Jews and the Colonial Policy of the Vatican on the Thames

In an editorial A Dwarf Between Giants in the Chicago Tribune of Sunday Feb. 6, 1944, appears a statement that the British Foreign Office has generally run America’s foreign affairs for fifty years, and that for the past eleven years the British have had no difficulty in guiding our policy. The modern version of the ideology of the British Empire which has been broadened to include the US as a principal was outlined by C. Rhodes about 1895 as follows: “Establish a secret society in order to have the whole continent of South America, the Holy Land, the Valley of the Euphrates …the Malay Archipelago, the seaboard of China and Japan and, finally, the US. In the end Great Britain is to establish a power so overwhelming that wars must cease and the Millenium be realized.”

The colored people of the British Empire, comprising 87% of the total population, are the voiceless subjects of the international financial oligarchy of The City in what is perhaps the most arbitrary and absolute form of government in the world. This international financial oligarchy uses the allegoric Crown as its symbol of power and has its headquarters in the ancient City of London, an area of 677 acres; which strangely in all the vast expanse of the 443,455 acres of Metropolitan London alone is not under the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Police, but has its own private force of about 2,000 men, while its night population is under 9,000. This tiny area of a little over one square mile has in it the giant Bank of England (Cp. the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank), a privately owned institution; which is not subject to regulation by the British Parliament, and is in effect a sovereign world power. Within the City are located also the Stock Exchange and many institutions of world-wide scope. The City carries on its business of local government with a fanciful display of pompous medieval ceremony and with its officers attired in grotesque ancient costumes (Cp. The Papal Swiss Guard). Its voting power is vested in secret guilds with names of long extinct crafts such as the Mercers, Grocers, Fishmongers, Skinners, Vintners, etc. All this trivial pomp and absurdity and horse-play seems to serve very well to blind the eyes of the public to the big things going on behind the scenes; for the late Vincent Cartwright Vickers, once Deputy-Lieutenant of the City, a director of the great British armament firm of Vickers, Ltd., and a director of the bank of England from 1910 to 1919, in his Economic Tribulation published 1940, lays the wars of the world on the door-step of the City. The Laws of England by the Earl of Halsbury, recurrent Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain between the years 1885 and 1905, published in 1909, a massive work of over 30 huge volumes, states in Vol. 21, page 618, note k: “There is no rule of law which compels a Ministry which has lost the confidence of the House of Commons to resign office….In Vol. 6, page 388, art 582: The Crown is therefore a necessary party to legislation, and neither House of Parliament, whether acting alone or in conjunction with the other House, has a power of legislation without the Crown…The Sovereign is regarded in the law as being incapable of thinking wrong, or meaning to do an improper act. In other words, he is infallible like a Roman Pope or a Russian Czar! An act of the Crown is not subject to question in the Parliament, as the “King Can Do No Wrong.” Apart from legislative authority, which is vested in Parliament subject to certain concurrent rights of the Crown, the law of the constitution clothes the person of the Sovereign with supreme Sovereignty and pre-eminence.”

In 1831 Muhammad Ali, a young Macedonian Muslim of the same age as Napoleon occupied with his Egyptian army Palestine, Syria and a portion of southern Anatolia. Many of the Egyptians remained in the country even after the Turkish reconquest in 1840. The French scholar Mohammed Sabry wrote: “In 1831 over six thousand fellahin crossed the Egyptian border and Abdallah (governor of Acre) refused to return them.” Muhammad Ali continued to bring settlers from Egypt to Palestine. Most of the city of Jaffa, according to an 1878 British Palestine Exploration Society map of the area, was made up of Egyptian neighborhoods. The Egyptians established eight villages on the coastal plain, not far from the spot where Tel Aviv was to be established, 50 years later. Egyptians also inhabited the villages of Zarnuga, Kubeibeh, and Qatra (later Gedera) in the south. The historian DeHaas reports that “Ibrahim Pasha, who left Palestine in 1941, had left behind him permanent Egyptian colonies at Beisan, Nablus,Irbid, Acre, and Jaffa, where some 500 Egyptian soldiers’ families established a new quarter.

“A Study of Jewish, Arab, and British Policies” published by Yale University quotes the German jurist Ernst Frankenstein who wrote: “The present-day inhabitants of Palestine are not in the main the descendants of the ancient inhabitants of the land, nor are they predominantly the descendants of the Arab conquerors of Palestine in the 7th century…Of the Arabs living in Palestine at the beginning of the first World War, no small proportion had immigrated from neighboring countries since 1882. Frankenstein’s calculations led him to believe that only some 228,000 descendants of the 1882 Moslem settled population were living in Palestine at the outbreak of WWII….In other words, 75% of the Arab population of Palestine are either immigrants themselves or descendants of persons who immigrated into Palestine during the last hundred years, for the most part after 1882.”

Lord Palmerston, the architect of British 19th century policy regretted that Palestine, the very hinge of the new Egyptian Empire, contained no suitable minority, whose protection Britain could undertake as a pretext for evicting the Egyptians. Since there was no protectable minority in Palestine, Palmerston wondered if it might not be possible to inject one. Could Jewish nostalgia for the Holy Land, perhaps, be used in Britain’s interest? Having ascertained from the British vice-consul that there were already ten thousand Jews living in Palestine, Palmerston next wrote to the British ambassador in Constantinople: “It would be of manifest importance for the Sultan to encourage the Jews to return to, and settle in Palestine; because the wealth which they would bring with them would increase the resources of the Sultan’s dominions; and the Jewish people, if returning under the sanction and protection and at the invitation of the Sultan, would be a check upon any future evil designs of Muhammad Ali or his successors.”

Palestine guaranteed the eastern approaches to the Suez Canal. A Jewish Palestine dependent on Britain would be a counterweight to the ambitions of France and Russia, who both had clients in the eastern Mediterranean: the Russians patronized the Orthodox while since the days of Louis XIV the French had taken an interest in the Maronites of Mount Lebanon. Britain lacked a client minority, though it had, in Egypt, a client dynasty. Germany’s successful intrusion into the Middle East could prompt Great Britain to a counterthrust. If German influence dominated Constantinople, Britain would have a clear interest in killing off the empire she had long kept alive; this was the occasion under which the Zionists might get Palestine for nothing. By offering the Zionists something of what they wanted, Britain might get hold of Palestine. A Palestine under British control would safeguard the approaches to the Suez Canal and give access to that new target of the imperialists, Iraq.

Sir Henry McMahon, the first British high commissioner for Egypt wrote to Sharif Hussein of Mecca that, subject to three reservations, “Great Britain is prepared to recognize and support the independence of the Arabs in all the regions within the limits demanded by the Sharif of Mecca. Among these reservations were two that affected the later treatment of Palestine. The first excluded the “portions of Syria lying to the west of the districts of Damascus, Homs, Ham and Aleppo” on the grounds that they were not purely Arab, and the second excluded these regions where Britain’s freedom to act alone was limited by the “interests of her ally, France.”

Currently the weight of evidenced clearly supports the British contention that Palestine was not promised to the Arabs in 1915. First, in March 1916, Foreign Secretary Sir Edward Grey proposed to the French and Russian governments that the Allies offer the Jews “an arrangement in regard to Palestine completely satisfactory to Jewish aspirations,” a firm indication, even though the proposal came to nothing, that the secretary considered Palestine excluded from McMahon’s promise. Second, the De Bunsen Committee appointed in April 1915 to study British war aims in the Middle East, recommended in June that Palestine should be the subject of “special negotiations, in which both belligerents and neutrals are alike interested.” Thus the committee fully recognized that Britain was not free to act on Palestine without consulting French and Russian interests (Cf. the present so-called Quartet), and in the circumstances, a promise of Palestine to the Arabs would not have been contemplated.

The argument regarding 1915 is a very subtle one, and the ambiguity of Britain’s attitude toward Palestine did not decrease as the war progressed. In fact, the situation became much more difficult when, at the end of the war, Britain appeared to have the power to dispose of Palestine as it wished, in which case, the Arab argument is, Palestine should have reverted to the area of Arab independence. However, as will be seen, Britain was able to gain its way over Palestine only by using Zionism as a lever to force the French to give up their claims to the Holy Land. The Anglo-French Entente could stand – barely – the strain of fulfilling Zionism, whereas satisfying Arab aspirations might not have reconciled the French to the loss of their traditional goal.

The motivating force behind the dynamic changes in British policy in 1917 was supplied by Britain’s new Prime Minister, David Lloyd George. Within a few days of his taking power in Dec. 1916, preparations were begun for stepping up military activity in the Middle East and obtaining the support of Jewish world opinion for the Allied victory. On April 2, 1917, the cabinet approved a resolute forward policy in Palestine designed to sweep the Turks out of southern Palestine and take Jerusalem. On 3 April, as he was about to leave for Egypt to become the head of the political mission attached to Murray’s force, Mark Sykes received his instructions from Lloyd George and Lord Curzon, then lord president of the council. They stressed “the importance of not prejudicing the Zionist movement and the possibility of its development under British auspices. Sykes was specifically enjoined by the Prime Minister from entering into any political pledges to the Arabs, “and particularly none in regard to Palestine.” Any problems they expected would come from the French, not the Arabs, who “probably realized that there was no prospect of their being allowed any control over Palestine.”

The impending British invasion of Palestine combined with the decline of power in Russia opened the way to sharpened diplomatic conflict between Britain and France over the domination of Palestine. In appreciation of this fact, the British began moving from a position of tolerant interest in Zionism to one approaching commitment.

In April 1917, the Treaty of Saint-Jean de Maurienne was being concluded by Great Britain, France and Italy; its provisions called for an international administration for Palestine, (they postulate the same, presently) in confirmation of the 1916 agreement. At the same time the uncertainties over Russia in 1917 led to an official review of the 1916 agreement. On 12 April a Committee on Territorial Terms of Peace was set up under the chairmanship of Lord Curzon. The committee concluded on 28 April that the agreement had to be modified so that Palestine and Mesopotamia would be placed in the definite and exclusive control of Great Britain.

On 25 April 1917, Lord Robert Cecil told Weizmann that if the Zionists were to ask for a British Palestine, it would strengthen Britain’s hand in future negotiations. On 18 July the Zionists submitted to the government the invited draft declaration of British sympathy for Zionists aspirations. After much official discussion, at times very heated, the British government gave the Zionists their promise in the form of a letter from Foreign Secretary Balfour to Lord Rotschild. The statement authorized by the Cabinet amounted to only one sentence:

His Majesty’s Government view with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this subject, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

When Balfour Declaration had first been bruited in the Middle East King Hussein had demanded an explanation for what seemed a flat contradiction of the promises already made to him and the Arabs. Commander Hogarth, who also acted as father and spymaster to T.E. Lawrance, took an answer to Jeddah in early January 1918. Hogarth was authorized to state that “Jewish settlement in Palestine would only be allowed in so far as would be consistent with the political and economic freedom of the Arab population.” Only a month after Hogarth’s visit to Hussein, Pres. Wilson had put succinctly: “People are not to be handed about from one sovereignty to another by an international conference or an understanding between rivals and antagonists.”

Arab trust in British explanations was dynamited when the new Soviet Government published more startling evidence of Allied duplicity. The czarist archives contained the text of the Sykes-Picot Agreement, a project drawn up earlier in the year for the disposal of Ottoman territory between Britain, France, and Russia. Under this secret agreement czarist Russia was to have inherited Constantinople, the straits and a slice of Anatolia. The rest of the Ottoman Empire was to have been shared out in the old-fashioned imperial manner. As her reward for entering the war, Italy was to have received an area in southwest Anatolia as well as the Dodecanese Islands she had already seized. Britain and France were to share out what were considered the potentially wealthy parts of “Turkey in Asia”; France would get a swath of territory running from Cilicia in southern Anatolia as far as Mosul; Britain, a block of territory from the Mediterranean south of Lebanon running east to Iran. While the defeat of Germany and Austria-Hungary had served the Allied cause, the collapse of czarist Russia did not. The area to the east of Turkey – the Caucasian bridge between Russia and the Middle East – was a patchwork of tiny successor states clamoring for recognition. Balfour wrote in candor in August 1919, not envisaging for publication: “So far as Palestine is concerned, the Powers have made no statement of fact which is not admittedly wrong, and no declaration of policy which, at least in the letter, they have not always intended to violate.”

According to the Treaty of Sevres (1920), the straits were to be under international control. The Sultan lost all his Arab possessions, but not to the Arabs. Old King Hussein was to be conceded the Kingdom of the Hejaz, but Syria and Lebanon were to be mandates of France, Iraq and Palestine to be mandates of Britain. Britain thus gained control of the land bridge to India as well as the approaches to the Suez Canal, while France wrested Syria from Hussein’s son Feisal.

The Russian leaders condemned the terms of the Treaty of Sevres and on Aug. 14 diplomatic relations were established between Kemal’s government in Ankara and Lenin’s in Moscow. Russian supplies, shipped through the Black Sea port of Trabizon, began arriving in Sept. and would play a vital role in the coming two years of struggle. Russian diplomatic support was equally useful to Kemal, particularly because it helped to close a dangerous second front in the East. An Armenian republic under American auspices did not suit the Soviets. After some delays and several misunderstandings a deal between Kemal and the most realistic Bolshevik – Joseph Stalin – fixed frontiers between the USSR and Turkey on the same line as the old borders between Sultan and Czar. An area of the Caucasus would become the Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic with its capital at Yerevan.

Egyptian independence of a kind arrived sooner than was expected. It was handed down in 1922 as the gift of the British acting on the advice of their High Commissioner. First Condition: Britain assumed the defense and control of the Suez Canal(The same policy is behind the independence of 'Palestine').This enabled her to prolong her partial occupation indefinitely, since to defend the waterway she needed an army on Egyptian soil; the presence of such an army meant the continued possibility of interference in Egyptian affairs. Second Condition: Britain undertook the defense of Egypt; Egyptian soldiers were thus reduced to being support battalions for a foreign army. Third Condition: Britain made herself responsible for the protection of minorities; besides casting doubts on Egypt’s good intentions toward her Christian and other minority groups, this gave further pretexts for intervention.

Thomas Mallison, a professor of law at George Washington University, DC observed: “The principle of self-determination was reflected in the provision of the League of Nations Covenant through the mandates system with the mandatory powers assuming “a sacred trust” to promote “the well being and development of such peoples.” How Great Britain was promoting “the well being and the development of the people of the Palestine Mandate? Fawaz Turki, a Palestinian publicist in his book The Disinherited: Journal of a Palestinian Exile (1972) describes how British soldiers handled “the Palestinian sacred trust”:

Our English soldier felt that since there were only Englishmen and one other species of humans populating the earth, he had carte blanche to act as he wished. If by beating up a ‘native’ he could ‘feel better’, than he was entitled to do it. He was not answerable for his act. Not in Palestine; not in India; not in Africa. If he ran over a child with his army jeep, so long as it was a’native’ child he need only reverse his vehicle and finish him off. (It happened to a cousin of mine). If he was being transported overland from his old base to another one across the country, on a tedious trip of long duration, then he could take his gun, aim it, and shoot to death a ‘native’ riding along on his mule, a ‘native’ working in his fields, a ‘native’ coming out of his hut. When this soldier returned home, to live again among his race of Englishmen (they belong to a “favoured race, remember), he would be chastised for kicking a dog, convicted in court for libeling a man, ostracized for indecent language.”

As you may recall, a certain noble Englishman proclaimed that the “unfit” of the earth are doomed. According to the first commandment of the Darwinian “Decalogue” the British soldiers took aim and according top the second commandment, pulled their triggers to purge the world of the “pleurisy of people”. The events were applauded. It was so scientific!! But these darn Orthodox scientists from Ben-Gurion University dismiss the theory of evolution as “speculation”, “secular dogma”, and “myth” while most of the scientists reaffirm their belief in divine creation.

“The worst white man is better than the best black man” – D. Hume
“Seven million Negroes – their race-type unevolved.” - R. Kipling 1892

On the evening of Feb. 28, 1852 British Egyptologist G. Gliddon delivered a lecture in the New Orleans Temple to Learning and Faith known as the Lyceum Hall. Through his studies of mummies, skeletons, and ancient art, Gliddon had become interested in the origins of racial differences, particularly those related to the Caucasoid and Negroid races. A strong supporter of slavery Gliddon argued that the “peculiar institution” of slavery had existed since the dawn of humankind, and was hence part of the natural order of things. He also suggested that God had deliberately created an inferior black race separately from a superior white race. Gliddon and his associates called this theory polygenism, and it played well in the South, particularly among local plantation owners. They craved for some kind of a divine sanction for their enslavement of black Africans, and Gliddon offered them one. He was helping to build the framework of the southern position for the Civil War. Interestingly, Gliddon saw parallels between the Deep South and ancient Egypt. “Negroes were numerous in Egypt,” he wrote, “but their social position in ancient times was the same as now, that of servants and slaves.” Recall Cicero sanctioning the Jews as a nation born to servitude.

The phrase “people of the sun” (Cf. Mt. 17:2) was used in Africa to refer to those Egyptian pharaohs who were light-skinned. The Aryan invaders in India avoided intermarriage to keep their racial identity intact and the Aryan pharaohs instituted royal incest to preserve the line of the sons of the sun-god dependent on the possession of “solar blood” that matches the ichor of the ethereal fluid supposed to flow in the veins of the gods of the classical mythology.

Balfour understood “race” in terms very similar to those of H.S. Chamberlain referred to as “the prophet of the Third Reich”. Certain of his references in a Cambridge lecture to “the alien and barbaric immigrants who became a source of weakness and peril to the Roman Empire” inspired the Nazi propaganda against mixed marriages. In a speculative dream on “The Possibility of an Anglo-Saxon Confederation” he was to exclude the dark continent from any place in his imagined future: it could never be the home of the white race and was already occupied by “many millions of an inferior black race with whom white man cannot live and work on equal terms and the climate is not suitable for hard manual labour.” Those who equated Zionism with racism on account of Balfour’s support for the Jewish state in Palestine jumped to a wrong conclusion. Balfour issued his Declaration as a means of imperial conquest; the defense of the Jews served in his plans only as a pretext for establishing colonial rule over Palestine That explains his struggle against Jewish immigration into England; he needed them in the Middle East. But as soon as Great Britain got hold of the Palestine Mandate that policy changed.

In 1920 British High Commissioner nominated the fair-haired, blue-eyed Haj Amin as Grand Mufti of Jerusalem. Haj Amin was a member of the Husseini clan, which traced its roots to Circassians or non-Arab (Aryan) Moslems who came from the Caucasus Mountains. Born in 1896 of Egyptian parents, Husseini was educated at Cairo’s El Azhar, the world’s largest and most influential Moslem university. He was responsible for the riots and killings of 1920-1921; hence he was the first to employ the techniques of anti-Semitism to political purpose in the Middle East. Before he could be arrested, Husseni fled to Transjordan. Tried in absentia, he was sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment, but his Arab supporters threatened further violence. The high commissioner amnestied him, and appeasement of the Arabs was established as the leitmotiv of British administration for the duration of the mandate. With his pardon, Husseini, a common felon, became one of the key men in the administration of Palestine’s affairs. Despite the opposition of the Moslem High Council, Husseini was reappointed grand mufti for life. The Council rejected his appointment, but was overruled by the high commissioner.

Great Britain applied to Palestine the same racist policy which the Ottoman Empire used to subjugate Egypt. Its real rulers were a caste of white slaves, or Mameluks, whose numbers were constantly replenished from the slave markets of the Caucasus. The young slaves, transported to Egypt, became part of a swash bucking and quarrelsome elite who exploited the patient fellahin. Officers in the Egyptian army used their non-Egyptian blood as a magic ichor providing privilege and rank. It will be convenient to call these officers “Circassian”, though this term properly belongs to Muslim from Caucasus, while many of the caste were Turks, Albanians, or Kurds. For leading a conspiracy of Egyptian officers against the more reliable Circassians, the native Orabi had been court-martialed; the president of the court was Stone Pasha, an American Southerner in khedivial pay. By 1903 a Nationalist Party was playing an increasingly influential role among Egyptian youth. Its leader Mustafa Kamil had a gift for resonant phrases, “In this century the slavery of individual has been abolished, in its place has been introduced the slavery of peoples.”

The summer of 1929 saw the arrival in Palestine of a young American writer. Vincent Sheean was a gentile when, when at Chicago University, had joined a Jewish fraternity. Sheean regarded Palestine “as the most flagrant example of the British betrayal of Arab interests after the war. These Arabs had no political rights of any kind, no parliament or council or legislature, and were governed by ukase. The law was whatever the High Commissioner wanted it to be.” He swiftly arrived at the conclusion that the Balfour Declaration was a document that really guaranteed only one thing, the permanence of the British occupation of Palestine. Indeed, British Colonial Secretary Joseph Chamberlain disdained Orientals; in this category he included Jews. He once told an Italian statesman: “There is, in fact, only one race I despise – the Jews, Sir. They are physical cowards.” This opinion inspired the ill-famous “Dichiarazione della Razza” made public on 14 July 1938 by the Italian Fascist university professors in which they extolled a pure “Italian (Aryan) race” and made a sharp distinction between the Mediterraneans of Europe (Occidentals), on the one hand, and the Orientals and Africans on the others. They stressed that Jews did not belong to the Italian race. Arguing that “the purely European physical and psychological characteristics of Italians must not be altered in any way”, they foreshadowed the Nazi Holocaust of the Jews. This racist manifesto was supposed to justify the colonial conquest of Ethiopia and “carving out Latin kingdoms in Palestine” (like The British Palestine Mandate).

The British Egypt of the 1930s produced imitations of France’s Pierre Laval or Britain’s Sir Samuel Hoare. Thanks to King Fuad’s upbringing, the court was Italianate, thronged with Italian courtiers, hairdressers, gunmen or pimps; a vague sympathy with Mussolini was in fashion; some, like Fuad’s son, Farouk, even supposed that their semi-Aryan blood would exonerate them from the Nazi downgrading of the Egyptians as a miscegenated Untermensch.

In fact, it did, because Turkism, no less than Deutschtum was the imperial racism comparable to the Roman imperialism based on the conviction that the Roman belonged to a “fortunate race” or, ‘favoured race” in Darwin’s jargon. Arthur Lumley Davids (1811-1832) in his introduction to the Grammar of the Turkish Language argued that the Turks formed part of the Caucasian race. Leon Cahun, an ardent admirer of Jenghiz Khan, advanced the theory that a proto-Turanian (or Finno-Japanese) race had ante-dated such relative newcomers as Celts, Greeks and Latins. Mustafa Jelaleddin Pasha, a Polish convert, revising the theory of Cahun, argued that the Turks were the basic race from which all European derived. He described this race as “Turo-Aryan”. To him a policy of Westernization would represent a natural return to their own by a people who had become entangled, to their disadvantage, in the Semitic culture of the Middle East. In many respects Zbig Brzezinski is a modern incarnation of Jelaleddin Pasha.
In the meantime Haj Amin, moved to Italy, where he formed a friendship with B. Mussolini. The Mufti promised the Nazis that he would supply them with fighters; his recruits, mostly Moslems living in Yugoslavia, would not only fight in battle, but could perform vital military sabotage, disrupting British communications and cutting off the British supply of oil. In exchange for these activities Haj Amin wanted Axis help to fight the Jews. Mussolini embraced the mufti and, in 1941, responded to his pleas by declaring, “If the Jews want a state, they should establish Tel Aviv in America.” By April 1942, the mufti convinced both Hitler and Mussolini to support him and persuaded the fascist leaders to agree to a secret document. In a letter addressed to Haj Amin and signed by Joachim von Ribbentrop and Count Galeazzo Ciano, the Axis powers promised to help the Arab countries with “every possible aid in their fight for liberation…as well as to the abolition of the Jewish National Homeland in Palestine. In admiration, the Arabs dubbed Hitler “Abu Ali”, the “good fighter”. In May 1942, only a few weeks after he received the confidential document, the mufti and his associates settled in Germany and went to work helping the Nazis. On a radio program broadcast in Berlin and transmitted to the Arab world, Haj Amin called for his Moslem brothers’ help: “Oh, Arabs use and avenge your martyrs. Fight for your independence. I, mufti of Palestine, declare this war a holy war against the British yoke of injustice, indecency and tyranny.” Haj Amin was also determined to stop the transport of German Jews to Palestine. The Nazis, concerned about the safety of German citizens living in Palestine, had struck a deal to exchange German and East European Jews for their own natives. But in a letter to the German foreign minister the religious leader of the Moslems begged the Germans not to send 4,000 Jewish children and 500 Jewish adults to Palestine; similar letters were sent to Romania, where 1,800 Jewish children and 200 Jewish adults were about to be transported, and to Hungary, where 900 Jewish children and about 100 Jewish adults were to be transferred Instead, the mufti recommended that these Jews all be sent to concentration camps in Poland. In 1945, Haj Amin escaped formal charges by the Soviets and the Yugoslavs as well as attempts of Jewish groups to bring him to trial at Nuremberg and, after a search for safety, fled in disguise to Egypt, where he asked King Farouk for asylum for himself and his colleagues. With him in Egypt were dozens of close associates, among them Arafat’s relative, Sheik Hassan Abu Saud, and another family member, the military leader Abdel Kadar al-Husseini.
Early in his career, when the young Arafat sought to establish his Palestinian credentials and promote his eventual claim to leadership, he could not afford to admit any facts which might reduce his Palestinian identity. That is why he dramatized it by describing himself as “born in Jerusalem”. Admitting his Egyptian birth, and that his father was half Egyptian, or rather Circassian, could have affected his chances of success, particularly during periods when the Palestinians were inclined to separate themselves from the rest of the Arabs, whose efforts on their behalf had disappointed them.
Said K. Aburish, a Palestinian, and a former correspondent for Radio Free Europe in his book “Arafat. From Defender to Dictator (1998) observed:

The ordinary people of the West bank were reluctant to join Fatah fighters. To them their new Israeli masters were no worse than the pre-war Jordanian administration – in fact; the Israeli police treated them better. In addition, there were economic benefits, and before the war thousands of West Bankers had flocked to Israel to work. Furthermore, unlike refugee crying for someone to represent them the people of the Wes bank had their own leadership based on old regional, tribal and family associations…”Unfortunately, Judge Goldstone never read this book.

Roosevelt had a strong enough political base to ignore the pressure of the Jewish Lobby. With characteristic frivolity, he seems to have turned anti-Zionist when on returning from Yalta, he had a brief meeting with the King of Saudi Arabia. David Niles, the passionately pro-Zionist presidential assistant, testified: ‘There are serious doubts in my mind that Israel would have come into being if Roosevelt had lived.’

Truman distrusted the Arabism of ‘the “striped-pants boys” in the State Department.’ In the event it was his will which pushed the partition scheme through the UN (29 Nov. 1947) and recognized the new Israeli state which Ben-Gurion declared the following May. There were vast forces against it. Max Thornburg of Cal-Tex, speaking for the oil interests, wrote that Truman had ‘prevailed upon the Assembly to declare racial and religious criteria the basis of political statehood’ and thereby ‘extinguished’ the ‘moral prestige of America’ and ‘Arab faith in her ideals’. The State Department prophesied ruin. Defense Secretary Forestall was appalled: ‘no group in this country’, he wrote bitterly of the Jewish lobby, ‘should be permitted to influence our policy to the point where it could endanger our national security.’

American backing for Israel in 1947-8 was the last luxury the Americans permitted themselves before the Realpolitik of global confrontation descended. The same time-scale influenced Russia. It backed Zionism in order to break up Britain’s position in the Middle East It not only recognized Israel, but, in order to intensify the fighting and the resultant chaos, it instructed the Czechs to sell it arms. These considerations would not have prevailed a year later, when the rush for Cold War allies was on. “Israel slipped into existence through a crack in the time continuum”. (Paul Johnson). But nobody seems to ponder who made this crack, because it wasn't Einstein who fiercely opposed the creation of Jewish state,

Hence, the notion that Israel was created by imperialism is not only wrong but the reverse of the truth. Everywhere in the West, the foreign offices, defense ministries and big business were against the Zionists. Even the French only sent them arms to annoy the British, who had ‘lost’ them Syria. The Haganah had 21,000 men but, to begin with, virtually no guns, armor or aircraft. It was the Communist Czechs, on Soviet instructions helped Jews with their arms. Well these instructions were efficient because John Huss, four centuries earlier, taught his nation that Israel was its ‘special ally’ in the fight against the Roman dictators! John Huss's nation made Israel’s survival possible, by turning over an entire military airfield to shuttle arms to Tel Aviv. At the same time Truman, under the pressure of his “striped-pants boys” in the State Department, imposed an embargo on arms delivery to Israel. Virtually everyone expected the Jews to lose. That was why the Arabs rejected the UN partition scheme, which gave the Jews only 5,500 square miles, chiefly in the Negev Desert By accepting it, despite disadvantages. the Zionists showed they were willing to abide by the arbitration of international law. The Arab chose force. Is that what President Obama is intent on doing?
avideditor.wordpress.com/tag/holocaust/

Confirmed: A US sanctioned meeting with Hamas in Doha
By Clayton Swisher, on April 2nd, 2010
 
On February 23rd a US foreign service officer named Rachel Schneller appeared on a panel with Hamas spokesman Osama Hamdan, right here in Doha, at a Forum I attended that was hosted by the Al Jazeera Cente for Strategic Studies. 

Pro-Israel Christians Targeted by New Anti-Israel Movie
Nisan 22, 5770, 06 April 10 12:39, by Hillel Fendel

(Israelnationalnews.com) A new evangelical film, “With God on Our Side,” is coming out this month in an attempt to persuade pro Israel Christians to champion the Palestinian cause. www.IsraelNationalNews.com

Smoke or Fire? US Denies ‘Final Status‘ Plan
Nisan 27, 5770, 11 April 10 04:23, by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu
(Israelnationalnews.com) Zbigniew Brzezinski, who advised former President Bill Clinton and was sidelined from being an official Obama advisor because of his anti-Israel views, suggested to the White House that it scrap its attempts to continue the PA-Israeli track for mediated talks.“Obama’s diplomatic war on Israel seems to be just beginning.” www.IsraelNationalNews.com

The Watcher over Israel won't slumber
Poland's President Kaczynski dies in plane crash