Share this article




HIR mailing list












0    1    2    3    4    5    6    7    8    9    10






Obama seems anti-Israel. Has he abandoned or continued a US foreign policy tradition?









Historical and Investigative Research – 17 May 2016, by Francisco Gil-White






Given the US power elite’s sponsorship of the eugenics movement, which became German Nazism, and the same US power elite’s creation of the postwar psychological warfare regime, it is reasonable to ask whether US postwar foreign policy has been consistent with the aims of the eugenicists and the German Nazis, namely, to destroy democracy and to kill Jews. That is the question we ask here.













print friendly




In earlier chapters we have seen the US power elite supporting Nazis before WWII (Part 5), during the war (Part 7), and immediately after (Part 1 and Part 6). About these policies, there is a controversy.

Some—the New York Times and the Washington Post, for example (Part 6)—prefer the instrumental hypothesis, according to which US support for Nazis was a ‘necessary evil,’ a temporary expedient in the ‘good fight’ against Soviet communism. Others prefer the ideological hypothesis: US bosses supported Nazis for the sake of Nazism.

To settle this controversy, we need a diagnostic geopolitical test.

That would be a place where the instrumental hypothesis predicted zero pro-Nazi policies whereas the ideological hypotheses required them. In such a place, we would have merely to look, and then whatever US policies we found there would tell us which is the better hypothesis.

Is there such a place? Yes: Israel.


Israel : a diagnostic geopolitical test

Why Israel? Two reasons.

First, I can show (below) that at least since the mid-1970s the Soviets supported the most important US policy initiatives in Israel, so these latter carried no instrumental anti-Soviet advantage.

Second, it is ungrammatical—in fact, quite beyond the pale—for ideological opponents of Nazism to help Nazis against (of all things) the Jewish State, whereas ideological supporters of Nazism must do this—it’s the entire game.

Thus, for the case of Israel, we predict:

      on the instrumental hypothesis: zero pro-Nazi US policies;

      on the ideological hypothesis: extreme pro-Nazi US policies.

Perhaps you think we are done. After all, isn’t the United States Israel’s best—or only—ally? Yes, some argue that Obama has taken a sharp turn against Israel, but this is a recent deviation from the traditional pro-Israel pattern. Doesn’t everybody know that?

Slow it down. Why does everybody ‘know’ that? Where do they get it from? From the mainstream news and the established universities. But those are the same institutions that US powerbrokers, in the postwar, sought clandestinely to control in order to manipulate the citizenry (Part 1). We should therefore investigate, rather than simply accept, any geopolitical ‘commonsense.’

Perhaps US policy has indeed been pro-Israel. But perhaps the structure of Western political grammar (Part 2) forces US bosses to stamp a ‘kosher’ seal on their policy, obscuring their true, anti-Israel goals. To find out, we need a closer look.

I’ll go straight to the most important, long-term, US policy objective in Israel: the creation of a state (called a ‘Palestinian State’) for PLO/Fatah (now called the ‘Palestinian Authority’) in Judea & Samaria (or ‘the West Bank’) and Gaza. After an agreement negotiated in Oslo, this is often called the Oslo Peace Process. This is a powerful name! Merely to invoke the process is to make the—grammatically—obligatory claim: that it’s meant to bring peace.


Oslo Accord handshake:
Yitzhak Rabin, Bill Clinton, and Yasser Arafat

This ‘peace process’ could get underway only because PLO/Fatah’s international prestige rose while Israel’s plummeted, allowing US bosses to bully Israelis into doing the formerly taboo: negotiate with PLO/Fatah. Thus, I will consider this question first:

      Did US bosses engineer Israel’s and PLO/Fatah’s prestige reversals?

Then I examine the following two:

      Did the Soviet politburo agree with US efforts to create a PLO/Fatah state?

      Was the US push for a PLO/Fatah state in any way pro-Nazi?

The answer to each of these questions, I will defend below, is ‘yes.’ If I have succeeded, the instrumental hypothesis is in serious trouble.

Did US bosses engineer Israel’s and PLO/Fatah’s prestige reversals?

Emerging victorious (again) in the 1967 Six Day War, Israel made impressive territorial gains against its combined Muslim enemies. The Muslim bosses, faced with this stunning defeat, had to question whether frontal assaults would easily conclude the “war of extermination” that Azzam Pasha—secretary general of the Arab League—had promised in the first such attempt, the War of 1948.[1] An idea was born: attack Israel’s symbolic flank instead. Wound her prestige.

But how?



THE ORIGINAL DAVID AND GOLIATH GEOPOLITICAL STORY. ABOVE: Israel and the Muslim world (Israel is small dot in red). BELOW: Exodus, based on Leon Uris’s bestseller, with Paul Newman in the starring role, expresses the 1960s sympathy for Israel in the West, which led to a well-received Israeli victory in 1967.


Those born after the mid-1970s may find this shocking, but in the 1960s Israel was still widely admired. It was ‘David,’ the tiny but plucky haven for Holocaust survivors, bravely repelling the genocidal attacks of coalitions of fascist Muslim states, each larger than Israel—‘Goliath.’[2] But perhaps this could be turned around? What if ‘David’ were made into ‘Goliath’? Couldn’t that recruit Western political grammar against Israel? And wouldn’t that soften her for a future Muslim blow? Perhaps.

The Muslim bosses might apply the following recipe.

First, clamor a bit less for genocide, and forsake—for a bit—conventional military attacks. Push instead for ‘justice for the Palestinians.’ Voilà: a new ‘David.’ Blame Israel—and only Israel—for the Palestinian plight. Voilà: ‘Goliath.’ The sympathies of Westerners might then be reversed.

Next, impose PLO/Fatah, a murderer of Palestinian Arabs, as their sole representative, and promise the Jews ‘peace’ in exchange for land. With enough pressure from the ‘international community,’ this might bring PLO/Fatah—the ‘Trojan Horse,’ as senior PLO official Faisal Husseini called it [3]—into the disputed territories of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza. Then, with the hapless Palestinians for cannon fodder, destroy Israel.

The US military, at least, had reason to think this could work; a 1967 Pentagon study had concluded that, if the disputed territories ever fell to the enemy, Israel would be in a fatally vulnerable strategic position.[4]


1967 Pentagon study outlines the territory Israel needs to survive

But PLO/Fatah, eager to destroy Israel, had little patience for a long wait, and were tough to convince. As late as 1969 they were still publicly opposing the new idea.[5] Yet, when the Muslim states lost again in the 1973 Yom Kippur War, the terrorists saw the light and adopted the new strategy in their 1974 ‘Plan of Phases,’

“according to which the Palestine Liberation Organization [PLO/Fatah] would acquire whatever territory it could by negotiations, then use that land as a base for pursuing its ultimate goal of Israel’s annihilation.”[6]

Most Western citizens never heard about this, because the media—as I can show—didn’t report it.[7] That’s one reason the ‘Plan of Phases’ has worked. But not the only one.

US bosses also assiduously protected PLO/Fatah’s “pretense of moderation”—as secret State Department documents called it—even though PLO/Fatah terrorists had just murdered US diplomats.[8]

Finally, the ‘Plan of Phases’ required that Western political grammar be expertly wielded as a weapon of psychological (or political) warfare. PLO/Fatah couldn’t do that. But Western politicians, journalists, and academics—so long as they could be made to act as a unified machine (see Part 1)—could. How?

Consider, first, the political grammar of Western ‘leftists’ (Part 2). It is:

1)    nationalist: those jointly labeled a ‘people’ or ‘nation’ have a sacred right to their own state; and

2)    post-colonial: Westerners must expiate a guilt-burden for the problems of the ‘Third World’ they once ruled as colonial imperialists.

If Western politicians, journalists, and academics were to shed rivers of crocodile tears over the ‘destitute’ and ‘oppressed’ ‘Palestinian natives,’ whose ‘national aspirations’ were denied by the ‘Zionist colonial empire’; if they portrayed PLO/Fatah as the legitimate ‘government in exile’ of a ‘suffering’ ‘people,’ wanting only a piece of land to call its own; and if they recast PLO/Fatah—these murderers of men, women, and children (many of them Palestinian!)—as born-again ‘doves’ eager to negotiate in ‘good faith,’ then a critical mass of Western ‘leftists’ would take the bait and help agitate for a ‘Palestinian State.’

This was done.


Yasser Arafat and Kurt Waldheim

In November of 1974, just five months after the ‘Plan of Phases’ was inked, United Nations Secretary General Kurt Waldheim invited PLO/Fatah’s Yasser Arafat to speak at the UN General Assembly, and “accorded [him] protocol honors of chief of state.”[9] In the same month, UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 was approved, granting PLO/Fatah ‘observer status’ in the United Nations.[10]

The grammatical implication—delivered with all the crushing weight of UN authority—was that PLO/Fatah was a ‘government in exile.’

The next year, 1975, again under Kurt Waldheim’s watchful gaze, UN resolution 3379 declared Zionism—the ambition to protect the Jews in a national state in their ancestral homeland—as equal to racism.[11]  The grammatical implication? Israel was no longer the refuge for the persecuted, the plucky underdog, the democratic hero that humbles genocidal Arab bullies; now it was the ‘oppressive Zionist empire’ stifling ‘dispossessed natives’ under its ‘colonial’ boot. She was compared to apartheid South Africa!


Jimmy Carter holds up his book Palestine: Peace not Apartheid

Support for Israel was ‘politically correct’ in the United States, so US officials were careful to express public displeasure at these UN developments. But grammatically obligatory public symbolism is meaningless (Part 2). Here’s what’s meaningful: Kurt Waldheim, author of these stunning Orwellian inversions, owed his top UN job to (rather insistent) US lobbying.[12] And Waldheim could scarcely risk anything grammatically so bold—and entirely without precedent!—as to induct a terrorist organization into the UN if his US patrons did not approve.

Support for the Palestinian terrorists was, by contrast, ‘politically incorrect,’ so the US government signed a 1975 treaty with Israel forbidding US contact with PLO/Fatah. It was broken at once: in secret, writes the NYT, “the Central Intelligence Agency” kept open “a little publicized, so-called ‘back-channel’ line of communications with PLO headquarters in Beirut.”[13]

‘Back channel’? A senior US intelligence official explained to PBS that, before the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon, PLO/Fatah

“ ‘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.’ ”[14]

This was no ‘back-channel’; it was a face-to-face, intimate, high-level relationship. This easily explains the harmonious dance of US and PLO/Fatah policy positions.

In 1977, US President Jimmy Carter declared his support for a ‘Palestinian homeland’ in the ‘West Bank’ (as he was careful to call it) and Gaza.[15] This was followed, two weeks later, by PLO/Fatah’s endorsement:

“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…”[16]

Right around this time, Arab media reported that Carter administration officials and PLO/Fatah were “involved in secret high-level contacts,”[17] and a week later that Carter was instructing PLO/Fatah to claim ‘government in exile’ status so they could be invited to the proposed Geneva Peace Conference.[18] Another week, and Carter was pressuring Israeli leaders to accept two Arab pre-conditions for that conference: 1) commit to relinquish the territories gained in the 1967 war; and 2) commit to the formation of a ‘Palestinian State.’[19]*RuyTHcZJRNatXFjGsEwSiQ.jpeg


Bruno Kreisky and Yasser Arafat embrace.

Carter’s dramatic 1977 efforts on behalf of PLO/Fatah, of course, did not happen in a political vacuum; Bruno Kreisky—who, for his labors, “earned the respect and praise of every US presidential administration from Kennedy to Reagan”[20]—had already lain the groundwork.

As Austrian chancellor and leader of the international left throughout the 1970s, Bruno Kreisky publicly defended PLO/Fatah and denounced Israel with equal passion. In 1977, right as Carter was making his own moves, he had the Socialist International, of which he was vice-president, publish a report blaming all problems in the Middle East on Israel.[21] This reinforced the new David and Goliath story, especially among ‘leftists’ (those who—grammatically—speak for the oppressed), and gave cover to both Carter and Waldheim. “Unlike ten years ago,” a Palestinian told Newsweek in June of that year, “we now have the sympathy of the entire world.”[22] Yes, it was working.

Edward Said and his books: Orientalism, and The Question of Palestine.

Into this new climate, in 1978, with strong tailwinds now favoring the diplomacy necessary for the ‘Plan of Phases,’ sailed English professor Edward Said. From his perch at Columbia University he founded, with his book Orientalism, what is known as ‘post-colonial studies,’ and thus engineered a profound academic and cultural shift.

Though still called a ‘Palestinian’—despite having had to correct this in his autobiography (after others refuted his claims to a Jerusalem upbringing plus exile by the Jews)—Said in fact hailed from a supremely wealthy, Protestant, English-speaking circle, in Cairo. His mother could converse in Arabic, which was exceptional, confessed Said, since “she alone of the entire social group to which we belonged knew the language well.”[23] But he did belong to the Palestinian National Council (PNC), the governing body of the terrorist PLO/Fatah. Was that embarrassing? Not to the Western media, whose plaudits turned Said into “ ‘arguably the most influential intellectual of our time’ ” (The Guardian).[24]

The media bosses, like modern engineers doing their will with a river, had reversed the natural flow of prestige: as they made Said ‘cool,’ his colleagues, the PLO/Fatah terrorists, also became ‘cool.’

Said followed Orientalism with The Question of Palestine (1979). As he became required reading across the humanities and social sciences, an entire generation of Western students learned that “Israel was… built on the ruins of… Arab Palestine,”[25] and came to see the Arab-Israeli conflict as black and white—or rather, to use Said’s racist terms, ‘colored’ and ‘white.’ On one corner of the ring was Israel, the ‘white’ ‘European’ ‘colonial imperialist’; on the other was PLO/Fatah, fighting to ‘liberate’ the ‘colored’ ‘natives’ from ‘occupation.’

Was this fair? Consider the following list of historical facts (commonly omitted, denied, or papered over in both media and Academia):

1)    Jews, historically the most persecuted victims of ‘white’ European colonialists and imperialists, came to Israel fleeing genocide.

2)    The Zionists didn’t steal; they bought their land, paying dearly to willing landowners.[26]

3)    Thanks to the Zionist economic boom, many local ‘colored’ Arabs—most of whom came from elsewhere (though we call them all ‘Palestinians’)—escaped the clutches of their feudal lords.[27]

4)    The Arab lords would have their revenge: without asking the Palestinians, they rejected a ‘Palestinian state’ (which the Zionist Jews had accepted!) and then tried their best, in the War of 1948, to exterminate the Israeli Jews.[28]

5)    Hajj Amin al Husseini, the leader of those feudal lords, later created PLO/Fatah; this organization—oppressor of common Palestinians—is the one that Western leftists have seen fit to support![29]

6)    After the War of 1948, the Muslim states expelled the ‘colored’ Jews of North Africa and Western Asia; Israel took so many of them that a majority of Israeli Jews are every bit as ‘colored’ as the Palestinians.[30]

7)    After 1948, Jordan and Egypt illegally occupied the ‘West Bank’ and Gaza. They did not allow Palestinian self-determination. Here and elsewhere, displaced Palestinians were denied integration and called ‘refugees,’ to be used as political weapons against Israel.

8)    So long as Jordan and Egypt had the ‘West Bank’ and Gaza, PLO/Fatah denied—in its very constitution!—that these lands were ‘Palestinian.’ When they were lost to Israel in the next attempt to exterminate the Jews (1967), PLO/Fatah suddenly ‘discovered’ they were ‘Palestinian,’ after all.[31]

But no matter. Western students were hungry to expiate colonial guilt with a redemptive pat on the back from their new ‘Palestinian savior,’ whom the media extolled. How could they mentally resist? They couldn’t. They accepted Said’s simple ‘New Left’ gospel: the ‘Palestinians’ are always right. That gospel protected PLO/Fatah’s growing prestige, come what may.

For example, in 1979, Ayatollah Khomeini established a terrorist regime in Iran, after a violent coup engineered by none other than Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas (see also Part 0).[32] Did this become a problem for PLO/Fatah? Not at all. The US asked PLO/Fatah to ‘mediate’ with the new regime, further raising their international prestige.[33]


Death to Israel : Arafat and Khomeini in Teheran (1979)

In Teheran to celebrate with a thankful Khomeini, Arafat announced with his host the coming genocidal destruction of Israel, while Abbas laid out to traveling Arab reporters how it would be done. The Jews were suckers for an offer of peace, he explained, so PLO/Fatah would offer that. Many Jews—including many Israelis—would then join the Western bleeding hearts, producing internal divisions in Israel that would impair her ability to defend herself. Then, having gained territory through negotiations, they would—with the help of Iran—destroy the ‘Zionist entity.’[34]

A simple con: terrorists never became doves. But Western citizens never heard Abbas’s Teheran confessions, for neither the media nor Western politicians exposed them.

What the media did report was Kreisky’s tour-de-force propaganda of the same year, when he invited both Willy Brandt, German chancellor and president of the Socialist International, and Yasser Arafat, the PLO/Fatah chief, to a Vienna Israel-bashing fest. The three “issued a joint communiqué blasting Israel.” And for good measure, Kreisky likened PLO/Fatah’s fight against Israel with European resistance to the Nazis.[35]

War is peace. Freedom is slavery. The Jews are the Nazis. Orwellian inversion: complete.

(And mission accomplished: David was now Goliath.)


Yasser Arafat, Bruno Kreisky, and Willy Brandt (1979)

Jimmy Carter’s successors—including Ronald Reagan [36]—would keep pushing. It would take just another decade, plus grotesquely biased Western media coverage of the ‘First Intifada,’[37] to complete the wrecking of Israel’s prestige. This would allow US bosses to bully Israelis onto the Madrid Conference platform and board them on the train to Oslo—and a PLO/Fatah state.

Conclusion: the US power elite, directly and through various assets, indeed engineered Israel’s loss of international prestige. QED.

We may now address the remaining two questions.

Did the Soviet politburo agree with US efforts to create a PLO/Fatah state?

In the context of Carter’s Geneva Conference diplomacy, the “Joint U.S.-Soviet statement on the Middle East,” published 1st October 1977, declared the shared position of the superpowers. They were agreed. This document called for

“the resolution of the Palestinian question,” and for the presence of “representatives of all parties involved in the conflict, including those of the Palestinian people.”[38]


In the Cold War, the US and the USSR were everywhere at odds.
What about in Israel?

Since the Arab bosses were all saying that only PLO/Fatah could represent the Palestinians, journalists sought clarification from President Carter. Did this mean that the PLO/Fatah terrorists could have a seat at the negotiating table? Carter replied: “If they accept UN 242 and the right of Israel to exist, then we will begin discussions with the leaders of the PLO.”[39]

PLO/Fatah—then as always—was required merely to say certain things in public.

It is singular to find the two superpowers in such close agreement in this particular speck of the world, given that elsewhere they were bitter geopolitical antagonists, but I must emphasize that it was nothing new for the Soviets to support PLO/Fatah. They had long been patrons of these terrorists.

And the Soviets never wavered.

Jump to 1991, when Bush Sr.’s administration threatened Israeli leaders with the loss of US economic and military support if they did not attend the Madrid Peace Conference of the same year, which became the platform for the Oslo ‘Peace’ Process leading to a PLO/Fatah state. That conference was co-sponsored by the United States and the Soviet Union.[40]

An objection of last resort could be that this really was (somehow) an anti-Soviet policy, except that Soviet rulers were not smart enough to see it. But then the policy should have withered after the USSR vanished. Just the opposite happened: it was precisely as the USSR was falling apart in 1991 that the US pushed ever more stridently for PLO/Fatah’s entry into Judea & Samaria and Gaza—with actual threats directed at Israel.[41] As the US cemented itself as the world’s only superpower, this stridency rose to fever pitch.

Conclusion: Given that 1) the Soviet communists were always agreed with the most important US policy with regard to Israel: the push to create a PLO/Fatah State; and given that 2) the US pushed for this even harder after the Soviet Union disappeared, it follows that this policy carried no instrumental anti-Soviet advantage. QED.

Was the US push for a PLO/Fatah state in any way pro-Nazi?

‘Nazi’ is not meant as a careless insult. I am asking—quite literally—whether the promotion of PLO/Fatah has been a way to advance the aims of the German Nazi movement that fought World War II and sought to exterminate the Jewish people.

To answer ‘yes’ I must establish a historical and ideological link between PLO/Fatah and the German Nazis. Can this be done? It can.

We might begin with the two Austrian statesmen so favored by the US power elite, Bruno Kreisky and Kurt Waldheim, who labored hard to lift PLO/Fatah’s prestige and ruin that of Israel.

Immediately after WWII, Kreisky had

“ ‘worked day and night to obtain the release and favored treatment for former members of the [Nazi] German Wehrmacht, even Waffen-SS.’ ”

In what became an international scandal, Nazi-hunter Simon Wiesenthal showed that Friedrich Peter, with whom Kreisky had allied in order to become prime minister, had been a sergeant in an Einsatzgruppen brigade with innocent Jewish blood on its hands. Later Wiesenthal showed that several members of Kreisky’s cabinet were also Nazis.

In the middle of these public controversies, Kreisky launched into a public apologetics for Austrian participation in the Third Reich, refused to pay compensation to Nazi victims, and refused to investigate Austrian citizens who were senior Nazis.[42]

One of those Austrians was Kurt Waldheim. A few years after Waldheim, as UN secretary general, had greased the diplomatic wheels for PLO/Fatah by giving it the status of ‘government in exile,’ it came to light that Waldheim had a Nazi past (see here).[43]

Waldheim’s fondness for PLO/Fatah, it turns out, may have had something to do with his Nazi past. Waldheim had been stationed in Yugoslavia, where the Palestinian leader Hajj Amin al Husseini had helped organize SS massacres.

In fact, Husseini was a very big Nazi.

Before the war, as ‘Grand Mufti’ of Jerusalem, he had led several massive terrorist attacks against Jewish civilians in British Mandate Palestine. The largest of these, the ‘Arab Revolt’ of 1936-39, used weapons sent by Adolf Hitler.[44]


ABOVE: Husseini shakes hands with a Nazi official.
BELOW: Husseini sits down to chat with Adolf Hitler.

When WWII broke out, Husseini traveled to Berlin and, at a meeting with Hitler in the fall of 1941, they agreed to work together to exterminate the Jews living in the Middle East.[45]

But Husseini’s genocidal ambitions were larger. He stayed in the Nazi sphere during the entire war, becoming a high-ranking Nazi official with his own bureaucracy (Buro des Grossmufti), and organized Bosnian and Albanian Muslims into SS Divisions that participated in the Yugoslav chapter of the Holocaust, massacring Serbian, Jewish, and Roma (Gypsy) civilians. He also played an important role in Nazi radio propaganda, inciting murder of Jews.[46]

But there is more.

Though Adolf Eichmann is more famous as architect of the Final Solution, Eichmann’s own right-hand man, Dieter Wisliceny, testified at Nuremberg that Husseini had been an equal partner and co-administrator of the entire death-camp system.[47],204,203,200_.jpg


Historians Barry Rubin and Wolfgang Schwanitz chronicle the relations between Nazis and Islamists. They pay special attention to intimate bond between Husseini and PLO/Fatah chief Yasser Arafat.


After the war, Husseini took refuge in Cairo.

In the 1950s, several important German Nazis arrived in Cairo to enjoy Gamal Abdel Nasser’s protection and train his security forces and army for a genocidal war against Israel. These Nazis were part of the Gehlen Org, a postwar network set up—under US protection—by top Nazi Reinhard Gehlen (see Part 6).

Husseini made sure that his colleagues gave Yasser Arafat, Mahmoud Abbas, and a few other adolescent founders of Fatah the best German Nazi training, that he might finally consummate, through them, what he and Hitler had pledged themselves to in 1941: the extermination of the Jews in what is now Israel.[48]

A bit later, Fatah would swallow the PLO and take its name. Thus was born PLO/Fatah, now better known as the ‘Palestinian Authority’ after US diplomacy forced it inside Israel.

Conclusion: The most important US policy with regard to Israel—the push to create a PLO/Fatah State—has been pro-Nazi. QED.

We may now move to our general conclusion.

Israel, as the Jewish state, and a place where the superpowers coordinated their policy, is a diagnostic geopolitical case, such that:

a)    the instrumental hypothesis requires absence of pro-Nazi US policies; and

b)    the ideological hypothesis requires presence of pro-Nazi US policies.

We now have our diagnosis: the most important US policies toward Israel have had an extreme pro-Nazi bias;

And we may conclude, more generally for this series, that US policies favorable toward the Nazis have been ideologically driven. US bosses want Nazism. QED.


Is this article useful? Help us do more with a donation .
Would you like to be notified of new articles? Sign up (it’s free) .


Nazism caused a world war, over 60 million deaths, and the slavery of countless more. Obviously, it is a danger to us all. But Nazism, as we see here once again, seems to have a very special mission to destroy utterly the Jewish people. An obvious question is: Why? More generally: Why are war-mongering, oppressive, totalitarian power elites always so hell-bent on attacking the Jews?

We turn to this next.

Share on






















































Related readings















Documentary and discussion

How did the ‘Palestinian movement’ emerge? The British sponsored it. Then the German Nazis, and the US.

ACHILLE’S HEEL: The muftí, the Nazis, and the ‘Palestinian Authority

PLO/Fatah's Nazi training was CIA-sponsored

PLO/Fatah and Iran: The Special Relationship














Footnotes and further reading

[1] Barnett, D., & Karsh, E. 2011. Azzam’s Genocidal Threat. Middle East Quarterly, 18(4): 85-88.

[2] Leon Uris’s novel Exodus—“the best-selling novel in America since Gone With the Wind,” followed by its own smash-hit film adaptation—taught the 1960s West to love the Holocaust survivors who, against all odds, had made themselves a free home in their ancestral land of Bible yore. Israel was much admired back then, and reactions to the 1967 Six Day War in the media at the time largely reflect that.

[3] “...Faisal Husseini, the top PLO official in Jerusalem...[was] quoted as likening the Oslo accords to a ‘Trojan horse.’ ...the weekly Al-Arabi quotes Husseini as calling the Oslo accords ‘just a temporary procedure, or just a step towards something bigger…the liberation of all historical Palestine from the (Jordan) river to the (Mediterranean) sea, even if this means that the conflict will last for another thousand years or for many generations.’”

SOURCE: The Baltimore Sun, July 11, 2001 Wednesday,  FINAL EDITION,  Pg. 1A, 1574 words,  Israelis taking darker view of Palestinian intentions; Many see existence of Jewish state at risk, Mark Matthews

[4] This Pentagon document was apparently declassified in 1979 but not published until 1984 in the Journal of Palestine Studies:

"Memorandum for the Secretary of Defense"; Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 13, No. 2. (Winter, 1984), pp. 122-126.

It is also published 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)

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.”

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...”

On the Syrian border,

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

This is a reference to the Golan Heights, from which the Syrians had earlier been shelling Israeli farmers in the Galilee. The Pentagon notes:

“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.”

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.”

[5] “… 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.”

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

[6] The quote is from:

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

Levin’s interpretation is the generally accepted one. It is easily shown to be correct.

Article 15 of the 1968 PLO Charter says that the PLO means to “liquidate the Zionist…presence” (“liquidate” is the kind of language that the German Nazis used), and article 9 explains that “armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine” (my emphasis).(a)

In the 1974 ‘Plan of Phases’ a new policy was allowed. The 1974 document says that “armed struggle” was still “first and foremost” among the methods, but other methods could now be used as well. To what end? Any territory “liberated” by whatever means, explains the Plan of Phases, will be governed by a “Palestinian national authority,” and

“the Palestinian national authority will strive to achieve... the aim of completing the liberation of all Palestinian territory.” (our emphasis)

Given the definition of ‘Palestine’ employed in the PLO’s 1968 Charter, the words “all Palestinian territory” are synonymous with all of Israel. But, naturally, Israelis would not simply give up their entire Jewish State in a negotiation. The implication is therefore obvious: once a strategic position is obtained through negotiation, the “Palestinian national authority”—the name PLO/Fatah now goes by in Judea and Samaria—will use it as a platform and will deploy “armed struggle” to destroy Israel.


(a) 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.”

[7] I can show this with a simple search in the Lexis-Nexis Academic database, which archives a huge number of the most important Western newspapers.

In the media, the ‘Plan of Phases’ has also been called the “phased policy,” the “phased program,” and the “phased plan,” and its authorship is attributed to the PLO or, with greater precision, to Mahmoud Abbas’s Palestinian National Council (PNC), PLO/Fatah’s governing body.

I did a Boolean search in this database looking for articles with the terms “plan of phases,” or “phased policy,” or “phased program,” or “phased plan,” and “PLO” or “PNC” in the period going from 1974, when the ‘Plan of Phases’ was first formulated, until 1993, when the Oslo Accords were signed.

Grand total: 9 results.

This is near, total, absolute silence on PLO/Fatah’s ‘Plan of Phases.’

But to leave it at that would be, in fact, to overstate the results. For none of them are older than 1985. And they consist, in any case, of 1) letters to the editor by Israeli officials; 2) editorials by Israeli officials (prominently, Netanyahu); and 3) mention, in passing, of statements by Israeli officials (prominently, Netanyahu). The very few Westerners who even noticed these—almost nonexistent—mentions of PLO/Fatah’s ‘Plan of Phases’ would likely dismiss them as “Israeli propaganda.”

And yet PLO/Fatah leaders, when expressing themselves before Arab audiences, were doing so without ambiguity. Consider:

[Excerpt from the New York Times begins here]

To Western audiences, the P.L.O. portrays the Algiers resolution of the Palestine National Council as a renunciation of terrorism and the recognition of Israel's right to exist.

But speaking to the Arab world, in the pages of Al Siyasa, a Kuwaiti newspaper, Abu Iyad, the P.L.O.'s second in command, explained it this way:

“We swore that we would liberate even pre-'67 Palestine. We shall liberate Palestine stage by stage . . . The borders of our state as we declared it represent only part of our national aspirations. We will work to expand them in order to realize our aspirations for all the land of Palestine. . .”

Two weeks later, on December 21st, he declared in the same publication:

“If the P.L.O. succeeds in establishing a state in the West Bank and Gaza, it would not prevent the continuation of the struggle until the liberation of all of Palestine is achieved…”

George Habash, leader of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, who participated in the Palestinian National Council and approved its resolutions, said last Jan. 31:

“We believe that the international and Arab circumstances do not enable us to reach more than the establishment of a state on part of Palestine . . . We see in this move the beginning of the end to the Zionist Entity.

We see in the Zionist Entity a racist, fascist entity with which we cannot live in peace . . . There is no doubt that the Zionist Entity will be destroyed one day.”

Obviously, the P.L.O. has not abandoned its plan for the destruction of Israel by stages. It also has not renounced terrorism but continues to employ it, both in its attempts to silence any Palestinian who opposes its directives and in its persistent attempts to infiltrate Israel’s border with Lebanon - six times, in fact, since the P.L.O. supposedly renounced terrorism. Moreover, the P.L.O. still adheres to its original covenant of 1964, which considers Israel's existence ‘null and void.’ ”

[Excerpt from the New York Times ends here]

SOURCE: The P.L.O.'s Forked Tongue; The New York Times, March 15, 1989, Wednesday, Late City Final Edition, Section A; Page 27, Column 1; Editorial Desk, 633 words, By Johanan Bein; Johanan Bein is the acting permanent representative of Israel to the United Nations.

[8] PLO murders US diplomats; US State Department protects...the PLO!; Historical and Investigative Research; 6 January 2007; by Francisco Gil-White

[9] “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.

[10] United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3236 | From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia [Consulted 1 September 2014]

[11] United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379 | From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia [Consulted 1 September 2014]

[12] The future CIA director and future US president George Bush Sr. was, in 1971, the US delegate at the UN. Here is what he said:

“George Bush, the American [UN] delegate, issued a statement saying that Mr. Waldheim was ‘ideally equipped’ for the job [of UN Secretary General].”(a)

The US pushed for his reelection. And they were so happy with him that they 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.” (b)


(a)      SECURITY COUNCIL NAMES WALDHEIM TO SUCCEED THANT, BY HENRY TANNER; Special to The New York Times; New York Times 1857-Current; Dec 22, 1971; ProQuest Historical Newspapers The New York Times (1851 - 2001); pg. 1

(b)     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

[13] A NYT article from 1981 mentions the 1975 agreement and states:

“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.”

The term “several years” typically refers to more than three. Thus, the CIA had been using this ‘back channel’ at least 4 or 5 years. Since the NYT article that reports this is from 1981, this means that the treaty with Israel was never honored.

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"

[14] Vincent Cannistraro was “Director of NSC Intelligence from 1984 to 1987, [Vincent] Cannistraro went on to serve as chief of operations for the CIA’s Counterterrorism Center and to lead the CIA’s investigation into the bombing of Pan Am 103...”

SOURCE: PBS-FRONTLINE interview with Vincent Cannistraro.

[15] “[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.”

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

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

[17] “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).”

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

[18] “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.” (my emphasis)

SOURCE: The Associated Press, August 2, 1977, AM cycle, 911 words, By BARRY SCHWEID, Associated Press Writer, ALEXANDRIA, Egypt

[19] “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).”

SOURCE: 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:

[20] SOURCE: Berg, M. P. 2000. Foreword to the English Edition. In M. P. Berg, J. Lewis, & O. Rathkolb (Eds.), The Struggle for a Democratic Austria. New York & Oxford: Berghahn Books. (p.xiii).

[21] Muravchik, J. 2014. Making David into Goliath: How the World Turned Against Israel. New York: Encounter Books. (p.93)

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

[23] Said’s father, a protestant who called himself William, emigrated to the US, served in World War I, became a US citizen, then settled in Cairo, where he made a fortune, and married Hilda, another protestant. They begat Edward, named after the British King Edward VIII (an infamous admirer of the German Nazis and Adolf Hitler). Said grew up surrounded by servants.

“He and his four siblings—Rosemary, Grace, Jean, and Joyce—were reared in the church and in opulence, with a box at the opera, membership in country clubs, piano lessons, and education entirely at British and American primary and secondary schools in Cairo. Said felt ‘proud of my mother for conversing in Arabic, since she alone of the entire social group to which we belonged knew the language well.’ ”

Said presented himself as an ‘exile’ who had left Jerusalem, where he had been born and raised, “until forced from there at age twelve by the Jews.” The truth was that,

“until he moved to the United States to attend prep school in 1951 and never left, Said had resided his entire life in Cairo, not Palestine.”

A few months after Justus Reid Weiner demonstrated this, Said published his autobiography, confirming Weiner’s findings. But he nevertheless attacked Weiner. Said’s supporters,

“styling themselves The Arab-Jewish Peace Group, cosigned a letter to the editor that likened Weiner’s article to ‘deny[ing] the Holocaust’ ”

SOURCE: Muravchik, J. 2014. Making David into Goliath: How the World Turned Against Israel. New York: Encounter Books. (pp. 101-03)

[24] Quoted in: Muravchik, J. 2014. Making David into Goliath: How the World Turned Against Israel. New York: Encounter Books. (pp. 99-100)

[25] Said, E. 1980. The Question of Palestine. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. (p.13)

[26] Nathan Weinstock, a historian whose sympathies certainly ran against Zionism when he wrote Zionism: False Messiah, writes that “the Zionists certainly paid dearly for their Holy Land.” That’s because they didn’t steal it. Weinstock discusses the effects of “the high prices sales, which brought a fortune to the usurious, parasitic effendi class…,” which is to say the feudal landowning Arab aristocrats, who were quite eager to sell their unproductive lands to the Zionists.

SOURCE: Weinstock, N. 1979. Zionism: False Messiah. London: Ink Links Ltd. (p.156)

For an extensive discussion of this issue, see:

Did the Zionist Jews take something away from the Arabs in British Mandate ‘Palestine’?”; from UNDERSTANDING THE PALESTINIAN MOVEMENT; Historical and Investigative Research; 02 June 2006; by Francisco Gil-White

[27] There are two issues here:

1)    the benefits that, thanks to Zionist immigration, accrued to the Arab poor in British Mandate Palestine; and

2)    the provenance of most so-called ‘Palestinian Arabs.’

On the first, consult the section subtitled “The Zionist Jews were much nicer to the Arab poor than the Arab ruling elite,” in:

Did the Zionist Jews take something away from the Arabs in British Mandate ‘Palestine’?”; from UNDERSTANDING THE PALESTINIAN MOVEMENT; Historical and Investigative Research; 02 June 2006; by Francisco Gil-White

On the second, consult the section subtitled “Who are the ‘Palestinians’” in:

Was there, in British Mandate Palestine, a ‘nationally conscious’ ‘Palestinian Arab people’?”; from UNDERSTANDING THE PALESTINIAN MOVEMENT; Historical and Investigative Research; 30 April 2006; by Francisco Gil-White

[28] One major pillar of the anti-Zionist narrative is that the Zionist Jews impeded the creation of a Palestinian national state. In fact, the Palestinians were offered two states, and the Zionists impeded neither.

The Palestinians got their first state when the territory of ‘Transjordan,’ which had been included in the original Mandate as part of the land intended for a Jewish state, was separated from British ‘Palestine.’ This later became the Kingdom of Jordan. It is a Palestinian state.

But even so, the Palestinians were offered a second state. Many people today believe that the UN vote of 1947 was to create a Jewish state in the Middle East. They are mistaken. The vote was to partition rump British ‘Palestine’—only 1/4 of the original territory, after lopping off ‘Transjordan’—and create two states: one Jewish, the other, Arab Palestinian. With this second partition of ‘Palestine,’ the land for a Jewish state was reduced to about 10% of what the League of Nations had originally promised for a Jewish homeland. But the Zionist Jews said yes. They said yes to a second Palestinian state—so long as they could have a small piece of territory to call their own.

It was the Palestinian Arab aristocrats—and the power elites in the Arab world—who said no. They said they preferred to exterminate the Israeli Jews rather than have a second Palestinian Arab state.

Azzam Pasha, Secretary General of the Arab League (a British creation), promised: “This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre, which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades.” (a) In addressing the UN Security Council in April 1948, Jamal Husseini, Hajj Amin's cousin and spokesperson for his Arab Higher Committee, straightforwardly and proudly admitted that this was a war of aggression: “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.” (b) Hajj Amin himself issued a fatwa (legal Islamic pronouncement) to murder all the Jews that had survived his Nazi Final Solution: “I declare a holy war, my Moslem brothers! Murder the Jews! Murder them all!” (c)


(a) Barnett, D., & Karsh, E. 2011. Azzam’s Genocidal Threat. Middle East Quarterly, 18(4): 85-88.

(b) Security Council Official Records, S/Agenda/58, (April 16, 1948), p. 19

(c) Leonard J. Davis and M. Decter (eds.). Myths and Facts 1982; a Concise Record of the Arab-Israeli Conflict (Washington DC: near east report, 1982), p. 199

[29] Consult the section titled:

“Hajj Amin al Husseini, leader of the ‘Palestinian movement,’ becomes an architect of Adolf Hitler’s Final Solution, and then continues the extermination effort beyond the World War, helping create Al Fatah, the controlling core of the PLO.”


How did the ‘Palestinian movement’ emerge? The British sponsored it. Then the German Nazis, and the US”; from UNDERSTANDING THE PALESTINIAN MOVEMENT; Historical and Investigative Research; 13 June 2006; by Francisco Gil-Whit

[30]  The Wikipedia page (consulted 2016/06/11) on the Jewish exodus from Arab lands states that

“The Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries or Jewish exodus from Arab countries was the departure, flight, expulsion, evacuation and migration, of 850,000 Jews, primarily of Sephardi and Mizrahi background, from Arab and Muslim countries, mainly from 1948 to the early 1970s. They and their descendants make up the majority of Israeli Jews.

Notice, above, that the exodus is described with two categories of words (no doubt the result of a fierce Wikipedia editing battle). One category, which includes “flight” and “expulsion,” is consistent with saying that these Jews were chased out. The other category, which includes, “departure,” “evacuation,” and “migration” does not imply that.

Further below, Wikipedia states:

“The reasons for the exodus included push factors, such as persecution, antisemitism, political instability, poverty, and expulsion, together with pull factors, such as the desire to fulfill Zionist yearnings or find a better economic status and a secure home in Europe or the Americas. The history of the exodus has been politicized, given its proposed relevance to the historical narrative of the Arab-Israeli conflict. When presenting the history, those who view the Jewish exodus as analogous to the 1948 Palestinian exodus generally emphasize the push factors and consider those who left as refugees, while those who do not, emphasize the pull factors and consider them willing immigrants.”

Wikipedia writes as though presenting either view—that is, favoring the “push” vs. the “pull,” or vice-versa, is to “politicize” the Jewish exodus. Perhaps. The more pertinent question, however, is which “politicized” view is in better harmony with historically documented facts, for proper historical science is not ‘politically balanced’—it is merely accurate.

It seems especially relevant that the exodus began in 1948. Why? Because the year before, when the UN voted to partition British Mandate Palestine to create a Jewish and an Arab state, the power elites in the Arab League, a coalition of Arab Muslim states, expressed their universal displeasure with the vote. Any Jewish state, as they made very clear, was to them unacceptable.

Was this antisemitism?

In the same year of 1947, the states of the Arab League imposed a series of laws on all Jews living in any Arab State. The overwhelming majority of these Jews were not even Zionists—but no matter.

These laws were so draconian that they were compared to the Nazi Nuremberg Laws against the German Jews. A New York Times headline exclaimed:


(more on this here)

Even as that NYT article was being published, the states of the Arab League launched what Arab League Secretary General Azzam Pasha publicly announced as a “war of extermination” against the Jews in the newly founded State of Israel. Following the Arab defeat, the Arab states imposed punitive restrictions on the Jews and began confiscating their property. Many were ordered to leave. Would it be to “politicize” the issue to say that basically all Jews living in the Arab world left because they feared for their lives?

[31] See the section subtitled

“The PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization) denies that ‘Palestine’ exists!”


Was there, in British Mandate Palestine, a ‘nationally conscious’ ‘Palestinian Arab people’?”; from UNDERSTANDING THE PALESTINIAN MOVEMENT; Historical and Investigative Research; 30 April 2006; by Francisco Gil-White

[32]  PLO/Fatah and Iran: The Special Relationship”; Historical and Investigative Research; 25 May 2010; by Francisco Gil-White

[33]  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?”; Historical and Investigative Research; 10 Dec 2005; by Francisco Gil-White

[34]  In a 1999 article republished in the most important Palestinian daily, Al-Quds, the journalist Saleh Qallab recalled that:

“Abu Mazen lectured at length on this issue in Tehran to a group of Palestinian and Arab journalists, accompanying Palestinian President Arafat, when he went to congratulate Khomeini for the triumph of the Iranian revolution. It was in February 1979, a week after Khomeini’s return from exile in France.

All that is required from us is to bring the Israelis to the absolute conviction that we Arabs really want peace, because such conviction will deepen the dispute in Israeli society and bring the Israelis down from their tanks and out of their fortresses.”

Soften and divide the Israelis with talk of peace, then kill them - this is the strategy. What is the remaining obstacle?

“…This mission is not easy, because the Israeli right knows the truth… The Arabs, however, must give this phase a chance. They must convince the majority of Israelis that they… want a just peace based on what can be referred to as a historic settlement, on the basis of UN Security Council resolutions 242 and 338.”

SOURCE: Arab Peace Strategy and the Fragmentation of Israeli Society”; MEMRI; July 21, 1999; No.40.

For an analysis of the above:

[35]  Muravchik, J. 2014. Making David into Goliath: How the World Turned Against Israel. New York: Encounter Books. (pp.92-94)

[36]  It is obvious that both George Bush Sr. and Bill Clinton strongly pushed for a PLO/Fatah State in Judea & Samaria and Gaza, but some of my readers may think that Ronald Reagan had a different policy. He did not. After certain policy moves that led many of Reagan’s supporters to wonder if he was not an antisemite,

“…The White House adviser…said Reagan assured his Jewish supporters that ‘the only path to peace we’re following is the Camp David process,’ and not either peace initiatives proposed by Saudi Arabia or Europeans.

Reagan had raised some Jewish concerns by praising what he called implicit recognition of Israel in the plan advanced by Crown Prince Fahd of Saudi Arabia. The Saudi plan calls for establishment of a Palestinian state with its capital in East Jerusalem and peace between countries in the region. The plan never mentions Israel.

The Europeans have questioned whether any settlement can be reached without active PLO participation.” (a)

So Reagan, first, endorsed a Saudi ‘peace’ plan that called for the establishment of a Palestinian state “with its capital in East Jerusalem,” and which didn’t recognize Israel’s actual existence, let alone recognize its right to exist.

Then, Reagan said that no, the Saudi plan would not be followed, and neither would he pay any attention to the Europeans, who were calling for a PLO/Fatah state. Instead, the “Camp David process” would be his policy.

But the “Camp David process” was Jimmy Carter’s policy, and it called for Israeli withdrawal from the ‘West Bank’ (Judea & Samaria) and Gaza, the creation of a self-governing Palestinian Arab authority, and, after three years, “negotiations will take place to determine the final status of the West Bank and Gaza.”(b) Since Carter had pushed very hard for including PLO/Fatah in the Geneva ‘peace’ conference, it is obvious that this strategy, which looks and sounds exactly like what the Oslo process later became, was meant to create a PLO state in the West Bank and Gaza.


(a)         The Associated Press, November 19, 1981, Thursday, PM cycle, Washington Dateline, 345 words, Reagan Seeks to Reassure Jewish Supporters, By DONALD M. ROTHBERG, AP Political Writer, WASHINGTON

(b)        The Camp David Accords; Jimmy Carter Presidential Library and Museum.

[37] The ‘First Intifada’ was a US-PLO strategy used to represent the Arabs in West Bank and Gaza as supposedly oppressed ‘underdogs’ ”; from IS THE US AN ALLY OF ISRAEL?: A CHRONOLOGICAL LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE; Historical and Investigative Research; by Francisco Gil-White

[38] Joint US-Soviet statement on the Middle East” (1 October 1977).

[39] Press conference with President Jimmy Carter on the “Joint US-Soviet statement on the Middle East” (1 October 1977)

[40] Madrid Conference of 1991 | From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[Consulted 2 September 2014]

[41] Bush Sr.'s administration forced Israel to participate in the Oslo process, which brought the PLO into the West Bank and Gaza”; from IS THE US AN ALLY OF ISRAEL?; Historical and Investigative Research; by Francisco Gil-White

[42] Muravchik, J. 2014. Making David into Goliath: How the World Turned Against Israel. New York: Encounter Books. (pp.85-89)

[43] Wikipedia (consulted 2016/06/12) writes:

“Part of the reason for the [Waldheim] controversy was Austria’s refusal to address its national role in the Holocaust. (Many leading Nazis, including Adolf Hitler, were Austrians, and Austria became part of the Third Reich.) Austria refused to pay compensation to Nazi victims, and from 1970 onwards refused to investigate Austrian citizens who were senior Nazis. Stolen Jewish art remained public property until after the Waldheim affair.”

This Austrian government, at President Waldheim’s request, financed—though it did not directly impanel—an International Commission of Historians to investigate. Before the verdict was in, Waldheim announced “that the judgment of the Commission of Historians could not be binding for him.” But in the end he celebrated, for on the most headline-grabbing question—Was Waldheim guilty of war crimes?—the Commission reported no evidence of his direct participation.

What matters most, to an understanding of Waldheim’s international role, and his activities on behalf of PLO/Fatah is not whether he committed war crimes, but this: Was Waldheim an antisemite?

The Commission report did not consider this question directly. They do mention, however, that “the Christian Social tradition of the Waldheim family remains an undisputed fact.” Antisemitism was the very platform of the Christian Social party led by Karl Lueger, who was mayor of Vienna while Adolf Hitler lived there, and who was famously the source of Hitler’s ideology. Waldheim’s father was active in the party.

A question that the Commission historians did consider is this: Was Waldheim an ideological Nazi? This is useful because ideological Nazis hate Jews—it’s grammatical.

Included in the Commission report is the statement of a Nazi functionary who wrote that Waldheim was, “ ‘like his father, a supporter of the Schuschnigg regime…’ ” Kurt Schushnigg, like Engelbert Dolfuss, the other leader of Austrofaschismus (‘Austrian fascism’), had been a politician in Lueger’s antisemitic Christian Social Party, later integrated in the new movement. Proponents of Austrofaschismus did not wish to unite with Germany, but their ideology was certainly closer to Nazism than it was to liberal democracy.

True, the Nazi functionary quoted above also wrote that, before the Anschluss, Waldheim had rather publicly evidenced his “ ‘spitefulness toward our [Nazi] movement.’ ” The Commission historians cite this as favorable to Waldheim. But it is possible to have disliked the Nazi movement before the Anschluss without disliking its antisemitism. And, though the Commission historians do not mention it, a New Yorker article on this subject does: the same Nazi functionary stated “that after the Anschluss [Waldheim] was a diligent soldier of the Reich and ‘served us well.’ ”

This brings us to the question: Did Waldheim become a committed Nazi?

In an interview with Commission historians, Waldheim asserted that “I was never a member of any NS [National Socialist – Nazi] organization.”  The Commission historians reached the opposite conclusion. With respect to the mounted SA (Sturmabteilung), they write: “His membership in this SA riding organization is not open to dispute.” And they also write: “The documents also substantiate that Kurt Waldheim was a member of the Nationalsozialistischer Studentenbund (NS Students’ Union)” or the NSDStB, a Nazi Party organization.

Given that Waldheim did join Nazi organizations, I must agree with the Commission historians that “The pivotal question is: under what circumstances did this membership come about?”

The Commission historians point out that he was not coerced into the NSDStB: “a personal initiative was required in order to become a member.” Neither was he coerced to join the mounted SA; the Consular Academy riding group, to which Waldheim belonged, was “integrated into an SA-Reiterstandarte because it itself had made such a request.”

How to evaluate this evidence?

On the question of joining the NSDStB, the Commission historians speculate that “this act could have been motivated in part by the desire to overcome a certain number of obstacles… It is possible that in the act of joining the NS-Studentenbund, considerations of expediency may have outweighed those of political commitment.” In other words, perhaps Waldheim was “in part” an opportunist rather than a true Nazi.

On the question of joining the mounted SA, the Commission historians speculate that “among at least a few, a wish to accommodate to the NS [National Socialist] regime may have been the decisive factor.” In other words, perhaps Waldheim was among those (perhaps existing) SA members for whom opportunist considerations were, perhaps, “the decisive factor.”

On the strength of these evidence-free speculations, Commission historians conclude that “there is no evidence to support any ideological commitment on Waldheim’s part to National Socialism” (my emphasis).

But if evidence-free speculations are allowed, one may well ask: Why only in the direction that protects Waldheim’s prestige? This was not a court of law—there was no presumption of innocence, no special burden of proof either way. The Commission’s task was simply to weigh the evidence. Thus, though one may of course speculate, it is always better to do so in the full historical context.

“Chronology,” it is often said, “is the backbone of history.” So consider a few important dates.

Austria was annexed by Nazi Germany on 12 March 1938. As the New Yorker points out, it was “two weeks after the Anschluss [that] Waldheim joined the Nazi Student Union,” or NSDStB. This context is missing from the Commission report. Given the complexities of one country taking over another, Waldheim obviously joined as soon as bureaucratically possible. Is that consistent with opportunism or with ideological fervor?

Then there is Waldheim’s joining of the mounted SA. The Commission report states: “The date of registration as a member is November 18, 1938.” But it does not mention the context that the New Yorker once again underlines: this was “one week after Kristallnacht,” when the SA ‘brown shirts’ destroyed Jewish property, and ransacked, beat, and murdered Jews throughout the Third Reich, which already included Austria. In Vienna, most synagogues and prayer-houses were partially or totally destroyed. To join the SA in this context—especially when, apart from this, the SA had become relatively unimportant (it had been superseded by the SS)—suggests enthusiasm for the just concluded ‘action.’

We might well consider other elements of context.

We know that peer pressure and direct instruction within Nazi organizations turned many opportunistic joiners into committed ideologues. In fact, we know that, once inside the totalitarian Nazi structure, resisting Nazi ideology presented a serious challenge. Thus, Waldheim—even should we accept the evidence-free speculation that he joined opportunistically—might have been among the turned. After all, Waldheim’s pre-Anschluss political leanings were not too distant from Nazism, and the whole point of the NSDStB was to infuse students with the Nazi worldview. Moreover, anybody who did not quickly become an eager antisemite would stick out like a sore thumb in the SA, a main function of which was thuggery against Jews. The Nazi functionary who reported on him (see above) certainly seemed to think that he had become a ‘proper’ Nazi.

In full context, from Waldheim’s membership in Nazi organizations, it seems less of a stretch to conclude that Waldheim was an ideological Nazi than to state, categorically, that “there is no evidence to support any ideological commitment on Waldheim’s part to National Socialism.”

But suppose we avoid the narrow question considered by Commission historians—whether Waldheim was an ideological National Socialist—and ask whether he was an antisemite. The pre-Anschluss evidence speaks of a pre-existing antisemitism that his Nazi experiences would only have reinforced.

Finally, there is Waldheim’s service as a wartime Nazi officer in the Balkans. Waldheim lied about that. The New Yorker quotes from his book The Challenge of Peace:

“ ‘The knowledge that I was serving in the German army was hard to bear,’ ” he wrote, but “ ‘Deliverance from my bitter situation finally came when our unit moved into active combat on the Eastern front in 1941. I was wounded in the leg and medically discharged.’ ”

The wound appears to have been real, but Waldheim served in the Balkans until 1945. In fact, “he had spent the better part of the Second World War working for a war criminal,” Alexander Löhr, remarks The New Yorker. And as a result of his service there, “he ended up with a King Zvonimir medal from the Croatian puppet state.” This was the same Croatian state whose literal bloodbaths in Jasenovac, in fact the first death camp in Europe, were a bit too much even for the Nazis.

The New Yorker quotes Hubertus Czernin, the Austrian reporter who first began tracking down Waldheim’s war record, saying that Waldheim:
“ ‘was one of the best-informed officers in the Balkans. He knew everything.’ ”

This matters because it was in the Balkans that Hajj Amin al Husseini, godfather to PLO/Fatah, organized entire Muslim SS divisions that carried out massacres in the region. Waldheim no doubt was well-informed of Husseini’s war crimes. Thus, better than most others, he likely understood PLO/Fatah’s dark background.

Were Waldheim’s postwar interventions on behalf of PLO/Fatah and against the Jewish State, then, an expression of an enduring hatred for the Jews?

“Austria has what could be called an anti-Semitic ‘vocabulary of explanation,’ ” writes The New Yorker, and Waldheim “did nothing really to discourage that vocabulary.” On the contrary, “he used it himself. He let it be known that the World Jewish Congress controlled the foreign press,” a canard drawn straight from the Protocols of Zion, the Tsarist forgery that became Hitler’s most important propaganda vehicle, and that, by producing paranoia about supposed ‘Jewish power,’ was a main cause of the Holocaust.


Kurz, H. R., Collins, J. L., Fleishcher, H., Fleming, G., Messerschmidt, M., Vanwelkenhuyzen, J., & Wallach, J. L. 1993. The Waldheim Report: Submitted February 8, 1988 to Federal Chancellor Dr. Franz Vranitzky by the International Commission of Historians. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press / University of Copenhagen.

[Waldheim’s preliminary refusal to consider any decision “binding” appears in p.20; his denial of having joined Nazi organizations in p.204; all other material appears in pp.33-35.]

“Vienna, June 20”—Letter from Europe; The New Yorker; 30 June 1986.

[44] How did the ‘Palestinian movement’ emerge? The British sponsored it. Then the German Nazis, and the US”; from UNDERSTANDING THE PALESTINIAN MOVEMENT; Historical and Investigative Research; 13 June 2006; by Francisco Gil-White

[45] THE NAZIS AND THE PALESTINIAN MOVEMENT: Documentary and discussion”; Historical and Investigative Research; 26 July 2013; by Francisco Gil-White

THE NETANYAHU BOMBSHELL: Founder of Palestinian movement instigated the Holocaust”; Historical and Investigative Research; 23 Oct 2015; by Francisco Gil-White

[46] How did the ‘Palestinian movement’ emerge? The British sponsored it. Then the German Nazis, and the US”; from UNDERSTANDING THE PALESTINIAN MOVEMENT; Historical and Investigative Research; 13 June 2006; by Francisco Gil-White

THE NAZIS AND THE PALESTINIAN MOVEMENT: Documentary and discussion”; Historical and Investigative Research; 26 July 2013; by Francisco Gil-White

THE NETANYAHU BOMBSHELL: Founder of Palestinian movement instigated the Holocaust”; Historical and Investigative Research; 23 Oct 2015; by Francisco Gil-White

[47] THE NAZIS AND THE PALESTINIAN MOVEMENT: Documentary and discussion”; Historical and Investigative Research; 26 July 2013; by Francisco Gil-White

THE NETANYAHU BOMBSHELL: Founder of Palestinian movement instigated the Holocaust”; Historical and Investigative Research; 23 Oct 2015; by Francisco Gil-White

[48] PLO/Fatah's Nazi training was CIA-sponsored”; Historical and Investigative Research; 22 July 2007; by Francisco Gil-White

ACHILLE’S HEEL: The muftí, the Nazis, and the ‘Palestinian Authority’”; Historical and Investigative Research; 16 Nov 2015, by Francisco Gil-White




   0. Introduction: The Iran deal, what does it teach us?


This series of articles is a primer. It contains selected historical knowledge minimally sufficient to abandon the ‘Establishment model’ of geopolitical processes and to begin constructing an alternative model that will explain and predict the world of international relations.


    1. Psychological warfare, commu-nication research, and the media


PSYOPs originally refers to psychological warfare operations conducted by the military against the enemy. But PSYOPs have domestic applications as well. We review here historian Christopher Simpson’s documentation of how social science was corrupted in the United States so that power elites could bend ‘democracy’ to their will using psychological warfare.


    2. Political grammar: How does psychological warfare work?


Psychological warfare is governed by grammatical rules. Power elites with a good command of such rules can deploy psychological warfare to ‘manage’ citizens into doing things they otherwise wouldn’t—even into destroying their own liberties. We here explain the basic operation of Western political grammar, created in 1848, and how it may be manipulated.


    3. Principal-Agent Theory (PAT), the citizen, and the State


Principal-agent theory (PAT) examines how ‘principals’ can manipulate ‘agents’ to do their bidding. It has been applied to political behavior but, perhaps not too surprisingly, in such a manner that it will not challenge the perception that Western States are functioning democracies whose governments are duly responsive to the citizenries. Here we explore an alternative picture that takes into account what power elites can do through psychological (or political) warfare.


   4. Is US geopolitics meant to strengthen or weaken democracy?


The study of geopolitics is meant to account for the foreign policy behaviors of the various States. However, geopolitical scholars have certain taboos about which kinds of hypotheses may or may not be entertained. In particular, the prevailing political grammar in the Western media and academic system appears to rigorously forbid that anybody question the purity of intention of those making foreign policy decisions in Western states. Why?


   5. The goals of the US power elite in historical perspective


The US power elite’s most important players were responsible for setting up the US psychological warfare regime after World War II (Part 1). These same players had a major hand in precipitating the onset of World War II. This information is of some importance in evaluating the probable aims of US power-elite geopolitics today. But it is next to impossible to pursue this analysis because the US power elite role in causing World War II has been almost completely expunged from historical education.


   6. US postwar policy toward Nazi war criminals


Few people are aware that the US government recruited Nazis after WWII. And most of the aware believe this was just a handful of Nazi scientists employed in rocket development (Operation Paperclip). In fact, the US government shielded from justice a giant multitude of Nazis—including many war criminals who had bathed themselves in innocent blood—and used them to create the postwar US intelligence infrastructure. This affected both domestic and foreign policy. The self-imposed silence of the Western media on this topic is diagnostic of the psychological warfare regime that dominates.


   7. The aims of the US power elite in WWII


Certain important events surrounding the causes and aftermath of World War II may be recruited to defend a model of the US power elite as pro-Nazi. This model naturally needs to provide satisfactory special reasons for important behaviors of the same power elite that appear anti-Nazi. But the same applies to the Establishment model: it must provide satisfactory special reasons to explain why, if the US power elite has been anti-Nazi, it involved itself so intensely with sponsorship and then recruitment of Nazis. We examine these issues here.


   8. US foreign policy in the Arab-Israeli conflict


Given US power elite’s sponsorship of the eugenics movement, which became German Nazism, and the same US power elite’s creation of the postwar psychological warfare regime, it is reasonable to ask whether US postwar foreign policy has been consistent with the aims of the eugenicists and the German Nazis, namely, to destroy democracy and to kill Jews. That is the question we ask here.


   9. Why do enemies of democracy attack the Jews?


Shoa (‘the Holocaust’) was a horrific slaughter and a Crime Against Humanity, but it was not an historical aberration. As Western historical processes go, the mass-killing of Jews may be the most recurrent and stable. Those who killed the Jews in World War II were enemies of human liberty. This, too, is not new. In the history of the West, whenever the Jews are under attack, everybody’s liberties are in danger. What explains this? One simple fact: for 2500 years, Jewish thought has been the engine of Western political liberation, and Western enemies of liberty have always understood this.


   10. Grammatical Realism: Outline of a geopolitical approach


Geopolitical approaches fall into two broad traditions, classical and critical geopolitics. We situate the approach followed in this series, called grammatical realism, in the context of these two traditions in order to lay bare the methodological assumptions and its programmatic strategy. We make clear which aspects of classical geopolitics and critical geopolitics have been adopted and which discarded.



































Notify me of new HIR pieces!

HIR mailing list