The Conspiracy to Shrink Israel
Conventional wisdom tells us that western Europe and America are pressing Israel for concessions in order to placate the Arabs. In my recent Israel can and must act in her own best interests. I wrote
Shortly thereafter (1938) Ben Gurion made his case to Malcolm MacDonald, the Colonial Secretary, who suggested, that the Arab and Muslim world could rise up and threaten the British Empire and therefore to prevent this, Britain had to make sure that the Jews in Palestine remained a minority.
But Menachem Begin had a different take which he set out in his 1948 book, The Revolt. This book is Begin’s reflection on the Jewish revolt against the British, which he lead. He likened this revolt to the revolt by the Maccabees against the Greeks in Second Century BCE and by the Jews against the Romans in the First Century CE and by Bar Kochba against the Romans in the Second Century. But he also foresaw a Maccabee-like victory rather than Bar Kochba-like defeat.
Begin advises that Britain had long wanted Palestine for itself well before the Balfour Declaration. When Herzl was still alive, Lord Cromer of Britain, said “When the Ottoman Empire crumbles, as sooner or later it will, we (Britain) must have Palestine.”
Britain generally had a policy of cloaking their goals with a lofty ideals, such, as in this case, giving the Jews a national home. So in furtherance of her “Master Plan” in the late Nineteenth Century she kept complaining of Turkey’s treatment of the Jews..
The best way for Britain to gain control of Palestine was to act ostensibly on behalf of the Jews. This was born out in the Balfour Declaration in 1917 in which the British Government backed the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine, mind you, not Palestine as the Jewish homeland. Britain would have Palestine and the Jews would have a homeland in it. Britain had no fears that too many Jews would want to come. Afterall they were not pioneers and certainly not fighters. The blueprint evolved: the Arabs when required would “revolt” against the “foreign invasion”; the Jews would be forever a threatened minority. Thus Britain would be called upon to maintain the peace. Unfortunately for them, as Robbie Burns wrote, “The best laid schemes o’ mice an’ men gang aft agley,”
Throughout the twenties and thirties the British encouraged the Arabs to “revolt”. But because of the Holocaust, the Jews kept coming. Britain in order not to lose control had to limit their entry. Thus the Peel Commission in the late thirties recommended in a White Paper that only 75,000 Jews more, be allowed into Palestine by 1944. The Jews had to be kept to a minority at all costs. In fact Hitler’s Final Solution played into their hands as there would be less Jews left to emigrate to Eretz Yisroel. The British spin machine went into overdrive and overtime. “Afterall, couldn’t let German spies into Palestine, could we.”
During this period, the Jewish leadership followed a policy of self-restraint known as “havlagah”. But Vladiimir Jabatinsky, the founder of Betar, would have none of it. He preached resistance and revolt until his death in 1940. Out of his teachings was born the Jewish underground army The Irgun and another underground group, Fighters for Freedom of Israel which later became known as the The Stern Gang after their slain leader..
In early 1944 The Irgun declared war on Britain demanding an “immediate transfer of power to a Provisional Hebrew Government” and announced a call to arms for all Jews. The British reaction amounted to, “What chutzpah!”.
Shortly thereafter, the revolt brought about the neutralization of the Arab factor. They ceased to do the British bidding. Only after the British announced that they were leaving Palestine and the Arab countries declared war on the future Jewish state did the local Arabs return to their attacks.
Britain expected that the Stern Gang and The Irgun would fight them and maybe even the Haganah would join in. They were confident they would crush them just as the Romans crushed the Jews 2000 years earlier. They would force the Jewish leaders to collaborate and hunt them down just like the Nazis did. They planned to get the support of the US for their plan arguing it was necessary to prevent Russian expansion into the Middle East. All this was set out in a document marked “Secret” prepared by the British “Cairo Bureau” which came into the hands of The Irgun.
The revolt depended on the willingness of the Jews to fight to the death. And they were not found wanting. According to Begin, but for the revolt, the state of Israel would not have come into existence. According to Ben Gurion, who usually opposed Begin, but for him the state would not have survived the war waged by the Arab counties after the state was declared. They were both right. Begin had forced Britain out and Ben Gurion had prepared Israel to defend itself by building an army and keeping the country unified.
A month before the State of Israel was declared, The Irgun and others, attacked Deir Yassin, an Arab village. There is much dispute on the numbers killed.
Wikipedia reports
The massacre became a pivotal event in the Arab-Israeli conflict for its demographic and military consequences. The narrative was embellished and used by various parties to attack each other—by the Palestinians to besmirch Palestine’s Jewish community, and later Israel; by the Haganah to play down their own role in the affair; and later by the Israeli Left to accuse the Irgun and Lehi of violating the Jewish principle of “tohar hanashek” (purity of arms), thus blackening Israel’s name around the world.[6] News of the killings sparked terror within the Palestinian community, encouraging them to flee from their towns and villages in the face of Jewish troop advances, and it strengthened the resolve of Arab governments to intervene, which they did five weeks later by invading Palestine, following Israel’s declaration of independence on May 14.[2]
Begin advises that it was a very important military target and that the fighting was fierce. He adds;
Yet the hostile propaganda disseminated throughout the world, deliberately ignored the fact that the civilian population of Deir Yassin was actually given a warning by us before the battle began. One of our tenders carrying a loud speaker was stationed at the entrance of the village and it exhorted, in Arabic, all woman and children and aged to leave their houses and to take shelter on the slope of the hill. By giving this humane warning our fighters threw away the element of complete surprise, and thus increased their own risk in the ensuing battle.
Many, though not all, heeded the advice.
Our men were compelled to fight for every house; to overcome the enemy they used large numbers of hand grenades. The civilians who had disregarded our warnings, suffered inevitable casualties.
Because the Arabs called Deir Yassin, a Jewish atrocity, where have we heard that recently, Begin stressed,
The education which we give our soldiers throughout the years of the revolt was based on the observance of the international laws of war. We never broke them unless the enemy first did so and thus, forced us, in accordance with the accepted custom of war, to apply reprisals,
The exaggerations by the Arabs of the event for propaganda purposes contributed greatly to the flight of perhaps 500,000 to 700,000 Arabs from Palestine. This flight and the expulsion of 800,000 Jews from Arab countries, contributed greatly to establishing a Jewish majority.
The US is now the big power in the ME and she is following Britain’s Master Plan. The US wants Israel to be shrunk but not exterminated.[See The conspiracy to Shrink Israel] Thus the US will be needed to protect them. To this end she trains Fatah and keeps Hamas alive. The Saudis also depend on them for protection.
It was a standard technique of the Brits to set up a Commission of Inquiry in response to violence, riots etc. As Begin reports, “These Commissions had the added psychological advantage of appearing as impartial adjudicators emphasizing and re-emphasizing that there were two conflicting “rights” in Palestine, and thus underlying the need for a permanent presence in Palestine of the Mandatory Power as a third and deciding party.” The most significant Commission was the Peel Commission set up in response to British instigated violence which recommended a limitation of Jewish immigration.
The US uses the same technique. In response to the Second Intifada after the failure of Camp David, the US sent Sen. Mitchell to Israel to investigate the violence, and wouldn’t you know it, he recommended a settlement freeze just as the Peel Commission recommended an immigration freeze. In both cases, Jewish rights were restricted as a result of Arab violence.
The United Nations does the same thing. As a result of Hamas rocket violence and Israeli self-defense, the UN appointed Goldstone to head a commission of enquiry. The Goldstone Report did what it was expected to do, namely, recommended Israel be tried for war crimes and perhaps crimes against humanity.
A word to the wise, beware of Inquiries.
The US is there, like Britain was there, not so much because she is needed but because she wants to be there.
Had the international community not insisted in managing the outcome of the ‘67 war, there would now be peace in the Middle East.
June 21, 2006
The Conspiracy to Shrink Israel
By Ted Belman
The Secret War Against the Jews by John Loftus and Mark Aarons was published in 1994. It was sub-titled “How Western Intelligence Betrayed the Jewish People.”
I quote from Deane Rink’s review of this book.
“The modern world begins, the authors suggest, at the end of World War I, when British diplomat/adventurers Jack Philby (father of Soviet spy Kim Philby and legendary Arabist) and Lawrence of Arabia endeavour to unify a bunch of warring Bedouin tribes into nationhood, best represented by Saudi Arabia. Aware that black gold (oil) lies underneath the desert sands, Philby gingerly befriends Ibn Saud, and makes him the first Saudi king. But Philby is not solely interested in empire, even his own British one; he is interested in making money, and forges an alliance with an American intelligence agent in charge of Middle Eastern affairs, Allen Dulles. By the 1930s, Ibn Saud and Philby are secret supporters of the Nazi rise to political power in Germany, and bring Dulles, a NYC-based corporate lawyer for Sullivan and Cromwell, in on their scheme. It is a triple game driven by their hatred of Zionism and the Jews, motivated by their obsessive seeking of profits, and designed to completely transform the landscape of the Middle East. […] This double-dealing by British and American corporations continues throughout World War II… “
The review continues with a synopsis of events in this war for the next fifty years. Loftus, in his book, concludes by congratulating the Jews for having won the war. I think he spoke too soon.
The conspiracy to destroy Israel is clearly reflected in the “peace process”. Prior to the Six Day War, President Johnson, an oil man, told Nasser that he would help him with intelligence and sent the USS Liberty to spy on Israel. Although Israel was confident that it would win handily, no one else was. The victory shocked the world and in the view of the conspirators, had to be undone. So when Resolution 242 was being drafted a few months later, by Under Secretary of State, Eugene Rostow and others, they sought to protect Israel and assure it of secure and recognized borders but they weren’t able to exclude the following. “Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war ..”. This statement was and is legally and historically erroneous. Territory has always been acquired by war and a distinction has always been made between aggressive and defensive wars. It was bad enough that Israel was created in ’48 with ridiculous borders but it would be a catastrophe if Israel was allowed to retain the lands acquired by the ’67 war and so the conspirators set about cutting Israel down to size.
Israel was caught by surprise in the ’73 Yom Kippur War but still had a few hours opportunity to attack first and Kissinger counseled against it. During the war Kissinger delayed rearming Israel for a number of days as he want Israel to get a “bloody nose” first. Nixon prevailed and a massive airlift took place in time. Remember that Europe denied landing and refueling rights to this airlift requiring the US to strong arm Portugal into allowing the same.
When Israel dramatically turned the war around, it was Kissinger who prevented Israel from crushing the Egyptian Third Army or marching on Cairo or Damascus if it so choose. Kissinger argued at the time that in the interests of peace, the Arab’s should be enabled to save face.
On December 17, 1975, Henry Kissinger met with Sadun Hammadi, Iraqi Minister of Foreign Affairs. A transcript of this meeting has been published which discloses Kissingers attempts to assuage the concerns of Hammadi.
“Kissinger: I think, when we look at history, that when Israel was created in 1948, I don’t think anyone understood it. It originated in American domestic politics. It was far away and little understood. So it was not an American design to get a bastion of imperialism in the area. It was much less complicated: And I would say that until 1973 the Jewish community had enormous influence. It is only in the last two years, as a result of the policy we are pursuing, that it has changed,
We don’t need Israel for influence in the Arab world. On the contrary, Israel does us more harm than good in the Arab world [..]
We can’t negotiate about the existence of Israel but we can reduce its size to historical proportions.
I don’t agree Israel is a permanent threat. How can a nation of three million be a permanent threat? They have a technical advantage now. But it is inconceivable that peoples with wealth and skill and the tradition of the Arabs won’t develop the capacity that is needed. So I think in ten to fifteen years Israel will be like Lebanon–struggling for existence, with no influence in the Arab world.
You mentioned new weapons. But they will not be delivered in the foreseeable future. All we agreed to is to study it, and we agreed to no deliveries out of current stocks. So many of these things won’t be produced until 1980, and we have not agreed to deliver them then. [..].
If the issue is the existence of Israe1, we can’t cooperate. But if the issue is more normal borders, we can cooperate.Aide: Your Excellency, do you think a settlement would come through the Palestinians in the area? ‘How do you read it? Is it in your power to create such a thing?
Kissinger: Not in 1976. I have to be perfectly frank with you. I think the Palestinian identity has to be recognized in some form. But we need the thoughtful cooperation of the Arabs. It will take a year or a year and to do it, and will be a tremendous fight. An evolution is already taking place.
Aide: You think it will be part of a solution?
Kissinger: It has to be. No solution is possible without it. But the domestic situation is becoming favorable. More and more questions are being asked in Congress favorable to the Palestinians.
In the same year according to Eurabia and Prof Eidelberg’s synopsis of it, the Euro-Arab Dialogue commenced and the Arabs set the conditions for this Euro-Arab symbiosis:
1) European policy would be independent from, and opposed to that of the United States;
2) recognition by Europe of a “Palestinian people,” and the creation of a “Palestinian” state;
3) European support for the PLO;
4) the designation of Arafat as the sole and exclusive representative of that so-called Palestinian people;
5) the de-legitimizing of the State of Israel, both historically and politically, its shrinking into non-viable borders, and the Arabization of Jerusalem.
This became European policy.
Francisco Gil-White thoroughly documents the US role in giving birth to a Palestinian state in his invaluable Understanding the Palestinian Movement
“What is beyond question is that, at least by 1977, the master-pet relationship between the CIA and Hajj Amin’s movement was firmly in place. In 1977, the US was holding high-level secret talks with Hajj Amin’s PLO/Fatah that violated a 1975 agreement with Israel not to do that.[77a]
In public, US president Jimmy Carter worked very hard to give PLO/Fatah the dignity of a government in exile. The explicit point of Jimmy Carter’s diplomacy was to give international legitimacy to the demand for a PLO state in the West Bank and Gaza, and it was in fact Jimmy Carter who first proposed such a state, with the PLO obediently following about a week later, though up to this point the PLO had loudly rejected the idea of a PLO state in the West Bank and Gaza.[79]
In 1978, when Israel tried to defend itself from PLO terrorist attacks coming from the PLO bases in southern Lebanon, vigorous US pressure forced the Israelis to back down.[80]
In 1981, against Israeli objections, Ronald Reagan pushed hard for a PLO state in the West Bank and Gaza.[81]In 1982-1983 the Reagan administration rushed into Lebanon to protect the PLO from being destroyed by the Israelis, after the Israelis invaded Lebanon once again to protect themselves from PLO attacks against Israeli civilians in the Galilee. The US exerted very strong pressure on the Israelis to back down, and then provided a military safe passage for the PLO so that they could make their new home in Tunis.[82]
In 1985, certain Israeli politicians, following US wishes, tried hard to advance the political interests of the PLO. In the same year, some Italian politicians who, it has now been established, were part of a covert (pro-fascist) CIA effort in Europe, sacrificed their political careers for the sake of advancing the political image of the PLO against Israel. Meanwhile, Ronald Reagan denied the Holocaust. This was not Reagan’s senility: the entire administration was behind the effort.[83]
In 1987-88, the PLO launched the First Intifada in the West Bank and Gaza (though the media pretended it was a “spontaneous uprising”). The US cooperated closely with the effort to blame supposed Israeli brutality for the First Intifada, and to use the accusation as a reason to advance the project to create a PLO state in the West Bank and Gaza.[84]
In 1989, with Dick Cheney leading the charge, the US began supporting a PLO state in the West Bank as supposedly the “only solution” to the Arab-Israeli conflict.[85]
In 1991, a critical year, George Bush Sr.’s administration literally forced the Israelis — with threats — to participate in what became the Oslo so-called ‘peace’ process, the purpose of which was to bring the PLO out from Tunis and into the Jewish state, where it would become the government over the Arab population living in the West Bank and Gaza, from which position the PLO has been indoctrinating these Arabs into Hajj Amin’s genocidal ideology, and murdering any Arabs who disagree, as Hajj Amin also used to do.[86]
In 1994, the same year that Yasser Arafat was given a Nobel Peace Prize (!!), and which saw the debut of the Oslo ‘peace’ process by bringing the PLO into Israel, Bill Clinton’s CIA was training the PLO. This, despite the fact that Arafat’s henchmen were explaining to the Western press, in English, in the same year of 1994, that they would use their CIA training to kill Jews and any Arabs who didn’t like that, in accordance with Hajj Amin’s ideology.[87]
When Yasser Arafat died, the US enthusiastically endorsed his replacement Mahmoud Abbas (alias Abu Mazen), who, like Yasser Arafat, has always shared Hajj Amin’s ideology and therefore wishes to exterminate the Jewish people.[88]
What is clear from all this is that the US the EU and the Arab League are supporting the PLO in its efforts to cut Israel down to “historical proportions” as promised by Kissinger some thirty years ago. In effect they condone terror as a means to bring this about.
Many friends of Israel believe, and for good reason, that Israel can’t resist the combined onslaught of these forces and should give in to the inevitable and salvage what it can. Sharon and Olmert both came to this conclusion and so “disengagement” and “realignment” were born.
Die-hards are entitled to ask whether such a policy will lead to real peace or Israel’s destruction. Kissinger himself forecasted that “in fifteen years Israel will be like Lebanon–struggling for existence…”
So long as the US and the EU remain committed to the goal of returning Israel to the pre ’67 borders I don’t see how Israel can hold out.
But the times they are achanging.
What is necessary is for the US to come to the conclusion that the creation of Palestine is not in its interest. The increasing influence of Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas and the Brotherhood are not just a threat to Israel but to America and her “friends” Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia too. This is recognized by all. So I don’t see a Palestinian state being created for years, if ever.
Because of this threat, Israel has a window of opportunity to chart its own course. Israel should enlarge Jerusalem and start building in E1. The US is too weak now and must hold the line against the Jihadists. Accordingly I doubt it will seriously pressure Israel.
ADDENDUM added April 23/07
The Vast Power of the Saudi Lobby
Even during the Saudi-led oil embargo of 1973-74, an exceedingly hostile action against the United States supposedly justified by Washington’s support of Israel in the Yom Kippur War, the Nixon administration treaded very softly. Despite the illegality of the embargo — it arguably violated international law as well as a bilateral commercial agreement between the United States and Saudi Arabia — the White House and the State Department could hardly have been more diplomatic toward their Bedouin friends.
As the historian J.B. Kelly recounts, the U.S. ambassador to Riyahd, James Akins, did his best to placate King Faisal by urging the Saudi’s American-owned oil concessionaire ARAMCO to, in Aken’s words, “hammer home” to the White House that the embargo wouldn’t be lifted unless “the political struggle [between Israel and the Arabs] is settled in [a] manner satisfactory to [the] Arabs.”
U.S. had emergency plan for attacking Israel in 1967
“The ultimate objective would be to stop aggression and insure the territorial integrity of all the Middle Eastern states,” he was informed in cable No. 6365 of the Joint Chiefs, with a copy to EUCOM.
Conway’s reply to this, dated May 28, is described in the top-secret study as “a strong plea for complete impartiality.” The United States was liable to lose its influence to the Soviets, the general warned, and therefore it must demonstrate “strict neutrality” and avoid open support for Israel.
The true importance of the Middle East lay in the American-Soviet context of the Cold War, Conway argued, and the American stance must derive from those considerations, not from “local issues.”
Posts
