This is a large file,
please be patient . . .

Is the US an ally of Israel?
A chronological look at the evidence

Historical and Investigative Research -- by Francisco Gil-White
[ this piece updated regularly ]


Around the world, there is a striking convergence of opinion concerning the relationship between the US and Israel.

Supporters of the PLO - synonymous with "supporters of a Palestinian state", because the PLO will run any such state - are convinced that the US is an ally of Israel. Some believe the US employs Israel in order to expand the American empire, and others - echoing the claims of that infamous forgery, "The Protocols of Zion" - believe that history's greatest superpower, the US, is actually the pawn of tiny Israel. Either way, they are agreed that the US and Israel are supposedly 'a team.'

Supporters of Israel naturally disagree with supporters of the PLO about most things but not on this point, as they also believe that the US is a friend of Israel - perhaps its only real friend. Whereas those who are pro-PLO are especially infuriated by perceived US support for Israel, those who are pro-Israel are deliriously grateful for the same (especially so in the case of Zionist Jews).

Given that across the spectrum of those politically mobilized on this issue, from one pole to the other, everybody appears to have the same opinion on this, casual observers are naturally drawn into agreement as well, creating a crushing consensus all over the world: the US is an ally of Israel.

But is it true?

Let us first ask: what is an ally? My dictionary defines 'ally' as "one who is associated with another as helper."

Everybody knows that the US says it supports Israel. But actions speak louder than words. What is the evidence of US actions? In this piece I provide a chronological list of relevant US policies over the years.

I am hoping that this piece will begin a debate. It is not finished, and the research relevant to its claims is ongoing. I shall be updating the piece as I gather more data. But I have already assembled quite a lot, below, and what I have is certainly sufficient to challenge the common view. I believe, in fact, that what I have presented below is already sufficient to refute the common view many times over, and the compilation of these documented facts came as a big eye-opener. Hopefully this documentation will begin a serious debate on this question, rather than an automatic assumption based on official claims of US support for Israel - which claims are cheaply, and therefore easily, made.

It is important to remember that what is examined here is the behavior of the US foreign policy Establishment, which is secretive. The evidence therefore speaks to what is, and has been, the true position of the US ruling elite with regard to Israel and the Jewish people. It does not speak to the position of the American people, many of whom, I believe, will be outraged to find that, as I document below, the US specializes in attacking Israel. In fact the section on 1947-48 contains dramatic evidence that ordinary Americans tend not to favor the anti-Jewish policies of the US ruling elite.

The chronology already goes up to the year 2005, but I have yet to complete the research on some of the missing years in between.

[NOTE: In this document, when you see a red footnote this means that, in addition to giving the source and/or a link, there is extra material (sometimes relatively lengthy) that is worth reading and which provides additional context and clarification. Many of my sources are available on the web and I have provided the hyperlinks in the footnotes (whether red or not) so that readers may easily examine them.]



The 1930's Negative - The US Establishment helped sponsor the rise of the German Nazi movement.

1939-1945  Negative - This year's material is divided into the following sections:


1. The general policy of the Allies towards the plight
of the Jews

2. No US visas for European Jews trying to escape the Nazi slaughter

3. The allies refused to sabotage Hitler's Final Solution by military means

1945 - Negative - After 1945, the US created US Intelligence by recruiting tens of thousands of Nazi war criminals.

1947-48 - Mixed to Negative - Forced by external circumstances, the US government gave lukewarm support to the creation of the State of Israel. But then it reversed itself and implemented policies designed to destroy Israel.

1949-1953 - Negative - In Israel's hour of supreme need, the US allied with Israel's mortal enemies.

1955 - Mixed - The US forces Israel to withdraw from Sinai, but makes some concessions to the Israelis.

1955-1965 - Positive (in one regard only) - Israel indirectly gets some US weapons.

1958 - Negative - Israel assists US military intervention in the Middle East; when this places Israel in danger, the US does...nothing.

1964 - Mixed - The US abandoned its previous official policy of trying to get Israel to relinquish the territories won in the War of Independence. Why had it been trying to do this?

1964-1967 - Negative - Although Israel suffered terrorist attacks from its Arab neighbors during these years, when they staged a full-scale military provocation, the US refused to help.

1967 - Negative - After the Six-Day War, the US put pressure on Israel to relinquish the territory gained, even though it knew it was indispensable to Israeli defense.

1967-70 - Negative - The Arabs attack the Israelis. The US response is to try and remove the Israelis from territory they need for their defense.

1970 - Positive - Washington temporarily abandons the diplomatic effort to make Israel withdraw from the territories.

1973 - Positive - The US assisted Israel in the Yom Kippur War.

1973-1975 - Negative - The US supported the election of a pro-PLO Nazi war criminal to the post of UN Secretary General.

1975 - Negative - The US reached an agreement with Israel not to have contacts with the PLO. The US immediately violated the agreement.

1977 - Negative - Jimmy Carter worked hard to give the terrorist PLO the dignity of a 'government in exile,' and then he teamed up with the Soviets to try and saddle Israel with a PLO terrorist state next door.

1978 - Negative - When Israel tried to defend itself from the PLO terrorists, the US forced Israel to stand back.

1979 - Negative - Jimmy Carter began large-scale US sponsorship of antisemitic Islamist terrorists, especially in Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia.

1981 - Negative - The US pushed for a PLO state in the West Bank against Israeli objections.

1982-1983 - Negative - The US military rushed into Lebanon to protect the PLO from the Israelis.

1985 - Negative - 1985 includes more material than other years, so we have divided it into subsections.

1. Shimon Peres acted as a US agent, against Israeli interests.

2. Bettino Craxi and Giulio Andreotti (respectively, the Italian prime minister and foreign minister) committed political suicide for the sake of pushing the PLO. The US was behind them.

3. Ronald Reagan denied the Holocaust

4. Who was in charge of US covert operations in 1985?

1987-1988 - Negative - The 'First Intifada' was a US-PLO strategy used to represent the Arabs in West Bank and Gaza as supposedly oppressed 'underdogs.'

1989 - Negative - With Dick Cheney, the US began supporting a PLO state in the open as the 'only solution' to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

1991 - Negative - Bush Sr.'s administration forced Israel to participate in the Oslo process, which brought the PLO into the West Bank and Gaza.

1994 - Negative - Yasser Arafat was given a Nobel Peace Prize, and the CIA trained the PLO, even though Arafat's henchmen were saying in public, this very year, that they would use their training to oppress Arabs and kill Jews.

1996-1997 - Negative - The United States exerted such strong pressure on the Netanyahu government (including threats) that, even though Netanyahu had been elected on an anti-Oslo platform, he had the necessary cover to betray the Israeli public that had elected him.

2005 - Negative - Mahmoud Abbas, who will soon have total control over Gaza, is the one who invented the strategy of talking 'peace' the better to slaughter Israelis. The US ruling elite loves Mahmoud Abbas.

(I will soon post documentation for the missing years in between.)


The 1930's [ negative ]

The US Establishment helped sponsor the rise of the German Nazi movement.

The larger American Establishment cooperated extensively with the Nazi death machine. One particularly glaring example is the case of IBM, which knowingly helped automate the entire Nazi process of extermination.[1] Much of the money to finance the rise of the Nazi party came from wealthy Americans (including the current US president’s grandfather and great grandfather (Prescott Bush and George Herbert Walker).[1a] Many influential Americans, both inside and outside of government, had Nazi sympathies. It is not an exaggeration to call Henry Ford an architect of the Holocaust, for example.[1b]

The following is an excerpt from the summary to the following book:

Black, E. 2003. War against the weak: Eugenics and America's campaign to create a master race. New York: Four Walls Eight Windows.

From the Summary: In the first three decades of the 20th Century, American corporate philanthropy combined with prestigious academic fraud to create the pseudoscience eugenics that institutionalized race politics as national policy. The goal: create a superior, white, Nordic race and obliterate the viability of everyone else.

How? By identifying so-called "defective" family trees and subjecting them to legislated segregation and sterilization programs. The victims: poor people, brown-haired white people, African Americans, immigrants, Indians, Eastern European Jews, the infirm and really anyone classified outside the superior genetic lines drawn up by American raceologists. The main culprits were the Carnegie Institution, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Harriman railroad fortune, in league with America's most respected scientists hailing from such prestigious universities as Harvard, Yale and Princeton, operating out of a complex at Cold Spring Harbor on Long Island. The eugenic network worked in tandem with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the State Department and numerous state governmental bodies and legislatures throughout the country, and even the U.S. Supreme Court. They were all bent on breeding a eugenically superior race, just as agronomists would breed better strains of corn. The plan was to wipe away the reproductive capability of the weak and inferior...

American eugenic crusades proliferated into a worldwide campaign, and in the 1920s came to the attention of Adolf Hitler. Under the Nazis, American eugenic principles were applied without restraint, careening out of control into the Reich's infamous genocide. During the pre-War years, American eugenicists openly supported Germany's program. The Rockefeller Foundation financed the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute and the work of its central racial scientists. Once WWII began, Nazi eugenics turned from mass sterilization and euthanasia to genocidal murder. One of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute doctors in the program financed by the Rockefeller Foundation was Josef Mengele who continued his research in Auschwitz, making daily eugenic reports on twins...

For a history of the American eugenics movement and how it went about creating "intelligence testing" (so-called "IQ research") in order to, with frauds, allege that certain people were genetically inferior, the better to exterminate them, read: Resurrecting Racism: The Modern Attack on Black People Using Phony Science, by Francisco Gil-White; Historical and Investigative Research (2004).


1939-1945 [ negative ]


James Carroll, who has written a history of Western antisemitism, comments,

"As late as 1938, in a furious public rebuttal by Hitler to the world leaders who had denounced the Kristallnacht pogroms, his decidedly unfinal solution to the Jewish problem was still 'Jews out!,' not 'Jews dead!' His proposal, at that point, was the moral and political equivalent of [Medieval Spain's] Queen Isabella's, the expulsion of all Jews from the lands controlled by the Reich. Jews were offered immediate exit visas -- but exit to where? The same world leaders, notably Neville Chamberlain and Franklin D. Roosevelt, who had denounced the anti-Jewish violence of the Nazis declined to receive Jews as refugees... Crucial to [the Final Solution] building to a point of no return was Hitler's discovery (late) of the political indifference of the democracies to the fate of the Jews..."[2]

It is certainly amazing that the US should not have received as refugees the very people whose extermination the US denounced in public. But what is most amazing is that, even though the above reads as an indictment of the US and Britain, in fact Carroll's statement covers up what really happened (perhaps unwittingly). The western democracies were not guilty of "political indifference…to the fate of the Jews," as Carroll claims. On the contrary, they were quite interested: the Allied governments eagerly cooperated with the Final Solution.

1. The general policy of the Allies towards the plight
of the Jews

In a documented summary of Allied behavior toward the Jews in WWII, Kenneth Levin writes,

"State Department officials throughout this period typically held strong anti-immigration sentiments and seem to have been especially determined to block the immigration of Jews into the United States. Policies adopted by State regarding issuance of visas were in fact much more restrictive than even the strict immigration laws of the period. Thus, the number of visas issued to Jews during the war, including during the years when the Nazis' genocide program was fully known, was barely 10 percent of those potentially available to European Jews under the immigration quota legislation then in effect."[2a]

Levin explains that the British had an identical policy.

"The lengths to which the British Foreign Office went to prevent the rescue of Jews is indicated by an episode involving Japan. In 1940, the Japanese vice consul in Kovno, Lithuania, Chiune Sugihara, issued several thousand visas to Jews desperate to escape Europe. Hillel Levine, a professor of sociology and religion at Boston University who was working on a book about Sugihara, did research in the archives of the Japanese Foreign Ministry in Tokyo to investigate to what extent the Japanese government was aware of Sugihara's efforts to save Jews. He not only discovered documents there charting Sugihara's activities but also complaints from the British Foreign Office (this is, of course, before Britain and Japan were at war) protesting Sugihara's visas and warning that the rescued Jews would become a burden on Japan.

This policy of discouraging and obstructing rescue by other parties, and, of course, the Foreign Office's own eschewing of any rescue effort, persisted even after the Allies learned of the Nazis' extermination program."[2b]

This was not just a British policy, but American as well. In 1941, after "agents of the Rumanian regime, together with German death squads, had already slaughtered 200,000 of the approximately 800,000 Jews within Rumania's borders," the Rumanians apparently began having second thoughts about exterminating all of the Jews.

"The Turkish ambassador in Budapest then proposed to the American ambassador a plan for the orderly transport of 300,000 Rumanian Jews through Turkey to Palestine and urged the Americans to push the plan with the British. But the State Department objected to the plan and refused to present it to the British."[2c]

One of the excuses offered up by the Allies was that there wasn't enough shipping. It was bogus.

"...much neutral shipping was readily available and was, indeed, employed by the Allies throughout the war to rescue many thousand non-Jews -- from Greece and Yugoslavia, for example -- and transport them to safe havens. In addition, over 400,000 German prisoners of war were transported to the United States between 1942 and 1945."[2d]

In other words, the safety of genocidal Nazi soldiers was much more important to the Allies than the safety of their innocent Jewish victims. It is difficult to distinguish the attitude of the Allied ruling elites toward the Jews from that of the Nazi Third Reich.

" the first months of 1943 information reached the West from Rumania that, of 130,000 Jews earlier deported to the Transnistria region, 70,000 remained alive, although destitute and starving, and that Rumania, presumably for a price, was prepared to release these 70,000 to the Allies and even provide ships to transport them to Palestine or some other Allied territory. The State Department dismissed the offer out of hand, refusing to explore the proposal. It also refused to consider undertaking negotiations that may have led the Rumanians to extend protection for a time to the Transnistrian Jews even if State had no intention of supporting a rescue.

These patterns of obstruction to intervention continued to characterize the State Department's answer to the Nazi genocide throughout the war. It routinely deferred responses to plans for rescue, dismissed plans out of hand as impractical, and invoked bogus impediments to rescue, such as the supposed shipping problem... Another tack was State's persistent withholding of visas from Jews who had reached neutral countries and whose evacuation would have made those countries more amenable to admitting additional refugees. The State Department even sought to block broadcast of threats to bring to justice the perpetrators of the genocide, as well as broadcast of appeals for the people in occupied Europe to aid the Jews."[2e]

It has been common to blame the State Department and excuse Roosevelt. An absurdity: the State Department was composed of Roosevelt's employees. And "Some have argued that Roosevelt was too busy conducting the war to pay much attention to the Nazi genocide." Another absurdity.[2e] But to lay such issues to rest, let us consider in more detail the question of the "withholding of visas from Jews," for this policy had Roosevelt's explicit authority, so he paid attention to it.

2. The visa policy of the United States was designed to trap Jews in Europe, where Hitler would find them

[My sources in this section come from a PBS documentation of the behavior of the United States toward the plight of the Jews in WWII with the title, America and the Holocaust.]

During the war,

"the US…erected a 'paper wall,' a bureaucratic maze that prevented all but a few Jewish refugees from entering the country. It was not until 1944, that a small band of Treasury Department employees forced the government to respond."[3]

In a memo by Randolph Paul for the Foreign Funds Control Unit of the Treasury Department (dated January 13, 1944), entitled Report to the Secretary on the Acquiescence of this Government in the Murder of the Jews, he wrote:

"Frankly, Breckinridge Long, in my humble opinion, is least sympathetic to refugees in all the State Department. I attribute to him the tragic bottleneck in the granting of visas."[4]

Breckinridge Long was Roosevelt's Assistant Secretary of State. In 1943, he gave a statement before the US House of Representatives on the refugee question, in which Long expressed his supposed concern for the Jews, and boasted that the US had admitted 580,000 refugees. Congressman Emanuel Celler rebuked and refuted Long in the House of Representatives on December 20, 1943, and Randolph Paul quotes his remarks in the above-mentioned memo:

"***In the first place these 580,000 refugees were in the main ordinary quota immigrants coming in from all countries. The majority were not Jews. His [Long's] statement drips with sympathy for the persecuted Jews, but the tears he sheds are crocodile. I would like to ask him how many Jews were admitted during the last 3 years in comparison with the number seeking entrance to preserve life and dignity. *** One gets the impression from Long's statement that the United States has gone out of its way to help refugees fleeing death at the hands of the Nazis. I deny this. On the contrary, the State Department has turned its back on the time-honored principle of granting havens to refugees. The tempest-tossed get little comfort from men like Breckinridge Long. *** Long says that the door to the oppressed is open but that it 'has been carefully screened.' What he should have said is 'barlocked and bolted.' By the act of 1924, we are permitted to admit approximately 150,000 immigrants each year. During the last fiscal year only 23,725 came as immigrants. Of these only 4,705 were Jews fleeing Nazi persecution."[4]

In fact, as stated by Randolph Paul in the same memo, "According to Earl G. Harrison, Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, not since 1862 have there been fewer aliens entering the country." This, at a time when immigration to the US was the only way for so many Jews to escape a gruesome death.

But Assistant Secretary of State Breckinridge Long's strategy was much worse than merely denying visas. Breckinridge Long explained to State Department officials, in a memo dated 26 June 1940, exactly how the visas would be effectively denied to the Jews trying to escape slaughter:

"We can delay and effectively stop for a temporary period of indefinite length the number of immigrants into the United States. We could do this by simply advising our consuls, to put every obstacle in the way and to require additional evidence and to resort to various administrative devices which would postpone and postpone and postpone the granting of the visas."[5]

It is important to see that a strategy of "postpone and postpone and postpone" is not at all the same as denying visas. As Emmanuel Celler complained: "It takes months and months to grant the visas and then it usually applies to a corpse." In other words, many Jews who were told repeatedly that they would get a visa, the issuance of which kept getting postponed, did not seek a safe haven elsewhere, and as a result were overtaken by Hitler's men. Long's strategy was therefore designed not merely to keep Jews out of the US, but to assist Adolph Hitler's Final Solution by corralling as many Jews as possible where Hitler could find them.

Although Randolph Paul accused, "I attribute to [Breckinridge Long] the tragic bottleneck in the granting of visas," his next sentences reveal that this was not a maverick policy of Long's, but in fact had the most widespread support in the Roosevelt administration:

"The Interdepartmental Review Committees which review the applications for visas are composed of one official, respectively, from each of the following Departments: War, Navy, F.B.I. State, and Immigration. That committee has been glacier-like in its slowness and coldbloodedness."

Nor were these various departments and agencies acting without the knowledge of President Roosevelt. Some time after Breckinridge Long's memo of June 1940, Margaret E. Jones, an American Quaker trying to help European Jews emigrate to the US, wrote to Clarence E. Pickett, a leader in the Quaker community,[6] telling him of her conversations with various US consular officials in Europe about the impact of this memo. As you will see from the quote below, Ms. Jones was under the impression that the US Congress wanted to stop immigration to the US completely and hypothesized that the State Department was acting in good faith, such that the new draconian restrictions on immigration were meant to mollify Congress and thus prevent it from prohibiting any immigration to the US. The consular officials in Europe disabused her of this notion and explained to her that it was not Congress but president Roosevelt himself who did not want "non-Aryans" entering the country. Here is an excerpt from Margaret Jones letter:

"Last July, en route from Geneva back to the Vienna Center, I stopped in Zurich and had an interview with Mr. Strom, at the U.S. Consulate. He told me of  recent orders from Washington [the Breckinridge Long memo] which would severely limit the number of visas ordinarily issued month by month from the various Consulates… Later in Vienna, Mr. Hohenthal told me too about the new stringent regulations, and was also obviously interested when I raised the same question with him. About the middle of August, the Consulate…telephoned to say [that] Mr. Warren, Mr. Morris and Mr. Hohenthal and I [talk] that afternoon about the new regulations concerning emigration. Mr. Warren began by saying, 'Miss Jones, you Quakers will be doing a straight relief job for the non-Aryans here from now on.' I said, 'No more non Aryans to go to the U.S.?' Warren replied- 'Not just non-Aryans - but no more aliens.' Then I asked him… was this an attempt to forestall Congress and prevent an out and out closing of immigration by making so severe a cut that the State Dept. could assure Congress they had the situation in hand. Mr. Warren said not Congress, but the President just did not want any more aliens coming to the U.S. and would like to have it closed especially for aliens coming from Germany."[7] (my emphasis)

We must take note not only of the fact that State Department officials appeared quite aware of all this being president Roosevelt's initiative, but that these same officials matter-of-factly used Hitler's racist language in reference to Jews ("non-Aryans"), and also that there was a special concern to prevent immigration from Germany (i.e. specifically to prevent Jews fleeing slaughter).

Additional evidence that Roosevelt was directly behind all this comes from Breckinridge Long himself, who made the following entry in his diary, dated 3 October 1940 (four months after his "postpone, postpone, postpone" memo):

"So when I saw him [FDR] this morning the whole subject of immigration, visas, safety of the United States, procedures to be followed; and all that sort of thing was on the table. I found that he was 100% in accord with my ideas… The President expressed himself as in entire accord with the policy which would exclude persons about whom there was any suspicion that they would be inimical to the welfare of the United States no matter who had vouchsafed for them and irrespective of their financial or other standing. I left him with the satisfactory thought that he was wholeheartedly in support of the policy which would resolve in favor of the United States any doubts about admissibility of any individual."[8]

Roosevelt had only one meeting with American Jewish leaders about the Holocaust. It was in 1942 and it lasted only 29 minutes, 23 of which were spent by the president lecturing his Jewish guests on various matters, including how unfair it was that Jews supposedly had more rights than Muslims in some parts of North Africa! Roosevelt explained that he knew about Hitler's mass killings, but he promised to do nothing for the Jews of Europe beyond issuing a statement.[9]

Another event also makes clear how Roosevelt felt about Hitler's Final Solution:

"Four months after the State Department confirmed the dimensions of the Holocaust, British Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden met in Washington with President Roosevelt, Secretary of State Cordell Hull and Undersecretary of State Sumner Welles. At this meeting, Eden expressed his fear that Hitler might actually accept an offer from the Allies to move Jews out of areas under German control. No one present objected to Eden's statement."[10]

3. The allies refused to sabotage the Final Solution
by military means

[My sources in this section come from a PBS documentation of the behavior of the United States toward the plight of the Jews in WWII with the title, America and the Holocaust.]

It would not have been difficult to bomb the concentration camps, and even less difficult to bomb the train tracks leading there. Train tracks, after all, stretch for hundreds of kilometers and simply cannot be everywhere protected. But the German trains ran on time, and delivered their human cargo to the camps without interruptions, because the Allies chose never to interfere with Hitler's genocide of the Jewish people.

That, in itself, is amazing. But what is truly spectacular is that the US refused to do this even in 1944, when

1)  it was well known that Hitler was about to murder the Jews of Hungary (400,000) at Auschwitz (to a close approximation, they were all murdered);

2)  many were begging the Roosevelt administration to bomb the camp and/or the train tracks.

Here is the story:

"On April 7, 1944, two Slovakian Jews escaped from Auschwitz. By the end of the month they had reached the Jewish underground in Slovakia, where they gave a detailed account of the mass murder operations at the camp. The two men also warned that preparations were underway to murder the Jews of Hungary. Their report initiated a series of requests that the U.S. bomb the crematoria at Auschwitz and key rail links that would be used to transport Hungarian Jews to Poland."[11]

On June 12 1944, the Agudas Israel World Organization received a cable from Switzerland describing the situation of the Hungarian Jews and calling for bombing the deportation railways.[12]

Jacob Rosenheim, from the Agudas Israel World Organization in New York, sent a letter to Henry Morgenthau, Jr., Secretary of the Treasury, dated June 18, 1944, asking that deportation rail lines be bombed.[13] You may ask, why to Morgenthau at Treasury? Because, as we saw earlier, it is apparently only a handful of officers at the Treasury Department who were opposed to the Final Solution and considered it immoral that the US was cooperating with it.

On June 26, 1944, Thomas Handy, Assistant Chief of Staff at the War Department, sent a memo to the Director of the Civil Affairs Division, conveying the Operations Division's conclusion that bombing the deportation railways was 'impracticable.' This was

"In line with [the War Department's] undeclared policy not to aid in the rescue of refugees, the War Department routinely turned down requests to bomb deportation railways. No studies were ever conducted to check the feasibility of such bombing raids."[14]

No studies. In other words, requests to bomb the deportation railways were just rejected out of hand.

On June 29, 1944, an internal memo in the War Refugee Board from Benjamin Akzin to Lawrence S. Lesser urged the bombing of Auschwitz and Birkenau.[15] And on August 9 The World Jewish Congress in New York asked the War Department to bomb the crematoria at Auschwitz. The War Department turned down the request (August 14, 1944).[16]

On November 18, 1944, John J. McCloy, Assistant Secretary of War, explained to John W. Pehle, the Director of the War Refugee Board, that the War Department could not authorize the bombing of Auschwitz, the reason supposedly being,

"that the raid would divert air support from the war effort. The Department also claimed that the camp was beyond the maximum range of bombers located in Britain, France or Italy. [But] These assertions were false: In July of 1944, the Allies began a series of air raids on Germany's synthetic-oil industry which was based in Upper Silesia near Auschwitz. On August 20, 127 Flying Fortresses dropped thousands of pounds of high explosives on the factory areas of Auschwitz which were less than five miles from the gas chambers. Three weeks later, the U.S. targeted those same sites. This time two bombs accidentally fell near the killing installations and one actually damaged a rail line leading to the gas chambers."[17]

In other words, only one Allied bomb affected Hitler's Final Solution, and this bomb did so by accident.


1945 [ negative ]

After 1945, the US created US Intelligence by recruiting tens of thousands of Nazi war criminals.

In his history of Western antisemitism, James Carroll writes in passing:

"Croation clergy in Rome were part of the infamous ‘Rat Line’ through which numerous Nazi war criminals, with the collusion of the U.S. Army, escaped to Latin America.”[18]

Carroll was writing in 2001, and yet, already in 1988 it had been shown that the secret US protection for Nazi war criminals had been much more extensive than Carroll lets on. In 1988, the Washington Post wrote:

“It is no longer necessary -- or possible -- to deny the fact: the U.S. government systematically and deliberately recruited active Nazis by the thousands, rescued them, hired them and relied upon them to serve American interests and purposes in postwar Europe.”[18c]

The Washington Post was reviewing “the archival sleuthing of [historian] Christopher Simpson,” which involved poring over many “documents... declassified under the Freedom of Information Act”:

Simpson, Christopher (1988) Blowback: America’s recruitment of Nazis and its effects on the Cold War. New York: Weidenfeld & Nicholson.

Simpson shows that the US absorbed in secret almost the entire Nazi war criminal organization (tens of thousands of Nazi war criminals, not "thousands"), and out of this formed the CIA, which then used its Nazi assets all over the world to destroy progressive movements and install right-wing repressive autocrats, and also to put Nazis back in power in various European countries under the cover that they were "Christian Democrats."

So what we learn is that it is, after all, possible "to deny the fact," because Carroll pretended later, in 2001, that this hadn't happened, and that the US military had merely helped escape some Nazi war criminals to Latin America.

To learn more about this, consult the following articles:

The US Recreated the Nazi War Crimes Machine: US Intelligence was Formed from Nazi War Criminals; Emperor's Clothes; by Jared Israel

Part 1: Primed not to hear

Part 2: In 1983 U.S. Intelligence Took Charge of Investigating the Recruitment of Nazis by...U.S. Intelligence

How Was The CIA Formed? By absorbing the Nazi war criminal infrastructure; Emperor's Clothes; by Jared Israel

The CIA Protected Adolf Eichmann, Architect of the Holocaust; by Francisco Gil-White

Though Germany may have lost the war, the Nazis, and their ideology, certainly appear to have done quite well. In context, this has certain implications for our interpretation of the twentieth century. Consider:

1)  The rise of Nazi ideology was initially sponsored from the US (see 1930's section)

2)  Its most important ideological component - the mobilization of antisemitic hatred and the creation of an infrastructure to exterminate the Jewish people - was eagerly supported by the US (see 1930's section and 1939-45 section);

3)  At the conclusion of WWII, Nazi war criminals were either used in place where they were, or given new identities and brought to the US by the thousands (above).

I note that even after the war there were restrictions on Jewish immigration to the US. By contrast, and at the same time, the US was pulling all the stops to get their murderers into the country, as documented by Christopher Simpson (see above).

From the perspective of these horrifying facts, it is obvious that US involvement in the World War had nothing to do with a principled opposition to Nazi ideology.

What was WWII really about? I shall not insist on one particular interpretation, but the following well-documented facts seem relevant.

First, it seems relevant that the eugenic US Establishment nurtured the German Nazis, and that the eugenicists were backed to the hilt by the US government, as Edwin Black documents in detail in War Against the Weak (see 1930's section).

One also has to consider that Winston Churchill had a very cordial meeting with the millionaire Putzi Hanfstaengl, who was Adolf Hitler's financier and spokesman, in 1932, on the eve of Hitler's coming to power. In this connection, it also appears relevant that just a few years earlier, in 1929, Churchill had become William Randolph Hearst's employee. Hearst happens to have been an intimate friend of the above-mentioned Putzi Hanfstaengl, and was called by his contemporaries “the most influential American fascist…the keystone of American fascism.”[18a]

It seems relevant also that Churchill was 1) a cheerleader for fascism who called Benito Mussolini "the greatest lawgiver among living men" in 1933, as Hitler was taking power, 2) an enthusiast of the same eugenics movement that produced German Nazism; 3) an advocate of mass extermination of non-whites; 4) a proponent of the idea that the countries of Europe should go to war in order to get rid of useless riffraff; and 5) a class warrior who loathed the lower classes and thought a good way to end a strike was to shoot the strikers dead.[18a]

Beyond that, it seems significant also that the Western Allies handed all of Western Europe to Hitler practically without firing a bullet. Then Hitler was nice enough to let the great majority of Allied soldiers evacuate from Dunkirk even though he could have massacred them. The Allies left their armament for Hitler on the beach.[18b]

There is also the fact that the Nazi occupation of Western Europe was for most people relatively gentle. The Jews in Western Europe were certainly hunted down and taken to the camps, and there was no pity for the few resistance fighters. But aside from that Western Europe was mostly calm and its cities survived for the most part untouched. By dramatic contrast, in Eastern Europe, where the overwhelming majority of the Jews lived, and where most of the politicized workers also lived, the Nazis carried out one unbelievable slaughter after another. During this time the policy of the Allies was one of studied non-interference with the mass killings, and an energetic visa policy designed to trap as many Jews as possible in Europe (see section 1939-45).

The Nazis were not able to reach Moscow and were trapped by the Russian winter. It is only when the victorious Soviets were clearly headed for the Atlantic that the Allies invaded Europe. By then, the European Jewish population had been exterminated.

The subsequent absorption of the Nazi war criminals as US Intelligence assets in 1945 (see above) is also food for thought. To see an example of how these Nazis were used, see 1985 section.

Then, in 1948, as the Israeli Jews were fighting for their lives in their War of Independence, fending off a combined Arab attack that had for explicitly avowed purpose the extermination of the Jewish people, the United States slapped an arms embargo against the Israeli Jews, and declared its opposition to the creation of the State of Israel (below). Meanwhile, Britain sent many captured Nazi officers to lead the Arab armies (below). But the US and Britain were not opposed to restoring Germany -- the country that had carried out the Final Solution against the European Jews -- to health. This they strongly endorsed, in what became the famous Marshall Plan.


1947-48 [ mixed to negative ]

Forced by external circumstances, the US government gave lukewarm support to the creation of the State of Israel. But then it reversed itself and implemented policies designed to destroy Israel.

Pro: At the UN, in 1947, the US voted in favor of partitioning the territory which the British had baptized "Palestine" in 1921. This partition would create an Arab state and a Jewish state in that territory. The US vote was crucial to the founding of the State of Israel.

Con: The US did not support partition. Although Truman ordered the US ambassador at the UN to vote in favor, the entire State Department was vociferously opposed to this, and there was zero US diplomacy to influence the votes of US client states to vote in favor of partition (with the consequence that many of them voted against).[19]

As a Jerusalem Post article of 1997 recalled,

"US secretary of state George Marshall, concerned about American interests in the Middle East, had recommended against partition [i.e. he recommended against the creation of a Jewish state] but had been overruled by Truman. A key factor was the support of the Soviet bloc."[19a]

A key factor was the support of the Soviet bloc. I shall return to this.
For now, however, notice that George Marshall, who opposed the creation of a state where the Jews could live safe from attempts to exterminate them, is also the man behind the celebrated "Marshall Plan," which had for purpose nursing to health the countries whose fascism had precipitated World War II: Germany and Japan. The British, too, loved the Marshall Plan - in fact, “Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin (1891-1951) predicted that [Marshall's] address [defending the Marshall Plan] ‘will rank as one of the greatest speeches in world history.’”

So, immediately after the Final Solution was interrupted, the US State Department supported restoring Germany, but opposed the creation of a state where the special victims of the German Nazis, the Jews, could live safely. However, as we saw above, US President Harry Truman overruled the State Department and ordered the US delegate at the UN to cast the US vote in favor of partitioning the territory the British called "Palestine" into two states, one Arab, one Jewish. Why?

Gideon Rafael, at the time, was "a junior member of the Jewish delegation to the U.N. General Assembly in 1947," and moreover "responsible for 'keeping score' as 58 member nations voted on whether to partition British-controlled Palestine into Jewish and Arab states."[19b] The Jerusalem Post reports his recollection of these events:

" is presumed that Moscow was primarily interested in getting the British out of the Middle East. But there was also, [Gideon] Rafael believes, a measure of honest sentiment involved, a sense of identification with what the Jews had experienced in the war. 'We were some kind of companions in suffering,' says Rafael. 'Twenty million Russians had died in the war and a third of the Jewish people. In the deliberations in the General Assembly in the spring, (Soviet foreign minister Andrei) Gromyko had come out with a sensational statement. He said that six million Jews had been killed by the Nazi butchers and that the Jewish people had a longstanding association with Palestine and the right to independent status. I think that was an authentic sentiment. It was policy and it helped change the course of history.'"[19a]

For the full text of Andrei Gromyko's speech, 14 May 1947, to the UN General Assempbly, visit:

As Gideon Rafael says, Gromyko's speech changed the course of history, because if the Soviet Union had not passionately endorsed the creation of the State of Israel, Harry Truman would have certainly followed the recommendation of his Secretary of State, which was backed by the entire Department of State. Instead, he was placed in an impossible position.

In the end, though, Truman did follow the recommendation of his Secretary of State, when developments made it seem as though Israel would be destroyed. I turn to this next.

The 1947 UN vote partitioned the territory which the British, in 1921, had baptized "Palestine" into a Jewish state and an Arab state. The Jews living there accepted this legally and internationally agreed-to partition proposal. The Arabs did not. The Arab population living in British Mandate "Palestine," under the leadership of the former Mufti of Jerusalem, Hajj Amin al Husseini, declared war, as did the Arab states. And this was not to be just any war - the Arabs promised to finish Adolf Hitler's job and exterminate the Jews living in the Middle East. Azzam Pasha, Secretary General of the Arab League, announced:

"This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades."[19c]

What did the US do? It slapped an arms embargo on "Palestine" which made it impossible for the Jews living there to get weapons with which to defend themselves from this genocidal attack; meanwhile, the Arabs in "Palestine" had no trouble getting weapons from the Arab states, in addition to which the Arab states sent their own troops. As the mayor of Tel Aviv, Israel Rokach explained at the time,

"The embargo is working a terrible hardship on the Jews of Palestine. It is the Arab followers of the Mufti [Hajj Amin], and not the Jews, who are engaged in a war of aggression, and who are defying the United Nations."[19cc]

That is not all. Simultaneously, Britain was doing everything in its power to help the Arab armies.

“The first large-scale assault began on January 9, 1948, when approximately 1,000 Arabs attacked Jewish communities in northern Palestine. By February, the British said so many Arabs had infiltrated they lacked the forces to run them back. In fact, the British turned over bases and arms to Arab irregulars and the Arab Legion.

...The Arabs had no difficulty obtaining the arms they needed. In fact, Jordan’s Arab Legion was armed and trained by the British, and led by a British officer. At the end of 1948 and beginning of 1949, British RAF planes flew with Egyptian squadrons over the Israel-Egypt border. On January 7, 1949, Israeli planes shot down four of the British aircraft.”[19d]

Never mind that it was barely three years since the Jews had finished suffering the Nazi Final Solution; the British aid to the Arabs included sending captured German Nazi officers to lead the Arab armies that had openly pledged themselves to wipe out the Israeli Jews. This was demonstrated in a detailed article, which quoted official British documents at length, and which appeared in The Nation in 1948:

In 1948, the Left-wing Nation magazine exposed British support/instigation of Arab violence aimed at crushing Israel in cradle

The British Record on Partition
(First part of the article)
Reprinted from The Nation, May 8, 1948
Comments by Jared Israel

For the pdf to the entire Nation piece, go here:

To read the same document in text format, go here:

To place the above British policy in the context of the history of British policy toward the Jewish people, read:

How did the 'Palestinian movement' emerge? The British sponsored it; by Francisco Gil-White.

This was not out of character for the British, who as colonialists in the Middle East encouraged many anti-Jewish Arab riots, by supporting, funding, and promoting the main instigator, Hajj Amin al Husseini, who was allowed to act with impunity. Things got so bad that "Lord Josiah Wedgwood, a fiercely pro-Zionist Member of Parliament, would call British-ruled Palestine 'the land of anti-Semitism par exellence.'"[19dd]

But though the US and British governments may have been attacking the Jews, it was not with the consent of the American people. It's just that the US government hardly ever does anything in foreign policy that the American people will agree with if they are properly informed. In this case, the American people were properly informed, and so the American workers rushed to defend the Israeli Jews with a declaration that stated that the following steps were "urgently" needed:

“‘A warning by the United States to Britain to stop arming and assisting Arab aggression.

‘A United Nations ban on the shipment of arms from all nations to Arab states who refuse to accept the United Nations Palestine decision.

‘A United Nations provision for supplying of arms and munitions to the Jewish people for self-defense.

‘Lifting of the State Department embargo on arms to the Middle East, which in effect discriminates against the Jewish people while Arab aggressors are free to obtain arms from neighboring Arab states.’”[19d]

The composition of the delegation making the above demands was as follows:

“The delegation included Leon Strauss of the International Fur and Leather Workers Union; Bruce Waybur of the United Electrical Radio and Machine Workers of America, George Hanson of the United Office and Professional Workers of America; Fileno De Novellis of the United Shoe Workers, Joint Council 13; Jack Paley of the Wholesale and Warehouse Workers Union 65, and William Levner of the American Jewish Labor Council.”[19d]

But it was not enough that the Arab armies were attempting to exterminate the Israeli Jews with the help of the US and British governments. On top of that, the US reversed itself on its earlier position approving the partition of "Palestine." That is, the US officially ceased to support the creation of a Jewish state even as thousands of Jews were dying to defend Israel and the very survival of the Jewish people.

A throng of enraged American workers then took to the streets of New York, and forced the US government to return to an official position endorsing the creation of Israel. As the New York Times reported,

"...a crowd estimated at more than 100,000 persons jammed Madison Square Park and surrounding streets yesterday in a mass protest against the United States reversal of its position on partition of Palestine."[19e]

That seems like a very large crowd. But in fact it may have been larger. Further down in the same article, the New York Times wrote that,

"The sidewalks of Fifth Avenue were lined solidly by a crowd estimated by the police at 250,000. The streets surrounding the speakers' stand, on the east side of the park, were packed so tightly that many of the parade spectators could not crowd in. Loudspeakers carried the talks to all corners of the square."[19e]

In any case, this was the largest crowd ever seen in the streets of New York. And, although it happened in New York City, it was not merely a New York phenomenon, but an American protest, as "There were representatives of 100 cities and fourteen states in the line of the march."

The marchers -- among whom were throngs of veterans from the World War -- were passionate:

"Banners proclaimed "We Fought for Peace, Not Arab Appeasement." "Oil or Honor?" "Save the U.N. - Uphold Partition." The marchers chanted "A Jewish State in Forty-Eight," or called the cadence to the words, "Lift, Lift, Lift the Embargo."

War-maimed veterans, heads lifted proudly, earned applause as they passed. Many of the marchers were in uniform - the blue of the Navy, gray green of the Marines, khaki of the Army, and dark blue of veterans' groups.

...[they] listened to the denunciations of American policy on Palestine. The crowd jeered and booed references to the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem."[19e]

That's the Grand Mufti Hajj Amin al Husseini, instigator of anti-Jewish riots in British Mandate Palestine, and later one of the great architects of Adolf Hitler's Final Solution against the European Jews.[19f] He was well known then, but seems all but forgotten now. That matters, because Hajj Amin was also the grandfather of Al Fatah, the organ that controls the PLO, and the mentor to Yasser Arafat. If ordinary Americans today understood the Nazi origins of the PLO, they would be just as opposed to current pro-PLO US foreign policy as their ancestors were in 1948 to the US's -- identical -- pro-Mufti policy.

To read the entire New York Times article reporting on the above-mentioned dramatic demonstration, and to see a photograph, visit:


1949-1953 [ negative ]

In Israel's hour of supreme need, the US allied with Israel's mortal enemies.

After the war of 1947-48, the fledgling Jewish state was in bad shape and needed to reconstruct after the terrible wartime sacrifices. But that was in fact only the first of Israel's problems. After the war, this diminutive strip of land also had to absorb hundreds of thousands of refugees from Nazi slaughter. And yet this was not all. In addition there were also hundreds of thousands of suddenly impoverished Jewish refugees from the Mizrachim Diaspora, who had been chased out by the predominantly Muslim states of North Africa, the Arabian peninsula, and the Near East.

And yet..., and yet this was not all that Israel miraculously overcame. The Encyclopedia Britannica explains that,

"In the period 1949–53 Arab attacks killed hundreds of Israelis, four-fifths of whom were civilians."[20]

Hundreds of Jewish farmers living by Israel's borders were murdered by state-sponsored Arab terrorist attacks.

Obviously, no country that simply stood by and did nothing to help Israel while it faced all this could call itself her ally. And this is why many people, who believe the US has always been Israel's ally, believe also that Israel pulled through during this critical period thanks to massive US sponsorship. But are they right?

Notice what the Encyclopedia Britannica writes next:

"Israel’s potential allies, including the United States, were preoccupied with the Cold War and were willing to placate Arab leaders in order to limit Soviet influence among the Arab states, especially Egypt, which looked to Moscow for help against Britain and France, the remaining colonial powers in the region."[20]

In other words, the US did much worse than stand by and do nothing in Israel's hour of supreme need - it allied with Israel's mortal enemies, the same who had just tried to exterminate the Jews in the War of Independence.

And this was not just any alliance, for the US government sent some of the Nazis it was recruiting to create its intelligence services [see 1945 section] to Egypt, to train the Egyptian military and security services. The same Nazis would train in Cairo Yasser Arafat's Fatah organization, as documented in the following piece:

Al Fatah's Nazi training was CIA-sponsored; by Francisco Gil-White.

The Encyclopedia Britannica therefore makes a logical error in the quote above, for it describes the behavior of an enemy state as the behavior of a "potential ally." This is a common error, and therefore a closer analysis of Britannica's behavior will help clarify why ordinary people have such a twisted understanding of US foreign policy in the Middle East.

Why is the Encyclopedia Britannica calling the US
a "potential ally" of Israel?

Would anybody refer to Egypt as a "potential ally of Israel"? Of course not - it is absurd to speak this way of an outright enemy. But since the US was allied with Israel's mortal enemies, why then call it a "potential ally of Israel" instead of what it obviously was - an enemy state?

Apparently, because 'everybody knows' that the US is supposed to be allied with Israel. So the words "potential ally" communicate to the Encyclopedia's readers that it was aberrant or at least atypical for the US, in the years 1949 to 1953, to support those seeking the extermination of the Israeli Jews. Britannica tries to back up its insinuation of a 'natural' US-Israeli friendship by 'explaining' that the US position supposedly resulted from real-politick considerations made 'necessary' by the Cold War, and thus by implication not (banish the thought!) from US enmity toward Israel or the Jewish people.

Britannica's readers will accept this argument only if they know nothing of the following:

1) that the US Establishment was in good measure responsible for the rise of the German Nazi party [see 1930's];

2) that Franklin Delano Roosevelt's government actively and enthusiastically cooperated with Hitler's Final Solution, even while fighting the German Nazi armies [see 1939-45];

3) that the US government absorbed thousands of Nazi war criminals from all over Europe - with the blood of millions of Jews, Russians, Slavs, Gypsies, and others on their hands - at the end of WWII in order to create US Intelligence, even as it continued its wartime policy of denying visas to desperate European Jews [see 1945];

4) that the US did not help the Israeli Jews in their 1947-48 War of Independence, but instead slapped an arms embargo on the Israeli Jews and declared it no longer supported the creation of the State of Israel, even as Israel defended itself from the Arab armies that proudly meant to exterminate her people [see 1947-48]; and

5) that neither did the US condemn its close ally, Britain, for exporting captured Nazi war criminals to serve as officers in the Arab armies that attacked Israel [see 1947-48].

In a world with truly independent academic and journalistic institutions, as opposed to covertly corrupted ones, the public would know that up to the year 1953 the US had been a major enemy of Israel, and of the Jews more generally. Run-of-the-mill skepticism would then make it impossible for people to accept the proposition that, in the period immediately following 1953, it was somehow obvious that the US would be Israel's "potential ally". However,

a) this is not a normal world - many crucial facts have been kept from ordinary people by a corrupt mainstream media, and corrupt academic institutions; and, therefore,

b) ordinary people are not normal skeptics - they routinely assume that anything in the Encyclopedia Britannica or the New York Times (etc.) is automatically authoritative and fair, and therefore does not deserve special scrutiny (as it has supposedly already been scrutinized by independent and objective historians and journalists).

Under such circumstances, when prestigious publications repeat, over and over again, and matter-of-factly, that the US supposedly supports Israel, that the US is supposedly Israel's only friend, that the US Congress is supposedly controlled by Israel, etc., etc., ordinary people end up concluding that it's simply true: just as the sky is the color blue and the Pope is a Catholic, the US is... the ally of Israel! Contrary facts - such as the US's alliance during the years 1949-53 with countries pledged to destroy Israel - will be discussed as fleeting aberrations. Not, in other words, as evidence that a skeptic may want to put on the table in order to determine fairly and scientifically whether or not the US ruling elite really is an ally.

But why are the Encyclopedia Britannica and the mass media distorting the truth in order to hide the fact that the US ruling elite attacks the Jews? You can get a clue by taking a look at Leslie Gelb, who is a) a high-powered US government operative involved with US Intelligence and US foreign policy, b) a New York Times journalist, and c) editorial advisor to the Encyclopedia Britannica[20a]:

"Gelb was director of Policy Planning and Arms Control for International Security Affairs at the Department of Defense from 1967 to 1969, winning the Pentagon's highest award, the Distinguished Service Award. Robert McNamara appointed Gelb as director of the project that produced the controversial Pentagon Papers on the Vietnam War.

He was diplomatic correspondent at The New York Times from 1973 to 1977.

He served as an Assistant Secretary of State in the Carter Administration from 1977 to 1979, serving as director of the Bureau of Politico-Military Affairs and winning the Distinguished Honor Award, the highest award of the US State Department.

He returned to the Times in 1981; from then until 1993, he was in turn its national security correspondent, deputy editorial page editor, editor of the Op-Ed Page, and columnist. This period included his leading role on the Times team that won a Pulitzer Prize for Explanatory Journalism in 1986 for a six-part comprehensive series on the "Star Wars" Strategic Defense Initiative).

Gelb became President of the Council on Foreign Relations in 1993 and as of 2005 is its President Emeritus."

Because mainstream news and academic publications, as we have seen, routinely employ Newspeak (the reality-inverting language of Orwell's 'Big Brother', where war is peace, freedom is slavery, and the US ruling elite is an ally of Israel), wool has been successfully pulled over the eyes of the citizenry, preventing political awareness. This has greatly endangered the survival of the Jewish state, for even Israeli Jews believe the US ruling elite is on their side, and an enemy that has not been recognized is not one that can easily be defended against.


1955 [ mixed ]

The US forces Israel to withdraw from Sinai, but makes some concessions to the Israelis.

In October 1955, Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser beefed up his military considerably with help from the Soviet Union, and then announced a blockade of the Strait of Tiran, Israel's only port south of Elat.

Israeli prime minister David Ben Gurion decided to act.

Since Britain and France wanted to regain the Suez Canal from Egypt, the three countries reached an agreement under which IDF (Israeli Defense Forces) seized the Sinai. The British and French then invaded the canal zone under pretext of protecting it. An infuriated Dwight D. Eisenhower forced the British and French to withdraw. Israel also withdrew, but not before extracting an agreement from the US to place a UN peacekeeping force in the Sinai, and a written promise from Secretary of State John Foster Dulles that the Strait of Tiran would be treated as a protected, international waterway. On the face of it this looks positive, but it is worth pointing out that the Israeli military occupation of the Sinai is what gave Ben Gurion the bargaining leverage to force it.[21] The US's heart was not bleeding for Israel - certainly not the heart of John Foster Dulles, a Nazi supporter whose brother Allen Dulles had been responsible for creating the CIA out of escaped Nazi war criminals.[22]


1955-1965 [ positive (in one regard only) ]

Israel indirectly gets some US weapons.

For the next ten years, Israel received arms from France, and from West Germany. Since West Germany got its weapons from the US, this may be considered indirect US assistance.

Caveat: It is worth pointing out, however, that it wasn't the US selling weapons to the Israelis.[23]


1958 [ negative ]

Israel assists US military intervention in the Middle East; when this places Israel in danger, the US does...nothing.

1958 was a bad year for US and British influence in the Middle East. An army coup in Iraq toppled the pro-Western government there, and Nasser attempted similar subversion in pro-Western Lebanon and Jordan.

"President Eisenhower dispatched the Marines to Lebanon in order to forestall a possible collapse of pro-Western forces there. Israel was requested to allow British overflights for transporting troops to aid the Hashemite regime in Jordan."

Despite the fact that the Israelis obliged the Americans and the British, these latter

"refused to bargain with [Israeli prime minister David] Ben-Gurion about a military or political reward for his compliance with their requests."

But not only that:

"when the Soviets threatened Israel for having opened its airspace to Western forces, and Ben-Gurion, deeply distressed, tried to cancel the permission for overflights, he was strongly rebuked by [US Secretary of State John Foster] Dulles. The incident pointed up Israel's fundamental weakness, and its desperate search for allies against the threat posed by Nasser and Nasserism - and it pointed up also the exploitative attitude of the United States and Great Britain toward Israel..."[24]


1964 [ mixed ]

The US abandoned its previous official policy of trying to get Israel to relinquish the territories won in the War of Independence. Why had it been trying to do this?

Israeli historian Anita Shapira writes:

"It was not until 1964 that an Israeli prime minister was officially welcomed at the White House, when Lyndon Johnson received Levi Eshkol."[25]

This should be terribly surprising to anybody who was assuming that the US and Israel had been the best of friends since the founding of the state. But this is even more surprising:

"In their joint statement at the conclusion of the visit, Johnson proclaimed the need to maintain the territorial integrity of all the states in the region. ...this was the first time Washington abandoned the idea of changing the borders of the 1949 armistice line."

Shapira comments,

"If even a government as friendly to Israel as the government of the United States was not prepared during that perilous [pre-1964] time to guarantee the 1949 borders (what today is called the ‘Green Line’), then Israel’s situation was in truth fraught with great danger, and Ben-Gurion’s obsession with Israel’s fragility was not illusory."

Why does Shapira say the United States was so friendly? The points reviewed above in this chronology make it clear that the US had been an enemy state. Shapira's allegation of US friendship is therefore a gratuitous apology for the US.

It is not her only one. Notice that she first explains with candor that in 1964 "the US abandoned the idea of changing the borders of the 1949 armistice line," which means - what? That up until then, the US had been trying to change those borders. But then Shapira redescribes this policy as follows: "the United States was not prepared during that perilous [pre-1964] time to guarantee the 1949 borders." There is a very big difference between the first statement and the second. Not agreeing to guarantee somebody else's borders is to proclaim neutrality; trying to change Israel's 1949 borders - what the US in fact did - was an outright attack.

Let me explain why.

The 1947 partition line that created Israel had produced a country that was essentially a virtually indefensible (because very narrow) strip of coastline.[26] And yet the Israeli Jews accepted this partition. The Palestinian Arabs did not accept and, with the surrounding Arab states, and aided by Britain, attacked the state of Israel and boasted of the impending genocide of the Jews.[27]

But the Israeli Jews stunned the world by winning the war, and they marginally thickened their narrow strip of coastline as a result. This made it a wee bit easier to defend. The resulting border is what Shapira calls the "1949 armistice line" and also "the Green Line."

Now, an attacked state is under no obligation to give back territory that its enemies lost after launching an unprovoked war of aggression - especially when they made it very clear that they meant to commit genocide and, moreover, had not abandoned this insane goal. And the survival of the Jewish state required securing its borders against further such attacks, which the Arab states had promised would be forthcoming (and they made their aggressive promises entirely credible by directing continuous terrorist attacks against Jewish farmers on Israel's borders - see 1949-53 section). Thus, if it was only in 1964 that "Washington abandoned the idea of changing the borders of the 1949 armistice line," what follows? That up until 1964 the US had been waging a diplomatic attack against Israel, attempting to strip it of territory that Israel had legitimately won, and which was indispensable to its defense against terrorist states pledged to the extermination of the Jewish people.

By describing the US's behavior in a completely different way, as a failure to guarantee Israel's borders, Shapira is apologizing for the US.

I note that Anita Shapira is considered a Zionist. If you are an ordinary person - i.e. not a historian of Israel - and you come across her arguments, you will find yourself having to choose between the following two interpretations:

a) either Anita Shapira, an Israeli patriot, cannot reason about who Israel's friends are, or

b) since Anita Shapira is the historian, and you aren't, she must know a lot more about US policies over the years, and so you take what she says on her implicit authority that there are other facts which mitigate the impression of US enmity towards Israel.

Ordinary people are at a disadvantage in terms of access to information, and they are of a respectful and generous disposition towards figures of established authority, so they will tend to choose interpretation b.

The documentation in this piece is meant to empower ordinary people to ask the question: Where are those mitigating facts that supposedly establish the friendliness of the US towards Israel? Can anybody list them?


1964-1967 [ negative ]

Although Israel suffered terrorist attacks from its Arab neighbors during these years, when they staged a full-scale military provocation, the US refused to help.

For years prior to the 1967 war, there were terrorists attacks against Israeli civilians from the Jordanian and Syrian borders, while Nasser promised an impending Arab genocide of the Jews.

"…Syria used the Golan Heights, which tower 3,000 feet above the Galilee, to shell Israeli farms and villages. Syria's attacks grew more frequent in 1965 and 1966, while Nasser's rhetoric became increasingly bellicose: 'We shall not enter Palestine with its soil covered in sand,' he said on March 8, 1965. 'We shall enter it with its soil saturated in blood.'"[28]

To get an idea of Nasser's mood and intentions immediately prior to the 1967 war, consider this speech which the Egyptian President gave to the Arab Trade Unionists on May 26, 1967

[Quote From Nasser To Arab Trade Unionists Starts Here]

"If Israel embarks on an aggression against Syria or Egypt, the battle against Israel will be a general one and not confined to one spot on the Syrian or Egyptian borders. The battle will be a general one and our basic objective will be to destroy Israel. I probably could not have said such things five or even three years ago. If I had said such things and had been unable to carry them out my words would have been empty and worthless.

Today, some eleven years after 1956, I say such things because I am confident. I know what we have here in Egypt and what Syria has. I also know that other States Iraq, for instance, has sent its troops to Syria; Algeria will send troops; Kuwait also will send troops. They will send armored and infantry units. This is Arab power. This is the true resurrection of the Arab nation, which at one time was probably in despair."[28]

[Quote From Nasser To Arab Trade Unionists Ends Here]

Then, in 1967, the Arab countries surrounding Israel mobilized, staging a provocation. Israeli foreign minister Abba Eban went on an emergency trip seeking French, British, and American aid. He got nothing.[29]

A short reflection on propaganda

Journalist Dilip Hiro recently wrote an article about US meddling in the Middle East, where he presents what is supposed to be a brief history of it. His account includes the following paragraph:

"The emergence of Israel in 1948 added a new factor. Following its immediate recognition of Israel, Washington devised a military-diplomatic strategy in the region which rested on the triad of Saudi Arabia, Iran, and the new state of Israel, with the overall aim of keeping Soviet influence out of the Middle East. While each member of the troika was tied closely to the U.S., and links between Iran and Israel became progressively tighter, Saudi Arabia and Israel, though staunchly anti-Communist, remained poles apart. Nonetheless, the overall arrangement remained in place until the Islamic revolution in Iran in 1979."[29a]

What Dilip Hiro writes is false, of course. We have seen (sticking only to the most significant stuff), that:

1) In the 1930s, the US ruling class sponsored the antisemitic (among other things) American eugenics movement, and sponsored also the rise of the especially antisemitic German eugenics movement, which came to be known as German "National Socialism," or Nazism. [see section on 1930s]

2) During World War II, the United States had a visa and war policy designed to assist the "Final Solution," as the Nazis called their extermination program against the European Jewish population. [see section 1939-45]

3) After the war, the United States absorbed the entire Nazi war criminal infrastructure and out of that created US Intelligence. [see section 1945]

4) In 1947, the United States was opposed to the creation of the State of Israel and voted "pro" in the UN only because the Soviet Union made a passionate speech in favor of a Jewish state where this people could live safe from genocide. [see section 1947-48]

5) During Israel's War of Independence the United States did not help Israel. On the contrary, the US, even as Israelis were being murdered by the Arab armies that had promised to exterminate the Israeli Jews, slapped an arms embargo on the Israeli Jews. For good measure, the US government reversed itself and officially declared its opposition to the creation of the State of Israel. This reversal was defeated by the largest demonstration of ordinary Americans ever seen in the streets of New York City, which was called to protest the policy reversal. Meanwhile, Great Britain, the United States' closest ally, was assisting the combined Arab attempt to destroy Israel. [see section 1947-48]

6) In the period 1949-53, the United States allied with Israel's mortal enemies during a very difficult period in which Israel's existence was always in the balance. [see section 1949-53]

7) Up to the year 1964 the United States had been trying to take territory away from Israel, and in the period 1964-1967 the US did absolutely nothing while Israel's Arab enemies once again attempted to destroy her (unless the US was secretly assisting these enemies). [see section 1964]

Let us now read again what journalist Dilip Hiro wrote:

"Following its immediate recognition of Israel, Washington devised a military-diplomatic strategy in the region which rested on the triad of Saudi Arabia, Iran, and the new state of Israel, with the overall aim of keeping Soviet influence out of the Middle East. ...each member of the troika was tied closely to the U.S. ...[and] the overall arrangement remained in place until the Islamic revolution in Iran in 1979."

What Dilip Hiro writes is obviously intended to feed the belief that the United States and Israel have been supposedly joined at the hip ever since Israel was created. But this is propaganda. Washington did not immediately recognize Israel, and Israel was in no sense tied closely to the US. Neither did any such alliance last until 1979 because it didn't exist in the first place. On the contrary, Israel's existence was constantly threatened thanks significantly to US foreign policy.

I point out that Dilip Hiro isn't nobody. He is a veteran journalist who has written many articles over the years in the following publications: The Observer, The New York Times, the Weekend Australian, The Independent, The Guardian, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, and The Toronto Star.

Dilip Hiro is a big-deal journalist, and he is sold as an expert on the Middle East.

But Dilip Hiro's propaganda is not a monopoly of the mainstream media. The text I quoted is from an article that Dilip Hiro wrote for, which sells itself as "a regular antidote to the mainstream media."


1967 [ negative ]

After the Six-Day War, the US put pressure on Israel to relinquish the territory gained, even though it knew it was indispensable to Israeli defense.

Following another surprising Israeli victory in the 1967 war, Israel ended up controlling the Sinai, the Golan Heights, the Gaza Strip, and the West Bank. In November of that year, the UN Security Council passed UN Resolution 242 which called for

"Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict."[30]

This was simply outrageous because earlier that year - despite being victorious after yet another genocidal provocation - Israeli prime minister Levi Eshkol had immediately offered Israel's Arab enemies to take back these territories on condition that they promise never to attack Israel again. The Arabs refused.[31]

You read correctly: that's all the Israelis were asking, and nothing like this -- not even remotely like it -- has ever happened in the history of warfare. Never before has a victorious state, after defending itself against an attack, and winning territory, offered to give it back in exchange for a promise of peace. And that's without mentioning that the attack was an attempted genocide [see section 1964-67].

But the Arabs refused!

Given this, how could the UN Security Council now demand that Israel return these territories? That was simply absurd, not to mention immoral. The US could have used its veto power in the Security Council to stop this resolution, but didn't.

Matters, however, are worse, because according to University of Pennsylvania political science professor Ian Lustick, the US has adopted Resolution 242 as its official policy.

"[US] policy, in some sense, has stayed, in a formal way, more or less where it’s always been, which is not a bad place. That is, officially, we believe that there ought to be a solution based on Resolution 242, which seems to suggest almost complete Israeli withdrawal from the territories, except for mutually agreed changes."[31a]

That was said in 2002. It is likely that Ian Lustick knows what he is talking about on this point, because he works for US Intelligence.[31b]

But the most important point here is that this policy of the United States is one that the US pursues even though it knows it will prepare the ground for the destruction of Israel. The demonstration follows.

Immediately after the 1967 Six Day War, a Memorandum for the [US] Secretary of Defense that had for subject “Middle East Boundaries,” and signed by Earle G. Wheeler, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was submitted. It said:

“From a strictly military point of view Israel would require the retention of some captured Arab territory in order to provide militarily defensible borders.”[31c]

This study was quite specific, explaining that Israel needed to hold most of the West Bank because,

“This border area [along the Jordanian West Bank] has traditionally been lightly held by military forces and defenses consist[ing] mainly of small, widely separated outposts and patrols and, therefore, afforded an area where launching of saboteurs and terrorists into Israel was relatively easy...”[31c]

On the Syrian border,

“Israel must hold the commanding terrain east of the boundary of 4 June 1967 which overlooks the Galilee area.”[31c]

This is a reference to the Golan Heights, from which the Syrians had been shelling Israeli farmers in the Galilee, as we saw above (see 1964-67 section). The Pentagon study concurs: “During the period January 1965 to February 1967, a total of 28 sabotage and terrorist acts occurred along this border.”

Concerning Jerusalem, the Pentagon study states that

“To defend the Jerusalem area would require that the boundary of Israel be positioned to the east of the city to provide for the organization of an adequate defensive position.”[31c]

And about the Gaza strip, the Pentagon study states that,

“The Strip, under Egyptian control, provides a salient into Israel a little less than 30 miles long and from four to eight miles wide. It has served as a training area for the Palestine Liberation Army... Occupation of the Strip by Israel would reduce the hostile border by a factor of five and eliminate a source for raids and training of the Palestine Liberation Army.”[31c]

Now, since the surrounding Arab states have remained pledged to destroy Israel, these territories are absolutely indispensable as a buffer against the next attack. But this is the territory from which the US, in its official policy, as Ian Lustick explains, would like Israel completely to withdraw from. What would be the effect of such a withdrawal? That Israel would become vulnerable once again to a combined Arab attack, as the 1967 Pentagon study quoted here makes clear (so it is not as if the US mistakenly thinks that Israel can defend itself without these territories).

If the US wants Israel to withdraw from territories that, according to the same US, Israel absolutely needs in order to protect itself from its antisemitic and genocidal enemies, can the US be an ally of Israel?


1967-70 [ negative ]

The Arabs attack the Israelis. The US response is to try and remove the Israelis from territory they need for their defense.

What became known as the War of Attrition began as early as 1967 with Egyptian shelling of Israeli positions near the Suez Canal. It was a costly war that took the lives of 1,424 Israeli soldiers and more than 100 civilians, there were also another 2000 soldiers and 700 civilians wounded.

The United States worked to reward the Egyptians by pushing for a cease-fire and negotiations that would lead to an Israeli withdrawal. But Egypt violated the cease-fire. "Despite the Egyptian violations, the UN-sponsored talks resumed... The talks were swifly short-circuited, however, by UN Special Envoy Gunnar Jarring, when he accepted the Egyptian interpretation of Resolution 242 and called for Israel's total withdrawal to the pre-June 5, 1969, demarcation lines."[32]

Simultaneously, Yasser Arafat's PLO launched terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians from Jordanian territory.

In 1969-70 the US proposed the Rogers Plan, after Richard Nixon's Secretary of State William Rogers. The point of this plan was, among other outrages, to enforce UN Resolution 242, which called for Israeli withdrawal from the territories that a Pentagon study (see 1967 section) had identified as indispensable to Israeli defense!

The Israelis were naturally dead set against this, and on December 22, 1969, Israel's cabinet formally rejected the Rogers Plan. However Israel's hand was forced by the fact that the Soviets were heavily involved with Egypt's attack. "[W]hen Israeli fighter planes shot down four Egyptian planes flown by Soviet pilots..., [f]earing Soviet retaliation, and uncertain of American support, Israel in August accepted a cease-fire and the application of Resolution 242."[33]

Caveat: "In a [apparently non-binding] vote in the US Congress in 1970, 70 Senators [70%] and 280 Representatives [64%] rejected Secretary of State Rogers' peace plan as being too one-sided against Israel."[34]


1970 [ positive ]

Washington temporarily abandons the diplomatic effort to make Israel withdraw from the territories.

In 1970 Jordan's King Hussein led a punishing attack against the PLO terrorists who had taken over the areas of Jordan bordering Israel, from which they committed terrorist outrages not only against Israeli civilians but also Jordanian civilians and foreigners.[35] This led to great tensions with Syria, but Syria did not invade Jordan, apparently to avoid a conflict with Israel. "It was widely believed in Washington that deployment of Israeli troops along the Jordan River had deterred a large-scale Syrian invasion of Jordan. As a result, President Richard M. Nixon increasingly viewed Israel as an important strategic asset, and the Rogers Plan was allowed to die."[36]

Caveat: Notice again, however, that this had nothing to do with the US caring about Israel. The deeply anti-Israel Rogers Plan was abandoned only when the US discovered strategic reasons to support Israel against Soviet client states such as Syria, and to protect its own client state, Jordan. And, as we've seen above [see 1967 section], the Rogers plan was not, in fact, really allowed to die. US official policy has always been the implementation of UN Resolution 242, which was the core of the Rogers Plan.


1973 [ positive ]

The US assisted Israel in the Yom Kippur War

The Yom Kippur war of 1973 was a joint surprise attack by Egypt and Syria that caught the Israelis unprepared. They were facing catastrophe, and turned to the US. The Americans at first were reluctant, but "Washington's reluctance to help Israel changed rapidly when the Soviet Union launched its own resupply effort to Egypt and Syria."[37]

Caveat: Notice that the US was reluctant to help, and did not intervene until its prestige in the Cold War context was threatened by the involvement of the Soviets on the other side.

When Zionist Jews, grateful for the support Israel supposedly gets from the US, wish to defend the argument that the US is a friend, they can only mention three substantive points.

1) the war of 1973

2) the financial aid Israel gets from the US (only a bit more than what Egypt gets), and

3) the weapons Israel gets from the US (less than what Saudi Arabia gets; see 1979 section).

That's all one can list. We see here that one should not consider US help in 1973 as a sign of 'friendship' or alliance. The US was just making Cold War moves, and this one turned out to be convenient. When such moves are not convenient, the US goes right back to attacking Israel.

Further below I will address the issues of financial and military aid, and I will show that these, too, are mirages.


1973-1975 [ negative ]

The US supported the election of a pro-PLO Nazi war criminal to the post of UN Secretary General.

Immediately after the Arab defeat of 1973, “the heads of state present” at the Arab League summit convened in Algiers on 26-28 November 1973, “recognized the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) as the only representative of the Palestinian people.”[37a] They had decided that defeating Israel required a new strategy, so the push began to demand the creation of a 'Palestinian' state in the West Bank, led by someone who could be counted on never to stop until he had exterminated the Jews: Yasser Arafat. In 1974 the governing body of the PLO, the Palestine National Council, produced the 'Plan of Phases,' a Trojan Horse strategy that would promise peace in return for allowing the PLO into the Jewish State.[37b]

The ‘Plan of Phases’ required the United Nations to perform what philosopher John Searle calls a ‘speech act’—a baptism. Not to worry. In November of the same year, UN Secretary General Kurt Waldheim invited Yasser Arafat to speak at the General Assembly and “accorded [him] protocol honors of chief of state.[51] Also that month, UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 was approved, granting PLO/Fatah ‘observer status’ in the United Nations.

Magic: PLO/Fatah was now a ‘government in exile.’

To give a terrorist organization the status of a government at the UN is an outrage. But the UN does not commit outrages like this left and right. The Tamil Tigers, for example, never got a seat at the UN. Neither did, in fact, any other terrorist organization. So the UN was careful to honor the terrorist organization that needed to be legitimized in order to destroy Israel.

Arafat had been mentored by the Mufti Hajj Amin, one of the top leaders of Hitler's Final Solution, who bequeathed to his protégé an Islamist and antisemitic genocidal ideology. Veteran's of the Mufti's terrorist Arab Higher Committee helped form Arafat's al Fatah organization, which, by 1970 had swallowed the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO - formed in 1964), while keeping its name.[38] Arafat's movement, therefore, is essentially an unbroken link in a chain of genocide, a direct extension of Hitler's Final Solution. A state led by Arafat's terrorist organization could be armed to the teeth by other Arab states, thus resuming the charge to destroy Israel and exterminate the Jews.

That this demand for a Palestinian state represented a strategy by the Arab states to extend their genocidal attacks against Israel through other means is quite obvious. In fact, they began pushing the idea in 1969 over the objections of none other than Yasser Arafat, on whose behalf they were supposedly doing this![39] Arafat evidently felt this new strategy of extermination was too slow, and he didn't pronounce himself dramatically and publicly in favor until 1977.[40]

The problem here was political: in order to get international pressure on Israel to allow a Palestinian state in the West Bank, the Palestinians had to be presented as victims. How to do this? It was not easy because the Israeli occupation was quite benign, despite the fact that the acquired territories were inhabited by an enemy population that had supported a genocidal war against Israeli Jews in 1967.[41]

So presenting Palestinians as 'victims' required defining 'oppression' as the absence of a Palestinian state, and blaming this absence on the Israelis, never minding (1) that the Palestinian Arabs had refused the UN partition creating such a state in 1947[19]; (2) that the Jordanians, who had illegally occupied the West Bank in 1948 had not bothered to create a "Palestinian" Arab state by 1967; and 3) that the Arab states refused Israel's offer to take back the lands lost in 1967 in return for a promise of peace (see 1967 section).

The first salvo attacking Israel for having had to defend itself [!] was, as we saw, UN Resolution 242, which was passed immediately after the Arab defeat of 1967. Then, as the campaign for a PLO state gathered steam in the 1970s, two new attacks from the UN. The first was in 1974, when Yasser Arafat, the genocidal antisemite and protegé of a leading Nazi war criminal, was invited to give a speech to the UN General Assembly, and was received with the protocols of a chief of state [!].[42] The second came a year later when the UN passed Resolution 3379 which equated Zionism with racism [!].[43]

It was a Nazi war criminal, Kurt Waldheim, who presided over both these events as UN Secretary General.[44]

This was the Nazis celebrating the Nazis, using their control of the highest world forum to attack the Jews.

Accusations that Waldheim was a Nazi war criminal were made at the time.[45] Did US officials know that Kurt Waldheim was a Nazi war criminal? But of course. As the New Republic explained in 1986, Waldheim participated in

"...the ‘Kozara Massacres’ [which] took place on West Bosnia (now Yugoslavia), under the command of General Friedrich Stahl. In the campaign 71 Germans died, 5,000 of the enemy were killed (including many noncombatants), and 12,000 taken prisoner. In a ‘cleansing operation’ afterward, hundreds of peasants were shot. Sixty-eight thousand [68,000] local inhabitants, including 23,000 children, were taken away to be murdered at the local concentration camp of Jasenovac."[51a]

For his exertions in this massive slaughter of innocent Serbs, Jews, and Roma (Gypsies), Kurt Waldheim was given the Zvonimir medal by the Ustashe Croatian fascists, an honor “awarded to only three German officers - out of some 20,000 German soldiers in that campaign.”

The above is but a portion, and it would take us too far afield to list here the entire criminal dossier of this man, but the point is that Waldheim was a well-known Nazi exterminator. It would be entirely remarkable if US Intelligence, which was created by absorbing tens of thousands of Nazi war criminals (see 1945 section), didn't know who Kurt Waldheim was. So the US ruling elite had to know what it was doing when, on the eve of Waldheim's becoming UN Secretary General,

"George Bush, the American [UN] delegate, issued a statement saying that Mr. Waldheim was 'ideally equipped' for the job."[51b]

That was George Bush Sr., and he likely knew precisely who Waldheim was when he said that because he was already connected with the CIA.[45a] Shortly thereafter, Bush would become Director of the CIA, and later president of the United States.

In fact the US ruling elite liked Waldheim so much that they later lobbied passionately to get him a third term at the UN (blocked by China).[46] Doesn't that suggest, then, that the policy of demonization of Israel in order to create a PLO state was not only an Arab and UN policy, but also a US policy?

Read on...


1975 [ negative ]

The US reached an agreement with Israel not to have contacts with the PLO. The US immediately violated the agreement.

In 1975 the US reached an agreement with Israel not to have any contact with the PLO. However, in 1981 the New York Times wrote that,

"In fact, however, the Central Intelligence Agency has for several years maintained and occasionally used a little publicized, so-called 'back-channel' line of communications with P.L.O. headquarters in Beirut."[47]

The word 'several' corresponds very well to the number of years that had gone by since the agreement: six. It appears, therefore, that the US violated its agreement with Israel immediately after signing it - but definitely by 1977, as we shall see below.

The New York Times also explains the methods the CIA used to circumvent this agreement.

"The Central Intelligence Agency regularly employs private contractors. In recent years, the State Department has used private intermediaries with the Palestine Liberation Organization, the Government having promised Israel not to deal officially with the P.L.O."[47a]


1977 [ negative ]

Jimmy Carter worked hard to give the terrorist PLO the dignity of a 'government in exile,' and then he teamed up with the Soviets to try and saddle Israel with a PLO terrorist state next door.

A busy year.

The UN strategy to demonize Israel and make the PLO appear respectable had worked beautifully, so that by 1977 a young West Bank Palestinian interviewed by Newsweek could say: "Unlike ten years ago, we now have the sympathy of the entire world."[48] The world's political climate having thus shifted to the degree necessary, US president Jimmy Carter, choosing his moment carefully, declared publicly his support for a "Palestinian homeland." This is what the New York Times reported on May 13, 1977:

“[Congress] watches, with a mixture of admiration and doubt, Jimmy Carter’s efforts to reassure the Israelis while trying to get them back to the pre-1967 borders with a new Palestinian ‘homeland’ on their flank.”[48a]

It is certainly of some interest that the US president came out in favor of a PLO state (what 'Palestinian homeland' has always meant) before the PLO ever supported the idea. In fact, before the US president's announcement of his support for a 'Palestinian homeland,' the PLO had been the staunchest opponent of a PLO state in the West Bank and Gaza! This is worth a short detour.

Consider this note from 1969:

“… recent rejection by Al Fatah representative of all plans to establish Palestinian state on Jordan West Bank and in Gaza Strip noted; Palestinian National Council member Dr S Dabbagh urges commandos to prepare now for strategy they will follow if Arab states accept political settlement.”[48b]

Al Fatah is the dominant faction within the PLO - it calls all the shots. The Palestinian National Council is the legislative body of the PLO. Thus, what we have above is a total rejection by the PLO, in 1969, of a PLO state in the West Bank.

In 1970, after the PLO caused a civil war in Jordan, the issue of giving the PLO a state in the West Bank was again discussed. Again, the PLO said no, as reported in the New York Times:

"There has been speculation that the establishment of a Palestinian state in Jordan's west-bank territory, now under Israeli occupation, might be raised as a solution for the Palestinians. Any discussion of this issue here [in Egypt] with Mr. Arafat, however, has been secret. The commando chief has publicly criticized the proposal."[48g]

Why didn't the PLO want its own state in the West Bank?

The answer to that question will be found in the PLO Charter - or perhaps I should say charters (plural) as there have been two. The first charter dates from 1964, and in article 24 it states:

Article 24: This Organization does not exercise any territorial sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or in the Himmah Area.[48c]

The PLO went out of its way, as you can see above, to state that the West Bank and Gaza (1) were not "Palestinian" lands, (2) belonged rightfully to Jordan and Egypt, respectively, and (3) were of no interest to the PLO. In 1968, however, the PLO Charter was rewritten and this is the charter that remains current to this day. This second charter states the following in its first two articles:

Article 1: Palestine is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people.

Article 2: Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit.

The boundaries of the territory called "Palestine" during the British Mandate included the West Bank and Gaza, plus the rest of present day Israel.[48e] This means that in the 1968 Charter, the PLO did now begin claiming the West Bank and Gaza as "Palestinian" lands. Why the abrupt 180-degree reversal? Because the year before, in 1967, after the surrounding Arab states had provoked a war with the goal of exterminating the Israeli Jews, the Israelis had emerged victorious, and had captured the West Bank and the Gaza strip.

In other words, there is no such thing as a fixed "Palestinian land" as far as the PLO is concerned; there is just land that Jews live on. Since the Jews returned to live in the West Bank and Gaza after 1967, these territories - which the PLO had explicitly maintained it had nothing to do with - suddenly became of great interest to the PLO and were called for the first time "Palestinian" by the PLO. This is easily explained, because the PLO's purpose is to exterminate the Israeli Jews, as specified most explicitly in the PLO Charter.[48f] This is why Article 9 of the 1968 charter says that “armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine.” In other words, wherever Jews live in the Middle East, the PLO will claim that this is "Palestinian" land that has to be liberated exclusively by killing Jews. Any appearance that the PLO is conducting peaceful negotiations is merely a front [see 2005 section].

So, the reason the PLO was for a long time reluctant to join the call for a PLO state is that the tactical and temporary abandonment of a policy to kill all the Jews in the Middle East was a bitter pill to swallow for an organization that was in a big hurry to complete the ecstatic extermination that is its mission.

None of this, of course, was a secret to US President Jimmy Carter. The Arab states, since 1969, had been pushing for a PLO state in the West Bank and Gaza. And after the Arab defeat in the 1973 war, Arafat had promulgated in 1974 his "Plan of Phases", “according to which the Palestine Liberation Organization [PLO] would acquire whatever territory it could by negotiations, then use that land as a base for pursuing its ultimate goal of Israel’s annihilation.”[48h]

So this is the context in which Jimmy Carter announced his support for a "Palestinian homeland" in 1977. In other words, the US president had to know that his statement would be interpreted as support for a PLO state, and he knew also that such a state would be dedicated to the extermination of the Israeli Jews.

And how interesting that the PLO, less than a week after the announcement by the US President, followed suit and declared itself for the first time in support of a West Bank PLO state.

"PLO spokesman Mahmoud Labady says PLO views Pres Carter's concept of Palestinian homeland as important contribution to 'just and durable' peace in Middle East…  Says PLO would agree to establishment of Palestinian state on West Bank and in Gaza Strip…"[49]

Of course, this did not mean that the PLO was abandoning its goal of destroying Israel.[50] It meant only that, following the US president's lead, it was shifting tactics. But how come the US president and the PLO leadership appeared so coordinated, announcing their new positions within a week of each other? Were they working together through that back channel that the New York times talks about (see above)?

It was soon reported, in late July, that the Carter administration and the PLO were “involved in secret high-level contacts.”[52] And just one week later, on August 2:

"Reports in the state-controlled Egyptian news media said the Americans were suggesting that the Palestinians form a government in exile as one way of making themselves eligible for [the] Geneva [peace conference]. The argument, the reports said, was that the Palestine Liberation Organization can not now be invited because it does not represent a state."[53] (my emphasis)

Things were moving fast. Less than a week later, on August 8, the US was said to be

"anxious over [the] Israeli refusal to accept 2 Arab pre-conditions to [the Geneva peace] conf[erence], including relinquishment of most of the territory occupied since [the] '67 war, and acknowledgement of right for existence of some kind of Palestinian state."[55]

And just a month after that, on September 18, the US State Dept. announced that

"Palestinians [i.e. the PLO] should be involved in [the] peacemaking process at Geneva... [The] Israeli press [saw these] US moves and comments as leaning towards establishment of [a] separate Palestinian state, anathema to most Israelis."[56]

Clearly, the US wanted a PLO state on the territory Israel had gained in 1967, despite the fact that a Pentagon study had already concluded this would mean the destruction of Israel [see 1967 section]. US diplomacy, with the prestige of a world power that supposedly defends democracy, was teaching people everywhere a lesson about what they ought to see as just and fair. People learned that it was just and fair for the Arab states to demand a Palestinian state run by a genocidal antisemitic terrorist in strategic Israeli territory in return for -- for what? In return for an Arab promise to cease attacking Israel with the goal of exterminating the Jews, as they had done in 1967.

You may pop your eyes back into your head, if you can find them. If it looks like an absurdity, and walks like an absurdity... (And if it looks like a US attack on Israel, and walks like a US attack on Israel...)

But the US was not quite done. Two weeks later, on October 1st, the US and the USSR published the "Joint U.S.-Soviet statement on the Middle East," stating their joint position in matters relating to the proposed Geneva peace conference.[57] This called for negotiating with the PLO to create a Palestinian state if the PLO accepted UN Resolution 242 (which resolution was an outrage against the Israelis [see 1967 section]), and if they accepted Israel's right to exist.

Israel then went into high gear and "Israeli leaders... made strenuous efforts to realign Israel's policy with that of the United States." They had to, because in reaching an agreement with the Soviet Union that the PLO should govern a Palestinian state in the West Bank, the US had neglected to consult its supposed ally, Israel. The US had tried to pull a fast one. Vigorous negotiations by Israeli Foreign Minister Moshe Dayan in New York yielded the Israel-US working paper on Geneva on October 5.

"In this paper, Israel in effect rejected the U.S.-Soviet statement, insisted on Resolution 242 as the basis for talks but said that 242 did not mean territorial withdrawal; the PLO was not mentioned and there would be no Palestinian state."[58]

In other words, Dayan's emergency diplomacy prevented the disaster that the US had deceitfully, and in collusion with the Soviet Union, tried to bring on Israel.

The US is supposed to be a friend. But wouldn't an enemy of Israel try hard to set up a Palestinian state run by a genocidal terrorist whose movement is an extension of the Final Solution? And wouldn't an enemy use deception to get other powerful states (the Arabs, the USSR) to gang up on tiny Israel?

When people excuse the US's dirty tricks in foreign policy, they usually do so by saying that it was supposedly necessary to fight the Cold War. Now they say it is necessary to fight the supposed war on terrorism. The US has always cultivated an image that opposes both terrorists and communists. Here, however, neither explanation could work. This was done on behalf of the PLO terrorists and it was done in collusion with the communist Cold War enemy, the Soviet Union. In other words, even the pretense of opposing terrorists, and the fight against the comunists, are both abandoned when it comes to Israel, because attacking Israel is apparently more important than all that! 

So how is the behavior of the US different from that of an enemy of Israel?


1978 [ negative ]

When Israel tried to defend itself from the PLO terrorists, the US forced Israel to stand back

The PLO was killing Israeli civilians from its bases in southern Lebanon, so Israel invaded southern Lebanon in 1978.

The United States reaction?

“In June 1978, Prime Minister [Menachem] Begin, under intense American pressure, withdrew Israel's Litani River Operation forces from southern Lebanon… The withdrawal of Israeli troops without having removed the PLO from its bases in southern Lebanon became a major embarrassment to the Begin government…”[58a]

Keep in mind that the US invaded Panama on the official grounds that one American soldier had been killed. But when scores of Israeli civilians were being murdered by the PLO terrorists, the US would not allow Israel to protect itself.


1979 [ negative ]

Jimmy Carter began large-scale US sponsorship of antisemitic Islamist terrorists, especially in Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia.

The Carter administration began an effort, in tandem with the Islamist Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and the Islamist president of Pakistan (Zia ul Haq), to fund an Islamist terrorist force in Afghanistan, which effort Reagan later intensified.[59] The point of this was to suck the Soviet Union into a quagmire, and it succeeded. One of the consequences of this policy was that these Islamist terrorists spawned an international underground mercenary movement known as the 'mujahedin,' as well as international terrorist organizations that mobilize Muslim hatred of Jews, such as Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda.

Carter also began at this time a secret buildup of Saudi Arabia's military, which Reagan also continued, and which made this country

"ultimately...the largest beneficiary of U.S. weapons sales in the entire world [and] one of the most heavily armed countries in the world."[60]

We are speaking, of course, of the country that funds the Palestinian extremists and which stirs antisemitic Islamism all over the globe; a country whose minister of the interior is charged with looking after the health of the Palestinian terrorist movement;[61] a country whose government-sponsored clerics daily recommend the slaughter of Jews in their sermons.[62]\

The year after this US military buildup of Saudi Arabia began, Saudi King Fahd explained in public what he meant by jihad:

“In 1980, King Fahd of Saudi Arabia gave a clear definition: ‘What is meant by jihad is a united, comprehensive, integrated Arab-Islamic confrontation in which we place all our resources and our spiritual, cultural, political, material and military potential in a long and untiring ‘Holy War’ against Israel, of course, who else?’”[62a]

Given that the US has made this country "the largest beneficiary of U.S. weapons sales in the entire world," whose side is the US on? Israel's? Some will say, "But Saudi Arabia is buying its weapons; this is not a US handout." Yes, however, there is no such thing as 'just business,' here, because the Saudis mean to destroy Israel. If you call yourself my friend and you sell a gun to someone you know has been hired to kill me, the fact that the hired assassin paid for the gun will not work as a defense for your behavior.

Others will say, "But the US ruling elite is doing this for cheap oil." Emperor's Clothes has produced much analysis to show that US foreign policy is not conducted primarily to obtain cheap oil, as many claim.[62b] But even if we were to accept the "it's for oil" hypothesis, we are left with the fact that the US ruling elite wants cheap oil badly enough to turn itself into an effective enemy of Israel, arming more than any other country in the world a state committed to the extermination of the Israeli Jews. Whether or not the US ruling elite produces a policy out of a specific animosity against the Israeli Jews or because of some other interest, the question that matters is this: What are the material consequences - for Israel - of US foreign policy? If the consequences of this policy are that Israel ends up destroyed, will it matter if the US did it to get cheap oil?

Something else that happened in the year 1979 is that Jimmy Carter set in motion the Iranian 'hostage crisis,' partly in order to raise the prestige of the PLO:

Grand Theater: The US, The PLO, and the Ayatollah Khomeini.

Why did the US government, in 1979, delegate to the PLO the task of negotiating the safety of American hostages at the US embassy in Tehran?

Continue to the year 1981 and beyond:


Footnotes and Further Reading

[1] "How IBM Helped Automate the Nazi Death Machine in Poland," by Edwin Black; Author of "IBM and the Holocaust: The Strategic Alliance Between Nazi Germany and America's Most Powerful Corporation"
Reprinted from Village Voice, Week of March 27 - April 2, 2002

[1a] The Independent (London), September 13, 2002, Friday, FEATURES; Pg. 7, 698 words, DRESS-DOWN FRIDAY, Charlotte O'sullivan Monkey talk: George W omits to mention his grandfather's deals with Nazi Germany

"[George W.] Bush's family knew a lot about the Nazis. And guess what? Far from being enraged by Hitler's ambitions, they actively endorsed them. GW's grandfather, Prescott, was married to the daughter of George Herbert Walker, president of the Union Banking Corporation. Through this organisation, both men helped German industrialists consolidate Hitler's political power. In 1942, the Roosevelt administration seized all the corporation's shares, including those held by Prescott Bush (by now a board member) under the Trading With The Enemy Act. The government made clear that huge sections of this business had operated on behalf of Nazi Germany and had greatly assisted its war effort."

Apologists for Prescott Bush will say, for example, that "Bush had [only] one share" in the Union Banking Corp., and that "The documents do not show any evidence Bush directly aided that effort [to assist the Nazis]." This suggests to the reader that Prescott Bush is guilty only if his aid to the Nazis brought him considerable profits in the form of dividends from his shares, and suggests also that to blame him for helping the Nazis we need to find his fingerprint in these particular documents! But why? The Bank was involved in helping the Nazis in a significant way, and "Prescott Bush was one of seven directors of Union Banking Corp." [All the quotes in this paragraph taken from: "Bush Ancestor's Bank Seized by Gov't"; By Jonathon D. Salant; Associated Press; Friday 17 October 2003]

[1b] “Henry Ford, who was so impressed by the efficient way meat packers slaughtered and dismantled animals in Chicago, made his own unique contribution to the slaughter of people in Europe. Not only did he develop the assembly-line method that Germans used to kill Jews, but he launched a vicious anti-Semitic campaign that helped make the Holocaust happen.

In the early 1920s Ford’s weekly newspaper, the Dearborn Independent, published a series of articles based on the text of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, an anti-Semitic tract that had been circulating in Europe. Ford published a book-length compilation of the articles entitled The International Jew, which was translated into most of the European languages and was widely disseminated by anti-Semites, chief among them the German publisher Theodor Fritsch, an early supporter of Hitler. Thanks to a well-financed publicity campaign and the prestige of the Ford name, The International Jew was hugely successful both domestically and internationally. The International Jew found its most receptive audience in Germany where it was known as The Eternal Jew. Ford was enormously popular in Germany. When his autobiography went on sale there, it immediately became the country’s number one bestseller. In the early 1920s The Eternal Jew quickly became the bible of the German anti-Semitism, with Fritsch’s publishing house printing six editions between 1920 and 1922.

After Ford’s book came to the attention of Hitler in Munich, he used a shortened version of it in the Nazi propaganda war against the Jews of Germany. In 1923 a Chicago Tribune correspondent in Germany reported that Hitler’s organization in Munich was ‘sending out Mr. Ford’s books by the carload.’ Baldur von Schirach, the leader of the Hitler Youth movement and the son of an aristocratic German father and American mother, said at the postwar Nuremberg war crimes trial that he became a convinced anti-Semite at age seventeen after reading The Eternal Jew. ‘You have no idea what a great influence this book had on the thinking of German youth. The younger generation looked with envy to symbols of success and prosperity like Henry Ford, and if he said the Jews were to blame, why naturally we believed him.’

Hitler regarded Ford as a comrade-in-arms and kept a life-sized portrait of him on the wall next to his desk in his office in Munich. In 1923 when Hitler heard that Ford might run for President of the United States, he told an American reporter, ‘I wish that I could send some of my shock troops to Chicago and other big American cities to help in the elections. We look to Heinrich Ford as the leader of the growing Fascist movement in America. We have just had his anti-Jewish articles translated and published. The book is being circulated in millions throughout Germany.’ Hitler praised Ford in Mein Kampf, the only American to be singled out. In 1931, when a Detriot News reporter asked Hitler what Ford’s portrait on the wall meant to him, Hitler said, ‘I regard Henry Ford as my inspiration.’

In 1938, on the occasion of his seventy-fifth birthday, Henry Ford, the great admirer of the efficient way they slaughtered and cut up animals in America, accepted the Grand Cross of the Supreme Order of the German Eagle, the highest honor Nazi Germany could bestow on a foreigner (Mussolini was one of the three other foreigners to be so honored).”

SOURCE: “Animals, Slavery, and the Holocaust”; Logos; Spring 2005; vol. 4, iss. 2.; by Charles Patterson

[2] Carroll, J. 2001. Constantine's Sword: The Church and the Jews. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. (p.522)

[2a] Levin, K. 2005. The Oslo syndrome: Delusions of a people under siege. Hanover, NH: Smith and Kraus. (p.120)

[2b] The Oslo Syndrome (p.121)

[2c] The Oslo Syndrome (p.122)

[2d] The Oslo Syndrome (p.122)

[2e] The Oslo Syndrome (p.124)

[3] Primary sources for the PBS film "America and the Holocaust"

[4] "Report to the Secretary on the Acquiescence of this Government in the Murder of the Jews," initialed by Randolph Paul for the Foreign Funds Control Unit of the Treasury Department, January 13, 1944.

SOURCE: Primary sources for the PBS film "America and the Holocaust"


[5] Memo from Assistant Secretary of State Breckinridge Long, to State Department Officials dated June 26, 1940, outlining effective ways to obstruct the granting of U.S. visas.

SOURCE: Primary sources for the PBS film "America and the Holocaust"

[6] Clarence E. Pickett was Executive Secretary of the Quaker organization American Friends Service Committee from 1929-1950.

[7] Letter from Margaret E. Jones, an American Quaker working with European Jews hoping to emigrate to the U.S., expressing her distress at the impact of Breckinridge Long's memo.

SOURCE: Primary sources for the PBS film "America and the Holocaust"

[8] Entry from Assistant Secretary of State Breckinridge Long's diary in which he notes that President Roosevelt supports his policy of encouraging consulates to "postpone and postpone and postpone" the granting of visas. From: "The War Diary of Breckinridge Long"; ed. Fred L. Israel; University of Nebraska Press, 1966.

SOURCE: Primary sources for the PBS film "America and the Holocaust"


[9] A report written by Adoph Held, the president of the American Jewish Labor Committee recounting President Roosevelt's 29-minute meeting on December 8, 1942 with a small delegation of American Jewish Leaders.

SOURCE: Primary sources for the PBS film "America and the Holocaust"


[10] Primary sources for the PBS film "America and the Holocaust"

Memorandum of Conversation by Mr. Harry L. Hopkins, Special Assistant to President Roosevelt regarding a meeting with Anthony Eden March 27, 1943:


[11] Primary sources for the PBS film "America and the Holocaust"

To read the summary of the Auschwitz escapees:


[12] Primary sources for the PBS film "America and the Holocaust"

[13] Primary sources for the PBS film "America and the Holocaust"

[15] Primary sources for the PBS film "America and the Holocaust"

[16] Primary sources for the PBS film "America and the Holocaust"

[18] Carroll, J. 2001. Constantine's Sword: The Church and the Jews. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. (p.231)

[18a] In his history of the eugenics movement, Edwin Black (2003:215) points out that “Winston Churchill [was] an enthusiastic supporter of eugenics.” That's the same eugenics movement out of which came the German Nazi party.

Winston Churchill was also a class warrior who was irrevocably against giving women, and men without property, the right to vote (‘universal suffrage’): “‘We already have enough ignorant voters,’ he remarked, ‘and don’t want any more’” (Addison 2005:50). And he thought a good way to solve labor problems was to shoot striking workers dead. Here’s an example, as explained by Churchill’s biographer Paul Addison, from the period when Winston Churchill was Home Secretary:

“During the summer of 1911, when strikes in the docks spread to the railways, [Winston Churchill] was seized by a nightmare vision... Overriding the local authorities, he dispatched troops to many parts of the country and gave army commanders discretion to employ them. When rioters tried to prevent the movement of a train at Llanelli, troops opened fire and shot two men dead. Churchill’s blood was up and when Lloyd George intervened to settle the strike Churchill telephoned him to say that it would have been better to go on and give the strikers ‘a good thrashing.’” (Addison 2005:54)

Winston Churchill is also on record stating that ‘whites’ can exterminate ‘non-whites’ with impunity:

"I do not admit, for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America, or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher grade race, or at any rate, a more worldly-wise race, to put it that way, has come in and taken their place." (quoted in Addison 2005:137)

With the above for context, one is not exactly surprised to find that Churchill, “In February 1933,” which is the same year that Adolf Hitler became German chancellor, “…praised [Italian fascist leader Benito] Mussolini…as ‘the greatest lawgiver among living men’” (Addison 2005:140). Nor is one surprised to find Churchill’s biographer Paul Addison admitting that “With fascism as such…he had no quarrel” (ibid.). But Addison is understating matters here, and a quick glance at some of Churchill’s behaviors is enough to make one wonder whether World War II will not perhaps deserve a different interpretation from the one traditionally given.

As Addison explains, in 1927 Churchill led a cabinet revolt and thereby derailed an agreement that the United States had been seeking with Britain to allow expansion of the American navy (ibid. pp.126-127). Churchill sprang this stunt, mind you, when the British representatives at the conference had already agreed to sign. This was an obstacle to the further spectacular enrichment of American steel magnate Charles M. Schwab, because it was Schwab who would be providing the steel for an expanded American navy. But he could not exactly be sore with Churchill, who in his earlier capacity as WWI British Minister of Munitions had enriched Schwab spectacularly by placing orders with him (ibid. p.128).

Two years later Schwab would have an opportunity to demonstrate that, indeed, he was not sore at Churchill. You see, in 1929 Winston Churchill ended up ‘on the street,’ so to speak: “The Conservative government was defeated in 1929, and Churchill, now out of office, was in need of income. …[He] was now increasingly dependent on his writing and public speaking to sustain his lifestyle,” as explained in a a Library of Congress exhibit on Churchill that may be inspected here:

For Churchill this was a vexing problem indeed because “his lifestyle” can only be described as royally extravagant, but as chance would have it Charles M. Schwab just now invited the unemployed British politician to promenade himself all around the American continent in Schwab’s private railcar—at no expense (Addison 2005:128).

Like Churchill, Charles M. Schwab was a class warrior who thought the right way to deal with a strike was to crush it by calling in the state police and threatening sympathetic businesses.

"In 1910, he crushed a 108-day strike at Bethlehem Steel. ‘I will not be in the position of having management dictated to by labor,’ he said. It was not until 1941, two years after Schwab died, that organized labor arrived at Bethlehem Steel."

The way Schwab crushed that strike was by calling in the state police and threatening any businesses that sided with the striking workers, as recorded in this Bethlehem Steel timeline called “Forging America: the Story of Bethlehem Steel,” by

Schwab got his start in the steel business ingratiating himself to Andrew Carnegie, another class warrior who believed the way to solve labor disputes was to shoot the strikers dead, and who was the main financier of the American eugenics movement. (The fact that these unimaginably wealthy men found it so easy to get the police organs of the state to act repressively against their own workers is not surprising given that the American government was enthusiastically pushing the anti-worker eugenics movement, as documented extensively in Edwin Black's War Against the Weak).

At Schwab's invitation, then, Churchill now took the mother of all vacations on Schwab’s luxury-hotel-cum-railcar and traveled to city after American city, giving lucrative talks. Matters were arranged so that Winston Churchill would travel down to California to meet with William Randolph Hearst, the man who essentially owned all of Hollywood and half of the United States print media (Addison 2005:128). Hearst wined and dined Churchill at his St. Simeon castle, and assembled for him an audience “dotted with Hollywood figures and pretty much representing the whole film industry,” to whom the British politician declaimed: “You are an educational institution which spreads its influence all over the world…” (Leary 2001). After this Hearst put Churchill on a stipend: “a lucrative contract for Churchill to contribute regular articles to the Hearst Press” (Addison 2005:128-129).

Now Churchill could afford his lifestyle.

The conclusion to Winston Churchill’s remarkable tour of the United States was a speech he gave to the Iron and Steel Institute, where Charles M. Schwab was the CEO. Here there was a miraculous metamorphosis, and the erstwhile bitter enemy of American naval expansion now became its most passionate advocate, because, what could be better for everybody? (Addison 2005:126-127, 129). It doesn’t look good, especially when you consider that prior to making for himself a hero’s reputation during World War II Churchill had been widely considered a shameless and unprincipled opportunist who would do anything to get himself ahead (Addison 2005:44).

But there’s more.

Winston Churchill’s employer, William Randolph Hearst, the same one who in 1936 was being called “the most influential American fascist…the keystone of American fascism” (Lundberg 1936:343), was an intimate friend of the German millionaire Putzi Hanfstaengl, who was nothing less than Adolf Hitler’s financial backer and press secretary (Pizzitola 2002:27-28). Consistent with all that, Hearst attended the famous Nuremberg rallies with the hysterically adoring crowds that Leni Riefenstahl immortalized in her famous Nazi propaganda films, staying in the same hotel with all the top Nazis. Goebbels’ Nazi propaganda ministry went out of its way to report the gushing reactions of Hearst’s son George (ibid. pp.308-310). There were accusations at the time—deserved ones, it appears—that Hearst had made an agreement with Hitler to give him good press in the United States (ibid.).

Soon after two powerful American class warriors, Hearst and Schwab, had turned Winston Churchill, another class warrior, into the obedient advocate of American naval expansion, the future wartime British prime minister, on the eve of Hitler’s coming to power, had a quite friendly meeting with Putzi Hangstaengl. I remind you that Hanfstaengl was Hearst’s good friend and also Hitler’s spokesman and financier (Addison 2005:140). This was soon followed by Churchill’s declaration, as Adolf Hitler was taking power in Germany, that Italian fascist Benito Mussolini was God’s gift to the world (see above). What are we to make of this, in combination with the fact that Churchill’s own eugenic ideology included a rather strongly articulated belief that a good way to rid the world of useless ‘riffraff’ was to get countries to make war on each other?

“...[the] social Darwinian views of war[,] which he had acquired as a subaltern in the 1890s..., were indeed to endure into the Second World War, according to a memorandum in the FBI’s file on Churchill. In an off-the-record discussion with American newspapermen in 1943 [that is to say, during WWII, while the Jews of Europe were being exterminated], a source who had been 'intimately associated' with Churchill reported that someone had asked him how it was that God could make such a beautiful sunrise and then permit so much misery in the world.

Churchill made a lengthy statement that there was no peace on earth save in death; that all life is war, a struggle for survival; that the best in men comes out in time of war; that in times of war the real improvements are achieved, and that under the stress of war tremendous progress is made for the good of living. Churchill stated that when war ends, men settle down to taking things easy, to complacency, and only war will compel more progress.” (Addison 2005:89)


Addison, P. 2005. Churchill: The unexpected hero. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Black, E. 2003. War against the weak: Eugenics and America's campaign to create a master race. New York: Four Walls Eight Windows.

Leary, D. T. 2001. Winston S. Churchill in California. California History 70:167(17).

Lundberg, F. 1936. Imperial Hearst: A social biography. New York: Equinox Cooperative Press.

Pizzitola, L. 2002. Hearst over Hollywood. New York: Columbia University Press.

[18b] Two interesting excerpts follow. The first is from the Encyclopedia Britannica (the emphasis is mine):

"[Nazi General] Guderian's tanks had swept up past Boulogne and Calais and were crossing the canal defense line close to Dunkirk when, on May 24, an inexplicable order from Hitler not only stopped their advance but actually called them back to the canal line just as Guderian was expecting to drive into Dunkirk. Dunkirk was now the only port left available for the withdrawal of the mass of the BEF [British Expeditionary Force] from Europe...

Three days passed before Brauchitsch, the German Army commander in chief, was able to persuade Hitler to withdraw his orders and allow the German armored forces to advance on Dunkirk. But they met stronger opposition from the British, who had had time to solidify their defenses, and almost immediately Hitler stopped the German armored forces again, ordering them instead to move south and prepare for the attack on the Somme-Aisne line."

Source: "World War II." Encyclopædia Britannica from Encyclopædia Britannica Online.
[Accessed April 4, 2005]

Here is another summary, from the BBC:

As France fell rapidly, the Allies' northern and southern forces were separated by the German advance from the Ardennes to the Somme. The Allied armies in the north were being encircled.

By 19 May 1940 the British commander, Viscount Gort, was considering the withdrawal of the British Expeditionary Force (BEF) by sea. But London was demanding more action and on 21 May, Gort launched an attack from Arras.

This attack lacked the necessary armour and General Heinz Guderian's tanks continued past Boulogne and Calais to cross the canal defence line close to Dunkirk, the only port left for an Allied withdrawal from Europe.

On 24 May, just as Guderian was expecting to drive into Dunkirk, Hitler gave the surprise order to withdraw back to the canal line. Why the order was given has never been explained fully.

One possible explanation is that Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring, head of the Luftwaffe, assured Hitler that his aircraft alone could destroy the Allied troops trapped on the beaches at Dunkirk. Others believe Hitler felt that Britain might accept peace terms more readily without a humiliating surrender. Whatever the reason, the German halt gave the Allies an unexpected opportunity to evacuate their troops.

Evacuation began on 26 May and gained urgency the next day, when Field Marshal Walter von Brauchitsch, the German Commander-in-Chief, persuaded Hitler to rescind his orders and German tanks again advanced on Dunkirk.

By this time the Allies had strengthened their defences and the tanks met heavy resistance.
Almost immediately, Hitler ordered them instead to move south for the imminent attack on the Somme-Aisne line, another lucky break for the Allies.

...By 4 June, when the operation ended, 198,000 British and 140,000 French and Belgian troops had been saved, but virtually all of their heavy equipment had been abandoned.

Notice that the explanations for Hitler's orders to Guderain are not exactly convincing.

Given that "high mist...interfered with the accuracy of the German bombers," as explained by another BBC article on the evacuation, why would Hitler have taken seriously any boast by Goering that his airplanes alone could do the job? Especially given that, in the English Channel, high mist is a daily occurrence and was to be expected in the first place!

And in any case, what was the argument against a combined land-air attack?

The other proffered explanation is hardly better. What principle of military theory would hold that declining to win a battle decisively is the way to force the other side to give up? And yet this is what we are told: "Others believe Hitler felt that Britain might accept peace terms more readily without a humiliating surrender."

A decisive, humiliating defeat is precisely what typically forces a country at war to surrender. It was at hand. As the BBC article quoted at length above explains, even with Hitler's orders to Guderain, "the Germans had taken over a million Allied prisoners in three weeks at a cost of 60,000 casualties." Another little push and nothing would have been left of Britain's ability to fight, making it easy for Hitler to force his terms of surrender. So what Hitler did is precisely the opposite of what he should have done if what he wanted was for Britain to surrender. Especially considering that, as the same article explains, "the evacuation was a major boost to British morale and enabled the Allies to fight another day."

Aside from all that, is charity toward the enemy supposed to characterize Adolf Hitler?

So, given the explanations proffered, no wonder that "Why [Hitler's] order was given has never been explained fully." Perhaps there was an agreement between Churchill and Hitler?

[18c] Uncle Sam's Nazi's, The Washington Post, April 24, 1988, Sunday, Final Edition, BOOK WORLD; PAGE X11, 905 words, Peter Grose, REVIEW

[19] This is what the chief of the Palestine desk in the State Department's Near East section, Frazier Wilkins, wrote in 1947:

"[T]he unsettled Palestine problem, made more difficult by the pressure for post-war migration of displaced Jews from Europe to Palestine, is an irritant to Anglo-American relations [because the British were violently opposed to the creation of a Jewish State]. It is also prejudicial to American-Arab relations... Continued agitation and uncertainty regarding the Palestine question, by weakening the Anglo-American position in the Near East, permits a more rapid extension of Soviet Russian objectives, and is distressing to Christians everywhere..."

Distressing to Christians everywhere! Can it be clearer that these people were antisemites?

But "When Truman and American public opinion recognized the right of the Jews to a state and of the refugees to immigrate to Palestine, the State Department experts lost virtually all freedom to maneuver."

Virtually, but not all. For example, prior to the vote on partition at the UN, Greece informed the Jewish Agency that they could not support partition, but that they would abstain from voting. And yet, on November 26, 1947, the day set for this important vote, "the representative from Greece, expressed opposition to the plan." And "General Carlos P. Romulo of the Philippines, also inveighed against partition." This surprised the Jewish Agency, which had regarded the Philippines as a 'sure' thing. Greece and the Philippines were dependent on the United States; it was clear therefore, that the American delegates had made little effort to persuade these two countries to support the US position. In other words, the US supported partition, in the figure of its president, and the UN delegates were accordingly instructed to vote in favor. However, the US did not expend much political capital, even with its puppets (this assumes that the State Department did not exert pressure on US puppets behind closed doors to vote against partition).

Source for the above: Milstein, U. 1996. History of the War of Independence: A nation girds for war. Vol. 1. New York: University Press of America. (pp. 37, 427)

As soon as the November 29, 1947 resolution authorizing partition was passed, the Arab leaders, who knew they were not ready for a confrontation with Jewish forces,

"set themselves goals that seemed practicable: frustrating the UN decision and forestalling the founding of the state of Israel. They planned to convince many supporters of the November 29 resolution to switch sides, then overturn the decision with another vote in the UN General Assembly. The Arabs had learned from the very first stages of the dispute that aggressiveness was highly effective in international relations. The  western powers, which did not want war, were prepared to sacrifice the Jews of Eretz-Yisra'el to prevent risk to themselves. If the Arabs had succeeded in mobilizing sufficient support, they might have prevented the creation of Israel. The aim of the Arab threats was to induce the minimalist Zionists [those who did not insist on a bona-fide Jewish state] and the United States to reconsider their decisions. The minimalists in the Zionist camp could have concluded that it was better to forego independence and instead accept a compromise such as that suggested by the UNSCOP minority. They wanted independence but not war. The Americans also feared war, and US State Department officials, who had opposed partitioning Palestine before the UN vote, had not changed their minds."

"The goal of the Arab attack on the  cities [the Jewish towns in Eretz-Yisra'el]...was more political than military, and the political balance tilted in their favor at the conclusion of this stage of the war. They had proved that their vow to fight partition was not an idle threat and that the two peoples could not live together within the partition boundaries established by the United Nations...Early in 1948, even some political leaders who had voted for partition, particularly in the United States, came to doubt whether the resolution of November 29 had been wise or could be realized."

Source for the above: Milstein, U. 1996. History of the War of Independence: The first month. Vol. 2. New York: University Press of America. (pp. 24-25, 99)

[19a] Half a Loaf, The Jerusalem Post, November 28, 1997, Friday, FEATURES; Pg. 8, 4322 words, Abraham Rabinovich

[19aa] From a US government exhibit on the Marshall Plan.

[19b] Oral History: A founding father recalls the beginning of Israeli statehood; Special Reports: "Israel at 50"; CNN; From CNN Interactive Writer Barbara McCann. 1998.

[19c] Source: Howard M Sachar, A History of Israel: From the Rise of Zionism to Our Time, (New York: Knopf, 1979), p. 333

[19cc] U.S. ASKED TO LIFT EMBARGO ON ARMS; Special to THE NEW YORK TIMES; New York Times (1857-Current file); Jan 17, 1948; ProQuest Historical Newspapers The New York Times (1851 - 2001); pg. 4.

[19d] Bard, M. G. 2002. Myths and Facts: A Guide to the Arab-Israeli Conflict. Chevy Chase, MD: American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise (AICE). (pp.38, 42)

[19dd] Josiah Wedgwood is quoted in: Rapoport, Louis. 1999. Shake heaven and earth: Peter Bergson and the struggle to rescue the Jews of Europe, Gefen, Jerusalem and New York. (p.18)

If you wish to read about how how the British instigated anti-Jewish Arab riots, you will find the most complete documentation here:

“HOW DID THE ‘PALESTINIAN MOVEMENT’ EMERGE? The British sponsored it. Then the German Nazis, and the US.”; Historical and Investigative Research; 13 June 2006; by Francisco Gil-White.

Some of this material was originally published here:

“Anti-Semitism, Misinformation, And The Whitewashing Of The Palestinian Leadership”; Israel National News; May 26, '03 / 24 Iyar 5763; by Francisco J. Gil-White

[19e] 100,000 JAM RALLY IN JEWISH PROTEST; New York Times (1857-Current file); Apr 5, 1948; ProQuest Historical Newspapers The New York Times; pg. 1.

[19f] To read about how (1) the Mufti Hajj Amin al Husseini created the Palestinian movement, (2) led Adolf Hitler's Final Solution, (3) mentored Yasser Arafat, and (4) grandfathered Al Fatah, the organ that controls the PLO, go here, where you will find the most complete documentation:

“HOW DID THE ‘PALESTINIAN MOVEMENT’ EMERGE? The British sponsored it. Then the German Nazis, and the US.”; Historical and Investigative Research; 13 June 2006; by Francisco Gil-White.

Some of this material was originally published here:

“Anti-Semitism, Misinformation, And The Whitewashing Of The Palestinian Leadership”; Israel National News; May 26, '03 / 24 Iyar 5763; by Francisco J. Gil-White

[20] Source: "The Ben-Gurion Era: Continuing Tensions." "Israel" Encyclopædia Britannica from Encyclopædia Britannica Online.
[Accessed November 22, 2003].

[20a] Encyclopædia Britannica | From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

[20b] Leslie Gelb | From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

[21] "The Ben-Gurion Era: The Suez War." "Israel." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2003.  Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 22 Nov, 2003

[22] To get a sense for John Foster Dulles, consider that in October 1935 he wrote an article for the Atlantic Monthly entitled "The Road to Peace" where he excused Nazi Germany’s secret rearmament as an action taking back their freedom.

About his brother, Allen Dulles, consider the following:

"Policy concerning clandestine use of former Nazi collaborators during the early cold war years was shaped by a series of National Security Council directives and intelligence projects sponsored by the Policy Planning Staff of the State Department, then under the leadership of George F. Kennan, according to records discovered recently in the US State Department archives. Kennan was at the time assigned the task of internal policy oversight of all US clandestine operations abroad. His initiatives - along with those of Allen Dulles, Frank Wisner, and a number of other latter-day CIA executives - helped convince Truman's NSC to approve a comprehensive program of covert operations that were explicitly modeled on the Vlasov Army, an anti-Communist émigré campaign created by the SS and the Nazi Foreign Office during World War II. Scholars and propagandists who had once collaborated in formulating the Nazis' political warfare program were brought into the United States to provide brains for the new operation."

Source: Simpson, C. 1988. Blowback: America's recruitment of Nazis and its effects on the Cold War. New York: Weidenfeld & Nicholson. (p.8)

(see also 1945 section)

[23] "The Ben-Gurion Era: Continuing Tensions." "Israel" Encyclopædia Britannica  from Encyclopædia Britannica Online.
[Accessed November 22, 2003].

[24] The Failure Of Israel's "New Historians" To Explain War And Peace: The Past Is Not a Foreign Country, by Anita Shapira

[25] The Failure Of Israel's "New Historians" To Explain War And Peace: The Past Is Not a Foreign Country, by Anita Shapira  

[26] Source: Israeli Foreign Ministry 

[27] Addressing the UN Security Council in April 1948, Jamal Husseini, Spokesperson for the Mufti [Hajj Amin's] Arab Higher Committee (the organization that officially spoke for the Palestinian movement), said: "The representative of the Jewish Agency told us yesterday that they were not the attackers, that the Arabs had begun the fighting. We did not deny this. We told the whole world that we were going to fight." -- Source: Security Council Official Records, S/Agenda/58, (April 16, 1948), p. 19

And they also told the whole world what the fighting would be about. Azzam Pasha, Secretary General of the Arab League, promised before that war: "This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades." -- Source: Howard M Sachar, A History of Israel: From the Rise of Zionism to Our Time, (New York: Knopf, 1979), p. 333

[28] The quotation about Syria shelling Israeli farmers in the Galilee from the Golan Heights is from: Howard Sachar, A History of Israel: From the Rise of Zionism to Our Time, (NY: Alfred A. Knopf, 1979), p. 616.

The source for Nasser's speech is the Israeli Foreign Ministry:

[29] "Neither the Jordanian nor the Syrian borders were quiet during the years leading up to the Six-Day War, but all Israelis were taken by surprise when in May 1967 increasingly violent clashes with Palestinian guerrillas and Syrian army forces along Lake Tiberias led to a general crisis. The Soviet Union alleged that Israel was mobilizing to attack Syria, and the Syrian government, in turn, chided President Nasser of Egypt for inaction. Nasser then mobilized his own forces, which he promptly sent into the Sinai after he ordered that UN forces there be withdrawn, and announced a blockade of the Strait of Tiran. The encirclement of Israel was complete when King Hussein of Jordan, despite secret Israeli pleas, felt compelled to join the Arab war coalition. In reaction, Eshkol mobilized the IDF and sent his foreign minister, Abba Eban, on a futile trip to seek French, British, and American aid."

Source: "Labour rule after Ben-Gurion: The Six Day War" -- Israel." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2003.  Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 22 Nov, 2003

[29a] "Playing the Democracy Card: How America Furthers Its National Interests in the Middle East"; By Dilip Hiro;; Thursday 17 March, 2005.

[30] The full text of Resolution 242 may be read here:

[31] "It was not clear how military victory could be turned into peace. Shortly after the war's end Israel began that quest, but it would take more than a decade and involve yet another war before yielding any results. Eshkol's secret offer to trade much of the newly won territory for peace agreements with Egypt, Jordan, and Syria was rejected by Nasser, who, supported by an emergency resupply of Soviet arms, led the Arabs at the Khartoum Arab Summit in The Sudan in August 1967 in a refusal to negotiate directly with Israel."

Source: "Labour Rule After Ben-Gurion: Troubled victory" "Israel." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2003.  Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 2 Nov, 2003


[31b] Ian Lustick boasts in his curriculum vitae that he works for US Intelligence. He is also a professor of political science at the University of Pennsylvania. His academic work is a series of attacks on Israel, and a passionate defense of the idea that the PLO should be given its own state in the West Bank and Gaza. As non-coincidence would have it, Ian Lustick appears to have had a lot to do with getting me fired from the University of Pennsylvania merely for having documented that the PLO traces its roots to the German Nazi Final Solution. To read about that, visit:

[31c] This Pentagon document was apparently declassified in 1979 but not published until 1984. It was published by Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs:

It was also published by the Journal of Palestine Studies:
"Memorandum for the Secretary of Defense"; Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 13, No. 2. (Winter, 1984), pp. 122-126.
This file is especially useful because it shows a map with the "minimum territory needed by Israel for defensive purposes."

Finally, the Pentagon study is republished as an appendix in:
Netanyahu, B. 2000. A durable peace: Israel and its place among the nations, 2 edition. New York: Warner Books. (APPENDIX: The Pentagon Plan, June 29, 1967; pp.433-437)

[32] Bard, M. G. 2002. Myths and Facts: A Guide to the Arab-Israeli Conflict. Chevy Chase, MD: American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise (AICE). (p.71-72)

[33] Library of Congress Country Study on Israel

See also: "What was the Rogers Plan in 1969" by Palestine Facts

To see the text of the plan visit "The Rogers Plan", Jewish Virtual Library

[34] "What was the Rogers Plan in 1969" by Palestine Facts 

[36] Library of Congress Country Study on Israel 

[37] "The decline of Labour dominance: The Yom Kippur War" "Israel." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2003.  Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 23 Nov, 2003

[37a] 1973. The Algiers Summit Conference. MERIP Reports 23:13-16.

[37b] “Shortly after signing the Declaration of Principles and the famous handshake between [PLO leader Yasser] Arafat and [Israeli prime minister] Yitzhak Rabin on the White House lawn, Arafat was declaring to his Palestinian constituency over Jordanian television that Oslo was to be understood in terms of the [PLO’s] Palestine National Council’s 1974 decision. This was a reference to the so-called Plan of Phases, according to which the Palestine Liberation Organization [PLO] would acquire whatever territory it could by negotiations, then use that land as a base for pursuing its ultimate goal of Israel’s annihilation.”

SOURCE: Levin, K. 2005. The Oslo syndrome: Delusions of a people under siege. Hanover, NH: Smith and Kraus. (p.ix)

[38] To learn about the history of Arafat and the Palestinian movement, you will find the most complete documentation here:

“HOW DID THE ‘PALESTINIAN MOVEMENT’ EMERGE? The British sponsored it. Then the German Nazis, and the US.”; Historical and Investigative Research; 13 June 2006; by Francisco Gil-White.

Some of this material was originally published here:

“Anti-Semitism, Misinformation, And The Whitewashing Of The Palestinian Leadership”; Israel National News; May 26, '03 / 24 Iyar 5763; by Francisco J. Gil-White

[39] The New York Times Company: Abstracts; Information Bank Abstracts; New York Times; March 14, 1969, Friday; Section: Page 8, Column 1; Length: 119 Words; Journal-Code:  Nyt

"Differences between Palestinian leaders and Arab govts over any pol settlement apparently are intensifying; Beirut Al Nahar repts Palestine Liberation Orgn gave Arab League Council note charging acceptance of Security Council Nov '67 resolution by Arab states is infringement on right of Palestinians to their nation; note reptdly holds Palestinians will determine their stand toward Arab govts on basis of attitude of govts on Palestine question; recent rejection by Al Fatah repr of all plans to establish Palestinian state on Jordan west bank and in Gaza Strip noted; Palestinian Natl Council member Dr S Dabbagh urges commandos to prepare now for strategy they will follow if Arab states accept pol settlement."

[40] New York Times; May 17, 1977, Tuesday; Section: Page 5, Column 1; Length: 106 Words; Byline: By Marvine Howe; Journal-Code:  Nyt; Abstract:

"PLO has reptdly joined Egypt, Syria and Saudi Arabia in proposing establishment of ind Palestinian state on West Bank and Gaza Strip as part of overall Middle East settlement.  Syrian Pres Assad reptdly carried plan with him to Geneva to present to Pres Carter.  Informants say 3 Arab countries agree that proposed state should be joined in fed with Jordan.  Say PLO insists that state be set up first before decision is made on form of future relationship with Jordan.  Say PLO leaders feel it is premature to speak of recognizing Israel's existence (M)."

[41] Israel's administration of the West Bank and Gaza followed a war provoked by the Arab states in 1967. Despite that, Israel's administration of these territories was quite benign. This is Newsweek, writing ten years later in 1977:

"Arab living standards [in the West Bank] have jumped more than 50 per cent in the past ten years, and employment has nearly doubled, largely because of the $250 million annual trade that has grown up between the West Bank and Israel. The Israelis have also kept the Jordan River bridges open, allowing 1 million Arabs a year to cross and to keep their markets in Jordan for such products as olive oil, soap and farm produce. The Israelis also allow the Arabs to elect their own officials, even though the winners are often radical activists. Still, the Arabs say they have never been more unhappy. . ." Source: Newsweek, June 13, 1977, UNITED STATES EDITION, INTERNATIONAL; Pg. 55, 849 words, The West Bank Today, Milan J. Kubic

So the Israelis installed a benign regime on the West Bank despite the fact that this was the population of one of its attackers in 1967, Jordan, in a war that was pledged to destroy Israel through genocide. But this enemy population was nevertheless allowed freedom of the press, the freedom to elect its own leaders, however radical, border crossings with Jordan, and the ability to take jobs in Israel. Can anybody imagine another country doing that, under the circumstances?

Me neither.

[42] "ABSTRACT: Palestine Liberation Orgn (PLO) leader Yasir Arafat is accorded protocal honors of chief of state Nov 13 by UN General Assembly.  Does not sit in chair of chief of state proferred him by Assembly Pres Abdelaziz Bouteflika, but stands with one hand on it as delegates applaud his speech.  Honor for Arafat reflects growing influence of third world countries in UN decisions.  US Mission spokesman says US UN Amb John A Scali was not pleased by decision to treat Arafat as chief of state.  Arafat holds audience like chief of state after his speech to Assembly.  Jordanians join line of delegates to congratulate him, although they have been persuaded reluctantly by other Arab countries to forfeit claims to west bank of Jordan River for creation of Palestinian state.  Arafat is guest of honor at reception given by Egyptian UN delegate Ahmed Esmat Abdel Meguid. Later, Arafat is seen leaving Waldorf Towers for unknown destination (M)."

Source: The New York Times Company: Abstracts; Information Bank Abstracts; NEW YORK TIMES; November 14, 1974, Thursday; SECTION: Page 25, Column 7; LENGTH: 157 words; BYLINE: BY RAYMOND H ANDERSON.

[44] Kurt Waldheim was stationed in Yugoslavia during WWII, where some of the most unbelievable atrocities were committed.

[Quote From Encyclopedia Britannica Starts Here]

Kurt Waldheim served in the Austrian army as a volunteer (1936–37) before he began to study for a diplomatic career. He was soon conscripted into the German army, however, and served on the Russian front until 1941, when he was wounded. Waldheim's later claims that he spent the rest of the war studying law at the University of Vienna were contradicted by the rediscovery in 1986 of documents suggesting that he had been a German army staff officer stationed in the Balkans from 1942 to 1945...

...Waldheim was not reelected to a third term as UN secretary-general in 1981. He ran as the People's Party candidate for president of Austria in 1986. His candidacy became controversial when rediscovered wartime and postwar documents pointed to his being an interpreter and intelligence officer for a German army unit that had engaged in brutal reprisals against Yugoslav partisans and civilians and that had deported most of the Jewish population of Salonika (Thessaloníki), Greece, to Nazi death camps in 1943.

[Quote From Encyclopedia Britannica Ends Here]

Source: Waldheim, Kurt. Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved July 29, 2003, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online.

[45] In 1981, when Waldheim stepped down from his post at the UN, UPI wrote: "Claims that he was a Nazi were investigated over and over and proved unfounded." -- United Press International, December 3, 1981, Thursday, BC cycle, International, 650 words, Kurt Waldheim, U.N. secretary general.

This shows that the allegations were made. Later, as is now known, documentation surfaced to demonstrate this (see above footnote).

[45a] CIA Helped Bush Senior In Oil Venture; By Russ Baker and Jonathan Z. Larsen; The Real News Project; January 8, 2007

[46] The  US even backed Waldheim for an unprecedented third term (which Waldheim did not win). The following is from an Associated Press wire written at the time when the UN was deliberating either reelection for Waldheim, or the election of a successor.

"Breaking her silence on U.S. support for Waldheim last week, [U.S. Ambassador] Mrs. [Jeane J.] Kirkpatrick told reporters that she and Soviet Ambassador Oleg A. Troyanovsky had agreed that the Austrian incumbent was "the kind of nonpartisan person" both their governments could "get a fair shake from." The Americans regard Waldheim as an exponent of Western parliamentary democracy. To the Soviets, he is a known quantity from a small European state that has pledged since the end of World War II to remain neutral in international affairs." -- The Associated Press, November 21, 1981, Saturday, AM cycle, International News, 1144 words, The Race for U.N. Secretary-General, By O.C. DOELLING, Associated Press Writer, UNITED NATIONS

[47] Source: The New York Times, May 17, 1981, Sunday, Late City Final Edition, Section 6; Page 77, Column 3; Magazine Desk, 11464 words, "Putting The Hostages' Lives First"

[47a] The New York Times, June 14, 1987, Sunday, Late City Final Edition, Section 4; Page 1, Column 1; Week in Review Desk, 1284 words, PRIVATE WARRIORS; Hearings Detail a Policy Improvised by Outsiders, By DAVID E. ROSENBAUM, WASHINGTON

[48] Newsweek, June 13, 1977, UNITED STATES EDITION, INTERNATIONAL; Pg. 55, 849 words, The West Bank Today, Milan J. Kubic.

[48a] Source: The Policy Of Confusion, By James Reston; New York Times (1857-Current file); May 13, 1977; ProQuest Historical Newspapers The New York Times (1851 - 2001); pg. 20

[48b] Source: The New York Times Company: Abstracts; Information Bank Abstracts; New York Times; March 14, 1969, Friday; Section: Page 8, Column 1; Length: 119 Words; Journal-Code: Nyt

(Click on "Palestine Liberation Organization" on the left)

(Click on "Palestine Liberation Organization" on the left)

[48e] The maps below show that the British Mandate definition of "Palestine" included the West Bank and Gaza. The map on the right is enlarged and shows the West Bank in yellow, and the Gaza strip in red.


[48f] Translation: The Associated Press, December 15, 1998, Tuesday, AM cycle, International News, 1070 words, Clinton meets with Netanyahu, Arafat, appeals for progress, By TERENCE HUNT, AP White House Correspondent, EREZ CROSSING, Gaza Strip. [Emphasis added]

Article 9…says that “armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine.”

Article 15 says it is “a national duty to repulse the Zionist imperialist invasion from the great Arab homeland and to purge the Zionist presence from Palestine.”

Article 22 declares that “the liberation of Palestine will liquidate the Zionist and imperialist presence and bring about the stabilization of peace in the Middle East.”

[48g] Nasser and Arafat Discussing Role of Commandos
By RAYMOND H. ANDERSON Special to The New York Times
New York Times (1857-Current file); Aug 27, 1970; ProQuest Historical Newspapers The New York Times (1851 - 2001)
pg. 3

[48h] “Shortly after signing the Declaration of Principles and the famous handshake between [PLO leader Yasser] Arafat and [Israeli prime minister] Yitzhak Rabin on the White House lawn, Arafat was declaring to his Palestinian constituency over Jordanian television that Oslo was to be understood in terms of the [PLO’s] Palestine National Council’s 1974 decision. This was a reference to the so-called Plan of Phases, according to which the Palestine Liberation Organization [PLO] would acquire whatever territory it could by negotiations, then use that land as a base for pursuing its ultimate goal of Israel’s annihilation.”

SOURCE: Levin, K. 2005. The Oslo syndrome: Delusions of a people under siege. Hanover, NH: Smith and Kraus. (p.ix)

[49] New York Times; May 17, 1977, Tuesday; Section: Page 5, Column 1; Length: 106 Words; Byline: By Marvine Howe; Journal-Code:  Nyt; Abstract:

"PLO spokesman Mahmoud Labady says PLO views Pres Carter's concept of Palestinian homeland as important contribution to 'just and durable' peace in Middle East.  Stresses that Carter's references to homeland require clarification.  Says Carter should say where homeland will be located.  Says PLO refuses fed with Jordan.  Says PLO would agree to establishment of Palestinian state on West Bank and in Gaza Strip.  Calls for Israeli withdrawal from occupied territories, recognition of Palestinian 'rights,' end of settlement policy in occupied areas, end to immigration to Israel and repatriation of Palestinians expelled in '48 (M)."

[50] New York Times; May 17, 1977, Tuesday; Section: Page 5, Column 1; Length: 106 Words; Byline: By Marvine Howe; Journal-Code:  Nyt; Abstract:

"PLO has reptdly joined Egypt, Syria and Saudi Arabia in proposing establishment of ind Palestinian state on West Bank and Gaza Strip as part of overall Middle East settlement.  Syrian Pres Assad reptdly carried plan with him to Geneva to present to Pres Carter.  Informants say 3 Arab countries agree that proposed state should be joined in fed with Jordan.  Say PLO insists that state be set up first before decision is made on form of future relationship with Jordan.  Say PLO leaders feel it is premature to speak of recognizing Israel's existence (M)."

[51] “ABSTRACT: Palestine Liberation Orgn (PLO) leader Yasir Arafat is accorded protocol honors of chief of state Nov 13 by UN General Assembly.  Does not sit in chair of chief of state proferred him by Assembly Pres Abdelaziz Bouteflika, but stands with one hand on it as delegates applaud his speech.  Honor for Arafat reflects growing influence of third world countries in UN decisions.  US Mission spokesman says US UN Amb John A Scali was not pleased by decision to treat Arafat as chief of state.  Arafat holds audience like chief of state after his speech to Assembly.  Jordanians join line of delegates to congratulate him, although they have been persuaded reluctantly by other Arab countries to forfeit claims to west bank of Jordan River for creation of Palestinian state.  Arafat is guest of honor at reception given by Egyptian UN delegate Ahmed Esmat Abdel Meguid. Later, Arafat is seen leaving Waldorf Towers for unknown destination (M).”


SOURCE: The New York Times Company: Abstracts; Information Bank Abstracts; NEW YORK TIMES; November 14, 1974, Thursday; SECTION: Page 25, Column 7; LENGTH: 157 words; BYLINE: BY RAYMOND H ANDERSON.

[51a] The New Republic, June 16, 1986 v194 p20(4); “The Waldheim file: complete and unexpurgated”; by Peter Lubin.

New York Times 1857-Current; Dec 22, 1971; ProQuest Historical Newspapers The New York Times (1851 - 2001); pg. 1

[52] New York Times; July 20, 1977, Wednesday; Section: Page 8, Column 3; Length: 81 Words; Journal-Code:  Nyt; Abstract:

"Beirut newspaper Al Anwar repts Carter Adm and Palestinian guerrilla leaders are involved in secret high-level contacts.  Cites June 24 meeting between William W Scranton, reptdly representing Carter, and PLO repr Basil Akl, London.  Says exch began in May with note from PLO head Yasir Arafat delivered to Carter by Saudi Prince Fahd.  Note reptdly outlined Arafat's views on PLO role in Arab-Israeli Geneva peace talks and on Palestinian state and peace treaties with Israel (S)."

[53] The Associated Press, August 2, 1977, AM cycle, 911 words, By BARRY SCHWEID, Associated Press Writer, ALEXANDRIA, Egypt

[54] "Secretary-General Kurt Waldheim will leave Feb. 1 on East for talks on resuming the Geneva peace conference, a well-placed source said Monday.

Waldheim will visit Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Syria and possibly Lebanon, the source said, and also will talk with officials of the Palestine Liberation Organization at an unspecified location.

The secretary general is acting under a Dec. 9, 1976, General Assembly resolution asking that he contact parties to the Mideast conflict in an effort to get the conference resumed by the end of March."

SOURCE: The Associated Press; January 10, 1977, AM cycle; LENGTH: 203 words; DATELINE: UNITED NATIONS, N.Y.

[55] The New York Times Company: Abstracts; Information Bank Abstracts; New York Times; August 8, 1977, Monday; Section: Page 1, Column 4; Length: 147 Words; Byline: By Bernard Gwertzman; Journal-Code:  Nyt; Abstract:

"Bernard Gwertzman writes disagreements over Middle East peace strategy might provoke confrontation between US and Israeli leaders.  Notes Sec of State Vance agrees with Arab nations that principles for peace settlement should be agreed upon before convening Geneva conf.  Describes Israeli desire to start conf without any pre-conditions.  Observes US is anxious over Israeli refusal to accept 2 Arab pre-conditions to conf, including relinquishment of most of the territory occupied since '67 war and acknowledgement of right for existence of some kind of Palestinian state.  Remarks if Israelis continue to refuse to make commitments before conf, Pres Carter has said he would publicly issue peace plan.  Notes Carter's view that Israeli Prime Min Begin will not risk open confrontation with US if plan seems equitable to Israeli population and narrowly-based pol coalition (M)."

[56] The New York Times Company: Abstracts; Information Bank Abstracts; New York Times; September 18, 1977, Sunday; Section: Section 4; Page 3, Column 3; Length: 102 Words; Byline: By William E Farrell; Journal-Code:  Nyt; Abstract:

"State Dept announcement that Palestinians should be involved in peacemaking process at Geneva adds to tartness that has emerged between Carter and Begin Adms since 2 men met in July.  Israeli press sees US moves and comments as leaning towards establishment of separate Palestinian state, anathema to most Israelis.  Newspaper Haaretz says present US position is liable to increase danger of war since it is bound to toughen Arabs' stand as well as pushing Israel into corner.  Israelis also fear that US may be moving toward affirming PLO as legitimate repr of Palestinian interests.  Illus of Pres Carter (M)."

[57] "Joint US-Soviet statement on the Middle East- 1 October 1977"; 1 Oct 1977; Historical Documents; Israeli Foreign Ministry; VOLUMES 4-5: 1977-1979.

[58] "Israel-US working paper on The Geneva Conference - 5 October 1977"; 5 Oct 1977; Historical Documents; Israeli Foreign Ministry; VOLUMES 4-5: 1977-1979.

[58a] Source: “Israel 1967-1991; Lebanon 1982”; Palestine Facts.

[59] Jimmy Carter's National Security Advisor proudly explained to Le Monde the Islamist strategy, and its point: to destroy the Soviet Union by agitating Islamist terrorism along its Asian borders. To learn more about this, and to read the Le Monde interview, visit:

"Ex-National Security Chief Brzezinski admits: Afghan Islamism Was Made in Washington: Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser in 'Le Nouvel Observateur'" Comments by Jared Israel

To learn more about the US's Islamist strategy read:

Zalmay Khalilzad - Special US Envoy for Islamic Terror!
Emperor's Clothes; 1 March 2003; by Jared Israel

Also, the analysis, cited below, of George Bush Sr.'s Gulf War, demonstrates that it was fought to protect Islamist Tehran. This is not entirely surprising given that the Carter administration created The US Central Command (CENTCOM) in 1979, the same year that the Ayatollah Khomeini came to power, and explicitly to protect Khomeini's Islamist and antisemitic Iran. The references in this analysis provide an avalanche of documentation that ever since Carter the US has followed a vigorous policy of covert sponsorship of Islamist terrorism, in order to destabilize competing powers.

"Why the First Gulf War? To Protect Iranian Islamism: Little-known facts make it clear that this was the real purpose of Bush senior's war," by Francisco Gil-White

[60] "The Arming of Saudi Arabia" Transcript of PBS FRONTLINE Show #1112; Air Date: February 16, 1993

[61] Speaking of a fund-drive in the various Gulf states to support the Palestinian terrorist movement, the London Times reported:

"In Saudi Arabia, the money was officially raised in the name of the Saudi Committee for the Support of the al-Quds Intifada, a group set up to support the Palestinian uprising. But some of it - no one knows quite how much - will be spent on compensating the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.

The head the committee, Prince Naif bin Abdul Aziz, the Interior Minister, said in a statement: 'The committee will continue to provide direct assistance to the families of Palestinian martyrs and those wounded while resisting the occupation.'"

Source: The Times (London). April 23, 2002, Tuesday, Features, 1563 words, The blood donors, Scott Parkes and Nick Day

If you would like to understand this in greater detail, read on:

London Times calls massive incentives for terrorism... 'heroic generosity'!

A 2002 article by the London Times carried the following heading:

"In a three-day TV marathon, Saudi citizens donated Pounds 70 million, including expensive cars and gold jewellery, to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers."(1)

This was not a bake sale - on the contrary, it was a massive effort, and organized from the very top. The Saudi Interior Minister, Prince Naif, no less, is officially in charge of such things.

"The grand total across the [Persian Gulf] region could surpass Pounds 150 million. In Saudi Arabia, the money was officially raised in the name of the Saudi Committee for the Support of the al-Quds Intifada, a group set up to support the Palestinian uprising...

The head of the committee [is] Prince Naif bin Abdul Aziz, the Interior Minister...

The appeal, launched by King Fahd, was backed from the very top of Saudi society, as one might expect (state-run television is directly controlled by the Ministry of Information)."

Now, this money does not go exclusively "to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers," but also to the making of explosives, paying the salaries of terrorist leaders, and so forth. I will address that further below.

Here, however, let us imagine for a moment that the money really does go exclusively "to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers." In such a case the London Times' heading would be appropriate, but it would then be necessary in the body of the article to make a comment.

What comment?

The London Times should explain to its readers that a Saudi fund-drive for the families of suicide bombers is part of a massive incentive program to murder innocent Jewish civilians. Why? Because,

1)  Palestinian Arab children are indoctrinated from an early age, in the schools run by Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Authority, to believe that they should hate Jews and should also look forward to slaughtering them by becoming suicide 'martyrs.'(2)

2)  And then Palestinian Arabs hear officially sponsored Islamist clerics on Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Authority TV - not every once in a while, but every day - exhorting "Blessings to whoever put a belt of explosives on his body or on his sons and plunged into the midst of Jews crying: 'Allah Akbar, praise to Allah'". They are also told of heavenly rewards - sexual and otherwise - for their acts of murder.(3)

Thus, when on top of all this they hear that their own families will be generously rewarded with money, this becomes an extra inducement for these young men (and some women!) to go murder Israeli children while destroying their own tender lives.

That's the minimal interpretation of the Saudi fund-drive - as a massive incentive program for terror. But the London Times never makes this obvious point. Instead, the London Times tries hard to elicit sympathy for the Saudi terrorist fund-drive by dramatizing the donations as selfless sacrifices - we are told that "Newlywed couples pledged their savings, fathers gave away their daughters' dowries." The Times then lauds these Saudis for "their eagerness to give, and to give generously, to their brethren suffering under the onslaught of the Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon."

Not content with this, the London Times actually goes out of its way to qualify as 'unsurpassable generosity' a donation made explicitly in the hopes that it will lead to the murder of Israelis:

"...few of the people who turned up at the Riyadh offices of Saudi state television could surpass the generosity of 26-year-old Mohamed al-Qahtani. He had come to offer his car to the cause. 'I hope it will reach the Palestinian areas,' he announced proudly, 'so a Palestinian fighter can use it to blow up a military barracks and kill soldiers.'"

Now, it is not exactly easy to elicit sympathy for terrorism. Widespread antisemitism makes it easier, in this particular case, but still... terrorism is simply awful. So the Times is careful, as we saw above, to refer to Palestinians Arabs as besieged underdogs "suffering under the onslaught of the Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon."

And yet that is still not quite enough to convey that Saudis who give their passionate millions to an antisemitic terrorist cause are 'good guys,' whereas Israeli Jews who will be the victims of this terror are 'bad guys.' Why not? Because Israeli children who die in suicide attacks obviously cannot be responsible for any onslaught by Sharon, real or imagined. So to prevent compassion for such children to 'pollute' its readers minds, the Times must tell its readers that the only imaginable reply of an allegedly oppressed Palestinian people is to slaughter innocent Jews. This "what else can they do?" argument is actually put forward in so many words, and twice:

"Raid Qusti, a Saudi writer...thinks suicide bombers are misunderstood by people in the West... 'A suicide bomber is so oppressed that he feels the only way to fight is to blow himself up. Is it up to the West to judge where the money should go?'

...Abdul Rahman, 19'...[says]... 'They are desperate. What would you do in their situation? They are at war...They are right to attack the Israelis in this way. There is nothing else they can do.'

These people were quoted with no comment from the London Times.

The money also goes to making explosives, etc.

Much of the money raised in these fund-drives - perhaps the bulk - goes directly to the terrorist organizations of the Palestinians, not to the families of suicide bombers. How do we know this? Because the money is sent to the Palestinian Authority (PA), and the supreme authority at the PA, who therefore controls the disbursement of funds, is Yasser Arafat, the man who runs the Palestinian terrorist movement.(4)

And the Saudis are not the only ones sending money, as the London Times also informs us:

"In Jerusalem last week, the US Secretary of State Colin Powell noted the dire situation in some Palestinian towns and announced a $30 million US contribution to the UN Relief and Works Agency [UNRWA] on top of the $80 million already contributed annually.

None of that, of course, will end up paying for explosives."

Of course? What is the London Times, a newspaper? Or the joint US-PLO propaganda office?

It is child's play to show that much of the UNRWA money goes to making explosives. Well, I say it is child's play for a researcher. The ordinary readers of the London Times will simply assume that the 'free press' is telling them the truth and go on about their day. For such readers - the overwhelming majority - a fictitious reality is constructed with matter-of-fact lies. But here below is what 20 minutes of research revealed.

The first item of interest is that the people who work at the UN refugee camps get their salaries from UNRWA.

"UNRWA has the largest operational presence in the West Bank and Gaza Strip in terms of the financial resources it makes available, the services it provides, the infrastructure it has set up, and the staff it employs. The 1.2 million Palestine refugees represent 49 per cent of the population in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

The Agency's 1996 budget for West Bank and Gaza is $ 136 million. It employs 8,500 staff, the majority of whom are themselves refugees."(5)

Suppose - just for the sake of argument - that these refugee camps are being used as terrorist bases. If so, then UNRWA money is going to terror, because the people who staff these camps - most of them Palestinian Arab refugees - are all salaried by UNRWA. This therefore makes it quite interesting that on 31 March 2003, the Simon Weisenthal Center made precisely this allegation: that "UNRWA is complicit in terrorism because it turns a blind eye to militant activity in 'its' camps."

The wording above is the UNRWA's own, from a document where it defended itself against these allegations.(6) This is why the crucial word, 'its', appears in quotes. What is the UNRWA's point? That they wash their hands of any terrorism being organized in the camps, because these are not their camps [i.e. the UNRWA's]. They don't even run them. Here is their explanation on this point:

"UNRWA does not run refugee camps. It is a UN agency with a clearly defined mandate, in accordance with which it provides health, education and other humanitarian services to refugees, only one third of whom live in refugee camps. The Agency has never been given any mandate to administer, supervise or police the refugee camps or to have any jurisdiction or legislative power over the refugees or the areas where they lived. The Agency has no police force, no intelligence service and no mandate to report on political and military activities. This responsibility has always remained with the host countries and Israel, who maintained law and order, including within refugee camps."(6)

If the UNRWA is not responsible for what happens at those refugee camps upon which, as "largest operational presence in the West Bank and Gaza Strip in terms of the financial resources," it lavishes its considerable millions, then who is? Well, whoever runs the camps, says UNRWA. And who is that? The UNWRA clarifies:

...based on Israel's bilateral agreements with the Palestinian Authority and the terms of the Oslo Accords, responsibility for security and law and order in area "A" (including all eight camps in Gaza and 12 of those in the West Bank) was passed to the Palestinian Authority...(6)

Thus, many of the Palestinian refugee camps are under the jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority, which is run by the terrorist Yasser Arafat.

So how are these refugee camps, which Arafat controls, run?

In February 2002 BBC reporters were taken inside the Jenin UN refugee camp and reported seeing a secret "bomb-making factory" and a "weapons making factory." This makes it not too surprising that

"Jenin, just a few miles from the Israeli town of Afula, has become one of the most important bases from which suicide attacks are launched."(7)

Now, which terrorists are these, who had their bomb-making and weapons-making factories in "the most secret location of all, in the heart of Jenin," in the UN refugee camp? The BBC explains: "We are with the Al-Aqsa brigade, the military wing of Yasser Arafat's Fatah organisation." By the way, Al-Aqsa is considered "the deadliest Palestinian militia."(8) So Arafat, who runs many UN refugee camps, is using them to hide the activities of his worst terrorists.

What does this mean?

That the London Times assertion - "None of that [UNRWA money], of course, will end up paying for explosives" - is contradicted by a little bit of research showing that, in fact, quite a lot of UNRWA money was going to what the BBC, in February 2002, called a "bomb-making factory" in the UN refugee camp at Jenin. What is truly incredible is that the London Times should have matter-of-factly denied this - adding "of course" - in April 2002. That is, just two months after the BBC piece appeared.

This is how propaganda works, not how news is reported. Joseph Goebbels could hardly have been more blatant in his denial of the truth.

The Jenin-brewed terrorism is what made it necessary for the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) to ferret out the terrorists in the UN refugee camp. The UN took no responsibility for the violence that had been coming from Jenin. On the contrary, when the IDF took matters into its own hands, the UN (with the help of the Western media) tried to accuse Israel of having committed a massacre at Jenin. Of course, the IDF did not. You may read documentation on that here:

"THE ROAD TO JENIN: The Racak 'massacre' hoax, and those whose honesty it places in doubt: Helena Ranta, NATO, the UN, The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN, The Associated Press, and Human Rights Watch"; Historical and Investigative Research; 16 April 2003; by Francisco Gil-White

Notes for this footnote:

(1) April 23, 2002, Tuesday, Features, 1563 words, The blood donors, Scott Parkes and Nick Day

(2) Planting the seeds of the next war, The Jerusalem Post, June 29, 2003, Sunday, OPINION; Pg. 6, 853 words, Itamar Marcus

Why are PA children being taught that the Negev, Beersheba, and the Sea of Galilee are Palestine? The writer is director of Palestinian Media Watch,, and was Israel's representative to the Israeli-Palestinian- American Anti-Incitement Committee.

One of the most meaningful gauges of the integrity of the peace process and its likelihood of success is the degree to which the parties educate toward peace. It is by this yardstick that the Palestinian Authority's education apparatus, formal and informal, has been such a dismal disappointment.

Instead of seizing the opportunity to educate future generations to live with Israel in peace the PA has done everything in its power to fill young minds with hatred.

Making matters worse the PA has been spreading two clever lies about its schoolbooks that have succeeded in deflecting international pressure for change.

PA Foreign Minister Nabil Shaath answered Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom's complaint about the schoolbooks by saying that the PA has "spent five years" rewriting the books - implying they are now acceptable.

Then, he added, Israel itself used these same old Jordanian books for educating the local Arab population "for 30 years," which means it can have no valid complaint to the PA.

The truth about the PA schoolbooks is that they contain anti-Semitic content, delegitimize Israel's existence and incite to hatred and violence.

For example, the new 6th-grade Reading the Koran openly presents anti-Semitic messages as children read about Allah's warning to the Jews that because of their evil Allah will kill them: "...Oh you who are Jews ...long for death if you are truthful... for the death from which you flee, that will surely overtake you..."

In other sections they learn of Jews being expelled from their homes by Allah, and in another Jews are said to be like donkeys: "Those Jews who were charged with the Torah, but did not observe it, are like a donkey carrying books...."

This religious-based anti-Semitism is particularly dangerous because children are taught that hating Jews is God's will. Islam also contains positive attitudes toward Jews - yet PA educators chose to incorporate only hateful teachings.

The new PA schoolbooks Shaath is so positive about compare Israel to colonial Britain: "Colonialism: Palestine faced the British occupation after the First World War in 1917, and the Israeli occupation in 1948."

Moreover, the book refers to Israel exclusively as Palestine. For example: "Among the famous rocks of southern Palestine are the rocks of Beersheba and the Negev" and "Palestine's Water Sources - ... The most important is the Sea of Galilee."

But the Negev, Beersheba and the Sea of Galilee are in Israel and do not border the disputed territories of Judea and Samaria. So why are PA children taught these areas are Palestine?

Educating against Israel's existence is further cemented through tens of maps in the schoolbooks in which Palestine encompass all of Israel. Israel does not exist on any map, within any borders at all.

The PA defends its schoolbook maps by arguing that since there are no final borders the map is not portraying modern Palestine but Mandatory Palestine. That is an insult to our intelligence. Are we expected to believe that when Palestinian children see the map called Palestine in all their schoolbooks they imagine Britain a half-a-century ago? And that when Beersheba is called Palestine, the children are picturing biblical history?

ANOTHER new book teaches what must be done for "occupied Palestine" and the "stolen homeland."

"Islam encourages this love of homeland and established the defense of it as an obligatory commandment for every Muslim if even a centimeter of his land is stolen. I, a Palestinian Muslim, love my country, Palestine..."

The complete and total message Palestinian children are taught is that Jews, according to Allah, are like donkeys; Israel is a colonial occupier that stole their land; the cities, lakes and deserts of Israel are occupied Palestine; and that the children have an obligation to liberate it if even a "centimeter is stolen."

Shaath's other lie - that Israel used these same old books - is particularly resourceful, as the best lies include a grain of truth.

Israel did indeed use Jordanian books to educate the local Arab population. However, it reprinted the books without the hate content. In fact, Jordan registered a complaint with the UN charging that Israel's changing the schoolbooks was a violation of international law, but the UN checked what Israel had done and approved it.

The PA put back into the old Jordanian material all the hate content that Israel had removed.

Moreover, three years ago some foreign governments offered to pay to reprint the versions that didn't contain hateful material, but the PA turned them down.

Finally, all the books cited here were written during the most optimistic periods of the peace process, before the violence began in September 2000. They are not a reflection of the war, but they were a contributing factor to it.

By dismissing the criticism and retaining this hateful material the PA is planting the seeds of the next war in their young people. And the defenders of this PA hate- education - including some Israelis - are nurturing those seeds of war.

(3) These exhortations on Palestinian Authority Television have to be seen to be believed. You may view excerpts from a collection of sermons here:

(4) To read about how Yasser Arafat is the mastermind of the entire Palestinian terror infrastructure, despite what you hear in the Western mainstream media, read:

"Anti-Semitism, Misinformation, And The Whitewashing Of The Palestinian Leadership"; Israel National News; Jun 17, '03 / 17 Sivan 5763; by Francisco J. Gil-White.

(5) "Statement by Peter Hansen, Commissioner-General of UNRWA to the Special Political and Decolonization Committee," UN New York, 22 November 1996


(7) Friday, 22 February, 2002, 18:00 GMT The ugly war: Children of vengeance; Correspondent, BBC; Producer/Director: Stuart Tanner Executive Producer: Tom Roberts Editor: Fiona Murch

(8) Newsday (New York, NY),  September 8, 2002 Sunday,  NASSAU AND SUFFOLK EDITION,  Pg. A05,  1333 words,  WEST BANK; Inside the Crucible; An occasional series on te Israel-Palestine conflict; Militia Goes More Quietly; Al-Aqsa changes tactics after losses,  By Matthew McAllester. MIDDLE EAST CORRESPONDENT

[62] Just to give one example, the Associated Press reported in October 2000 that "a Saudi cleric at one of Riyadh's largest mosques called for jihad holy war against Israel and its supporters, spelling out American embassies, companies and individuals as legitimate targets." -- Associated Press Online,  October 9, 2000; Monday,  International news,  1866 words,  Palestinians Blaming U.S. for Woes,  LAURA KING,  RAMALLAH, West Bank

This is the sort of thing that convinces people everywhere that the US is a friend of Israel: that the US is denounced as a friend of Israel by the enemies of Israel. But talk is cheap.

[62a] Evening Standard (London) May 19, 1994; SECTION: Pg. 9; LENGTH: 907 words; HEADLINE: A NEW KIND OF JIHAD

[62b] "The Empire Isn't In Afghanistan For The Oil!"; Emperor's Clothes; 17 May 2002; by Jared Israel.

"The Great Afghan Oil Pipeline Disaster: Comic Relief For a War-Torn World"; Emperor's Clothes; 6 March 2003; by Jared Israel

"Two News Reports on Supposed Oil Pipeline"; Emperor's Clothes; 6 March 2003

"Emperor's Clothes Interviews UNOCAL OIL"; Emperor's Clothes; 9 July 2002; Interviewer: Jared Israel; Interviewee: Barry Lane, UNOCAL's manager for public relations.













































































































































































by Ben Hecht
September 14, 1943

FOUR MILLION JEWS waiting for death
Oh hang and burn but -- quiet, Jews!
Don't be bothersome; save your breath --
The world is busy with other news.

  Four million murders are quite a smear
  Even our State Department views
  The slaughter with much disfavor here
  But then -- it's busy with other news.

You'll hang like a forest of broken trees
You'll burn in a thousand Nazi stews
And tell your God to forgive us please
For we were busy with other news.

  Tell Him we hadn't quite the time
  To stop the killing of all the Jews;
  Tell Him we looked askance at the crime --
  But we were busy with other news.

Oh World be patient -- it will take
Some time before the murder crews
Are done. By Christmas you can make
Your Peace on Earth without the Jews.

To see the original NYT advertisement where the above ballad was published, visit: