Is it American Policy to destroy Israel?
by Eugene Narrett Ph.D.
In a word, “no”; it is not the policy of the groups that apply America’s power to destroy Israel as a mostly Jewish entity of some kind. Since the Madrid-Oslo conferences it is clear that Israel already has lost much of whatever sovereignty it possessed. But to address this question properly, even in brief, one must review the Middle Eastern policy of Britain’s ruling interests as described 1919-23. In those few years, British policy toward a Jewish State in Israel was set forth and has persisted via America, the EU, UN and ancillary jihadists. The policy sustains dialectical attrition in the area in which a truly Jewish State should be and it has both rational (if profound and callous selfishness can be termed “rational”) and obsessive aspects deeply rooted in Western culture.
In pursuing this history we will discover startling parallels between British-Western policy toward the Promised Land and the teachings of New Age gurus like Alice Bailey in her preaching of a “world religion” and a “new civilization” to “emerge as the result of mass thinking” by the “Exponents of Love” [1].
In the aftermath of the Versailles Peace Conference of 1919, John Dove of the Rhodes-Milner Round Table (and editor of its eponymous journal from 1921-34), wrote a series of letters to fellow RT member and alumnus of New College, Oxford, Robert Lord Brand arguing the merits of “an Arab Federation” with its front door on the Mediterranean. Dove’s attitude toward the Arabs was filled with geographic anomalies and contradictions. He criticized the Western tendency to believe and act as if its civilization “was a nostrum for the ills of mankind everywhere” but also stated that “a stage of friendly tutelage [under Britain] is not necessarily a bad thing for the Arabs. On the contrary, advanced people can give so much to stimulate backward ones if they do it with sympathy.” By “giving so much” Dove meant that England would not “facilitate Jewish immigration” to the “Jewish National Home” or “close settlement of Jews on the land,” the pledges by which the British secured the League of Nations Mandate to administer “Palestine” for themselves (along with the essential help of Jewish soldiers and guides in defeating the Turks and Germans in the Middle East). Rather, “Jews must be content to be part of [the] potential unit” (the Arab Federation stretching to the Mediterranean). “Jews,” he wrote with the blithe, arrogant ignorance of an Oxonian, “have everything to gain from an Arab Federation” in which they will be welcome “if Zionism brings capital and labor to start industries” [2]. In other words, Jews can forget settling the land, much less attaining sovereignty if Britain had anything to do about it. They also must forget the thirteen centuries of jihad and dhimmitude to which the Arabs had subjected them after their ancient State and Land was destroyed by the Romans and Greeks.
The several partitions of the Jewish National Home, effected or proposed from 1922-47 and the relentless compression of the semi-Jewish State fought and won from the 1940s to 1973 reflect the policy of Dove and the Round Table’s influence in White Hall, Washington and beyond.
The other end of the main spectrum of British views toward a Jewish State in the Promised Land was articulated by Sir Alfred Viscount Milner in a June 27, 1923 address to the House of Lords. The previous year, Britain had detached all the lands east of the Jordan River (“Transjordan”) from the Jewish National Home and forbidden Jews to live or own land there. This he loftily termed, “the Balfour Declaration as we have ourselves interpreted it.” He then alluded to the ferocious anti-Jewish activities of the Mandatory authorities (General Louis Jean Bols, Colonel Ronald Storrs, etc) as the “artificial stimulus of the present Arab agitation” which proceeded from the prompting of the above officers in March 1920 through to the “Arab Revolt” of 1936-7, to Arab leaders’ rejection of a Jewish state of any size at a Round Table meeting early in 1939 and subsequently [3]. Milner debunked without explicitly mentioning the “absorptive capacity of the land” excuse for barring Jewish immigration, stating, accurately that “there is plenty of room in that country for several millions of inhabitants.” With five and a half million Jews and two million Arabs (drawn to the land by Jewish productivity, there were 150,000, mostly nomads, in 1913) west of the Jordan the nation thrives despite attrition even though the heartland of Judea and Samaria remains largely undeveloped and empty, still “waiting for its children” to quote Mark Twain from the 1870s.
Milner concluded by stating that he had always been “a strong supporter of the pro-Arab policy” noting that the new-minted Arab states “owe their independence [indeed their existence] to us and they can only maintain them with our help.” His words are true to this day, with American, Russian and EU help largely replacing that of Britain by 1960. “I look forward to an Arab Federation” Milner added, indicating the overlap between his views and that of Dove. But he added, “it would be a great mistake” if the Arabs continued “claiming Palestine [the land west of the Jordan River] as a part of the Arab Federation.” Milner believed that this land, the core of Israel could be “a Jewish National Home with Dominion status and a “permanent Mandate” but “must never become a Jewish state” [4, emphasis added].
The Jewish Agency established by the British to “manage” Jewish immigration and the WZO (World Zionist Organization) under Weizmann, Ben Gurion and their successors have fulfilled Milner’s policies to this day, suppressing every effort for genuine Jewish sovereignty. As those who follow events in Israel closely know, it is a semi-Jewish state whose dominant institutions – the Courts, media, cabinet ministries and academia are anti-Jewish to the extent of expelling Jews en masse from their homes, leveling their communities, failing to prevent them from Arab assaults of many kinds, preventing them from building on empty land, even allowing Arabs to build on Jewish bought and owned land and refusing to enforce the rights of the owners as reported by Aryeh King, Aaron Klein (World Net Daily) and others.
In the small geopolitical and policy area formed by the difference between the views of Alfred Milner and John Dove roil all the crises and tenuous existence of Israel. Events show that the policy makers prefer to let the “occupied” territories in the heart of Israel retain an ambiguous status sure to keep the entire region in constant crisis and attrition, an attrition funded and armed by western nations, Russia and China.
Why don’t they prefer productivity and the genuine peace that can come only with full Jewish sovereignty over all the land of the 1920 Mandate at least (the original mandate is stated in the Books of Moses)? For one thing, the “cycle of violence in the region” which they ensure never ends by rolling back every Israeli military victory provides a rationale for their perpetual interference in the region including close monitoring of oil production and profits. This is to benefit the cartels, not the nations in which they are sited. Without this interference, as Milner noted briefly, most of the artificial Arab states they created would collapse. Refusal of the Arab states to settle the Arabs termed “Palestinians” allow the UN, and its backers, to meddle for ‘humanitarian’ reasons targeting Israel. This multifaceted great power involvement keeps the now thoroughly cowed and client regime in Jerusalem in a state of perpetual near-collapse and its “Chamberlains” negotiate away Jewish land to the Vatican. Moreover the perpetual hostilities embodied in an enflamed jihad, armed and diplomatically enabled by the West ensures lucrative arms sales; the “crisis in the region” also is used as a justification for increasing regionalization and globalization both of which are promoted as road maps to security and prosperity. In fact, these “Security and Prosperity Zones” conduce to loss of sovereignty and pyramidal, top-down control by oligarchs and their media and bureaucratic cadres. This globalizing aspect of the world powers’ war process in the Middle East is an antithesis to Jewish sovereignty, the rebuilding of the Jewish Temple and the restoration of a unified way of being that embodies free will choices and private property at the center of a culture of sanctification of every day living. It is an antithesis to the distinction and delineation that characterizes creation. Preempting this liberating alternative is the main motive behind the diplomatic, economic, and military and media machinations of the powers which on both the material-exoteric and cultic-esoteric levels push a loss of distinctions and world state-religion forged by dialectical conflict. Alice Bailey was effectively Communist [5].
This war against Judaism and the Jews, a collectivist assault of regional blocs which necessarily is a war against a sovereign and intact Israel, Yisrael Shleimah is an attack on memory, on remembrance as a habit, ideal, and practical basis for education, on free will and individualism opposed to a collective dissolution in rapture and “mass thinking.” This antipathy toward the Jewish idea is embedded in the Gnostic West as much or more than in the Islamic, pagan, or polytheistic east in which fatalism and stasis dominate creativity and individual choice; in these antipathies the relatively rational strategists and power brokers like Milner, Rhodes, Dove, Chamberlain, Brzezinski, Baker and many more meet the theosophical esoterics like Blavatsky, Bailey and their many New Age disciples and fellow travelers.
Bailey’s views on the Jews and “the Jewish problem” veered from ones near to Nazism to views very compatible with those of the Dove-Chamberlain part of the Round Table, to war rhetoric under Churchill, to Ernest Bevin, Anthony Eden and their successors who carried on a war against the Jews from 1920 into post war world to this day. “When humanity has solved the Jewish problem…in one vast humanitarian situation” (a world religion based on emanation from Shamballa-wisdom enunciated by “the Buddha and the Christ”) “racial fusion will then be possible.” This will occur “with the cooperation of the Jews” as one might see in the subservience to foreign powers of the official “Zionist” elite from Weizmann, Ben Gurion to Peres, Barak and Olmert. “The Jewish problem is a humanitarian problem: only when the Jew lets go of his separative tendencies…and grasps as a race the inevitability of Karma…will he let go his racial acts and deeds of conquest, terrorism and cruelty”[6]. The spiritualist here sounds like a prospective General Secretary of the UN or the Arab League equating “Zionism with racism” or many a more mainstream Christian anti-Semite. Considering “the Jewish question,” she wrote, “Remember that the Jews are found in every land, that their influence is potent and widespread, and that they wield most potently what we call money. They represent the energy and life of a previous solar system” (ibid).
Ignoring the Aquarian lunacy of the last sentence, one sees a typically Christian, Islamic and Marxist view of the Jews: they must jettison their faith and accept our world religion, or else. The numerous imperial aggressions that dispersed the Children of Israel, called the Jewish people (Yehudim from Yehuda, Judea in English) since the Assyrians scattered the ten northern tribes leaving only the kingdom of Judea are not on Bailey’s chart. Esoteric myth, world revolution and world religion were her crafts and her sense of history was as bizarre as that of Guido Lists, Adolph Lanz or Karl Maria Wiliger. But her anti-Jewish stereotyping and solution are in the mainstream as was that of the Aryan supremacists named above.
Equally familiar were Bailey’s postwar pronouncements on the Jewish problem. As the English led Western policy to keep Europe’s surviving Jews behind barbed wire in “displaced person’s camps” and proposed shipping them to Poland, where there now was room [7], President Roosevelt told King Saud at the Crimea Conference, Bailey offered her own version of the White Paper, historical airbrushing and ignorance. “The fight over Palestine, fomented by the Zionists and not by the Jews…a fight which prevented the Jews from discovering how welcome they are in many countries [sic] and which has greed and not any love of Palestine [sic, the Promised Land, “to be a free people in our land” as the Jewish National Anthem, “The Hope” says] demonstrates the persistence of Bailey’s Christian Jew-hating stereotypes (the Jewish desire to return to and settle Israel is from “financial” motive and “not by any humanitarian spirit”) and her self-serving synchronicity with British policy. The esoteric and exoteric aspects of Western attitudes toward the Jewish people, the Children of Israel are strikingly congruent and persistent. The Jews, she implies are synonymous with “the forces of entrenched evil that must be routed” before her Buddhist version of the Christ can come from “the Great White Lodge” [8].
In her own style and for her own goals Bailey also demanded the internationalization of Jerusalem “which is not a Jewish city,” her words embodied in the Peel Commission plan of 1937, the UN partition of 1947, and the “Jewish land for fake peace – Road Map” plans of the past seventy years. There is no point helping such a person with a Hebrew-English dictionary, — “the word Jerusalem means, ‘a place of peace’” she claimed) for she was convinced it “is not a Jewish city” (hence the Temple Mount must be gutted and existing archaeological records buried in European museums or texts for specialists [9]; she could be a news anchor, op ed columnist, or tenured radical today.
Bailey also was a prudent trimmer on the mission of the Aryan race and “consciousness.” From 1934-9 she wrote of the Jewish problem (supra) and stated that the “new civilization” and “newer truths” of the Aquarian Age would center on “the process of enlightenment of our race, the Aryan” [10]. In those years the Jews were among those “animal-men” that never got adequately “sparked by the Hierarchy” to become human beings. They were among “the low-grade human beings that are met with in their millions on our planet” she asserted, echoing the attitudes of the eugenics-euthanasia movement liked to Nazism. But after the War she tacked carefully to stay within the English consensus and keep herself and followers at liberty. Thus by May 1941, Luther, Leonardo, Columbus, Shakespeare were among the “avatars” who would elevate humans to the level of the Atlantean Hierarchy. Among the “racial avatars” were “Abraham Lincoln and Bismarck,” men “very sensitive to the Shamballa force.” By 1943-4 she had added to her “etheric” flights of fancy and her propagandizing for a world religion incorporating the “spiritual energies of the greater Hierarchy” within “the United Nations.” And she made the patriotic, politically correct identification of “the United Nations” with America, Britain and their allies as “Forces of Light” carrying “the Law of Love” against “the Forces of Evil working through Germany and Japan” who “are terrorizing the world.” The fact that the Nazis could “deceive the Germans from the beginning” of their reign, she wrote, “argues a general weakness…and natural predilection for evil guidance” in “the German mentality” along with “the tendency to be led along aggressive, selfish and evil lines. This negative nation with its arrogant psychology… must be taught, along with the Japanese nation to be social and not anti-social…the German nation and the Japanese nation are not normal and must be brought back to normality by careful, kindly but firm handling and by applied educational processes,” she wrote, perhaps the “coordination of personality by psychologists” as she wrote in the thirties. In any case, the Aryan race (“with their tendency, centuries old among the Germanic peoples, to dominate”) and Axis Powers briefly replaced the Jews in her writing as the main forces of evil and darkness, “the Dark Lodge. The United Nations, led by the Anglo-American alliance were the forces of Light with “the task of implementing the will to good” (May 1944) [11]. The Axis powers would have to be crushed before she, like her nation’s dominant groups could return to emphasizing the evil of the Jews and the morality of denying them their ancient homeland. The congruence is such that she might as well have had an agreement with the Round Table.
Thus many forces in the West, now led by America and including the “re-educated” Germans-EU and Japanese-Trilateralists pursue the policy of John Dove whose roots we have indicated are as ancient as that composite entity, “Western Civilization.” More precisely, the geopolitical, — diplomatic, intelligence, economic, military and ideological assault on the Jewish National Home proceeds in that small band demarked by the positions of Dove and Viscount Milner. Nothing has changed: the ambiguity and attrition are rooted as deeply in the West as its very life and there will be no peace until the self-proclaimed “Forces of Light” stand down in deference to the non-imperial desire to lead by example as set forth for Israel, “a nation that shall dwell apart” in the Books of Moses.
1. Alice Bailey, “the Effects of Externalization,” September 1949 in Externalization of the Hierarchy (Lucis Trust, 1957; 2001), 679, 30-1, 56, 69
2. Carroll Quigley, the Anglo-American Establishment (NY 1981), 171
3. Samuel Katz, Lone Wolf, a Biography of Zev Jabotinsky (NY 1996), 275-1476; Philip Kerr, Lord Lothian wrote on June 19 to London supporting formation in America and Europe of a Jewish army to fight as an ally of England. He noted that “[Chaim] Weizmann might be just a Jewish edition of a Chamberlain or an appeaser.” Ibid. 1760-1; the British betrayal of a Jewish-Czech army in France a month later is a little known and revealing story.
4. Quigley, 172-6; “the Round Table continued to believe that a solution to the Zionist problem could be found in a partitioned Palestine within a Federation of Arab States.” Since 1969 this plan has been promoted as “land for peace,” “the peace process” and currently, “the Road Map.”
5. Externalization, 701 (“the Work of the Externalized Ashrams,” July 1949); what is needed, she wrote, rather than the nationalistic Russian version of Communism, is “right education and correct training in world citizenship,” ibid. 627, June 1947.
6. Bailey, “the Hidden Source of the Outer Turmoil,” January 1939 in Externalization, op. cit. 75-8.
7. President Roosevelt agreed with King Saud on this method of keeping the Jews out of the Promised Land. See document A/16 on the Crimea Conference in “the President’s Map Room Papers, Naval Aid’s files” at Yale University quoted at length in the Outpost, March 2005, 9; “the President wished to assure his majesty that he would do nothing to assist the Jews against the Arabs…” Indeed, the stance of America’s diplomatic establishment toward the Jews during the 1940s was brutally consistent with the above comments as documented at length by David S. Wyman, The Abandonment of the Jews: America and the Holocaust, 1941-5 (1984; 1998) and could be seen in the treatment of the thousand Jews shipped to Camp Oswego in December 1945 and subsequently. See also Aarons and Loftus on the Dulles brothers in The Secret War Against the Jews (1994), 21-364 and A. Sutton, Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler (1976), 82, 153; both texts document the role of the Dulles’ firm, Sullivan & Cromwell.
8. Bailey, op. cit. 616-17, June 1947.
9. K.A. Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Tanach (Eerdmans 2003); James D. Long, The Riddle of the Exodus (Lightcatcher Books 2006, revised).
10. Externalization 39.
11. Ibid. 402-57; though she had not stopped fulminating against “the Jehovah concept” of “the Jewish dispensation” Bailey now argued that “the Black Lodge” had begun its assault with the German “attacks upon the Jews.” As if working for the War Office of propaganda eager, inter alia, to disguise Britain’s role in the holocaust, she excoriated “the Forces of Evil…who led the Axis Powers” – Hitler, Tojo, Goebbels, Ribbentrop, Himmler, Mussolini, Hess, Goering and others…who overpowered the minds of others” these “hateful, unloving individualities.” The individual, from whatever “race” or group remains the focus of her critique in favor of “group at-onement” and “mass thinking,” the ideology she shared with Hegel, Marx, Comte, and the globalists behind the UN (ibid. 31, “Seed Groups in the New Age,” July 1937 promoting “group activity,” “group recognition” and “the human family” as against Jewish “separativeness and hate,” 77).
Topic: Is it American Policy to destroy Israel? (Read 2889 times)