Of all the tyrannies on human kind
The worst is that which persecutes the mind.
Alexander Pope (1688-1744): Essay on Man, Epistle II,
line 239.
*******
Part
of what you need to know before you are entitled to an
opinion.
Regards, Joe Bryant.
A history of perfidy and betrayal
in the Mideast gives insight into the
motivations behind the Sept.11 terrorist attacks.
By Dr. Robert John
Presidents Bush and Clinton said that "we are a
target because we stand for democracy, freedom, and human
rights in the world. Nonsense! People in Canada enjoy
democracy, freedom, and human rights. So do the people of
Norway and Sweden. Have you heard of Canadian embassies
being bombed? Or Norwegian, or Swedish?"said Robert
Bowman, bishop of the United Catholic Church in Melbourne
Beach FL, who marched in protest of Israeli attacks in
Bethlehem and other Palestinian towns. He flew 101 combat
missions in Vietnam.
Essentially, from the end of World War I to World War II,
the empires of Britain, France, and Italy, controlled
Arab territories. Since then, the United States has been
the controlling imperial power in the Middle East.
Prior to World War I, Arab territories were part of the
Ottoman Empire. The Sultan had taken the title of
Khalif-al-Islam, or supreme religious leader of Moslems
everywhere. When Turkey joined Germany in the war, the
Sultan sent a summons to Sherif Hussein of Mecca,
great-grandfather of the present King of Jordan, to
declare a Jihad, or holy war, against the Allies. The
British
promised to support Arab independence, if Hussein
revolted instead.
There is a moment in the film Lawrence of Arabia when
Peter O'Toole, clad in an Arab clothes not unlike Osama
bin Laden, asks General Allenby (Jack Hawkins) to confirm
that he can promise Sherif Hussein independence in return
for Arab support in destroying the Turkish army. For just
a brief, devastating moment, Hawkins hesitates; then his
face becomes all smiling benevolence: "Of
course!" he says. Eventually shamed by what
happened to British honor, Lawrence returned his medals to the British
government.
I have held in my hand the long-secret document for the
inner group (USA, Britain, France, Italy) at the Paris
Peace Conference that clearly recognizes that the Arabs
had been promised their independence in 1915, including
Palestine! It is marked "SECRET This Document is the
property of His Britannic Majesty's Government."
Kept secret, because in 1917 the British
government-through international bankers-offered a
national home for Jews in Palestine, at the expense of
the land and future of the Palestinians.
This promissory note to Lord Rothschild for the Zionist
Federation, the Balfour Declaration, partly drafted by
Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Louis Brandeis,
and underwritten by the Congress of the United States of
America, has cost and continues to cost American
taxpayers billions of dollars a year. The intervention
has caused suffering to millions of people, and death to
many, and its consequences are major influences on
domestic and international affairs.
Brandeis, who joined the Court in 1916, was actually
nominated by trial attorney Louis Untermeyer, in return
for his pre-1916-election purchase and suppression of
Wilson's passionate letters to Mary Allen Peck, with whom
Wilson had committed adultery.
Similarly, Lloyd George was beholden to a barrister,
Rufus Isaacs, by whom he was implicated in insider
trading in Marconi shares. When Isaacs was offered and
accepted the post of Lord Chief Justice less than six
months later, Rudyard Kipling wrote Gehazi, since
described as 'one of the greatest hate poems ever
written.' Instead of jail, within the shortest time ever,
Isaacs was made a baron, a viscount, an earl, and
Marquess-of Reading.
The noted Jewish author Arthur Koestler wrote that in the
perfidious correspondence "one nation solemnly
promised to a second nation the country of a third."
More than that, the land was still part of the empire of
a fourth, namely Turkey.
Lloyd George had only headed the Government since
December 1916, when his predecessor Asquith was ousted by
a coup de main. George had been legal counsel for
the Zionists, and while Minister of Munitions, had
assured Chaim Weizmann, future president of Israel, that
"he was very keen to see a Jewish state established
in Palestine." George's choice as his Foreign
Secretary was
Arthur Balfour, already known for his Zionist sympathies.
After World War I, Prime Minister Lloyd George wrote in
his Memoirs of the Peace Conference, where, as planned
years before, the Zionists were strongly represented,
that there was competition with Germany for Jewish
support:
"There is no better proof of the value of the
Balfour Declaration as a military move than the fact that
Germany entered into negotiations with Turkey in an
endeavor to provide an alternative scheme which would
appeal to Zionists. A German-Jewish Society, the V. J. O.
D., was formed, and in January 1918, Talaat, the Turkish
Grand Vizier, at the instigation of the Germans, gave
vague promises of legislation by means of which "all
justifiable wishes of the Jews in Palestine would be able
to meet their fulfillment."
"Another most cogent reason for the adoption by the
Allies of the policy of the Declaration lay in the state
of Russia herself. Russian Jews had been secretly active
on behalf of the Central Powers from the first; they had
become the chief agents of German pacifist propaganda in
Russia; by 1917 they had done much in preparing for that
general disintegration of Russian society, later
recognized as the Revolution. It was believed that if
Great Britain declared for the fulfillment of Zionist
aspirations in Palestine under her own pledge, one effect
would be to bring Russian Jewry to the cause of the
Entente.
"It was believed, also, that such a declaration
would have a potent influence upon world Jewry outside
Russia, and secure for the Entente the aid of Jewish
financial interests. In America, their aid in this
respect would have a special value when the Allies had
almost exhausted the gold and marketable securities
available for American purchases. Such were the chief
considerations which, in 1917, impelled the British
Government towards making a contract with Jewry" (p.
726).
Twenty years later, in a speech given in the context of
continuing violence between Arabs and Jews in Palestine,
David Lloyd George affirmed in the Commons on 19 June
1936, his justification for the Balfour Declaration in
support of British interests. [
]
"It was at one of the darkest periods of the War
that Mr Balfour first prepared his Declaration. At that
time the French Army had mutinied; the Italian Army was
on the verge of collapse; America had hardly started
preparing in earnest. There was nothing left but Britain
confronting the most powerful military combination that
the world had ever seen. It was very important for us to
seek every legitimate help that we could get. The
Government came to the conclusion, from information
received from every part of the world, that it was very
vital that we should have the sympathies of the Jewish
community.
[
] Under those conditions and with the advice they
received, the Government decided that it was desirable
for us to secure the sympathy and cooperation of that
most remarkable community, the Jews, throughout the
world."
Winston Churchill said: "The Balfour Declaration
must, therefore, not be regarded as a promise given from
sentimental motives; it was a practical measure taken in
the interests of a common cause at a moment when that
cause could afford to neglect no factor of moral or
material assistance." Speaking in the House of
Commons on 4 July 1922, Winston Churchill asked
rhetorically, "Are we to keep our pledge to
the Zionists made in 1917? Pledges and promises
were made during the war, and they were made, not only on
the merits, though I think the merits are considerable.
They were made because it
was considered they would be of value to us in our
struggle to win the war. It was considered that the
support which the Jews could give us all over the world,
and particularly in the United States, and also in
Russia, would be a definite palpable advantage.
I was not responsible at that time for the giving of
those pledges, nor for the conduct of the war of which
they were, when given, an integral part. But like other
members I supported the policy of the War Cabinet. Like
other members, I accepted and was proud to accept a share
in those great transactions, which left us with terrible
losses, with formidable obligations, but nevertheless
with unchallengeable victory."
As for Britain, Oxford historian Elizabeth Monroe's
study, Britain's Moment in the Middle East (Chatto &
Windus, 1963, p.43) concludes, "Measured by British
interests alone, the Balfour Declaration was one of the
greatest mistakes in our imperial history."
Sir Arnold Toynbee, historian and a delegate to the
(1919) Paris Peace Conference, wrote in his foreword to
The Palestine Diary (New World Press) that there are
Palestinian refugees because "Jewish immigration was
imposed on the Palestinian Arabs by British military
power
The tragedy in Palestine is not just a local
one; it is a tragedy for the World, because it is an
injustice that is a menace to the World's peace.
Britain's guilt is not diminished by the humiliating fact
that she is now impotent to redress the wrong that has
been done."
William Yale, who was special agent of the State Dept. in
the Near East in World War I, told me on 12th May 1970
that Woodrow Wilson had asked him in 1919 to interview
persons who might be influential to the future of the
area. He interviewed General Allenby, Chaim
Weizmann and others. Yale asked Weizmann what he
would do if the British did not support the Balfour
Declaration for the establishment of a national home for
the Jews in Palestine. Yale said, "Weizmann
pounded his fist on the table and the teacups
jumped. 'If they don't,' he said, 'we'll smash the
British Empire like we smashed the Russian Empire."
For some Germans and others following World War I, the
weight given the Balfour Declaration by British Prime
Minister Lloyd George, Winston Churchill, and other
powerful figures, in securing allegedly critical Jewish
support resulting in the Allied victory, lent credence
from the highest authorities to anti-Jewish
feeling. Is this a way of understanding subsequent
German susceptibility to discrimination against Jews
following the Great War? The integrating
relationship between German Jews and non-Jews was
disrupted, a relationship that had been so firm that many
German Jews could hardly accept that it had been
jeopardized.
President Wilson was no better than the British
imperialists, for all the advertising of
self-determination of peoples as an American value. A
commission, headed by his appointees, King and Crane, was
sent to elucidate the state of opinion in the area.
They sent a telegram to the President on 20 June 1919,
warning "There was a deep belief in American peace
declarations 'as in those of the British and French
Governments of 9 November 1918 on right of people to
self-determination." The Commission's Report stated
"There was hostility to French control of Syria, and
"The feeling against the Zionist program was not
confined to Palestine but was shared very generally
throughout the area."
Permission was not given for the printing of extracts of
the Report until after the U. S. Congress had confirmed
the Balfour Declaration, where the Resolution was
introduced by Mr. Hamilton Fish of New York, and the
League of Nations had approved a proposed British Mandate
for Palestine. Thus, in the one area of the Near/Middle
East where the wishes for self-determination of the
inhabitants had been determined, Wilson suppressed the
information. Wilson was-in the words of his Secretary of
War Lindley Garrison-a man of high ideals and no
principles.
The resolution adopted by the
United States Congress: on June 30, 1922 was the
following: Resolved by the Senate and the House of
Representatives of the United States of America in
Congress assembled. That the United States of America
favours the establishment in Palestine of a national home
for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that
nothing shall be done which should prejudice the civil
and religious rights of Christians and all other
non-Jewish communities in Palestine, and the holy places
and religious buildings and sites in Palestine shall be
adequately protected.
Why have American presidents and the United States
Congress dishonored the American people by not keeping
that pledge to the "Christians and all other
non-Jewish communities in Palestine"?
In area wars resulting from the British pledge and its
implementation, and American support, millions of the
Palestinians' neighbors in Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, and
Syria, even Saudi Arabia, have been involved. Can one
deny righteous anger - even hatred - of descendants who
learn the truth? Did the men who piloted those planes on
September 11, 2001 know?
Public ignorance in Europe and America of these facts,
and many more supporting them, allows Britons and
Americans to be free from guilt for the enormity of
crimes resulting from the perfidy?the breach of faith of
their representatives Lloyd George and Woodrow Wilson,
and those who followed them. The German people have been
required to acknowledge, atone and pay for the sins of
some of their fathers "unto the third and fourth
generation." Should the British, American and Jewish
people acknowledge, atone and pay for the deaths,
dispossession and exile of millions of Palestinians? (See
footnote)
When Britain withdrew its forces from Palestine in
response to Jewish terrorism, Field Marshall Montgomery,
Chief of the Imperial General Staff, wrote, "The
result of being driven out of Palestine was to weaken our
overall strategic position in the Middle East, and that
of the Western world generally in the struggle between
East and West."
At the beginning of the 20th century millions of people
in the Near and Middle East from Lebanon to Afghanistan
believed that an Englishman's word was his bond and that
the States of America were neutral in Near and Middle
Eastern matters. A century later, millions there who know
the facts believe the USA is their enemy - even a Great
Satan - and Britain has become its running dog
with Blair barking ?"bin Laden!"
Too much history? The peoples of
the Middle East live it. The Economist Oct. 15, 2001
edition about the attack on the World Trade Center and
Pentagon, noting "the day a British mandate came
into force in Palestine, over the heads of unyielding
Arab opposition," quoted from a dispatch from
Jerusalem to London's The Times of 1922.
"The Arabs declared a day of mourning throughout the
city and the shops were closed as a protest against
today's formal proclamation of the Mandate, but no Jews
were molested."-The day was September 11. Lawrence
of Arabia would understand US911.
(Footnote. "Let us not forget that the founders
of modern, international terrorism were the Zionist
revisionists led by Jabotinsky, who inspired Menchem
Begin, leader of the Irgun Zwei Leumi, and Yitzhak
Shamir's leader of the Stern Gang (Lehi). Have we
forgotten the huge bomb these people left in the basement
of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem?
"Have we forgotten the massacre at Deir Yassein and
numerous other similar act of extermination which were
designed to terrorize the Palestinian people and send
them fleeing for their lives away from their
land? Have we forgotten the slow hanging with
piano wire of the kidnapped British Army sergeants Mervyn
Paice and Clifford Martin in the eucalyptus groves of
Netanya? (Their bodies were also booby-trapped with
explosives."
Bamford, James. Excerpts from Body of Secrets, in The
Guardian, Sept 8,
2001.)
© 2002 .A New Enlightment
Feature
This the second of a series of three on Our War and
Terrorism
Dr. John is
a leading foreign affairs expert, and diplomatic
historian. He
is the author of The Palestine Diary: British, American
and United Nations
Intervention 1914-1948. In his foreword, Arnold Toynbee,
the outstanding
historian of the 20th century, wrote, "I hope this
book will be widely read in the
United States, and this by Jewish and non-Jewish
Americans. If the American
Government were constrained by American public opinion to
take a
non-partisan line in Palestine, the situation in
Palestine might quickly change for the better."
John K.
Cooley, Middle East Bureau, The Christian Science
Monitor, wrote,
"It is a most illuminating and useful book. It
should be in universities and
libraries, and especially in the hands of historians,
throughout the world."
ICHEE
INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL FOR HUMAN ECOLOGY AND
ETHNOLOGY
www.ichee.org P.O. Box
7024
New York, NY 10128-0010
"Of all the tyrannies on human kind
The worst is that which persecutes the mind."
Alexander Pope (1688-1744): Essay on Man, Epistle II,
line 239.
Subj: Re: UNDERSTANDING US911 - A DIPLOMATIC
HISTORY ANALYSIS
Date: 1/21/02 10:51:59 AM Eastern Standard
Time
From: lXXXX@Princeton.EDU )
To: Ichee@aol.com
*********
A choice of words with one meaning?
"There are circumstances in
history that justify 'ethnic cleansing'. I know that this
term is completely negative in the discourse of the 21st
century, but when the choice is between 'ethnic
cleansing' and 'genocide' - the annihilation of your
people - I prefer 'ethnic cleansing'."Benny Morris
2004AD
&GENTILE?
A gentile is now a person person who is not Jewish. The word
stems from the Hebrew term goy, which means a
nation, and was applied both to the Hebrews and to any other
nation.
IN OTHER WORDS HOW POLITICS CORRUPTS
|