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:
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 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 Professor's Convatorium 