Circus of Recycling – Part III

Posted on April 29, 2016 by Professor Taboo

The last Part from the Circus of Recycling – Part II and I.
(line break)

* * * * * * * * * *

R.H. Hillenkoetter, “Memorandum for the Secretary of Defense: Subject: Clandestine Air Transport Operations” CIA, May 28, 1948.

Full CIA Memorandum for the Secretary of Defense

* * * * * * * * * *

In the art of modern intelligence and counter-intelligence, implementing multiple cloaks are quite useful. Creations of illusion are not magical, or mystical, but they are hints of planned suggestion and a keen understanding of human nature. One of the most historic and prolific examples of intel and counter-intel, or disinformation, was Operation Bodyguard used by the Allies in WWII to hide and deceive the German High Command of the time and place of the 1944 D-Day Normandy invasion. For the removal of Palestinians from the U.N. partitioned land, villages, and homes for Zionist Israel occupation, in comparison there was little difference.

As already examined in the previous Part II, the amount of U.S. funding mobilized for the creation, resettlement, and defense of the new state of Israel was well-organized and well cloaked. Between 1939 and May 1948 the Jewish Agency for Israel raised $3.5 trillion in today’s dollars (New York Times, August 10, 1961). And this agency is simply one Zionist organization out of many more. With the money raised the arms smuggling by The Sonneborn Group – Institute to the Haganah in Palestine followed (see CIA Memorandum above). There was still one major issue, or cloak to be devised. With the Nazis destroyed, the majority of surviving Jews throughout Europe wanted to remain and rebuild their lives. Rabbi Klaussner, a Zionist in charge of displaced persons in post-WWII Europe, reported the difficulty to the Jewish American Conference May 2, 1948…

“I am convinced people must be forced to go to Palestine… We must, instead of providing ‘displaced persons’ with comfort, create the greatest possible discomfort for them.”
— What Price Israel?, Alfred H. Lilienthal, Infinity Publishing; Anniversary edition (March 1, 2004)

Hence, the underground campaign of “Chomer ‘Enoshi Tov” began.
(line break)

European Refugee Camps Create Palestinian Refugee Camps
(line break)

If you are curious by what is meant by the Hebrew “Chomer ‘Enoshi Tov“, then the perfect expert to ask is Noam Chomsky. In a 2014 interview he used the term while discussing the Jewish Holocaust:

“Well the translation of the title [ed. Chomer Enoshi Tov] would be something like “Good Human Material.” What [Yosef Grodzinsky] means is that the Zionist emissaries had a doctrine that able-bodied men and women between 18 and 35 had to be compelled to go to Palestine where they would be cannon-fodder for the coming conflict. Now the others they didn’t care much about and even undermined efforts to save children and so on. Well, all of this was going on in the immediate wake of the holocaust involving the survivors. No concern about them. You look through the 1950s, there’s virtually no discussion of the holocaust.”

British containment of the SS Exodus, 1947

“Good Human” cannon-fodder for the conquest of Palestine and the independence and defense of Israel. Ben-Gurion, Rabbi Klaussner, and many other Zionist envoys would use this phrase repeatedly regarding the repopulation of Palestine.

From 1934 as part of the long maritime trail of Jewish refugees escaping Nazi Germany to Palestine, the S.S. Exodus in July 1947 had carried the most passengers, 4,515 Jewish refugees, until the Atzmaut in January 1948. And as Noam Chomsky correctly explains above, in popular American media and literature from 1947 to 1958, no one was interested in the Holocaust until the 1960’s when the fate of world perception and acceptance of Israel hung in the balance. When the film Exodus had hit American theaters in 1960, the general perception began to significantly change. Although Leon Uris’s 1958 bestseller inspired the film, the actual events were far less extraordinary than the book and film both glamorized.

The late Hebrew University of Jerusalem professor of sociology, Baruch Kimmerling, corrects and expounds the misguided literary and cinematic portrayals:

“When the [SS Exodus] embarked, the UN Special Committee on Palestine was holding discussions and Ben-Gurion, the head of the Jewish Agency, the primary governing body of the state-in-formation, felt that the plight of Jewish refugees in Europe needed to be dramatized in order to attract more sympathy for the Jewish struggle over Palestine. The British authorities had refused to let the immigrants disembark in Palestine, or even to take refuge in transitional camps in Cyprus, forcing the boat to be redirected back to Germany. To prevent such a ghastly outcome, Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann persuaded the French Prime Minister, Leon Blum, to host the refugees. Ben-Gurion rejected this solution out of hand, and the poor survivors remained on board for seven months.
— Israel’s Culture of Martydom, by Baruch Kimmerling, The Nation, Dec. 22, 2004. http://www.thenation.com/article/israels-culture-martyrdom/

And further, more accurate events are just as astonishing…

“Ben-Gurion’s insensitivity was rooted in his “Palestine-centric” attitude, best exemplified by his 1938 remark that “if I knew it was possible to save all children of Germany by their transfer to England and only half of them by transferring them to the Land of Israel, I would choose the latter, because we are faced not only with the accounting of these children but also with the historical accounting of the Jewish people.” This was not merely a rhetorical declaration. Grodzinsky tells us with great pain how Ben-Gurion and other Zionist leaders vetoed the immigration of 1,000 orphans, who were in physical and emotional danger as a result of the harsh winter of 1945, from the camps in Germany to England, where the Jewish community had managed to secure them permits. Another group of roughly 500 children of camp inhabitants was barred, after Zionist intervention, from reaching France, whose rabbinical institutions had offered them safe haven.”
— Ibid.

To add further insult to the plight of Jewish-European Holocaust refugees, few American and Western European newspaper and radio consumers were informed at the time that many of the Exodus passengers had applied for immigration visas to the United States (denied by Zionists) and/or many more were simply wanting to settle in more peaceful countries — a state of affairs Palestine certainly could not claim. Israel was anything but peaceful.

In the end, however, Ben-Gurion’s and Zionism’s propaganda scheme succeeded despite Jewish-European refugees being sick of war, fighting, and concentration-refugee camps and hundreds to thousands had become anti-Zionists!

The Giyus and The Sieff Group

As mentioned before, the ingathering of Jews into Palestine was not going to Zionist expectations; not enough Jewish-European DP’s were flocking voluntarily in rapid waves to the new Israel state. The slow low numbers would not survive the continued Arab conflicts. What was needed to abate Jewish war-fears was a growing army, the Israeli Defense Force (IDF), to wage the conflicts. Because Americans and European Jews would never agree to or publicly side with another militaristic conflict, Zionist came up with an alternative target: the most desperate of Jewish DP’s. In 1947 these men and their families were still residents of WWII refugee camps throughout Europe. Immediately the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee implemented a $25-million IDF recruitment campaign. On this campaign David Ben-Gurion and Chief of Staff Israel Galili reported…

“The manpower shortage for the fighting army forced modifications in the illegal immigration plan.

…New operational orders were issued: No more boats to bring homeless refugees to a safe haven. From the moment Ben-Gurion’s new orders were sent to the Mossad people in France through Shadmi, the decisions of the February 29th convention in Paris (with Ha’apaláh, B’richáh, and Haganáh delegates) were getting into effect. Haganáh and Mossad took upon themselves the task of moving fifteen thousand Jews of draft age and capability from Europe to Palestine by May 15th. Quotas were imposed on organizers in the various countries, aimed at carrying out the plan to bring in five thousand in March and April, and another ten thousand in May. Mossad people actually received stricter orders: From this moment on, no immigrants who lacked military capability were to be brought to Palestine. “We need only persons who fit the Haganáh,” wrote Ben-Gurion and Galili to commanders of Mossad in Europe.”
— In the Shadow of the Holocaust: The Struggle between Jews and Zionists in the Aftermath of World War II, by Yosef Grodzinsky, Monroe, ME: Common Courage Press, 2004, pp. 187-188.

But this campaign failed, badly.

“Upon being called to fulfill “their duty” and join the IDF… most Jewish DPs were reluctant. A failed voluntary draft drive (to which less than 0.3 percent of the DP population volunteered) led to compulsory conscription.”
— Ibid, p. 226.

Mossad-Haganah fighters, 1947 – Wikipedia

This conscription was called Giyus, and any draft evaders were treated very harshly. Giyus-evaders were blacklisted, fired from jobs, given heavy fines, evicted from their living quarters, food rations cut, and yes, even beaten (Ibid, p. 199). This is quite extraordinary when these “draftees” had never even lived in Palestine, much less became combat soldiers for a foreign nation which did not exist in 1947 and early 1948!

With perpetual Arab-Zionist conflict in Palestine greatly hindering war-efforts, on July 27, 1943, Great Britain and the U.S. State Department came very close to issuing a “reverse Balfour” resolution if the covert Zionist activities didn’t cease. When a Zionist group — which included the aforementioned David Niles (White House official under Roosevelt and Truman), and David Lilienthal (chairman of the Tennessee Valley Authority), Ben Cohen (White House staff), Robert R. Nathan (economist in Dept. of Commerce), and Harvard graduate David Ginsberg (assistant from the Securities and Exchange Commission during Roosevelt’s New Deal plan) all known as The Sieff Group — got wind of the Balfour reversal…

…they took immediate action with further coalition help from Felix Frankfurter, Henry Morgenthau, Jr., Bernard Baruch and others, and effectively killed the reversal.
— Israel in the Mind of America, by Peter Grose, New York, NY: Knopf Doubleday, 1st ed., 1983, p. 177, 178-182.

(line break)
The 1949 Palestinian-Arab Refugee Crisis

James G. McDonald was the U.S. envoy to Palestine regarding the Zionist-Arab conflict and the growing displacement of Arab families. Authors Ilan Pappe and Rosemarie Esber describe it as Israel’s ethnic expulsion and cleansing of Palestine. But McDonald reported the crisis in 1948 to President Truman this way:

“The Arab refugee tragedy is rapidly reaching catastrophic proportions and should be treated as a disaster… Of approximately 400,000 refugees approaching winter, with cold heavy rains will, it is estimated, kill more than 100,000 old men, women and children who are shelterless and have little to no food.”
— Fallen Pillars: U.S. Policy towards Palestine and Israel since 1945, by Donald Neff, Reprint Ed. Washington D.C.: Institute for Palestine Studies, 2002, p. 68.

From 400,000 refugees in 1948 the numbers jumped to approximately 750,000 in 1949. Many of them fled to neighboring Arab countries. U.S. foreign diplomats in Cairo, Egypt and Amman, Jordan reported that their two countries were so overcrowded with starving weak Palestinian families, their already inundated almost non-existent resources were pushed to near collapse.

Remarkably those Arab states continued to donate some $11-million to refugee aids. The U.S. Department of State tracked these activities from April to December 1948 stating:

“This sum, in light of the very slender budgets of most of these governments, is relatively enormous.

…the total direct relief offered.. by the Israeli government to date consists of 500 cases of oranges. Meanwhile, Israel had acquired formerly Palestinian-owned properties worth at least $480 million.”
— Ibid, pp. 69, 72.

Palestinian refugees in Amman, 1949

President Truman naively believed the Zionist-lead Israeli state could coexist in Palestine with Arabs as a single state of shared power. But Truman’s 1948 Presidential election had also been bought for him by American Zionist leaders and their organization’s funding and was under heavy pressure to immediately recognize the nation of Israel to the world DESPITE equally heavy opposition by the State Department. Truman tried to persuade Israel to allow Arab refugees to return to their original homes under this coexisting belief and had Mark Ethridge negotiate it. After being continually refused by Israel, Ethridge very disgusted reported to the State Department “What I can see is an abortion of justice and humanity to which I do not want to be midwife…” (Ibid p. 75).

Finally the State Department had one last card to play: the $49-million of unallocated funds from an Export-Import Bank loan to Israel. They threatened to stop it unless Israel allowed at least 200,000 Arab refugees to return to Palestine. When the U.S. coordinator on Palestine Refugee Matters delivered the threat to an angry Israeli ambassador, he returned to his office and in less than an hour received a notification from the White House that Truman was dissociating himself from any withholding of the Ex-Im Bank loan.
(line break)

U.S. Popular Media Post-1953 to Today

(line break)
If you understand what is meant by the concept “a conflict of interest,” then one doesn’t have to search too far to find Zionist backgrounds or sway in key areas. As noted earlier in Part II, Zionist knew how to exploit the basic nature of the American political system including the intimate relationship it had with media sources influencing popular public opinion or pressure.

A noteworthy example of Zionist influence on American media is the acclaimed academic and co-writer co-creator to the U.N. Charter, Virginia Gildersleeve. Her struggle against the creation of Israel is one as well dramatized as David and Goliath, but was nowhere near as popular or familiar in 1930’s – 1940’s America, not even into the 1950’s.

Virginia Gildersleeve

When Gildersleeve wrote in defense of human rights and humanitarian action for Palestine, and for Palestinian families to be allowed to return to their homes and villages, a widespread campaign was launched against her, stereotyping her work as “anti-Semitic” as Zionists pandered upon Holocaust sympathies. Toward the end of her exceptional career she devoted herself to human rights in the Middle East testifying before Congressional committees, even directly lobbying President Truman to rectify the horrible neglect and violations taking place in Palestine, but to no avail. In her memoirs she wrote the defeats…”[were attributed to] the Zionist control of the media of communication.“

Zionist control was indeed apparent. A study of 1917 news coverage of WWI and post-war reparations (the contentious roots of the Balfour Declaration) revealed that editorial opinion leaned heavily in favor of the Zionist posture. This continued into the 1920’s. Political analyst and author Kathleen Christison writes…

“…editorials and news stories alike applauded Jewish enterprise, heralding a Jewish return to Palestine as ‘glorious news.’

The relatively heavy press coverage is an indicator of the extent of Zionist influence even in this early period. One scholar has estimated that, as of the mid-1920s, approximately half of all New York Times articles were placed by press agents, suggesting that U.S. Zionist organizations may have placed many of the articles on Zionism’s Palestine endeavors.”
— Perceptions of Palestine: Their Influence on U.S. Middle East Policy, by Kathleen Christison, 1st Ed. Berkeley, CA: University California Press, 2000, p. 40.

In 1953 author Alfred Lilienthal described the sweeping capture of American newspapers, magazines, and radio stations as remarkably complete. Their “…stories as well as editorial columns, gave primarily the Zionist views of events before, during, and after partition.” The Saturday Evening Post came under ruthless attack by Zionists for publishing an article by Milton Mayer criticizing Jewish nationalism as overly zealous. Secretary of State George C. Marshall, after threatening Israel’s callous treatment of Palestinians, severely underestimated the American Zionist media networks’ ability to hide opposing views to the conflict.

In a March 1949 study by the Department of State it revealed that the general American public was “unaware of the Palestine refugee problem, since it has not been hammered away at by the press or radio.” Most Americans were consumed by the threat of Soviet communism and the cold war, fed of course by most all major news mediums. Completing his book Palestine Is Our Business, author, Yale alum, and distinguished archaeologist Millar Burrows — also Vice-President of the National Committee to Combat Anti-Seminism — wrote:

“A terrible wrong has been done to the native people of [Palestine]. The blame for what has happened must be distributed among all concerned, including ourselves.

…the [counter]plan for Palestine advocated by the Arabs was a democracy with freedom of religion and complete separation of religion and the State, as in this country.

All the Arab refugees who want to return to their homes must be allowed and helped to do so, and must be restored to their own villages, houses, and farms or places of business, with adequate compensation from the Government of Israel for destruction and damage.”
— Palestine Is Our Business, by Millar Burrows, Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1949, p. 11, 131, 154.

As a result of his book, the American Zionist Council published and distributed articles slandering Burrows’ work as “an anti-Semitic opus.“

Dorothy Thompson – “Woman of the Year”

Dorothy Thompson, c. 1937

She was often called “The First Lady of American Journalism” and considered by many colleagues a trailblazer in the field, Dorothy Thompson also made Time magazine’s 2nd most popular woman in America behind Eleanor Roosevelt. Because of Thompson’s poignant criticism of Adolph Hitler’s methods and rise to power while reporting in Germany, she was banned from the country. Upon returning to the U.S., she began writing a very popular syndicated column called “On the Record” which often delivered crisp, outspoken and politically centered analysis of current issues. In her advocacy for the relief of Jews in Europe and Nazi Germany, especially as a woman, Thompson naturally became a celebrity in American journalism, particularly with Zionist. The 1942 box-office hit film by George Stevens “Woman of the Year” with Katharine Hepburn and Spencer Tracy was based upon Thompson’s career. A Broadway play was also made about Thompson played by Lauren Bacall.

Effected by Holocaust atrocities and married at the time to a Hungarian Jewish husband (Josef Bard), Thompson at first favored the creation of the state of Israel in Palestine… until she physically went there herself in 1945. Thompson reversed her pro-Zionist position to a pro-Arab pro-Palestinian one, and what resulted was a complete fall from historical stardom. In his April 2015 article on Mondoweiss.net Gil Maguire gives tribute to Thompson writing…

“Dorothy Thompson’s [career] is truly a remarkable story. Her apex was probably 1948 when Claire Booth Luce and others wanted her to run for president. She’d been one of Zionism’s most famous and influential spokesmen. Her defection, in 1949, created great anger in the Jewish/Zionist communities, and in few short years her career was in tatters and her influence largely gone. Today, Dorothy Thompson is virtually unknown and unremembered. This fascinating woman who deserves to be an icon of the feminist movement, is rarely, if ever, mentioned as an important female historical figure.”

In the 1950 documentary “Sands of Sorrow” produced by the Council for the Relief of Palestine Arab Refugees, Thompson speaks specifically about the conditions of Palestinian Arab refugee camps. Sadly, in speaking out against Zionism and its conquest and occupation of Palestine, Dorothy Thompson was methodically erased from history.

There is a modern effort to bring back to public light Dorothy’s work in a documentary film entitled “The Silencing – Of Dorothy Thompson” by Alternate Focus. Below is a 4-minute teaser of the upcoming film…

(line break)

* * * * * * * * * *

To conclude this 3-part series I want to repeat a quote I often use which makes a point about sources; that is sources of information we accept, or internalize, or prefer, or for better or for worse… take as gospel. It goes like this:

“To be ignorant of what occurred before you were born
is to remain always a child.”
— Marcus Tullius Cicero

(line break)
But those words of wisdom are not enough. How does one learn whether they have been taught and raised by a family, community, and nation that is on the ‘right side of history’? How can one, as can be humanly possible, decide what is right or wrong as a 4-year old? Or a 10-year old, or even a 19-year old? There is probably no one, perfect, across-the-board answer at any select moment of time and place. However, over time and with the evolution of the collective human brains, greater degrees of right and wrong, and almost right and almost wrong do indeed surface. Yes, many of them are through trial and error, but many are also learned through honest in-depth comparing and contrasting. This comparing-contrasting technique should also include subject matter one might find uncomfortable or offensive — this is truer analysis and broader critical-thinking.

There is however, an identifiable flaw or possible flaw in that process.

Through acts of violence, death, and literal or metaphorical cutting-out-tongues or amputating the ability to write, and so on, that could or does distort history and data which then leads to contaminated conclusions — it becomes even HARDER to decipher ‘the full real story‘. Why? Most often history is written by the Victors and one must dig deeper, literally and metaphorically, to hear, read, and digest the “losers” side of the story. Not too many people I know care to do that sort of legwork-homework.

Coming full circle now, on the historical subject of Easter/Eostre weekend at Starbucks in Part I and then the expansive factors and influences of WWI and WWII Zionist activities and counter-activities for the planned creation of Israel in Part II and III, we’ve discovered a broader lesser-known backdrop (if any at all) of modern Middle Eastern affairs, turmoil, and continued conflict. Obtaining this wider vivid picture created from high-zoom capabilities with multi-colored, multi-textured, multi-layered, more accurate honest representations cannot be achieved with one single camera, from one single angle, or one single frame. One must explore. One must experiment, usually multiple times, to capture the perfect image.

I dare say that my well-intended but very misinformed Fundy-Evangelist that evening at Starbucks likely “faithfully” believed one image, one angle from one camera was all his life and America needed when it came to world politics, religion and terrorism. Please, please don’t make that mistake! Completing difficult intensive homework in school or college should never stop after the graduation.

I welcome any thoughts or questions below. Otherwise, thank you for reading these three rather long extensive posts.

Live Well — Love Much — Laugh Often — Learn Always

(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/.

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)