Circus of Recycling – Part II

Posted on April 18, 2016 by Professor Taboo

This is the continuation from Part I and will examine the next four additional areas of how and why the United States and the United Nations were pawns for Zionist Judaism’s conquest and occupation of Palestine.
(line break)

* * * * * * * * * *

Self-determination. What does it mean? The fast answer is “the freedom to make your own choices.” Sure that’s a true pure definition… if one lives on an island in the Pacific and no other human beings are on the island. Is that a very comprehensive definition and representation of real life? Not really. The Merriam-Webster dictionary has another definition: the people of a territorial unit to determine their own future political status. Better? Yes and no. I would imagine this extended definition raises more questions than it answers. The principle of self-determination according to these definitions seem well and good, but the practice of self-determination in life and the world, even within family dynamics, is not so cut-and-dry. Taking these two definitions to a macro-scale or global-scale, and the waters begin to get quite muddy; in some cases, sludge or quicksand.

“The UN Charter clarifies two meanings of the term self-determination. First, a state is said to have the right of self-determination in the sense of having the right to choose freely its political, economic, social, and cultural systems. Second, the right to self-determination is defined as the right of a people to constitute itself in a state or otherwise freely determine the form of its association with an existing state. Both meanings have their basis in the charter (Article 1, paragraph 2; and Article 55, paragraph 1). With respect to dependent territories, the charter asserts that administering authorities should undertake to ensure political advancement and the development of self-government (Article 73, paragraphs a and b; and Article 76, paragraph b).”
— Encyclopædia Britannica Online, s. v. “self-determination”, accessed April 05, 2016, http://www.britannica.com/topic/self-determination.

A better definition don’t you think? Not really…
(line break)

Paris Peace Conference of 1919
(line break)

1919 Paris Peace Conference

After the defeat of the European Central Powers in World War I, the victors of the Allied and Associated Powers met in Paris, France to address and discuss the fate of those beaten nations (peoples) and their territories. The Central Powers primarily consisted of the Ottoman Empire, Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Bulgaria. Both the Germans and the Ottomans had colonies in Asia and Africa as well. See world map below.

Two new terms or principles are introduced into future world conferences over nations or “territories” and their defeated peoples: 1) trusteeship, and 2) mandate.

Trusteeship — a defeated nation’s territories and it peoples, that are considered unable to govern themselves, are entrusted to another state which was victorious.
Mandate — a victorious trustee-nation receives a mandate to rebuild the defeated territory creating the necessary foundations for self-determination and independence.

Map of World War I. The Allies are depicted in green, the Central Powers in orange, and neutral countries in grey.

All very simple, right? No. The above world map is of July 1914, at the beginning of World War I. The Paris Peace Conference begins in January 1919. When the some 25 nations around the world — representing a global jury — participating in the post-war conference convened, they were unaware of the Sykes-Picot Agreement of May 1916, when the outcome of the war was still far from certain. It was signed by Sir Mark Sykes of Great Britain and François Georges-Picot of France with the assent of imperial Russia. Why is this highly volatile monkey-wrench important? Because as early as November 1915 Sykes and Picot, with the knowledge of Tsar Nicholas II of Russia, began negotiating how the Ottoman Empire would be divided up if defeated. Key leaders and nations in East Europe, the Near and Middle East… who had sacrificed their soldiers and resources into the war against the Central Powers — including against fellow Muslim Arabs — and with certain major political “promises” given to them by Western powers for siding with them… were never notified of this secret agreement.

“This secret arrangement conflicted in the first place with pledges already given by the British to the Hāshimite dynast Ḥusayn ibn ʿAlī, sharif of Mecca, who was about to bring the Arabs of the Hejaz into revolt against the Turks on the understanding that the Arabs would eventually receive a much more important share of the fruits of victory. It also excited the ambitions of Italy, to whom it was communicated in August 1916, after the Italian declaration of war against Germany, with the result that it had to be supplemented, in April 1917, by the Agreement of Saint-Jean-de-Maurienne, whereby Great Britain and France promised southern and southwestern Anatolia to Italy. The defection of Russia from the war canceled the Russian aspect of the Sykes-Picot Agreement, and the Turkish Nationalists’ victories after the military collapse of the Ottoman Empire led to the gradual abandonment of its projects for Anatolia. The Arabs, however, who had learned of the Sykes-Picot Agreement through the publication of it, together with other secret treaties of imperial Russia, by the Soviet Russian government late in 1917, were scandalized by it, and their resentment persisted despite the modification of its arrangements for the Arab countries by the Allies’ Conference of San Remo in April 1920.”
— Encyclopædia Britannica Online, s. v. “Sykes-Picot Agreement”, accessed April 05, 2016, http://www.britannica.com/event/Sykes-Picot-Agreement.

Arab Delegation to Paris

No one from the West bothered to ask the peoples of these “minor” territories or their leaders how they wished themselves to be self-determined or governed.

*Sidenote — For an exceptional more comprehensive perspective of pre, World War I, and post-WWI, watch Al-Jazeera’s World War One Through Arab Eyes.

U.S. President Woodrow Wilson and the State Department was sympathetic to the Arab cause presented by Emir Prince Faisal, however, the American delegation to Paris, along with heavy support from the U.S. Senate in Congress and a delegation of Jewish Zionists attending — which incidentally included U.S. Supreme Court Justices Louis Brandeis and Felix Frankfurter, and officials from the WZO — had already outmaneuvered Wilson and the State Department as well as several prominent American Christian leaders, such as Harry E. Fosdick and Henry S. Coffin, both who firmly opposed Zionism and a state of Israel in Palestine. With the Sykes-Picot Agreement and the Balfour Declaration, both done privately years before with France and Great Britain, President Wilson tried one more tactic: send a commission to Palestine to examine the Palestinian Mandate in person.

King-Crane Commission

Many American students, history teachers, or the general public know anything about the King-Crane Commission to Palestine in 1919. The purpose of the commission was to learn, from Syrians and Palestinians living there, the attitudes and real viability for “resettling” their land and homes. After interviewing the inhabitants between June 10 and July 21, 1919, also entitled Inter-Allied Commission on Mandates in Turkey, the commission reported that if a Jewish state were created in Palestine, it would accomplish only:

“…the gravest trespass upon the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine,” [and subjecting them] “…to steady financial and social pressure to surrender the land, would be a gross violation of the principle [of self-determination] and of the peoples’ rights…”

“…the well-being and development [by the existing inhabitants formed] a sacred trust [where those present peoples should become free and their national governments] should derive their authority from the initiative and free choice of the native populations.”

[The report continues stating that following meetings with Jewish representatives who made it clear that] … “the Zionists looked forward to a practically complete dispossession of the present non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine…”

The report ended stating that in order for dispossession to take place, armed force would be required and unavoidable, so the commission urged the Peace Conference to dismiss the Zionist proposals stating “the project for making Palestine distinctly a Jewish commonwealth should be given up.“

A digital copy of the entire report can be viewed and read here: King-Crane Commission Report, submitted by Charles R. Crane and Henry Churchill King, 28 August 1919.

President Wilson’s and the King-Crane Commission’s efforts would be heavily suppressed and for naught due to the publicity power wielded by Brandeis, Frankfurter, Chaim Weizmann, the WZO and Yiddish newspapers, further backed by their associated U.S. Senators in D.C. All combined they simply buried the above report.

The en mass immigration of Jews to Palestine commenced. Consequently, the four continents, arguably the world, were pushed on turbulent bloody hyper-convoluted paths for centuries to come.

Inspiration or Coercion?

After the newly formed (Western) League of Nations made it acceptable for Jews to migrate to Palestine, most less-Zionistic Jews at the time felt little need to go. This is clearly evident by a plethora of documented cases, but for the sake of your time I list three below.

U.S. Supreme Court and ZOA vs. Gibson — From 1919 to 1924 Hugh S. Gibson was the U.S. Ambassador to Poland. Most of his work there was to accurately assess Poland’s needs for self-determination in the immediate wake of WWI and how the U.S. could help. Back home in American newspapers were numerous stories of anti-Semitic violence throughout Poland. After investigating the alleged incidents and severities, Gibson reported to William Castle and the State Department that the American news articles of “Polish militarism, anti-Semitism and expansionism” were over estimated and in a personal letter to his mother wrote: “These yarns are exclusively of foreign manufacture for anti-Polish purposes.” (Hoover Institution, HGP, Box 17, f. William R. Castle, 1920 and Hoover Institution, HGP, Box 24, Diaries, f. Mary K. Simons-Gibson, 1919)

When Supreme Court Justice Brandeis and ZOA delegate Frankfurter were made aware of Gibson’s dispatches, they both demanded a meeting with him. Gibson described their meeting this way accusing him that:

“I had done more mischief to the Jewish race than anyone who had lived in the last century. They said… that my reports on the Jewish question had gone around the world and had undone their work… They finally said that I had stated that the stories of excesses against Jews were exaggerated, to which I replied that they certainly were and I should think any Jew would be glad to know it.”
— Fallen Pillars: U.S. Policy towards Palestine and Israel since 1945. Reprint Ed. Washington D.C.: Institute for Palestine Studies, 2002, p. 20

Ambassador to Poland, Hugh S. Gibson

Gibson also noted that Frankfurter alluded to him that if he continued writing such reports, Zionists would block his upcoming Ambassador’s confirmation by the U.S. Senate. By May 1924 Gibson was reassigned as U.S. Minister to Switzerland.

1930’s Germany and Zionism — Unlike the inaccurate news reports of anti-Semitic violence in Poland, the rise of the German National Socialist Workers Party (Nazis) certainly gave cause to Jews in Germany to flee for their lives. President Franklin D. Roosevelt took action to help on two separate occasions: in 1938 and 1943. The British tried to follow suit in 1947. Morris Ernst – International Envoy for Refugees for Roosevelt, and Harry N. Howard – U.S. State Department Near East, both wrote about American-British efforts to welcome in near 1-million Jews from Eastern Europe:

“…active Jewish leaders [in the U.S.] decried, sneered and then attacked me as if I were a traitor. At one dinner party I was openly accused of furthering this plan of freer immigration [into the U.S.] in order to undermine political Zionism… Zionist friends of mine opposed it.” Ernst continued writing that the Jewish leadership in America were “little concerned about human blood if it is not their own.”

“…there was discussion of liberalizing American immigration laws in this period.” Harry Howard states in a 1950 interview, “The Zionists opposed that liberalization on the ground that this would not be a solution as far as they were concerned. They wanted a political, not necessarily a humanitarian, solution — that is, they wanted a state.”

By 1949 the Israeli Premier David Ben-Gurion admitted the in-gathering of Jews into Palestine was not going well. He “urged U.S. parents to send their children to Israel for permanent settlement.” And “even if they decline to help us, we will bring the youth to Israel.“

In the 1960 July issue of The Spectator magazine, journalist Erskine Childers wrote discussing in detail the talks between FDR, Britain, Ernst, and the Jewish DP’s (Displaced Persons) from Europe…

“…[Zionist sabotaging] was done by seeing to it that Western countries did not open their doors, widely and immediately, to the inmate of the DP camps.”

“It is incredible that so grave and grim a campaign has received so little attention in accounts of the Palestine struggle — it was a campaign that literally shaped all subsequent history. It was done by sabotaging specific Western schemes to admit Jewish DPs.”

image courtesy of Timothy Hughes Rare & Early Newspapers

Hate Attacks on Iraqi Jews Faked? — By 1949-50 Iraqi Jews were either being coerced out of the country or due to economic conditions willing to consider immigration to Palestine, or both. Due to the ancient history of exiles and the Jewish Diaspora, Zionists had fervent inspirations to persuade Iraqi Jews to Palestine. Many Iraqi Jews were not that motivated to leave their current homes. Rabbi Sassoon Khadourie, Chief Rabbi of Iraq, spoke about covert Zionist bombings during Operation Ezra and Nehemiah to Israel from Iraq. Although counterarguments spoke of Sassoon being a propaganda puppet for pro-British Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Said, in his last weeks and days before dying in 1971 Rabbi Khadourie never recanted his statements. However, the former CIA operative Wilbur Crane Eveland to the Middle East, specifically Iraq in 1950-53, reappraised his life and work in his book Ropes of Sand he writes about the synagogue bombings as…

“…attempts to portray the Iraqis as anti-American and to terrorize the Jews”

“Soon leaflets began to appear urging Jews to flee to Israel… most of the world believed reports that Arab terrorism had motivated the flight of the Iraqi Jews whom the Zionists had ‘rescued’ really just in order to increase Israel’s Jewish population.”

Both of these men are joined in agreement by many authors and journalists. Naeim Giladi, a Jewish-Iraqi author, describes the consensus of his colleagues reappraisals…

“I write about what the first prime minister of Israel [Ben-Gurion] called ‘cruel Zionism.’ I write about it because I was part of it. Jews from Islamic lands did not emigrate willingly to Israel. Jews killed Jews.”

“…[Zionist] Jews on numerous occasions rejected genuine peace initiatives from their Arab neighbors.”

As can be expected inside the political game of counter-intelligence and disinformation, Zionist organizations and prominent members cried then and will cry today ‘forms of anti-Semitism.‘ I invite YOU to decide after examining all the relevant information now available.

Now for a brief respite from endless strife, I give some comic relief for you…

Alright, now back to business. We can laugh and enjoy life afterwards.
(line break)

The Modern Israeli Lobby on Harry S. Truman
(line break)

She is a prolific author, noted educator and academic, and has achieved prominence as a historian of the United States and its Jewish Americans. Naomi W. Cohen has been published several times over, but in her 2003 book The Americanization of Zionism, 1897-1948, she writes:

“Although Brandeis participated in the negotiations with England leading to the Balfour Declaration, his primary focus after [World War I] shifted from political to “pragmatic” or “practical” Zionism. Active behind the scenes and with his lieutenants throughout the decade, he encouraged American Jewish investment in the physical upbuilding of Palestine. That emphasis, also adopted by the ZOA, well suited the shift of world Zionism into its second phase, “Palestinianism”.” (p. 7)

As Europe began sliding back to political, ethnic, and economic turmoil in the 1920’s and 30’s, general American sentiment wanted nothing to do with their constant problems. In contrast to that U.S. sentiment, however, were American Zionist activists, Cohen explains, and their leaders maneuvering to divert polarizing Zionism into covert Palestinianism:

“…the retreat to Palestinianism wasn’t all bad. Coping with antisemitism, which increased in the 1920s, and with the grim conditions spawned by the Great Depression of the 1930s, American Jews dared not risk any major outbursts about Jewish statehood from their non-Jewish fellow Americans. Within American Jewish circles, Palestinianism, far less strident than political Zionism, permitted the spread of a “quiet” Zionism in synagogues and Jewish schools.” (p. 8)

AZEC Madison Square Garden rally, NY Sept 1945

Special interest groups, otherwise known as lobbies, play an important and controversial role in American politics and legislation. American Zionism recognized this tool early on and by 1943 was one of the most well-funded lobbies in the U.S. due in no small part to Rabbi Abba Hillel Silver. He created the American Zionist Emergency council (AZEC) and by the middle of WWII when buying a 5-pound bag of flour was 0.25-cents, the AZEC had a budget of $500,000. Its fundraising umbrella was the United Jewish Appeal which gained financial resources of $14 million in 1941 and $150 million by 1948 — four times more than the Red Cross received in donations from all Americans; in today’s dollars: $1.5 billion. In 1945 when Hillel Silver was made aware of a British move against Zionism…

“AZEC booked Madison Square Garden, ordered advertisements, and mailed 250,000 announcements — the first day. By the second day they had organized demonstrations in 30 cities, a letter-writing campaign, and convinced 27 U.S. Senators to give speeches.”

“Grassroots Zionist action groups were organized with more than 400 local committees under 76 state and regional branches. AZEC funded books, articles and academic studies; millions of pamphlets were distributed. There were massive petition and letter writing campaigns. AZEC targeted college presidents and deans, managing to get more than 150 to sign one petition.”
— Against Our Better Judgement, by Alison Weir, CSI Publishing, San Bernadino, CA: 2014, p. 37

This level of organization and swift action would make any of today’s wealthy Washington D.C. lobbies green with envy. If political leverage is the goal, then understanding the ropes and pulleys of our U.S. government and how to activate them for specific interests, then 1940’s AZEC’s and their UJA umbrella is a superb blueprint to follow.

Harvesting American Christianity

Today, Jews and Christians have a convenient interest in the other’s historical background. The relationship has certain mutual dynamics which are readily exploitable. This was no less true in the decades before, during, and after World War II. Hillel Silver, Louis Brandeis, AZEC, and other Zionists, including Felix Frankfurter, recognized this avenue toward a stronger Israel in Palestine as a significant long-term role. Heading up this push would be the original American Palestine Committee founded by Emanuel Neumann, later known in 1946 as the American Christian Palestine Committee (ACPC). The primary goal of the ACPC was to harness a group of prominent Christian Americans in moral and political support of Zionism…

“The initial impetus was given late in 1942 by prominent Protestants such as Reinhold Niebuhr, S. Ralph Harlow, Henry A. Atkinson, Daniel A. Poling, and Paul Tillich. Working with them as liaison with the Emergency Committee for Zionist Affairs were Milton Steinberg and Philip Bernstein, who enjoyed the full cooperation of Stephen S. Wise and Emanuel Neumann.

The Christian Council emphasized the need to destroy racial and religious discrimination and to demand justice for the Jewish people everywhere, but it considered Zionist objectives in Palestine the paramount goal and the basic solution to Jewish national homelessness. The council strove to gain the sympathy of churchmen and clergy by organizing conferences, arranging seminars, and publishing literature. The influence it exerted was out of proportion to its relatively limited membership.”
— Encyclopaedia of Zionism and Israel (ed. Patai), accessed April 10, 2016, http://www.iahushua.com/Zion/zionhol10.html

While American Protestant and Catholic leaders and their followers were being cuddled by Zionists at home, the reality in 1947-48 Palestine was bloody and covert. Palestinian Christians and Muslims, their institutions, churches, and mosques were attacked by Israeli militants. Citing a June 1948 report from the Haganah/IDF operations:

“The Christian “exodus” from the Holy Land can be traced to 1948, when more than 750,000 Palestinians were forced from their homes by the creation of the State of Israel. With hundreds of Palestinian villages destroyed and at least half of the indigenous population displaced to refugee camps internally or in neighboring countries, Christians and Muslims — whose roots in the Holy Land stretched back for centuries — suffered the same fate.”
— What sparked the Christian exodus from the Holy Land?, Institute for Middle East Understanding, 2012, accessed April 10, 2016, http://imeu.org/article/christians-in-the-holy-land-under-israeli-siege

This sort of harassment, attacks, and human-rights violations by Zionist-Israeli operations on Palestinians still continue to this day along with America’s political Right and U.S. military support.

President Harry Truman is Bought

Truman with Senators McGrath and Green, c. 1948

Howard McGrath was the Chairman of the Democratic Party from 1947-49 and bluntly informed Abraham Feinberg and other Zionist supporters that President Truman cannot possibly win the 1948 election against Dewey unless he sees the American people, stating:

“The President [Truman] has to make a trip from coast to coast. He wants to do it by train, he wants to see the people, and there is no money.”

“I [Feinberg] had to get back to New York and I got up. I was the youngest of the group, and maybe for that reason the brashest. I said, “Howard, the President has done a great deal for my people. I feel that we owe him a great deal. We certainly owe him a chance, and I will pledge on behalf of Ed Kaufmann and myself that within two weeks we’ll have $100,000 towards this [train]trip.”

“I [Feinberg] had already got the commitments for the $100,000 from people around the country, all of whom understood that without Truman, Israel would have had very difficult days and times trying to even come into existence. As that train went into towns where there were Jewish communities, I arranged that a Jewish delegation would ask to see the President and be received on the train and that, in as many cases as possible, they would bring him donations above these original commitments. So, the trip was a triumphant trip from his point of view as a politician, forgetting the money, He was right when he said, “If I see the people, I can be elected.” And that made the difference. He often said, “If not for my friend Abe, I couldn’t have made the trip and I wouldn’t have been elected.”
— Harry S. Truman Library and Museum, “Abraham Feinberg Oral History Interview” by Richard McKinzie, August 23, 1973. http://www.trumanlibrary.org/oralhist/feinberg.htm – Accessed April 17, 2016, sections 22-24

Zionist Militarism and Conquest of Palestine

By 1952 Feinberg was found by the CIA to be smuggling arms into Israel for Jewish fighters against Palestine, and by 1970 also found by the FBI to be a long-term Soviet spy inside the U.S. and Washington D.C. government. With this type covert aid since 1946 to Israeli fighters, 33 massacres of Palestinian men, women, and children commenced:

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

When Israel’s War of Nationalism had officially ended (1944-1952), 750,000 Palestinians were horribly expelled and in those 33 villages in the slide show above, Red Cross workers first on the scenes of atrocities stated the aftermath “reminded them of Nazi S.S. troops they had seen in Athens, Greece.”
(line break)

Pressuring the U.N. General Assembly
(line break)

During the spring of 1947 after Britain was exhausted with problems and conflicts of increased Jewish immigrations into Palestinian lands, Great Britain dumped the problem onto the United Nations. A committee was formed known as the U.N. Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) to propose resolutions. It consisted of 11 member nations. Two initial solutions were proposed, both rejected by the Arab coalition who proposed a third solution: a single secular democratic state in Palestine with citizens receiving equal rights. Zionists vehemently rejected it. By the fall of ’47 when it became clear Resolution 181 did not have the required two-thirds vote to pass, Zionists members began an intense campaign to sway U.N. delegates to vote for the passing of R-181.

Philippine U.N. delegate Gen. Carlos Romulo

As this 1982 New York Times magazine article describes (p. 6 and previous), delegates from Liberia, Greece, Cuba, Costa Rica, Haiti, and the Philippines were targets of high value. Liberia stood to lose Harvey Firestone’s increased rubber expansion plan which made up the bulk of the Liberian economy. Wives of a number of Caribbean nation delegates received mink coats from Macy’s — offended, the wife of Cuban delegate returned hers. President Jose Figueres of Costa Rica reportedly received a blank checkbook. Haiti had been promised economic aid but it became conditional on their partition vote of yes. Seven different bills for the Philippines were in deliberation in the U.S. Congress at the time and Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter, ten Senators, and Truman’s domestic advisor Clark Clifford strongly advised President Manuel Roxas that their bills would take the highest priority if the Philippine delegate reversed his position against the partition resolution. Just months earlier the delegate from the Philippines General Romulo made a passionate speech against partitioning saying…

“…it is clear to the Philippine Government that the rights conferred by mandatory power, even if subsequently confirmed by an international agreement, do not vitiate the primordial right of a people to determine the political future and to preserve the territorial integrity of its native land.

We cannot believe that the majority of this General Assembly would prefer a reversal of this course. We cannot believe that it would sanction a solution to the problem of Palestine that would turn us back on the road to the dangerous principles of racial exclusiveness and to the archaic doctrines of theocratic governments.”
— United Nations General Assembly, A/PV. 124, 26 November 1947 https://unispal.un.org/DPA/DPR/unispal.nsf/0/1BCE87E6077A1A0685256CE70075D5BE Accessed April 18, 2016

Count Folke Bernadotte a few months before his death (Getty Images)

Count Folke Bernadotte months prior to murder (Photo by Frank Scherschel//Time Life Pictures/Getty Images)

Twenty-four hours later during voting, the Philippine delegate (not General Romulo) voted for the partition resolution. Three days later the General Assembly adopted R-181 (II). Immense Zionist pressure during these weeks leading up to November 29, 1947 are held in high esteem by Zionists and radical Israelis today.

Within just months of the U.N. partition adoption, Israeli forces expelled over 413,000 Palestinian people from their homes. Fighting soon erupted and the U.N. had another Nazi-Juden problem, but under a different guise: “Israel Independence.” A U.N. committee requested again the expert negotiating services of Count Folke Bernadotte of Sweden, who had previously and successfully rescued thousands of Jews from Nazi concentration camps, to bring a ceasefire to the Arab-Israeli conflict. However, two months after his first and only proposal for peace, Bernadotte was assassinated September 17, 1948 by Jewish-Lehi terrorists. This Sept. 1995 Washington Report reviews the details of Bernadotte’s efforts and murder.

* * * * * * * * * *

Next in Part III we conclude the origins, occupation, and conquest of Palestine by comparing WWII refugee camps in Europe into new ones in Palestine, and finally examine the popular U.S. media and public perception post-1953 up to our present day to end the 3-part series. Meanwhile, please feel free to share your thoughts about this widely unknown subject of almost 70-years of Israeli occupation in Palestine.

(paragraph break)

Blog content with this logo by Professor Taboo is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at https://professortaboo.com/.

The Circus of Recycling – Part I

Posted on April 1, 2016 by Professor Taboo

As the Easter weekend ended, I had once again come through the annual quagmire of suspicious historical thickening and recycled storytelling.

No, this post is not about the increasingly needed awareness and action of local and global conservation; though I wish it were. Recycling is highly beneficial for our planet and certainly requires non-stop reminding, teaching, promoting, and implementing on wider scales by everyone. But this post will not be that. No, the post will be about repetition, about repackaging worn out fossilized traditions. If anything, it should be a challenge, an “I dare you!” for many to drop their pretense. This post will be about the complete irony of a great number of humans resisting or denying change while also existing in the very state of endless change. As Heraclitus wisely concluded, “No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it’s not the same river and he’s not the same man.” And Socrates reinforced, that living “the unexamined life is not worth living.“

Every Spring Without Fail

I was at the local Starbucks to continue reading my new book by neurologist Dr. Simon LeVay, Gay, Straight, and the Reason Why: The Science of Sexual Orientation. Since it was a comfortable cool evening, I thought I’d lounge at an outside table with my book and Caffè Americano. I hadn’t realized I chose a table near a church group. I assume they noticed my book and its title. Otherwise, I’m not sure what motivated them to strike-up (politely) conversation. We exchanged our pleasantries and preferences about the various coffee and beverage choices. The older gentleman of the group seemed to have another question.

Over the years the discussions usually go something like this as did this one… “What are your plans for Good Friday and Easter weekend?” I respond, My kids are grown now so no need for fun rabbits and Easter-egg hunting. Their face appears more curious. “What Easter Sunday service will your family attend?” they ask with some reserved excitement. Not wanting to risk their invitation to their church service, followed by my decline and learned explanation, I simply reply I don’t have a specific Eostre location to celebrate the Pagan festival. And there it is… their puzzled, blank, momentary silent stare. One might think their curiosity has now rendered them speechless, right? Wrong.

I am now confronted with the choice to either let the naïvety perpetuate, or determine how much time they REALLY and truly want to invest into highly probable and highly plausible (near accurate?) history. Hmmm.

However, in this particular instance their next question was a new variation of the same agenda. It was not the usual “so you’re not a Christian? Why not?” or “Would you like to come with us to our sunrise service?” or the popular “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten…” lah-de-dah who eventually was crucified, buried, and rose from the dead days later. No, this question took a slightly different twist.

“Have you not heard” he began to explain “that the resurrection of Jesus Christ is the one divine miracle that distinguishes Christianity above all other beliefs?” My eyebrows raised into my forehead and a big grin took over my cheeks. Suddenly the song by The Clash leaps into my head, that well-known guitar strum opens, then… Should I Stay or Should I Go? I sigh, That is quite a bold claim I tell him modestly with a chuckle.

(In my head… I guess I’m staying, huh?)

“It is bold because it is true” he answers. “Extraordinary events are very difficult for many to understand,” he continued “but God’s Word and promises, revealed in Scripture, fortunately make it easy as well as true.” My brain is going 90-to-nothing and all I could muster was Really? I wasn’t sure where to start! The explicit and implied presuppositions were everywhere flying out of his mouth and brain!

“Yes” he told me, “and many hearts are too hardened to hear God’s Word and promises” I let him go on “…and some softer hearts respond immediately!” Now I’m thinking two different scenarios here. One, what type of “heart” does he think I have? And two, what is the difference (his definition) between a soft heart and a hardened heart? Drum roll please.

Protestors at Irving, Texas mosque – Nov. 2015

Since I suspected the gentleman was not a cardiologist and could offer very little knowledge on my own heart through his obvious clairvoyance, I chose number two. What is your explanation of a soft heart versus a hardened heart? I’m thinking I will dread having asked my hearty question. In my head I beg, please sir, answer cholesterol or too many ice-cones?

No such luck. “The soft hearted have been chosen by God’s Holy Spirit. In Hebrews” he began “God said, ‘…make sure brothers and sisters that none of you have a sinful, unbelieving heart that turns away from the living God.’” He was on a roll. “‘Encourage one another daily…so none of you will become hardened by sin’s deceitfulness. We have come to share in Christ.’” With a slight grin I ask, Should I assume then you are massaging my soft or hardened heart? A loaded question, right? I did manage a laugh from him and two others of the group.

Before he could answer and start again, I quickly asked,

Up in Irving and Richardson, Texas a group of “Christian Patriots”, I’ll call them, stood outside Muslim mosques with slandering picket-signs, in camo-fatigues and semi-automatic rifles. Who has the “hardened hearts”? The American Muslims attending their mosque, or those wailing Christian Patriots with displaced trigger fingers?

I think the gentleman’s response was something like “the history between God, Abraham, Isaac, and Ishmael answers the big question: God’s favor.” The man’s biblical knowledge was good and so far correct. He went on… “In Genesis 16 an angel of God told Sarah, Abraham’s wife, that Ishmael and his descendants would be in disfavor of God. It would be Isaac, son of Abraham and Sarah, that would inherit all of Abraham’s, and therefore God’s blessings.” Then I added, And Ishmael would simply father a great nation of wild men full of justifiable animosity! “Well yeah, more less” he said a little surprised by my apparent bible knowledge. “Since then,” the man continued “the Near and Middle East have been in constant conflict. They have hardened hearts to the purpose and salvation of Christ’s death and resurrection.” Yes, my eyes popped out like bowling balls as well… WOW! You just made a huge leap! I said startled. I asked:

Don’t you think the conflict today — well, for that matter, since the first Catholic Crusade in 1099 — is a culmination of the 1917 Balfour Declaration, the 1947 U.N. Partition Resolution #181, the United State’s ongoing military and economic support for the Israeli Occupation of Palestine!? And as if some 3,000 years of “Divine disfavor” and mistreatment on Ishmael’s descendants weren’t enough, the U.S. has and will commence necessary warfare and occupation on any Near and Middle Eastern countries, their sacred homelands, should our foreign interests be perceived as threatened, ala Iraq in 2003?

Geez, I really do empathize with their animosity!

It didn’t matter that my intended reaction from him was unsuccessful, it didn’t fit his intended result. He paid me a polite compliment for my history lesson, perhaps to patronize, but he returned to what he really wanted to achieve, “If you decide you’d like to attend a different sort of Easter service,” he reached into his satchel “here is my business card with our church’s address.” I smiled warmly That’s not necessary. Thank you. But the determined evangelist left his card on the table anyway.

After 20-minutes or so chatting with this gentleman, I asked myself why do so many (Texans) people care little about verified and most plausible history, especially that of Antiquity? Am I the only person to comprehend the concept: Pop(ular) history is always written by the Victors — in this case, not the last remaining holdouts of 2nd century Jerusalem-Palestinia nor post-4th century Alexandria?

Class, Students…Take Your Seats

Since I have covered numerous times on my blog the wrong and unreliable history and construction of the Christian Canonical New Testament, I will not expound or repeat those posts here. I will make, however, one very important point in regard to the “story” of Jesus’ resurrection…the modern asserted purpose of Easter.

It is critical for the average indifferent reader of the New Testament crucifixion and resurrection story to know that the four synoptic gospels were not written in the same monastery room simultaneously — or within days or weeks of each other — by four specific authors or apostles. Furthermore, most all expert palaeographers agree that 1) the gospels proceed from oral traditions, 2) their language is from the primitive Aramaic form, and 3) the transliteration, mutation, and copying of the oral Aramaic tradition into the Greek Gospels took place some 70-80 years AFTER the crucifixion. Yet, with all the relevant scientific evidence as to reliable dating each of the four gospels, one must remember too that by 70 CE there were no living survivors personally acquainted with eyewitnesses to the crucifixion or possible resurrection. Only word-of-mouth from synagogue and household to synagogue and household were these stories passed on for 6-8 decades.

Dr. James Tabor

With that Dr. James Tabor and the vast majority of other historians and scholars of Antiquity agree that the Gospel of Mark copies are the oldest and first written accounts of Jesus’ events. What makes this dating so paramount is that in the first written account of Jesus’ crucifixion and supposed resurrection is… there is NO RESURRECTION story in Mark! My evangelist gentleman at Starbucks had his story/facts wrong and disordered. Truly, the very last passages simply stop after Mary Magdalene and her female companions see Jesus’ tomb opened and emptied with a young man — not an angel — standing at the entrance. Out of astonishment and fear they fled from the tomb and said absolutely nothing! End of story (Mark 16:6-8). Dr. Tabor explains the massive implications for the validity of resurrection forgery stories thereafter in this article: The “Strange” Ending of the Gospel of Mark and Why It Makes All the Difference. As it is, Easter is merely an ancient pagan festival.

Nevertheless, should you desire to read-up and possibly rethink on such a pivotal time in Western civilization’s social and literary history, I’ve provided the below list/links:

Constantine: Christianity’s True Catalyst/Christ
The Suffering Messiah That Wasn’t Jesus
Correcting the Gospels of Jesus
The “Holy” River (a more broad look at 3 popular religions)

What I would now like to tackle are the little known historical factors about modern Jerusalem, Israel, and Palestine and the justifiable animosity some Muslims, Arabs, and Palestinians harbor toward all of the Western Allied victors of World War I. I’d wager that many of you had/have no clue.

Some Bullets for Buster-ing
(line break)

A rundown of the Jerusalem historical timeline from my March 2014 post Religious Imperialism Alive Still and Dr. Juan Cole’s ten historical reasons why Jerusalem is not Israel’s to occupy… deserves a quick revisit.

The ancient geographical history of Judaism begins in Mesopotamia, loosely modern-day Iraq and Syria, not Jerusalem or the Levant.
The settlement of Jerusalem was named in honor of Shalim, (salem) from the Canaanite religious pantheon, found on inscriptions in Syria. Modern Judaism wrongly translates the word as City of Peace, and has romanticized its historical context as their own at the exclusion of Palestinians, Syrians, Lebanese, and Jordanians.
Strictly from Biblical sources, i.e. not from additional independent sources, Judaism (a monotheistic religion) asserts that the prophet Moses led slaves inside ancient Egypt to the Sinai Peninsula. The only archeological evidence of a monotheistic worship happening inside Jerusalem doesn’t take place until around 1000 BCE. All evidence prior to 1000 BCE clearly demonstrates common Canaanite deities were worshiped.
There is no definitive independent proof that Jerusalem was even inhabited between 1000 and 900 BCE by any particular people or tribes.
A Jewish group known as the Hasmoneans did rule Jerusalem briefly between 168 and 37 BCE. This is a grossly different time span (almost a 2,200 year difference) from what Zionist Judaism claims: 3000 BCE to present? Beginning in 637 CE, the Muslim Arabs put siege to Jerusalem and conquered it a year later. They ruled until 1099 CE when all the European Crusaders took it. It is at this point when the Jewish and Muslim inhabitants of Jerusalem fought side-by-side but were horrifically murdered in mass by Christian Crusaders.
Perhaps the most notable part of Jerusalem’s history is in 136 CE after the Bar Kochba revolt against Roman authority failed. Some of the Jews in Jerusalem remained, but firmly under the rule of Rome and then Byzantium. Many converted to Christianity to escape the harsh oppression. After 638 CE and the Arab Muslim invasion, 90% of Jerusalem converted to Islam! Thereafter, the entire region was almost exclusively Muslim for the next 1,300 plus years. Palestinians are the legitimate descendants of Jerusalem, Eastern Israel, and the region!
In 1947 the virtual city and region of peace was completely turned upside down. Despite the historical and archeological chronicle of Judaism, the United Nations enacted the Partition Plan for Palestine following World War II and under sympathy of the Jewish Holocaust.
Past and present Israeli governments have not been united, much less consistent, about how East Jerusalem and the West Bank should be settled and managed once they were taken over. Comically, this is reminiscent of Judaism’s long history of sectarian division and fragmentation going all the way back to 37 CE.
The archeological record and linguistic history of Jerusalem and the Levant show who has the most legitimate claim to sovereignty from best to least, in chronological order listed below, by the number of years settled:
1. Muslims – they ruled it and built it for at least 1,191 years.
2. Egyptians – ruled it as a vassal state for several centuries in the 2^ndmillennium BCE.
3. Italians – ruled it for about 445 years until the fall of the Roman Empire in 450 CE.
4. Iranians – ruled for 205 years under the Achaemenid Empire, for three years as a Parthian-Hasmonean vassal state, and for 15 years under the Sassanids.
5. Greeks – ruled it for over 160 years, counting the Ptolemys and Seleucids as Greek empires. If this period is counted as Egyptian and Syrian, that adds significantly to an Egyptian claim while introducing a Syrian one!
6. Byzantines (Greeks/Turks) – ruled it for 188 years, however if one considers the heir to be Greece and add the time Hellenistic dynasties ruled, that gives Greece almost 350 years of ruling Jerusalem.
7. Iraq– the Assyrian and Babylonian Empires ruled Jerusalem for 183 years, though adding the Ayyubid Empire (Saladin’s dynasty) who were Kurds from Iraq, ruled for 730 years bringing the total reigning years up to that point to a whopping 913 years!
8. JEWS – finally we arrive to the people who have the LEAST claim for Jerusalem and much/most of Palestine. The Hasmoneans ruled as a vassal state under Parthia for 131 years. These are not the same people commonly known as Canaanites or Hebrews. Those are much later terms. There are at least two general classifications: Proto-Sinaitic and Proto-Canaanite, roughly the descendants of Egyptians to the far south, not Judea.
In the end, the only real claim Judaism has for Jerusalem and a state of Israel is based subservient to Persians, Greeks, and Romans when they ruled Palestine.

That said and established, now to take a 2-part look at how the United States, and by default its people, were a pawn used in the 1948 Israeli occupation of Palestine. If anything, the Hebrew history, their own biblical history has them originating in Egypt. Perhaps modern Zionist Jews should return there? Their own legacy supposedly begins in Egyptian empire, so try to create your political “nation” around and along the Nile River. That is much more historically accurate and logical. But in 1947-48 they did not choose there. Why not? They did consider, of all crazy places, the state of Texas in the U.S.A., but decided against Texas. Why?

* * * * * * * * * *
(line break)

The U.S. and Israel Meet
(line break)

His name was Theodor Herzl. An Austrian-born European journalist, Herzl founded the Zionist Movement in 1897 called the World Zionist Organization and its first Zionist Congress. After its inception the WZO experienced unprecedented growth in just two years from representing 117 groups to 900 groups world-wide. Their first order of business was to start a Jewish state somewhere in the world. They consider at least four locations throughout four different continents, including Texas, but eventually decided on Jerusalem and Palestine even though Palestine in 1899 was already inhabited by 93-96% non-Jews all living in overall peace between the 7th century CE until 1920 when Great Britain took it as compensation from WWI and the Ottomans.

Theodor Herzl

With 99% of Palestinian land owned by Christians and Muslims, the WZO had a serious obstacle in the way of their new Israel state. Dr. Israel Scheib (later Eldad) was a philosopher and member of the Zionist Movement, specifically the Lehi group. Despite being born in Pidvolochysk, Galicia — an area in the former Austro-Hungarian Empire now in modern day western Ukraine — Dr. Scheib wrote…

“Israel is the Jew’s land… It was never the Arabs land, even when virtually all of its inhabitants were Arab. Israel belongs to four million Russian Jews despite the fact that they were not born here. It is the land of nine million other Jews throughout the world, even if they have no present plans to live in it.”

Several other high-ranking WZO members speak the same language. Scheib’s and other sources can be provided if necessary.

Max Nordau is the next pivotal player. In the Maccabaean, Vol. 7 (1904), Nordau was quoted as saying “Zionism’s only hope is the Jews of America.” He was a close associate to Theodor Herzl. They are both initiates in the galvinization of American-based Zionist organizations in New York City, Boston, Philadelphia, Cleveland, Milwaukee, Chicago, and Baltimore by the start of the 20th century. By 1918 Nordau, Scheib, and Herzl had helped generate over 200,000 Zionists in America. At the end of 1923 every New York Yiddish news press except one was Zionist, reaching 535,000 families in 1927. By 1948 Zionist numbers swelled to near 1-million.

Merely reaching ordinary American citizens, however, was not sufficient. Through most of President William Taft’s administration (1909-1913), American Zionist organizations began their inroads into Congress influencing Senators and House Representatives about the plight and goal for an Israeli state. Unlike Congressional officials, U.S. State Department positions were not dependent on public votes and campaign donations. Therefore, State Department officials had the advantage of more objective thinking and reasoning for the people rather than a tiny group working for domestic or foreign entities. Here we have the first serious opposition to Zionism. Correspondence after correspondence, year after year, U.S. statesmen and military advisors under Taft repeated, ‘Zionism runs counter to U.S. interests and principles.’ But they would not be deterred.

In 1912 the Zionist Literary Society approached the Executive office directly for endorsement. Secretary of State Philander Knox flat out refused them audience, saying:

“The problems of Zionism involve certain matters primarily related to the interests of countries other than our own.”
— Fallen Pillars: U.S. Policy towards Palestine and Israel since 1945, by Donald Neff, Washington D.C.: Institute for Palestine Studies, 2002

In that same year the Zionist went directly to prominent Harvard Law graduate Louis D. Brandeis who would later become a Supreme Court Justice in 1916.

Into the U.S. Supreme Court

Justice Louis Brandeis

Though Brandeis’ Kentucky parents raised Louis as secular, in 1912 he converted to Zionism. Two years later he became the Director of the international Zionist Central Office which had recently moved from Germany to the United States. By most accounts and biographies, Justice Brandeis is held in high esteem. Yet, when his extra activities are put under microscope with Felix Frankfurter — later to become appointed Associate Supreme Court Justice by Franklin D. Roosevelt — evidence begins to paint a different picture.

Historian Bruce A. Murphy, an acclaimed judicial biographer of American Constitutional law and politics, wrote in his 1982 book The Brandeis/Frankfurter Connection: The Secret Political Activities of Two Supreme Court Justices…

“In one of his most unique arrangements in the Court’s history, Brandeis enlisted Frankfurter, then a professor at Harvard Law School, as his paid political lobbyist and lieutenant. Working together over a period of 25 years, they placed a network of disciples in positions of influence, and labored diligently for the enactment of their desired programs. This adroit use of the politically skillful Frankfurter as intermediary enabled Brandeis to keep his considerable political endeavors hidden from the public.”
— The Brandeis/Frankfurter Connection, by Bruce Murphy, New York, Oxford UP, 1982, p. 10, 44

Murphy continued writing that Brandeis mentioned their arrangement to “another Zionist lieutenant — Court of Appeals Judge Julian Mack.” This book would earn Murphy the Certificate of Merit from the American Bar Association. Then and today, these types of activities and associations, intentionally hidden ones at that, would have been considered highly unethical for a Federal Justice. The fact that Brandeis and Frankfurter hid them is indication they knew they were unethical as well.

Because Theodor Herzl, Israel Scheib, Max Nordau, Louis Brandeis, and Felix Frankfurter realized over two decades, they would need a more extensive wider-web of key people in key positions to harness American support for an Israel state. But key U.S. federal offices and agencies were staunchly opposed to such obvious public efforts and very risky affairs abroad. As a result, they would have to go clandestine but efforts would have to appear upfront as humanitarian, as educational, and culturally uniting. Where best to begin their foreign interests in America? In the bosom of her most prestigious campuses: the Ivy League. Of course.

The Undisclosed ‘Other’ Menorah Society of Harvard

Professor at Hebrew University of Jerusalem Dr. Sarah Schmidt first published an article in the American Jewish Historical Quarterly in 1978 reviewing the society saying “The image that emerges of the Parushim is that of a secret underground guerilla force determined to influence the course of events in a quiet, anonymous way.” Peter Grose, writer and former editor to the New York Times and ironically a Zionist sympathizer, also reported on a branch of the Menorah Society at Harvard in 1984 writing that Justice Brandeis was a leader in “an elitist secret society called the Parushim, the Hebrew word for ‘Pharisees’ and ‘separate,’ which grew out of Harvard’s Menorah Society.” Grose goes on to report that Brandeis used the Parushim “as a private intellectual cadre, a pool of manpower for various assignments.“

Associate Justice Julian Mack

During Woodrow Wilson’s Presidential campaign of 1912, Wilson was impressed by Brandeis’ abilities and accomplishments to make business moguls and government officials accountable to the public. They both shared very similar views on social and economic policies, and completely agreed that federal government should stay out of the national economy. This friendship would eventually foster Brandeis’ appointment by Wilson to the Supreme Court in 1916. Reluctantly, however, Brandeis had to withdraw from all his private clubs and associations, as was the ethical standards against conflicts of interest. Two years later when the multiple branches of the Federation of American Zionists reorganized, renamed as Zionist Organization of America, Brandeis was elected an honorary President and coincidentally(?) Harvard Law graduate Julian W. Mack elected as acting President. But privately Louis Brandeis did not abandon his ZOA lieutenants and friend Julian Mack.

“Through his lieutenants, [Brandeis] remained the power behind the throne.”
— Fallen Pillars: U.S. Policy towards Palestine and Israel since 1945, by Donald Neff, Washington D.C.: Institute for Palestine Studies, 2002, p. 59-60

“At Brandeis’ behest, Frankfurter also became involved with American Zionism. In 1917 Frankfurter accompanied Ambassador Henry Morgenthau to Turkey and Egypt to see what could be done for the settlements in Palestine during the World War. Frankfurter also attended the peace conference in Paris as a representative of the American Zionist movement and as a liaison for Brandeis.”
— Jazz Age Jews, by Michael Alexander, Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 2001, p. 91

Funeral of Archduke Ferdinand & wife Sophie, Sarajevo, 1914

Despite the opposition by American Jewish anti-Zionist, the ZOA and American Zionist memberships grew dramatically during World War I. One particular anti-Zionist according to Jews Against Zionism by Thomas A. Kolskey (p. 25) wrote of the movement, it is “a foreign, un-American, racist, and separatist phenomenon.” When one today considers the 19th century seeds and roots of Zionism, i.e. Eastern Europe and specifically Vienna, Austria, they will find those seeds and roots in the heart of the Balkans conflict of 1912-13. When Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria-Este was assassinated, World War I broke out. Zionism was born out of this deep historical Near Eastern-European crisis, losses, exiles and Diaspora, and the unwavering belief that Jerusalem and Palestine will forever be their homeland which continued through World War II and continues today.

On a sidenote correlating to my earlier Starbuck’s encounter above, Dr. Sarah Schmidt reviews the work of Timothy Weber, President of the Memphis Theological Seminary, regarding how the late 20th century friending of American evangelicals by the state of Zionist Israel, and continued today, was a natural eschatological fit for both. Since the end of WWI the two are synonymous with Fundamentalism. I highly recommend reading Schmidt’s short review: Dangerous Friends – How Evangelicals Became Israel’s Best Friend. How the two want “God’s plan for mankind” to become fulfilled, will or should horrify the world.

* * * * * * * * * *

World War I and the Balfour Declaration
(line break)

From the earliest stages of the Ottoman Empire’s decline, Zionist recognized that their weak global positioning required the backing of a superpower. They had tried to sequester the help of the Ottoman’s who controlled Palestine at the time, but by 1912 the Ottomans had only illusionary power over their distant provinces. They turned to the British. However, like the Ottomans the British were less than enthusiastic about their cause.

Lord Arthur Balfour

In 1916 the war was going very poorly for the British. In one day alone in 1916 the British lost 57,470 soldiers in the Battle of the Somme. Now the Zionist had their leverage. Since pushing religious and idealist arguments upon the British Parliament hadn’t worked previously, pushing the power and influence of American Zionist to bring the United States into the war had much more punch. They promised the British they could bring the U.S. into the war on the side of the British under one condition: give full support of a Jewish home in Palestine afterwards. Thus, in 1917 British Foreign Minister Lord Balfour wrote a letter to Zionist leader Baron L.W. Rothschild promising Great Britain would sympathize…

“…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 endeavors 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.”

Because 92% of all Palestinians were non-Jews in 1917, the U.S. State Department always saw the creation of a Jewish state there as nothing less than building a powder-keg and lighting the fuse. Zionist always had their counter-punch to any resistance to a state of Israel in Palestine as plain and simply ‘blatant anti-Semitism.’

Because Zionist sentiment was growing in America with powerful proponents as Brandeis, Mack, Nordau, and Schieb, along with growing ZOA memberships, the State Department considered alternative actions. One of these plans, though a long shot, was a separate U.S.-Ottoman peace. To explore this slim possibility the State Department sent an emissary, Ambassador Henry J. Morgenthau, to Turkey to discuss. However, Felix Frankfurter became part of the delegation and ultimately became a staunch opponent. He eventually persuaded Morgenthau to abandon all efforts for a separate non-British U.S.-Ottoman peace. All subsequent complaints of Zionist sabotage were answered as ‘blatant anti-Semitic rhetoric.‘

By war’s end, Jewish Zionist would have their necessary superpower support and begin the dismissal and removal of some 750,000+ Muslim and Christian Arabs.

For a more in-depth examination into the earliest origins of Zionist Israel, watch the acclaimed documentary “1913: Seeds of Conflict.” And be sure to go to its official website for excellent complimentary history, here.

* * * * * * * * * *

In the upcoming Part II of The Circus of Recycling, these four topics: the Paris Peace Conference of 1919, the Modern Israeli Lobby & Harry S. Truman, the buckling of the U.N. General Assembly in 1947, and Zionist Militarism and the Conquest of Palestine… will be the next critical topics covered.

(paragraph break)