5. McGovern and Cannistraro both
attack Israel - with lies.
I shall consider the anti-Israel arguments of Vincent Cannistraro and Raymond McGovern, in that order, followed by a brief historical reflection on the broad patterns at work.
In 1996, the Observer reported on Vincent Cannistraro’s views as follows:
“Cannistraro believes [that]. . .‘You cannot deal with this kind of terrorism as a criminal act. While there are obviously violations of the criminal statutes involved, in terrorism the act is not committed for gain or cash. It is motivated by religious and political reasons. You don’t deal with that just by putting the perpetrators in jail. It becomes an issue for the policy makers.’
. . .‘You have to be consistent,’ [says Cannistraro,] ‘not just in individual cases but on the issue of terrorism as a whole. You cannot appear to give one group the wink -- giving Gerry Adams [from the political wing of the terrorist IRA, in Northern Ireland] an invitation to the White House -- and then condemn other groups that feel they have an equally legitimate cause.’”
Terrorism should always work, says Cannistraro; policy makers should be nice to all terrorists, without exceptions. This is Cannistraro’s philosophy.
But certain terrorists Vincent Cannistraro is especially fond of. . .
As you might expect by now, Vincent Cannistraro’s 2001 Washington Post editorial entitled “Assassination is Wrong” does not contain one word of remorse for the slaughter of innocent Nicaraguan villagers carried out by the terrorist Contras whom Cannistraro trained in assassination techniques (see Part 3 and Part 4). On the contrary, the principle Cannistraro defends in his Washington Post editorial is that it is unethical to assassinate terrorist leaders. And notice which:
“The Israeli assassination of Abu Ali Mustafa, leader of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine [a terrorist component of the PLO], is another instance of a misbegotten Israeli counterterrorist program. The Israeli government has drawn up a list of Palestinian subjects who can be assassinated and is methodically carrying out targeted killings as its intelligence resources provide the opportunity.
But it is apparent that the assassination campaign is neither effective nor moral. . . The U.S. government should not endorse or tacitly encourage a process that is illegal under U.S. law and that, if such actions were abetted by a U.S. official, would be subject to legal sanction by judicial authority and law enforcement.”
In this sanctimonious homily, what does Vincent Cannistraro mean by “a US official”? Does he mean “a US official” such as, for example, Vincent Cannistraro, who trained the terrorist Contra force to assassinate? Surely not, because Vincent Cannistraro did zero jail time for his own actions, which means that he is not “a US official [who] would be subject to legal sanction by judicial authority and law enforcement.” In fact, Vincent Cannistraro is not even subject to the most superficial journalistic scrutiny (as we saw in Part 4).
What Cannistraro makes above is an extreme anti-Israeli argument. It is also an incorrect one. Killing the leaders of terrorist organizations is not immoral; what is immoral is killing innocent civilians. If the Israeli government targets those who kill innocent Israeli civilians, then it is doing its duty.
Cannistraro also argues that killing terrorist leaders is ineffective and in fact counterproductive because it produces revenge killings: “The other side believes a ‘blood debt’ has been incurred that obligates a revenge response. The cycle of violence is perpetuated.” This argument is also incorrect. The reason Israeli responses are ineffective is that they are timid and also contradictory (for example, many more terrorists have been released from Israeli jails as a result of the Oslo process madness than have been assassinated by the Israeli security services). There is no such thing as a “revenge response” for the antisemitic Arab terrorists -- they mean to kill Israeli Jews anyway. They sometimes say they kill in revenge for acts of Israeli self-defense so that CIA terrorists such as Vincent Cannistraro can defend the killing of innocent Jews as a “revenge response” in the pages of the Washington Post, thus educating the public to blame the Arab-Israeli conflict on the fact that, every once in a while, the Israelis choose to defend themselves.
Now, the absurd extremity of Vincent Cannistraro’s argument suggests that, though fond of all terrorists, perhaps he is especially fond of the Arab terrorists who attack Israel. Recently, during a PBS Frontline interview in which he functioned, as always, as an ‘expert,’ Cannistraro made a statement that is consistent with that hypothesis:
“VINCENT CANNISTRARO: The  Lebanese occupation by Israel caused the Palestinians to have to leave Lebanon eventually. . . They had been the protectors for the American diplomatic community in Beirut. . . There was liaison with the PLO, and the Americans were depending on them for their security.”
Take note that the year 1982 is eleven whole years before the signing of the Oslo agreement. Nobody was pretending in 1982 that the PLO wanted peace, or that it was anything other than a terrorist organization, and Israel invaded Lebanon because the PLO was killing Israeli civilians from its bases there. And yet, at the same time that the PLO was murdering innocent Israeli civilians, the US was employing PLO terrorists for security at its Beirut embassy. Vincent Cannistraro, who in 1982 was training terrorists for Ronald Reagan’s CIA clandestine service, sings in harmony: he calls the PLO terrorists “protectors,” and what he loudly laments is not the loss of innocent Israeli civilian life but the fact that in 1982 the IDF pushed the PLO out of Lebanon, forcing them to exile themselves in faraway Tunis. This subsequently made it difficult for the PLO to kill Israeli civilians -- difficult, that is, until the US twisted Israel’s arm and forced it to accept the PLO as the government in the West Bank and Gaza.
In the same interview Cannistraro alleges that the US took Israel’s side in 1982, but this is false: the US put great pressure on Israel in order to make sure that the PLO terrorists could leave Lebanon safely, and then the US provided military cover for the evacuation of the same PLO terrorists.
Cannistraro has been terribly consistent in his theme of apology for the Arab terrorists. For example, he was quoted by USA Today defending the argument that the money raised by ‘charities’ associated with Arab terrorist groups supposedly does not go to make weapons.
I now turn to Raymond McGovern.
On September 11, 2001, thousands of innocent Americans died in attacks in New York and Washington for which the Al-Qaeda Islamist terrorists took responsibility. Just a few days later, on September 17, Ray McGovern declared in a Christian Science Monitor editorial that the fault lay with ‘the Jews.’ And why? Because, according to McGovern, it was Arab opposition to the alleged US support for Israel that had caused the attack. McGovern’s argument is that US support for Israel is immoral and not unlike US support for the oppressive and extreme right-wing South Vietnamese regime in the 60s. In other words, McGovern presents the Arab terrorists who kill innocent Israeli civilians as the people with justice on their side.
“I was an Army officer in the early ’60s when ‘counterterrorism’ came into vogue. Woefully uneducated in Southeast Asian history, our leaders had concluded that North Vietnam was attacking ‘democratic’ South Vietnam through terrorism. Most of us had no idea that the Vietnamese ‘terrorists’ had thrown off invaders from China, France, and Japan, and that millions of Vietnamese were again ready to drive off others.
We are no better educated on the history of the Middle East...
We are simply going to make war on terrorists. And we will be no more successful this time... Israeli leader Ariel Sharon sent tanks into Palestinian-controlled territory. On Friday, he ordered his foreign minister to boycott a meeting with PLO leader Yasser Arafat...
[But] Peace won’t come by military means. Mr. Sharon should know that. The biblical concept of shalom means nothing other than the experience of justice. No justice, no peace.”
McGovern’s analysis is precisely upside down. But before I examine that, let me point out again what a fraud McGovern is.
He claims total ignorance about Vietnam, and as a result he says that “our leaders” were able to dupe him and also the rest of the US citizenry. “Most of us,” he writes, “had no idea that the Vietnamese ‘terrorists’ had thrown off invaders from China, France, and Japan, and that millions of Vietnamese were again ready to drive off others.” But why does Raymond MGovern include himself in the ignorant and duped masses? “Ray McGovern” I remind you, “was a CIA analyst from 1963 to 1990, [and] during the ’60s his responsibilities included analysis of Soviet policy toward Vietnam.” I remind you also that “Mr. McGovern worked near the very top of his profession, giving direct advice to Henry Kissinger during the Nixon era.” That would be the same Henry Kissinger and the same Richard Nixon who carried out the war against Vietnam.
So nobody duped Raymond McGovern about Vietnam. He was one of the intelligence experts on Vietnam who were busy duping the US citizenry!
Now, according to McGovern, the reason there is an Arab-Israeli conflict is that the Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza are victims of Israeli injustice, just as the North Vietnamese were victims of US injustice. This is false. The West Bank and Gaza Arabs are oppressed by the PLO, which is why they themselves have nicknamed the PLO police the “death squad.” Before the PLO was brought to the West Bank and Gaza, the Arabs living there were the luckiest Arabs in the world.
This is easily demonstrated.
Israel’s administration of the West Bank and Gaza followed a war provoked by the Arab states in 1967 with the purpose of exterminating the Israeli Jewish population. As the tension increased, before that war, Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser promised: “We shall not enter Palestine with its soil covered in sand. We shall enter it with its soil saturated in blood.” In this war, the West Bank and Gaza Arabs (the so-called ‘Palestinians’) were an enemy population, which they remain; and yet despite that, Israel’s administration of these territories, which Israel acquired after defending itself successfully in 1967, 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 [meaning antisemites]. Still, the Arabs say they have never been more unhappy. . .”
So consider again Raymond McGovern’s argument. Using his false premise that the West Bank and Gaza Arabs have supposedly been victimized by the Israelis, McGovern defends the PLO’s violence, comparing it to the North Vietnamese struggle to defend themselves from the widespread terrorist attacks of the United States, which were meant to prop up the right wing South Vietnamese regime, which was extremely repressive. If McGovern convinces you that Israel is like the US in Vietnam, you will learn to think of the Israelis as the supposed real terrorists. He does not want you to see the killing of innocent Israeli civilians as objectionable; to McGovern, what is objectionable is the quite lukewarm Israeli counter-response. This stance has everything in common with Vincent Cannistraro’s views on the Arab-Israeli conflict, for Cannistraro defends the Palestinian Arab terrorists and blames the Israelis, as we saw.
Two months later, Raymond McGovern fired away again on the pages of USA Today:
“Where are the sober voices to explain why so many Palestinians are eager to sacrifice their lives in causing havoc in Israel? Religious fanaticism? Too facile an answer. Our problem is that we flunk history.
Did we never learn that land that was home to the Palestinians for 1,000 years was taken from them when the state of Israel was created; that still more was seized in the 1967 war; that the Israelis continue to build and populate settlements in what are now casually referred to as the ‘occupied territories’?
Did we not know that in such territories the Palestinians are subjected to oppression reminiscent of past pogroms against Jews in Eastern Europe?
The biblical concept of shalom is nothing more than the experience of justice. No justice, no peace. . .”
Raymond McGovern certainly flunks psychology, because he pretends that if people send their own children to die as human bombs, destroying other people’s children, this cannot possibly have anything to do with religious fanaticism. That would be “too facile an answer,” he says. Why “too facile”? Palestinian Authority TV has mullhas drill into the heads of West Bank and Gaza Arabs, every Friday, the message: “Blessings to whoever waged Jihad for the sake of Allah!; blessings to whoever raided for the sake of Allah!; blessings to whoever put a belt of explosives on his body or on his sons’ and plunged into the midst of the Jews crying: ‘Allah Akbar, praise to Allah!’” McGovern, however, thinks that blowing up your child is a natural response to the fact that others unjustly seize your territory. But people who think they have legitimate territorial grievances, and who are not Muslims, don't do this.
But do the so-called 'Palestinian Arabs' have legitimate grievances? After laying down the judgment that “we flunk history,” Raymond McGovern asks rhetorically,
“Did we not know that in such territories [West Bank and Gaza] the Palestinians are subjected to oppression reminiscent of past pogroms against Jews in Eastern Europe?”
It seems to have escaped Raymond McGovern’s attention that the government over the West Bank and Gaza Arabs since 1994, thanks to the Oslo agreement, is not Israel but the PLO. This is who oppresses these Arabs, which is why, as mentioned above, these Arabs call the PLO’s Palestinian Authority police the “death squad.”
The one who flunks history is McGovern. And how. Is he really serious when he writes about the “land that was home to the Palestinians for 1,000 years [and] was taken from them when the state of Israel was created”? Is this the sort of thing you have to say in order to become, “Ray McGovern. . .CIA chief for the Middle East”?
Who are these 1000-year-old ancestral ‘Palestinians’?
The name ‘Palestine’ was invented by the ancient Romans after an anti-Jewish genocide in order to wipe out any connection between the Jews and their land. ‘Palestine’ means ‘land of the Philistines.’ The Romans were cleansing the Jews from their own land.[20a]
One cannot invoke this Roman name change as applying to Arabs, the way McGovern and many others would like, because Arabs are not Philistines (the Philistines were not even Semites, having been most closely related to the Greeks). And the Philistines no longer exist. Moreover, the name ‘Palestine’ fell into ambiguous use/disuse for a long time.[20b]
“The name Palestine was revived after the fall of the Ottoman Empire in World War I and applied to the territory in this region that was placed under the British Mandate for Palestine.”
Shortly after that, however, in 1922, the British decided to redefine ‘Palestine’ and lopped off what eventually became the Kindom of Jordan (then baptized ‘Transjordan’ by the British). Thus, almost immediately, quite a lot of people who, by British colonialist fiat, had just become ‘Palestinian,’ became non-Palestinian again, and once again by British colonialist fiat. Remarkable, isn’t it? Making and unmaking ‘Palestinians’ is the easiest thing in the world. The point of the name change, for the British, was to sabotage the Zonist project.
This shows that the name ‘Palestine,’ re-introduced by the British after the Ottoman Turks lost the Levant, was still, in 1922, associated with the concept of a Jewish homeland. This is why, when the Zionist movement was struggling to create the state of Israel, one of its leaders, Hillel Kook (alias Peter Bergson) would express himself like this: "I am a Hebrew. My allegiance is to the Hebrew nation. My country is Palestine."[23a] The same point explains the following:
"...the Arab historian Philip Hitti testified in 1946 before the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry that ‘There is no such thing as 'Palestine' in history, absolutely not.’ Earlier, in 1937, a local Arab leader appearing before the Peel Commission similarly declared, ‘There is no such thing [as Palestine]. 'Palestine' is a term the Zionists invented.’ ...During the Jordanian occupation of the West Bank and the Egyptian occupation of Gaza, the [so-called] Palestinian Arabs had not claimed a distinct peoplehood or sued for self-determination."[23b]
So, who would Raymond McGovern’s 1000-year-old ancestral ‘Palestinians’ be, then? Even according to Arab historians testifying in the mid-20th c., there was never any such thing as an Arab Palestinian people.
This is not -- mind you -- to deny that many Muslims lived there. But they were simply Arabs, or else non-Arab Muslims -- they were not ‘Palestinians.’ And, in fact, many of the so-called ‘Palestinians’ immigrated into this area around the same time that Zionist Jews also began immigrating, because the Turkish Sultan was resettling Muslims in this area in a deliberate attempt to defeat Zionism.[23bb]
By 1948, when the state of Israel was declared, an additional great multitude of Muslim immigrants had come there from other parts of the Arab due to the economic boom that the Jews, many of them also immigrants, had created.[23d] People such as Raymond McGovern now pretend that these Muslim immigrants are native ‘Palestinians’; but in that case so are the Jewish immigrants.
And the Jews were not all immigrating, mind you. Although the Romans reduced the Jews dramatically in the horrific first and second century slaughters, there has been a continuous Jewish presence in Jerusalem and surrounding areas since before the Romans. In 1841, before Zionist immigration began,
By the mid-19th century, in fact, Jerusalem was already a majority-Jewish city.
Raymond McGovern’s claim that the Israeli Jews unjustly took anything away from anybody when the State of Israel was created is also false. The Zionist immigrants had been buying land at market prices from the Arab title holders, who freely sold their land and enriched themselves fabulously by selling swamp and desert that had not been looked after for years, and which was in an atrocious state of decay, disuse, and/or frank abandonment. Only the Jews wanted this land, and they made it flourish.
Following the Holocaust, the United Nations voted to create the State of Israel so that the Jewish people could have a state of their own, where they could be safe from extermination. In other words, the State of Israel was created by a perfectly legal United Nations vote in 1947, which vote gave a fraction of what had been British Mandate ‘Palestine’ for the creation of a Jewish state, and the rest for the creation of an Arab state. The land specified by the UN for a Jewish state had borders drawn only around those areas that had a majority Jewish population, plus the Negev desert. Many Jews were therefore left outside of Israel, in what was supposed to become an Arab state.
The Jews accepted the 1947 UN vote despite the fact that Israeli territory was cut up into three absurdly non-contiguous territories. By contrast, the Arabs in the former British Mandate territory, together with the surrounding Arab states, illegally declared war. Their publicly stated objective was to finish Adolf Hitler’s job (interrupted only three years before) and exterminate the Israeli Jews, as announced by Azzam Pasha, Secretary General of the Arab League:
“This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades.”
Raymond McGovern would like you to think that the Arab states which attacked nascent Israel in 1948 were fighting for land for the supposedly ancestral ‘Palestinian Arabs,’ but that’s impossible. The enemies of Israel announced the genocidal point of their attack -- they were not fighting to get land that had in fact not been stolen from the nonexistent ‘Palestinian Arabs,’ but to exterminate a people who had bought this land and wanted only to live peacefully on it.
In the 1948 war the Israelis pulled off a miracle against all odds by winning against their multiple Arab enemies, and at the end Israel in fact controlled just a bit more land than what had been allotted to her in the UN partition. But this was territory gained fighting a defensive war against a genocidal enemy, so McGovern cannot argue that there has been an injustice here; this territory was theirs to keep. If the Arab states and the Arabs who had lived in British Mandate ‘Palestine’ did not like that, they had themselves to blame for having launched an illegal war of aggression with the purpose of exterminating another people.
Raymond McGovern also claims that the Israelis committed an injustice when they acquired more land in 1967, supposedly at the expense of the ‘Palestinians.’ This is a reference to the Israeli acquisition of the disputed territories of the West Bank and Gaza. But contrary to what McGovern writes, these territories also belong rightfully to Israel now, because they were also gained fighting a defensive war against Arab attackers who once again meant to exterminate the Israeli Jews. Plus: the states that previously controlled these territories had been illegally squatting on them. Plus: a 1967 Pentagon study determined that Israel cannot survive unless it holds on to these territories. Plus: Israel offered to give these territories back in exchange for a mere Arab promise of peace, and... the Arabs refused!
In any case, McGovern cannot be right, under any interpretation, that the West Bank and Gaza are ‘Palestinian’ lands, because the leaders of the supposed ‘Palestinians’ originally made it perfectly clear that the West Bank and Gaza were not ‘Palestinian’ territories. In fact the PLO went quite out of its way, in 1964, to take this position. The PLO first laid a claim to the West Bank and Gaza after 1967, when Israel acquired these territories and Jews returned to live in the West Bank and Gaza. Just as there is no such thing as an Palestinian Arab, there is no such thing as a fixed Palestinian land. There is just land that Jews live on. This is what the PLO lays claim to because the PLO's purpose is to exterminate the Israeli Jews, as specified most explicitly in the 1968 PLO Charter, which calls for “liquidating the Zionist. . .presence” and explains that “armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine.” Wherever Jews live in the Middle East, then, the PLO will claim that this is ‘Palestinian’ land that may be ‘liberated’ only in the process of wiping out the Jews. (Any appearance that the PLO is conducting peaceful negotiations is merely a front.)
If you believe that the US government is pro-Jewish and pro-Israel, here is an obvious question: Why doesn’t the US government expose McGovern and Cannistraro, who are contributing to the above anti-Jewish slanders, which prepare the next antisemitic genocide, and who moreover incessantly attack the US government?
I turn to this next.
Continue to part 6:
Footnotes and Further Reading
 BATTLING THE BOMBERS: FACE TO FACE WITH TERROR, The Observer, August 4, 1996, Sunday, THE OBSERVER NEWS PAGE; Pg. 19, 2707 words, Peter Beaumont
 Assassination Is Wrong -- and Dumb, The Washington Post, August 30, 2001 Thursday, Final Edition, EDITORIAL; Pg. A29, 820 words, Vincent Cannistraro
 To understand the ideology of the terrorists who kill Israeli civilians, read:
Some of this material was originally published here:
 To read the
Frontline Interview go to:
 To read about the expulsion of the PLO from Lebanon, see:
To read about how the US twisted Israel’s arm and forced it to accept the PLO terrorists into Israeli territory, see:
 To read about how the US protected the PLO terrorists in Lebanon, see:
 “‘This is more political and symbolic than it is real and relevant. . . . No one fund raises for guns and bullets,’ says former CIA counterterrorism director Vince Cannistraro.
At best, funding for Hamas and other groups in the USA is in ‘the low millions’ and mostly designated for Islamic charities in such areas as the semi-autonomous Gaza Strip, Cannistraro says.”
SOURCE: Clinton strikes at terrorism / Freezes assets of Mideast groups, USA TODAY, January 25, 1995, Wednesday, FINAL EDITION, NEWS; Pg. 8A, 503 words, Juan J. Walte; Lee Michael Katz
 A defining
moment in history, Christian Science Monitor (Boston, MA), September 17,
2001, Monday, OPINION; Pg. 20, 2484 words
 How lies replaced intelligence at the CIA; RAY McGOVERN; Ray McGovern was a CIA analyst from 1963 to 1990. During the ‘60s his responsibilities included analysis of Soviet policy toward Vietnam. , The Boston Globe, October 7, 1999, Thursday, ,City Edition, OP-ED; Pg. A27, 822 words, By Ray McGovern
 NO PRESIDENT HAS LIED SO BALDLY AND SO OFTEN AND SO DEMONSTRABLY’ Ray McGovern: voicing the concerns of the CIA, Independent on Sunday (London), November 9, 2003, Sunday, FOREIGN NEWS; Pg. 19, 469 words
 To read about how the PLO oppresses the Palestinian Arabs it governs, read:
“The CIA trained the PLO, knowing it would use this
training to oppress Arabs and kill Jews”; From, “Is the US an Ally of
Israel?”; Investigative and Historical Research; by Francisco Gil-White.
 “. . .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.’”
SOURCE: Howard Sachar, A History of Israel: From the Rise of Zionism to Our Time, (NY: Alfred A. Knopf, 1979), p. 616.
To read more about the goals of the Arab enemies of Israel in the 1967 Six Day War, read:
“Although Israel suffered terrorist attacks from its
Arab neighbors during the years 1964-67, when they staged a full-scale
military provocation, the US refused to help”; From, “Is the US an Ally of
Israel?”; Investigative and Historical Research; by Francisco Gil-White.
 Newsweek, June 13, 1977, UNITED STATES EDITION, INTERNATIONAL; Pg. 55, 849 words, The West Bank Today, Milan J. Kubic
 Land-for-peace policy doesn't work, USA TODAY, December 4, 2001, Tuesday,, FINAL EDITION, NEWS;, Pg. 12A, 392 words
you will find a collection of televised Friday sermons, with translation, put together by the Middle East Media Research. Look for the heading: “Palestinian Authority Sermons 2000-2003.” The quotation in the text, conveniently, is the first in the collection.
 To read about how the PLO oppresses the Palestinian Arabs it governs, read:
“The CIA trained the PLO, knowing it would use this
training to oppress Arabs and kill Jews”; From, “Is the US an Ally of
Israel?”; Investigative and Historical Research; by Francisco Gil-White.
 Comment&Analysis: There was no failure of intelligence: US spies were ignored, or worse, if they failed to make the case for war, The Guardian (London) - Final Edition, February 5, 2004, Guardian Leader Pages, Pg. 26, 1185 words, Sidney Blumenthal
 “. . .the climactic war of 66-73 CE [‘First Jewish War’], when Jerusalem was laid waste and hundreds of thousands of Jews were killed, (Josephus and Tacitus put the number of Jewish dead in this first war at around 600,000; in the second ‘Jewish war’ sixty years later, the tally of Jewish victims is put at 850,000), traumatized all Jews. . . Whatever the actual totals. . .the vast number of victims were killed without the mechanized methods that make modern wars so lethal, which is why analogies between Rome and the worst of twentieth-century dictators may not be misplaced here. . . .if the [Roman] legions had had machine guns, bombs, railroads and gas at their disposal, who is to say any Jew would have survived the second century?”
SOURCE: Carroll, J. 2001. Constantine's Sword: The Church and the Jews. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. (p.90)
Historian Robert Wolfe (2003:58-59) explains:
“The Romans and their Greek allies killed something like 2 or 3 million Jews during this period out of a total Jewish population of approximately 7 million within the boundaries of the so-called ‘Roman empire.’ The total number of Jewish casualties reported by Josephus for the ‘First Jewish War’ add up to approximately 1,300,000. The Roman historian Dio Cassius states that 580,000 Jews were killed during the ‘Second Jewish War.’ Historians estimate that many hundreds of thousands of Jews were killed by the Romans and Greeks during the ‘Diaspora Revolt’ of 115-17 CE. There were close to 1 million Jews in Egypt alone at the start of this period, yet hardly any remaining by the end of the 2nd century CE. The large Jewish communities in Syria and Turkey were likewise decimated. . . By the end of the 2nd century CE, only 750,000 Jews remained in Judah, home of something like 4 million Jews prior to the Roman onslaught.”
SOURCE: Wolfe, R. 2003. The origins of the messianic ideal. New York: J-Rep.
 “. . .the Philistines came from Caphtor (possibly Crete). They are mentioned in Egyptian records as one of the Sea Peoples that invaded Egypt in about 1190 BC after ravaging Anatolia, Cyprus, and Syria. After being repulsed by the Egyptians, they occupied the coastal plain of Palestine from Joppa (modern Tel Aviv–Yafo) southward to the Gaza Strip. The area contained the five cities (the Pentapolis) of the Philistine confederacy (Gaza, Ashkelon [Ascalon], Ashdod, Gath, and Ekron) and was known as Philistia, or the Land of the Philistines. It was from this designation that the whole of the country was later called Palestine by the Greeks.”
"Philistine." Encyclopædia Britannica from
Encyclopædia Britannica Online.
[20a] The final genocidal onslaught of the Romans against the Jews was simply breathtaking.
SOURCE: Johnson, P. 1987. A History of the Jews. New York: Harper & Row. (pp.142-143)
[20b] Historian Nathan Weinstock, writing as an anti-Zionist in his book Zionism, False Messiah, where he claims that there supposedly was such a thing as a “specific Palestinian identity,” nevertheless concedes the following:
“When the first Zionist immigrants arrived in the Holy Land, Palestine did not exist as a distinct political entity. The territory which corresponded to this name was composed, roughly speaking, of the western provinces of the region which was traditionally known as ‘Syria.’ There were no borders to delimit it precisely. In fact, the definitive borders of the country, which covers about 17,000 square miles, were established by a series of agreements and treaties concluded between 1906 and 1922. The vagueness of the word ‘Palestine’ in the 19th century is illustrated by the vocabulary of the first Zionists, who used the expressions ‘Syria’ and ‘Palestine’ interchangeably.”
SOURCE: Weinstock, N. 1979. Zionism: False Messiah. London: Ink Links Ltd. (p.51)
 “Where did
the name Palestine come from?”; Early History, Palestine Origin; Palestine
 The British, in the Balfour Declaration, had officially committed themselves to helping create a Jewish homeland in ‘Palestine,’ which as mentioned above was at first a larger territory, including all of what was later named ‘Transjordan’ (present-day Jordan). This commitment then received the highest international legal sanction when the League of Nations passed the Palestine Mandate, which ordered the British to "secure the establishment of the Jewish national home" there.
But the British quickly changed their mind.
They made Hajj Amin al Husseini the Mufti of Jerusalem after he showed in 1920 that he could organize Arab terrorist riots against Jews living in British Mandate territory. In 1921 he organized another terrorist wave and the British rewarded him by expanding his budget and bureaucratic authority. This also became the excuse to blame the victim and bar Jewish immigrants from entering the territory east of the river Jordan, which they now named ‘Transjordan.’ Jews henceforth could only immigrate to the redefined ‘Palestine,’ now restricted to the territory west of the river Jordan, hugging the Mediterranean coast.
The British shrunk the definition of ‘Palestine’ in order to appear to stay within the letter of the Balfour Declaration and yet effectively making the Jewish homeland much smaller. What does this show? The same thing that the British policy towards Hajj Amin already did: that the British had an anti-Jewish policy.
“The [1922 British] White Paper stated that the Balfour Declaration could not be amended and that the Jews were in Palestine by right, [but] it partitioned the area of the Mandate by excluding the area east of the Jordan River [now ‘Transjordan’] from Jewish settlement.”
did the Arab territory of Transjordan come into being?”; British Mandate
Transjordan; Palestine Facts.
To read about Hajj Amin al Husseini, and his lasting influence on the Palestinian Arab movement, read:
“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
[23a] Rapoport, L. 1999. Shake heaven and earth: Peter Bergson and the struggle to rescue the Jews of Europe. Jerusalem and New York: Gefen. (p.192)
[23b] Levin, K. 2005. The Oslo syndrome: Delusions of a people under siege. Hanover, NH: Smith and Kraus. (p.288)
[23bb] “...1880...is the last year before the great Jewish immigration began. ...The Turks had begun the systematic colonization of non-Palestinian Moslems, notably Circassians and Algerians, in 1878. After 1880, the forces of nascent Jewish nationalism, foreign Moslem colonization sponsored by the Turks, and spontaneouss Arab immigration prompted by the new prosperity of Palestine changed the demographic face of the land.”
"Millions of Muhagir (émigrés), Muslims fleeing the new Christian states in the Balkans after defeats in the 19th century, abandoned the former Ottoman provinces of Serbia, Greece, Bulgaria, Rumania, Bosnia-Herzegovinia, Thessalia, Epirus, and Macedonia. The sultan resorted to the traditional policy of Islamic colonization and, determined to counter the Zionist movement, settled the refugees in Judea, Galilee, Samaria and Transjordan. These were the same Muslims who had combated the rights, emancipation, and independence of Christian dhimmis (semi-slaves of the Muslims) in Europe. The sultan had sent some of them to Anatolia, Syria, Lebanon, and Palestine where they were given collective land grants under favorable conditions according to the principles of Islamic colonization imposed on natives ever since the beginning of the Arab conquest. Circassian tribes fleeing the Russian advance in the Caucasus were sent into the Levant at the same time; most of them were settled around Armenian villages in Mesopotamia where they soon began to massacre the local people. Other Circassian colonists settled in historic Palestine -- today’s Israel, Cisjordan and Jordan -- establishing villages in Judea, and near Jerusalem such as Abou Gosh, or in Kuneitra on the Golan. Today their descendents intermarry. In Jordan they make up the king’s guard. Up until the First World War 95% of the land in Palestine was in the Ottoman sultan’s domain."
[23d] The excerpt below was written by Nathan Weinstock when he was an anti-Zionist, so his description of how the Arabs in the British Mandate area benefited from the economic boom created by the Jewish immigrants is especially noteworthy:
In his history of Israel, Howard Sachar notes that the British Peel Commission, which was established to study a partition plan for ‘Palestine’ in 1937 (following the ‘Arab Revolt’ of 1936), produced a proposal that…
[23e] Blumberg, A. 1985. Zion before Zionism 1838-1880. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.
 This article contains much footnoted documentation concerning the Jewish population of Jerusalem in the nineteenth century. It was originally published in Midstream (New York) September-October, 2000:
“THE LAND OF ISRAEL AND JERUSALEM IN 1900,” by
Elliott A. Green
 Jewish immigrants were buying land from Arabs in Palestine, and the Arabs were eagerly selling this land. There were some abuses in this, I agree, but not by the Jews. The large Arab landowners in Palestine directed all sorts of political attacks against the small landowners, accusing them of collaboration with Zionism if they dared sell their land, while at the same time the big owners sold their properties at exorbitant prices to the same immigrant Jews, making a killing in the land speculation market. That was not fair to the small Arab landowners who wanted to make money too, and who got harassed, sometimes with violence, by the hypocritical, large landowning families -- also know as the ‘effendis.’
Even historian Nathan Weinstock, writing as an anti-Zionist in Zionism: False Messiah, recognized this. Let's take a look:
Take note that the Mufti Hajj Amin Al Husseini, who (one often hears) supposedly led an anti-colonial struggle, and in so doing founded the Palestinian movement, does not really behave like an anti-colonialist or someone looking after the interests of Palestinian Arabs.
With respect to the first point, he was not bothered that land was being sold to immigrant Jews so long as it was his family that made a handsome profit. With respect to the second point, he had no problem with his family coercing land sales from small Arab landowners at bargain prices so that they could then resell to immigrant Jews at exorbitant prices. Not only that: he executed some of these small Arab landowners for a sin no greater than also trying to make a profit, which activity lowered the price of land on the market for Hajj Amin’s relatives. Hajj Amin and his relatives were gangsters, and the first effect of a gangster is always to bring misery to his own population, which Hajj Amin did, repeatedly.
It is true that the Arab share-cropping laborers -- the fellahin -- who had been working in lands that were sold to immigrant Jews, were often out of a job (at least temporarily) after the transactions were concluded, and many suffered dire poverty. But the immigrant Jews did not cause this situation: it was already true that these laborers were very poor, completely exploited by, and chronically indebted to, the effendi class because of the feudal structure of Palestinian Arab society.
What the Jews did was buy land from people who wanted to sell it. The Jews needed to buy land on which to farm, and they could only buy it from those people who had title to the land. A long history of feudal exploitation of the Arab lower classes by the Arab upper classes in Palestine cannot suddenly become the fault of “the Jews” just because they buy some land.
Anti-Zionists such as Nathan Weinstock do try to make that argument, however. For example:
Weinstock is attacking those who defend the morality of immigrant Jewish land acquisitions. This is who he criticizes for attempts to “skirt round this direct consequence of the Zionist enterprise.” But why speak like that? Why not call it a direct consequence of the feudal nature of Palestinian Arab society?
After all, the effect of Jewish immigration was to increase the demand for agricultural land in Palestine, which then created land speculation by the effendi landowners. Other things can do that, too (and did); for example, immigration from other parts of the Arab world into Palestine, and the arrival of technologies that made land more productive, plus a native Arab agrarian capitalist class that meant to develop this land. In such a case the results for the poor Arab laborers are the same, and yet I would bet my house that in such cases nobody rushes here to identify the people buying land as those creating the problem. The problem was obviously already there.
Matters are different if the land-buyers are Jews. But the difference is not in the structure of the situation, it has to do with antisemitism.
In this regard, note that, commenting on the impoverishment resulting from the sale of land, Weinstock writes, “Yet it was not long before popular discontent reached such a pitch that the British authorities had to offer to put Crown lands at the disposal of the evicted share-croppers.”
In other words, the British Mandate authority had taken possession of part of the land. And the British withheld this land from use -- a boon to the big landowners, of course, since scarcity increases price, but bad for the Jewish immigrants and the land-starved Arab poor. Why doesn’t Weinstock attribute the misery of the fellahin to this British policy of grabbing and withholding land, some of which they released to the poor only when faced with social disturbances? For Weinstock, the British are not the problem; the big landowners are not the problem; the Arab social system is not the problem. Only the Jews are the problem. In other words, for Weinstock and other anti-Zionists, “the Jews” are The Problem.
I should note that even Nathan Weinstock recognizes that the influx of Jewish immigrants brought about an economic boom in Palestine, to the benefit of the same Arab workers who had once slaved on the Arab feudal estates.
Rapid growth of the Arab economy in Palestine resulted in significant part from the fact that the influx of Jewish immigrants created demand for the products of Arab industry. Weinstock states that “Jewish agriculture covered only 15 per cent of the calorie consumption of the urban Jewish population. Thus, for example, Jewish cereal production would not possibly have been sufficient to feed the Yishuv” (p.159). Weinstock raises this point in connection with his observation that the “compartmentalisation of the Palestinian economy, which became considerably accentuated after the 1929 [terrorist] disturbances [against Jewish civilians], was nevertheless in no way absolute” (p.159). That is to say, the immigrant Jews were making up the deficit by buying from the Palestinian Arabs, which stimulated the economy, and accelerated the process of urbanization.
So the arrival of the Jews indirectly had the effect of getting some people laid off, but also had the effect of creating other sorts of jobs - and many of the latter were no longer part of a feudal economy. On this basis one could argue that the immigrant Jews brought about a net benefit to the Palestinian economy.
This argument has been made.
For example, in his History of Israel, Howard Sachar notes that the Peel Commission, which was established to study a partition plan for Palestine in 1937 (following the ‘Arab Revolt’ of 1936), produced a proposal that…
If Arabs, “fellahin and landlords alike, were enjoying unprecedented affluence in Palestine” in 1937, then the net economic impact of Jewish immigration had been, in the long run, positive.
 Source: Howard M Sachar, A History of Israel: From the Rise of Zionism to Our Time, (New York: Knopf, 1979), p. 333
 To read about all this, consult:
 “After the
1967 Six-Day War, the US put pressure on Israel to relinquish the territory
gained, even though it knew it was indispensable to Israeli defense”; From,
“Is the US an Ally of Israel?”; Investigative and Historical Research; by
 "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
 The 1964 PLO Covenant or Charter explicitly states that the West Bank, Gaza, and Himmah -- which Jordan, Egypt, and Syria respectively had occupied during the War of 1948 and were still sitting on -- were not part of ‘Palestine.’ These lands had all been part of British Mandate Palestine. And yet it was quite all right, the PLO stated, for Jordan, Egypt, and Syria to have those three territories, even though the PLO was defining ‘Palestine’ as British Mandate Palestine. But this made perfect sense: the PLO was an Arab League creation, and the states of the Arab League would not have the PLO contesting their control of the parts of ‘Palestine’ that they had occupied. Which ‘Palestine’ did the PLO mean to ‘liberate,’ then? Answer: whatever land the Jews were living on: Israel. This was conclusively demonstrated in the rewritten 1968 PLO Charter. In this document the PLO removed the clause concerning the West Bank and Gaza and from this point onwards did lay claim now to a ‘Palestine’ that includes the West Bank and Gaza
 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.”
 To understand how the PLO uses fraudulent talk of ‘peace’ to be in a better position to kill Israelis, read:
“Mahmoud Abbas, who in 2005 is being given 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.”
 Two quotations from: Sachar, Howard Morley - A history of Israel : from the rise of Zionism to our time / Howard M. Sachar. 1982, c1979.
To read more about Hajj Amin al Husseini, and his lasting influence on the Palestinian Arab movement, visit:
 To see just how hard the US has protected the PLO and pushed for a PLO state, and how it twisted Israel’s arm so that she would accept one, see the following sections of: “Is the US an Ally of Israel?”; Investigative and Historical Research; by Francisco Gil-White.
“In 1982, The US military rushed into Lebanon to
protect the PLO from the Israelis.”
“The 'First Intifada' was a US-PLO strategy used to
represent the Arabs in West Bank and Gaza as supposedly oppressed
“In 1989, with Dick Cheney, the US began supporting
a PLO state in the open as the 'only solution' to the Arab-Israeli conflict.”
“In 1991, Bush Sr.'s administration forced Israel to
participate in the Oslo process, which brought the PLO into the West Bank and
“Perhaps as early as 1994, The CIA trained the PLO,
knowing it would use this training to oppress Arabs and kill Jews.
“Mahmoud Abbas, who in 2005 is being given 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
Notify me of new HIR pieces!
Notify me of new HIR pieces!