke of the necessity for unrestricted immigration. It is clear that the content of each speech was thoroughly prepared before the meeting.

Sykes outlined the obstacles: the inevitable Russian objections, the opposition of the Arabs, and strongly pressed French claims to all Syria, including Palestine.[115] James de Rothschild and Nahum Sokolow, the international Zionist leader, also spoke. The meeting ended with a summary of Zionist objectives:

1. International recognition of Jewish right to Palestine;

2. Juridical nationhood for the Jewish community in Palestine;

3. The creation of a Jewish chartered company in Palestine with rights to acquire land;

4. Union and one administration for Palestine; and

5. Extra-territorial status for the holy places.[117]

The first three points are Zionist, the last two were designed to placate England and Russia, respectively [118] and probably Italy and the Vatican. Sokolow was chosen to act as Zionist representative, to negotiate with Sir Mark Sykes.

The Zionists were, of course, coordinating their activities internationally. On the same day as the meeting in London, Rabbi Stephen Wise in the United States wrote to Brandeis: “I sent the memorandum to Colonel House covering our question, and he writes: ‘I hope the dream you have may soon become a reality.” [118a]

The reports reaching England of impending dissolution of the Russian state practically removed the need for Russian endorsement of Zionist aims, but made French and Italian acceptance even more urgent. This at any rate was the belief of Sykes, Balfour, Lloyd George and Winston Churchill, who, as claimed in their subsequent statements, were convinced that proclaimed Allied support for Zionist aims would especially influence the United States. Events in Russia made the cooperation of Jewish groups with the Allies much easier. At a mass meeting in March 1917 to celebrate the revolution which had then taken place, Rabbi Stephen Wise, who had succeeded Brandeis as chairman of the American Provisional Zionist Committee after Brandeis’s appointment to the Supreme Court, said: “I believe that of all the achievements of my people, none has been nobler than the part the sons and daughters of Israel have taken in the great movement which has culminated in free Russia.” [119]

Negotiations for a series of loans totalling $190,000,000 by the United States to the Provisional Government in Russia of Alexander Kerensky were begun on the advice of the U.S. ambassador to Russia, David R. Francis, who noted in his telegram to Secretary of State Lansing, “financial aid now from America would be a master-stroke. Confidential. Immeasurably important to the Jews that revolution succeed… ” [120]

On 22 March 1917 Jacob H. Schiff of Kuhn, Loeb & Co., wrote to Mortimer Schiff, “We should be somewhat careful not to appear as overzealous but you might cable Cassel because of recent action of Germany (the declaration of unlimited U-boat warfare) and developments in Russia we shall no longer abstain from Allied Governments financing when opportunity offers.”

He also sent a congratulatory cable to the Minister of Foreign Affairs in the first Provisional Government, referring to the previous government as “the merciless persecutors of my co-religionists.”

In the same month, Leiber Davidovich Bronstein, alias Leon Trotsky, a Russian-born U.S. immigrant, had left the Bronx, New York, for Russia, with a contingent of followers, while V.I. Ulyanov (Lenin) and a party of about thirty were moving across Germany from Switzerland, through Scandinavia to Russia. Some evidence exists that Schiff and other sponsors like Helphand financed these revolutionaries.

In March 1917, President Wilson denounced as “a little group of willful men,” the non-interventionists who filibustered an Administration-sponsored bill that would have empowered Wilson to wage an undeclared naval war against Germany. The opposition to Wilson was led by Senators La Follette and Norris.

On 5 April, the day before the United States Congress adopted a resolution of war, Schiff had been informed by Baron Gunzburg of the actual signing of the decrees removing all restrictions on the Jews in Russia.

At a special session of Congress on 2 April 1917, President Wilson referred to American merchant ships taking supplies to the Allies which had been sunk during the previous month by German submarines (operating a counter-blockade; the British and French fleets having blockaded the Central Powers from the beginning of the war); and then told Congress that “wonderful and heartening things have been happening within the last few weeks in Russia.”

He asked for a declaration of war with a mission:

for democracy, for the right of those who submit to authority to have a voice in their own governments, for the rights and liberties of small nations, for a universal dominion of right by such a concert of free peoples as shall bring peace and safety to all nations and make the world itself at last free.

To such a task we can dedicate our lives and our fortunes, everything that we are and everything that we have, with the pride of those who know that the day has come when America is privileged to spend her blood and her might for the principles that gave her birth and happiness and the peace that she has treasured. God helping her, she can do no other. (emphasis supplied)

That night crowds filled the streets, marching, shouting, singing Dixie” or “The Star Spangled Banner.” Wilson turned to his secretary, Tumulty: “Think what that means, the applause. My message tonight was a message of death, How strange to applaud that!”

So, within six months of Malcolm’s specific suggestion to Sykes, the United States of America, guided by Woodrow Wilson, was on the side of the Allies in the Great War.

Was Wilson guided by Brandeis away from neutrality — to war?

In London, the War Cabinet led by Lloyd George lost no time committing British forces first to the capture of Jerusalem, and then to the total expulsion of the Turks from Palestine. The attack on Egypt, launched on 26 March 1917, attempting to take Gaza, ended in failure. By the end of April a second attack on Gaza had been driven back and it had become clear that there was no prospect of a quick success on this Front.

From Cairo, where he had gone hoping to follow the Army into Jerusalem with Weizmann, Sykes telegraphed to the Foreign Office that, if the Egyptian Expeditionary Force was not reinforced then it would be necessary “to drop all Zionist projects … Zionists in London and U.S.A. should be warned of this through M. Sokolow… ” [120a]

Three weeks later, Sykes was told that reinforcements were coming from Salonika. The War Cabinet also decided to replace the Force’s commander with General Allenby.

Sykes was the official negotiator for the whole project of assisting the Zionists. He acted immediately after the meeting at Gaster’s house by asking his friend M. Picot to meet Nahum Sokolow at the French Embassy in London in an attempt to induce the French to give way on the question of British suzerainty in Palestine.[121] James Malcolm was then asked to go alone to Paris to arrange an interview for Sokolow directly with the French Foreign Minister. Sokolow had been previously unsuccessful in obtaining the support of French Jewry for a meeting with the Minister; since the richest and most influential Jews in the United States and England, with the notable exception of the Rothschilds, who could have arranged such a meeting, were opposed to the political implications of Zionism. In Paris, the powerful Alliance Israélite Universelle had made every effort to dissuade him from his mission.[122] Not that the Zionists had no supporters in France other than Edmond de Rothschild, [Y]but the Ministry of Foreign Affairs had no reason to entangle itself with them.[123] Now James Malcolm opened the door directly to them as he had done in London.

Sykes joined Malcolm and Sokolow in Paris. Sykes and Malcolm, apart from the consideration of Zionism and future American support for the war, were concerned with the possibility of an Arab-Jewish-Armenian entente which, through amity between Islamic, Jewish and Christian peoples, would bring peace, stability and a bright new future for the inhabitants of this area where Europe, Asia Minor and Africa meet. Sokolow went along for the diplomatic ride, but in a letter to Weizmann (20 April 1917) he wrote: “I regard the idea as quite fantastic. It is difficult to reach an understanding with the Arabs, but we will have to try. There are no conflicts between Jews and Armenians because there are no common interests whatever.” [Z] [124]

Several conversations were held with Picot, including one on 9 April when other officials included Jules Cambon, the Secretary-General of the Foreign Ministry, and the Minister’s Chef de Cabinet, Exactly what assurances were given to Sokolow is uncertain, but he wrote to Weizmann “that they accept in principle the recognition of Jewish nationality in terms of a national home, local autonomy, etc.” [125] And to Brandeis and Tschlenow, he telegraphed through French official channels: “… Have full confidence Allied victory will realise our Palestine Zionist aspirations.” [126]

Sokolow set off for Rome and the Vatican. “There, thanks to the introductions of Fitzmaurice on the one hand and the help of Baron Sidney Sonnino [AA] on the other,” a Papal audience and interviews with the leading Foreign Office officials were quickly arranged.[127]

When Sokolow returned to Paris, he requested and received a letter from the Foreign Minister dated 4 June 1917, supporting the Zionist cause in general terms. He hastily wrote two telegrams which he gave to M. Picot for dispatch by official diplomatic channels. One was addressed to Louis D. Brandeis in the United States. It read: “Now you can move. We have the formal assurance of the French Government.” [BB] [128]

“After many years, ‘ wrote M. Picot, “I am still moved by the thanks he poured out to me as he gave me the two telegrams … do not say that it was the cause of the great upsurge of enthusiasm which occurred in the United States, but I say that Judge Brandeis, to whom this telegram was addressed, was certainly one of the elements determining the decision of President Wilson.” [129]

But Wilson had declared war one month before!

It is natural that M. Picot should want to believe that he had played a significant part in bringing America into the war and therefore helping his country’s victory. The evidence certainly supports his having a part in helping a Zionist victory.

Their objective was in sight, but had still to be taken and held.

Although the United States was now a belligerent, no declaration of support had been made for the Zionist program for Palestine, either by Britain or the United States, and some of the richest and most powerful Jews in both countries were opposed to it.

The exception among these Jewish merchant princes was, of course, the House of Rothschild. From London on 25 April 1917, James de Rothschild cabled to Brandeis that Balfour was coming to the United States, and urged American Jewry to support “a Jewish Palestine under British Protection,,, as well as to press their government to do so. He advised Brandeis to meet Balfour.[134] The meeting took place at a White House luncheon, “You are one of the Americans I wanted to meet,” said the British Foreign Secretary.[135] Brandeis cabled Louis de Rothschild: “Have had a satisfactory talk with Mr. Balfour, also with Our President. This is not for Publication. ” [136]

On the other hand, a letter dated 17 May 1917 appeared in The Times (London) signed by the President of the Jewish Board of Deputies and the President of the Anglo-Jewish Association (Alexander and Montefiore, both men of wealth and eminence) stating their approval of Jewish settlement in Palestine as a source of inspiration for all Jews, but adding that they could not favor the Zionist’s political scheme. Jews, they believed, were a religious community and they opposed the creation of “a secular Jewish nationality recruited on some loose and obscure principle of race and ethnological peculiarity.” They particularly took exception to Zionist Pressure for a Jewish chartered company invested with political and economic privileges in which Jews alone would participate, Since this was incompatible with the desires of world Jewry for equal rights wherever they lived.[137]

A controversy then ensued in the British press, in Jewish associations and in the corridors of government, between the Zionist and non-Zionist Jews. In this, Weizmann really had less weight, but he mobilized the more forceful team. The Chief Rabbi dissociated himself from the non-Zionist statement and charged that the Alexander-Montefiore letter did not represent the views of their organizations.[138] Lord Rothschild wrote: “We Zionists cannot see how the establishment of an autonomous Jewish State under the aegis of one of the Allied Powers could be subversive to the loyalty of Jews to countries of which they were citizens. In the letter you have published, the question is also raised of a chartered company.” He continued: “We Zionists have always felt that if Palestine is to be colonized by the Jews, some machinery must be set up to receive the immigrants, settle them on the land and develop the land, and to be generally a directing agency. I can only again emphasize that we Zionists have no wish for privileges at the expense of other nationalities, but only desire to be allowed to work out our destinies side by side with other nationalities in an autonomous state under the suzerainty of one of the Allied Powers.” [139] This letter stressed the colonialist aspect of Zionism, but detracted from the strong statist declaration of Weizmann. The Zionist body in Palestine was to be of a more organizational character for the Jewish community.

Perhaps feeling that his statement had been a little too strong for liberal acceptance, Weizmann also joined this correspondence in the Times. Writing as President of the English Zionist Federation, he first claimed that,

it is strictly a question of fact that the Jews are a nationality. An overwhelming majority of them had always had the conviction that they were a nationality, which has been shared by non-Jews in all countries.”

The letter continued:

The Zionists are not demanding in Palestine monopolies or exclusive privileges, nor are they asking that any part of Palestine should he administered by a chartered company to the detriment of others. It always was and remains a cardinal principle of Zionism as a democratic movement that all races and sects in Palestine should enjoy full justice and liberty, and Zionists are confident that the new suzerain whom they hope Palestine will acquire as a result of the war will, in its administration of the country, be guided by the same principle.[140] (emphasis supplied)

The competition for the attention of the British public and British Jewry by the Zionists and their Jewish opponents continued in the press and in their various special meetings. A manifesto of solidarity with the opinions of Alexander and Montefiore was sent to The Times on 1 June 1917; and in the same month at Buffalo, N.Y., the President of the Annual Convention of the Central Conference of American Rabbis added his weight against Jewish nationalism: “I am not here to quarrel with Zionism. Mine is only the intention to declare that we, as rabbis, who are consecrated to the service of the Lord … have no place in a movement in which Jews band together on racial or national grounds, and for a political State or even for a legally-assured Home.” [141]

But while the controversy continued, the Zionists worked hard to produce a draft document which could form a declaration acceptable to the Allies, particularly Britain and the United States, and which would be in the nature of a charter of international status for their aims in Palestine. This was treated as a matter of urgency, as Weizmann believed it would remove the support from non-Zionist Jews [142] and ensure against the uncertainties inseparable from the war.

On 13 June 1917 Weizmann wrote Sir Ronald Graham at the Foreign Office that “it appears desirable from every point of view that the British Government should give expression to its sympathy and support of the Zionist claims on Palestine. In fact, it need only confirm the view which eminent and representative members of the Government have many times expressed to us … ” [143] This was timed to coincide with a minute of the same date of one of Balfour’s advisers in which it was suggested that the time had arrived “when we might meet the wishes of the Zionists and give them an assurance that H.M.G. are in general sympathy with their aspirations. ” [144] To which Balfour remarked, “Personally, I should still prefer to associate the U.S.A. in the Protectorate, should we succeed in securing it.” [145]

The Zionists also had to counter tentative British and American plans to seek a separate peace with Turkey. When Weizmann, for the Zionists, together with Malcolm, for the Armenians, went on 10 June to the Foreign Office to protest such a plan, Weizmann broadly suggested that the Zionist leaders in Germany were being courted by the German Government, and he mentioned, to improve credibility, that approaches were made to them through the medium of a Dr. Lepsius.

The truth, probably, is that the Berlin Zionist Executive was initiating renewed contact with the German Government so as to give weight to the pleading of their counterparts in London that the risk of German competition could not be left out of account. Lepsius was actually a leading Evangelical divine, well known for his championship of the Armenians, who were then being massacred in Turkey. When Leonard Stein examined the papers of the Berlin Executive after the war, his name was not to be found, and Mr. Lichtheim of the Executive had no recollection of any overtures by Lepsius.[146]

In the U.S., in July 1917, a special mission consisting of Henry Morgenthau, Sr., and Justice Brandeis’s nephew, Felix Frankfurter, was charged by President Wilson to proceed to Turkey, against which the United States did not declare war, to sound out the possibility of peace negotiations between Turkey and the Allies. In this, Wilson may have been particularly motivated by his passion to stop the massacres of Armenian and Greek Christians which were then taking place in Turkey and for whom he expressed immense solicitude On many occasions. Weizmann, however, accompanied by the French Zionist M. Weyl, forewarned, proceeded to intercept them at Gibraltar and persuaded them to return home.[147] During 1917 and 1918 more Christians were massacred in Turkey. Had Morgenthau and Frankfurter carried out their mission successfully, maybe this would have been avoided.

This account appears in William Yale’s book The Near East: A Modern History. He was a Special Agent of the State Department in the Near East during the First World War. When I had dinner with him on 12 May 1970 at the Biltmore Hotel in New York, I asked him if Weizmann had told him how the special mission had been aborted. He replied that Weizmann said that the Governor of Gibraltar had held a special banquet in their honor, but at the end all the British officials withdrew discretely, leaving the four Jews alone. “Then,” said Weizmann, “we fixed it.”

The same evening, he told me something which he said he had never told anyone else, and which was in his secret papers which were only to be opened after his death. He later wrote to me, after he had read The Palestine Diary, saying that he would like me to deal with those papers.

One of Yale’s assignments was to follow Wilson’s preference for having private talks with key personalities capable of influencing the course of events. He did this with Lloyd George, General Allenby and Col. T.E. Lawrence, for example. Yale said he had a talk with Weizmann “somewhere in the Mediterranean in 1919,” and asked him what might happen if the British did not support a national home for the Jews in Palestine. Weizmann thumped his fist on the table and the teacups jumped, “If they don’t,” he said, “we’ll smash the British Empire as we smashed the Russian Empire.”

Brandeis was in Washington during the summer of 1917 and conferred with Secretary of State Robert S. Lansing from time to time on Turkish-American relations and the treatment of Jews in Palestine.[148] He busied himself in particular with drafts of what later became the Balfour Declaration and the British Mandate for Palestine, and in obtaining American approval for them.[149] A considerable number of drafts were made in London and transmitted to the United States, through War Office channels, for the use of the American Zionist Political Committee. Some were detailed, but the British Government did not want to commit itself to more than a general statement of principles.

On 18 July, such a statement, approved in the United States, was forwarded by Lord Rothschild to Lord Balfour. It read as follows:

His Majesty’s Government, after considering the aims of the Zionist Organization, accepts the principle of recognizing Palestine as the National Home [CC] of the Jewish people and the right of the Jewish people to build up its national life in Palestine under a protectorate to be established at the conclusion of peace following the successful issue of war.

His Majesty’s Government regards as essential for the realization of this principle the grant of internal autonomy to the Jewish nationality in Palestine, freedom of immigration for Jews, and the establishment of a Jewish national colonization corporation for the resettlement and economic development of the country.

The conditions and forms of the internal autonomy and a charter for the Jewish national colonizing corporation should, in the view of His Majesty’s Government, be elaborated in detail, and determined with the representatives of the Zionist Organization.[150]

It seems possible that Balfour would have issued this declaration but strong representatives against it were made directly to the Cabinet by Lucien Wolf, Claude Montefiore Sir Mathew Nathan, Secretary of State for India Edwin Montagu, [DD] and other non-Zionist Jews. It was significant they believed that “anti-semites are always very sympathetic to Zionism,” and though they would welcome the establishment in Palestine of a center of Jewish culture, some — like Philip Magnes — feared that a political declaration would antagonize other sections of the population in Palestine, and might result in the Turks dealing with the Jews as they had dealt with the Armenians.[154] The Jewish opposition was too important to ignore, and the preparation of a new draft was commenced. At about this time, Northcliffe and Reading [EE] visited Washington and had a discussion with Brandeis at which they undoubtedly discussed Zionism.[155]

Multiple pressures at key points led Lord Robert Cecil to telegraph to Col. E.M. House on 3 September 1917: “We are being pressed here for a declaration of sympathy with the Zionist movement and I should be very grateful if you felt able to ascertain unofficially if the President favours such a declaration. ” [156] House, who had performed services relating to Federal Reserve and currency legislation for Jacob W. Schiff and Paul Warburg, [157] and was Wilson’s closest adviser, relayed the message, but a week later Cecil was still without a reply.

On 11 September the Foreign Office had ready for dispatch the following message for Sir William Wiseman, [FF] head of the British Military Intelligence Service in the United States: “Has Colonel House been able to ascertain whether the President favours sympathy with Zionist aspirations as asked in my telegram of September 3rd? We should be most grateful for an early reply as September 17th is the Jewish New Year and announcement of sympathy by or on that date would have excellent effect.” But before it was sent, a telegram from Colonel House dated 11 September reached the Foreign Office.

Wilson had been approached as requested and had expressed the opinion that “the time was not opportune for any definite statement further, perhaps, than one of sympathy, provided it can be made without conveying any real commitment.” Presumably, a formal declaration would presuppose the expulsion of the Turks from Palestine, but the United States was not at war with Turkey, and a declaration implying annexation would exclude an early and separate peace with that country.[158]

In a widely publicized speech in Cincinnati on 21 May 1916, after temporarily relinquishing his appointment as Ambassador to Turkey in favor of a Jewish colleague, Henry Morgenthau had announced that he had recently suggested to the Turkish Government that Turkey should sell Palestine to the Zionists after the war. The proposal, he said, had been well received, but its publication caused anger in Turkey.[159]

Weizmann was “greatly astonished” at this news, especially as he had “wired to Brandeis requesting him to use his influence in our favour … But up to now I have heard nothing from Brandeis.” [161]

On 19 September Weizmann cabled to Brandeis:

Following text declaration has been approved by Foreign Office and Prime Minister and submitted to War Cabinet:

1. H.M. Government accepts the principle that Palestine should be reconstituted as the national home of the Jewish people.

2. H.M. Government will use its best endeavours to secure the achievement of the object and will discuss the necessary methods and means with the Zionist Organization.[162]

Weizmann suggested that non-Zionist opposition should be forestalled, and in this it would “greatly help if President Wilson and yourself support the text. Matter most urgent.” [163] He followed this up with a telegram to two leading New York Zionists, asking them to “see Brandeis and Frankfurter to immediately discuss my last two telegrams with them,” adding that it might be necessary for him to come to the United States himself.[164]

Brandeis saw House on 23 September and drafted a message, sent the following day through the British War Office. It advised that presidential support would be facilitated if the French and Italians made inquiry about the White House attitude, but he followed this the same day with another cable stating that from previous talks with the President and in the opinion of his close advisers, he could safely say that Wilson would be in complete sympathy.[165]

Thus Brandeis had either persuaded Wilson that there was nothing in the draft (Rothschild) declaration of 19 September which could be interpreted as “conveying any real commitment,” which is difficult to believe, or he had induced the President to change his mind about the kind of declaration he could approve or was sure he and House could do so.[166]

On 7 February 1917, Stephen Wise had written to Brandeis: “I sent the memorandum to Colonel House covering our question, and he writes, ‘I hope the dream you have may soon become a reality.” [167] In October, after seeing House together with Wise, de Haas reported to Brandeis: ”He has told us that he was as interested in our success as ourselves.” To Wilson, House stated that “The Jews from every tribe descended in force, and they seem determined to break in with a jimmy, if they are not let in.” [168] A new draft declaration had been prepared; Wilson had to support it.

On 9 October 1917, Weizmann cabled again to Brandeis from London of difficulties from the “assimilants” Opposition: “They have found an excellent champion … in Mr. Edwin Montagu who is a member of the Government and has certainly made use of his position to injure the Zionist cause. ” [169]

Weizmann also telegraphed to Brandeis a new (Milner-Amery) formula. The same draft was cabled by Balfour to House in Washington on 14 October:

His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish race and will use its best endeavours to facilitate achievement of this object; it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed in any other country by such Jews who are fully contented with their existing nationality and citizenship.[170]

It was reinforced by a telegram from the U.S. Embassy in London direct to President Wilson (by-passing the State Department), stating that the “question of a message of sympathy with the (Zionist) movement” was being reconsidered by the British Cabinet “in view of reports that (the) German Government are making great efforts to capture (the) Zionist movement.” [171]

Brandeis and his associates found the draft unsatisfactory in two particulars. They disliked that part of the draft’s second safeguard clause which read, “by such Jews who are fully contented with their existing nationality and citizenship,” and substituted “the rights and civil political status enjoyed by Jews in any country. In addition, Brandeis apparently proposed the change of “Jewish race” to “Jewish people.” [172] Jacob de Haas, then Executive Secretary of the Provisional Zionist Committee, has written that the pressure to issue the declaration was coming from the English Zionist leaders: “they apparently needed it to stabilize their position against local anti-Zionism. If American Zionists were anxious about it, Washington would act.” De Haas continues:

Then one morning Baron Furness, one of England’s unostentatious representatives, brought to 44 East 23rd Street, at that time headquarters of the Zionist Organization, the final draft ready for issue. The language of the declaration accepted by the English Zionists based as it was on the theory of discontent was unacceptable to me. I informed Justice Brandeis of my views, called in Dr. Schmarya Levin and proceeded to change the text. Then with Dr. Wise, I hurried to Colonel House. By this time he had come to speak of Zionism as “our cause.” Quietly he perused my proposed change, discussed its wisdom and promised to call President Wilson on his private wire and urge the change. He cabled to the British Cabinet. Next day he informed me that the President had approved. I had business that week-end in Boston and it was over the long distance wire that my secretary in New York read to me the final form as repeated by cable from London. It was the text as I had altered it.[173]

“It seems clear,” wrote Stein, “that it was not without some prompting by House that Wilson eventually authorized a favourable reply to the British enquiry.” Sir William Wiseman, “who was persona grata both with the President and with House, was relied upon by the Foreign Office for dealing with the declaration at the American end. Sir William’s recollection is that Colonel House was influential in bringing the matter to the President’s attention and persuading him to approve the formula.” [174]

On 16 October 1917, after a conference with House, Wiseman telegraphed to Balfour’s private secretary: ”Colonel House put the formula before the President who approves of it but asks that no mention of his approval shall be made when His Majesty’s Government makes formula public, as he had arranged the American Jews shall then ask him for approval, which he will publicly give here.”[175]

The Balfour Declaration, as stated, was issued on 2 November 1917. Its text, seemingly so simple, had been prepared by some the craftiest of the craft of legal drafting. Leaflets containing its message were dropped by air on Germany and Austria and on the Jewish belt from Poland to the Baltic Sea.

Seven months had passed since America entered the war. It was an epochal triumph for Zionism, and some believe, for the Jews.

On the other hand, two months before the declaration, Sokolow had written of a marked falling off in “le philo-sémitisme d’autrefois,” ascribed by some to the impression that the Russian Jews were the mainspring of Bolshevism; and on the day it was issued, The Jewish Chronicle complained of “the antisemitic campaign which a section of the press in this country, indifferent to the national interests, is sedulously conducting.” [176] There only remained certain courtesies to be effected. On November 1917, Weizmann wrote a letter of thanks to Brandeis:

“… I need hardly say how we all rejoice in this great event and how grateful we all feel to you for the valuable and efficient help which you have lent to the cause in the critical hour … Once more, dear Mr. Brandeis, I beg to tender to you our heartiest congratulations not only on my own behalf but also on behalf of our friends here — and may this epoch-making be a beginning of great work for our sorely tried people and also of mankind.” [177]

The other principal Allied governments were approached with requests for similar pronouncements. The French simply supported the British Government in a short paragraph on 9 February 1918. Italian support was contained in a note dated 9 May 1918 to Mr. Sokolow by their ambassador in London in which he stressed the religious divisions of communities, grouping “a Jewish national centre” with existing religious communities.”

On 31 August 1918, President Wilson wrote to Rabbi Wise “to express the satisfaction I have felt in the progress of the Zionist movement . . since … Great Britain’s approval of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.” Brandeis joined in Zionist delight at the President’s endorsement and wrote: “Since the President’s letter, anti-Zionism is pretty near disloyalty and non-Zionism is slackening.” [178] Non-Zionist Jews now had a hard time if they wanted to disseminate their views; if they could not support Zionism they were asked at least to remain silent.

On 30 June 1922, the following resolution was adopted by the United States Congress:

Favouring the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people;

Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled. That the United States of America favours the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which should prejudice the civil and religious rights of Christians and all other non-Jewish communities in Palestine, and that the holy places and religious buildings and sites in Palestine shall be adequately protected.[GG]

All people tend to see the world and its events in terms of their own experience, ideas and prejudices. This is natural. It is a fact used by master politicians and manipulators of opinion who form their appeals accordingly. The case of the Balfour Declaration is a fascinating example of a scheme presenting a multiplicity of images according to the facet of mind on which it reflected.

There were critics of the Balfour Declaration, although among the cacophony of many events competing for attention, few but its beneficiaries concentrated on the significance of what was being offered. One was the Jewish leader and statesman Mr. Edwin Montagu, who had no desire that Jews should be regarded as a separate race and a distinct nationality.[181] The other was Lord Curzon, who became Foreign Secretary at the end of October 1918. He prepared a memorandum dated 26 October 1917, on the penultimate and final drafts of the Balfour Declaration and related documents, and circulated it in the Cabinet. It was titled “The Future of Palestine.” Here are some extracts:

I am not concerned to discuss the question in dispute between the Zionist and anti-Zionist Jews . I am only concerned in the more immediately practical questions:

(a) What is the meaning of the phrase “a national home for the Jewish race in Palestine,” and what is the nature of the obligation that we shall assume if we accept this as a principle of British policy?

(b) If such a policy be pursued what are the chances of its successful realisation?

If I seek guidance from the latest collection of circulated papers (The Zionist Movement, G.-164) I find a fundamental disagreement among the authorities quoted there as to the scope and nature of their aim.

A “national home for the Jewish race or people” would seem, if the words are to bear their ordinary meaning, to imply a place where the Jews can be reassembled as a nation, and where they will enjoy the privileges of an independent national existence. Such is clearly the conception of those who, like Sir Alfred Mond, speak of the creation in Palestine of “an autonomous Jewish State,” words which appear to contemplate a State, i.e., a political entity, composed of Jews, governed by Jews, and administered mainly in the interests of Jews…

The same conception appears to underlie several other of the phrases employed in these papers, e.g., when we are told that Palestine is to become “a home for the Jewish nation,” “a national home for the Jewish race,” “a Jewish Palestine,” and when we read of “the resettlement of Palestine as a national centre,” and “the restoration of Palestine to the Jewish people,” all these phrases are variants of the same idea, viz., the re-creation of Palestine as it was before the days of the dispersion.

On the other hand, Lord Rothschild, when he speaks of Palestine as “a home where the Jews could speak their own language, have their own education, their own civilization, and religious institutions under the protection of Allied governments,” seems to postulate a much less definite form of political existence, one, indeed, which is quite compatible with the existence of an alien (so long as it is not Turkish) government…

Now what is the capacity as regards population of Palestine within any reasonable period of time? Under the Turks there is no such place or country as Palestine, because it is divided up between the sanjak of Jerusalem and the vilayets of Syria and Beirut. But let us assume that in speaking of Palestine in the present context we mean the old scriptural Palestine, extending from Dan to Beersheba, i.e., from Banias to Bir es-Sabi… . an area of less than 10,000 square miles. What is to become of the people of this country, assuming the Turk to be expelled, and the inhabitants not to have been exterminated by the war? There are over a half a million of these, Syrian Arabs — a mixed community with Arab, Hebrew, Canaanite, Greek, Egyptian, and possibly Crusaders’ blood. They and their forefathers have occupied the country for the best part of 1,500 years. They own the soil, which belongs either to individual landowners or to village communities. They profess the Mohammadan faith. They will not be content either to be expropriated for Jewish immigrants, or to act merely as hewers of wood and drawers of water to the latter.

Mr. Hamilton Fish replied: “As author of the first Zionist Resolution patterned on the Balfour Resolution, I denounce and repudiate the Ben Gurion statements as irreconcilable with my Resolution as adopted by Congress, and if they represent the Government of Israel and public opinion there, then I shall disavow publicly my support of my own Resolution, as I do not want to be associated with such un-American doctrines.”[180]


[X]  Born in Rumania in 1856, his imposing presence and scholarship combined with “an oracular manner suggesting that he had access to mysteries hidden from others, had made him an important figure at Zionist Congresses and on Zionist platforms in England and abroad.” It was calculated that Sykes would be impressed by his personality and background.[116]
[Y]  These included the socialist leader, Jules Cuesde, who had joined Viviani’s National Government as Minister of State; Gustave Herve: the publicist and future Minister de Monzie; and others.
[Z]  Privately, Sokolow resented Malcolm as “a stranger in the center of our work,” who was “endowed with an esprit of a goyish kind. ” [130]
[AA]  Of Jewish extraction.[131]
[BB]  The French note represented a defeat for the “Syrian Party” in the government who believed in French dominion over the entire area. This was not only due to the strong representations of Sykes on behalf of his Government, but was assisted by those of Baron Edmond de Rothschild, [132] who prevailed upon the Alliance Israélite to back the Zionist cause.
The result of the no less successful conversations in Rome and the Vatican were cabled to the Zionist Organization over British controlled lines.[133]
[CC]  The use of the term “National Home” was a continuation of the euphemism deliberately adopted since the first Zionist Congress, when the term “Heimstaette” was used instead of any of the possible German words signifying “state.” At that time, its purpose was to avoid provoking the hostility of non-Zionist Jews.[151]
The author or inventor of the term ”Heimstaette” was Max Nordau who coined it ”to deceive by its mildness ” until such time as ”there was no reason to dissimulate our real aim.” [152]
The Arabic translation of ”National Home” ignores the intended subtlety, and the words employed: watan, qawm, and sha’b, are much stronger in meaning than an abstract notion of government.[153]
[DD]  (1879-1924). His father, the first Lord Swaythling, and Herbert Samuel’s father were brothers.
[EE]  Rufus Isaacs, a Jewish lawyer, who had quickly risen to fame in his profession, and then in politics. This was a period when elevations to the peerage for political and financial assistance to the party in power were so numerous that the whole system of British peerage was weakened. In 1916, Isaacs was a viscount; in 1917 an earl.
[FF]  Joined Kuhn, Loeb & Co. in 1921. and was responsible for their liaison with London banks, and was “in charge of financing several large enterprises.” [160]
[GG]  This was introduced by Mr. Hamilton Fish. His interpretation of his action was clarified thirty-eight years later, when the World Zionists held their 25th Congress in Jerusalem. David Ben Gurion, as Prime Minister of Israel, in his address to the gathering stated: “every religious Jew has daily violated the precepts of Judaism by remaining in the diaspora”; and, citing the authority of the Jewish sages, said: “Whoever dwells outside the land of Israel is considered to have no god.” He added: “Judaism is in danger of death by strangulation. In the free and prosperous countries it faces the kiss of death, a slow and imperceptible decline into the abyss of assimilation.” [179]


Wilson and the War

If the contract with Jewry was to bring the United States into the Great War in exchange for the promise of Palestine, did they in fact deliver, through Brandeis or anyone else?

For the German-Jewish princes of the purse in the United States, the evidence points more to the Russian revolution being the factor of most weight in determining their attitude.

Was it the resumption of Germany’s submarine blockade, the sinking of the Laconia, the Zimmerman telegram, which really influenced Wilson for war? Was it the Zionist counsel of Brandeis? In a careful study, Prof. Alex M. Arnett showed in 1937 that Wilson had decided to put the United States into the war on the side of the Allies many months before the resumption of U-boat warfare by Germany, which was promoted as a sufficient reason.[182]

In the propaganda battle for American public opinion between Britain and Germany, the former had the advantage of language, and the fact that on 5 August 1914 they had cut the international undersea cables linking Germany and the United States, thus eliminating quick communication between those two countries and giving British “news” the edge in forming public opinion.

The success of British propaganda methods were acknowledged by a German soldier of the time when he dictated his memoirs, Mein Kampf, in 1925: “In England propaganda was regarded as a weapon of the first order, whereas with us it represented the last hope of a livelihood for our unemployed politicians and a snug job for shirkers of the modest heroic type. Taken all in all, its results were negative.”

British propaganda portrayed the war as one of just defense against a barbarian aggressor akin to the hordes of Genghis Khan, who were rapers of nuns, mutilators of children, led by the Kaiser — pictured as a beast in human form, a lunatic, deformed monster, modern Judas, and criminal monarch.

Stories that German soldiers cut off the hands of Belgian children and crucified prisoners and perpetrated and all sorts of other atrocities said to have been practiced in Belgium, were circulated as widely as possible. The story about their making glycerine and soap from corpses did not appear until the end of April 1917, when new stories were created by American propagandists. One, a book called Christine, by “Alice Cholmondeley,” a collection of letters purporting to have been written by a teenage girl music student to her mother in Britain until her death in 1914, mingled a damning catalogue of alleged German character faults with emotional feelings for her fictitious mother and music. Propaganda experts rated it highly.[183]

The head of the American section of the British propaganda bureau, Sir Gilbert Parker, was able to report on his Success in the issue of his secret American Press Review for 11 October 1916 before the Presidential election: ”This week supplies satisfactory evidence of the permeation of the American Press by British influence.”

Men of British ancestry still dominated the powerful infrastructure of the economy, filled top positions in the State Department, in the influential Eastern universities, and in the communications and cultural media. Britain and France were more identified with democracy and freedom, and the Central Powers with imperial militaristic autocracy. From Oyster Bay, former President Theodore Roosevelt, recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, performed high-pitched war dances of words in support of belligerency.

But at the Democratic convention, and in the subsequent campaign, it was William Jennings Bryan and his allied orators who created the theme and slogan: “He kept us out of war.”

Bryan had resigned as Secretary of State in June 1915 because he believed Wilson was jeopardizing American neutrality and showing partiality towards England. In his last interview, he told Wilson bitterly, “Colonel House has been Secretary of State, not I, and I have never had your full confidence.”

House, a secretive and subtle flatterer who had performed services relating to the Federal Reserve Bank and currency legislation for Jacob W. Schiff and Paul Warburg, was perceived by Wilson as the “friend who so thoroughly understands me,” “my second personality….my independent self, His thoughts and mine are one.”

Bryan had wanted to go on a peace mission to Europe at the beginning of 1915, but the President sent House instead. House had actually sailed on the British ship Lusitania and as it approached the Irish coast on 5 February, the captain ordered the American flag to be raised.

The Intimate Papers of Colonel House record that on the morning of 7 May 1915, he and the British Foreign Secretary Grey drove to Kew. “We spoke of the probability of an ocean liner being sunk,” recorded House, “and I told him if this were done, a flame of indignation would sweep across America, which would in itself probably carry us into the war.” An hour later, House was with King George in Buckingham Palace. “We fell to talking, strangely enough,” the Colonel wrote that night, ”of the probability of Germany sinking a trans-Atlantic liner… ” He said, “Suppose they should sink the Lusitania with American passengers on board… ”

That evening House dined at the American Embassy. A dispatch came in, stating that at two in the afternoon a German submarine had torpedoed and sunk the Lusitania off the southern coast of Ireland. 1,200 lives were lost, including 128 Americans. It took 60 years for the truth about its cargo to be confirmed; that it had carried munitions which exploded when the torpedo hit. But Secretary of State Bryan remarked to his wife, “I wonder if that ship carried munitions of war… . If she did carry them, it puts a different face on the whole matter! England has been using our citizens to protect her ammunition.”

In a telegram to President Wilson from England on 9 May 1915, House said he believed an immediate demand should made to Germany for assurance against a similar incident.

I should inform her that our Government expected to take measures … to ensure the safety of American citizens.

If war follows, it will not be a new war, but an endeavor to end more speedily an old one. Our intervention will save, rather than increase loss of life. We can no longer be neutral spectators .

In another telegram on 25 May, he noted that he had received from Ambassador Gerard a cable that Germany is in no need of food. “This does away with their contention that the starving of Germany justified their submarine policy.”

The next day, House lunched with Sir Edward Grey and read him all the telegrams that had passed between the President, Gerard and himself since last they had met. And he wrote on 30 May 1915, “I have concluded that war with Germany is inevitable, and this afternoon at six o’clock I decided to go home on the S.S. St. Paul on Saturday. I sent a cable to the President to this effect.” After his arrival in the United States, he wrote to the President from Rosslyn, Long Island, on 16 June 1915, a long letter which included the paragraph:

I need not tell you that if the Allies fail to win, it must necessarily mean a reversal of our entire policy.

I think we shall find ourselves drifting into war with Germany … Regrettable as this would be, there would be compensations. The war would be more speedily ended, and we would be in a strong position to aid the other great democracies in turning the world into the right paths. It is something that we have to face with fortitude, being consoled by the thought that no matter what sacrifices we make, the end will justify them. Affectionately yours, E.M. House.

Are these references related to Zionism or Palestine? I think not. Perhaps the clue is that immediately after the election of Wilson, House had anonymously published a political romance entitled Philip Dru: Administrator. Dru leads a revolt and becomes a dictator in Washington, where he formulates a new American constitution and brings about an international grouping or league of Powers.

Let us look to the other side of the water again in 1916, a year later.

About a month before Malcolm’s meeting with Sir Mark Sykes, Lloyd George gave an interview to the President of the United Press Association of America, in which he said “that Britain had only now got into her stride in her war effort, and was justifiably suspicious of any suggestion that President Wilson should choose this moment to ‘butt in’ with a proposal to stop the war before we could achieve victory.”

“The whole world … must know that there can be no outside interference at this stage. Britain asked no intervention when she was unprepared to fight. She will tolerate none now that she is prepared, until the Prussian military despotism is broken beyond repair… . The motto of the Allies was ‘Never Again!’ ” And this made worthwhile the sacrifices so far as well as those needed to end the war with victory.[184]

Grey wrote to him on the 29th of September that he was apprehensive about the effect “of the warning to Wilson in your interview… . It has always been my view that until the Allies were sure of victory the door should be kept open for Wilson’s mediation.”

But the following month, at one of the formal regular meetings with the Chief of the Imperial Staff, when Lloyd George received the familiar answers as to the course of the war — the German losses were greater than the Allies, that the Germans were gradually being worn down, and their morale shaken by constant defeat and retreat — he asked Sir Wm. Robertson for his views as “to how this sanguinary conflict was to be brought to a successful end … He just mumbled something about ‘attrition’.”

Lloyd George then asked for a formal memorandum on the subject. This was not encouraging, and said that an end could not be expected “before the summer of 1918. How long it may go on afterwards I cannot even guess.”

The facts were far from rosy, but were the hopes of Great Britain really hanging upon American entry into the war? There were two other possible courses.

One was suggested by the Marquess of Landsdowne, a member of the Cabinet and a statesman of considerable standing as the author of the Entente Cordiale in 1904. It was contained in a Memorandum Respecting a Peace Settlement, circulated to the Cabinet with the consent of the Prime Minister. Landsdowne suggested doubts as to the possibility of victory within a reasonable space of time.

What does the prolongation of the war mean? Our own casualties already amount to over 1,100,000. We have had 15,000 officers killed, not including those who are missing. There is no reason to suppose that, as the force at the front in the different theatres of war increases, the casualties will increase at a lower rate. We are slowly but surely killing off the best of the male population of these islands. The figures representing the casualties of our Allies are not before me. The total must be appalling.[185]

The other members of the Cabinet and the Chief of Staff repudiated peace without victory.

The other course was that adopted: to thrust more men and money into the holocaust (defined as a wholesale sacrifice or destruction). What would now be called political and military summit meetings were held in France to plan for it. They commenced on 15 November 1916.

In the political presentations, the only reference to America seems to have been offered by Lloyd George:

The difficulties we have experienced in making payment for our purchases abroad must be as present to the minds of French statesmen as to ourselves. Our dependence upon America is growing for food, raw material and munitions. We are rapidly exhausting the securities negotiable in America. If victory shone on our banners, our difficulties would disappear.[Asquith deleted the next sentence, which read] Success means credit: financiers never hesitate to lend to a prosperous concern: but business which is lumbering along amidst great difficulties and which is making no headway in spite of enormous expenditure will find the banks gradually closing their books against it.

This reference to Allied problems in getting more credit from the bankers in the United States, who were predominantly German-Jewish, elucidates Schiff’s agreement to arrange credit for Britain through the Jewish banker Cassel — they were not waiting for a Balfour Declaration, they were waiting for the Russian Revolution!

On the military side, there was general agreement at the summit conference that what was needed was a ”knock-out blow,” and it was decided that the 1917 plan of campaign would be an offensive on all fronts, including Palestine, with the Western Front as the principal one.

On 7 December the Asquith government fell and Lloyd George, who was pledged to a more vigorous prosecution of the war, took over the Government. Five days later, Germany and her allies put forward notes in which they stated their willingness to consider peace by compromise and negotiations.

The first of the battles opened on 9 April 1917, heralded by a bombardment of 2,700,000 shells. Another attack was launched by the French nine days later, these resulting in about a million dead and wounded on both sides. The French Army mutinied, and General Petain was put in charge.

At this time the two events which were to twist the world into a new shape were occurring, the Russian Revolution and American entry into the war.

French Government wanted to defer all offensive operations until American assistance became available, but the generals thought otherwise. Maj.-Gen. J.F.C. Fuller, whom I have met, one of the few bright military-political minds in this century, tells us that Haig “had set his heart on a decisive battle in Flanders, and so obsessed was he by it that he believed that he could beat the Germans single-handed, and before the Americans came in.” [186] I do not think that people who did not live in the great days of the British Empire can have a sense of the hubris of a Haig, unless one gets it from classical literature. Perhaps today it would be found in the head of the World Bank, from whom we taxpayers, like the common soldiers of that time, are so far removed! There was actually resentment in the England of my boyhood about Americans claiming to have played any significant part in fighting the Great War.

The outcome of the grandiosity of the generals and politicians was the costly Flanders campaign of the summer and autumn. On 7th June it was opened by the limited and successful Battle of Messines, which was preceded by a seventeen days’ bombardment of 3,500,000 shells, and initiated by the explosion of nineteen mines packed with a million pounds of high explosives.

On 31st July it was followed by the Third Battle of Ypres, for which the largest force of artillery ever seen in British history was assembled. In all, the preliminary bombardment lasted nineteen days, and during it 4,300,000 shells, some 107,000 tons in weight were hurled onto the prospective low lying battlefield. Its entire surface was upheaved; all drains, dikes, culverts and roads were destroyed, and an almost uncrossable swamp created, in which the infantry wallowed for three and a half months. When, on 10th November, the battle ended, the Germans had been pushed back a maximum depth of five miles on a frontage of ten miles, at a cost of a little under 200,000 men to themselves, and, at the lowest estimate, of 300,000 to their enemy.

Thus ended the last of the great artillery battles of attrition on the Western Front, and when in retrospect they are looked on, it becomes understandable why the politicians were so eager to escape them.

The Great War was like a greatly magnified version of the mutual destruction of noble men in the Niebelungenlied. Set against each other by the vanity and lack of vision of their rulers, the more they fought the more there was to avenge until death delivered them from their need. “At the going down of the sun and in the morning,” we should learn their lesson.

Britain’s Obligation?

In a memorandum marked in his own handwriting “Private & Confidential” to Lord Peel and other members of the Royal Commission on Palestine in 1936, James Malcolm wrote:

I have always been convinced that until the Jewish question was more or less satisfactorily settled there could be no real or permanent peace in the world, and that the solution lay in Palestine. This was one of the two main considerations which impelled me, in the autumn of 1916, to initiate the negotiations which led eventually to the Balfour Declaration and the British Mandate for Palestine. The other, of course, was to bring America into the War.

For generations Jews and Gentiles alike have assumed in error that the cause of Anti-Semitism was in the main religious. Indeed, the Jews in the hope of obtaining relief from intolerance, engaged in the intensive and subversive propagation of materialistic doctrines productive of ”Liberalism,” Socialism, and Irreligion, resulting in de-Christianisation. On the other hand, the more materialistic the Gentiles became, the more aware they were subconsciously made of the cause of Anti-Semitism, which at bottom was, and remains to this day, primarily an economic one. A French writer — Vicomte de Poncins — has remarked that in some respects Anti-Semitism is largely a form of self-defence against Jewish economic aggression. In my opinion, however, neither the Jews nor the Gentiles bear the sole responsibility for this.

As I have already said, I had a part in initiating the negotiations in the early autumn of 1916 between the British and French Governments and the Zionist leaders, which led to the Balfour Declaration and the British Mandate for Palestine.

The first object, of course, was to enlist the very considerable and necessary influence of the Jews, and especially of the Zionist or Nationalist Jews, to help us bring America into the War at the most critical period of the hostilities. This was publicly acknowledged by Mr. Lloyd George during a recent debate in the House of Commons.

Our second object was to enable and induce Jews all the world over to envisage constructive work as their proper field, and to take their minds off destructive and subversive schemes which, owing to their general Sense of insecurity and homelessness, even in the periods preceding the French Revolution, had provoked so much trouble and unrest in various countries, until their ever-increasing violence culminated in the Third International and the Russian Communist Revolution. But to achieve this end it was necessary to promise them Palestine in consideration of their help, as already explained, and not as a mere humanitarian experiment or enterprise, as represented in certain quarters.

It is no wonder that Weizmann did not refer to Malcolm in his autobiography, and Sokolow privately resented Malcolm “as a stranger in the center of our work,” who was “endowed with an esprit of a goyish kind. ” [187]

It is also worth noting that on page seven of his memorandum Malcolm quoted General Ludendorff, former Quartermaster General of the German Army, and perhaps at least remembered for heading an unsuccessful coup in Munich in 1923, as saying that the Balfour Declaration was “the cleverest thing done by the Allies in the way of propaganda and that he wished Germany had thought of it first.”

On the other hand, might it not have provided some cold comfort for Ludendorff to believe that the Zionist Jews were a major factor in the outcome of the war — if that is what he is implying?

Malcolm’s belief in the Balfour Declaration as a means of bringing the United States into the war was confirmed by Samuel Landman, secretary to the Zionist leaders Weizmann and Sokolow, and later secretary of the World Zionist Organization. As

the only way (which proved so to be) to induce the American President to come into the war was to secure the cooperation of Zionist Jews by promising them Palestine, and thus enlist and mobilize the hitherto unsuspectedly powerful forces of Zionist Jews in America and elsewhere in favour of the Allies on a quid pro quo contract basis. Thus, as will be seen, the Zionists having carried out their part, and greatly helped to bring America in, the Balfour Declaration of 1917 was but the public confirmation of the necessarily secret “gentlemens’ ” agreement of 1916, made with the previous knowledge, acquiescence, and or approval of the Arabs, and of the British, and of the French and other Allied governments, and not merely a voluntary, altruistic and romantic gesture on the part of Great Britain as certain people either through pardonable ignorance assume or unpardonable ill-will would represent or rather misrepresent …[188]

Speaking in the House of Commons on 4 July 1922, Winston Churchill asked rhetorically,

Are we to keep our pledge to the Zionists made in 1917…? Pledges and promises were made during the war, and they were made, not only on the merits, though I think the merits are considerable. They were made because it was considered they would be of value to us in our struggle to win the war. It was considered that the support which the Jews could give us all over the world, and particularly in the United States, and also in Russia, would be a definite palpable advantage. I was not responsible at that time for the giving of those pledges, nor for the conduct of the war of which they were, when given, an integral part. But like other members I supported the policy of the War Cabinet. Like other members, I accepted and was proud to accept a share in those great transactions, which left us with terrible losses, with formidable obligations, but nevertheless with unchallengeable victory.

However, Hansard notes, one member, Mr. Gwynne, plaintively complained that “the House has not yet had an opportunity of discussing it.”

Writing to The Times on 2 November 1949, Malcolm Thomson, the official biographer of Lloyd George, noted that this was the thirty-second anniversary of the Balfour Declaration and it seemed a

suitable occasion for stating briefly certain facts about its origin which have recently been incorrectly recorded.

When writing the official biography of Lloyd George, I was able to study the original documents bearing on this question. From these it was clear that although certain members of the Cabinets of 1916 and 1917 sympathized with Zionist aspirations, the efforts of Zionist leaders to win any promise of support from the British Government had proved quite ineffectual, and the secret Sykes-Picot agreement with the French for partition of spheres of interest in the Middle East seemed to doom Zionist aims. A change of attitude was, however, brought about through the initiative of Mr. James A. Malcolm, who pressed on Sir Mark Sykes, then Under-Secretary to the War Cabinet, the thesis that an allied offer to restore Palestine to the Jews would swing over from the German to the allied side the very powerful influence of American Jews, including Judge Brandeis, the friend and adviser of President Wilson. Sykes was interested, and at his request Malcolm introduced him to Dr. Weizmann and the other Zionist leaders, and negotiations were opened which culminated in the Balfour Declaration.

These facts have at one time or another been mentioned in various books and articles, and are set out by Dr. Adolf Boehm in his monumental history of Zionism, “Die Zionistische Bewegung,” Vol. 1, p.656. It therefore surprised me to find in Dr. Weizmann’s autobiography, “Trial and Error,” that he makes no mention of Mr. Malcolm’s crucially important intervention, and even attributes his own introduction to Sir Mark Sykes to the late Dr. Caster. As future historians might not unnaturally suppose Dr. Weizmann’s account to be authentic, I have communicated with Mr. Malcolm, who not only confirms the account I have given, but holds a letter written to him by Dr. Weizmann on March 5, 1941, saying: “You will be interested to hear that some time ago I had occasion to write to Mr. Lloyd George about your useful and timely initiative in 1916 to bring about the negotiations between myself and my Zionist colleagues and Sir Mark Sykes and others about Palestine and Zionist support of the allied cause in America and elsewhere.”

No doubt a complexity of motives lay behind the Balfour Declaration, including strategic and diplomatic considerations and, on the part of Balfour, Lloyd George, and Smuts, a genuine sympathy with Zionist aims. But the determining factor was the intervention of Mr Malcolm with his scheme for engaging by some such concession the support of American Zionists for the allied cause in the first world war.

Yours, & c.,

MALCOLM THOMSON

According to Lloyd George’s Memoirs of the Peace Conference, where, as planned many years before, the Zionists were strongly represented,

There is no better proof of the value of the Balfour Declaration as a military move than the fact that Germany entered into negotiations with Turkey in an endeavor to provide an alternative scheme which would appeal to Zionists. A German-Jewish Society, the V.J.O.D., [HH] was formed, and in January 1918, Talaat, the Turkish Grand Vizier, at the instigation of the Germans, gave vague promises of legislation by means of which “all justifiable wishes of the Jews in Palestine would be able to meet their fulfillment.”

Another most cogent reason for the adoption by the Allies of the policy of the Declaration lay in the state of Russia herself. Russian Jews had been secretly active on behalf of the Central Powers from the first; they had become the chief agents of German pacifist propaganda in Russia; by 1917 they had done much in preparing for that general disintegration of Russian society, later recognised as the Revolution. It was believed that if Great Britain declared for the fulfillment of Zionist aspirations in Palestine under her own pledge, one effect would be to bring Russian Jewry to the cause of the Entente.

It was believed, also, that such a declaration would have a potent influence upon world Jewry outside Russia, and secure for the Entente the aid of Jewish financial interests. In America, their aid in this respect would have a special value when the Allies had almost exhausted the gold and marketable securities available for American purchases. Such were the chief considerations which, in 1917, impelled the British Government towards making a contract with Jewry.[189]

As for getting the support of Russian Jewry, Trotsky’s aims were to overthrow the Provisional Government and turn the imperialist war into a war of international revolution. In November 1917 the first aim was accomplished. Military factors primarily influenced Lenin to sign the peace treaty of Brest-Litovsk in 1918.

The Zionist sympathizers Churchill and George seemed never to lose an opportunity to tell the British people that they had an obligation to support the Zionists.

But what had the Zionists done for Britain?

Where was the documentation?

“Measured by British interests alone,” wrote the Oxford historian Elizabeth Monroe in 1963, the Balfour Declaration “was one of the greatest mistakes in our imperial history!”

The Zionists had the Herzlian tradition — shall we call it — of Promises, “promises.” Considerable credit for the diplomacy which brought into existence the Jewish national home must go to Weizmann. A British official who came into contact with him summarized his diplomatic method in the following words:

When (the First World War) began, his cause was hardly known to the principal statesman of the victors. It had many enemies, and some of the most formidable were amongst the most highly placed of his own people … He once told me that 2,000 interviews had gone into the making of the Balfour Declaration. With unerring skill he adapted his arguments to the special circumstances of each statesman. To the British and Americans he could use biblical language and awake a deep emotional undertone; to other nationalities he more often talked in terms of interest. Mr. Lloyd George was told that Palestine was a little mountainous country not unlike Wales; with Lord Balfour the philosophical background of Zionism could be surveyed; for Lord Cecil the problem was placed in the setting of a new world organization; while to Lord Milner the extension of imperial power could be vividly portrayed. To me, who dealt with these matters as a junior officer of the General Staff, he brought from many sources all the evidences that could be obtained of the importance of a Jewish national home to the strategical position of the British Empire, but he always indicated by a hundred shades and inflections of the voice that he believed that I could also appreciate better than my superiors other more subtle and recondite arguments.[190]


[HH]   Vereinigung Jüdischer Organisationen in Deutschland zur Wahrung der Rechte des Osten. (Alliance of the Jewish Organizations of Germany for the Safeguarding of the Rights of the East.)


Triumph and TragedyHerzl correctly predicted a great war between the Great Powers. His followers organized to be ready for that time to further their ambitions through exploiting the rivalry of the Great Powers. They had a vested interest in promoting that war and in its continuance until Palestine was wrested from Turkey by British soldiers.

They prepared for the Peace Conference at Versailles although they had no belligerent standing, but they had the weight of the Rothschilds, Bernard Baruch, Felix Frankfurter, and others, which made room for them.

In the Introduction to The Palestine Diary I wrote,

The establishment in 1948 of a “Jewish state” in Palestine was a phenomenal achievement. In fifty years from the Zionist Congress in Basle, Switzerland, in 1897 — attended by a small number of Jews who represented little more than themselves — the Zionist idea had captivated the vast majority of world Jewry, and enlisted in particular Britain, America and the United Nations to intervene in Palestine in its support.

In 1983, seventy-five years after the Balfour Declaration and nearly ninety years after the first Zionist Congress in Switzerland a meeting was held there of the International Conference on the Question of Palestine — but the conferees were not Jews — they were Palestinians — two million are in exile — displaced by Jews!

Where is the meaning for us?

On a day-to-day level, we can look in our newspapers for Zionist tactics of influence and leverage which we can document they have used successfully in the past.

Then there is a long-term strategy, From the mass of material in a century of history and in our complex society of today I see the underlying effect of two themes, They influence the lives of every one of us, and will continue to do so unless a change is made.

We can see them clearly in their early formulation, before they had been fed as valid data into the information processing and software systems of our society, with the result that most of the answers we get are wrong!

They are found in the conversation of Herzl and Meyer-Cohn in 1895. The sets of ideas are those associated with Jewish nationalism and racism on the Right [191] — racism being defined by Sir Andrew Huxley P.R.S. as the belief in the subjugation of one race by another, and on the other hand the concept of “universalism.”

Acceptance of this input from the Right into our computations has resulted in the transfer of some $50 billion from our pockets into theirs.[192] In 1983, budgeted American tax money, labeled “aid,” alone amounts to $625 for every man, woman and child in Israel.[193] It results in our acceptance of concentration camps for Palestinians containing thousands of people without a squeak from the so-called “international community” in acceptance of their assassination, torture, deportation, closing of their schools and colleges, even of their massacre.[194] The lives of American troops — men and women, are committed to supporting these crimes.[195] Criticism is called “antisemitism,” a word which computes as “unemployable social outcast.”

Jewish nationalism and Israeli policy planned the present destabilization of Lebanon in 1955.[196] This is part of larger schemes to fragment and enfeeble possible challenges to their supremacy in the Middle East.[197]

On the other hand we have “universalism.” This, I believe was the factor motivating Woodrow Wilson through House in his telegram of 30 May 1916 and letter of 16 June 1915 to the President, to which I have referred. “The League of Nations,” the United Nations Organization, are its printouts. Just as House was a coefficient of the international bankers, so the United Nations and the international bankers have been part of the coefficient whereby over $400 billion of the earnings of workers in countries where universalism is a significant force, has been transferred to the peoples of Asia, Africa, South America and Communist countries; money needed for our capital investment.

People should ask: How is it that, with such multiplication of industrial power and resources, our peoples’ standard of living and possibilities to have and support children have not multiplied accordingly? Why do so many of our women have to work? Why does no public figure — politician, labor leader — dare to ask — and raise the roof?

Universalism and Marxism compete superficially for first place as finalists in western culture distortion. Both promote its ethnic dilution, but deny us the reality of racial differences. Against our individuality and our nationalism, they and the global capitalists and their corporations unite as transnationals to reduce all but themselves to a common consumer market of blurred boundaries and one color. They would like one law — which they would make; one armed force — which they would control. Universalism would impose — not a global peace, but a global tyranny!

Universalism has come up with “interdependence,” an expression used as a cover for the expropriation of our earnings as foreign aid in various forms; it has anesthetized the sense of self-defense of our countries so that those who have tried to stop their colonization by people from exploding populations of Africa, Asia and Latin America have been made to feel that they were depriving others of their “human rights.”

In countries where they live other than Israel, Zionists are in the forefront of opposition to restrictions on immigration. Note that even in 1903 a leader of the fight against the Alien’s Bill and against tightening up naturalization regulations in Britain was the pro-Zionist Winston S. Churchill, and the super-Zionist Herzl appeared before the Royal Commission on Alien Immigration to oppose any restriction.

And yet, my Arab friends born in Jerusalem are cast out and cannot return.

“If,” said Herzl, “we wanted to bring about the unity of mankind independent of national boundaries, we would have to combat the ideal of patriotism. The latter, however, will prove stronger than we for innumerable years to come.

In a hundred years they have almost won that struggle.

In a conversation with Joseph Chamberlain in 1903, Theodore Herzl was asked how the Jewish colony would survive in the distant future. Herzl said, “We shall play the role of a small buffer state. We shall attain this not through the goodwill but from the jealousy of the Powers.”

This is the game that Israel plays today, obtaining its military supplies, its high technology, and its billions of dollars from the pay packets of American workers, using the rivalry of the USSR and the U.S.A.

We should not allow ourselves to be made pawns in the games of others.


Appendix

SECRET

Political Intelligence Department,

Foreign Office.

Special 3.

Memorandum on British Commitments to King Husein

(Page 9) With regard to Palestine, His Majesty’s Government are committed by Sir H. McMahon’s letter to the Sherif on the 24th October, 1915, to its inclusion in the boundaries of Arab independence. But they have stated their policy regarding the Palestinian Holy Places and Zionist colonisation in their message to him of the 4th January, 1918:

“That so far as Palestine is concerned, we are determined that no people shall be subjected to another, but that in view of the fact:

“(a.) That there are in Palestine shrines, Wakfs, and Holy Places, sacred in some cases to Moslems alone, to Jews alone, to Christians alone, and in others to two or all three, and inasmuch as these places are of interest to vast masses of people outside Palestine and Arabia, there must be a special regime to deal with these places approved of by the world.

“(b.) That as regards the Mosque of Omar, it shall be considered as a Moslem concern alone, and shall not be subjected directly or indirectly to any non-Moslem authority.

“That since the Jewish opinion of the world is in favour of a return of Jews to Palestine, and inasmuch as this opinion must remain a constant factor, and further, as His Majesty’s Government view with favour the realisation of this aspiration. His Majesty’s Government are determined that in so far as is compatible with the freedom of the existing population, both economic and political, no obstacle should be put in the way of the realisation of this ideal.”

This message was delivered personally to King Husein by Commander Hogarth, and the latter reported on his reception of it as follows:

“The King would not accept an independent Jewish State in Palestine, nor was I instructed to warn him that such a State was contemplated by Great Britain. He probably knows nothing of the actual or possible economy of Palestine, and his ready assent to Jewish settlement there is not worth very much. But I think he appreciates the financial advantage of Arab co-operation with the Jews.”


Notes

[1]  A Survey of Palestine, 1945-1946, H.M.S.O., vol. I, p.1.
[2]  Lowenthal, The Diaries of Theodor Herzl. pp.35.
[2a]  Ibid., p.63.
[2b]  Ibid., pp. 128-129, 132, 152, 176.
[3]  Ibid., p.215.
[4]  Weizmann, Trial and Error, p.45-46.
[5]  Stein, Leonard, Zionism (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubaer and Ca., 1932). p.62.
[6]  Bela. Alex., Theodor Herzl (tr. Maurice Samuel). (Philadelphia: Jewish Palestine Society), pp. 304-305; Halpern. The Ideal of a Jewish State, p.144.
[7]  Ibid,. For financial details. see pp. 262-264.
[8]  Lowenthal, The Diaries of Theodor Herzl, p.398.
[9]  Lewisohn, Ludwig, Theodor Herzl. (New York: World. 1955). pp. 335-341.
[10] Bela. Theodor Herzl, p.490.
[11] Ibid., pp. 361ff. 378f.
[12] Ziff, William B., The Rape of Palestine. (New York: Longmans & Green, 1938), p. 43.
[13] British Foreign Office to Herzl, 19 lane 1903, Zionist Archives, Jerusalem.
[14] Tagebuecher, vol.111, pp, 412-413 (24 April 1903), Berlin 1922.
[15] Stein. Leonard, The Balfour Declaration. (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1916),
[16] Lipsky, Louis, A Gallery of Zionist Profiles (New York: Farrar, Straus & Cudahy, 1956), p.37.
[17] Halpern, The Idea of a Jewish State, pp. 154-155.
[18] Stein, The Balfour Declaration, p.78. [19] Ibid., p. 35.
[20] Lipsky, A Gallery of Zionist Profiles, p.94.
[21] Alsberg, F.A., Ha-Sh’ela ha-Aravit, vol. I, Shivat Zion, IV, pp. 161-209. Quoted by Halpern in The Idea of a Jewish State, p.267.
[22] Lipsky, A Gallery of Zionist Profiles, p.36.
[23] Ibid., p. 98.
[24] Halpern, The Idea of a Jewish State, p.267.
[25] Lipsky, A Gallery of Zionist Profiles, pp.95.98.
[26] Protocols of the 10th Zionist Congress, p.11.
[27] Lipsky, A Gallery of Zionist Profiles, p.26.
[28] Halpern. The Idea of a Jewish State, p. 267.
[29] Report of the 12th Zionist Congress (London: Central Office of the Organization. 1922) pp. 13ff.
[30] Bela, A., Return to the Soil. (Jerusalem: Zionist Organization. 1952) p.27.
[31] Hecht, Ben, Perfidy (New York: Julian Messner, Inc., 1961), p.254.
[32] Reports submitted by the Executive of the Zionist Organization to the 12th Zionist Congress, London, 1921, Palestine Report. p.7.
[33] Hyamson, A.M., The Near East, 31 Oct. 1913 (London, 1917), p.68.
[34] Ibid., pp.39-40.
[35] Jewish Chronicle, 16 October 1908.
[36] Die Welt, 22 January 1909.
[37] Protocols of the 11th Zionist Congress, p.6.
[38] Joffre, Joseph J.C., The Memoirs of Marshal Joffre (London and New York: Harper & Brothers, 1932), Vol.1, pp.38-39.
[39] Chamberlain, Austen, Down the Years (London: Cassell & Co., 1935), p.104.
[40] Churchill, Winston L.S., The World Crisis, 1911-1918 (London: T. Butterworth, 1931), Vol.1, p.234.
[41] Stein, The Balfour Declaration, pp.104-105.
[42] Ibid., p.109.
[43] Ibid., pp.233-234.
[44] Adamov, E., Ed., Die Europaeische Maechte und die Tuerkei Waehrend des Weltkriegs-Die Aufteilung der Asiatischen Tuerkei. Translation from Russian (Dresden, 1932), No.91.
[45] Stein, The Balfour Declaration, p.97.
[46] For details see 1921 Reports submitted by the Executive Committee of the Zionist Organization to the Twelfth Zionist Congress, London, 1921.
[47] Letter from Max Bodheimer to Otto Warburg, 22 November 1914 Jerusalem: Zionist Archives), quoted in Stein, The Balfour Declaration, p.98, n.8.
[48] Stein, The Balfour Declaration, pp.197-198.
[49] Gottheil to Louis 0. Brandeis, 1 October 1914 (unpublished).
[50] London: The Times, 10 November 1914.
[51] Letter from Greenberg to Herzl, 4 July 1903, quoted in Stein, The Balfour Declaration, p.28. This seems to indicate Lloyd George’s first contact with the Zionist movement: ‘Lloyd George, as you know, is an M.P.; he, therefore, knows the ropes of these things and can be helpful to us.’
[52] Samuel, Viscount Herbert, Memoirs (London: Cresset Press, 1945), pp 139ff.
[53] Letter from Samuel to Weizmann, 11 January 1915, quoted in Stein, The Balfour Declaration, p.109, fo. 24; also Samuel, Memoirs, p.144.
[54] Samuel, Memoirs, p.143. In a letter of 20 November 1912 to the Zionist Executive, Weizmann mentioned Haldane as one of the important persons to whom he thought he could gain access: Zionist Archives.
[55] Stein, The Balfour Declaration, p.111, fn. 33; Crewe’s mother-in-law was the Countess of Rosebery, daughter of Baron Mayer de Rothschild, see p.112, fn. 34.
[56] Samuel, Memoirs, p.141.
[57] Oxford and Asquith, Earl, Memories and Reflections (London: Cassell, 1928), Vol. II , p. 59.
[58] Samuel, Memoirs, pp.143-144.
[59] Oxford and Asquith, Memories and Reflections, Vol. II, p. 65.
[60] Ibid., p. 188; Reports submitted by the Executive Committee of the Zionist Organization to the Twelfth Zionist Congress, London 1921. ‘Organization Report.’ p. 113, gives a much smaller figure.
[61] Rischin, Moses, The Promised City: New York’s Jews, 1870-1914 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1962).
[62] German Foreign Office Documents at London Record Office, Washington to Berlin K 692/K 176709-10, and K 692/K 17611-12-Berlin to Washington, 1 November 1914. ‘Some time ago we already strongly advised Turkey, on account of international Jewry, to protect Jews of every nationality, and we are now reverting to the matter once again.’
[63] German Foreign Office Documents, K 692/K 176723 and 176745.
[64] Stein, The Balfour Declaration, p.201.
[65] Richard Lichtheim to Leonard Stein, 12 February 1952, The Balfour Declaration, p.209, fn. 9.
[66] Report dated 8 March 1915, Papers of Nahum Sokolow, Quoted in Stein, The Balfour Declaration, p.210, fn. 10.
[67] Palestine Report to 1921 Zionist Congress, p. 34.
[68] Lichtheim, Richard, Memoirs, published in Hebrew version as She’ar Yashoov (Tel Aviv: Newman, 1953), Chapter XV.
[69] Ibid., Chapter XVIII.
[70] The Times of history of the War; Vol. XIV, pp. 320-321; Stein, The Balfour Declaration, pp. 212-213; e.g., Preussicher Jahrbuecher, August-September 1915, article by Kurt Blumenfeld.
[71] Lichtheim, Memoirs, Chapter XVIII; Stein, The Balfour Declaration, pp. 213-214, fns. 21.22.
[72] Stein, The Balfour Declaration, p.214, fn. 23.
[73] Stein, The Balfour Declaration, pp. 536-537; Note of the interview in memorandum 28 August 1917, Zionist Archives.
[74] Stein, The Balfour Declaration, p.537. Even in 1959, Aaronssohn’s superior, Colonel Richard Meinertzhagen. wrote: “I am not at liberty to divulge any of his exploits as it would publicize methods better kept secret”- Middle East Diary 1917-1956 (New York: Yoseloff, 1960) p.5.
[75] Stein, The Balfour Declaration, p.217.
[76] Conjoint Foreign Committee 1916/210, 5 April 1916; Stein, The Balfour Declaration, p.218.
[77] Hatikvah (Antwerp), December 1927, contains article by Basch.
[78] Conjoint Foreign Committee, 1915/340.
[79] Ibid., 1916/183ff; Translated in Stein, The Balfour Declaration, p.219.
[80] Poincare, R., Au Service de la France (Paris: Plon, 1926), Vol. VIII, p.220,15 May 1916.
[81] Conjoint Foreign Committee, 1916/110, 124; Stein, The Balfour Declaration, p 220.
[82] Conjoint Foreign Committee, 1916/11ff; Stein, The Balfour Declaration, pp. 220-221.
[83] Die Welt, 1913, No. 35, p. 1146; Stein, The Balfour Declaration, p. 67.
[84] Conjoint Foreign Committee, 1916/130ff, 18 February 1916; Stein. The Balfour Declaration, p. 221.
[85] Conjoint Foreign Committee, 1916/206; Stein, The Balfour Declaration, p. 223.
[86] Stein. The Balfour Declaration, p.225.
[87] Adamov, E., Ed., Die Europoeische Maechte und die Tuerkei Waehrend des Weltkriegs-Die Aufteilung der Asiatischen Tuerkei. Translation from Russian (Dresden, 1932), No.80.
[88] Conjoint Foreign Committee, 1916/387.
[89] Lloyd George, War Memoirs, 1915-1916, p.434.
[90] Falls, Cyril, The Great War (New York; Putnam, 1959), p.180.
[91] Yale, William, The Near East: A Modern History (Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press. 1958) p. 263.
[92] Caster (Moses) Papers, quoted in Stein, The Balfour Declaration, p.285, fn.
[93] Stein, The Balfour Declaration, pp. 488-490.
[94] Lloyd George, War Memoirs, 1915-1916, p.276.
[95] Landman, S., in World Jewry, Balfour Declaration: Secret Facts Revealed (London: Independent Weekly Journal, 1935), Vol.2, No.43, 22 February 1935.
[96] Landman, Balfour Declaration: Secret Facts Revealed, Vol. 2, No 43, 22 February 1935; also, Malcolm, Origins of the Balfour Declaration: Dr. Weizmann’s Contribution, pp. 2-3.
[97] Landman, Balfour Declaration: Secret Facts Revealed, Vol. 2, No 43, 22 February 1935; also, Link, A.S., Wilson, The New Freedom (Princeton: University Press. 1956) pp. 10ff, 13ff.
[98] Ziff, The Rape of Palestine, p. 58.
[99] Mason, Alphoos T.M., Brandeis, A Free Man’s Life (New York: Viking Press, 1956), p. 451.
[100] Ibid., p. 452.
[101] Gwynn, Stephen, Ed., Letters and Friendships of Sir Cecil Spring Rice (London: Constable, 1929), Vol. II, pp. 200-201.
[102] Yale, The Near East, p.268.
[103] Mason, Brandeis, A Free Man’s Life, p. 448.
[104] The Times Documentary History of the War, London, 1917, Vol. IX, Part 3, p. 303.
[105] National Archives. Department of State, Decimal File 1910-1929, No. 881.4018/325.
[106] Jewish Advocate, 13 August 1915.
[107] Boston Post, 4 October 1915.
[108] The ESCO (Ethel Silverman Cohn) Foundation of Palestine. Inc., Palestine: A Study of Jewish, Arab and British Policies (New Haven: Yale University Press 1947), Vol. I, pp.87-89.
[109] Sykes, Two Studies in Virtue, p.187.
[110] Somervell, D.C., British Politics Since 1900 (New York: Oxford University Press 1950), p. 113.
[111] Report of the Twelfth Zionist Congress (London: Central Office of the Zionist Organization, 1922), p. 13ff.
[112] Stein, The Balfour Declaration, p. 25.
[113] Antonius, The Arab Awakening, p. 263.
[114] Taylor. Alan, Prelude to Israel (New York: Philosophical Library, 1959), p. 19.
[115] The ESCO Foundation, Palestine: A Study of Jewish, Arab and British Policies, Vol. I, pp. 92-93
[116] Stein, The Balfour Declaration, pp. 286-287.
[117] The ESCO Foundation, Palestine: A Study of Jewish, Arab and British Policies, Vol. I, pp. 94.
[118] Taylor. Alan, Prelude to Israel, p. 20.
[118a] Stein, p 509 citing Brandeis’ papers.
[119] New York Times 24 March 1917.
[120] United States: State Department Document 861.00/288, 19 March 1917.
[120a] 120a. Stein, p 332 fn.
[121] Sykes, Two Studies in Virtue, p. 196.
[122] Jeffries, Palestine: The Reality, p. 140. Stein, The Balfour Declaration, p. 396, fn. 10.
[123] Stein, The Balfour Declaration, pp. 396-397.
[124] Ibid., p. 394 fn 3.
[125] Letter from Sokolow to Weizmann, quoted in The Balfour Declaration, p. 400, fn. 27.
[126] Stein, The Balfour Declaration, p.400. fn. 29.
[127] Landman, S., in World Jewry, Balfour Declaration: Scent Facts Revealed (London: Independent Weekly Journal 1935), 1 March 1935.
[128] Les Origines de la Déclaration Balfour, Question d’Israel (Paris, 1939), Vol. 17, p. 680 (Translation)
[129] Ibid.
[130] Translation from Russian in Stein, The Balfour Declaration, p. 395.
[131] Stein, The Balfour Declaration, p. 414.
[132] Sykes, Two Studies in Virtue, p. 211.
[133] Jeffries, Palestine: The Reality, p. 141.
[134] Mason, Brandeis, A Free Man’s Life, p.452.
[135] Dugdale, Blanche E.C., Arthur James Balfour (London, Hutchinson, 1936), Vol, II. p. 231.
[136] Mason, Brandeis, A Free Man’s Life, pp. 452-453.
[137] The Times (London), 24 May 1917.
[138] Ibid., 28 May 1917.
[139] Jeffries, Palestine: The Reality, p. 148.
[140] Ibid., p 149.
[141] Ibid., p 153.
[142] Weizmann, Trial and Error, p. 179.
[143] Stein, p. 462.
[144] Ibid.
[145] Ibid.
[146] Ibid., pp 463-64.
[147] Yale, The Near East: A Modern History, p. 241 Also article by William Yale in World Politics (New Haven: April 1949), Vol. I, No.3, pp. 308-320 on ‘Ambassador Morgenthau’s Special Mission of 1917’; Stein, The BalfourDeclaration, pp. 352-360.
[148] Mason, Brandeis, A Free Man’s Life, p. 453.
[149] Ibid., p 453.
[150] Jeffries, Palestine: The Reality, pp. 163-164.
[151] De Haas, Jacob, Theodor Herzl: A Biographical Study (Chicago: University Press, 1027), Vol. I, pp. 194 et seq
[152] Sykes, Two Studies in Virtue: On the basis of Nordan’s manuscript, ‘The Prosperity of His Servant.’ p 160 fn 1.
[153] Sadaqu Najib, Qadiyet Falastin (Beirut: 1946) pp. 19, 31.
[154] Stein, The Balfour Declaration, p. 526.
[155] Mason, Brandeis, A Free Man’s Life, p.673.
[156] Stein, The Balfour Declaration, p. 504, fn. 5.
[157] Seymour, Charles (ed. by), The Intimate Papers of Col. House (New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1926), pp. 161, 174.
[158] Stein, The Balfour Declaration, pp. 504-505, fn. 5, 7.
[159] The Jewish Chronicle, 26 May 1916. In a personal communication, Prof. W. Yale notes that the Cairo publisher Dr. Faris Nimr told him that Morgenthau had talked with the Khedive, Abbas Hilmi, in 1914, regarding a role in promoting the cession of Palestine to Egypt.
[160] New York Times, Obituary, 18 June, 1962.
[161] Chaim Weizmann Papers in Stein, The Balfour Declaration, p. 506.
[162] Mason, Brandeis, A Free Man’s Life, p. 453.
[163] Ibid., p.453. Stein, The Balfour Declaration, p.506.
[164] Brandeis to de Haas and Lewin-Epstein. 20 September 1917, Brandeis Papers, in Stein, The Balfour Declaration, p. 506.
[165] Ibid., Brandeis to House, 24 September 1917.
[166] Stein, The Balfour Declaration, pp. 507-508.
[167] The Brandeis Papers in Stein, The Balfour Declaration, p.509.
[168] The Wilson Papers in Stein, The Balfour Declaration, p. 509.
[169] Mason, Brandeis, A Free Man’s Life, p.453.
[170] Ibid.
[171] Adler. ‘The Palestine Question in the Wilson Era,’ pp. 305-306. Quoted in Stein, The Balfour Declaration, p. 528.
[172] See ‘The Zionist-Israel Juridical claims to constitute “The Jewish people” nationality entity and to confer membership in it: Appraisal in public international law.’ W.T. Mallinson, Jr., George Washington Law Review, Vol. 32, No.5, (June 1964). pp. 983-1075, particularly p. 1015.
[173] The New Palestine published by the Zionist Organization of America, 28 October 1927, pp. 321, 343.
[174] William Wiseman to Leonard Stein, 7 November 1952: in Stein, The Balfour Declaration, p. 529.
[175] In a dispatch dated 19 May 1919 from Balfour to Curzon, ‘The correspondence with Sir William Wiseman in October 1917’ is mentioned as evidence of endorsement of the Balfour Declaration. Document on British Foreign Policy, First Series, Vol. IV, No.196, fn. 4, p.281.
[176] Stein, pp. 561-62.
[177] Mason, Brandeis, A Free Man’s Life, p.454.
[178] Ibid., p.455.
[179] The New York Times, 8 January 1961, 53:6.
[180] Ibid., 14 January 1961, 22:5.
[181] Lloyd George, Memoirs of the Peace Conference, Vol. II, p. 732.
[182] Claude Kitchen and the Wilson War Policies, 1937, reprinted 1971, Russel.
[183] Knightley, Phillip, The First Casualty (N.Y.: Harcourt Brace, 1975), p. 122.
[184] War Memoirs of David Lloyd George (Boston: Little, Brown, 1933), pp. 280-3.
[185] War Memoirs, p.291.
[186] The Conduct of War, J.F.C. Fuller (New Brunswick: Rutgers, 1961), p.171
[187] Translation from the Russian in Stein, The Balfour Declaration, p. 395.
[188] Great Britain, the Jews and Palestine (London, 1936), pp. 4-5, New Zionist Press.
[189] George, Memoirs of the Peace Conference, p. 726.
[190] Taylor, Prelude to Israel, p.24.
[191] Example: resigning Israeli Chief of Staff, Gen. Rafael Eytan, following the invasion of Lebanon, likened the Palestinians to “cockroaches.”
[192] The U.S. General Accounting Office figure for military and economic aid to Israel from 1948 through 1982 was $24 billion. To this must be added the tax-free contributions to Israeli organizations, loss on investment of funds in Israeli bonds by American cities such as New York, by labor unions, and other entities. To the add the costs of transfer of American technology to Israel. Since 1982, IJ.S. annual taxpayer levies for Israel have been increased by Congress. so that the cost of Israel for the United States could easily climb to well in excess of $100 billion over the next decade.
[193] The New York Times, 10 July 1983.
[194] I recall distinctly how our soldiers fired their weapons at the elderly, at women and children, all on order of their commanders. I witnessed the pleas and cries of small children after their mothers were brutally killed in front of them by our soldiers. Some of the soldiers even fired phosphorus canisters into Ein El-Helweh shelters, where hundreds of civilians had taken refuge. None of them survived.” Account by Lt. Eytan Kleibneuf in Haolam Hazeh, Israel, 7 July 1982. Kleibneuf is a member of Mi’jan Michael Kibbutz and member of Mapam’s United Kibbutzim Movement, and a reserve officer in the Israel infantry forces.
The West German weekly Stern, 24 August 1982, carried an article by Austria’s Jewish Chancellor, Bruno Kreisky, stating that Israel had committed “gigantic crimes” in its invasion of Lebanon. “Israel stands morally naked. Its leaders have shown their true face,” he concluded.
During Israel’s invasion of Lebanon, the U.S. Jewish Press carried a regular column by Rabbi Meir Kahane advocating the killing of Palestinians of all ages. This he wrote, was G-d’s will as expressed in the Torah. Not to do so, opposed that will. This is the Holy War (herem) which God “commanded” the Hebrews to wage against the Canaanites for the possession of the Promised Land. The Old Testament repeatedly refers to the terror that the herem would produce and to Israel’s obligation to destroy all persons with their property who remain in the land, lest they become slaves or corrupting influences. The Hebrew word herem designates a sacred sphere where ordinary standards do not apply, and in a military context … herem is a total war of annihilation without limits against men, women, animals and property. For a discussion of the herem and its revival by the Zealots as reflected in the Dead Sea Scrolls, see de Vaux, R., Ancient Israel, New York: McGraw-Hill. 1972, pp.258-267.
In psychological terms, the defense for indulgence in the horror of herem is projection -projection of ideas of herem as being held by others, or indulging in behavior which invites the ”Group-Fantasy of Martyrdom.” See Journal of Psychohistory, Vol.6, No.2, Fall 1978, H.F. Stein, “The Psychodynamic Paradox of Survival Through Persecution,” pp.151-210.
[195] Within three weeks of the presentation of this lecture at the IHR conference, 241 U.S. Marines and 58 French servicemen were killed in Beirut on 23 October 1983.
[196] Israel’s Sacred Terrorism by Livia Rokach. Belmont 1980: Assoc. of Arab-Amer. Grads. Amer. Grads. Contains the Memoirs of Moshe Sharett 1953-57, Israel’s first Foreign Minister and second Prime Minister.
[197] “A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties,” by Oded Yinon, a former officer in the Israeli Foreign Ministry. In Kivunim (Directions), the Hebrew-language journal of the Department of Information of the World Zionist Organization, February 1982. “The dissolution of Syria and Iraq … into ethnically or religious unique areas such as in Lebanon, is Israel’s primary target on the eastern front in the long run, while the dissolution of the military power of those states serves as the short term target,” the presentation reads in part.


From The Journal of Historical Review, Winter 1985-6 (Vol. 6, No. 4), pages 389-450, 498. This paper was first presented by the author at the Fifth IHR Conference, 1983. It was also the basis for the booklet, Behind the Balfour Declaration: The Hidden Origin of Today’s Mideast Crisis, published by the Institute for Historical Review in 1988.

About the Author

Robert John — foreign affairs analyst, diplomatic historian, author and psychiatrist — was educated in England . He graduated from University of London King’s College, and then studied at the Middle Temple , Inns of Court, in London . He was the author, with Sami Hadawi, of The Palestine Diary: British, American and United Nations Intervention, 1914-1948. This detailed two-volume work, first published in 1970, includes a foreword by British historian Arnold Toynbee. Robert John died on June 4, 2007, age 86.


‘Britain to blame for Israeli-Palestinian conflict’ – George Galloway

Pro-Palestinian activists held banners and denounced Israeli aggression, following violent clashes and attacks by Israel Defense Forces on Palestinian civilians. According to former MP and current Respect Party leader George Galloway, “Britain is the cause of all this disaster”

 

Historic Increase of US Military Budget: Trump Boosts Most Wasteful Department, Reduces All Others

Trump versus press

On February 27th, Reuters headlined “Trump seeks ‘historic’ increase of 9 percent in U.S. military’s budget” and reported that “Trump will ask Congress to boost Pentagon spending in the next fiscal year by $54 billion in his first budget proposal and slash the same amount from non-defense spending.”

The U.S. Department of Defense is one of the 15 U.S. Cabinet departments, the others being: State, Treasury, Justice, Interior, Agriculture, Commerce, Labor, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Transportation, Energy, Education, Veterans Affairs (which is entirely ‘Defense’-related and so their budget is actually an essential part of America’s military expenditures), and Homeland Security (which is another essential military expenditure).

In addition, there are 16 intelligence agencies within a federal “black budget,” whose combined expenditure, when that was reported by the BBC headlining on 30 August 2013 “US intelligence agencies’ ‘black budget’ detailed”, was “$52.6bn in total for 16 intelligence agencies, according to the files” that had been “disclosed by leaker Edward Snowden.” As the Washington Post had first reported it the prior day:

“The $52.6 billion ‘black budget’ for fiscal 2013, obtained by The Washington Post from former intelligence contractor Edward Snowden, maps a bureaucratic and operational landscape that has never been subject to public scrutiny. Although the government has annually released its overall level of intelligence spending since 2007, it has not divulged how it uses the money or how it performs against the goals set by the president and Congress.” In addition, there was reported “a separate $23 billion devoted to intelligence programs that more directly support the U.S. military.” So, a grand total spent on ‘intelligence’ in that year was $75.6 billion. And, actually, none of it has “been subject to public scrutiny.” ‘Defense’ and ‘intelligence’ are the only portions of the U.S. federal budget that have never “been subject to public scrutiny,” as will here be explained.

On Tuesday, 13 May 2014, Stars and Stripes bannered “Decades later, military still unable to account for its spending” and reported:

The military is still running behind in its decades-long quest to audit its spending and rein in waste, Department of Defense comptrollers testified Tuesday to the Senate.

Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps financial managers will be unable to fully meet a midpoint deadline set by the secretary of defense this year for mandated accounting benchmarks. Meanwhile, “serious continuing deficiencies” remain in the accounting efforts, according to a Government Accountability Office report issued Tuesday.

Nearly three decades after U.S. taxpayers gasped over $640 toilet seats and other Cold War military waste, the Department of Defense remains the last federal department still unable to conduct a financial audit despite laws passed in the 1990s that require the accounting.

Trillions of dollars are being poured down, into ‘Defense’ (including aggressions such as the invasions of Iraq, Libya, Syria, etc.) and into ‘intelligence’ (including the false ‘intelligence’ that was used to ‘justify’ those invasions), and yet none of it is at all accountable to the public; it’s merely being paid to U.S. corporations by the ‘representatives of the public’, and will now soar even more, while everything else (suposedly except Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid) will get slashed, as being what supporters of the military-industrial complex call “waste, fraud, and abuse” in all Departments but their own. (They never call ‘defense’ and ‘intelligence’ expenditures that.)

On 26 July 2016, the Office of the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Defense issued its study, “Army General Fund Adjustments Not Adequately Documented or Supported”, and reported:

We determined whether adjustments made to Army General Fund (AGF) data during the FY 2015 financial statement compilation process were adequately documented and supported. … The Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Financial Management & Comptroller) (OASA[FM&C]) and the Defense Finance and Accounting Service Indianapolis (DFAS Indianapolis) did not adequately support $2.8 trillion in third quarter journal voucher (JV) adjustments and $6.5 trillion in yearend JV adjustments1 made to AGF data during FY 2015 financial statement compilation. … In addition, DFAS Indianapolis did not document or support why the Defense Departmental Reporting System‑Budgetary (DDRS-B), a budgetary reporting system, removed at least 16,513 of 1.3 million records during third quarter FY 2015. … As a result, the data used to prepare the FY 2015 AGF third quarter and yearend financial statements were unreliable and lacked an adequate audit trail. Furthermore, DoD and Army managers could not rely on the data in their accounting systems when making management and resource decisions.

The present reporter had headlined little more than a month ago on January 15th, “The Thorniest Policy-Question That President Trump Will Face”, and I opened:

A decision must be made at the start of Donald Trump’s Presidency on one issue, which will shape both his foreign and domestic policies, and so his entire Presidency.

Mark Strauss, the Editor of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, headlined on 8 September 2014, “Nukes Are Cannibalizing The U.S. Defense Budget”, and he raised the question of why nuclear forces are “cannibalizing the U.S. defense budget” now decades after the end of the Soviet Union and of its Warsaw Pact military alliance and its communist dictatorial ideology.

No American President will be able significantly to improve the U.S. economy who fails to reverse this cannibalization by U.S. nuclear-forces advocates and contractors (who get trillions of dollars from this nuclear-weapons business).

President Trump has made his decision on this. He will be spending vastly more on America’s nuclear bombs and bombers, in his promised ‘war against radical Islamic terrorism’; and yet, supposedly, he’s on the anti-terrorist side of that war, the same side of it as is Russia, who is obviously his real target (where else are our nuclear forces targeted?), now that he has actually won the White House. Some people call him ‘Putin’s puppet’, but is Trump actually the military-industrial complex’s puppet? Was he fooling us, all along, to trust his saying that he wanted to cooperate with Russia instead of to target Russia? Are we already not wasting too much on ‘Defense’?

Osama bin Laden’s former bag-man who personally collected every one of the milliondollar-plus cash donations that funded Al Qaeda, said “without the money of the — of the Saudi — you will have nothing” of Al Qaeda. He named among those donors from whom he had picked up such a cash donation, Prince Bandar bin Sultan al-Saud, the Saud family’s Ambassador to the U.S. on 9/11, whom the ‘missing 28 pages’ in the official 9/11 report documented had been regularly paying tens of thousands of dollars personally to at least two of the 15 Saudis who were among the nineteen 9/11 terrorists, and yet President Trump is targeting Russia’s ally Iran — the Sauds’ foe — as being the source of that problem — Trump agrees with Obama on that, which also isn’t what seemed to have been Trump’s views prior to the November 8th election.

So, this is why the non-‘defense’ half of the U.S. government will need to be cut by around 9% — it’s where the ‘waste, fraud, and abuse’ is in the federal budget, even though the ‘Defense’ Department is the only one of the 15 federal Departments that cannot even be audited.

Donald Trump’s Presidency is now set clearly onto its path. Whatever else happens now cannot change the course of his Presidency. Finally, the answer is clear as to whether he will be a great President, a mediocre President, or an atrocious President. He is finally committed, publicly, to his path.

And, on February 25th, the Democratic Party also committed itself finally, to whether it is on the path that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama had established, or instead on the path that Bernie Sanders had been trying to establish.

Finally, things are clear, about the path that America is on. It’s on the Sauds’ path.

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

Amnesty International accuses Israel of war crimes

INTERNATIONAL

KHALIL HAMRA, FILE / AP

Rights group’s report one of several expected in coming months documenting Israeli and Palestinian actions in Gazan war

Amnesty International on Wednesday accused Israel of committing war crimes during its 50-day military operation in Gaza this summer, saying Israeli forces had displayed “callous indifference” in attacks on family homes in the densely populated coastal strip. Israel’s government dismissed the report, the latest in a series by human rights organizations questioning Israeli tactics in Gaza.

Israel’s “Operation Protective Edge” left more than 2,100 Palestinians dead, the majority civilians, according to Palestinian and U.N. officials. Israel lost 66 soldiers and six civilians in the conflict. A number of human rights groups have since probed the question of war crimes in a conflict in which both sides struck civilian targets. Israeli authorities are reluctant to have their military actions under the scrutiny of international jurists, and threatened last month to abandon future talks with the Palestinian Authority should the Palestinian leadership carry out a threat to refer Israel to the International Criminal Court.

Amnesty said in a report released Wednesday that “Israeli forces killed scores of Palestinian civilians in attacks targeting houses full of families, which in some cases have amounted to war crimes.” A report by Human Rights Watch in September also accused Israel of committing war crimes in the course of its Gaza operation.

Israel’s foreign ministry rejected the report’s findings, saying the London-based rights group “ignores documented war crimes perpetrated by Hamas.”

“The report does not mention the word ‘terror’ in relation to Hamas or other armed Palestinian groups, nor mentions tunnels built by Hamas to infiltrate Israel and perpetrate terror attacks,” the ministry said.

But an Amnesty representative told Al Jazeera that the human rights organization has consistently used the war crime label to condemn indiscriminate rocket fire by Palestinian armed groups. Amnesty added that abuses by Hamas or other Palestinian armed groups would be covered in a forthcoming report.

“Over the coming months Amnesty International plans to release other briefings on Israeli forces’ actions in Gaza and on abuses by Palestinian armed groups,” the Amnesty representative said.

Israel launched the Gaza operation in early July after Hamas had responded with rocket fire to Israeli air strikes launched on the territory after Israeli authorities blamed the Palestinian organization for the murder of three Israeli teenagers in Hebron.

It coincided with a crackdown by Israeli forces in the West Bank, where troops arrested scores of Hamas members following the Hebron killings.

Operation Protective Edge saw the fiercest conflict between the two sides in years.

“Israeli forces have brazenly flouted the laws of war by carrying out a series of attacks on civilian homes, displaying callous indifference to the carnage caused,” said Philip Luther, director of Amnesty’s Middle East and North Africa program.

Israel says its forces took great care to avoid civilian casualties, citing its system of providing warning to civilians that strikes on their buildings were coming when possible. But the policy of warning civilians – so called “roof knock” strikes – has come under harsh criticism from rights experts. Those attacks involve firing a low- or non-explosive missile at the roof of a targeted building to warn residents to evacuate, with more lethal ordnance fired a short time later. Residents who fail to evacuate after the initial warning are considered unavoidable “collateral damage” by the Israeli military – a flawed argument according to Eyal Weizman, a forensics analyst and director of the Forensic Architecture project at the University of London.

“This is a gross misuse of international law,” wrote Weizman. “It is illegal to fire at civilians, even if the intention is to warn them. It is ridiculous to ask them to understand, in the commotion and chaos of war, that being shot at is a warning – and it is outrageous to claim that this is undertaken to save their lives.”

The Amnesty report focused on eight cases in which targeted Israeli attacks resulted in the deaths of at least 104 civilians, including entire families and 62 children.

“The fact that, in these eight cases … Israel has made no statement about who or what was being targeted, or even acknowledged that it carried out these particular attacks and the loss of civilian lives that they caused, is deeply worrying,” the report said.

Al Jazeera and The Associated Press


The innocent imprisoned. Movement restricted. Trade suffocated. Homes demolished. Human rights abuses are rife in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

We do not take a position on issues of statehood.

We stand with those demanding that all sides respect human rights, and that perpetrators of human rights abuses are brought to justice.


The Gaza Platform: seeking justice for war crimes

The Israeli military offensive ‘Operation Protective Edge’ launched on 8 July 2014, killed and injured thousands of civilians.

This bloody seven-week escalation of the conflict wreaked further havoc, punishment and devastation on Gaza’s already blockaded population, with Gaza’s children caught in the crossfire – 551 were killed.

One year on from Operation Protective Edge, we’ve launched a new digital mapping tool to help investigate human rights violations during the conflict.

The Gaza Platform aims to uncover the truth about the attacks and serve as evidence of war crimes.

Using forensic architecture, satellite imagery, broadcast news and citizen-generated footage during the 50 days of the conflict, we’ve built a definitive picture of what happened minute by minute, hour by hour, day by day.

This digital database allows us to detect patterns in the Israeli forces’ conduct – a major step on the path to justice for victims of the violence.

What is forensic architecture?

Forensic architecture originally referred to the work of building surveyors – the careful analysis of the conditions of a building. Now the researchers at the Forensic Architecture project at Goldsmiths University have redefined the term.

With more conflicts taking place in urban areas, the violations of human rights and the laws of war often take place within cities.

Violence leaves scars on the environment, as well as the people, so architectural analysis is increasingly called upon as evidence in legal and political forums.

‘Buildings become evidence for a new form of violence. We are like architectural detectives.’

Eyal Weizman, Forensic Architecture Director

The Gaza Platform allows us to explore and analyse exactly what happened during Israel’s 2014 military operation in Gaza.

The repeated use of artillery – an imprecise explosive weapon – in densely-populated civilian areas should be investigated as a war crime.

Deadly warnings

In some cases, Israel issued evacuation warnings to residents of Gaza that they were about to bomb the area.

One such method was the ‘knock on the roof’ warning – firing a small warning missile onto the roof a building just before dropping a deadly bomb.

With only a minute between the so called warning and the real and far deadlier bomb, many people died just trying to evacuate their house.

Families in the firing line

The evidence suggests that the Israeli military had a deliberate policy of targeting family homes. They continued to target homes throughout the war, even after it became clear how many civilians were being killed.

One Sunday evening during the conflict, three missiles struck the apartment of the al-Hallaq family in a residential neighbourhood of Gaza.

One detonates in the family’s TV room where three of their children were watching cartoons – killing all of them.

Another hits the kitchen, killing three women who had been preparing a fast-breaking meal during Ramadan.

At least two of the missiles pierce through the floor into the home of the Anmar family below, killing their three children.

‘It was terrifying; we couldn’t save anyone … All of the kids were burnt. I couldn’t tell which were mine and which were the neighbours’ … It was impossible to recognise them or their features.’

Khalil Anmar, 45, father of four and a doctor with the Palestinian Medical Council

There is also a pattern of attacks on health workers and facilities. In some cases, the Israeli army repeatedly fired at clearly marked ambulances and paramedics wearing recognizable fluorescent vests.

The Rafah bombings

We have used forensic architecture approaches to analyse military operations in Rafah, the southernmost city in the Gaza Strip, and one of the sites that suffered most destruction during Operation Protective Edge.

Sparked by the capture of an Israeli officer, Lieutenant Hadar Goldin, by Hamas fighters on 1 August 2014, four days of conflict killed between 135 and 200 civilians in Rafah, according to reports, as Israeli forces bombed civilians in the city intensively, even after the Lieutenant was declared dead on 2 August.

https://blackfriday.amnesty.org/cases.php

Explore our detailed coverage of the Rafah bombings

What we’re calling for

We want to see an independent investigation by the International criminal Court (ICC) into the 2014 Gaza conflict to ensure justice for victims and their families on both sides of the conflict.

The Gaza Platform has helped shed light on the colossal scale of the attacks and highlights the desperate need for an independent, impartial investigation.

An Israeli Jew has received an 11-year prison term for the attempted murder of another Jewish man who he mistakenly thought was an Arab.

‘Inner voice’ told him to kill: Israeli man jailed for 11yrs for stabbing Jew mistaken for Arab

‘Inner voice’ told him to kill: Israeli man jailed for 11yrs for stabbing Jew mistaken for Arab
An Israeli Jew has received an 11-year prison term for the attempted murder of another Jewish man who he mistakenly thought was an Arab. An “inner voice” allegedly guided him to “find and kill an Arab” in revenge for “terror attacks” by Palestinians on Israelis.

The Haifa District Court on Monday rejected the insanity plea from Shlomo Haim Pinto, 32, who had earlier confessed to an attempted “revenge” attack.

Pinto, a resident of the northern Israeli city of Kiryat Ata, was sentenced to 11 years in prison after he was convicted in December of attempted murder and possession of a weapon with intent to carry out a racist killing.

Where was he radicalized?
Shlomo Haim Pinto felt that he was performing a mitzvah [commandment]http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.774120 

Photo published for Israeli Jew who stabbed another Jew he mistook for an Arab sentenced to 11 years

Israeli Jew who stabbed another Jew he mistook for an Arab sentenced to 11 years

Shlomo Haim Pinto told the court he had a spiritual calling to stab an Arab.

haaretz.com

On October 13, 2015, Pinto, armed with a kitchen knife, a box cutter, and a hammer, walked into a local supermarket where he alleged he would be able to find his Arab victim.

But instead of finding an Arab, Pinto stabbed his fellow Jewish countryman. Uri Razkan, a Jewish employee at Supersol supermarket in Kiryat Ata, was stabbed several times in the waist, the lower back, and the shoulder. The victim survived.

In court Pinto confessed to the attack claiming he was guided by an “inner voice” that told him to perform a “mitzvah,” a good deed done from religious duty, Haaretz reported.

According to the court’s documents, by killing an Arab the defendant thought “there would be greater mercy for the Jewish people and he would advance the redemption” of the nation in the eyes of God.

READ MORE: Israeli soldier sentenced to 18 months for fatally shooting wounded Palestinian attacker

Besides being sentenced to a lengthy prison term, Pinto was also ordered to pay is victim 50,000 Israeli shekels ($13,600) for the injuries caused.

The attack by Pinto took place at the peak of a wave of stabbing attacks carried out by Palestinian youths against Israeli security forces and Jewish civilians. Since the latest outbreak of violence in October 2015, some 252 Palestinians, 41 Israelis, two Americans, a Jordanian, an Eritrean and a Sudanese have died, according to an AFP tally.

 

550

The Telegraph

Eritrean bystander ‘shot and beaten by mob’ in Israel bus station attack dies of wounds

Eritrean who was shot by Israeli officers and kicked as he lay bleeding on ground after being mistaken for stabbing assailant has died of his wounds

The wounded Eritrean is evacuated from the scene of the attack in Beersheba

The wounded Eritrean is evacuated from the scene of the attack in Beersheba Photo: AP

An Eritrean asylum seeker who was shot by Israeli officers and beaten by a mob after being mistaken for a Palestinian gunman has died of his wounds.

The 21-year-old man, who was a bystander in the attack, died of his wounds late on Sunday, a spokesman for Soroka Hospital said.

Israeli police stand by the shrouded body of Palestinian attacker in BeershebaIsraeli police stand by the shrouded body of the Palestinian attacker in Beersheba  Photo: AP

An Israeli soldier was also killed and several others hurt in the attack carried out by a Palestinian attacker armed with a gun and knife.

Israeli police said officers at the bus station mistakenly opened fire on the Eritrean man during the attack, apparently thinking he was an assailant.

Security camera footage of the incident on Israeli news sites showed an Israeli security guard shooting the man as he crawled on the ground.

Israeli news sites said the man was kicked by bystanders as he lay in a pool of blood.

An Israeli soldier was also killed and several others hurt in the attack carried out by 19 year old Mouhand al-Okbian, an Israeli bedouin from the southern Negev town of Hura, who arrived at the Beersheba bus station on Sunday evening armed with a gun and knife.

He opened fire on commuters in the station, killing an IDF soldier Sgt. Omri Levy, also 19, and injuring 11 others.

Mr Al-Obkbian had no previous criminal record.

His relative was arrested for aiding him, after he allegedly provided him with the weapons and may have helped him to enter the central bus station.

Mr Al-Okbian’s mother is originally from Gaza and moved to the Negev after she married an Israeli man.

The attack was one of the boldest yet in a monthlong wave of violence, which has seen eight Israelis and at least 35 Palestinians killed.

The mistaken killing of the Eritrean, recalls a similar event last week when an Israeli Jew stabbed another Israeli Jew near Haifa, after mistaking him for an Arab. The victim, Uri Rezken suffered moderate wounds and is recovering in hospital.

About 34,000 Eritreans asylum seekers are in Israel. They say they are fleeing persecution and conflict and seek refugee status, which is routinely denied to them by Israel in the vast majority of the cases.

The country’s Supreme Court has affirmed in two separate decisions that the treatment of African asylum seekers is unacceptable and violates fundamental laws concerning human dignity and liberty.

Israel has further tightened security around the country, highlighted by the construction of a cement barrier separating Jewish and Arab neighbourhoods in east Jerusalem.

Israel also approved a plan to encircle the Palestinian Issawiya neighborhood of EastJerusalem with a 30ft-high and mile-long wall, Israeli radio reported on Monday morning, in addition to a concrete two-mile barrier within Issawiya itself.

On Monday morning, a Palestinian family were evicted from their homes in the Palestinian neighbourhood of Silwan, East Jerusalem.

Israeli NGO Peace Now reported that it was the first forced eviction by the police to take place in eight years.

The Abu Nab family have been living in the house for decades, but were forced to leave under a law that enables Jews to claim back properties they lost in East Jerusalem during the 1948 war.

The controversial law does not apply to properties owned and lost by Palestinians during the same time.


Israeli Army Vandalize Palestinian Homes And Smear Faeces ( Shit ) On Walls

The Israeli Army is often described as the “most ethical” in the world by propagandists. The very brutal and inhumane nature of their conduct is insulated from our TV screens, and therefore, hidden from our conscience. This is a short glimpse of the systematic vandalism exacted upon the Palestinian nation by the Israeli Occupation Forces.

The pre-meditated project of internalizing humiliation within the Palestinian pysche has long roots to the very origin of the Zionist movement. From one prime minister to the next, Israeli leaders have time and again described the Palestinian nation degradingly as beasts in human form, or as humans embellished by animalistic qualities.

In order to come to terms with this narcisstic pyschology on the part of the Israelis, it is revealing to quote he words of Moshe Yaalon, the Israeli Defense Forces chief of staff, in 2002:

“The Palestinians must be made to understand in the deepest recesses of their consciousness that they are a defeated people.”

NWO update: Benjamin Fulford, February 27, 2017 – Nuctear Actvities in Antarctica, Bush / Clinton Clan neutralized

Benjamin Fulford: February 27, 2017


The Anglican Church Confirms its Belonging to Freemasonry and Its Submission under the Satanic Vatican

For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

8 Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward.
9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:
11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds (“. John Letter 1:7-11).

Christian Forums: “The rationale for the Synod’s longstanding position on the lodges: “Pastors and laypeople must avoid membership or participation in any organization that in its objectives, ceremonies, or practices is inimical to the Gospel of Jesus Christ or the faith and life of the Christian church. It is because tenets and practices of Freemasonry conflict with the Biblical Gospel of Jesus Christ“.

*

The Catholic Church officially forbids Masonry – but since Pope Paul VI, the popes themselves seem to have been Masons. The mother of Masonry is Jesuitism which now rules the Vatican, which in 1963 enthroned Satan as its master.
Nevertheless, Lutheran Churches are now returning to the “M0ther church”

Out of the Blue 8 Febr. 2016The Evangelical Alliance was founded in London in 1846 in Freemason’s Hall, the largest Freemason’s Hall, and remains a Freemason’s lodge. It is noteworthy that the worldwide Evangelical Alliance now has a permanent observer status at the UN.

The Freemasons show off to be committed to the public as a humanitarian organisation, man is the only decisive center. They plead for the tolerance of all religions, but they are a secret covenant, which aims to create a world without Jesus Christ, both politically and also religiously.

The extent to which this has already been achieved can be seen in the successes of these unity efforts of the churches and religions, as well as of the international community in the political sphere. Think of the United Europe or the United Nations, as well as the World Church Council; They are all intertwined with each other. The UN is known as the Great World Lodge of Freemasonry, with its seat in the Glass Palace in New York.

Freemasons want to create a better human being and a better society through human efforts. In the sense of self-salvation, without God, and above all without Jesus Christ. The Freemasons want Christians to be more tolerant in every respect so that they can unite and mix everything up. For this, sin is trivialized and good is mixed with evil.

Evangelische Zentralstelle für Weltanschauungen Nov. 2010:  Since the joint discussions with the VGLvD (1973), the Evangelical Church in Germany has had no objections with regard to the lodge membership of an evangelical Christian. It leaves it “to the free discretion of the individual” (cf. Pöhlmann, Misconduct, 188).

Evangelische Allianz in Deutschland 8. Okt. 2012: Evangelical Alliance in Germany 8 Oct. 2012: 1,500 Freemasons from 50 countries celebrated their rite in the Lutheran St. Michael’s Church in Hamburg.

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
A commentary by the Protestant theologian and worldview expert Michael Kotsch (Bad Meinberg): The main pastor of St. Michaelis, Alexander Röder, was sighted on 19 October at the Lodge house in the Moorweidenstraße.
Of the formerly 80,000 members in 1930, 14,000 are left today in Germany?? – around 5 million worldwide.

Nevertheless, one can be a member of the Evangelical Church of Germany and in a Masonic lodge. On its  homepage, it states: “We say there are many ways to achieve the goal, e.g. Through discussions and conversations, through art, drama, music, painting, etc., perhaps religion. “
Every religion is considered merely one way among many to reach Masonic self-perfection. “As a freemason, we belong only to the general religion …”.

All members of the Swedish Rite must be Christian men.There is a close relationship with the Lutheran Church of Sweden, which is the established national church of Sweden. Priests and bishops of the Church of Sweden have a special role within the pervasive Swedish Rite of Freemasonry, particularly in grade VII and above.

Katholisches 21. Februar 2017:  300 years after the founding of the first Grand Lodge in the world, the  Grand Lodge of London, founded in 1717, now the United Grand Lodge of England and the author of the entire Freemasonry in the world, primus inter pares of all Anglican bishops in the world, Justin Welby, is celebrating this anniversary in the Canterbury Cathedra, the Anglican primate of the country,

Although the Freemasons themselves announced on their website the Masonic ceremony in the Cathedral of Canterbury, neither the BBC nor a daily newspaper reported. This is called total control over the reporting. It is up to you to decide what is written about it.

Welby´s decision to open the main church of the Anglicans to a Freemason spectacle was quite controversial, but he succeeded. The Freemason ritual was led by the Anglican side of the dean of the cathedral, Robert Willis, who entered in vestments before his lodge brothers. In return, the lodge brothers donated 300,000 for being allowed to use the Canterbury cathedral. The money for the restoration purposefully flows into the building hut of the cathedral.

Masonic ashlars were built into the Canterbury Cathedral in memory of the ceremony

Welby is known for its proximity to Freemasonry. As a dean of the Anglican Cathedral of Liverpool, he ensured that a Freemason’s symbol would be placed on a lift that had been financed by the Lodges.

Due to this proximity, he is being criticized by parts of the Anglican church. Several clerics accuse him of not taking into account the Anglican synod resolutions in his “revaluation” of the relationship between Christianity and Freemasonry, most recently the decision of the general synod of 1987, but also of the judgments of various church judges.

No one, however, would doubt seriously that since the eighteenth century there has been a close connection between British Freemasonry and the Cathedral of Canterbury. The cathedral is always being bestowed by the Grand Lodge of London with considerable donations, which are used to restore the cathedral. The Masons thus symbolically want to celebrate their imaginary origin from the tradition of  cathedral builder huts.

Roger Odd, the vice grandmaster of the province of Kent of the united Grand Lodge:

“Several Archbishops of Canterbury were Freemasons, including Geoffrey Fisher, who crowned our Queen.”
The Anglican primate Geoffrey Fisher was received  on 2 December 1960 by Pope  John XXIII (freemason). He was received in the Vatican when, after more than 400 years of the Ice Age, he started an approach between Catholics and Anglicans.

In a few days, on 26 February, Pope Francis will visit the Anglican church and community in Rome. On March 13, an Anglican liturgy will take place for the first time in the history of St. Peter’s Basilica. Pope Francis allowed part of the hour prayer to be celebrated in the Anglican rite. The occasion is the 50th anniversary of the Catholic-Anglican dialogue.

In front of 4.000 believers, Cardinal Nichols, took the renewed consecration of England and Wales to the Immaculate Heart of Mary at the same time as the Freemasons celebrated in Canterbury.

However, as the former 32-degree freemason John Salza declares here: No one can be aChristians  and a Freemason at the same time – for Freemasonry is  luciferic  and  here and here.

Now Archbishop Cranmer (a blogger pseudonym) brings the liturgy of the 18 Febr. Service at the Canterbury Cathedral: All nicely Anglican and Christian – no pageantry.

Archbishop Cranmer analyzes the Biblical texts and points out they refer to the first Masons: King Solomon, King Huram of Tyre and Hiram Abiff, the constructor pf Solomon´s temple. Hiram Abiff was Killed and cut into pieces. In Masonry he is known as representing the builder of the Tower of Babel, Nimrod (the first NWO project) who was also killed and cut into pieces – whereupon his wife Semiramis (the Mother Goddess)   bore him again as the God Baal/Lucifer  – the God of Masonry.

So, the service at the Canterbury Cathedral was worthy of the Spirit of Freemasonry: Occult, secretive seduction of mankind away from Jesus Christ (although the Masons praise him in public).
The Spirit of Freemasonry is Satanic/Luciferian  deception of gullible people

We can’t know what the Dean will say in his sermon (which is unlikely to be made public) but, on the face of it, this is a wholesome Anglican service of orthodox Christian liturgy.

Freemasonry is Judaism for Goyim (cattle – non-Jews)

The 2 pillars in the lodges represent Jachin and Boaz – the 2 pillars in Front of Solomon´s Temple

But here’s the interesting thing..

The scriptures chosen have greater significance (and a very different meaning) to Freemasons than they have to Christians. Indeed, they are used at the highest degree of Masonic initiation in their rituals of exaltation.

Note the reference to the north-side of Sion, which is the dwelling place of God (cf Ezekiel 1:4; Isa 14:12-14). According to William Schnoebelen (Masonry: Beyond the Light) the North side of a Grand Lodge is the place of darkness, or “benightedness and ignorance“. It is whence a new recruit enters (see Masonic Temple layout), blindfolded.

The second section of the University of Bradford’s ‘Web of Hiram‘ (cf 2Chron 2:1-9) observes that he is introduced as one who is in darkness.

The candiate for initiation is  perambulated in a clockwise direction around the Temple, from the darkness of the North toward the light. The psalmist’s ‘Walk about Sion‘ is linked to this rotation. Thus is the north-side, the city of the great King, presented as the place of darkness, from which the candidate moves toward true enlightenment about the nature of the “Almighty Father and Supreme Governor of the Universe” (Lucifer).

In 2003, 8% Danish vicars were Masons  – probably much more today. But Freemasons or Not: Many are spreading Luther’s false doctrine that the baptism certificate is a universal indulgence, according to which the commandments of Christ could be ignored.

NWO-News 7. June 2014: Pope Francis

pope-perespope-abu-mazen

The Holy Land – 2015 was a year of phenomenal growth for the BDS movement.

A look at the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions Movement

2015 was a year of phenomenal growth for the BDS movement.


80% of Israelis fear “Holocaust” will eventually be forgotten

An article recently appearing in The Times of Israel highlights a poll conducted in Israel which found that “over 80% of Israelis think the Holocaust will one day fade from memory,” according to the article. The article continues:

Picture 1

The survey was conducted by The Center of Organizations of Holocaust Survivors ahead of Israel’s Holocaust Remembrance Day, marked April 16, in an attempt to glean contemporary perceptions surrounding the Holocaust in Jewish-Israeli society, the NRG news site reported Wednesday.

Five hundred Jewish-Israeli adults were canvassed for the study.

Asked whether the Holocaust will lose its significance as the seminal catastrophe of modern times and fade into history as “just another event,” 36.6% of respondents said the matter was a certainty, 45% said that it may happen, and only 17.5% responded that such a situation would not transpire.

Asked, however, if the public memory of the Holocaust influences everyday decision making in the private and public spheres in Israel, 42.2% answered in affirmative. Ten point one percent said the memory of the Holocaust has personal resonance only, while 26.9% responded that it only dictates national policy. Just 15.5% of respondents said that the memory of the Holocaust has no influence. […]

The head of the organization behind the study believes the findings indicate a worrying trend in which the lessons of World War II will hold little significance for future generations — a course that should be counteracted with a rethink of Holocaust education in the Jewish state.

“It’s hard to think what would happen when the last [remaining] Holocaust survivors will no longer be with us,” Colette Avital, chairwoman of the Center of Organizations of Holocaust Survivors, said.

“This data should worry the country’s leaders and all those who [believe in] the continuity of Jewish history,” she said.

Unfortunately, given the organized Jewish community’s highly effective marketing and public relations campaign centered around the promotion and perpetuation of the false “Holocaust” narrative of WWII, I very much doubt this anti-White, anti-German narrative of history will “lose its significance as the seminal catastrophe of modern times,” as many Israelis polled apparently believe.

Not a day goes by without a mention or invocation of some aspect of the fake “Holocaust” story. Virtually every single year, one or more movies based on the “Holocaust” are made, often receiving high praise and even Academy Awards. The false “Holocaust” narrative is constantly reinforced and perpetuated through “Holocaust survivor” testimony, memoirs, books, plays, and through the Western educational system. One cannot avoid it. The “Holocaust” is rammed down our throats, stuffed into our brains, and implanted and reinforced in our minds every single day practically.

Indeed, the entire New World Order agenda, which in reality is simply a Jewish plot to enslave the world politically, economically, and culturally, destroying racial consciousness and national distinctions in the process while creating a world of mindless consumers and workers, is largely based on implementing the “lessons of the Holocaust,” as Jewish leaders have openly declared.

“The Holocaust stands as Western Civilization’s greatest failure,” Ian Kagedan, former National Director of Government Relations of B’nai Brith Canada, wrote in a 1991 Toronto Star op-ed piece entitled Memory of the Holocaust Central to New World Order. “It was a natural outcome of centuries of racism and of anti-Semitism. To deny the Holocaust is to deny racism’s capacity to undercut our civilization’s basic values and to destroy democracy. Achieving our quest of a ‘new world order’ depends on our learning the Holocaust’s lessons.”

We would be foolish indeed to think our Jewish overlords and traitorous politicians would allow us to “forget about the Holocaust” and the “important lessons” it has taught humanity.


c8610-baruch-goldstein


A visit to the grave of mass-murderer Baruch Goldstein

Israel/Palestine

Jeff Klein on July 4, 2013 21 Comments

  • Adjust Font Size



Commenters on the conflict often speak of the grave of Baruch Goldstein, the Jewish extremist who gunned down 29 Muslims inside the Mosque of Ibrahim in Hebron in 1994. Jeff Klein recently visited the grave. This account appeared on his site, At a slight angle to the universe, on June 22.

On a hillside in the settlement of Kiryat Arba, overlooking the large West Bank Palestinian city of al-Khalil — known to Israeli Jews and most foreigners by its biblical name of  “Hebron” – is the grave monument of Dr. Baruch Goldstein.

 

 

 

On the Jewish holiday of Purim, February 25, 1994, Goldstein, then a reserve officer in the Israeli army, walked into the Mosque of Ibrahim (the traditional burial place of the Patriarch Abraham) in uniform and with his army-issued weapon, opening fire on the Muslim worshippers. 29 people were murdered outright and 125 wounded before the survivors managed to disarm Goldstein and kill him on the spot.

For many far-right Israeli Jews and especially the settler movement Goldstein was a martyr to the cause of religious Zionism.  His grave in a ceremonial plaza overlooking the Palestinian town became a place of pilgrimage and celebration – to the great embarrassment of the Israeli government and many of its supporters in the US.

 

The ceremonial plaza around the grave was ordered dismantled, but the park and monumental walkway leading up to his grave remain in place.  The park is dedicated to Meir Kahane, the US-born rabbi who was a founder of the violent Jewish Defense League and later the leader of the fascist Kach party — which was so openly racist that it was eventually banned in Israel.  Kahane was assassinated in New York in 1990, but today you can still find stickers and graffiti around Israel with the slogan “Kahane Lives” or in English “Kahane Was Right!”

The Hebrew inscription on Goldstein’s grave monument reads, in part:

 

“The revered Dr. Baruch Kapel Goldstein… Son of Israel.  He gave his soul for the sake of the people of Israel, The Torah, and the Land.  His hands are clean and his heart good… He was assassinated for the Sanctity of God”

The stones on the grave are customarily left by visitors to express their mourning.

 

During the annual observance of the Purim holiday, settlers gather at Goldstein’s grave to celebrate his deed and sing songs in praise of the man they regard as a noble martyr.  One of the songs includes the verse: “Dr. Goldstein, there is none other like you in the world. Dr. Goldstein, we all love you… he aimed at terrorists’ heads, squeezed the trigger hard, and shot bullets, and shot, and shot.”

 

Then the settlers march down to pray at the Mosque/Synagogue of Abraham, accompanied by a  massive show of force by Israeli army troops.

The 1994 Hebron Massacre launched a fierce outburst of violence in Israel and the Occupied Territories, which included the first suicide bombings carried out by Hamas within the 1948 borders.

 

But in this case (Jewish) terrorism worked.  The ancient burial place of the Patriarchs, which had been converted into a mosque over a thousand years earlier was now divided into a Muslim and a Jewish section and made accessible to Jewish worshipers and foreign tourists.

 

Ironically, it’s impossible for anyone to visit both parts of the shrine at a single occasion, since people approaching the heavy security at the shrine must declare their religious affiliation and are allowed into one or the other section depending on their answer.  Muslims are not allowed into the Jewish section and Jews are not allowed into the Muslim section. Non-Jewish tourists can choose one or the other, but not both.  (I know this from a previous visit with my son to the Mosque side).

On the day I was there, a large group of Swedish tourists, the men sporting incongruously small white Jewish kippot (“yarmilkas”) given to them at the entrance. Jewish religious law does not require non-Jews to have their heads covered.

Meanwhile religious Jewish yeshiva students were chanting fervently and loudly just behind them.

 

 

 

About Jeff Klein

Jeff Klein, is a retired local union president, a long-time Palestine solidarity activist and a board member of Mass Peace Action. He has a blog: http://atmyangle.blogspot.com/

– See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2013/07/murderer-baruch-goldstein/#sthash.wPi3OCEL.dpuf


cfc57-prevent_holocaust_bomb_iran_by_latuff2

AUSTRALIA WILL PRESS ICC TO AVOID ATTACKS AGAINST ISRAEL

australia

JERUSALEM POST – Australia is willing to be an “important player” in keeping pressure on the International Criminal Court so it is not used as a vehicle to attack Israel, a senior diplomatic official said Sunday, shortly after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met with Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop.

Bishop, according to the official, committed Australia to continue defending Israel in hostile international forums, as it has done until now.

The official said Netanyahu was trying to put together a group of nations that – in addition to the US under President Donald Trump – would both take a more aggressive tone against Iran, and also block efforts to castigate Israel in various international forums.

Netanyahu met Bishop shortly before leaving Australia after a five day visit. In that meeting, he raised the idea of “Gaza First” to illustrate how unrealistic it was at this time to talk about a Palestinian state.

Bishop asked Netanyahu to explain comments he made upon his arrival to Australia, when he responded to the calls by two former Australian prime ministers for Canberra to recognize a Palestinian state by replying: “ What kind of state will it be that they are advocating? A state that calls for Israel’s destruction? A state whose territory will be used immediately for radical Islam?”

Netanyahu told Bishop that under any possible scenario — including a two-state solution — “Israel will have to retain ultimate security control.”

When Bishop asked whether there might be another alternative to Israeli security control, Netanyahu responded: “Is anyone willing to go into Gaza? Is there a force in the world to do it,” he asked. “We left Gaza, and Hamas entered,” he said. “Who is going to go in there to ensure that this does not happen.”

Netanyahu drew on the experiences of international forces such as UNIFIL in Lebanon, UNDORF on the Golan Heights, and EU BAM at the crossings in Gaza – all forces that failed in their mandates – to stress that only Israeli control would be acceptable.

Netanyahu made clear to Bishop that for Israel, a Palestinian state must recognize Israel as the national home of the Jewish people, and be demilitarized, with Israel retaining ultimate security control.

Sources in the prime minister’s entourage dismissed speculation that there was any contact during Netanyahu’s visit between his entourage and that of Indonesian President Joko Widodo, who arrived in Australia on Saturday for his first visit as president.

Indonesia, which has the world’s largest Muslim population, does not have diplomatic ties with Israel, though over the years there has been contact at the highest diplomatic levels. Delegations of Indonesian journalists are also periodically invited to the country.

In addition, Israeli businesses reportedly trade with Indonesia informally through both Australia and Indonesia.

Nevertheless, on his recent flight from Singapore to Sydney, Netanyahu’s plane was forced to take a circuitous route that lengthened his trip by some three hours — from about eight to 11 hours — because Indonesia would not let his El AL plane fly over its airspace.

John McCain is once again in Syria

| 26 FEBRUARY 2017

In the course of an official trip to the Middle East, during which he was received by the Turkish President and the King of Saudi Arabia, Senator John McCain secretly (and illegally) went to Syria. There he met with both the Kurdish and US military leaders.

The timing of the meeting coincides with the opening of the new peace talks in Geneva.

John McCain had come to Syria in May 2013, to meet with leaders of the armed groups, who would later become the leaders of what now is known as the Islamic Emirate.

In February 2011, he had co-chaired in Cairo the meeting for launching wars in Libya and Syria. Then he had gone to Libya and took the decision to set up an Islamist support base at Ersal.

Translation
Anoosha Boralessa


The hijacking of the Munich Security Conference

History teaches us this – every time a System collapses, its leaders do not realise the truth until they are swept away by the storm. So the political representatives of the European Union, meeting just like every year in Munich for their Security Conference, were shocked to hear Sergey Lavrov speak of a post-Western world order. And yet the world is slipping away from under their feet – the Arab Peoples are desperately resisting wars and false revolutions, while the People of the United States have elected an anti-imperialist into the White House. The organisers of the Conference couldn’t have cared less – they were defending the interests of the deep US state against the Trump administration.

| DAMASCUS (SYRIA) | 21 FEBRUARY 2017

JPEG - 56.3 kb
The Conference State dinner (18 February 2017, 11 p.m.)

The Munich Security Conference took place between 16 and 19 February [1]. Like every year, it united more than 500 European Ministers and members of Parliament, as well as a number of foreign guests. This is the most important international meeting on European Foreign Policy and Defence.

Ten years ago, in 2007, Vladimir Putin caused a scandal by claiming that it was in the interest of the Europeans not to follow the Pentagon in its military adventures, but to act independently [2]. He also reminded his listeners that his country, Russia, is also a European state, even though it is excluded from the European Union. The participants had laughed at him and his pretentions. As one, they sought protection under cover of the NATO umbrella.

This time, it was Sergey Lavrov who caused a scandal, by calling for a post-Western world order. We are obliged to admit that NATO has lost its superiority in terms of conventional warfare – even though it easily maintains first place in terms of nuclear war. We are obliged to admit that after 15 years of uninterrupted war in the «Greater Middle East», the mirage of remodelling the region into micro-states, each with less than 10 million inhabitants, and the fantasy of eradicating secular régimes for the benefit of dictatorships run by the Muslim Brotherhood, have failed.

Astoundingly, the Europeans persist in pursuing these goals, which have been imposed on them by Washington, but which the People of the United States and their President Donald Trump do not want any more. So the Europeans are counting on the deep US state (that is to say the Raven Rock Mountain Continuity of Government group who organised the attacks of 11 September). Their political leaders continue, as a preventive measure, to denounce Donald Trump’s supposed racism and Islamophobia, the same people who applauded when George W. Bush and Barack Obama killed more than 3 million people. Their Press continually insults Donald Trump, whom it presents as capricious and incapable [3].

Horrified by the opinions of Donald Trump, according to whom NATO is «obsolete», they were reassured by the declarations of his ministers, who in essence, told them the same thing – NATO no longer needs to exist in its current format – it needs to be transformed into a defensive alliance, and if you want to be part of it, you will have to dedicate 2% of your Defence budget.

Obsessed by their imperialist lunacy, the Europeans were terrified by the possible abandon of their anti-Russian investments in Ukraine and Syria. There too, they were reassured by declarations which were nonetheless as vague as could be. Trump’s ministers repeated that they would give up no interest vital to the USA in Ukraine, and that they would pursue a «political solution in Syria». So why did the Europeans understand that the People of the United States has vital interests on the banks of the Dnipro and that a «political solution in Syria» means replacing the Republic with the Muslim Brotherhood? Simply because that is what they were taught by the Obama administration – the administration that was rejected by the People of the United States.

Of course, everyone can see the struggle between the Trump administration on one side and the «Continuity of Government» group on the other. The mountains trembled when Donald Trump excluded the CIA and the Joint Chief of Staff from the National Security Council [4]. Everyone noticed the way in which the CIA, in response, refused Defence accreditation to six of the President’s advisors, and accused the National Security advisor of being a Russian spy, forcing him to resign, and how they are still pursuing four other representatives from the Presidential team. But losing a few battles does not mean losing the war, and it is distressing that the Europeans – enslaved for so long – do not know this. How can they believe that Donald Trump was going to sweep away such a powerful «deep state» in just a few days? And how could they imagine that his first defeats would be enough to make him give up? [5]

Over the last few years, this Security Conference has been a way for Germany to serve as a link between the United States and their European partners. This year, its only goal was to force the European leaders to confirm their allegiance to the deep US state, without taking into account either the will expressed by the US People, or the change in the White House.

A preparatory document, drawn up by the German organisers of the Conference, was handed to the participants. The Press was careful not to mention it. It contains an article by Volker Perthes, author of the Feltman plan for the total and unconditional capitulation of the Syrian Arab Republic [6]. This eminent «expert» presents his vision of the «Greater Middle East», or rather the vision of the US «Continuity of Government» [7].

- 1. [Even if we have not managed to remodel it,] this region will not be unaffected by the wars and the «Arab Spring». [We didn’t do all that for nothing].
- 2. The conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran has become a sectarian conflict between Sunnis and Chiites [which masks our geopolitical ambitions].
- 3. While everyone is caught up in this false religious conflict, no-one is paying any attention to the Palestinian situation [for the greater benefit of the colonial state of Israël].
- 4. While the Europeans are unanimously tired of these bloodbaths taking place far from their homes, and hope for the long-awaited triumph of the Muslim Brotherhood, no-one in the Greater Middle East has yet admitted to having been beaten.
- 5. During the war in Syria, the alliances have continually been sealed and unsealed at the regional level, the latest of which was the pact between Russia, Turkey and Iran, which should not last [luckily] any longer than the others.
- 6. Syria and Iraq will not beat terrorism, and will not find peace other than by inclusive government [that is to say, by accepting to introduce al-Qaëda and Daesh into their governments].
- 7. All of this could only end, for all the populations of the Greater Middle East, by a major international conference during which the Westerners would determine their future, just as, at the Congress of Vienna (1814), the Quadruple Alliance decided the fate of the rest of the world.

Quite clearly, neither faced with the vote of the US People, nor the Resistance of the Arab Peoples, do the European leaders intend to change – they can only be dismissed by the European People.

Translation
Pete Kimberley


Amnesty International “Human Slaughterhouse” Report Dismissed as Fake News by Ex UK Ambassador to Syria

AI 2

21st Century Wire says…

21st Century Wire recently collated a series of articles and analyses decontstructing the Amnesty International “Human Slaughterhouse” hoax. This US deep state attempt to bring down the Syrian government via its smart power channels, presided over by the likes of Human Rights Watch and Amnesty Intl,  was shot down in flames before it even really got off the ground. 

Read the 21st Century Wire compilation of Amnesty International bias: Amnesty International – Humanitarian Spin Merchants and Propaganda Peddlers

The following reports from Sputnik, nail the lid shut on the coffin of this particular Amnesty International pre-fabricated masquerade. Peter Ford was former British Ambassador to Syria and visited Sadnaya Prison during his time in office. LISTEN ~ 

“In this episode of Hard Facts, former UK Ambassador to Syria, Peter Ford dismantles the Amnesty International Report on the Syrian Saydnaya prison and highlights its many problems.  Together with John Wight they dig deeper into the origins of Amnesty International as an organization and explore what other motives may be behind this report.”

 

Capture

Amnesty International’s latest report on mass extrajudicial killings in Syria would not stand scrutiny, according to former British ambassador to Syria, Peter Ford.

On February 7, the organization issued an explosive report titled ‘Human Slaughterhouse, Mass Hangings and Extermination at Saydhaya prison, Syria,’ alleging that the Syrian authorities were responsible of killing 13,000 opponents of President Bashar Assad at the Saydnaya prison on the outskirts of Damascus.

In an interview with Sputnik, Ford pointed out that it was interesting how the report was coincidentally released after the Syrian city of Aleppo was liberated by the government forces two months ago, after successful negotiations in Astana and as it appears that Syria is coming closer to a political solution for the ongoing war.

“It’s very strange after this report has been over a year in gestation — you have to ask, why now?” He said.

According to the former Ambassador, there is a number of reasons why the report puts into question the credibility of the human rights organisation. Apart from the fact that it was based on interviews with anonymous witnesses and doesn’t provide a hint of evidence, those nameless sources were wrong on ‘basic information’, and that naturally puts to doubt the veracity of other claims.

The retired British diplomat had visited Saydnaya numerous times as he served in Damascus from 2003 to 2006. According to Ford, the prison was too small to contain ten to twenty thousand prisoners at one time, contrary to what Amnesty said in the report.

“Ten to twenty thousand is a fair-sized town.” He said in an interview. The building which I saw at Saydnaya could not possibly accommodate more than ten percent of those numbers.”

The human rights group also quoted its sources as saying that Saydnaya became the main political prison in 2011, which was just as false.

“It was already, when I was in Syria in 2006 and many years before then, Saydnaya was the main political prison.” Ford clarified. “When they get this level of detail wrong I find it very hard to believe anything at all.”

The former ambassador referred to the organization as “the spearheads of liberal interventionism”, citing Amnesty International’s “sensationalist” reports of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.

“Amnesty said that they had verified that claims that Iraqi soldiers had stolen incubators in Kuwaiti hospitals and left babies on the floor to die. Turned out this was a total fabrication…they were gullible and they used it and it helped to justify the Iraqi war.” Ford said.

“This is the new way of picking up the white man’s burden — you go around changing regimes that you accuse of human rights abuses.”

Amnesty International has been repeatedly criticized by some countries, including Russia, the United States and China, for spreading misleading information and acting as an instrument of propaganda and information wars. In 2013 the International Business Times wrote that in the past Amnesty received funds from the European Commission, from the governments of the Netherlands, the US, Norway and, in 2009, it received 2.5 million euros from government entities.

“Amnesty is well known in the NGO community for being very aggressive, for being sensationalist and for being focused very much on its own fund-raising.” Ford said.

“They have become part of the liberal, elite establishment; part of the vanguard of liberal interventionism. They have lost their way. And this latest report will do them no credit.”

***

READ MORE SMART POWER NEWS AT: 21st Century Wire Smart Power Files

Farhadi’s Salesman wins Oscar for best foreign-language film

Sun Feb 26, 2017 10:6PM

 

PressTv User

Iranian director Asghar Farhadi’s The Salesman has won the 2017 Academy Award for best foreign-language film.

The award was accepted by two prominent Iranian-Americans representing Farhadi, who boycotted the Oscars over US President Donald Trump’s executive order banning visitors from seven Muslim countries. Anousheh Ansari, the first Iranian space tourist, read out a statement by Farhadi.

“My absence is out of respect for the people of my country and those of other six nations whom have been disrespected by the inhumane law that bans entry of immigrants to the US,” Ansari said. “Dividing the world into the ‘us’ and ‘our enemies’ categories creates fear, a deceitful justification for aggression and war.”

Anousheh Ansari, the first Iranian space tourist, and Firouz Naderi, a former director of Solar Systems Exploration at NASA, represent Asghar Farhadi’s The Salesman in the 89th Academy Awards.

Before the Oscar ceremony on Sunday, The Salesman, was screened in London’s Trafalgar Square thanks to the request of London Mayor Sadiq Khan who referred to the ban as “cruel” and “shameful.”

The Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, gives a speech at the public screening of the film ‘The Salesman’ by Iranian director Asghar Farhadi in Trafalgar Square in central London on February 26, 2017. 

“At a time when people are talking about travel bans, I want to welcome people…At a time when people are motivating communities to divide, I want to unite them,” he added.

Crowds gather in Trafalgar Square for the public screening for the film ‘The Salesman’ in central London on February 26, 2017. (Photo by AFP)

Last month, Farhadi said that he would not take part in the awards, even after receiving special permission to attend. He has announced that Ansari, famed for being the first female space tourist, and Firouz Naderi, a former director of Solar Systems Exploration at NASA, will be his representatives at this year’s Academy Awards.

Read More:

According to Khan’s office, around 10,000 people took part in the screening, which was also the film’s UK premiere.

Iranian filmmaker Asghar Farhadi speaks in a recorded video message during the public screening for the film ‘The Salesman’ in Trafalgar Square in central London on February 26, 2017. 

“Despite our different religions, nationalities and cultures, we are all citizens of the world. I’m very proud to be a member of this global family. I’m sorry not I’m not able to be here with you but I will be there in spirit,” said Farhadi in a recorded message played at the beginning of the film.

Read More:

On Monday, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif also took to Twitter to praise the cast and crew of The Salesman for choosing not to attend the event in person to protest Trump’s insulting Muslim ban.

The Salesman has already won two awards at the 2016 Cannes Film Festival last May and was also nominated for a Golden Globe and a Critics’ Choice Award among several other nationwide and universal recognitions.

Farhadi won Iran’s first-ever Academy Award with domestic drama A Separation in the 2012 Oscars.



Mon Feb 27, 2017 11:10AM
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas arrives to delivers a speech during the United Nations Human Rights Council on February 27, 2017 in Geneva. (Photo by AFP)
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas arrives to delivers a speech during the United Nations Human Rights Council on February 27, 2017 in Geneva. (Photo by AFP)

The Palestinian Authority (PA) has warned all foreign countries against relocating their respective embassies in Israel from Tel Aviv to East Jerusalem al-Quds, which the Palestinians want as the capital of their future state.

PA President Mahmoud Abbas made the remarks in an address to the 34th session of the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) in Geneva on Monday.

Campaigning for US elections, Donald Trump vowed to move the American Embassy to East al-Quds in a sign of recognition of the city as the capital of an Israeli “state.”

This is while Palestinians want the West Bank, which Israel has occupied since 1967, as part of a future Palestinian state, with East al-Quds as its capital.

“We call for the establishment of a system, which would guarantee the independence of the Palestinian state with East al-Quds as its capital, within the boundaries of the 4th of June, 1967,” Abbas asserted, referring to the precise date when Israel staged the occupation.

“We reiterate our appeal for an international protection regime for the Palestinian people,” he added.

Read more:

 ‘Israeli land theft’

The Israeli parliament on February 6 rubber-stamped the so-called “Legalization Bill,” which retroactively legalized structures built on Palestinian land.

The move came barely two months after the United Nations Security Council unanimously approved a resolution declaring that settlement construction “constitutes a flagrant violation under international law.”

UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres blasted the ratification of the bill, emphasizing that it would “have far-reaching legal consequences for Israel.” A chorus of outcry also followed from elsewhere, including the German government.

Abbas touched on the land grab law, saying, “Israel has recently announced its intent to create more occupation units over our land. It has adopted a law, which legitimates the theft of occupied Palestinian land, in particular private lands.”

“This is a dangerous precedent, which we reject. The international community rejects it as well. This is a situation that does not allow our people to establish their own state. This is an act, which leads to hatred and violence.”

He asserted that Tel Aviv was thus moving towards the creation of an “apartheid solution” to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

The Palestinian leader’s appeal to the UNHCR came as the Trump administration has mulled quitting the rights body over its purported bias against Israel, Politico reported on Saturday.


Mon Feb 27, 2017 6:6AM
Human Rights Watch has criticized US President Donald Trump for what it calls his campaign of intimidation against his critics.
Human Rights Watch has criticized US President Donald Trump for what it calls his campaign of intimidation against his critics.

A prominent US human rights group has criticized President Donald Trump for his campaign to “discredit, harass, and intimidate” his critics, comparing the new American leader to “demagogues in other countries.”

“It’s now clear that one of Donald Trump’s top priorities as president is to discredit, harass, and intimidate his critics, or anyone who exposes how his administration is working.” New-York based Human Rights Watch (HRW) said Sunday.

“Demagogues in other countries regularly use such tactics to silence critics and restrict the media’s ability to inform the public,” said Maria McFarland Sánchez-Moreno, co-director of the US Program at HRW.

“Too often they have paved the road to even greater assaults on rights and democracy. Ultimately, the country as a whole, regardless of party affiliation, will lose if it continues,” she said in a statement on the rights group’s website.

Read More:

Trump has repeatedly attacked media organizations since coming into office, accusing some news outlets of spreading “fake news.”

Following his inauguration, he declared a “running war with the media” and blasted journalists for their coverage of the size of his inaugural crowds.

On Friday, several news organizations, including CNN, the New York Times and the BBC were barred from a White House press briefing.

“Trump has said his criticism of the media is protected by the First Amendment to the US Constitution. But there is a difference between protected speech and threats, intimidation, retaliation, and smear campaigns backed up by the power of the presidency,” Sánchez-Moreno said.

“In human rights terms, while government leaders have a right to free expression, they also have a duty to protect it—including for critical media—to secure the public’s right to information,” she added.

In a Twitter message posted earlier this month, the new president called a number of news organizations the “enemy of the American people,” an extraordinary rebuke of the press.

Historians have pointed out similarities between Trump and former US President Richard Nixon, who in 1972 told his national security adviser, Henry A. Kissinger, “The press is the enemy.”

“Donald Trump is demonstrating an authoritarian attitude and inclination that shows no understanding of the role of the free press,” said Carl Bernstein, the journalist who helped uncover the Watergate scandal during the Nixon administration.

Trump’s language “may be more insidious and dangerous than Richard Nixon’s attacks on the press,” Bernstein said.

PressTV

YES: Holocaust-Hoaxing French Kike Detained at Houston Airport – For Ten Hours!

Andrew Anglin
Daily Stormer
February 27, 2017

This is so absolutely wonderful.

Everything is happening exactly as we planned it.

Jewish Holocaust activists are being detained at airports.

Just say that sentence outloud.

Jewish Holocaust activists are being detained at airports.

Houston Chronicle:

A prominent Holocaust historian who was detained at George Bush Intercontinental Airport en route to speak at a Texas A&M University symposium last week, said Sunday that he might think twice before returning to the United States given the new climate surrounding immigration.

“No question, I’ll be a little reluctant to come back, even if I love this country,” Henry Rousso wrote in an email to the Chronicle as he prepared to board a flight back to Paris. “The problem is that this incident can happen any time to anybody.”

Good riddince, Jew.

Don’t let the FREEDOM EAGLE bite you on the way out.

Rousso was denied entry into the U.S. and whisked into a room where roughly 30 people waited Wednesday afternoon. One officer said he would soon be deported, according to an account he published Sunday on the Huffington Post.

His detention, officers later said, was because an “inexperienced” immigration official did not realize that a tourist’s visa would suffice to allow Rousso into the U.S. for research and educational purposes, according to Rousso’s essay and a Texas A&M professor. Texas A&M secured his release after 10 hours, Rousso said, and representatives for ICE and Customs and Border Patrol did not return requests for comment.

Rousso, who spoke at A&M about “Writing in Dark Times” on Friday, described in his written account a half-dozen people he waited with in the early hours of Thursday morning. Two officers showed one man a plane ticket, told him to stand up and put him in handcuffs.

“I could not believe my eyes,” Rousso wrote in French on the Huffington Post. “I wondered if this was the same fate that awaited us.”

Rousso wrote he was grilled with questions about his mother, his father, where he lives, where he works. Perhaps at issue, he guessed, was that he had a recently expired visa from an employment stint at Columbia University. He said his birthplace – Egypt – also could have played a role in his treatment. An officer told him it was a random check.

Yes. Born in Egypt. His Wikipedia page says his parents fled in 1956 – due to anti-Semitism.

Of course, the anti-Semitism existed for no reason. No reason at all. Just totally random hatred.

Rousso said he sat in the waiting room for nearly half a day without a phone. He said he was regularly offered food and water, and then signed a log to indicate if he accepted.

Meanwhile in College Station, Richard Golsan, director of the Melbern Glasscock Center for Humanities Research at Texas A&M, received a call from an immigration official.

“‘We have a man here who claims to know you,’” the man said, according to Golsan. He answered several questions about the purpose of Rousso’s travel, Golsan said, and he thought the matter was solved.

Hours later, Golsan heard Rousso would be on the next plane back to Paris. The A&M scholar called the director of the Hagler Institute for Advanced Study, which hosted the symposium, who then mobilized Texas A&M President Michael Young. A legal team secured his release. Golsan said Rousso was escorted out of the airport early Thursday morning, when he flagged a taxi and stayed at a local hotel.

“This is not the way we want to bring visiting dignitaries to the U.S., or to Texas A&M,” Golsan said Sunday afternoon, calling Young’s foresight in preemptively organizing legal assistance “incredible.”

“My situation was nothing compared to some of the people I saw who couldn’t be defended as I was,” Rousso wrote on Twitter on Saturday.

Well. All yall’s situations about to be getting a hell of a lot worse.

You really just should stay out of our country.

This is our home.

We live here.

I don’t believe that Donald Trump is actually anti-Semitic. Or rather, he wasn’t when all of this got started.

But the Jews are anti-Trumpistic. And so, he is treating them in kind.

Judea has declared war on Donald Trump.

And the challenge has been accepted.

Oscars Awards spent the night trolling Trump, then karma hit with Best Picture Award blunder

Oscars Blunder: ‘Moonlight’ wins best picture after ‘La La Land’ mistakenly announced.

Jimmy Kimmel and his hollywood elitist friends trashed President Trump non-stop during the 2017 Oscars.

When the most anticipated award for Best Picture was announced to close the Academy Awards ceremony, Trump got the last laugh, once again.

In the same way that the media trashed Trump about his Sweden comment, only to have migrant violence strike Sweden the very next day, the Oscars fell victim to the “curse of  The Don”, and looked thoroughly stupid and incompetent when they announced the wrong Best Picture winner.

Entertainment Weekly reports

In the most shocking mix-up in Oscars history, Moonlight won best picture at the Academy Awards — but only after presenter Faye Dunaway announced La La Land as the winner, setting off mass confusion inside the Dolby Theatre in Los Angeles.

“I want to tell you what happened,” co-presenter Warren Beatty explained after the mix-up was revealed. “I opened the envelope, and it said ‘Emma Stone, La La Land.’ That’s why I took such a long look at Faye and at you. I wasn’t trying to be funny.”

“Well, I don’t know what happened. I blame myself for this,” Kimmel joked after the moment. “Let’s remember, it’s just an awards show. I mean, we hate to see people disappointed, but the good news is we got to see some extra speeches. We have some great movies. I knew I would screw this show up, I really did. Thank you for watching. I’m back to work tomorrow night on my regular show. I promise I’ll never come back. Good night!”

Former Oscars host Neil Patrick Harris posted a photo of Beatty’s envelope which shows the Best Actress envelope was read by Beatty…

Warren Beatty seems to be opening an envelope that says ‘Actress in a Leading Role’. He must have been handed the wrong one somehow. Yikes.

Kimmel spent the entire night insulting President Trump, which should come as no surprise, as Jimmy Kimmel is a Hillary Clinton faithful disciple.

Over 150 French Lawmakers Urge Hollande to Recognize Palestine

  • Protester holds a Palestinian flag in front of Israeli troops during clashes against the Israeli barrier in Ramallah, the West Bank.

    Protester holds a Palestinian flag in front of Israeli troops during clashes against the Israeli barrier in Ramallah, the West Bank. | Photo: Reuters

Published 26 February 2017 (12 hours 16 minutes ago)
“Our actions must now follow our words,” read the letter signed by French lawmakers.

More than 150 French lawmakers sent a letter to President Francois Hollande Sunday calling on him to officially recognize Palestine as a state as part of the country’s commitment to the two-state solution which is being threatened by the new U.S. administration as well as the right-wing Israeli government.

RELATED:
For Israel, ‘Friend’ Trump Will Quash Hopes of Palestine State

“France must demonstrate its willingness to overcome the stalemate in this conflict by solemnly reaffirming, in the name of the inalienable right to self-determination, that the Palestinian people are entitled to a state,” Socialist Party deputy Gilbert Roger wrote in the letter lawmakers addressed to the French president.

The open letter was penned by Roger but was signed by 153 lawmakers from across the political spectrum of France, where many parties have been supporters of a two-state solution and critical of Israel’s occupation and illegal settlement construction in the West Bank.

The letter came just days after Hollande reaffirmed his country’s commitment to a two-state solution after U.S. President Donald Trump told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu he would be open to a one-state solution, breaking decades of U.S. policy in support of a two-state solution.

However, the lawmakers are calling on the president to back up his words with actions and take the symbolic yet powerful step of recognizing occupied Gaza and the West Bank as the territories that comprise a future Palestinian state.

“Our actions must now follow our words. Mr. President, show yourself up to the challenge and do not miss this rendezvous with history, (by) recognizing the State of Palestine from now on,” read the letter, which has reportedly gained the approval of lawmakers from most political groups in both of France’s parliament chambers.

RELATED:
French Position on Israel and Palestine has Shifted

Just last month France held an international conference in Paris on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that was attended by more than 70 nations. The Palestinian leadership welcomed the French initiative but the Israeli prime minister called it a waste of time.

In 2014 the French parliament passed a bill with the support of more than 335 lawmakers urging the government to recognize Palestine.

Over the past few years, European countries have been pushed by worldwide solidarity with Palestine to pressure Israel, which since the collapse of the 2014 U.S.-sponsored talks has pressed on with building internationally-recognized illegal settlements in occupied territory the Palestinians want for their state.

———————————————————————————————————————

Meet Zionist Miriam Levinger

Imagine that into your beautiful vibrant city moves this woman, who, along with her highly-funded terrorist friends, tries to take it over through genocide. This is the reality in Hebron, Palestine.
Meet Miriam Levinger, U.S. citizen from the Bronx, New York… the mother of the Israeli colonial settlers in the ‘West Bank’

Filmed in Tel Rumeida, Hebron, Palestine


CRIF: ‘No Israel Lobby in France!’

Roger Cukierman, president of CRIF, an umbrella organization of over 100 pro-Israel French Jewish groups has claimed that his organization is not linked to Zionist movement or Israel. The Representative Council of French Jewish Institutions (Le Conseil Representatif des Institutions Juives de France (CRIF) formed in 1977, is French duplicate of American Israel Lobby (AIPAC).

CRIF has been calling for years for banning top French comedian Dieudonne M’Bala M’Bala from performing in France, Europe and North America. The Afro-French comedian is hated by the Jewish groups for his support for Palestine, Iran and Hizbullah while he makes jokes about Israel and Zionism.

French daily Le Monde published an article in October 2007 describing the Zionist lobby in France as a non-transparent and deceitful group. From that point, the issue of the Zionist lobby in France and its influence on the country’s foreign and domestic policy has been taken into consideration.

In 2012, around 112 French lawmakers, both rightists and leftists, held a festival in support of Israel. The move was aimed at opposing Palestine’s UN membership. The French parliamentarians stood up singing Israel’s national anthem.

French professor Alain Finkielkraut is known for anti-Muslim immigration to France. He claims that Muslims immigrants, usually, refuse to adopt French culture (sex out of marriage, pornography, Jewish supremacy, etc.). He believes in the Zionist narrative of the Holocaust. He is very critical of Hamas, Hizbullah, Iran and Syria. In a essay, published in the leading French daily Le Monde, October 7, 1998, Finkielkraut had boasted: “Ah, how sweet it is to be Jewish at the end of this 20th century! We are no longer History’s accused, but its darlings. The spirit of the times loves, honors, and defends us, watches over our interests; it even needs our imprimatur. Journalists draw up ruthless indictments against all that Europe still has in the way of Nazi collaborators or those nostalgic for the Nazi era. Churches repent, states do penance, Switzerland no longer knows where to stand.”

Finkielkraut was not wrong. The current French president Hollande and his foreign, interior and finance ministers are all Zionist Jews.

French Jewish lobbyists and terrorist groups have succeeded in the persecution of almost all critics of Israel, Zionism and Holocaust. French philosopher Roger Garaudy (died 2012), a Communist-convert to Islam, was fined $40,000 by a Paris court for his book, The Founding Myths of Israeli Politics. Read more about Jewish terrorism in France, here.

‘White Helmets’ bags Oscar on politically charged night

Film on Syrian rescue group wins best short documentary in night marked by reaction to Trump’s immigration policies.

The White Helmets group says it has saved more than 80,000 lives [Reuters]
The White Helmets group says it has saved more than 80,000 lives [Reuters]

A film celebrating the White Helmets – a volunteer rescue group that operates in rebel-held parts of Syria – has scooped an Oscar for best short documentary on a night marked by politics.

The eponymously titled White Helmets, a 40-minute Netflix film, gives a window into the lives of the group’s volunteers as they scramble to pull people from the rubble of buildings flattened in bombing raids.

Accepting the Academy Award, director Orlando von Einsiedel urged the audience to stand up and call for an end to Syria’s six-year civil war, which led to a standing ovation.

Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences to increase diversity

Von Einsiedel read out a statement from White Helmets founder Raed al-Saleh, in which he thanked the academy and said the group had saved tens of thousands of lives since it was formed in 2014.

“We are so grateful that this film has highlighted our work to the world. Our organisation is guided by a verse from the Quran: to save one life is to save all of humanity,” Saleh’s statement said.

“We have saved more than 82,000 Syrian lives. I invite anyone here who hears me to work on the side of life to stop the bloodshed in Syria and around the world.”

READ MORE: Year of diversity at Oscars ‘does little to even score’

Rescue workers in Syria are at risk of being killed in so-called “double tap” air raids that target them as they arrive at the scene of an air strike. The group says that many of its volunteers have been killed.

Syrian cinematographer Khaled Khatib who worked on the documentary was unable to attend after being barred from entering the United States, despite being granted a visa .

US officials reportedly discovered “derogatory information” about him, according to a document seen by the Associated Press news agency .

The film’s producer Joanna Natasegara told AP on Sunday that the decision was “sad and confusing.”

The incident happened after President Donald Trump’s now halted temporary travel ban that targeted seven Muslim-majority countries, including Syria.

Iranian win after protest

An Iranian film, The Salesman, won in the best foreign language film award after its director, Asghar Farhadi, refused to attend the ceremony as a protest against Trump’s immigration policies. Iran was on the list of seven countries.

Iranian astronaut Anousheh Ansari spoke on behalf of Asghar Farhadi [Reuters]

A female Iranian astronaut, Anousheh Ansari, accepted the award on his behalf.

“I’m sorry I’m not with you tonight,” Farhadi said in a statement read by Ansari. “My absence is out of respect for the people of my country and those of other six nations who have been disrespected by the inhumane law that bans entry of immigrants to the US.

“Dividing the world into the US and ‘our enemies’ categories creates fear – a deceitful justification for aggression and war.”

READ MORE: Taraneh Alidoosti boycotting Oscars

It was the second Oscar for Farhadi, who won in the same category for A Separation in 2012.

Trump quietly looming

Though Donald Trump’s name was rarely mentioned during the ceremony, his policies were a running subtext throughout proceedings.

Several actors and actresses, including Ethiopian-Irish Ruth Negga, who was nominated in the best actress category, wore blue ribbons in support of the American Civil Liberties Union, a high-profile civil rights organisation.

Talk show host Jimmy Kimmel, the MC for the evening, did mention Trump several times.

“I want to say thank you to President Trump,” Kimmel said as the ceremony opened. “Remember last year when it seemed like the Oscars were racist?”

In 2015, criticism swirled around a lack of diversity among the nominees in the main categories, in a debate that stirred a campaign that became known by the hashtag #OscarsSoWhite. That criticism continued into 2016, with several people, including actor Will Smith, boycotting the ceremony.

A record six black actors were nominated this year, though, and a person of colour was nominated in each of the main acting categories – the first time that has happened.

On Friday, the directors of all five Oscar-nominated foreign language films, including Farhadi, condemned what they described as a “climate of fanaticism and nationalism” in the US and elsewhere in a joint statement.

They said that, whoever won, the award would be dedicated to people working to foster “unity and understanding.”

“Tonight is proof that art has no borders, no single language and does not belong to a single faith,” Cheryl Boone Isaacs, president of the academy, who has worked to diversify its membership, said.

Mahershala Ali, an Ahmadi Muslim, won the best supporting actor award for his role in Moonlight, which also won best picture. In his acceptance speech, he announced the birth of his daughter and thanked his wife as well as “many wonderful teachers”.

Celebrities had used the spotlight at earlier award shows to denounce the Trump administration’s stance on immigration, transgender rights and the media.

The Oscars is the highlight of the Tinseltown calendar, and wraps up two months of glittering prize galas.

Source: News agencies


The UK and US: The myth of the special relationship

The term was first coined by Winston Churchill in 1946, but does the ‘special relationship’ really exist?

Just how special is the supposed ‘special relationship’ between the UK and the US? [EPA]

by

Alasdair’s latest book is “In The Shadow Of The Cotton Tree: A Diary of Second World War Sierra Leone”

Glasgow, United Kingdom – When UK Prime Minister Theresa May became the first foreign leader to visit US President Donald Trump at the White House last month, few in Britain remained impassive.

For critics of May’s first appointment with America’s 45th commander-in-chief, the trip was nothing short of a political embarrassment. With the UK’s decision to quit the European Union dominating domestic politics, many baulked at the sight of Britain’s premier eagerly accepting an early invitation from a controversial Trump administration because of a British need to establish a future UK-US trade deal in the country’s post-Brexit era.

For May’s supporters, however, the Conservative Party leader’s journey to Washington was the start of Britain’s brave new world. This, they said, not only held out the possibility of the UK being handed preferential treatment in any forthcoming transatlantic trade arrangement – helpfully aided by Trump’s much-vaunted British heritage via his late Scottish mother – but also offered a vital opportunity to reaffirm the so-called “special relationship”.

The term was first coined by the UK’s wartime prime minister Winston Churchill during a lecture tour of the United States in 1946 to describe the depth of Anglo-American friendship following World War II. Churchill, whose mother was American, may have then been speaking as a private citizen on account of him losing power at the general election the previous year, but the “special relationship” has been a mainstay of British political discourse – and UK media coverage – ever since.

“[The term] is trying to explain that the UK has a privileged place in American strategic calculation,” Jacob Parakilas, assistant head of the US and the Americas programme at London’s Chatham House, told Al Jazeera. “That the UK can rely on American support and will always be consulted by the Americans when they make big decisions.”

From a UK perspective, May’s visit was incessantly couched within the context of the “special relationship”. And just as the brash billionaire and reality TV star turned US head of state has heavily divided opinion in his native country, so has he sparked great debate among those in Britain who have either been appalled or charmed by the actions of the White House’s newest occupant. Indeed, while both nations are bound together by a shared history, said Sir Richard Dalton there are always risks to Britain in getting too involved in the conduct of its larger ally.

READ MORE: Donald Trump and Theresa May meet at White House

“The British danger is that you are seen not to have had any serious influence, that you are seen to have been the poodle rather than the candid friend on an equal footing,” said Dalton, a former UK ambassador to Iran and Libya, speaking to Al Jazeera. “But these two countries are fated to deal with each other and Mrs May chose this high-profile, high-risk route to carry out her duty to get alongside President Trump and only history will tell whether it pays off.”

In recent decades, the “special relationship” found its most profound expression in the dealings between UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and US President Ronald Reagan during the late Cold War era of the 1980s. As Nicholas Wapshott, author of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher – A Political Marriage, wrote in The New York Times in 2013: “From the moment they met, in April 1975, Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan bonded. They agreed on almost everything, and even completed each other’s thoughts … On the world stage, she was mostly the good cop to Reagan’s bad, though sometimes they switched places.”

That said, and even accounting for the – widely reviled – close bond that developed between British Prime Minister Tony Blair and US President George W Bush that saw them execute their joint plan to invade Saddam Hussein’s Iraq in 2003, the “special relationship” is largely bogus, say many analysts. It began as a Churchill public relations exercise, said Scott Lucas, as the UK statesman tried to “whip up American support for the British position over Europe and therefore over the Soviet Union” in a tour that saw the cigar-chomping Briton deliver his “Iron Curtain” speech.

“That means, in a sense, that the ‘special relationship’ has always been a PR device,” continued Lucas, a politics professor at the University of Birmingham. “Which has been used primarily by the British because the British have needed the Americans more than the Americans have needed the Brits at high level. That doesn’t mean that at certain points you don’t get people who embrace that as being a reality, or at least grasp that relationship as certainly having a priority.”

READ MORE: Trump is in the way of Theresa May’s global gamble

Lucas said that, during the late 1950s and early 1960s, when UK Prime Minister Harold Macmillan “had the tricky task of basically downsizing Britain, he cloaked it with the idea that Britain had a ‘special relationship’ with the Americans”.

“Macmillan kept selling the idea that Britain was the brains to American brawn,” added the academic.

While the prime ministerial-presidential relationships of Macmillan and John F Kennedy – when images of a young JFK and an older Macmillan gave the appearance of the former being the latter’s protege – and Thatcher and Reagan, when both railed against the political ideals of the Soviet Union, fed the notion of the “special relationship”, the lopsided status of both nations has been apparent from the time Britain began giving way to the US as the world’s global superpower in the post-war era. And it is the uneven nature of Britain’s relationship with the US – and the fact that America has, in the likes of Canada and Japan, other crucial international partnerships – that has, for the term’s detractors, made it almost redundant in meaning. Yet, with historical institutional ties of the military and intelligence variety dating back to World War II, the UK-US alliance is a relationship worthy of a name, said Dalton.

“There was a period under [former UK Premier David] Cameron and [Barack] Obamawhen – I think – an effort was made to drop ‘special’ and replace it with ‘essential’,” stated the former British ambassador. “I would rather that that had been kept up and ‘special’ quietly dropped, as it is prone to ridicule when the reality does not match the rhetoric.”

Those who place great weight on the “special relationship” have seen the decades-old term come under strain. The image of May and Trump briefly holding hands as they strolled through the White House grounds together invited scorn upon the UK prime minister. And the widely signed British petition against Trump making an official state visit to Britain, together with the announcement by House of Commons Speaker, John Bercow, outlining his opposition to the US president addressing Westminster have also combined to put the Anglo-American alliance on shaky ground.

So, what does the future hold for May’s Britain as she attempts to place her own stamp on what the British government continues to deem the “special relationship”?

“May could find herself in the position that Tony Blair did with respect to the Bush presidency,” warned Parakilas. “That is, trying to stay close to the US and being linked into some kind of unpopular and distracting and damaging foreign engagement. Trump’s own popularity ratings are not good at the moment … This won’t help May’s own position vis-a-vis China, the EU and other necessary negotiating partners if she’s seen as too close to Trump, who, at the moment, is not a brand that the world has a high opinion of yet.”

Source: Al Jazeera News


Why Hollywood has abandoned Brand Israel

Oscar nominees’ refusal to be paid props for Brand Israel could reflect a desire to avoid a very polarised discussion.

Oscar nominees may well have realised that endorsing the Israel brand has simply become too controversial, writes Rottenberg [Todd Wawrychuck/EPA]
Oscar nominees may well have realised that endorsing the Israel brand has simply become too controversial, writes Rottenberg [Todd Wawrychuck/EPA]

by

Catherine Rottenberg teaches 20th-century American literature and feminist theory.

As Israel moves ever more dangerously rightward – evidenced by the latest law legalising the state’s expropriation of private Palestinian lands and the extremely conservative appointees to the High Court – Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu seems, perhaps paradoxically, more obsessed than in the past with promoting Israel’s positive image in the international arena.

Indeed, the current government has poured millions of dollars into its Brand Israel campaign. Just this past December, Haaretz reported that the tourism ministry “was granted its biggest marketing budget ever in the past year as it tried to change Israel’s image as a travel destination and expand the range of tourism offerings.”

Apparently, the government is hell bent on trying to convince the international community that the Jewish state is and remains the only democracy in the Middle East.

This illusion appears increasingly difficult to sustain as time passes and fewer international actors seem to be buying it.

Apropos actors – let’s take a look at the latest reports from Hollywood. In the days before the 2017 Oscars award ceremony, a flurry of articles were published on how the Tourist Ministry attempted to lure 26 nominees to Israel with lavish tour packages estimated at about $55,000 each.

Government officials justified their actions by insisting on the importance of regaling celebrities with the “real Israel”.

Clearly what is at stake here is the projection – and exorbitant chorographical production – of normality, where the celebrities are used as a vital prop in the Brand Israel campaign.

Leading media outlets, however, reported that not one of the two dozen stars had accepted the invitation. The often politically incorrect Jennifer Lawrence handed her package deal over to her parents, while Leonardo DiCaprio appears to have had enough of Israeli paparazzi, particularly given his experiences during his past visits with his then girlfriend, supermodel Bar Refaeli.

‘Not an overt political statement’

The unwillingness of these Hollywood stars to participate in Israel’s branding efforts could well mark an important transformation in popular United States-Israel relations.

On the one hand, these actors have not made any public declaration or come out publicly in support of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement (BDS). Therefore, their refusal to accept an all-expenses-paid – and more – visit to Israel should not be understood as an active or overt political statement.

On the other hand, the total absence of any signs of enthusiasm about visiting the “Holy Land” on the part of the Oscar nominees could point to something else, namely, a profound shift in cultural perceptions.

As Israel’s settler colonial project continues unabated, many younger Americans – who also happen to be these celebrities’ main fan base – consider the country and its policies incredibly divisive.

Avoiding an incendiary discussion

A recent Pew Report highlights this trend. Although most Americans still sympathise more with Israel than with the Palestinians, over the past decade US public opinion has shifted quite dramatically.

Indeed, for the first time this century – and thus in history – liberal Democrats are about equally split between sympathising more with Israel (33 percent) and with the Palestinians (40 percent).

Furthermore, among the Millennials fewer than half (43 percent) sympathise more with Israel, while about a quarter of them (27 percent) sympathise more with the Palestinians, the highest percentage of any generation.

The Hollywood stars’ refusal to take advantage of Israel’s lavish package tours could therefore reflect a desire to avoid entering into this very polarised and incendiary discussion.

Although the fight against Israel’s headlong move towards apartheid will undoubtedly have to continue to be waged on a variety of fronts, stars and superstars may well have an increasingly important part to play in this very real drama.

In other words, these stars – who are endlessly promoting brands and products (mostly their own) to as broad an audience as possible (but mostly to Millennials) – may well have realised that endorsing the Israel brand has simply become too controversial.

Ultimately, though, no matter what the stars’ convictions are vis-a-vis Israel, the overwhelming lack of response reveals, at the very least, that Israel is no longer a particularly desirable destination, even for an all-expenses paid vacation.

The Israeli lobby, it turns out, can no longer take Hollywood for granted as part of its Brand Israel campaign. And this is significant.

Additionally, however, this also suggests that, not unlike the final years of the South African Apartheid regime, the cultural front has become an increasingly important site ofstruggle in Israel-Palestine.

READ MORE: Year of diversity at Oscars ‘does little to even score’

Indeed, just last week, another crisis erupted when only five of 11 NFL players joined a trip to Israel after the Super Bowl.

As Seattle Seahawks defensive end, Michael Bennett stated, he would “not be used” by Israel for publicity. “When I do go to Israel – and I do plan to go – it will be to see not only Israel but also the West Bank and Gaza so I can see how the Palestinians, who have called this land home for thousands of years, live their lives.”

Although the fight against Israel’s headlong move towards apartheid will undoubtedly have to continue to be waged on a variety of fronts, stars and superstars may well have an increasingly important part to play in this very real drama.

After all, if Hollywood has taught us anything at all, it is that we should never underestimate the power or influence of popular culture.

Catherine Rottenberg is a Marie Sklodowska Curie Fellow in the Sociology Department, Goldsmiths College and the author of Performing Americanness: Race, Class, and Gender in Modern African-American and Jewish-American Literature.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial policy.

Australia Participated in 2003 Iraq War Solely to Boost Ties with Bush, Army Think-Tank

Region:
In-depth Report:
050317-N-6628F-031

The Australian government joined the widely unpopular Iraq War in 2003 – deploying troops, warships, and combat aircraft – solely to boost its relationship with George W. Bush’s White House, a declassified Australian army paper has revealed.

A report, written by Dr. Albert Palazzo of the Australian Army’s Directorate of Army Research and Analysis (DARA) between 2008 and 2011, was accessed by Fairfax Media and cited by the Sydney Morning Herald. DARA is a branch of the Australian Army Headquarters and serves as the Army’s think tank

The 572-page declassified document provides enough evidence to prove that then Prime Minister John Howard joined former US President George W. Bush in invading Iraq only to strengthen Canberra’s ties with Washington.

It also gives insight into how the political decision to enter the unpopular war was made – Howard’s statements about enforcing UN resolutions, combatting global terrorism, and contributing to the post-war reconstruction of Iraq were dismissed in Palazzo’s report as “mandatory rhetoric.”

Eventually, Prime Minister Howard and the then Chief of the Australian Defense Force (ADF) General Peter Cosgrove were unwilling to accept the prospect of high casualties among the soldiers deployed to Iraq.

“The government was uncomfortable with the prospect of losses due to the possible negative effect on the domestic political environment,” the report said.

Australia, nonetheless, deployed a very limited number of troops and assets, which were often incapable of carrying out any noteworthy combat action. However, sending a sustainable and combat-capable contingent was “secondary to the vital requirement of it just being there.” Ultimately, such policy made some US military officers ridicule the Australian commitment, calling it “a series of headquarters.”

The US wanted the Australians to provide a reconnaissance battle group consisting of light armored vehicles. Lieutenant-General Peter Leahy, who was then chief of Australian army, actually pushed for them to be sent to action at the time, but “Cosgrove pushed back,” finding the “manpower requirement too large.” Consequently, the only significant Australian force on the ground in Iraq was the SASR, Australia’s equivalent of the famous British Special Air Service, because the Army was not prepared to fight against “even a mildly competent opponent,” Palazzo wrote.

However, even the deployment of SASR got off track, the report stated. ADF dispatched several CH-47 Chinook helicopters to transport the special forces, but the pilots lacked experience and simply “could not conduct aerial refueling or night insertion tasks,” which were essential for the Iraq mission. Moreover, the aircraft had no electronic warfare equipment for evading Iraqi missiles.

The SASR were deployed in Iraq by US helicopters, the paper said, adding “it is not possible to explain the rationale behind the CH-47s allocation” to the war. In addition, the mission became even messier when some troops arrived without weapons. Hot meals were not available at this point either, so the Australian troops had to live on US combat rations during the four-month deployment, leading to an average weight loss of six kilograms per soldier.

The lack of a clear mission was one of the factors negatively affecting troop morale. “Numerous rotation commanders… were convinced of the failure of the organization to inform them of what they were supposed to achieve in Iraq,” the report said.

It was “enormously frustrating,” an Australian commander wrote. Another called the mission “flag waving” and feared the coalition allies would conclude that the ADF was a “pack of posers.” Another was angered when the Middle East commander accused him of “mission creep” – though no mission had been defined in the first place.

In a telling statement to Palazzo, one of the officers said that the “unstated policy of Operation Catalyst [was] that ‘no mission was worth dying for.’”

Australia’s military contribution was relatively small in proportional terms, around 2,000 personnel in total, or 2.42 percent of its military compared to the US’ 4.85 percent and the UK’s 12 percent. Aside from the special forces, Australia deployed two frigates, as well as refueling and combat aircraft.

Australia’s Defense Ministry has dismissed Palazzo’s report as “unofficial history,” which only represents the authors own opinion.