is the u.s. an ally of israel...? part one...

[nikmatdam]

no it is not... in public it pretends to be... but privately it has always been our enemy... sorry... but this has always been the case and it still is the absolute truth... nik. out...


www.hirhome.com
 This is a large file,
please be patient . . .
 
Is the US an ally of Israel?
A chronological look at the evidence

Historical and Investigative Research -- by Francisco Gil-White
[ this piece updated regularly ]
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hirally.htm
____________________________________________________________

Introduction

Around the world, there is a striking convergence of opinion concerning the relationship between the US and Israel.

Supporters of the PLO - synonymous with "supporters of a PLO/Hamas Arab Muslim Nazi state", because the PLO will run any such state - are convinced that the US is an ally of Israel. Some believe the US employs Israel in order to expand the American empire, and others - echoing the claims of that infamous forgery, "The Protocols of Zion" - believe that history's greatest superpower, the US, is actually the pawn of tiny Israel. Either way, they are agreed that the US and Israel are supposedly 'a team.'

Supporters of Israel naturally disagree with supporters of the PLO about most things but not on this point, as they also believe that the US is a friend of Israel - perhaps its only real friend. Whereas those who are pro-PLO are especially infuriated by perceived US support for Israel, those who are pro-Israel are deliriously grateful for the same (especially so in the case of Zionist Jews).

Given that across the spectrum of those politically mobilized on this issue, from one pole to the other, everybody appears to have the same opinion on this, casual observers are naturally drawn into agreement as well, creating a crushing consensus all over the world: the US is an ally of Israel.

But is it true?

Let us first ask: what is an ally? My dictionary defines 'ally' as "one who is associated with another as helper."

Everybody knows that the US says it supports Israel. But actions speak louder than words. What is the evidence of US actions? In this piece I provide a chronological list of relevant US policies over the years.

I am hoping that this piece will begin a debate. It is not finished, and the research relevant to its claims is ongoing. I shall be updating the piece as I gather more data. But I have already assembled quite a lot, below, and what I have is certainly sufficient to challenge the common view. I believe, in fact, that what I have presented below is already sufficient to refute the common view many times over, and the compilation of these documented facts came as a big eye-opener. Hopefully this documentation will begin a serious debate on this question, rather than an automatic assumption based on official claims of US support for Israel - which claims are cheaply, and therefore easily, made.

It is important to remember that what is examined here is the behavior of the US foreign policy Establishment, which is secretive. The evidence therefore speaks to what is, and has been, the true position of the US ruling elite with regard to Israel and the Jewish people. It does not speak to the position of the American people, many of whom, I believe, will be outraged to find that, as I document below, the US specializes in attacking Israel. In fact the section on 1947-48 contains dramatic evidence that ordinary Americans tend not to favor the anti-Jewish policies of the US ruling elite.

The chronology already goes up to the year 2005, but I have yet to complete the research on some of the missing years in between.

[NOTE: In this document, when you see a red footnote this means that, in addition to giving the source and/or a link, there is extra material (sometimes relatively lengthy) that is worth reading and which provides additional context and clarification. Many of my sources are available on the web and I have provided the hyperlinks in the footnotes (whether red or not) so that readers may easily examine them.]

____________________________________________________________

Contents
____________________________________________________________

The 1930's -  Negative - The US Establishment helped sponsor the rise of the German Nazi movement.

1939-1945  -  Negative - This year's material is divided into the following sections:

Introduction

1. The general policy of the Allies towards the plight
of the Jews

2. No US visas for European Jews trying to escape the Nazi slaughter

3. The allies refused to sabotage Hitler's Final Solution by military means

1945 - Negative - After 1945, the US created US Intelligence by recruiting tens of thousands of Nazi war criminals.

1947-48 - Mixed to Negative - Forced by external circumstances, the US government gave lukewarm support to the creation of the State of Israel. But then it reversed itself and implemented policies designed to destroy Israel.

1949-1953 - Negative - In Israel's hour of supreme need, the US allied with Israel's mortal enemies.

1955 - Mixed - The US forces Israel to withdraw from Sinai, but makes some concessions to the Israelis.

1955-1965 - Positive (in one regard only) - Israel indirectly gets some US weapons.

1958 - Negative - Israel assists US military intervention in the Middle East; when this places Israel in danger, the US does...nothing.

1964 - Mixed - The US abandoned its previous official policy of trying to get Israel to relinquish the territories won in the War of Independence. Why had it been trying to do this?

1964-1967 - Negative - Although Israel suffered terrorist attacks from its Arab neighbors during these years, when they staged a full-scale military provocation, the US refused to help.

1967 - Negative - After the Six-Day War, the US put pressure on Israel to relinquish the territory gained, even though it knew it was indispensable to Israeli defense.

1967-70 - Negative - The Arabs attack the Israelis. The US response is to try and remove the Israelis from territory they need for their defense.

1970 - Positive - Washington temporarily abandons the diplomatic effort to make Israel withdraw from the territories.

1973 - Positive - The US assisted Israel in the Yom Kippur War.

1973-1975 - Negative - The US supported the election of a pro-PLO Nazi war criminal to the post of UN Secretary General.

1975 - Negative - The US reached an agreement with Israel not to have contacts with the PLO. The US immediately violated the agreement.

1977 - Negative - Jimmy Carter worked hard to give the terrorist PLO the dignity of a 'government in exile,' and then he teamed up with the Soviets to try and saddle Israel with a PLO terrorist state next door.

1978 - Negative - When Israel tried to defend itself from the PLO terrorists, the US forced Israel to stand back.

1979 - Negative - Jimmy Carter began large-scale US sponsorship of antisemitic Islamist terrorists, especially in Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia.

1981 - Negative - The US pushed for a PLO state in the West Bank against Israeli objections.

1982-1983 - Negative - The US military rushed into Lebanon to protect the PLO from the Israelis.

1985 - Negative - 1985 includes more material than other years, so we have divided it into subsections.

1. Shimon Peres acted as a US agent, against Israeli interests.

2. Bettino Craxi and Giulio Andreotti (respectively, the Italian prime minister and foreign minister) committed political suicide for the sake of pushing the PLO. The US was behind them.

3. Ronald Reagan denied the Holocaust

4. Who was in charge of US covert operations in 1985?

1987-1988 - Negative - The 'First Intifada' was a US-PLO strategy used to represent the Arabs in West Bank and Gaza as supposedly oppressed 'underdogs.'

1989 - Negative - With Dick Cheney, the US began supporting a PLO state in the open as the 'only solution' to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

1991 - Negative - Bush Sr.'s administration forced Israel to participate in the Oslo process, which brought the PLO into the West Bank and Gaza.

1994 - Negative - Yasser Arafat was given a Nobel Peace Prize, and the CIA trained the PLO, even though Arafat's henchmen were saying in public, this very year, that they would use their training to oppress Arabs and kill Jews.

1996-1997 - Negative - The United States exerted such strong pressure on the Netanyahu government (including threats) that, even though Netanyahu had been elected on an anti-Oslo platform, he had the necessary cover to betray the Israeli public that had elected him.

2005 - Negative - Mahmoud Abbas, who will soon have total control over Gaza, is the one who invented the strategy of talking 'peace' the better to slaughter Israelis. The US ruling elite loves Mahmoud Abbas.

(I will soon post documentation for the missing years in between.)

____________________________________________________________

The 1930's [ negative ]

The US Establishment helped sponsor the rise of the German Nazi movement.
____________________________________________________________

The larger American Establishment cooperated extensively with the Nazi death machine. One particularly glaring example is the case of IBM, which knowingly helped automate the entire Nazi process of extermination.[1] Much of the money to finance the rise of the Nazi party came from wealthy Americans (including the current US president’s grandfather and great grandfather (Prescott Bush and George Herbert Walker).[1a] Many influential Americans, both inside and outside of government, had Nazi sympathies. It is not an exaggeration to call Henry Ford an architect of the Holocaust, for example.[1b]

The following is an excerpt from the summary to the following book:

Black, E. 2003. War against the weak: Eugenics and America's campaign to create a master race. New York: Four Walls Eight Windows.
http://www.waragainsttheweak.com/

From the Summary: In the first three decades of the 20th Century, American corporate philanthropy combined with prestigious academic fraud to create the pseudoscience eugenics that institutionalized race politics as national policy. The goal: create a superior, white, Nordic race and obliterate the viability of everyone else.

How? By identifying so-called "defective" family trees and subjecting them to legislated segregation and sterilization programs. The victims: poor people, brown-haired white people, African Americans, immigrants, Indians, Eastern European Jews, the infirm and really anyone classified outside the superior genetic lines drawn up by American raceologists. The main culprits were the Carnegie Institution, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Harriman railroad fortune, in league with America's most respected scientists hailing from such prestigious universities as Harvard, Yale and Princeton, operating out of a complex at Cold Spring Harbor on Long Island. The eugenic network worked in tandem with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the State Department and numerous state governmental bodies and legislatures throughout the country, and even the U.S. Supreme Court. They were all bent on breeding a eugenically superior race, just as agronomists would breed better strains of corn. The plan was to wipe away the reproductive capability of the weak and inferior...

American eugenic crusades proliferated into a worldwide campaign, and in the 1920s came to the attention of Adolf Hitler. Under the Nazis, American eugenic principles were applied without restraint, careening out of control into the Reich's infamous genocide. During the pre-War years, American eugenicists openly supported Germany's program. The Rockefeller Foundation financed the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute and the work of its central racial scientists. Once WWII began, Nazi eugenics turned from mass sterilization and euthanasia to genocidal murder. One of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute doctors in the program financed by the Rockefeller Foundation was Josef Mengele who continued his research in Auschwitz, making daily eugenic reports on twins...

For a history of the American eugenics movement and how it went about creating "intelligence testing" (so-called "IQ research") in order to, with frauds, allege that certain people were genetically inferior, the better to exterminate them, read: Resurrecting Racism: The Modern Attack on Black People Using Phony Science, by Francisco Gil-White; Historical and Investigative Research (2004).
http://www.hirhome.com/rr/rrcontents.htm

____________________________________________________________

1939-1945 [ negative ]

____________________________________________________________

James Carroll, who has written a history of Western antisemitism, comments,

"As late as 1938, in a furious public rebuttal by Hitler to the world leaders who had denounced the Kristallnacht pogroms, his decidedly unfinal solution to the Jewish problem was still 'Jews out!,' not 'Jews dead!' His proposal, at that point, was the moral and political equivalent of [Medieval Spain's] Queen Isabella's, the expulsion of all Jews from the lands controlled by the Reich. Jews were offered immediate exit visas -- but exit to where? The same world leaders, notably Neville Chamberlain and Franklin D. Roosevelt, who had denounced the anti-Jewish violence of the Nazis declined to receive Jews as refugees... Crucial to [the Final Solution] building to a point of no return was Hitler's discovery (late) of the political indifference of the democracies to the fate of the Jews..."[2]

It is certainly amazing that the US should not have received as refugees the very people whose extermination the US denounced in public. But what is most amazing is that, even though the above reads as an indictment of the US and Britain, in fact Carroll's statement covers up what really happened (perhaps unwittingly). The western democracies were not guilty of "political indifference…to the fate of the Jews," as Carroll claims. On the contrary, they were quite interested: the Allied governments eagerly cooperated with the Final Solution.


1. The general policy of the Allies towards the plight
of the Jews
___________

In a documented summary of Allied behavior toward the Jews in WWII, Kenneth Levin writes,

"State Department officials throughout this period typically held strong anti-immigration sentiments and seem to have been especially determined to block the immigration of Jews into the United States. Policies adopted by State regarding issuance of visas were in fact much more restrictive than even the strict immigration laws of the period. Thus, the number of visas issued to Jews during the war, including during the years when the Nazis' genocide program was fully known, was barely 10 percent of those potentially available to European Jews under the immigration quota legislation then in effect."[2a]

Levin explains that the British had an identical policy.

"The lengths to which the British Foreign Office went to prevent the rescue of Jews is indicated by an episode involving Japan. In 1940, the Japanese vice consul in Kovno, Lithuania, Chiune Sugihara, issued several thousand visas to Jews desperate to escape Europe. Hillel Levine, a professor of sociology and religion at Boston University who was working on a book about Sugihara, did research in the archives of the Japanese Foreign Ministry in Tokyo to investigate to what extent the Japanese government was aware of Sugihara's efforts to save Jews. He not only discovered documents there charting Sugihara's activities but also complaints from the British Foreign Office (this is, of course, before Britain and Japan were at war) protesting Sugihara's visas and warning that the rescued Jews would become a burden on Japan.

This policy of discouraging and obstructing rescue by other parties, and, of course, the Foreign Office's own eschewing of any rescue effort, persisted even after the Allies learned of the Nazis' extermination program."[2b]

This was not just a British policy, but American as well. In 1941, after "agents of the Rumanian regime, together with German death squads, had already slaughtered 200,000 of the approximately 800,000 Jews within Rumania's borders," the Rumanians apparently began having second thoughts about exterminating all of the Jews.

"The Turkish ambassador in Budapest then proposed to the American ambassador a plan for the orderly transport of 300,000 Rumanian Jews through Turkey to Eretz Yisrael and urged the Americans to push the plan with the British. But the State Department objected to the plan and refused to present it to the British."[2c]

One of the excuses offered up by the Allies was that there wasn't enough shipping. It was bogus.

"...much neutral shipping was readily available and was, indeed, employed by the Allies throughout the war to rescue many thousand non-Jews -- from Greece and Yugoslavia, for example -- and transport them to safe havens. In addition, over 400,000 German prisoners of war were transported to the United States between 1942 and 1945."[2d]

In other words, the safety of genocidal Nazi soldiers was much more important to the Allies than the safety of their innocent Jewish victims. It is difficult to distinguish the attitude of the Allied ruling elites toward the Jews from that of the Nazi Third Reich.

"...in the first months of 1943 information reached the West from Rumania that, of 130,000 Jews earlier deported to the Transnistria region, 70,000 remained alive, although destitute and starving, and that Rumania, presumably for a price, was prepared to release these 70,000 to the Allies and even provide ships to transport them to Eretz Yisrael or some other Allied territory. The State Department dismissed the offer out of hand, refusing to explore the proposal. It also refused to consider undertaking negotiations that may have led the Rumanians to extend protection for a time to the Transnistrian Jews even if State had no intention of supporting a rescue.

These patterns of obstruction to intervention continued to characterize the State Department's answer to the Nazi genocide throughout the war. It routinely deferred responses to plans for rescue, dismissed plans out of hand as impractical, and invoked bogus impediments to rescue, such as the supposed shipping problem... Another tack was State's persistent withholding of visas from Jews who had reached neutral countries and whose evacuation would have made those countries more amenable to admitting additional refugees. The State Department even sought to block broadcast of threats to bring to justice the perpetrators of the genocide, as well as broadcast of appeals for the people in occupied Europe to aid the Jews."[2e]

It has been common to blame the State Department and excuse Roosevelt. An absurdity: the State Department was composed of Roosevelt's employees. And "Some have argued that Roosevelt was too busy conducting the war to pay much attention to the Nazi genocide." Another absurdity.[2e] But to lay such issues to rest, let us consider in more detail the question of the "withholding of visas from Jews," for this policy had Roosevelt's explicit authority, so he paid attention to it.


2. The visa policy of the United States was designed to trap Jews in Europe, where Hitler would find them
____________________________________________

[My sources in this section come from a PBS documentation of the behavior of the United States toward the plight of the Jews in WWII with the title, America and the Holocaust.]

During the war,

"the US…erected a 'paper wall,' a bureaucratic maze that prevented all but a few Jewish refugees from entering the country. It was not until 1944, that a small band of Treasury Department employees forced the government to respond."[3]

In a memo by Randolph Paul for the Foreign Funds Control Unit of the Treasury Department (dated January 13, 1944), entitled Report to the Secretary on the Acquiescence of this Government in the Murder of the Jews, he wrote:

"Frankly, Breckinridge Long, in my humble opinion, is least sympathetic to refugees in all the State Department. I attribute to him the tragic bottleneck in the granting of visas."[4]

Breckinridge Long was Roosevelt's Assistant Secretary of State. In 1943, he gave a statement before the US House of Representatives on the refugee question, in which Long expressed his supposed concern for the Jews, and boasted that the US had admitted 580,000 refugees. Congressman Emanuel Celler rebuked and refuted Long in the House of Representatives on December 20, 1943, and Randolph Paul quotes his remarks in the above-mentioned memo:

"***In the first place these 580,000 refugees were in the main ordinary quota immigrants coming in from all countries. The majority were not Jews. His [Long's] statement drips with sympathy for the persecuted Jews, but the tears he sheds are crocodile. I would like to ask him how many Jews were admitted during the last 3 years in comparison with the number seeking entrance to preserve life and dignity. *** One gets the impression from Long's statement that the United States has gone out of its way to help refugees fleeing death at the hands of the Nazis. I deny this. On the contrary, the State Department has turned its back on the time-honored principle of granting havens to refugees. The tempest-tossed get little comfort from men like Breckinridge Long. *** Long says that the door to the oppressed is open but that it 'has been carefully screened.' What he should have said is 'barlocked and bolted.' By the act of 1924, we are permitted to admit approximately 150,000 immigrants each year. During the last fiscal year only 23,725 came as immigrants. Of these only 4,705 were Jews fleeing Nazi persecution."[4]

In fact, as stated by Randolph Paul in the same memo, "According to Earl G. Harrison, Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, not since 1862 have there been fewer aliens entering the country." This, at a time when immigration to the US was the only way for so many Jews to escape a gruesome death.

But Assistant Secretary of State Breckinridge Long's strategy was much worse than merely denying visas. Breckinridge Long explained to State Department officials, in a memo dated 26 June 1940, exactly how the visas would be effectively denied to the Jews trying to escape slaughter:

"We can delay and effectively stop for a temporary period of indefinite length the number of immigrants into the United States. We could do this by simply advising our consuls, to put every obstacle in the way and to require additional evidence and to resort to various administrative devices which would postpone and postpone and postpone the granting of the visas."[5]

It is important to see that a strategy of "postpone and postpone and postpone" is not at all the same as denying visas. As Emmanuel Celler complained: "It takes months and months to grant the visas and then it usually applies to a corpse." In other words, many Jews who were told repeatedly that they would get a visa, the issuance of which kept getting postponed, did not seek a safe haven elsewhere, and as a result were overtaken by Hitler's men. Long's strategy was therefore designed not merely to keep Jews out of the US, but to assist Adolph Hitler's Final Solution by corralling as many Jews as possible where Hitler could find them.

Although Randolph Paul accused, "I attribute to [Breckinridge Long] the tragic bottleneck in the granting of visas," his next sentences reveal that this was not a maverick policy of Long's, but in fact had the most widespread support in the Roosevelt administration:

"The Interdepartmental Review Committees which review the applications for visas are composed of one official, respectively, from each of the following Departments: War, Navy, F.B.I. State, and Immigration. That committee has been glacier-like in its slowness and coldbloodedness."

Nor were these various departments and agencies acting without the knowledge of President Roosevelt. Some time after Breckinridge Long's memo of June 1940, Margaret E. Jones, an American Quaker trying to help European Jews emigrate to the US, wrote to Clarence E. Pickett, a leader in the Quaker community,[6] telling him of her conversations with various US consular officials in Europe about the impact of this memo. As you will see from the quote below, Ms. Jones was under the impression that the US Congress wanted to stop immigration to the US completely and hypothesized that the State Department was acting in good faith, such that the new draconian restrictions on immigration were meant to mollify Congress and thus prevent it from prohibiting any immigration to the US. The consular officials in Europe disabused her of this notion and explained to her that it was not Congress but president Roosevelt himself who did not want "non-Aryans" entering the country. Here is an excerpt from Margaret Jones letter:

"Last July, en route from Geneva back to the Vienna Center, I stopped in Zurich and had an interview with Mr. Strom, at the U.S. Consulate. He told me of  recent orders from Washington [the Breckinridge Long memo] which would severely limit the number of visas ordinarily issued month by month from the various Consulates… Later in Vienna, Mr. Hohenthal told me too about the new stringent regulations, and was also obviously interested when I raised the same question with him. About the middle of August, the Consulate…telephoned to say [that] Mr. Warren, Mr. Morris and Mr. Hohenthal and I [talk] that afternoon about the new regulations concerning emigration. Mr. Warren began by saying, 'Miss Jones, you Quakers will be doing a straight relief job for the non-Aryans here from now on.' I said, 'No more non Aryans to go to the U.S.?' Warren replied- 'Not just non-Aryans - but no more aliens.' Then I asked him… was this an attempt to forestall Congress and prevent an out and out closing of immigration by making so severe a cut that the State Dept. could assure Congress they had the situation in hand. Mr. Warren said not Congress, but the President just did not want any more aliens coming to the U.S. and would like to have it closed especially for aliens coming from Germany."[7] (my emphasis)

We must take note not only of the fact that State Department officials appeared quite aware of all this being president Roosevelt's initiative, but that these same officials matter-of-factly used Hitler's racist language in reference to Jews ("non-Aryans"), and also that there was a special concern to prevent immigration from Germany (i.e. specifically to prevent Jews fleeing slaughter).

Additional evidence that Roosevelt was directly behind all this comes from Breckinridge Long himself, who made the following entry in his diary, dated 3 October 1940 (four months after his "postpone, postpone, postpone" memo):

"So when I saw him [FDR] this morning the whole subject of immigration, visas, safety of the United States, procedures to be followed; and all that sort of thing was on the table. I found that he was 100% in accord with my ideas… The President expressed himself as in entire accord with the policy which would exclude persons about whom there was any suspicion that they would be inimical to the welfare of the United States no matter who had vouchsafed for them and irrespective of their financial or other standing. I left him with the satisfactory thought that he was wholeheartedly in support of the policy which would resolve in favor of the United States any doubts about admissibility of any individual."[8]

Roosevelt had only one meeting with American Jewish leaders about the Holocaust. It was in 1942 and it lasted only 29 minutes, 23 of which were spent by the president lecturing his Jewish guests on various matters, including how unfair it was that Jews supposedly had more rights than Muslims in some parts of North Africa! Roosevelt explained that he knew about Hitler's mass killings, but he promised to do nothing for the Jews of Europe beyond issuing a statement.[9]

Another event also makes clear how Roosevelt felt about Hitler's Final Solution:

"Four months after the State Department confirmed the dimensions of the Holocaust, British Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden met in Washington with President Roosevelt, Secretary of State Cordell Hull and Undersecretary of State Sumner Welles. At this meeting, Eden expressed his fear that Hitler might actually accept an offer from the Allies to move Jews out of areas under German control. No one present objected to Eden's statement."[10]


3. The allies refused to sabotage the Final Solution
by military means
________________

[My sources in this section come from a PBS documentation of the behavior of the United States toward the plight of the Jews in WWII with the title, America and the Holocaust.]

It would not have been difficult to bomb the concentration camps, and even less difficult to bomb the train tracks leading there. Train tracks, after all, stretch for hundreds of kilometers and simply cannot be everywhere protected. But the German trains ran on time, and delivered their human cargo to the camps without interruptions, because the Allies chose never to interfere with Hitler's genocide of the Jewish people.

That, in itself, is amazing. But what is truly spectacular is that the US refused to do this even in 1944, when

1)  it was well known that Hitler was about to murder the Jews of Hungary (400,000) at Auschwitz (to a close approximation, they were all murdered);

2)  many were begging the Roosevelt administration to bomb the camp and/or the train tracks.

Here is the story:

"On April 7, 1944, two Slovakian Jews escaped from Auschwitz. By the end of the month they had reached the Jewish underground in Slovakia, where they gave a detailed account of the mass murder operations at the camp. The two men also warned that preparations were underway to murder the Jews of Hungary. Their report initiated a series of requests that the U.S. bomb the crematoria at Auschwitz and key rail links that would be used to transport Hungarian Jews to Poland."[11]

On June 12 1944, the Agudas Israel World Organization received a cable from Switzerland describing the situation of the Hungarian Jews and calling for bombing the deportation railways.[12]

Jacob Rosenheim, from the Agudas Israel World Organization in New York, sent a letter to Henry Morgenthau, Jr., Secretary of the Treasury, dated June 18, 1944, asking that deportation rail lines be bombed.[13] You may ask, why to Morgenthau at Treasury? Because, as we saw earlier, it is apparently only a handful of officers at the Treasury Department who were opposed to the Final Solution and considered it immoral that the US was cooperating with it.

On June 26, 1944, Thomas Handy, Assistant Chief of Staff at the War Department, sent a memo to the Director of the Civil Affairs Division, conveying the Operations Division's conclusion that bombing the deportation railways was 'impracticable.' This was

"In line with [the War Department's] undeclared policy not to aid in the rescue of refugees, the War Department routinely turned down requests to bomb deportation railways. No studies were ever conducted to check the feasibility of such bombing raids."[14]

No studies. In other words, requests to bomb the deportation railways were just rejected out of hand.

On June 29, 1944, an internal memo in the War Refugee Board from Benjamin Akzin to Lawrence S. Lesser urged the bombing of Auschwitz and Birkenau.[15] And on August 9 The World Jewish Congress in New York asked the War Department to bomb the crematoria at Auschwitz. The War Department turned down the request (August 14, 1944).[16]

On November 18, 1944, John J. McCloy, Assistant Secretary of War, explained to John W. Pehle, the Director of the War Refugee Board, that the War Department could not authorize the bombing of Auschwitz, the reason supposedly being,

"that the raid would divert air support from the war effort. The Department also claimed that the camp was beyond the maximum range of bombers located in Britain, France or Italy. [But] These assertions were false: In July of 1944, the Allies began a series of air raids on Germany's synthetic-oil industry which was based in Upper Silesia near Auschwitz. On August 20, 127 Flying Fortresses dropped thousands of pounds of high explosives on the factory areas of Auschwitz which were less than five miles from the gas chambers. Three weeks later, the U.S. targeted those same sites. This time two bombs accidentally fell near the killing installations and one actually damaged a rail line leading to the gas chambers."[17]

In other words, only one Allied bomb affected Hitler's Final Solution, and this bomb did so by accident.

____________________________________________________________

1945 [ negative ]

After 1945, the US created US Intelligence by recruiting tens of thousands of Nazi war criminals.
____________________________________________________________

In his history of Western antisemitism, James Carroll writes in passing:

"Croation clergy in Rome were part of the infamous ‘Rat Line’ through which numerous Nazi war criminals, with the collusion of the U.S. Army, escaped to Latin America.”[18]

Carroll was writing in 2001, and yet, already in 1988 it had been shown that the secret US protection for Nazi war criminals had been much more extensive than Carroll lets on. In 1988, the Washington Post wrote:

“It is no longer necessary -- or possible -- to deny the fact: the U.S. government systematically and deliberately recruited active Nazis by the thousands, rescued them, hired them and relied upon them to serve American interests and purposes in postwar Europe.”[18c]

The Washington Post was reviewing “the archival sleuthing of [historian] Christopher Simpson,” which involved poring over many “documents... declassified under the Freedom of Information Act”:

Simpson, Christopher (1988) Blowback: America’s recruitment of Nazis and its effects on the Cold War. New York: Weidenfeld & Nicholson.

Simpson shows that the US absorbed in secret almost the entire Nazi war criminal organization (tens of thousands of Nazi war criminals, not "thousands"), and out of this formed the CIA, which then used its Nazi assets all over the world to destroy progressive movements and install right-wing repressive autocrats, and also to put Nazis back in power in various European countries under the cover that they were "Christian Democrats."

So what we learn is that it is, after all, possible "to deny the fact," because Carroll pretended later, in 2001, that this hadn't happened, and that the US military had merely helped escape some Nazi war criminals to Latin America.

To learn more about this, consult the following articles:
 

The US Recreated the Nazi War Crimes Machine: US Intelligence was Formed from Nazi War Criminals; Emperor's Clothes; by Jared Israel

Part 1: Primed not to hear
http://emperors-clothes.com/coverup/summary.htm

Part 2: In 1983 U.S. Intelligence Took Charge of Investigating the Recruitment of Nazis by...U.S. Intelligence
http://emperors-clothes.com/coverup/1983.htm


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How Was The CIA Formed? By absorbing the Nazi war criminal infrastructure; Emperor's Clothes; by Jared Israel
http://emperors-clothes.com/analysis/gehlen.htm

[nikmatdam]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The CIA Protected Adolf Eichmann, Architect of the Holocaust; by Francisco Gil-White
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/eichmann.htm
 

Though Germany may have lost the war, the Nazis, and their ideology, certainly appear to have done quite well. In context, this has certain implications for our interpretation of the twentieth century. Consider:

1)  The rise of Nazi ideology was initially sponsored from the US (see 1930's section)

2)  Its most important ideological component - the mobilization of antisemitic hatred and the creation of an infrastructure to exterminate the Jewish people - was eagerly supported by the US (see 1930's section and 1939-45 section);

3)  At the conclusion of WWII, Nazi war criminals were either used in place where they were, or given new identities and brought to the US by the thousands (above).

I note that even after the war there were restrictions on Jewish immigration to the US. By contrast, and at the same time, the US was pulling all the stops to get their murderers into the country, as documented by Christopher Simpson (see above).

From the perspective of these horrifying facts, it is obvious that US involvement in the World War had nothing to do with a principled opposition to Nazi ideology.

What was WWII really about? I shall not insist on one particular interpretation, but the following well-documented facts seem relevant.

First, it seems relevant that the eugenic US Establishment nurtured the German Nazis, and that the eugenicists were backed to the hilt by the US government, as Edwin Black documents in detail in War Against the Weak (see 1930's section).

One also has to consider that Winston Churchill had a very cordial meeting with the millionaire Putzi Hanfstaengl, who was Adolf Hitler's financier and spokesman, in 1932, on the eve of Hitler's coming to power. In this connection, it also appears relevant that just a few years earlier, in 1929, Churchill had become William Randolph Hearst's employee. Hearst happens to have been an intimate friend of the above-mentioned Putzi Hanfstaengl, and was called by his contemporaries “the most influential American fascist…the keystone of American fascism.”[18a]

It seems relevant also that Churchill was 1) a cheerleader for fascism who called Benito Mussolini "the greatest lawgiver among living men" in 1933, as Hitler was taking power, 2) an enthusiast of the same eugenics movement that produced German Nazism; 3) an advocate of mass extermination of non-whites; 4) a proponent of the idea that the countries of Europe should go to war in order to get rid of useless riffraff; and 5) a class warrior who loathed the lower classes and thought a good way to end a strike was to shoot the strikers dead.[18a]

Beyond that, it seems significant also that the Western Allies handed all of Western Europe to Hitler practically without firing a bullet. Then Hitler was nice enough to let the great majority of Allied soldiers evacuate from Dunkirk even though he could have massacred them. The Allies left their armament for Hitler on the beach.[18b]

There is also the fact that the Nazi occupation of Western Europe was for most people relatively gentle. The Jews in Western Europe were certainly hunted down and taken to the camps, and there was no pity for the few resistance fighters. But aside from that Western Europe was mostly calm and its cities survived for the most part untouched. By dramatic contrast, in Eastern Europe, where the overwhelming majority of the Jews lived, and where most of the politicized workers also lived, the Nazis carried out one unbelievable slaughter after another. During this time the policy of the Allies was one of studied non-interference with the mass killings, and an energetic visa policy designed to trap as many Jews as possible in Europe (see section 1939-45).

The Nazis were not able to reach Moscow and were trapped by the Russian winter. It is only when the victorious Soviets were clearly headed for the Atlantic that the Allies invaded Europe. By then, the European Jewish population had been exterminated.

The subsequent absorption of the Nazi war criminals as US Intelligence assets in 1945 (see above) is also food for thought. To see an example of how these Nazis were used, see 1985 section.

Then, in 1948, as the Israeli Jews were fighting for their lives in their War of Independence, fending off a combined Arab attack that had for explicitly avowed purpose the extermination of the Jewish people, the United States slapped an arms embargo against the Israeli Jews, and declared its opposition to the creation of the State of Israel (below). Meanwhile, Britain sent many captured Nazi officers to lead the Arab armies (below). But the US and Britain were not opposed to restoring Germany -- the country that had carried out the Final Solution against the European Jews -- to health. This they strongly endorsed, in what became the famous Marshall Plan.

____________________________________________________________

1947-48 [ mixed to negative ]

Forced by external circumstances, the US government gave lukewarm support to the creation of the State of Israel. But then it reversed itself and implemented policies designed to destroy Israel.
____________________________________________________________

Pro: At the UN, in 1947, the US voted in favor of partitioning the territory which the British had baptized "Palestine" in 1921. This partition would create an Arab state and a Jewish state in that territory. The US vote was crucial to the founding of the State of Israel.

Con: The US did not support partition. Although Truman ordered the US ambassador at the UN to vote in favor, the entire State Department was vociferously opposed to this, and there was zero US diplomacy to influence the votes of US client states to vote in favor of partition (with the consequence that many of them voted against).[19]

As a Jerusalem Post article of 1997 recalled,

"US secretary of state George Marshall, concerned about American interests in the Middle East, had recommended against partition [i.e. he recommended against the creation of a Jewish state] but had been overruled by Truman. A key factor was the support of the Soviet bloc."[19a]

A key factor was the support of the Soviet bloc. I shall return to this.
For now, however, notice that George Marshall, who opposed the creation of a state where the Jews could live safe from attempts to exterminate them, is also the man behind the celebrated "Marshall Plan," which had for purpose nursing to health the countries whose fascism had precipitated World War II: Germany and Japan. The British, too, loved the Marshall Plan - in fact, “Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin (1891-1951) predicted that [Marshall's] address [defending the Marshall Plan] ‘will rank as one of the greatest speeches in world history.’”[19aa]

So, immediately after the Final Solution was interrupted, the US State Department supported restoring Germany, but opposed the creation of a state where the special victims of the German Nazis, the Jews, could live safely. However, as we saw above, US President Harry Truman overruled the State Department and ordered the US delegate at the UN to cast the US vote in favor of partitioning the territory the British called "Palestine" into two states, one Arab, one Jewish. Why?

Gideon Rafael, at the time, was "a junior member of the Jewish delegation to the U.N. General Assembly in 1947," and moreover "responsible for 'keeping score' as 58 member nations voted on whether to partition British-controlled Palestine into Jewish and Arab states."[19b] The Jerusalem Post reports his recollection of these events:

"...it is presumed that Moscow was primarily interested in getting the British out of the Middle East. But there was also, [Gideon] Rafael believes, a measure of honest sentiment involved, a sense of identification with what the Jews had experienced in the war. 'We were some kind of companions in suffering,' says Rafael. 'Twenty million Russians had died in the war and a third of the Jewish people. In the deliberations in the General Assembly in the spring, (Soviet foreign minister Andrei) Gromyko had come out with a sensational statement. He said that six million Jews had been killed by the Nazi butchers and that the Jewish people had a longstanding association with Palestine and the right to independent status. I think that was an authentic sentiment. It was policy and it helped change the course of history.'"[19a]

For the full text of Andrei Gromyko's speech, 14 May 1947, to the UN General Assempbly, visit:
http://domino.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/d41260f1132ad6be
052566190059e5f0?OpenDocument

As Gideon Rafael says, Gromyko's speech changed the course of history, because if the Soviet Union had not passionately endorsed the creation of the State of Israel, Harry Truman would have certainly followed the recommendation of his Secretary of State, which was backed by the entire Department of State. Instead, he was placed in an impossible position.

In the end, though, Truman did follow the recommendation of his Secretary of State, when developments made it seem as though Israel would be destroyed. I turn to this next.

The 1947 UN vote partitioned the territory which the British, in 1921, had baptized "Palestine" into a Jewish state and an Arab state. The Jews living there accepted this legally and internationally agreed-to partition proposal. The Arabs did not. The Arab population living in British Mandate "Palestine," under the leadership of the former Mufti of Jerusalem, Hajj Amin al Husseini, declared war, as did the Arab states. And this was not to be just any war - the Arabs promised to finish Adolf Hitler's job and exterminate the Jews living in the Middle East. Azzam Pasha, Secretary General of the Arab League, announced:

"This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades."[19c]

What did the US do? It slapped an arms embargo on "Palestine" which made it impossible for the Jews living there to get weapons with which to defend themselves from this genocidal attack; meanwhile, the Arabs in "Palestine" had no trouble getting weapons from the Arab states, in addition to which the Arab states sent their own troops. As the mayor of Tel Aviv, Israel Rokach explained at the time,

"The embargo is working a terrible hardship on the Jews of Palestine. It is the Arab followers of the Mufti [Hajj Amin], and not the Jews, who are engaged in a war of aggression, and who are defying the United Nations."[19cc]

That is not all. Simultaneously, Britain was doing everything in its power to help the Arab armies.

“The first large-scale assault began on January 9, 1948, when approximately 1,000 Arabs attacked Jewish communities in northern Palestine. By February, the British said so many Arabs had infiltrated they lacked the forces to run them back. In fact, the British turned over bases and arms to Arab irregulars and the Arab Legion.

...The Arabs had no difficulty obtaining the arms they needed. In fact, Jordan’s Arab Legion was armed and trained by the British, and led by a British officer. At the end of 1948 and beginning of 1949, British RAF planes flew with Egyptian squadrons over the Israel-Egypt border. On January 7, 1949, Israeli planes shot down four of the British aircraft.”[19d]

Never mind that it was barely three years since the Jews had finished suffering the Nazi Final Solution; the British aid to the Arabs included sending captured German Nazi officers to lead the Arab armies that had openly pledged themselves to wipe out the Israeli Jews. This was demonstrated in a detailed article, which quoted official British documents at length, and which appeared in The Nation in 1948:

In 1948, the Left-wing Nation magazine exposed British support/instigation of Arab violence aimed at crushing Israel in cradle
The British Record on Partition
(First part of the article)
Reprinted from The Nation, May 8, 1948
Comments by Jared Israel

For the pdf to the entire Nation piece, go here:
http://www.tenc.net/history/nbr.pdf

To read the same document in text format, go here:
http://emperors-clothes.com/history/br.htm


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To place the above British policy in the context of the history of British policy toward the Jewish people, read:

How did the 'Palestinian movement' emerge? The British sponsored it; by Francisco Gil-White.
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/pal_mov4.htm
 

This was not out of character for the British, who as colonialists in the Middle East encouraged many anti-Jewish Arab riots, by supporting, funding, and promoting the main instigator, Hajj Amin al Husseini, who was allowed to act with impunity. Things got so bad that "Lord Josiah Wedgwood, a fiercely pro-Zionist Member of Parliament, would call British-ruled Palestine 'the land of anti-Semitism par exellence.'"[19dd]

But though the US and British governments may have been attacking the Jews, it was not with the consent of the American people. It's just that the US government hardly ever does anything in foreign policy that the American people will agree with if they are properly informed. In this case, the American people were properly informed, and so the American workers rushed to defend the Israeli Jews with a declaration that stated that the following steps were "urgently" needed:

“‘A warning by the United States to Britain to stop arming and assisting Arab aggression.

‘A United Nations ban on the shipment of arms from all nations to Arab states who refuse to accept the United Nations Palestine decision.

‘A United Nations provision for supplying of arms and munitions to the Jewish people for self-defense.

‘Lifting of the State Department embargo on arms to the Middle East, which in effect discriminates against the Jewish people while Arab aggressors are free to obtain arms from neighboring Arab states.’”[19d]

The composition of the delegation making the above demands was as follows:

“The delegation included Leon Strauss of the International Fur and Leather Workers Union; Bruce Waybur of the United Electrical Radio and Machine Workers of America, George Hanson of the United Office and Professional Workers of America; Fileno De Novellis of the United Shoe Workers, Joint Council 13; Jack Paley of the Wholesale and Warehouse Workers Union 65, and William Levner of the American Jewish Labor Council.”[19d]

But it was not enough that the Arab armies were attempting to exterminate the Israeli Jews with the help of the US and British governments. On top of that, the US reversed itself on its earlier position approving the partition of "Palestine." That is, the US officially ceased to support the creation of a Jewish state even as thousands of Jews were dying to defend Israel and the very survival of the Jewish people.

A throng of enraged American workers then took to the streets of New York, and forced the US government to return to an official position endorsing the creation of Israel. As the New York Times reported,

"...a crowd estimated at more than 100,000 persons jammed Madison Square Park and surrounding streets yesterday in a mass protest against the United States reversal of its position on partition of Palestine."[19e]

That seems like a very large crowd. But in fact it may have been larger. Further down in the same article, the New York Times wrote that,

"The sidewalks of Fifth Avenue were lined solidly by a crowd estimated by the police at 250,000. The streets surrounding the speakers' stand, on the east side of the park, were packed so tightly that many of the parade spectators could not crowd in. Loudspeakers carried the talks to all corners of the square."[19e]

In any case, this was the largest crowd ever seen in the streets of New York. And, although it happened in New York City, it was not merely a New York phenomenon, but an American protest, as "There were representatives of 100 cities and fourteen states in the line of the march."

The marchers -- among whom were throngs of veterans from the World War -- were passionate:

"Banners proclaimed "We Fought for Peace, Not Arab Appeasement." "Oil or Honor?" "Save the U.N. - Uphold Partition." The marchers chanted "A Jewish State in Forty-Eight," or called the cadence to the words, "Lift, Lift, Lift the Embargo."

War-maimed veterans, heads lifted proudly, earned applause as they passed. Many of the marchers were in uniform - the blue of the Navy, gray green of the Marines, khaki of the Army, and dark blue of veterans' groups.

...[they] listened to the denunciations of American policy on Palestine. The crowd jeered and booed references to the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem."[19e]

That's the Grand Mufti Hajj Amin al Husseini, instigator of anti-Jewish riots in British Mandate Palestine, and later one of the great architects of Adolf Hitler's Final Solution against the European Jews.[19f] He was well known then, but seems all but forgotten now. That matters, because Hajj Amin was also the grandfather of Al Fatah, the organ that controls the PLO, and the mentor to Yasser Arafat. If ordinary Americans today understood the Nazi origins of the PLO, they would be just as opposed to current pro-PLO US foreign policy as their ancestors were in 1948 to the US's -- identical -- pro-Mufti policy.

To read the entire New York Times article reporting on the above-mentioned dramatic demonstration, and to see a photograph, visit:
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/apr.pdf

____________________________________________________________

1949-1953 [ negative ]

In Israel's hour of supreme need, the US allied with Israel's mortal enemies.
____________________________________________________________

After the war of 1947-48, the fledgling Jewish state was in bad shape and needed to reconstruct after the terrible wartime sacrifices. But that was in fact only the first of Israel's problems. After the war, this diminutive strip of land also had to absorb hundreds of thousands of refugees from Nazi slaughter. And yet this was not all. In addition there were also hundreds of thousands of suddenly impoverished Jewish refugees from the Mizrachim Diaspora, who had been chased out by the predominantly Muslim states of North Africa, the Arabian peninsula, and the Near East.

And yet..., and yet this was not all that Israel miraculously overcame. The Encyclopedia Britannica explains that,

"In the period 1949–53 Arab attacks killed hundreds of Israelis, four-fifths of whom were civilians."[20]

Hundreds of Jewish farmers living by Israel's borders were murdered by state-sponsored Arab terrorist attacks.

Obviously, no country that simply stood by and did nothing to help Israel while it faced all this could call itself her ally. And this is why many people, who believe the US has always been Israel's ally, believe also that Israel pulled through during this critical period thanks to massive US sponsorship. But are they right?

Notice what the Encyclopedia Britannica writes next:

"Israel’s potential allies, including the United States, were preoccupied with the Cold War and were willing to placate Arab leaders in order to limit Soviet influence among the Arab states, especially Egypt, which looked to Moscow for help against Britain and France, the remaining colonial powers in the region."[20]

In other words, the US did much worse than stand by and do nothing in Israel's hour of supreme need - it allied with Israel's mortal enemies, the same who had just tried to exterminate the Jews in the War of Independence.

And this was not just any alliance, for the US government sent some of the Nazis it was recruiting to create its intelligence services [see 1945 section] to Egypt, to train the Egyptian military and security services. The same Nazis would train in Cairo Yasser Arafat's Fatah organization, as documented in the following piece:

Al Fatah's Nazi training was CIA-sponsored; by Francisco Gil-White.
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/cia-fatah.htm
 

The Encyclopedia Britannica therefore makes a logical error in the quote above, for it describes the behavior of an enemy state as the behavior of a "potential ally." This is a common error, and therefore a closer analysis of Britannica's behavior will help clarify why ordinary people have such a twisted understanding of US foreign policy in the Middle East.


Why is the Encyclopedia Britannica calling the US
a "potential ally" of Israel?
_______________________

Would anybody refer to Egypt as a "potential ally of Israel"? Of course not - it is absurd to speak this way of an outright enemy. But since the US was allied with Israel's mortal enemies, why then call it a "potential ally of Israel" instead of what it obviously was - an enemy state?

Apparently, because 'everybody knows' that the US is supposed to be allied with Israel. So the words "potential ally" communicate to the Encyclopedia's readers that it was aberrant or at least atypical for the US, in the years 1949 to 1953, to support those seeking the extermination of the Israeli Jews. Britannica tries to back up its insinuation of a 'natural' US-Israeli friendship by 'explaining' that the US position supposedly resulted from real-politick considerations made 'necessary' by the Cold War, and thus by implication not (banish the thought!) from US enmity toward Israel or the Jewish people.

Britannica's readers will accept this argument only if they know nothing of the following:

1) that the US Establishment was in good measure responsible for the rise of the German Nazi party [see 1930's];

2) that Franklin Delano Roosevelt's government actively and enthusiastically cooperated with Hitler's Final Solution, even while fighting the German Nazi armies [see 1939-45];

3) that the US government absorbed thousands of Nazi war criminals from all over Europe - with the blood of millions of Jews, Russians, Slavs, Gypsies, and others on their hands - at the end of WWII in order to create US Intelligence, even as it continued its wartime policy of denying visas to desperate European Jews [see 1945];

4) that the US did not help the Israeli Jews in their 1947-48 War of Independence, but instead slapped an arms embargo on the Israeli Jews and declared it no longer supported the creation of the State of Israel, even as Israel defended itself from the Arab armies that proudly meant to exterminate her people [see 1947-48]; and

5) that neither did the US condemn its close ally, Britain, for exporting captured Nazi war criminals to serve as officers in the Arab armies that attacked Israel [see 1947-48].

In a world with truly independent academic and journalistic institutions, as opposed to covertly corrupted ones, the public would know that up to the year 1953 the US had been a major enemy of Israel, and of the Jews more generally. Run-of-the-mill skepticism would then make it impossible for people to accept the proposition that, in the period immediately following 1953, it was somehow obvious that the US would be Israel's "potential ally". However,

a) this is not a normal world - many crucial facts have been kept from ordinary people by a corrupt mainstream media, and corrupt academic institutions; and, therefore,

b) ordinary people are not normal skeptics - they routinely assume that anything in the Encyclopedia Britannica or the New York Times (etc.) is automatically authoritative and fair, and therefore does not deserve special scrutiny (as it has supposedly already been scrutinized by independent and objective historians and journalists).

Under such circumstances, when prestigious publications repeat, over and over again, and matter-of-factly, that the US supposedly supports Israel, that the US is supposedly Israel's only friend, that the US Congress is supposedly controlled by Israel, etc., etc., ordinary people end up concluding that it's simply true: just as the sky is the color blue and the Pope is a Catholic, the US is... the ally of Israel! Contrary facts - such as the US's alliance during the years 1949-53 with countries pledged to destroy Israel - will be discussed as fleeting aberrations. Not, in other words, as evidence that a skeptic may want to put on the table in order to determine fairly and scientifically whether or not the US ruling elite really is an ally.

But why are the Encyclopedia Britannica and the mass media distorting the truth in order to hide the fact that the US ruling elite attacks the Jews? You can get a clue by taking a look at Leslie Gelb, who is a) a high-powered US government operative involved with US Intelligence and US foreign policy, b) a New York Times journalist, and c) editorial advisor to the Encyclopedia Britannica[20a]:

"Gelb was director of Policy Planning and Arms Control for International Security Affairs at the Department of Defense from 1967 to 1969, winning the Pentagon's highest award, the Distinguished Service Award. Robert McNamara appointed Gelb as director of the project that produced the controversial Pentagon Papers on the Vietnam War.

He was diplomatic correspondent at The New York Times from 1973 to 1977.

He served as an Assistant Secretary of State in the Carter Administration from 1977 to 1979, serving as director of the Bureau of Politico-Military Affairs and winning the Distinguished Honor Award, the highest award of the US State Department.

He returned to the Times in 1981; from then until 1993, he was in turn its national security correspondent, deputy editorial page editor, editor of the Op-Ed Page, and columnist. This period included his leading role on the Times team that won a Pulitzer Prize for Explanatory Journalism in 1986 for a six-part comprehensive series on the "Star Wars" Strategic Defense Initiative).

Gelb became President of the Council on Foreign Relations in 1993 and as of 2005 is its President Emeritus."[20b]

Because mainstream news and academic publications, as we have seen, routinely employ Newspeak (the reality-inverting language of Orwell's 'Big Brother', where war is peace, freedom is slavery, and the US ruling elite is an ally of Israel), wool has been successfully pulled over the eyes of the citizenry, preventing political awareness. This has greatly endangered the survival of the Jewish state, for even Israeli Jews believe the US ruling elite is on their side, and an enemy that has not been recognized is not one that can easily be defended against.

____________________________________________________________

1955 [ mixed ]

The US forces Israel to withdraw from Sinai, but makes some concessions to the Israelis.
____________________________________________________________

In October 1955, Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser beefed up his military considerably with help from the Soviet Union, and then announced a blockade of the Strait of Tiran, Israel's only port south of Elat.

Israeli prime minister David Ben Gurion decided to act.

Since Britain and France wanted to regain the Suez Canal from Egypt, the three countries reached an agreement under which IDF (Israeli Defense Forces) seized the Sinai. The British and French then invaded the canal zone under pretext of protecting it. An infuriated Dwight D. Eisenhower forced the British and French to withdraw. Israel also withdrew, but not before extracting an agreement from the US to place a UN peacekeeping force in the Sinai, and a written promise from Secretary of State John Foster Dulles that the Strait of Tiran would be treated as a protected, international waterway. On the face of it this looks positive, but it is worth pointing out that the Israeli military occupation of the Sinai is what gave Ben Gurion the bargaining leverage to force it.[21] The US's heart was not bleeding for Israel - certainly not the heart of John Foster Dulles, a Nazi supporter whose brother Allen Dulles had been responsible for creating the CIA out of escaped Nazi war criminals.[22]

____________________________________________________________

1955-1965 [ positive (in one regard only) ]

Israel indirectly gets some US weapons.
____________________________________________________________

For the next ten years, Israel received arms from France, and from West Germany. Since West Germany got its weapons from the US, this may be considered indirect US assistance.

Caveat: It is worth pointing out, however, that it wasn't the US selling weapons to the Israelis.[23]

[nikmatdam]

____________________________________________________________

1958 [ negative ]

Israel assists US military intervention in the Middle East; when this places Israel in danger, the US does...nothing.
____________________________________________________________

1958 was a bad year for US and British influence in the Middle East. An army coup in Iraq toppled the pro-Western government there, and Nasser attempted similar subversion in pro-Western Lebanon and Jordan.

"President Eisenhower dispatched the Marines to Lebanon in order to forestall a possible collapse of pro-Western forces there. Israel was requested to allow British overflights for transporting troops to aid the Hashemite regime in Jordan."

Despite the fact that the Israelis obliged the Americans and the British, these latter

"refused to bargain with [Israeli prime minister David] Ben-Gurion about a military or political reward for his compliance with their requests."

But not only that:

"when the Soviets threatened Israel for having opened its airspace to Western forces, and Ben-Gurion, deeply distressed, tried to cancel the permission for overflights, he was strongly rebuked by [US Secretary of State John Foster] Dulles. The incident pointed up Israel's fundamental weakness, and its desperate search for allies against the threat posed by Nasser and Nasserism - and it pointed up also the exploitative attitude of the United States and Great Britain toward Israel..."[24]

____________________________________________________________

1964 [ mixed ]

The US abandoned its previous official policy of trying to get Israel to relinquish the territories won in the War of Independence. Why had it been trying to do this?
____________________________________________________________

Israeli historian Anita Shapira writes:

"It was not until 1964 that an Israeli prime minister was officially welcomed at the White House, when Lyndon Johnson received Levi Eshkol."[25]

This should be terribly surprising to anybody who was assuming that the US and Israel had been the best of friends since the founding of the state. But this is even more surprising:

"In their joint statement at the conclusion of the visit, Johnson proclaimed the need to maintain the territorial integrity of all the states in the region. ...this was the first time Washington abandoned the idea of changing the borders of the 1949 armistice line."

Shapira comments,

"If even a government as friendly to Israel as the government of the United States was not prepared during that perilous [pre-1964] time to guarantee the 1949 borders (what today is called the ‘Green Line’), then Israel’s situation was in truth fraught with great danger, and Ben-Gurion’s obsession with Israel’s fragility was not illusory."

Why does Shapira say the United States was so friendly? The points reviewed above in this chronology make it clear that the US had been an enemy state. Shapira's allegation of US friendship is therefore a gratuitous apology for the US.

It is not her only one. Notice that she first explains with candor that in 1964 "the US abandoned the idea of changing the borders of the 1949 armistice line," which means - what? That up until then, the US had been trying to change those borders. But then Shapira redescribes this policy as follows: "the United States was not prepared during that perilous [pre-1964] time to guarantee the 1949 borders." There is a very big difference between the first statement and the second. Not agreeing to guarantee somebody else's borders is to proclaim neutrality; trying to change Israel's 1949 borders - what the US in fact did - was an outright attack.

Let me explain why.

The 1947 partition line that created Israel had produced a country that was essentially a virtually indefensible (because very narrow) strip of coastline.[26] And yet the Israeli Jews accepted this partition. The Palestinian Arabs did not accept and, with the surrounding Arab states, and aided by Britain, attacked the state of Israel and boasted of the impending genocide of the Jews.[27]

But the Israeli Jews stunned the world by winning the war, and they marginally thickened their narrow strip of coastline as a result. This made it a wee bit easier to defend. The resulting border is what Shapira calls the "1949 armistice line" and also "the Green Line."

Now, an attacked state is under no obligation to give back territory that its enemies lost after launching an unprovoked war of aggression - especially when they made it very clear that they meant to commit genocide and, moreover, had not abandoned this insane goal. And the survival of the Jewish state required securing its borders against further such attacks, which the Arab states had promised would be forthcoming (and they made their aggressive promises entirely credible by directing continuous terrorist attacks against Jewish farmers on Israel's borders - see 1949-53 section). Thus, if it was only in 1964 that "Washington abandoned the idea of changing the borders of the 1949 armistice line," what follows? That up until 1964 the US had been waging a diplomatic attack against Israel, attempting to strip it of territory that Israel had legitimately won, and which was indispensable to its defense against terrorist states pledged to the extermination of the Jewish people.

By describing the US's behavior in a completely different way, as a failure to guarantee Israel's borders, Shapira is apologizing for the US.

I note that Anita Shapira is considered a Zionist. If you are an ordinary person - i.e. not a historian of Israel - and you come across her arguments, you will find yourself having to choose between the following two interpretations:

a) either Anita Shapira, an Israeli patriot, cannot reason about who Israel's friends are, or

b) since Anita Shapira is the historian, and you aren't, she must know a lot more about US policies over the years, and so you take what she says on her implicit authority that there are other facts which mitigate the impression of US enmity towards Israel.

Ordinary people are at a disadvantage in terms of access to information, and they are of a respectful and generous disposition towards figures of established authority, so they will tend to choose interpretation b.

The documentation in this piece is meant to empower ordinary people to ask the question: Where are those mitigating facts that supposedly establish the friendliness of the US towards Israel? Can anybody list them?

____________________________________________________________

1964-1967 [ negative ]

Although Israel suffered terrorist attacks from its Arab neighbors during these years, when they staged a full-scale military provocation, the US refused to help.
____________________________________________________________

For years prior to the 1967 war, there were terrorists attacks against Israeli civilians from the Jordanian and Syrian borders, while Nasser promised an impending Arab genocide of the Jews.

"…Syria used the Golan Heights, which tower 3,000 feet above the Galilee, to shell Israeli farms and villages. Syria's attacks grew more frequent in 1965 and 1966, while Nasser's rhetoric became increasingly bellicose: 'We shall not enter Palestine with its soil covered in sand,' he said on March 8, 1965. 'We shall enter it with its soil saturated in blood.'"[28]

To get an idea of Nasser's mood and intentions immediately prior to the 1967 war, consider this speech which the Egyptian President gave to the Arab Trade Unionists on May 26, 1967

[Quote From Nasser To Arab Trade Unionists Starts Here]

"If Israel embarks on an aggression against Syria or Egypt, the battle against Israel will be a general one and not confined to one spot on the Syrian or Egyptian borders. The battle will be a general one and our basic objective will be to destroy Israel. I probably could not have said such things five or even three years ago. If I had said such things and had been unable to carry them out my words would have been empty and worthless.

Today, some eleven years after 1956, I say such things because I am confident. I know what we have here in Egypt and what Syria has. I also know that other States Iraq, for instance, has sent its troops to Syria; Algeria will send troops; Kuwait also will send troops. They will send armored and infantry units. This is Arab power. This is the true resurrection of the Arab nation, which at one time was probably in despair."[28]

[Quote From Nasser To Arab Trade Unionists Ends Here]

Then, in 1967, the Arab countries surrounding Israel mobilized, staging a provocation. Israeli foreign minister Abba Eban went on an emergency trip seeking French, British, and American aid. He got nothing.[29]


A short reflection on propaganda
_____________________________

Journalist Dilip Hiro recently wrote an article about US meddling in the Middle East, where he presents what is supposed to be a brief history of it. His account includes the following paragraph:

"The emergence of Israel in 1948 added a new factor. Following its immediate recognition of Israel, Washington devised a military-diplomatic strategy in the region which rested on the triad of Saudi Arabia, Iran, and the new state of Israel, with the overall aim of keeping Soviet influence out of the Middle East. While each member of the troika was tied closely to the U.S., and links between Iran and Israel became progressively tighter, Saudi Arabia and Israel, though staunchly anti-Communist, remained poles apart. Nonetheless, the overall arrangement remained in place until the Islamic revolution in Iran in 1979."[29a]

What Dilip Hiro writes is false, of course. We have seen (sticking only to the most significant stuff), that:

1) In the 1930s, the US ruling class sponsored the antisemitic (among other things) American eugenics movement, and sponsored also the rise of the especially antisemitic German eugenics movement, which came to be known as German "National Socialism," or Nazism. [see section on 1930s]

2) During World War II, the United States had a visa and war policy designed to assist the "Final Solution," as the Nazis called their extermination program against the European Jewish population. [see section 1939-45]

3) After the war, the United States absorbed the entire Nazi war criminal infrastructure and out of that created US Intelligence. [see section 1945]

4) In 1947, the United States was opposed to the creation of the State of Israel and voted "pro" in the UN only because the Soviet Union made a passionate speech in favor of a Jewish state where this people could live safe from genocide. [see section 1947-48]

5) During Israel's War of Independence the United States did not help Israel. On the contrary, the US, even as Israelis were being murdered by the Arab armies that had promised to exterminate the Israeli Jews, slapped an arms embargo on the Israeli Jews. For good measure, the US government reversed itself and officially declared its opposition to the creation of the State of Israel. This reversal was defeated by the largest demonstration of ordinary Americans ever seen in the streets of New York City, which was called to protest the policy reversal. Meanwhile, Great Britain, the United States' closest ally, was assisting the combined Arab attempt to destroy Israel. [see section 1947-48]

6) In the period 1949-53, the United States allied with Israel's mortal enemies during a very difficult period in which Israel's existence was always in the balance. [see section 1949-53]

7) Up to the year 1964 the United States had been trying to take territory away from Israel, and in the period 1964-1967 the US did absolutely nothing while Israel's Arab enemies once again attempted to destroy her (unless the US was secretly assisting these enemies). [see section 1964]

Let us now read again what journalist Dilip Hiro wrote:

"Following its immediate recognition of Israel, Washington devised a military-diplomatic strategy in the region which rested on the triad of Saudi Arabia, Iran, and the new state of Israel, with the overall aim of keeping Soviet influence out of the Middle East. ...each member of the troika was tied closely to the U.S. ...[and] the overall arrangement remained in place until the Islamic revolution in Iran in 1979."

What Dilip Hiro writes is obviously intended to feed the belief that the United States and Israel have been supposedly joined at the hip ever since Israel was created. But this is propaganda. Washington did not immediately recognize Israel, and Israel was in no sense tied closely to the US. Neither did any such alliance last until 1979 because it didn't exist in the first place. On the contrary, Israel's existence was constantly threatened thanks significantly to US foreign policy.

I point out that Dilip Hiro isn't nobody. He is a veteran journalist who has written many articles over the years in the following publications: The Observer, The New York Times, the Weekend Australian, The Independent, The Guardian, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, and The Toronto Star.

Dilip Hiro is a big-deal journalist, and he is sold as an expert on the Middle East.

But Dilip Hiro's propaganda is not a monopoly of the mainstream media. The text I quoted is from an article that Dilip Hiro wrote for TomDispatch.com, which sells itself as "a regular antidote to the mainstream media."

____________________________________________________________

1967 [ negative ]

After the Six-Day War, the US put pressure on Israel to relinquish the territory gained, even though it knew it was indispensable to Israeli defense.
____________________________________________________________

Following another surprising Israeli victory in the 1967 war, Israel ended up controlling the Sinai, the Golan Heights, the Gaza Strip, and the West Bank. In November of that year, the UN Security Council passed UN Resolution 242 which called for

"Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict."[30]

This was simply outrageous because earlier that year - despite being victorious after yet another genocidal provocation - Israeli prime minister Levi Eshkol had immediately offered Israel's Arab enemies to take back these territories on condition that they promise never to attack Israel again. The Arabs refused.[31]

You read correctly: that's all the Israelis were asking, and nothing like this -- not even remotely like it -- has ever happened in the history of warfare. Never before has a victorious state, after defending itself against an attack, and winning territory, offered to give it back in exchange for a promise of peace. And that's without mentioning that the attack was an attempted genocide [see section 1964-67].

But the Arabs refused!

Given this, how could the UN Security Council now demand that Israel return these territories? That was simply absurd, not to mention immoral. The US could have used its veto power in the Security Council to stop this resolution, but didn't.

Matters, however, are worse, because according to University of Pennsylvania political science professor Ian Lustick, the US has adopted Resolution 242 as its official policy.

"[US] policy, in some sense, has stayed, in a formal way, more or less where it’s always been, which is not a bad place. That is, officially, we believe that there ought to be a solution based on Resolution 242, which seems to suggest almost complete Israeli withdrawal from the territories, except for mutually agreed changes."[31a]

That was said in 2002. It is likely that Ian Lustick knows what he is talking about on this point, because he works for US Intelligence.[31b]

But the most important point here is that this policy of the United States is one that the US pursues even though it knows it will prepare the ground for the destruction of Israel. The demonstration follows.

Immediately after the 1967 Six Day War, a Memorandum for the [US] Secretary of Defense that had for subject “Middle East Boundaries,” and signed by Earle G. Wheeler, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was submitted. 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.”[31c]

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...”[31c]

On the Syrian border,

“Israel must hold the commanding terrain east of the boundary of 4 June 1967 which overlooks the Galilee area.”[31c]

This is a reference to the Golan Heights, from which the Syrians had been shelling Israeli farmers in the Galilee, as we saw above (see 1964-67 section). The Pentagon study concurs: “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.”[31c]

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.”[31c]

Now, since the surrounding Arab states have remained pledged to destroy Israel, these territories are absolutely indispensable as a buffer against the next attack. But this is the territory from which the US, in its official policy, as Ian Lustick explains, would like Israel completely to withdraw from. What would be the effect of such a withdrawal? That Israel would become vulnerable once again to a combined Arab attack, as the 1967 Pentagon study quoted here makes clear (so it is not as if the US mistakenly thinks that Israel can defend itself without these territories).

If the US wants Israel to withdraw from territories that, according to the same US, Israel absolutely needs in order to protect itself from its antisemitic and genocidal enemies, can the US be an ally of Israel?

____________________________________________________________

[nikmatdam]

1967-70 [ negative ]

The Arabs attack the Israelis. The US response is to try and remove the Israelis from territory they need for their defense.
____________________________________________________________

What became known as the War of Attrition began as early as 1967 with Egyptian shelling of Israeli positions near the Suez Canal. It was a costly war that took the lives of 1,424 Israeli soldiers and more than 100 civilians, there were also another 2000 soldiers and 700 civilians wounded.

The United States worked to reward the Egyptians by pushing for a cease-fire and negotiations that would lead to an Israeli withdrawal. But Egypt violated the cease-fire. "Despite the Egyptian violations, the UN-sponsored talks resumed... The talks were swifly short-circuited, however, by UN Special Envoy Gunnar Jarring, when he accepted the Egyptian interpretation of Resolution 242 and called for Israel's total withdrawal to the pre-June 5, 1969, demarcation lines."[32]

Simultaneously, Yasser Arafat's PLO launched terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians from Jordanian territory.

In 1969-70 the US proposed the Rogers Plan, after Richard Nixon's Secretary of State William Rogers. The point of this plan was, among other outrages, to enforce UN Resolution 242, which called for Israeli withdrawal from the territories that a Pentagon study (see 1967 section) had identified as indispensable to Israeli defense!

The Israelis were naturally dead set against this, and on December 22, 1969, Israel's cabinet formally rejected the Rogers Plan. However Israel's hand was forced by the fact that the Soviets were heavily involved with Egypt's attack. "[W]hen Israeli fighter planes shot down four Egyptian planes flown by Soviet pilots..., [f]earing Soviet retaliation, and uncertain of American support, Israel in August accepted a cease-fire and the application of Resolution 242."[33]

Caveat: "In a [apparently non-binding] vote in the US Congress in 1970, 70 Senators [70%] and 280 Representatives [64%] rejected Secretary of State Rogers' peace plan as being too one-sided against Israel."[34]

____________________________________________________________

1970 [ positive ]

Washington temporarily abandons the diplomatic effort to make Israel withdraw from the territories.
____________________________________________________________

In 1970 Jordan's King Hussein led a punishing attack against the PLO terrorists who had taken over the areas of Jordan bordering Israel, from which they committed terrorist outrages not only against Israeli civilians but also Jordanian civilians and foreigners.[35] This led to great tensions with Syria, but Syria did not invade Jordan, apparently to avoid a conflict with Israel. "It was widely believed in Washington that deployment of Israeli troops along the Jordan River had deterred a large-scale Syrian invasion of Jordan. As a result, President Richard M. Nixon increasingly viewed Israel as an important strategic asset, and the Rogers Plan was allowed to die."[36]

Caveat: Notice again, however, that this had nothing to do with the US caring about Israel. The deeply anti-Israel Rogers Plan was abandoned only when the US discovered strategic reasons to support Israel against Soviet client states such as Syria, and to protect its own client state, Jordan. And, as we've seen above [see 1967 section], the Rogers plan was not, in fact, really allowed to die. US official policy has always been the implementation of UN Resolution 242, which was the core of the Rogers Plan.

____________________________________________________________

1973 [ positive ]

The US assisted Israel in the Yom Kippur War
____________________________________________________________

The Yom Kippur war of 1973 was a joint surprise attack by Egypt and Syria that caught the Israelis unprepared. They were facing catastrophe, and turned to the US. The Americans at first were reluctant, but "Washington's reluctance to help Israel changed rapidly when the Soviet Union launched its own resupply effort to Egypt and Syria."[37]

Caveat: Notice that the US was reluctant to help, and did not intervene until its prestige in the Cold War context was threatened by the involvement of the Soviets on the other side.

When Zionist Jews, grateful for the support Israel supposedly gets from the US, wish to defend the argument that the US is a friend, they can only mention three substantive points.

1) the war of 1973

2) the financial aid Israel gets from the US (only a bit more than what Egypt gets), and

3) the weapons Israel gets from the US (less than what Saudi Arabia gets; see 1979 section).

That's all one can list. We see here that one should not consider US help in 1973 as a sign of 'friendship' or alliance. The US was just making Cold War moves, and this one turned out to be convenient. When such moves are not convenient, the US goes right back to attacking Israel.

Further below I will address the issues of financial and military aid, and I will show that these, too, are mirages.

____________________________________________________________

1973-1975 [ negative ]

The US supported the election of a pro-PLO Nazi war criminal to the post of UN Secretary General.
____________________________________________________________

Immediately after the Arab defeat of 1973, “the heads of state present” at the Arab League summit convened in Algiers on 26-28 November 1973, “recognized the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) as the only representative of the Palestinian people.”[37a] They had decided that defeating Israel required a new strategy, so the push began to demand the creation of a 'Palestinian' state in the West Bank, led by someone who could be counted on never to stop until he had exterminated the Jews: Yasser Arafat. In 1974 the governing body of the PLO, the Palestine National Council, produced the 'Plan of Phases,' a Trojan Horse strategy that would promise peace in return for allowing the PLO into the Jewish State.[37b]

Arafat had been mentored by the Mufti Hajj Amin, one of the top leaders of Hitler's Final Solution, who bequeathed to his protégé an Islamist and antisemitic genocidal ideology. Veteran's of the Mufti's terrorist Arab Higher Committee helped form Arafat's al Fatah organization, which, by 1970 had swallowed the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO - formed in 1964), while keeping its name.[38] Arafat's movement, therefore, is essentially an unbroken link in a chain of genocide, a direct extension of Hitler's Final Solution. A state led by Arafat's terrorist organization could be armed to the teeth by other Arab states, thus resuming the charge to destroy Israel and exterminate the Jews.

That this demand for a Palestinian state represented a strategy by the Arab states to extend their genocidal attacks against Israel through other means is quite obvious. In fact, they began pushing the idea in 1969 over the objections of none other than Yasser Arafat, on whose behalf they were supposedly doing this![39] Arafat evidently felt this new strategy of extermination was too slow, and he didn't pronounce himself dramatically and publicly in favor until 1977.[40]

The problem here was political: in order to get international pressure on Israel to allow a Palestinian state in the West Bank, the Palestinians had to be presented as victims. How to do this? It was not easy because the Israeli occupation was quite benign, despite the fact that the acquired territories were inhabited by an enemy population that had supported a genocidal war against Israeli Jews in 1967.[41]

So presenting Palestinians as 'victims' required defining 'oppression' as the absence of a Palestinian state, and blaming this absence on the Israelis, never minding (1) that the Palestinian Arabs had refused the UN partition creating such a state in 1947[19]; (2) that the Jordanians, who had illegally occupied the West Bank in 1948 had not bothered to create a "Palestinian" Arab state by 1967; and 3) that the Arab states refused Israel's offer to take back the lands lost in 1967 in return for a promise of peace (see 1967 section).

The first salvo attacking Israel for having had to defend itself [!] was, as we saw, UN Resolution 242, which was passed immediately after the Arab defeat of 1967. Then, as the campaign for a PLO state gathered steam in the 1970s, two new attacks from the UN. The first was in 1974, when Yasser Arafat, the genocidal antisemite and protegé of a leading Nazi war criminal, was invited to give a speech to the UN General Assembly, and was received with the protocols of a chief of state [!].[42] The second came a year later when the UN passed Resolution 3379 which equated Zionism with racism [!].[43]

It was a Nazi war criminal, Kurt Waldheim, who presided over both these events as UN Secretary General.[44]

This was the Nazis celebrating the Nazis, using their control of the highest world forum to attack the Jews.

Accusations that Waldheim was a Nazi war criminal were made at the time.[45] Did US officials know that Kurt Waldheim was a Nazi war criminal? But of course. As the New Republic explained in 1986, Waldheim participated in

"...the ‘Kozara Massacres’ [which] took place on West Bosnia (now Yugoslavia), under the command of General Friedrich Stahl. In the campaign 71 Germans died, 5,000 of the enemy were killed (including many noncombatants), and 12,000 taken prisoner. In a ‘cleansing operation’ afterward, hundreds of peasants were shot. Sixty-eight thousand [68,000] local inhabitants, including 23,000 children, were taken away to be murdered at the local concentration camp of Jasenovac."[51a]

For his exertions in this massive slaughter of innocent Serbs, Jews, and Roma (Gypsies), Kurt Waldheim was given the Zvonimir medal by the Ustashe Croatian fascists, an honor “awarded to only three German officers - out of some 20,000 German soldiers in that campaign.”

The above is but a portion, and it would take us too far afield to list here the entire criminal dossier of this man, but the point is that Waldheim was a well-known Nazi exterminator. It would be entirely remarkable if US Intelligence, which was created by absorbing tens of thousands of Nazi war criminals (see 1945 section), didn't know who Kurt Waldheim was. So the US ruling elite had to know what it was doing when, on the eve of Waldheim's becoming UN Secretary General,

"George Bush, the American [UN] delegate, issued a statement saying that Mr. Waldheim was 'ideally equipped' for the job."[51b]

That was George Bush Sr., and he likely knew precisely who Waldheim was when he said that because he was already connected with the CIA.[45a] Shortly thereafter, Bush would become Director of the CIA, and later president of the United States.

In fact the US ruling elite liked Waldheim so much that they later lobbied passionately to get him a third term at the UN (blocked by China).[46] Doesn't that suggest, then, that the policy of demonization of Israel in order to create a PLO state was not only an Arab and UN policy, but also a US policy?

Read on...

____________________________________________________________

1975 [ negative ]

The US reached an agreement with Israel not to have contacts with the PLO. The US immediately violated the agreement.
____________________________________________________________

In 1975 the US reached an agreement with Israel not to have any contact with the PLO. However, in 1981 the New York Times wrote that,

"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."[47]

The word 'several' corresponds very well to the number of years that had gone by since the agreement: six. It appears, therefore, that the US violated its agreement with Israel immediately after signing it - but definitely by 1977, as we shall see below.

The New York Times also explains the methods the CIA used to circumvent this agreement.

"The Central Intelligence Agency regularly employs private contractors. In recent years, the State Department has used private intermediaries with the Palestine Liberation Organization, the Government having promised Israel not to deal officially with the P.L.O."[47a]

____________________________________________________________

1977 [ negative ]

Jimmy Carter worked hard to give the terrorist PLO the dignity of a 'government in exile,' and then he teamed up with the Soviets to try and saddle Israel with a PLO terrorist state next door.
____________________________________________________________

A busy year.

The UN strategy to demonize Israel and make the PLO appear respectable had worked beautifully, so that by 1977 a young West Bank Palestinian interviewed by Newsweek could say: "Unlike ten years ago, we now have the sympathy of the entire world."[48] The world's political climate having thus shifted to the degree necessary, US president Jimmy Carter, choosing his moment carefully, declared publicly his support for a "Palestinian homeland." This is what the New York Times reported on May 13, 1977:

“[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.”[48a]

It is certainly of some interest that the US president came out in favor of a PLO state (what 'Palestinian homeland' has always meant) before the PLO ever supported the idea. In fact, before the US president's announcement of his support for a 'Palestinian homeland,' the PLO had been the staunchest opponent of a PLO state in the West Bank and Gaza! This is worth a short detour.

Consider this note from 1969:

“… 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.”[48b]

Al Fatah is the dominant faction within the PLO - it calls all the shots. The Palestinian National Council is the legislative body of the PLO. Thus, what we have above is a total rejection by the PLO, in 1969, of a PLO state in the West Bank.

In 1970, after the PLO caused a civil war in Jordan, the issue of giving the PLO a state in the West Bank was again discussed. Again, the PLO said no, as reported in the New York Times:

"There has been speculation that the establishment of a Palestinian state in Jordan's west-bank territory, now under Israeli occupation, might be raised as a solution for the Palestinians. Any discussion of this issue here [in Egypt] with Mr. Arafat, however, has been secret. The commando chief has publicly criticized the proposal."[48g]

Why didn't the PLO want its own state in the West Bank?

The answer to that question will be found in the PLO Charter - or perhaps I should say charters (plural) as there have been two. The first charter dates from 1964, and in article 24 it states:

Article 24: This Organization does not exercise any territorial sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or in the Himmah Area.[48c]

The PLO went out of its way, as you can see above, to state that the West Bank and Gaza (1) were not "Palestinian" lands, (2) belonged rightfully to Jordan and Egypt, respectively, and (3) were of no interest to the PLO. In 1968, however, the PLO Charter was rewritten and this is the charter that remains current to this day. This second charter states the following in its first two articles:

Article 1: Palestine is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people.

Article 2: Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit.[48d]

The boundaries of the territory called "Palestine" during the British Mandate included the West Bank and Gaza, plus the rest of present day Israel.[48e] This means that in the 1968 Charter, the PLO did now begin claiming the West Bank and Gaza as "Palestinian" lands. Why the abrupt 180-degree reversal? Because the year before, in 1967, after the surrounding Arab states had provoked a war with the goal of exterminating the Israeli Jews, the Israelis had emerged victorious, and had captured the West Bank and the Gaza strip.

In other words, there is no such thing as a fixed "Palestinian land" as far as the PLO is concerned; there is just land that Jews live on. Since the Jews returned to live in the West Bank and Gaza after 1967, these territories - which the PLO had explicitly maintained it had nothing to do with - suddenly became of great interest to the PLO and were called for the first time "Palestinian" by the PLO. This is easily explained, because the PLO's purpose is to exterminate the Israeli Jews, as specified most explicitly in the PLO Charter.[48f] This is why Article 9 of the 1968 charter says that “armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine.” In other words, wherever Jews live in the Middle East, the PLO will claim that this is "Palestinian" land that has to be liberated exclusively by killing Jews. Any appearance that the PLO is conducting peaceful negotiations is merely a front [see 2005 section].

So, the reason the PLO was for a long time reluctant to join the call for a PLO state is that the tactical and temporary abandonment of a policy to kill all the Jews in the Middle East was a bitter pill to swallow for an organization that was in a big hurry to complete the ecstatic extermination that is its mission.

None of this, of course, was a secret to US President Jimmy Carter. The Arab states, since 1969, had been pushing for a PLO state in the West Bank and Gaza. And after the Arab defeat in the 1973 war, Arafat had promulgated in 1974 his "Plan of Phases", “according to which the Palestine Liberation Organization [PLO] would acquire whatever territory it could by negotiations, then use that land as a base for pursuing its ultimate goal of Israel’s annihilation.”[48h]

So this is the context in which Jimmy Carter announced his support for a "Palestinian homeland" in 1977. In other words, the US president had to know that his statement would be interpreted as support for a PLO state, and he knew also that such a state would be dedicated to the extermination of the Israeli Jews.

And how interesting that the PLO, less than a week after the announcement by the US President, followed suit and declared itself for the first time in support of a West Bank PLO state.

"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…"[49]

Of course, this did not mean that the PLO was abandoning its goal of destroying Israel.[50] It meant only that, following the US president's lead, it was shifting tactics. But how come the US president and the PLO leadership appeared so coordinated, announcing their new positions within a week of each other? Were they working together through that back channel that the New York times talks about (see above)?

Two months later, on July 22, as if to grease the wheels of the claim just endorsed by the American president, "Yasir Arafat's Palestine Liberation Organization became the first nonstate ever granted membership in a United Nations organization... The PLO [now] has observer status in the United Nations itself."[51]

To give a terrorist organization the status of a government at the UN is an outrage. But the UN does not commit outrages like this left and right. The Tamil Tigers, for example, do not have a seat at the UN. Neither does Al Qaeda. So the UN was careful to honor the terrorist organization that needed to be legitimized in order to destroy Israel.

The US appeared to be on Israel's side when it denounced the elevation of the PLO to the status of a government at the UN. Was it?

You may answer that question for yourself. The man inducting the PLO into the UN, which policy the US government officially said it opposed, was Nazi war criminal Kurt Waldheim. But this is the same Waldheim for whom the US government had lobbied, saying that he was perfect for the top UN job, even though it knew perfectly well who Waldheim was [see 1974-75 section]. So one can certainly be suspicious that the US government's official opposition to UN membership for the PLO was hypocritical.

Our suspicion is rewarded. Underneath the surface, the US was playing a very different game. Two days before the US protested, alongside Israel, that the PLO was being inducted into the UN, it had already been reported that the Carter administration and the PLO were "involved in secret high-level contacts."[52] And just one week later, on August 2:

"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."[53] (my emphasis)

So what happened is this:

Loudly, the US government said, "no to government status for the PLO at the UN." Much more quietly, it said, "yes to government status for the PLO so it can negotiate for a Palestinian state at Geneva." Since it was the UN that organized the Geneva peace conference, and since a state run by the PLO would allow the PLO a seat at the UN anyway, the second American statement exactly denies the first.[54] Hmm... When the US's loud public barks and its cupped-hand whispers to the side contradict each other, guess which is the real policy? Read on...

Things were moving fast. Less than a week later, on August 8, the US was said to be

"anxious over [the] Israeli refusal to accept 2 Arab pre-conditions to [the Geneva peace] conf[erence], including relinquishment of most of the territory occupied since [the] '67 war, and acknowledgement of right for existence of some kind of Palestinian state."[55]

And just a month after that, on September 18, the US State Dept. announced that

"Palestinians [i.e. the PLO] should be involved in [the] peacemaking process at Geneva... [The] Israeli press [saw these] US moves and comments as leaning towards establishment of [a] separate Palestinian state, anathema to most Israelis."[56]

Clearly, the US wanted a PLO state on the territory Israel had gained in 1967, despite the fact that a Pentagon study had already concluded this would mean the destruction of Israel [see 1967 section]. US diplomacy, with the prestige of a world power that supposedly defends democracy, was teaching people everywhere a lesson about what they ought to see as just and fair. People learned that it was just and fair for the Arab states to demand a Palestinian state run by a genocidal antisemitic terrorist in strategic Israeli territory in return for -- for what? In return for an Arab promise to cease attacking Israel with the goal of exterminating the Jews, as they had done in 1967.

You may pop your eyes back into your head, if you can find them. If it looks like an absurdity, and walks like an absurdity... (And if it looks like a US attack on Israel, and walks like a US attack on Israel...)

But the US was not quite done. Two weeks later, on October 1st, the US and the USSR published the "Joint U.S.-Soviet statement on the Middle East," stating their joint position in matters relating to the proposed Geneva peace conference.[57] This called for negotiating with the PLO to create a Palestinian state if the PLO accepted UN Resolution 242 (which resolution was an outrage against the Israelis [see 1967 section]), and if they accepted Israel's right to exist.

Israel then went into high gear and "Israeli leaders... made strenuous efforts to realign Israel's policy with that of the United States." They had to, because in reaching an agreement with the Soviet Union that the PLO should govern a Palestinian state in the West Bank, the US had neglected to consult its supposed ally, Israel. The US had tried to pull a fast one. Vigorous negotiations by Israeli Foreign Minister Moshe Dayan in New York yielded the Israel-US working paper on Geneva on October 5.

"In this paper, Israel in effect rejected the U.S.-Soviet statement, insisted on Resolution 242 as the basis for talks but said that 242 did not mean territorial withdrawal; the PLO was not mentioned and there would be no Palestinian state."[58]

In other words, Dayan's emergency diplomacy prevented the disaster that the US had deceitfully, and in collusion with the Soviet Union, tried to bring on Israel.

The US is supposed to be a friend. But wouldn't an enemy of Israel try hard to set up a Palestinian state run by a genocidal terrorist whose movement is an extension of the Final Solution? And wouldn't an enemy use deception to get other powerful states (the Arabs, the USSR) to gang up on tiny Israel?

When people excuse the US's dirty tricks in foreign policy, they usually do so by saying that it was supposedly necessary to fight the Cold War. Now they say it is necessary to fight the supposed war on terrorism. The US has always cultivated an image that opposes both terrorists and communists. Here, however, neither explanation could work. This was done on behalf of the PLO terrorists and it was done in collusion with the communist Cold War enemy, the Soviet Union. In other words, even the pretense of opposing terrorists, and the fight against the comunists, are both abandoned when it comes to Israel, because attacking Israel is apparently more important than all that!

So how is the behavior of the US different from that of an enemy of Israel?

____________________________________________________________

1978 [ negative ]

When Israel tried to defend itself from the PLO terrorists, the US forced Israel to stand back
____________________________________________________________

The PLO was killing Israeli civilians from its bases in southern Lebanon, so Israel invaded southern Lebanon in 1978.

The United States reaction?

“In June 1978, Prime Minister [Menachem] Begin, under intense American pressure, withdrew Israel's Litani River Operation forces from southern Lebanon… The withdrawal of Israeli troops without having removed the PLO from its bases in southern Lebanon became a major embarrassment to the Begin government…”[58a]

Keep in mind that the US invaded Panama on the official grounds that one American soldier had been killed. But when scores of Israeli civilians were being murdered by the PLO terrorists, the US would not allow Israel to protect itself.

____________________________________________________________

1979 [ negative ]

Jimmy Carter began large-scale US sponsorship of antisemitic Islamist terrorists, especially in Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia.
____________________________________________________________

The Carter administration began an effort, in tandem with the Islamist Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and the Islamist president of Pakistan (Zia ul Haq), to fund an Islamist terrorist force in Afghanistan, which effort Reagan later intensified.[59] The point of this was to suck the Soviet Union into a quagmire, and it succeeded. One of the consequences of this policy was that these Islamist terrorists spawned an international underground mercenary movement known as the 'mujahedin,' as well as international terrorist organizations that mobilize Muslim hatred of Jews, such as Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda.

Carter also began at this time a secret buildup of Saudi Arabia's military, which Reagan also continued, and which made this country

"ultimately...the largest beneficiary of U.S. weapons sales in the entire world [and] one of the most heavily armed countries in the world."[60]

We are speaking, of course, of the country that funds the Palestinian extremists and which stirs antisemitic Islamism all over the globe; a country whose minister of the interior is charged with looking after the health of the Palestinian terrorist movement;[61] a country whose government-sponsored clerics daily recommend the slaughter of Jews in their sermons.[62]\

The year after this US military buildup of Saudi Arabia began, Saudi King Fahd explained in public what he meant by jihad:

“In 1980, King Fahd of Saudi Arabia gave a clear definition: ‘What is meant by jihad is a united, comprehensive, integrated Arab-Islamic confrontation in which we place all our resources and our spiritual, cultural, political, material and military potential in a long and untiring ‘Holy War’ against Israel, of course, who else?’”[62a]

Given that the US has made this country "the largest beneficiary of U.S. weapons sales in the entire world," whose side is the US on? Israel's? Some will say, "But Saudi Arabia is buying its weapons; this is not a US handout." Yes, however, there is no such thing as 'just business,' here, because the Saudis mean to destroy Israel. If you call yourself my friend and you sell a gun to someone you know has been hired to kill me, the fact that the hired assassin paid for the gun will not work as a defense for your behavior.

Others will say, "But the US ruling elite is doing this for cheap oil." Emperor's Clothes has produced much analysis to show that US foreign policy is not conducted primarily to obtain cheap oil, as many claim.[62b] But even if we were to accept the "it's for oil" hypothesis, we are left with the fact that the US ruling elite wants cheap oil badly enough to turn itself into an effective enemy of Israel, arming more than any other country in the world a state committed to the extermination of the Israeli Jews. Whether or not the US ruling elite produces a policy out of a specific animosity against the Israeli Jews or because of some other interest, the question that matters is this: What are the material consequences - for Israel - of US foreign policy? If the consequences of this policy are that Israel ends up destroyed, will it matter if the US did it to get cheap oil?

Something else that happened in the year 1979 is that Jimmy Carter set in motion the Iranian 'hostage crisis,' partly in order to raise the prestige of the PLO:

[nikmatdam]

Grand Theater: The US, The PLO, and the Ayatollah Khomeini.
http://www.hirhome.com/iraniraq/plo-iran.htm
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?
 

Continue to the year 1981 and beyond:
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hirally2.htm

____________________________________________________________

Footnotes and Further Reading
____________________________________________________________

[1] "How IBM Helped Automate the Nazi Death Machine in Poland," by Edwin Black; Author of "IBM and the Holocaust: The Strategic Alliance Between Nazi Germany and America's Most Powerful Corporation"
Reprinted from Village Voice, Week of March 27 - April 2, 2002
http://emperors-clothes.com/analysis/ibm.htm

[1a] The Independent (London), September 13, 2002, Friday, FEATURES; Pg. 7, 698 words, DRESS-DOWN FRIDAY, Charlotte O'sullivan Monkey talk: George W omits to mention his grandfather's deals with Nazi Germany

"[George W.] Bush's family knew a lot about the Nazis. And guess what? Far from being enraged by Hitler's ambitions, they actively endorsed them. GW's grandfather, Prescott, was married to the daughter of George Herbert Walker, president of the Union Banking Corporation. Through this organisation, both men helped German industrialists consolidate Hitler's political power. In 1942, the Roosevelt administration seized all the corporation's shares, including those held by Prescott Bush (by now a board member) under the Trading With The Enemy Act. The government made clear that huge sections of this business had operated on behalf of Nazi Germany and had greatly assisted its war effort."

Apologists for Prescott Bush will say, for example, that "Bush had [only] one share" in the Union Banking Corp., and that "The documents do not show any evidence Bush directly aided that effort [to assist the Nazis]." This suggests to the reader that Prescott Bush is guilty only if his aid to the Nazis brought him considerable profits in the form of dividends from his shares, and suggests also that to blame him for helping the Nazis we need to find his fingerprint in these particular documents! But why? The Bank was involved in helping the Nazis in a significant way, and "Prescott Bush was one of seven directors of Union Banking Corp." [All the quotes in this paragraph taken from: "Bush Ancestor's Bank Seized by Gov't"; By Jonathon D. Salant; Associated Press; Friday 17 October 2003]

[1b] “Henry Ford, who was so impressed by the efficient way meat packers slaughtered and dismantled animals in Chicago, made his own unique contribution to the slaughter of people in Europe. Not only did he develop the assembly-line method that Germans used to kill Jews, but he launched a vicious anti-Semitic campaign that helped make the Holocaust happen.

In the early 1920s Ford’s weekly newspaper, the Dearborn Independent, published a series of articles based on the text of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, an anti-Semitic tract that had been circulating in Europe. Ford published a book-length compilation of the articles entitled The International Jew, which was translated into most of the European languages and was widely disseminated by anti-Semites, chief among them the German publisher Theodor Fritsch, an early supporter of Hitler. Thanks to a well-financed publicity campaign and the prestige of the Ford name, The International Jew was hugely successful both domestically and internationally. The International Jew found its most receptive audience in Germany where it was known as The Eternal Jew. Ford was enormously popular in Germany. When his autobiography went on sale there, it immediately became the country’s number one bestseller. In the early 1920s The Eternal Jew quickly became the bible of the German anti-Semitism, with Fritsch’s publishing house printing six editions between 1920 and 1922.

After Ford’s book came to the attention of Hitler in Munich, he used a shortened version of it in the Nazi propaganda war against the Jews of Germany. In 1923 a Chicago Tribune correspondent in Germany reported that Hitler’s organization in Munich was ‘sending out Mr. Ford’s books by the carload.’ Baldur von Schirach, the leader of the Hitler Youth movement and the son of an aristocratic German father and American mother, said at the postwar Nuremberg war crimes trial that he became a convinced anti-Semite at age seventeen after reading The Eternal Jew. ‘You have no idea what a great influence this book had on the thinking of German youth. The younger generation looked with envy to symbols of success and prosperity like Henry Ford, and if he said the Jews were to blame, why naturally we believed him.’

Hitler regarded Ford as a comrade-in-arms and kept a life-sized portrait of him on the wall next to his desk in his office in Munich. In 1923 when Hitler heard that Ford might run for President of the United States, he told an American reporter, ‘I wish that I could send some of my shock troops to Chicago and other big American cities to help in the elections. We look to Heinrich Ford as the leader of the growing Fascist movement in America. We have just had his anti-Jewish articles translated and published. The book is being circulated in millions throughout Germany.’ Hitler praised Ford in Mein Kampf, the only American to be singled out. In 1931, when a Detriot News reporter asked Hitler what Ford’s portrait on the wall meant to him, Hitler said, ‘I regard Henry Ford as my inspiration.’

In 1938, on the occasion of his seventy-fifth birthday, Henry Ford, the great admirer of the efficient way they slaughtered and cut up animals in America, accepted the Grand Cross of the Supreme Order of the German Eagle, the highest honor Nazi Germany could bestow on a foreigner (Mussolini was one of the three other foreigners to be so honored).”

SOURCE: “Animals, Slavery, and the Holocaust”; Logos; Spring 2005; vol. 4, iss. 2.; by Charles Patterson
http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_4.2/patterson.htm

[2] Carroll, J. 2001. Constantine's Sword: The Church and the Jews. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. (p.522)

[2a] Levin, K. 2005. The Oslo syndrome: Delusions of a people under siege. Hanover, NH: Smith and Kraus. (p.120)

[2b] The Oslo Syndrome (p.121)

[2c] The Oslo Syndrome (p.122)

[2d] The Oslo Syndrome (p.122)

[2e] The Oslo Syndrome (p.124)

[3] Primary sources for the PBS film "America and the Holocaust"
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/holocaust/filmmore/index.html

[4] "Report to the Secretary on the Acquiescence of this Government in the Murder of the Jews," initialed by Randolph Paul for the Foreign Funds Control Unit of the Treasury Department, January 13, 1944.

SOURCE: Primary sources for the PBS film "America and the Holocaust"
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/holocaust/filmmore/reference/primary/
somereport.html

[5] Memo from Assistant Secretary of State Breckinridge Long, to State Department Officials dated June 26, 1940, outlining effective ways to obstruct the granting of U.S. visas.

SOURCE: Primary sources for the PBS film "America and the Holocaust"
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/holocaust/filmmore/
reference/primary/barmemo.html

[6] Clarence E. Pickett was Executive Secretary of the Quaker organization American Friends Service Committee from 1929-1950.

[7] Letter from Margaret E. Jones, an American Quaker working with European Jews hoping to emigrate to the U.S., expressing her distress at the impact of Breckinridge Long's memo.

SOURCE: Primary sources for the PBS film "America and the Holocaust"
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/holocaust/filmmore/
reference/primary/barletter.html

[8] Entry from Assistant Secretary of State Breckinridge Long's diary in which he notes that President Roosevelt supports his policy of encouraging consulates to "postpone and postpone and postpone" the granting of visas. From: "The War Diary of Breckinridge Long"; ed. Fred L. Israel; University of Nebraska Press, 1966.

SOURCE: Primary sources for the PBS film "America and the Holocaust"
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/holocaust/filmmore/reference/
primary/presentryfrom.html

[9] A report written by Adoph Held, the president of the American Jewish Labor Committee recounting President Roosevelt's 29-minute meeting on December 8, 1942 with a small delegation of American Jewish Leaders.

SOURCE: Primary sources for the PBS film "America and the Holocaust"
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/holocaust/filmmore/reference/
primary/presareport.html

[10] Primary sources for the PBS film "America and the Holocaust"
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/holocaust/filmmore/reference/
primary/index.html#pres

Memorandum of Conversation by Mr. Harry L. Hopkins, Special Assistant to President Roosevelt regarding a meeting with Anthony Eden March 27, 1943:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/holocaust/filmmore/reference/
primary/presmemorandum.html

[11] Primary sources for the PBS film "America and the Holocaust"
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/holocaust/filmmore/reference
/primary/index.html#bomb

To read the summary of the Auschwitz escapees:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/holocaust/filmmore/reference/primary/
bombsummary.html

[12] Primary sources for the PBS film "America and the Holocaust"
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/holocaust/filmmore/reference/
primary/bombcable.html

[13] Primary sources for the PBS film "America and the Holocaust"
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/holocaust/filmmore/reference/
primary/bombjacob.html

[14] Primary sources for the PBS film "America and the Holocaust"
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/holocaust/filmmore/reference/
primary/index.html#bomb

To read the memorandum:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/holocaust/filmmore/reference/
primary/bombthomas2.html

[15] Primary sources for the PBS film "America and the Holocaust"
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/holocaust/filmmore/reference/
primary/bombbenjamin.html

[16] Primary sources for the PBS film "America and the Holocaust"
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/holocaust/filmmore/reference/
primary/bombworld.html

[17] Primary sources for the PBS film "America and the Holocaust"
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/holocaust/filmmore/reference/
primary/index.html#bomb

To read the letter:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/holocaust/filmmore/reference/
primary/bombjohn.html

[18] Carroll, J. 2001. Constantine's Sword: The Church and the Jews. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. (p.231)

[18a] In his history of the eugenics movement, Edwin Black (2003:215) points out that “Winston Churchill [was] an enthusiastic supporter of eugenics.” That's the same eugenics movement out of which came the German Nazi party.

Winston Churchill was also a class warrior who was irrevocably against giving women, and men without property, the right to vote (‘universal suffrage’): “‘We already have enough ignorant voters,’ he remarked, ‘and don’t want any more’” (Addison 2005:50). And he thought a good way to solve labor problems was to shoot striking workers dead. Here’s an example, as explained by Churchill’s biographer Paul Addison, from the period when Winston Churchill was Home Secretary:

“During the summer of 1911, when strikes in the docks spread to the railways, [Winston Churchill] was seized by a nightmare vision... Overriding the local authorities, he dispatched troops to many parts of the country and gave army commanders discretion to employ them. When rioters tried to prevent the movement of a train at Llanelli, troops opened fire and shot two men dead. Churchill’s blood was up and when Lloyd George intervened to settle the strike Churchill telephoned him to say that it would have been better to go on and give the strikers ‘a good thrashing.’” (Addison 2005:54)

Winston Churchill is also on record stating that ‘whites’ can exterminate ‘non-whites’ with impunity:

"I do not admit, for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America, or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher grade race, or at any rate, a more worldly-wise race, to put it that way, has come in and taken their place." (quoted in Addison 2005:137)

With the above for context, one is not exactly surprised to find that Churchill, “In February 1933,” which is the same year that Adolf Hitler became German chancellor, “…praised [Italian fascist leader Benito] Mussolini…as ‘the greatest lawgiver among living men’” (Addison 2005:140). Nor is one surprised to find Churchill’s biographer Paul Addison admitting that “With fascism as such…he had no quarrel” (ibid.). But Addison is understating matters here, and a quick glance at some of Churchill’s behaviors is enough to make one wonder whether World War II will not perhaps deserve a different interpretation from the one traditionally given.

As Addison explains, in 1927 Churchill led a cabinet revolt and thereby derailed an agreement that the United States had been seeking with Britain to allow expansion of the American navy (ibid. pp.126-127). Churchill sprang this stunt, mind you, when the British representatives at the conference had already agreed to sign. This was an obstacle to the further spectacular enrichment of American steel magnate Charles M. Schwab, because it was Schwab who would be providing the steel for an expanded American navy. But he could not exactly be sore with Churchill, who in his earlier capacity as WWI British Minister of Munitions had enriched Schwab spectacularly by placing orders with him (ibid. p.128).

Two years later Schwab would have an opportunity to demonstrate that, indeed, he was not sore at Churchill. You see, in 1929 Winston Churchill ended up ‘on the street,’ so to speak: “The Conservative government was defeated in 1929, and Churchill, now out of office, was in need of income. …[He] was now increasingly dependent on his writing and public speaking to sustain his lifestyle,” as explained in a a Library of Congress exhibit on Churchill that may be inspected here:
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/churchill/wc-affairs.html

For Churchill this was a vexing problem indeed because “his lifestyle” can only be described as royally extravagant, but as chance would have it Charles M. Schwab just now invited the unemployed British politician to promenade himself all around the American continent in Schwab’s private railcar—at no expense (Addison 2005:128).

Like Churchill, Charles M. Schwab was a class warrior who thought the right way to deal with a strike was to crush it by calling in the state police and threatening sympathetic businesses.

"In 1910, he crushed a 108-day strike at Bethlehem Steel. ‘I will not be in the position of having management dictated to by labor,’ he said. It was not until 1941, two years after Schwab died, that organized labor arrived at Bethlehem Steel."
http://www.bethlehempaonline.com/schwab_bio.html

The way Schwab crushed that strike was by calling in the state police and threatening any businesses that sided with the striking workers, as recorded in this Bethlehem Steel timeline called “Forging America: the Story of Bethlehem Steel,” by McCall.com:
http://www.mcall.com/news/specials/bethsteel/all-bstimeline-
1910,0,1493803.htmlstory

Schwab got his start in the steel business ingratiating himself to Andrew Carnegie, another class warrior who believed the way to solve labor disputes was to shoot the strikers dead, and who was the main financier of the American eugenics movement. (The fact that these unimaginably wealthy men found it so easy to get the police organs of the state to act repressively against their own workers is not surprising given that the American government was enthusiastically pushing the anti-worker eugenics movement, as documented extensively in Edwin Black's War Against the Weak).

At Schwab's invitation, then, Churchill now took the mother of all vacations on Schwab’s luxury-hotel-cum-railcar and traveled to city after American city, giving lucrative talks. Matters were arranged so that Winston Churchill would travel down to California to meet with William Randolph Hearst, the man who essentially owned all of Hollywood and half of the United States print media (Addison 2005:128). Hearst wined and dined Churchill at his St. Simeon castle, and assembled for him an audience “dotted with Hollywood figures and pretty much representing the whole film industry,” to whom the British politician declaimed: “You are an educational institution which spreads its influence all over the world…” (Leary 2001). After this Hearst put Churchill on a stipend: “a lucrative contract for Churchill to contribute regular articles to the Hearst Press” (Addison 2005:128-129).

Now Churchill could afford his lifestyle.

The conclusion to Winston Churchill’s remarkable tour of the United States was a speech he gave to the Iron and Steel Institute, where Charles M. Schwab was the CEO. Here there was a miraculous metamorphosis, and the erstwhile bitter enemy of American naval expansion now became its most passionate advocate, because, what could be better for everybody? (Addison 2005:126-127, 129). It doesn’t look good, especially when you consider that prior to making for himself a hero’s reputation during World War II Churchill had been widely considered a shameless and unprincipled opportunist who would do anything to get himself ahead (Addison 2005:44).

But there’s more.

Winston Churchill’s employer, William Randolph Hearst, the same one who in 1936 was being called “the most influential American fascist…the keystone of American fascism” (Lundberg 1936:343), was an intimate friend of the German millionaire Putzi Hanfstaengl, who was nothing less than Adolf Hitler’s financial backer and press secretary (Pizzitola 2002:27-28). Consistent with all that, Hearst attended the famous Nuremberg rallies with the hysterically adoring crowds that Leni Riefenstahl immortalized in her famous Nazi propaganda films, staying in the same hotel with all the top Nazis. Goebbels’ Nazi propaganda ministry went out of its way to report the gushing reactions of Hearst’s son George (ibid. pp.308-310). There were accusations at the time—deserved ones, it appears—that Hearst had made an agreement with Hitler to give him good press in the United States (ibid.).

Soon after two powerful American class warriors, Hearst and Schwab, had turned Winston Churchill, another class warrior, into the obedient advocate of American naval expansion, the future wartime British prime minister, on the eve of Hitler’s coming to power, had a quite friendly meeting with Putzi Hangstaengl. I remind you that Hanfstaengl was Hearst’s good friend and also Hitler’s spokesman and financier (Addison 2005:140). This was soon followed by Churchill’s declaration, as Adolf Hitler was taking power in Germany, that Italian fascist Benito Mussolini was God’s gift to the world (see above). What are we to make of this, in combination with the fact that Churchill’s own eugenic ideology included a rather strongly articulated belief that a good way to rid the world of useless ‘riffraff’ was to get countries to make war on each other?

“...[the] social Darwinian views of war[,] which he had acquired as a subaltern in the 1890s..., were indeed to endure into the Second World War, according to a memorandum in the FBI’s file on Churchill. In an off-the-record discussion with American newspapermen in 1943 [that is to say, during WWII, while the Jews of Europe were being exterminated], a source who had been 'intimately associated' with Churchill reported that someone had asked him how it was that God could make such a beautiful sunrise and then permit so much misery in the world.

Churchill made a lengthy statement that there was no peace on earth save in death; that all life is war, a struggle for survival; that the best in men comes out in time of war; that in times of war the real improvements are achieved, and that under the stress of war tremendous progress is made for the good of living. Churchill stated that when war ends, men settle down to taking things easy, to complacency, and only war will compel more progress.” (Addison 2005:89)

SOURCES:

Addison, P. 2005. Churchill: The unexpected hero. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Black, E. 2003. War against the weak: Eugenics and America's campaign to create a master race. New York: Four Walls Eight Windows.

Leary, D. T. 2001. Winston S. Churchill in California. California History 70:167(17).

Lundberg, F. 1936. Imperial Hearst: A social biography. New York: Equinox Cooperative Press.

Pizzitola, L. 2002. Hearst over Hollywood. New York: Columbia University Press.

[18b] Two interesting excerpts follow. The first is from the Encyclopedia Britannica (the emphasis is mine):

"[Nazi General] Guderian's tanks had swept up past Boulogne and Calais and were crossing the canal defense line close to Dunkirk when, on May 24, an inexplicable order from Hitler not only stopped their advance but actually called them back to the canal line just as Guderian was expecting to drive into Dunkirk. Dunkirk was now the only port left available for the withdrawal of the mass of the BEF [British Expeditionary Force] from Europe...

Three days passed before Brauchitsch, the German Army commander in chief, was able to persuade Hitler to withdraw his orders and allow the German armored forces to advance on Dunkirk. But they met stronger opposition from the British, who had had time to solidify their defenses, and almost immediately Hitler stopped the German armored forces again, ordering them instead to move south and prepare for the attack on the Somme-Aisne line."

Source: "World War II." Encyclopædia Britannica from Encyclopædia Britannica Online.
http://proxy.library.upenn.edu:8409/eb/article?tocId=53541
[Accessed April 4, 2005]

Here is another summary, from the BBC:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/ww2/A1057312

As France fell rapidly, the Allies' northern and southern forces were separated by the German advance from the Ardennes to the Somme. The Allied armies in the north were being encircled.

By 19 May 1940 the British commander, Viscount Gort, was considering the withdrawal of the British Expeditionary Force (BEF) by sea. But London was demanding more action and on 21 May, Gort launched an attack from Arras.

This attack lacked the necessary armour and General Heinz Guderian's tanks continued past Boulogne and Calais to cross the canal defence line close to Dunkirk, the only port left for an Allied withdrawal from Europe.

On 24 May, just as Guderian was expecting to drive into Dunkirk, Hitler gave the surprise order to withdraw back to the canal line. Why the order was given has never been explained fully.

One possible explanation is that Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring, head of the Luftwaffe, assured Hitler that his aircraft alone could destroy the Allied troops trapped on the beaches at Dunkirk. Others believe Hitler felt that Britain might accept peace terms more readily without a humiliating surrender. Whatever the reason, the German halt gave the Allies an unexpected opportunity to evacuate their troops.

Evacuation began on 26 May and gained urgency the next day, when Field Marshal Walter von Brauchitsch, the German Commander-in-Chief, persuaded Hitler to rescind his orders and German tanks again advanced on Dunkirk.

By this time the Allies had strengthened their defences and the tanks met heavy resistance. Almost immediately, Hitler ordered them instead to move south for the imminent attack on the Somme-Aisne line, another lucky break for the Allies.

...By 4 June, when the operation ended, 198,000 British and 140,000 French and Belgian troops had been saved, but virtually all of their heavy equipment had been abandoned.

Notice that the explanations for Hitler's orders to Guderain are not exactly convincing.

Given that "high mist...interfered with the accuracy of the German bombers," as explained by another BBC article on the evacuation, why would Hitler have taken seriously any boast by Goering that his airplanes alone could do the job? Especially given that, in the English Channel, high mist is a daily occurrence and was to be expected in the first place!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/wwtwo/dunkirk_spinning_07.shtml

And in any case, what was the argument against a combined land-air attack?

The other proffered explanation is hardly better. What principle of military theory would hold that declining to win a battle decisively is the way to force the other side to give up? And yet this is what we are told: "Others believe Hitler felt that Britain might accept peace terms more readily without a humiliating surrender."

A decisive, humiliating defeat is precisely what typically forces a country at war to surrender. It was at hand. As the BBC article quoted at length above explains, even with Hitler's orders to Guderain, "the Germans had taken over a million Allied prisoners in three weeks at a cost of 60,000 casualties." Another little push and nothing would have been left of Britain's ability to fight, making it easy for Hitler to force his terms of surrender. So what Hitler did is precisely the opposite of what he should have done if what he wanted was for Britain to surrender. Especially considering that, as the same article explains, "the evacuation was a major boost to British morale and enabled the Allies to fight another day."

Aside from all that, is charity toward the enemy supposed to characterize Adolf Hitler?

So, given the explanations proffered, no wonder that "Why [Hitler's] order was given has never been explained fully." Perhaps there was an agreement between Churchill and Hitler?

[18c] Uncle Sam's Nazi's, The Washington Post, April 24, 1988, Sunday, Final Edition, BOOK WORLD; PAGE X11, 905 words, Peter Grose, REVIEW

[19] This is what the chief of the Palestine desk in the State Department's Near East section, Frazier Wilkins, wrote in 1947:

"[T]he unsettled Palestine problem, made more difficult by the pressure for post-war migration of displaced Jews from Europe to Palestine, is an irritant to Anglo-American relations [because the British were violently opposed to the creation of a Jewish State]. It is also prejudicial to American-Arab relations... Continued agitation and uncertainty regarding the Palestine question, by weakening the Anglo-American position in the Near East, permits a more rapid extension of Soviet Russian objectives, and is distressing to Christians everywhere..."

Distressing to Christians everywhere! Can it be clearer that these people were antisemites?

But "When Truman and American public opinion recognized the right of the Jews to a state and of the refugees to immigrate to Palestine, the State Department experts lost virtually all freedom to maneuver."

Virtually, but not all. For example, prior to the vote on partition at the UN, Greece informed the Jewish Agency that they could not support partition, but that they would abstain from voting. And yet, on November 26, 1947, the day set for this important vote, "the representative from Greece, expressed opposition to the plan." And "General Carlos P. Romulo of the Philippines, also inveighed against partition." This surprised the Jewish Agency, which had regarded the Philippines as a 'sure' thing. Greece and the Philippines were dependent on the United States; it was clear therefore, that the American delegates had made little effort to persuade these two countries to support the US position. In other words, the US supported partition, in the figure of its president, and the UN delegates were accordingly instructed to vote in favor. However, the US did not expend much political capital, even with its puppets (this assumes that the State Department did not exert pressure on US puppets behind closed doors to vote against partition).

Source for the above: Milstein, U. 1996. History of the War of Independence: A nation girds for war. Vol. 1. New York: University Press of America. (pp. 37, 427)

As soon as the November 29, 1947 resolution authorizing partition was passed, the Arab leaders, who knew they were not ready for a confrontation with Jewish forces,

"set themselves goals that seemed practicable: frustrating the UN decision and forestalling the founding of the state of Israel. They planned to convince many supporters of the November 29 resolution to switch sides, then overturn the decision with another vote in the UN General Assembly. The Arabs had learned from the very first stages of the dispute that aggressiveness was highly effective in international relations. The  western powers, which did not want war, were prepared to sacrifice the Jews of Eretz-Yisra'el to prevent risk to themselves. If the Arabs had succeeded in mobilizing sufficient support, they might have prevented the creation of Israel. The aim of the Arab threats was to induce the minimalist Zionists [those who did not insist on a bona-fide Jewish state] and the United States to reconsider their decisions. The minimalists in the Zionist camp could have concluded that it was better to forego independence and instead accept a compromise such as that suggested by the UNSCOP minority. They wanted independence but not war. The Americans also feared war, and US State Department officials, who had opposed partitioning Palestine before the UN vote, had not changed their minds."

"The goal of the Arab attack on the  cities [the Jewish towns in Eretz-Yisra'el]...was more political than military, and the political balance tilted in their favor at the conclusion of this stage of the war. They had proved that their vow to fight partition was not an idle threat and that the two peoples could not live together within the partition boundaries established by the United Nations...Early in 1948, even some political leaders who had voted for partition, particularly in the United States, came to doubt whether the resolution of November 29 had been wise or could be realized."

Source for the above: Milstein, U. 1996. History of the War of Independence: The first month. Vol. 2. New York: University Press of America. (pp. 24-25, 99)

[19a] Half a Loaf, The Jerusalem Post, November 28, 1997, Friday, FEATURES; Pg. 8, 4322 words, Abraham Rabinovich
[19aa] From a US government exhibit on the Marshall Plan.
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/marshall/mars1.html

[19b] Oral History: A founding father recalls the beginning of Israeli statehood; Special Reports: "Israel at 50"; CNN; From CNN Interactive Writer Barbara McCann. 1998.
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1998/israel/oral.history/

[19c] Source: Howard M Sachar, A History of Israel: From the Rise of Zionism to Our Time, (New York: Knopf, 1979), p. 333

[19cc] U.S. ASKED TO LIFT EMBARGO ON ARMS; Special to THE NEW YORK TIMES; New York Times (1857-Current file); Jan 17, 1948; ProQuest Historical Newspapers The New York Times (1851 - 2001); pg. 4.
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/embargo.pdf

[19d] Bard, M. G. 2002. Myths and Facts: A Guide to the Arab-Israeli Conflict. Chevy Chase, MD: American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise (AICE). (pp.38, 42)

[19dd] Josiah Wedgwood is quoted in: Rapoport, Louis. 1999. Shake heaven and earth: Peter Bergson and the struggle to rescue the Jews of Europe, Gefen, Jerusalem and New York. (p.18)

If you wish to read about how how the British instigated anti-Jewish Arab riots, you will find the most complete documentation here:

“HOW DID THE ‘PALESTINIAN MOVEMENT’ EMERGE? The British sponsored it. Then the German Nazis, and the US.”; Historical and Investigative Research; 13 June 2006; by Francisco Gil-White.
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/pal_mov4.htm

[nikmatdam]

Some of this material was originally published here:

“Anti-Semitism, Misinformation, And The Whitewashing Of The Palestinian Leadership”; Israel National News; May 26, '03 / 24 Iyar 5763; by Francisco J. Gil-White
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/article.php3?id=2405

[19e] 100,000 JAM RALLY IN JEWISH PROTEST; New York Times (1857-Current file); Apr 5, 1948; ProQuest Historical Newspapers The New York Times; pg. 1.
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/apr.pdf

[19f] To read about how (1) the Mufti Hajj Amin al Husseini created the Palestinian movement, (2) led Adolf Hitler's Final Solution, (3) mentored Yasser Arafat, and (4) grandfathered Al Fatah, the organ that controls the PLO, go here, where you will find the most complete documentation:

“HOW DID THE ‘PALESTINIAN MOVEMENT’ EMERGE? The British sponsored it. Then the German Nazis, and the US.”; Historical and Investigative Research; 13 June 2006; by Francisco Gil-White.
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/pal_mov4.htm

Some of this material was originally published here:

“Anti-Semitism, Misinformation, And The Whitewashing Of The Palestinian Leadership”; Israel National News; May 26, '03 / 24 Iyar 5763; by Francisco J. Gil-White
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/article.php3?id=2405

[20] Source: "The Ben-Gurion Era: Continuing Tensions." "Israel" Encyclopædia Britannica from Encyclopædia Britannica Online.
http://www.search.eb.com/eb/article?eu=109507
[Accessed November 22, 2003].

[20a] Encyclopædia Britannica | From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica

[20b] Leslie Gelb | From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leslie_H._Gelb

[21] "The Ben-Gurion Era: The Suez War." "Israel." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2003.  Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 22 Nov, 2003
http://www.search.eb.com/eb/article?eu=109507

[22] To get a sense for John Foster Dulles, consider that in October 1935 he wrote an article for the Atlantic Monthly entitled "The Road to Peace" where he excused Nazi Germany’s secret rearmament as an action taking back their freedom.

About his brother, Allen Dulles, consider the following:

"Policy concerning clandestine use of former Nazi collaborators during the early cold war years was shaped by a series of National Security Council directives and intelligence projects sponsored by the Policy Planning Staff of the State Department, then under the leadership of George F. Kennan, according to records discovered recently in the US State Department archives. Kennan was at the time assigned the task of internal policy oversight of all US clandestine operations abroad. His initiatives - along with those of Allen Dulles, Frank Wisner, and a number of other latter-day CIA executives - helped convince Truman's NSC to approve a comprehensive program of covert operations that were explicitly modeled on the Vlasov Army, an anti-Communist émigré campaign created by the SS and the Nazi Foreign Office during World War II. Scholars and propagandists who had once collaborated in formulating the Nazis' political warfare program were brought into the United States to provide brains for the new operation."

Source: Simpson, C. 1988. Blowback: America's recruitment of Nazis and its effects on the Cold War. New York: Weidenfeld & Nicholson. (p.

(see also 1945 section)

[23] "The Ben-Gurion Era: Continuing Tensions." "Israel" Encyclopædia Britannica  from Encyclopædia Britannica Online. http://www.search.eb.com/eb/article?eu=109507
[Accessed November 22, 2003].

[24] The Failure Of Israel's "New Historians" To Explain War And Peace: The Past Is Not a Foreign Country, by Anita Shapira
http://ontology.buffalo.edu/smith//courses01/rrtw/Shapira.htm  

[25] The Failure Of Israel's "New Historians" To Explain War And Peace: The Past Is Not a Foreign Country, by Anita Shapira
http://ontology.buffalo.edu/smith//courses01/rrtw/Shapira.htm  

[26] Source: Israeli Foreign Ministry
http://www.israel-mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH0dt70

[27] Addressing the UN Security Council in April 1948, Jamal Husseini, Spokesperson for the Mufti [Hajj Amin's] Arab Higher Committee (the organization that officially spoke for the Palestinian movement), said: "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." -- Source: Security Council Official Records, S/Agenda/58, (April 16, 1948), p. 19

And they also told the whole world what the fighting would be about. Azzam Pasha, Secretary General of the Arab League, promised before that war: "This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades." -- Source: Howard M Sachar, A History of Israel: From the Rise of Zionism to Our Time, (New York: Knopf, 1979), p. 333

[28] The quotation about Syria shelling Israeli farmers in the Galilee from the Golan Heights is from: Howard Sachar, A History of Israel: From the Rise of Zionism to Our Time, (NY: Alfred A. Knopf, 1979), p. 616.

The source for Nasser's speech is the Israeli Foreign Ministry:
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Foreign%20Relations/Israels%20Foreign%20
Relations%20since%201947/1947-1974/7%20Statement%20by%20President
%20Nasser%20to%20Arab%20Trade%20Unio

[29] "Neither the Jordanian nor the Syrian borders were quiet during the years leading up to the Six-Day War, but all Israelis were taken by surprise when in May 1967 increasingly violent clashes with Palestinian guerrillas and Syrian army forces along Lake Tiberias led to a general crisis. The Soviet Union alleged that Israel was mobilizing to attack Syria, and the Syrian government, in turn, chided President Nasser of Egypt for inaction. Nasser then mobilized his own forces, which he promptly sent into the Sinai after he ordered that UN forces there be withdrawn, and announced a blockade of the Strait of Tiran. The encirclement of Israel was complete when King Hussein of Jordan, despite secret Israeli pleas, felt compelled to join the Arab war coalition. In reaction, Eshkol mobilized the IDF and sent his foreign minister, Abba Eban, on a futile trip to seek French, British, and American aid."

Source: "Labour rule after Ben-Gurion: The Six Day War" -- Israel." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2003.  Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 22 Nov, 2003
http://www.search.eb.com/eb/article?eu=109507

[29a] "Playing the Democracy Card: How America Furthers Its National Interests in the Middle East"; By Dilip Hiro; TomDispatch.com; Thursday 17 March, 2005.
http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=2268

[30] The full text of Resolution 242 may be read here:
http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH00p40

[31] "It was not clear how military victory could be turned into peace. Shortly after the war's end Israel began that quest, but it would take more than a decade and involve yet another war before yielding any results. Eshkol's secret offer to trade much of the newly won territory for peace agreements with Egypt, Jordan, and Syria was rejected by Nasser, who, supported by an emergency resupply of Soviet arms, led the Arabs at the Khartoum Arab Summit in The Sudan in August 1967 in a refusal to negotiate directly with Israel."

Source: "Labour Rule After Ben-Gurion: Troubled victory" "Israel." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2003.  Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 2 Nov, 2003
http://www.search.eb.com/eb/article?eu=109507

[31a] http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people2/Lustick/lustick-con4.html

[31b] Ian Lustick boasts in his curriculum vitae that he works for US Intelligence. He is also a professor of political science at the University of Pennsylvania. His academic work is a series of attacks on Israel, and a passionate defense of the idea that the PLO should be given its own state in the West Bank and Gaza. As non-coincidence would have it, Ian Lustick appears to have had a lot to do with getting me fired from the University of Pennsylvania merely for having documented that the PLO traces its roots to the German Nazi Final Solution. To read about that, visit:
http://www.hirhome.com/bio.htm

[31c] This Pentagon document was apparently declassified in 1979 but not published until 1984. It was published by Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs:
http://www.jinsa.org/articles/print.html?documentid=496

It was also published by the Journal of Palestine Studies:
"Memorandum for the Secretary of Defense"; Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 13, No. 2. (Winter, 1984), pp. 122-126.
This file is especially useful because it shows a map with the "minimum territory needed by Israel for defensive purposes."
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/pentagon.pdf

Finally, the Pentagon study is republished 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)

[32] Bard, M. G. 2002. Myths and Facts: A Guide to the Arab-Israeli Conflict. Chevy Chase, MD: American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise (AICE). (p.71-72)

[33] Library of Congress Country Study on Israel
http://countrystudies.us/israel/26.htm

See also: "What was the Rogers Plan in 1969" by Palestine Facts
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1967to1991_rogers_1969.php

To see the text of the plan visit "The Rogers Plan", Jewish Virtual Library
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/History/rogers.html

[34] "What was the Rogers Plan in 1969" by Palestine Facts
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1967to1991_rogers_1969.php  

[35] http://www.psych.upenn.edu/~fjgil/fatahpalestinians.htm

[36] Library of Congress Country Study on Israel
http://countrystudies.us/israel/26.htm

[37] "The decline of Labour dominance: The Yom Kippur War" "Israel." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2003.  Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 23 Nov, 2003
http://www.search.eb.com/eb/article?eu=109507

[37a] 1973. The Algiers Summit Conference. MERIP Reports 23:13-16.

[37b] “Shortly after signing the Declaration of Principles and the famous handshake between [PLO leader Yasser] Arafat and [Israeli prime minister] Yitzhak Rabin on the White House lawn, Arafat was declaring to his Palestinian constituency over Jordanian television that Oslo was to be understood in terms of the [PLO’s] Palestine National Council’s 1974 decision. This was a reference to the so-called Plan of Phases, according to which the Palestine Liberation Organization [PLO] would acquire whatever territory it could by negotiations, then use that land as a base for pursuing its ultimate goal of Israel’s annihilation.”

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

[38] To learn about the history of Arafat and the Palestinian movement, you will find the most complete documentation here:

“HOW DID THE ‘PALESTINIAN MOVEMENT’ EMERGE? The British sponsored it. Then the German Nazis, and the US.”; Historical and Investigative Research; 13 June 2006; by Francisco Gil-White.
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/pal_mov4.htm

Some of this material was originally published here:

“Anti-Semitism, Misinformation, And The Whitewashing Of The Palestinian Leadership”; Israel National News; May 26, '03 / 24 Iyar 5763; by Francisco J. Gil-White
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/article.php3?id=2405

[39] 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

"Differences between Palestinian leaders and Arab govts over any pol settlement apparently are intensifying; Beirut Al Nahar repts Palestine Liberation Orgn gave Arab League Council note charging acceptance of Security Council Nov '67 resolution by Arab states is infringement on right of Palestinians to their nation; note reptdly holds Palestinians will determine their stand toward Arab govts on basis of attitude of govts on Palestine question; recent rejection by Al Fatah repr of all plans to establish Palestinian state on Jordan west bank and in Gaza Strip noted; Palestinian Natl Council member Dr S Dabbagh urges commandos to prepare now for strategy they will follow if Arab states accept pol settlement."

[nikmatdam]

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

"PLO has reptdly joined Egypt, Syria and Saudi Arabia in proposing establishment of ind Palestinian state on West Bank and Gaza Strip as part of overall Middle East settlement.  Syrian Pres Assad reptdly carried plan with him to Geneva to present to Pres Carter.  Informants say 3 Arab countries agree that proposed state should be joined in fed with Jordan.  Say PLO insists that state be set up first before decision is made on form of future relationship with Jordan.  Say PLO leaders feel it is premature to speak of recognizing Israel's existence (M)."

[41] Israel's administration of the West Bank and Gaza followed a war provoked by the Arab states in 1967. Despite that, Israel's administration of these territories was quite benign. This is Newsweek, writing ten years later in 1977:

"Arab living standards [in the West Bank] have jumped more than 50 per cent in the past ten years, and employment has nearly doubled, largely because of the $250 million annual trade that has grown up between the West Bank and Israel. The Israelis have also kept the Jordan River bridges open, allowing 1 million Arabs a year to cross and to keep their markets in Jordan for such products as olive oil, soap and farm produce. The Israelis also allow the Arabs to elect their own officials, even though the winners are often radical activists. Still, the Arabs say they have never been more unhappy. . ." Source: Newsweek, June 13, 1977, UNITED STATES EDITION, INTERNATIONAL; Pg. 55, 849 words, The West Bank Today, Milan J. Kubic

So the Israelis installed a benign regime on the West Bank despite the fact that this was the population of one of its attackers in 1967, Jordan, in a war that was pledged to destroy Israel through genocide. But this enemy population was nevertheless allowed freedom of the press, the freedom to elect its own leaders, however radical, border crossings with Jordan, and the ability to take jobs in Israel. Can anybody imagine another country doing that, under the circumstances?

Me neither.

[42] "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.

[43] http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH0cfx0

[44] Kurt Waldheim was stationed in Yugoslavia during WWII, where some of the most unbelievable atrocities were committed.

[Quote From Encyclopedia Britannica Starts Here]

Kurt Waldheim served in the Austrian army as a volunteer (1936–37) before he began to study for a diplomatic career. He was soon conscripted into the German army, however, and served on the Russian front until 1941, when he was wounded. Waldheim's later claims that he spent the rest of the war studying law at the University of Vienna were contradicted by the rediscovery in 1986 of documents suggesting that he had been a German army staff officer stationed in the Balkans from 1942 to 1945...

...Waldheim was not reelected to a third term as UN secretary-general in 1981. He ran as the People's Party candidate for president of Austria in 1986. His candidacy became controversial when rediscovered wartime and postwar documents pointed to his being an interpreter and intelligence officer for a German army unit that had engaged in brutal reprisals against Yugoslav partisans and civilians and that had deported most of the Jewish population of Salonika (Thessaloníki), Greece, to Nazi death camps in 1943.

[Quote From Encyclopedia Britannica Ends Here]

Source: Waldheim, Kurt. Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved July 29, 2003, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online. http://www.search.eb.com/eb/article?eu=77915

[45] In 1981, when Waldheim stepped down from his post at the UN, UPI wrote: "Claims that he was a Nazi were investigated over and over and proved unfounded." -- United Press International, December 3, 1981, Thursday, BC cycle, International, 650 words, Kurt Waldheim, U.N. secretary general.

This shows that the allegations were made. Later, as is now known, documentation surfaced to demonstrate this (see above footnote).

[45a] CIA Helped Bush Senior In Oil Venture; By Russ Baker and Jonathan Z. Larsen; The Real News Project; January 8, 2007
http://realnews.org/rn/content/zapata.html

[46] The  US 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." -- 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

[47] 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"

[47a] The New York Times, June 14, 1987, Sunday, Late City Final Edition, Section 4; Page 1, Column 1; Week in Review Desk, 1284 words, PRIVATE WARRIORS; Hearings Detail a Policy Improvised by Outsiders, By DAVID E. ROSENBAUM, WASHINGTON

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

[48a] 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

[48b] 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

[48c] http://www.palestine-un.org/mission/frindex.html
(Click on "Palestine Liberation Organization" on the left)

[48d] http://www.palestine-un.org/mission/frindex.html
(Click on "Palestine Liberation Organization" on the left)

[48e] The maps below show that the British Mandate definition of "Palestine" included the West Bank and Gaza. The map on the right is enlarged and shows the West Bank in yellow, and the Gaza strip in red.

   

[48f] 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.”

[48g] Nasser and Arafat Discussing Role of Commandos
By RAYMOND H. ANDERSON Special to The New York Times
New York Times (1857-Current file); Aug 27, 1970; ProQuest Historical Newspapers The New York Times (1851 - 2001)
pg. 3

[48h] “Shortly after signing the Declaration of Principles and the famous handshake between [PLO leader Yasser] Arafat and [Israeli prime minister] Yitzhak Rabin on the White House lawn, Arafat was declaring to his Palestinian constituency over Jordanian television that Oslo was to be understood in terms of the [PLO’s] Palestine National Council’s 1974 decision. This was a reference to the so-called Plan of Phases, according to which the Palestine Liberation Organization [PLO] would acquire whatever territory it could by negotiations, then use that land as a base for pursuing its ultimate goal of Israel’s annihilation.”

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

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

"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.  Stresses that Carter's references to homeland require clarification.  Says Carter should say where homeland will be located.  Says PLO refuses fed with Jordan.  Says PLO would agree to establishment of Palestinian state on West Bank and in Gaza Strip.  Calls for Israeli withdrawal from occupied territories, recognition of Palestinian 'rights,' end of settlement policy in occupied areas, end to immigration to Israel and repatriation of Palestinians expelled in '48 (M)."

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

"PLO has reptdly joined Egypt, Syria and Saudi Arabia in proposing establishment of ind Palestinian state on West Bank and Gaza Strip as part of overall Middle East settlement.  Syrian Pres Assad reptdly carried plan with him to Geneva to present to Pres Carter.  Informants say 3 Arab countries agree that proposed state should be joined in fed with Jordan.  Say PLO insists that state be set up first before decision is made on form of future relationship with Jordan.  Say PLO leaders feel it is premature to speak of recognizing Israel's existence (M)."

[51] The Associated Press, July 22, 1977, AM cycle, 426 words, GENEVA, Switzerland
[51a] The New Republic, June 16, 1986 v194 p20(4); “The Waldheim file: complete and unexpurgated”; by Peter Lubin.

[51b] 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

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

"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)."

[53] The Associated Press, August 2, 1977, AM cycle, 911 words, By BARRY SCHWEID, Associated Press Writer, ALEXANDRIA, Egypt

[54] "Secretary-General Kurt Waldheim will leave Feb. 1 on East for talks on resuming the Geneva peace conference, a well-placed source said Monday.

Waldheim will visit Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Syria and possibly Lebanon, the source said, and also will talk with officials of the Palestine Liberation Organization at an unspecified location.

The secretary general is acting under a Dec. 9, 1976, General Assembly resolution asking that he contact parties to the Mideast conflict in an effort to get the conference resumed by the end of March." -- The Associated Press; January 10, 1977, AM cycle; LENGTH: 203 words; DATELINE: UNITED NATIONS, N.Y.

[55] 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:

"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)."

[56] The New York Times Company: Abstracts; Information Bank Abstracts; New York Times; September 18, 1977, Sunday; Section: Section 4; Page 3, Column 3; Length: 102 Words; Byline: By William E Farrell; Journal-Code:  Nyt; Abstract:

"State Dept announcement that Palestinians should be involved in peacemaking process at Geneva adds to tartness that has emerged between Carter and Begin Adms since 2 men met in July.  Israeli press sees US moves and comments as leaning towards establishment of separate Palestinian state, anathema to most Israelis.  Newspaper Haaretz says present US position is liable to increase danger of war since it is bound to toughen Arabs' stand as well as pushing Israel into corner.  Israelis also fear that US may be moving toward affirming PLO as legitimate repr of Palestinian interests.  Illus of Pres Carter (M)."

[57] "Joint US-Soviet statement on the Middle East- 1 October 1977"; 1 Oct 1977; Historical Documents; Israeli Foreign Ministry; VOLUMES 4-5: 1977-1979.
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Foreign%20Relations/Israels%20Foreign%20Relations
%20since%201947/1977-1979/50%20Joint%20US-Soviet%20statement%20on%20the
%20Middle%20East-%201

[58] "Israel-US working paper on The Geneva Conference - 5 October 1977"; 5 Oct 1977; Historical Documents; Israeli Foreign Ministry; VOLUMES 4-5: 1977-1979.
http://www.nic.gov.il/MFA/Foreign%20Relations/Israels%20Foreign%20Relations
%20since%201947/1977-1979/54%20Israel-US%20working%20paper%20on%20
The%20Geneva%20Conferenc

[58a] Source: “Israel 1967-1991; Lebanon 1982”; Palestine Facts. http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1967to1991_lebanon_198x_backgd.php

[59] Jimmy Carter's National Security Advisor proudly explained to Le Monde the Islamist strategy, and its point: to destroy the Soviet Union by agitating Islamist terrorism along its Asian borders. To learn more about this, and to read the Le Monde interview, visit:

"Ex-National Security Chief Brzezinski admits: Afghan Islamism Was Made in Washington: Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser in 'Le Nouvel Observateur'" Comments by Jared Israel
http://emperors-clothes.com/interviews/brz.htm

To learn more about the US's Islamist strategy read:

Zalmay Khalilzad - Special US Envoy for Islamic Terror!
Emperor's Clothes; 1 March 2003; by Jared Israel
http://emperors-clothes.com/archive/khalilzad-facts.htm

Also, the analysis, cited below, of George Bush Sr.'s Gulf War, demonstrates that it was fought to protect Islamist Tehran. This is not entirely surprising given that the Carter administration created The US Central Command (CENTCOM) in 1979, the same year that the Ayatollah Khomeini came to power, and explicitly to protect Khomeini's Islamist and antisemitic Iran. The references in this analysis provide an avalanche of documentation that ever since Carter the US has followed a vigorous policy of covert sponsorship of Islamist terrorism, in order to destabilize competing powers.

"Why the First Gulf War? To Protect Iranian Islamism: Little-known facts make it clear that this was the real purpose of Bush senior's war," by Francisco Gil-White
http://emperors-clothes.com/gilwhite/gulfwar1.htm

[60] "The Arming of Saudi Arabia" Transcript of PBS FRONTLINE Show #1112; Air Date: February 16, 1993
http://emperors-clothes.com/news/arming-i.htm

[61] Speaking of a fund-drive in the various Gulf states to support the Palestinian terrorist movement, the London Times reported:

"In Saudi Arabia, the money was officially raised in the name of the Saudi Committee for the Support of the al-Quds Intifada, a group set up to support the Palestinian uprising. But some of it - no one knows quite how much - will be spent on compensating the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.

The head the committee, Prince Naif bin Abdul Aziz, the Interior Minister, said in a statement: 'The committee will continue to provide direct assistance to the families of Palestinian martyrs and those wounded while resisting the occupation.'"

Source: The Times (London). April 23, 2002, Tuesday, Features, 1563 words, The blood donors, Scott Parkes and Nick Day

If you would like to understand this in greater detail, read on:

London Times calls massive incentives for terrorism... 'heroic generosity'!

A 2002 article by the London Times carried the following heading:

"In a three-day TV marathon, Saudi citizens donated Pounds 70 million, including expensive cars and gold jewellery, to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers."(1)

This was not a bake sale - on the contrary, it was a massive effort, and organized from the very top. The Saudi Interior Minister, Prince Naif, no less, is officially in charge of such things.

"The grand total across the [Persian Gulf] region could surpass Pounds 150 million. In Saudi Arabia, the money was officially raised in the name of the Saudi Committee for the Support of the al-Quds Intifada, a group set up to support the Palestinian uprising...

The head of the committee [is] Prince Naif bin Abdul Aziz, the Interior Minister...

The appeal, launched by King Fahd, was backed from the very top of Saudi society, as one might expect (state-run television is directly controlled by the Ministry of Information)."

Now, this money does not go exclusively "to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers," but also to the making of explosives, paying the salaries of terrorist leaders, and so forth. I will address that further below.

Here, however, let us imagine for a moment that the money really does go exclusively "to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers." In such a case the London Times' heading would be appropriate, but it would then be necessary in the body of the article to make a comment.

What comment?

The London Times should explain to its readers that a Saudi fund-drive for the families of suicide bombers is part of a massive incentive program to murder innocent Jewish civilians. Why? Because,

1)  Palestinian Arab children are indoctrinated from an early age, in the schools run by Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Authority, to believe that they should hate Jews and should also look forward to slaughtering them by becoming suicide 'martyrs.'(2)

2)  And then Palestinian Arabs hear officially sponsored Islamist clerics on Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Authority TV - not every once in a while, but every day - exhorting "Blessings to whoever put a belt of explosives on his body or on his sons and plunged into the midst of Jews crying: 'Allah Akbar, praise to Allah'". They are also told of heavenly rewards - sexual and otherwise - for their acts of murder.(3)

Thus, when on top of all this they hear that their own families will be generously rewarded with money, this becomes an extra inducement for these young men (and some women!) to go murder Israeli children while destroying their own tender lives.

That's the minimal interpretation of the Saudi fund-drive - as a massive incentive program for terror. But the London Times never makes this obvious point. Instead, the London Times tries hard to elicit sympathy for the Saudi terrorist fund-drive by dramatizing the donations as selfless sacrifices - we are told that "Newlywed couples pledged their savings, fathers gave away their daughters' dowries." The Times then lauds these Saudis for "their eagerness to give, and to give generously, to their brethren suffering under the onslaught of the Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon."

Not content with this, the London Times actually goes out of its way to qualify as 'unsurpassable generosity' a donation made explicitly in the hopes that it will lead to the murder of Israelis:

"...few of the people who turned up at the Riyadh offices of Saudi state television could surpass the generosity of 26-year-old Mohamed al-Qahtani. He had come to offer his car to the cause. 'I hope it will reach the Palestinian areas,' he announced proudly, 'so a Palestinian fighter can use it to blow up a military barracks and kill soldiers.'"

Now, it is not exactly easy to elicit sympathy for terrorism. Widespread antisemitism makes it easier, in this particular case, but still... terrorism is simply awful. So the Times is careful, as we saw above, to refer to Palestinians Arabs as besieged underdogs "suffering under the onslaught of the Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon."

And yet that is still not quite enough to convey that Saudis who give their passionate millions to an antisemitic terrorist cause are 'good guys,' whereas Israeli Jews who will be the victims of this terror are 'bad guys.' Why not? Because Israeli children who die in suicide attacks obviously cannot be responsible for any onslaught by Sharon, real or imagined. So to prevent compassion for such children to 'pollute' its readers minds, the Times must tell its readers that the only imaginable reply of an allegedly oppressed Palestinian people is to slaughter innocent Jews. This "what else can they do?" argument is actually put forward in so many words, and twice:

"Raid Qusti, a Saudi writer...thinks suicide bombers are misunderstood by people in the West... 'A suicide bomber is so oppressed that he feels the only way to fight is to blow himself up. Is it up to the West to judge where the money should go?'

...Abdul Rahman, 19'...[says]... 'They are desperate. What would you do in their situation? They are at war...They are right to attack the Israelis in this way. There is nothing else they can do.'

These people were quoted with no comment from the London Times.

The money also goes to making explosives, etc.

Much of the money raised in these fund-drives - perhaps the bulk - goes directly to the terrorist organizations of the Palestinians, not to the families of suicide bombers. How do we know this? Because the money is sent to the Palestinian Authority (PA), and the supreme authority at the PA, who therefore controls the disbursement of funds, is Yasser Arafat, the man who runs the Palestinian terrorist movement.(4)

And the Saudis are not the only ones sending money, as the London Times also informs us:

"In Jerusalem last week, the US Secretary of State Colin Powell noted the dire situation in some Palestinian towns and announced a $30 million US contribution to the UN Relief and Works Agency [UNRWA] on top of the $80 million already contributed annually.

None of that, of course, will end up paying for explosives."

Of course? What is the London Times, a newspaper? Or the joint US-PLO propaganda office?

It is child's play to show that much of the UNRWA money goes to making explosives. Well, I say it is child's play for a researcher. The ordinary readers of the London Times will simply assume that the 'free press' is telling them the truth and go on about their day. For such readers - the overwhelming majority - a fictitious reality is constructed with matter-of-fact lies. But here below is what 20 minutes of research revealed.

The first item of interest is that the people who work at the UN refugee camps get their salaries from UNRWA.

"UNRWA has the largest operational presence in the West Bank and Gaza Strip in terms of the financial resources it makes available, the services it provides, the infrastructure it has set up, and the staff it employs. The 1.2 million Palestine refugees represent 49 per cent of the population in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

The Agency's 1996 budget for West Bank and Gaza is $ 136 million. It employs 8,500 staff, the majority of whom are themselves refugees."(5)

Suppose - just for the sake of argument - that these refugee camps are being used as terrorist bases. If so, then UNRWA money is going to terror, because the people who staff these camps - most of them Palestinian Arab refugees - are all salaried by UNRWA. This therefore makes it quite interesting that on 31 March 2003, the Simon Weisenthal Center made precisely this allegation: that "UNRWA is complicit in terrorism because it turns a blind eye to militant activity in 'its' camps."

The wording above is the UNRWA's own, from a document where it defended itself against these allegations.(6) This is why the crucial word, 'its', appears in quotes. What is the UNRWA's point? That they wash their hands of any terrorism being organized in the camps, because these are not their camps [i.e. the UNRWA's]. They don't even run them. Here is their explanation on this point:

"UNRWA does not run refugee camps. It is a UN agency with a clearly defined mandate, in accordance with which it provides health, education and other humanitarian services to refugees, only one third of whom live in refugee camps. The Agency has never been given any mandate to administer, supervise or police the refugee camps or to have any jurisdiction or legislative power over the refugees or the areas where they lived. The Agency has no police force, no intelligence service and no mandate to report on political and military activities. This responsibility has always remained with the host countries and Israel, who maintained law and order, including within refugee camps."(6)

If the UNRWA is not responsible for what happens at those refugee camps upon which, as "largest operational presence in the West Bank and Gaza Strip in terms of the financial resources," it lavishes its considerable millions, then who is? Well, whoever runs the camps, says UNRWA. And who is that? The UNWRA clarifies:

...based on Israel's bilateral agreements with the Palestinian Authority and the terms of the Oslo Accords, responsibility for security and law and order in area "A" (including all eight camps in Gaza and 12 of those in the West Bank) was passed to the Palestinian Authority...(6)

Thus, many of the Palestinian refugee camps are under the jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority, which is run by the terrorist Yasser Arafat.

So how are these refugee camps, which Arafat controls, run?

In February 2002 BBC reporters were taken inside the Jenin UN refugee camp and reported seeing a secret "bomb-making factory" and a "weapons making factory." This makes it not too surprising that

"Jenin, just a few miles from the Israeli town of Afula, has become one of the most important bases from which suicide attacks are launched."(7)

Now, which terrorists are these, who had their bomb-making and weapons-making factories in "the most secret location of all, in the heart of Jenin," in the UN refugee camp? The BBC explains: "We are with the Al-Aqsa brigade, the military wing of Yasser Arafat's Fatah organisation." By the way, Al-Aqsa is considered "the deadliest Palestinian militia."( So Arafat, who runs many UN refugee camps, is using them to hide the activities of his worst terrorists.

What does this mean?

That the London Times assertion - "None of that [UNRWA money], of course, will end up paying for explosives" - is contradicted by a little bit of research showing that, in fact, quite a lot of UNRWA money was going to what the BBC, in February 2002, called a "bomb-making factory" in the UN refugee camp at Jenin. What is truly incredible is that the London Times should have matter-of-factly denied this - adding "of course" - in April 2002. That is, just two months after the BBC piece appeared.

This is how propaganda works, not how news is reported. Joseph Goebbels could hardly have been more blatant in his denial of the truth.

The Jenin-brewed terrorism is what made it necessary for the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) to ferret out the terrorists in the UN refugee camp. The UN took no responsibility for the violence that had been coming from Jenin. On the contrary, when the IDF took matters into its own hands, the UN (with the help of the Western media) tried to accuse Israel of having committed a massacre at Jenin. Of course, the IDF did not. You may read documentation on that here:

"THE ROAD TO JENIN: The Racak 'massacre' hoax, and those whose honesty it places in doubt: Helena Ranta, NATO, the UN, The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN, The Associated Press, and Human Rights Watch"; Historical and Investigative Research; 16 April 2003; by Francisco Gil-White
http://www.hirhome.com/yugo/ranta.htm

Notes for this footnote:

(1) April 23, 2002, Tuesday, Features, 1563 words, The blood donors, Scott Parkes and Nick Day

(2) Planting the seeds of the next war, The Jerusalem Post, June 29, 2003, Sunday, OPINION; Pg. 6, 853 words, Itamar Marcus

HIGHLIGHT:
Why are PA children being taught that the Negev, Beersheba, and the Sea of Galilee are Palestine? The writer is director of Palestinian Media Watch, www.pmw.org.il, and was Israel's representative to the Israeli-Palestinian- American Anti-Incitement Committee.

BODY:
One of the most meaningful gauges of the integrity of the peace process and its likelihood of success is the degree to which the parties educate toward peace. It is by this yardstick that the Palestinian Authority's education apparatus, formal and informal, has been such a dismal disappointment.

Instead of seizing the opportunity to educate future generations to live with Israel in peace the PA has done everything in its power to fill young minds with hatred.

Making matters worse the PA has been spreading two clever lies about its schoolbooks that have succeeded in deflecting international pressure for change.

PA Foreign Minister Nabil Shaath answered Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom's complaint about the schoolbooks by saying that the PA has "spent five years" rewriting the books - implying they are now acceptable.

Then, he added, Israel itself used these same old Jordanian books for educating the local Arab population "for 30 years," which means it can have no valid complaint to the PA.

The truth about the PA schoolbooks is that they contain anti-Semitic content, delegitimize Israel's existence and incite to hatred and violence.

For example, the new 6th-grade Reading the Koran openly presents anti-Semitic messages as children read about Allah's warning to the Jews that because of their evil Allah will kill them: "...Oh you who are Jews ...long for death if you are truthful... for the death from which you flee, that will surely overtake you..."

In other sections they learn of Jews being expelled from their homes by Allah, and in another Jews are said to be like donkeys: "Those Jews who were charged with the Torah, but did not observe it, are like a donkey carrying books...."

This religious-based anti-Semitism is particularly dangerous because children are taught that hating Jews is God's will. Islam also contains positive attitudes toward Jews - yet PA educators chose to incorporate only hateful teachings.

The new PA schoolbooks Shaath is so positive about compare Israel to colonial Britain: "Colonialism: Palestine faced the British occupation after the First World War in 1917, and the Israeli occupation in 1948."

Moreover, the book refers to Israel exclusively as Palestine. For example: "Among the famous rocks of southern Palestine are the rocks of Beersheba and the Negev" and "Palestine's Water Sources - ... The most important is the Sea of Galilee."

But the Negev, Beersheba and the Sea of Galilee are in Israel and do not border the disputed territories of Judea and Samaria. So why are PA children taught these areas are Palestine?

Educating against Israel's existence is further cemented through tens of maps in the schoolbooks in which Palestine encompass all of Israel. Israel does not exist on any map, within any borders at all.

The PA defends its schoolbook maps by arguing that since there are no final borders the map is not portraying modern Palestine but Mandatory Palestine. That is an insult to our intelligence. Are we expected to believe that when Palestinian children see the map called Palestine in all their schoolbooks they imagine Britain a half-a-century ago? And that when Beersheba is called Palestine, the children are picturing biblical history?

ANOTHER new book teaches what must be done for "occupied Palestine" and the "stolen homeland."

"Islam encourages this love of homeland and established the defense of it as an obligatory commandment for every Muslim if even a centimeter of his land is stolen. I, a Palestinian Muslim, love my country, Palestine..."

The complete and total message Palestinian children are taught is that Jews, according to Allah, are like donkeys; Israel is a colonial occupier that stole their land; the cities, lakes and deserts of Israel are occupied Palestine; and that the children have an obligation to liberate it if even a "centimeter is stolen."

Shaath's other lie - that Israel used these same old books - is particularly resourceful, as the best lies include a grain of truth.

Israel did indeed use Jordanian books to educate the local Arab population. However, it reprinted the books without the hate content. In fact, Jordan registered a complaint with the UN charging that Israel's changing the schoolbooks was a violation of international law, but the UN checked what Israel had done and approved it.

The PA put back into the old Jordanian material all the hate content that Israel had removed.

Moreover, three years ago some foreign governments offered to pay to reprint the versions that didn't contain hateful material, but the PA turned them down.

Finally, all the books cited here were written during the most optimistic periods of the peace process, before the violence began in September 2000. They are not a reflection of the war, but they were a contributing factor to it.

By dismissing the criticism and retaining this hateful material the PA is planting the seeds of the next war in their young people. And the defenders of this PA hate- education - including some Israelis - are nurturing those seeds of war.

(3) These exhortations on Palestinian Authority Television have to be seen to be believed. You may view excerpts from a collection of sermons here: http://stream.realimpact.net/rihurl.ram?file=realimpact/memri/
memri_fridaysermon_01.rm

(4) To read about how Yasser Arafat is the mastermind of the entire Palestinian terror infrastructure, despite what you hear in the Western mainstream media, read:

"Anti-Semitism, Misinformation, And The Whitewashing Of The Palestinian Leadership"; Israel National News; Jun 17, '03 / 17 Sivan 5763; by Francisco J. Gil-White.
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/article.php3?id=2322

(5) "Statement by Peter Hansen, Commissioner-General of UNRWA to the Special Political and Decolonization Committee," UN New York, 22 November 1996
http://www.un.org/unrwa/news/statements/spdc-nov96.html

(6) http://www.un.org/unrwa/allegations/

(7) Friday, 22 February, 2002, 18:00 GMT The ugly war: Children of vengeance; Correspondent, BBC; Producer/Director: Stuart Tanner Executive Producer: Tom Roberts Editor: Fiona Murch
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/correspondent/1834452.stm

( Newsday (New York, NY),  September 8, 2002 Sunday,  NASSAU AND SUFFOLK EDITION,  Pg. A05,  1333 words,  WEST BANK; Inside the Crucible; An occasional series on te Israel-Palestine conflict; Militia Goes More Quietly; Al-Aqsa changes tactics after losses,  By Matthew McAllester. MIDDLE EAST CORRESPONDENT
[62] Just to give one example, the Associated Press reported in October 2000 that "a Saudi cleric at one of Riyadh's largest mosques called for jihad holy war against Israel and its supporters, spelling out American embassies, companies and individuals as legitimate targets." -- Associated Press Online,  October 9, 2000; Monday,  International news,  1866 words,  Palestinians Blaming U.S. for Woes,  LAURA KING,  RAMALLAH, West Bank

This is the sort of thing that convinces people everywhere that the US is a friend of Israel: that the US is denounced as a friend of Israel by the enemies of Israel. But talk is cheap.

[62a] Evening Standard (London) May 19, 1994; SECTION: Pg. 9; LENGTH: 907 words; HEADLINE: A NEW KIND OF JIHAD

[62b] "The Empire Isn't In Afghanistan For The Oil!"; Emperor's Clothes; 17 May 2002; by Jared Israel.
http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/jared/oil-1.htm

"The Great Afghan Oil Pipeline Disaster: Comic Relief For a War-Torn World"; Emperor's Clothes; 6 March 2003; by Jared Israel
http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/jared/relief.htm

"Two News Reports on Supposed Oil Pipeline"; Emperor's Clothes; 6 March 2003
http://emperors-clothes.com/news/aus-gaz.htm

"Emperor's Clothes Interviews UNOCAL OIL"; Emperor's Clothes; 9 July 2002; Interviewer: Jared Israel; Interviewee: Barry Lane, UNOCAL's manager for public relations.
http://emperors-clothes.com/interviews/lane.htm


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

www.hirhome.com
 
 
BALLAD OF THE DOOMED
JEWS OF EUROPE
by Ben Hecht
September 14, 1943

FOUR MILLION JEWS waiting for death
Oh hang and burn but -- quiet, Jews!
Don't be bothersome; save your breath --
The world is busy with other news.

  Four million murders are quite a smear
  Even our State Department views
  The slaughter with much disfavor here
  But then -- it's busy with other news.

You'll hang like a forest of broken trees
You'll burn in a thousand Nazi stews
And tell your God to forgive us please
For we were busy with other news.

  Tell Him we hadn't quite the time
  To stop the killing of all the Jews;
  Tell Him we looked askance at the crime --
  But we were busy with other news.

Oh World be patient -- it will take
Some time before the murder crews
Are done. By Christmas you can make
Your Peace on Earth without the Jews.

To see the original NYT advertisement where the above ballad was published, visit:
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/bergson_ads.pdf
 
 

[nikmatdam]

www.hirhome.com
 This is a large file, please be patient . . .
 
Is the US an ally of Israel?
A chronological look at the evidence

Historical and Investigative Research -- by Francisco Gil-White
[ this piece updated regularly ]
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hirally.htm
____________________________________________________________

NOTE: In this document, when you see a red footnote this means that, in addition to giving the source and/or a link, there is extra material (sometimes relatively lengthy) that is worth reading and which provides additional context and clarification. Many of my sources are available on the web and I have provided the hyperlinks in the footnotes (whether red or not) so that readers may easily examine them.

____________________________________________________________
...continued from
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hirally.htm

The 1930's -  Negative - The US Establishment helped sponsor the rise of the German Nazi movement.

1939-1945  -  Negative - This year's material is divided into the following sections:

Introduction

1. The general policy of the Allies towards the plight
of the Jews

2. No US visas for European Jews trying to escape the Nazi slaughter

3. The allies refused to sabotage Hitler's Final Solution by military means

1945 - Negative - After 1945, the US created US Intelligence by recruiting tens of thousands of Nazi war criminals.

1947-48 - Mixed to Negative - Forced by external circumstances, the US government gave lukewarm support to the creation of the State of Israel. But then it reversed itself and implemented policies designed to destroy Israel.

1949-1953 - Negative - In Israel's hour of supreme need, the US allied with Israel's mortal enemies.

1955 - Mixed - The US forces Israel to withdraw from Sinai, but makes some concessions to the Israelis.

1955-1965 - Positive (in one regard only) - Israel indirectly gets some US weapons.

1958 - Negative - Israel assists US military intervention in the Middle East; when this places Israel in danger, the US does...nothing.

1964 - Mixed - The US abandoned its previous official policy of trying to get Israel to relinquish the territories won in the War of Independence. Why had it been trying to do this?

1964-1967 - Negative - Although Israel suffered terrorist attacks from its Arab neighbors during these years, when they staged a full-scale military provocation, the US refused to help.

1967 - Negative - After the Six-Day War, the US put pressure on Israel to relinquish the territory gained, even though it knew it was indispensable to Israeli defense.

1969 - Negative - The Arabs attack the Israelis. The US response is to try and remove the Israelis from territory they need for their defense.

1970 - Positive - Washington temporarily abandons the diplomatic effort to make Israel withdraw from the territories.

1973 - Positive - The US assisted Israel in the Yom Kippur War.

1974-1975 - Negative - The US supported the election of a pro-PLO Nazi war criminal to the post of UN Secretary General.

1975 - Negative - The US reached an agreement with Israel not to have contacts with the PLO. The US immediately violated the agreement.

1977 - Negative -  Jimmy Carter worked hard to give the terrorist PLO the dignity of a 'government in exile,' and then he teamed up with the Soviets to try and saddle Israel with a PLO terrorist state next door.

1978 - Negative - When Israel tried to defend itself from the PLO terrorists, the US forced Israel to stand back.

1979 - Negative - Jimmy Carter began large-scale US sponsorship of antisemitic Islamist terrorists, especially in Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia.

1981 - Negative - The US pushed for a PLO state in the West Bank against Israeli objections.

1982-1983 - Negative - The US military rushed into Lebanon to protect the PLO from the Israelis.

1985 - Negative - 1985 includes more material than other years, so we have divided it into subsections.

1. Shimon Peres acted as a US agent, against Israeli interests.

2. Bettino Craxi and Giulio Andreotti (respectively, the Italian prime minister and foreign minister) committed political suicide for the sake of pushing the PLO. The US was behind them.

3. Ronald Reagan denied the Holocaust

4. Who was in charge of US covert operations in 1985?

1987-1988 - Negative - The 'First Intifada' was a US-PLO strategy used to represent the Arabs in West Bank and Gaza as supposedly oppressed 'underdogs.'

1989 - Negative - With Dick Cheney, the US began supporting a PLO state in the open as the 'only solution' to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

1991 - Negative - Bush Sr.'s administration forced Israel to participate in the Oslo process, which brought the PLO into the West Bank and Gaza.

1994 - Negative - Yasser Arafat was given a Nobel Peace Prize, and the CIA trained the PLO, even though Arafat's henchmen were saying in public, this very year, that they would use their training to oppress Arabs and kill Jews.

1996-1997 - Negative - The United States exerted such strong pressure on the Netanyahu government (including threats) that, even though Netanyahu had been elected on an anti-Oslo platform, he had the necessary cover to betray the Israeli public that had elected him.

2005 - Negative - Mahmoud Abbas, who will soon have total control over Gaza, is the one who invented the strategy of talking 'peace' the better to slaughter Israelis. The US ruling elite loves Mahmoud Abbas.

(I will soon post documentation for the missing years in between.)

____________________________________________________________

1981 [ negative ]

The US pushed for a PLO state in the West Bank against Israeli objections
____________________________________________________________

On November 14, 1981, the UN adopted a resolution condemning Israel for destroying a nuclear installation in Iraq.[63] Israel and the US were the only two countries to vote against.

That may look like US support for Israel. However, just a few days later the US voted for a resolution condemning Israel's annexation of the Golan Heights.[64] The US then also reversed itself on the prior resolution concerning the attack on Iraq, launching a frontal diplomatic attack on Israel. The outgoing Secretary General of the UN, the Nazi Kurt Waldheim, exulted publicly over this turn of events, and added that, by the way, the West Bank and Gaza Arabs should be given their own state.[65]

US president Ronald Reagan's attacks on Israel were so sharp that many prominent members of the American Jewish community interpreted this as antisemitism, so Reagan met

"with 32 Jewish supporters... [and then]... with the presidents of 34 Jewish organizations"

Reagan was quoted as giving them the following non-sequitor: that

"his administration 'will not condone anti-Semitism and will attack it wherever it surfaces.'"[66]

But nobody was asking Reagan to attack antisemitism wherever it surfaced; the complaint was that antisemitism had surfaced in the office of the president!

In addition,

"…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."

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 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 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.”[67] Since Carter had pushed very hard for including the PLO 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.

Adding insult to injury, Reagan decided to sell arms to Saudi Arabia (in addition to the secret buildup that nobody knew about - see 1979 section).

But Reagan had some cover because, only a month earlier, American businessman Edgar Bronfman Sr., the president of the World Jewish Congress, had written an editorial in the New York Times in which he:

1)  argued for an American role in a Middle East peace process;

2)  spoke about "genuine Palestinian needs";

3)  presented the Arabs as genuinely wanting peace; and

4)  advised the Israeli prime minister to accept the Arabs' preconditions and to find "an acceptable solution for the Palestinians." "Mr. Begin...," Bronfman explained, "must be prepared to go further than endorsing the idea of Palestinian autonomy."[68]

More than autonomy: in other words, a Palestinian state! Bronfman was certainly not doing Israel any favors. This must be kept in mind, because, as we will see by the sequel, Bronfman is quite prominent in the American halls of power. This is true as a general rule: only Jews who go out of their way to attack Israel (openly or not so openly) have any influence in Washington.

Now why might that be?

 

[nikmatdam]

____________________________________________________________

1982-1983 [ negative ]

The US rushed to protect the PLO in southern Lebanon from the Israelis.
____________________________________________________________

Not content with the above, in September 1982, Edgar Bronfman, from his perch as President of the World Jewish Congress, publicly endorsed Ronald Reagan's plan for Middle East peace. Reagan was using Bronfman as a 'Jewish diplomat' to speak for Israel, and American newspapers dutifully carried the headline "Jewish leader OKs Reagan peace plan."[69]

But who cares what Bronfman said? He was not a spokesman for the Israeli government. As a matter of fact,

"the [likud] Israeli government [led by Menachem Begin]...unanimously and totally rejected the American initiative."[70]

And what was Bronfman endorsing?

"The Camp David peace accords call for an interim, five-year period of autonomy for the Palestinian inhabitants of the West Bank and Gaza during which the final status of the territories is to be negotiated."[71]

Autonomy leading to final status was code for a peace process leading to a Palestinian state. We have already seen that the US was quite keen to have Yasser Arafat and the PLO terrorists run such a state (see 1977 section). Thus, Reagan's plan to create a Palestinian state, which Bronfman endorsed, was another American attack on Israel.

Even as US President Ronald Reagan was pressing for a Palestinian state run by the PLO, these terrorists were attacking Israeli civilians from their bases in Lebanon. Above we noted that in 1970 Jordan's King Hussein had militarily expelled the PLO terrorists from his country.

"Thereafter the PLO shifted its bases to Lebanon and continued its attacks on Israel. The PLO's relations with the Lebanese were tumultuous, and the organization soon became embroiled in Lebanon's sectarian disputes and contributed to that country's eventual slide into civil war."[72]

This was a repeat of the problems the PLO had earlier caused in Jordan.[73]

Because the PLO was murdering Israeli civilians, Israel invaded Lebanon, and launched a

"campaign that Israel said would wipe out the PLO as a political and military force and open the way for true peace in the Middle East."[74]

The Israelis very nearly did just that. They failed, however. But not for lack of trying. Rather, what happened is that as Israeli troops got ready to deliver a knockout blow to the PLO, the US intervened to save them. The Washington Post noted the contrast between the PLO's earlier exit from Jordan, and from Lebanon:

"From Amman [Jordan], the PLO troops left unheralded, in ridicule. From Beirut [Lebanon], they left in a compromise negotiated by the United States, waving their Kalashnikov rifles. Arafat left not in the middle of the night but with an emotional dockside sendoff from the Lebanese prime minister, a French Navy escort and U.S. air cover."[75]

But why did the US do this? Because the PLO is the US's pet, and the US meant to use it again as an attack dog (as we shall see). If any further evidence for this 'master-pet' relationship were needed, consider that, in Lebanon, the US had been using the PLO as its *guard* dog:

"The Lebanese occupation by Israel caused the Palestinians to have to leave Lebanon eventually...They had been the protectors for the American diplomatic community in Beirut...There was liaison with the PLO, and the Americans were depending on them for their security." -- Vincent Cannistraro, senior intelligence official.[76]

It's a love affair!

A bit later, a rival Lebanese faction assassinated Bashir Gemayel, the leader of the Lebanese phalangists. Two days after that, in the resulting chaos, a massacre was committed in Sabra and Shatila, blamed on these now-headless phalangists. Despite the fact that nobody was blaming Israeli soldiers, Ronald Reagan (who was then using the Contra terrorists to kill innocent civilians in Nicaragua) launched a ferocious diplomatic attack against Israeli prime minister Menachem Begin and his Likud government, claiming Israel was responsible for this. Edgar Bronfman Sr., president of the World Jewish Congress, again provided cover for Reagan by supporting this attack wholeheartedly.[77]

Before closing this section, it is important to note that despite the US rescue of the PLO, Arafat's eviction from Beirut was a severe blow that essentially defeated the organization. By 1983, the Christian Science Monitor was writing as follows:

"The Palestine Liberation Organization continues, meanwhile, a loss of regional influence that began with Israel's summer 1982 invasion of Lebanon. As part of the initial cease-fire, Mr. Arafat and the majority of Palestinian guerrillas abandoned their base in Beirut. Since then, a hard-line faction has challenged Arafat's PLO leadership. Now Arafat's back is literally against the sea, and his departure from [the northern Lebanese city of] Tripoli seems only a matter of time."[78a]

Sure enough, two months later, the New York Times reported that:

"Mr. Arafat, who is believed to be in Tunis, is scheduled to meet Monday with Lebanon's Prime Minister, Shafik al-Wazzan, to discuss his organization's terms for withdrawing the rest of its guerrilla forces from [tripoli,] Lebanon."[78b]

The US did what it could to make sure that the remaining PLO troops would get out of Lebanon safely:

"White House spokesman Larry Speakes said the Reagan administration wished for the 'unhampered' withdrawal of the Palestine Liberation Organization troops loyal to Arafat."[78c]

And the Reagan administration became quite strident about this, in fact.

"The United States said today that it had told Israel that it 'hopes and expects' the Shamir Government will halt its military actions around Tripoli and allow Yasir Arafat and his Palestine Liberation Organization fighters to be evacuated from the city.

...officials said privately that Washington was losing patience with the Israeli tactics that have delayed Mr. Arafat's withdrawal."[78d]

At the time, as the same New York Times article explains, President Ronald Reagan's point man on the Middle East was one Donald Rumsfeld, now Secretary of Defense in George Bush Jr.'s administration.

"Today, in what State Department officials said was an effort to demonstrate to the Arabs the American desire for good relations with them as well as the Israelis, Donald Rumsfeld, the special Middle East envoy, arrived in Baghdad for talks with Iraqi leaders.

Mr. Rumsfeld is the highest ranking American to visit Iraq since the Reagan Administration took office in 1980."

What has been reviewed for the years 1982-83 does not suggest in the least that the Reagan administration really intended to have good relations with the Israelis. To confirm that, it suffices to read on and find out what happened in 1985.

From its new base in Tunis, the defeated PLO would find it very difficult to attack Israel, which is why it resorted to such high jinks as taking hostage the Italian ship Achille Lauro in 1985 (see below). The US would therefore make sure to revive the PLO, and eventually bring it to power in the West Bank, where it could once again easily kill innocent Israeli civilians.

____________________________________________________________

1985 [ negative ]

____________________________________________________________

Early in 1984, the Christian Science Monitor wrote,

"This week marks a fundamental reexamination of US Mideast policy. ...Tuesday saw a flurry of activity in Washington regarding the Middle East. President Reagan met with special envoy Donald Rumsfeld and with Republican congressional leaders to discuss new directions in US peacemaking efforts there."[78e]

A bit later, in March of the same year, the New York Times wrote,

"The Reagan Administration is fashioning a new Middle East strategy... The officials said there had been unending meetings to try to find something new to say and do to put the new strategy into effect. A decision to send Donald Rumsfeld, the special Middle East negotiator, back to the region was said to be waiting on this."[78f]

What was this "new strategy" that the "Reagan administration [was] fashioning"? In 1985 there were three main US initiatives against Israel and the Jews. One by Shimon Peres who, as we shall see, behaved as a hostile American puppet, rather than an Israeli patriot. One by the Italians, acting as agents of the Americans on behalf of the US pet, the PLO. And one by Ronald Reagan in person, as a very public and vocal antisemite.


1. Shimon Peres acted as a US agent,
against Israeli interests
_____________________

A once useful, though now almost irrelevant, simplification: the Labor party in Israel was traditionally in favor of a Palestinian state; the other main party, Likud, was traditionally against. (The labels 'left-wing' and 'right-wing' in Israel have a superficial rather than substantive connection to their traditional meanings, by the way, because it is the so-called Israeli 'left-wing' that advocates for the PLO, an extreme right-wing organization, and the so-called Israeli 'right-wing' that is opposed to the PLO.)

In 1985 the Israeli government was divided: the prime minister was Shimon Peres, from Labor, and the foreign minister was Yitzhak Shamir, leading the opposition Likud party. When a parliamentary government is divided this way it is a breach of the highest sort for the prime minister to conduct foreign policy without consulting his foreign minister, especially on the question that most divides Israeli society: the Arab-Israeli conflict. Thus, when the Labor Prime Minsiter Shimon Peres circumvented his Likud foreign minister by using Edgar Bronfman Sr., a US businessman and president of the World Jewish Congress, as his private diplomat to the Soviets, and also the leaders of the American Jewish Congress as his private diplomats to the Arabs in Amman and Cairo, this naturally provoked a crisis. Wrote the Guardian, "...the question of who speaks for the Jews, and for Israel itself, suddenly surfaced twice: in Moscow and in Amman."[79]

It was all very mysterious...

"[Bronfman's] departure for the Soviet Union a week ago Sunday was not announced; the Soviets did not publicly acknowledge his visit on Monday and Tuesday; and his return to New York on Thursday went unreported. The trip was made public only when Israeli Foreign Minister Yitzhak Shamir criticized it in an interview with the Jerusalem Post."[80]

And when Bronfman came back to New York, he was "refusing to disclose whom he met and what, if anything, he had achieved..."[81]

What was all this about?

According to Israel Radio, the discussion with the Soviets was about "Israeli agreement with Syria over the future of the occupied Golan Heights,"[82] and "One Israeli newspaper also reported that Bronfman carried a position paper on a phased Israeli withdrawal from the strategic Golan Heights."[83]

As for the Arabs, wrote the Guardian,

"The message [the private diplomats] brought to Mr Peres, from both [Egyptian president] Mubarak and [Jordanian King] Hussein, was: put the PLO to the test, and allow it some role in the diplomatic process. But this, of course, is anathema to the Likud half of the government, led by [foreign minister!] Mr Yitzhak Shamir."[84]

In other words, Peres used non-Israelis to do a diplomatic end-run around the Likud foreign minister. And to what end? To maneuver simultaneously for an Israeli withdrawal from strategic high ground, and in order to create a diplomatic process that would place the genocidal PLO in control of the West Bank.

This sort of thing is usually called 'treason.'

Yitzhak Shamir "criticised his own Premier [for using] Mr Edgar Bronfman ...[and added that]... Israel can talk directly to the Soviet Union...it does not need intermediaries."[85] As to the content of this diplomacy, Shamir's response was "not merely to reject the substance of the talks in Amman, but to blast the American Jewish figures for presuming to speak on these matters ...[and he] extended the same logic to attack Edgar Bronfman."[86] But Yitzhak Shamir did not accuse Shimon Peres of treason - he should have.

Ariel Sharon (then Trade and Industry Minister), on the other hand, was not so shy:

"Mr Sharon has accused Mr Peres of going behind the Government's back to hold secret talks with King Husain of Jordan, and has even claimed that the Prime Minister is prepared to consider what amounts to the ultimate Israeli treason: talking to the Palestinian Liberation Organization.

The Prime Minister's actions, Mr Sharon has said, amount to 'unparalleled cynicism, with disregard for every administrative norm' ...[and he has]...accused him of 'acting with deliberate and premeditated slyness.'"[87]

Sharon was quite right: this didn't smell good. So was the US involved?

On the surface, it would appear not. At this time there was a "Soviet proposal for an international Middle East peace conference that would include the Soviets and the Palestine Liberation Organization."[88] In January 1985, "The United States and Israel...rejected calls for a peace conference that would include the Soviet Union and the PLO."[89]

That looks like American support for Israel. But that's a bit funny, because:

1) the US had already teamed up once before with the Soviet Union to try and impose the PLO on Israel (see 1977 section);

2) the PLO is an American pet (see 1982 section); and

3) just two months later, in March, when Edgar Bronfman's trip to the Soviet Union was being set up, the Washington post reported that

"[US Secretary of State George] Shultz, fresh from reporting to President Reagan on his Moscow conversations with the new Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, said Reagan 'firmly intends' to seize the moment for high-level dialogue and improvement in relations... [US] Assistant Secretary of State Elliott Abrams said... [that a]mong the signs of possible progress... is an invitation to Edgar Bronfman, president of the World Jewish Congress, to visit Moscow..."[90]

Bronfman functioned as Ronald Reagan's 'Jewish diplomat' whenever the US president chose to attack Israel. Moreover, Bronfman was vociferously calling for a Palestinian state (see 1981, 1982 sections). How interesting, then, that Peres should choose precisely this man to be an agent for secret and treasonous negotiations with the Soviets concerning Israeli withdrawal from strategic high ground. And how interesting that Bronfman's trip should have been with the blessings of the US government. All of this suggests that Shimon Peres is a US agent, carrying out US policy hostile to Israel.

There is no need to speculate, however. Shimon Peres was in fact directly coordinating his Soviet diplomacy with the US government:

"Talks on the possibilities for improving Israeli-Soviet ties are expected to figure in Mr. Peres's meetings in the United States with President Reagan and Secretary of State George Shultz this week. The Israelis are keenly aware of next month's summit between Mr. Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev."[91]

Is the picture getting clearer? Shimon Peres' attack on Israel was an American attack.

If any doubts remain on this point, they are dispelled by looking at the other half of Peres' treasonous diplomacy, which had to do with trying to jump-start a peace process with the Arabs that would involve the PLO. Guess who got that ball rolling? The United States.

Peres sent his private diplomats to Amman and Jordan in September. But it was the United States that had earlier laid the groundwork for this. In late May, King Hussein of Jordan made a trip to the US, and a week later the US announced that it would

"soon hold talks with a joint Jordanian-Palestinian delegation on ways to renew the peace process in the Middle East..."[92]

This led to an uproar in Shimon Peres' divided cabinet:

"Some ministers fear this will lead to back door recognition of the PLO by the U.S. and have demanded that Jerusalem immediately inform Washington that Israel opposes this development.

Speaking after the Cabinet meeting yesterday Mr David Levy, a deputy premier and Housing Minister, said 'It is de facto back door recognition of the PLO.'

He demanded an immediate reply by Israel rejecting what he called the contradictory position taken by the U.S."[93]

The foreign minister, Yitzhak Shamir, was also strongly opposed.

But the prime minister, Shimon Peres, did his best to tamp down opposition to the US initiative within Israel. A bit later, in September, Peres would carry out the second stage by sending his private diplomats to the same King Hussein, and to president Mubarak in Egypt.
 

2. Bettino Craxi and Giulio Andreotti commit
suicide for the PLO
_________________

Another American attack, with the aim of producing a 'peace' process leading to a PLO state, took place in parallel, from Italy. I shall begin by explaining what Craxi and Andreotti did, and then I will show that the US was behind this as well.

On December 6, 1984, "[Italian prime minister Bettino] Craxi held an unannounced meeting with Arafat in Tunisia." Why?

"[to get] the 10 [European] Common Market nations behind a Middle East peace initiative when Italy takes over the presidency of the organization in January. His plan calls for the PLO to join in the negotiations..."[94]

Craxi's next door neighbor, Pope John Paul II, had received Yasser Arafat in 1982 (the same year that the PLO got chased out of Lebanon for murdering Israeli civilians!), and ever since the Pope had been agitating vocally in the PLO's favor.[95] (It is worth noting that the Pope does not usually meet publicly with terrorists; his public efforts are on behalf of those who kill Jews.) All of Rome’s power spoke with one voice: a state for the PLO in the West Bank.

On December 8th, two days after meeting with the terrorist, the Italian prime minister, Bettino Craxi, vouched for Yasser Arafat in the strongest terms:

"Mr Bettino Craxi, endorsed King Hussein's call... for a joint approach by Jordan and the PLO toward a Middle East peace settlement ...[and]... added that the PLO chairman, Mr Yasser Arafat, whom he met during his visit, had shown an 'unequivocal desire for peace and negotiations.'"[96]

Mark the word "unequivocal."

Then, in March 1985, Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak met with Ronald Reagan and returned to Cairo saying "he had not been disappointed in his talks with Reagan." This means Reagan had lent a sympathetic ear to what Mubarak had told him. And what was that?

"[Mubarak had] suggested that the United States hold talks with a delegation from Jordan and the Palestine Liberation Organization to explore the agreement that King Hussein of Jordan and Yasir Arafat, the P.L.O. chairman, reached Feb. 11."

Although the Americans stopped short of giving this plan a public blessing,

"The initiative won more support in Europe. Prime Minister Bettino Craxi of Italy gave the plan a boost tonight after talks with Mr. Mubarak."[97]

Craxi, in other words, was racing to and fro, working overtime as a PLO diplomat, and he was doing this with bravado, even gusto.

Consider only that when, on October 1st 1985, "Israeli jet fighters... flew 1,500 miles to blast the PLO headquarters in Tunis...in retaliation for the Yom Kippur slaying of three Israelis aboard a yacht in Cyprus,"[104] this was the Italian prime minister's response:

"...Italian Prime Minister Bettino Craxi condemned Israel for conducting 'terrorist violence,' and sent a message to PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat offering condolences for the victims of the raid."[105]

Incredible, but not unusual: the rest of the world also condemned Israel for defending itself from terrorists, and the United States, in particular, voted for a "ringing condemnation of the Israeli action by the U.N. Security Council."[106] (Naturally, because having deposited the PLO safely in Tunis, after saving it from utter destruction in Lebanon [see 1982 section], the US was keen to protect its pet.)

But Craxi's passionate pro-PLO diplomacy did not go down well with all Italians.

"Craxi [from the Socialist Party] and Foreign Minister Giulio Andreotti [from the Christian Democratic Party] triggered a major political row [in Italy]... because of the vehemence of their reaction to the Israeli bombing... [in] Tunisia."[107]

In fact, according to the Washington Post,

"The sharpest criticism of their statements - except for that from the Israeli government - was by Defense Minister Spadolini [of the small Republican Party]."[108]

The political passions were stirred further when in the midst of Craxi's passionate defense of the PLO terrorists, on October 7th, these terrorists seized (of all things!) an Italian ship: the Achille Lauro.[98]

Ouch! It was not supposed to be that way - the over-eager PLO terrorists had apparently strayed from the original plan.

"The four Palestinians aboard the Achille Lauro intended to stay aboard as passengers until the cruise liner reached Ashdod, Israel, and then planned either to shoot up the harbor or take Israelis hostage... The Israelis were to be held to bargain for the release of 50 Palestinians held in Israeli jails... [But] the four members of the group aborted their plans and seized the ship when their weapons were discovered by the crew after the Achille Lauro had left Alexandria [Egypt]."[99]

Yasser Arafat tried to help his friend Bettino Craxi save face by claiming that the Palestinian hijackers were not PLO men.[100] And Italian foreign minister Giulio Andreotti went out of his way to agree with Arafat in public![101] But who were they kidding? Yes, the PLF, which had seized the Achille Lauro, had earlier splintered into three groups, and two of them claimed to be anti-Arafat. But the third faction, headed by Abul Abbas, was openly loyal to the PLO leader.[102] Unfortunately for Arafat's and Andreotti's denials, it was precisely this faction led by Abul Abbas, and which was loyal to Yasser Arafat, that had seized the Italian ship.[103]

So in the end Yasser Arafat had to call his terrorists off:

"[W]hen relations between the P.L.O. and Italy seemed jeopardized by the seizure of the [Italian] ship... Mr. Arafat and Abul Abbas ordered the hijackers to return to Port Said [Egypt] and surrender."[109]

If you still needed evidence that you are living in an absurd world, it was just provided by the fact that it is possible for the media to write that, after the PLO terrorists attacked an Italian ship, relations between Italy and the PLO "seemed jeopardized." No wonder people have trouble thinking about the world.

Not to be outdone, the US would add its own absurdities to this mix. After the hijackers turned themselves in to the Egyptian authorities, it was revealed that they had murdered an American citizen, Leon Klinghoffer, Jewish.

"The circumstances of the killing of Klinghoffer, who relatives said was confined to a wheelchair as a result of a stroke five years ago, were unclear. An officer of the ship told ABC that one of the hijackers, with blood on his trousers, 'said he had killed him and thrown him overboard.'

Klinghoffer apparently was killed, the ship's captain, Gerardo de Rosa, told CBS by ship-to-shore radio, because the hijackers could not get authorities to negotiate with them. They threatened to kill more, de Rosa said, speaking in broken English, 'but they kill just Mr. Klinghoffer.'"[110]

The US expressed 'outrage' at this.

"…when U.S. Ambassador to Egypt Nicholas Veliotes visited the ship off Port Said tonight to check details of the situation and discovered that Leon Klinghoffer had been murdered, he demanded by radio phone that the Egyptians prosecute 'those sons of [censored].'"[111]

Instead, Egypt sent them on a plane to their master, Yasser Arafat, in Tunis. This suggests that Egypt did not think that the US was serious, because if it had thought that, it is quite unlikely that it would have risked the wrath of the superpower over a couple of men. Another possibility is that the US and Egypt had an arrangement to keep appearances but to let the terrorists go free.

Here's what happened.

First, the US decided to make a big show of bravery by diverting the Egyptian plane carrying the PLO terrorists to a joint US-Italian base. The official story is that they didn't know that Abul Abbas, the mastermind, and another senior PLO official were on board. But when this became public, the US did not proceed to "prosecute those sons of [censored]," who after all were now in US custody; instead the US made a big public show of insisting that Italy put these two men, the bosses of the operation, on trial. But the only person murdered was an American citizen...

Of course, the Italian prime minister was Bettino Craxi, who sang love songs for the PLO. So when Egypt voiced its public opposition to the US's public demand that Italy try the terrorists, Bettino Craxi, of course, found the Egyptian argument persuasive and let the terrorists go.[112]

Having thus once again taken a refreshing and exhilarating plunge into total insanity, Bettino Craxi met with his equally eager advisors to see if they could predict what the consequences of their latest stunt might be.

"Prime Minister Bettino Craxi met with senior aides tonight to discuss the possible consequences of a decision by his Government to allow two key members of the Palestine Liberation Organization [to] leave Italy."[113]

Four days later, this was the consequence: "Oct. 17: Italian government of Bettino Craxi resigns over Achille Lauro affair."[114]

Spectacular. Bettino Craxi had shown himself to be a passionate PLO nationalist, willing to sacrifice the post of prime minister of a major world power for the sake of making amorous expressions to the PLO in the most inconceivably absurd of circumstances, releasing - too boot - the specific PLO terrorists who had masterminded an attack against his own country back into the care of Yasser Arafat, their lord and paymaster.

But what did this achieve? Doesn't extraordinary behavior such as this call for a powerful reason? It does.

This entire maneuver was a tremendous blow to the international prestige of Israel, because it showed that even when the moral facts on the ground could not be more clearly on its side, the Jewish state received the world's condemnation. Even the prime minister of a country whose ship was held by the PLO preferred these terrorists to Israel. Using the world as theater, a message was sent to the intimate subconscious of people everywhere, awakening the giant that slumbers there (if he was not already awake). We are speaking of antisemitism.

So was the US behind all this?

Let us consider first the obvious oddities in the behavior of the US. To begin with, the only person killed aboard the Achille Lauro was US citizen Leon Klinghoffer, an American Jew. The US had diverted the Egyptian plane carrying the people who had masterminded Klinghoffer's murder to a joint US-Italian base. In other words, the US had custody of the murderers of an American citizen. But the US did not try these individuals. Instead the US handed the PLO masterminds over to Italy and then (of course) expressed public 'outrage' when Italy - as could be expected from Bettino Craxi - let them go.

This all makes perfect sense if the US ruling elite does not care about Jewish lives, even be they American ones. It also makes sense if the US ruling elite cares deeply about protecting its prized pet: the PLO. Under any other hypothesis, however, it is truly difficult to make sense of what the US government did. Especially when you consider that the US has considered just one American citizen killed sufficient to launch the invasion of a country (Panama).

"[On December 16 1989] Panamanian soldiers killed an unarmed U.S. Marine officer dressed in civilian clothes.

Retaliation by the United States was quick and decisive. On December 17, U.S. President George Bush ordered troops to Panama, with the subsequently announced aims of seizing Noriega to face drug charges in the United States, protecting American lives and property, and restoring Panamanian liberties."[115]

So one US soldier killed was enough to justify the US invasion of a foreign country, and the seizure of that country's leader to be tried in the United States. But the PLO murderers of one American Jew, already in US custody, were released to the passionately pro-PLO Italian prime-minister, Betinno Craxi, whose foreign minister, Giulio Andreotti, was equally pro-PLO. Predictably, these men returned the murderers of an American Jew, in health, to the PLO.

To put this all in its proper context, we must briefly consider US covert penetration of Italy in the post-war. Once this is properly appreciated, we will have all the pieces of the puzzle because Bettino Craxi and Giulio Andreotti are products of this US penetration.

Immediately after World War II, Italy had the strongest leftist movement in Europe, and the US ruling elite was not happy about that.

"Papers released over the years in the United States under the Freedom of Information Act have established that the US would consider military intervention if the Communists came to power [in Italy]."[117]

Mind you, the US was not saying it would send its troops if there was a communist armed takeover, but that it would do so if the Italian Communists - very popular - won freely at the polls because the Italian people wanted them in power.

In the event, the US decided not to wait and see what happened at the polls. Instead, it carried out an extensive covert penetration of the Italian Establishment, using fascists, in order to destroy the Italian left and make sure that it lost the election. (And the US was doing similar things in Germany).[116a]

Many things still aren't known about this, but the research of historian Christopher Simpson has shown us at least the tip of the iceberg (Simpson, C. 1988. Blowback: America's recruitment of Nazis and its effects on the Cold War. New York: Weidenfeld & Nicholson). Simpson writes:

“Not all the clandestine containment programs were aimed at the USSR and its satellites. Some of the most important early applications of these tactics began in Western Europe. The Italian elections of 1948 marked another important milestone in the development of US covert operations and in high-level support for the use of former Nazi collaborators.” (p.89)

[nikmatdam]

The Vatican played a prominent role in this.
As is now well known, Pope Pious XII assisted Hitler’s domestic policy by ordering the German Catholic party not to oppose the German Nazi leader. But this Pope did much else for the Nazis, as documented by historian Peter Cornwell.[116b] Especially shocking is the Vatican's direct assistance to Adolf Hitler's extermination program in Croatia, which was there led by the German-allied Croatian Ustashe. These camps were run by Franciscan priests under the authority of Archbishop Stepinac, who greeted Ante Pavelic, the Croatian ‘poglavnik’ (i.e. ‘fuhrer’) as an emissary of God.[116bb] After the war, the Vatican used one of its many infamous ‘rat-lines’ to spirit almost the entire Ustashe (Croatian Nazi) organization to safety, including Ante Pavelic (who was given last rites by the Pope himself when he died in Spain).[116c] What historian Christopher Simpson documented, which is that the Vatican eagerly helped the CIA deploy its covert fascists in Italy in the post-war period, is entirely consistent with the Vatican's behavior during the war.

“the CIA established much deeper and broader ties with the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church in Rome than had previously been the case. This not only had a powerful impact on the Italian political scene but also...laid the foundation for the agency’s relationship with Intermarium, an influential Catholic lay organization made up primarily of Eastern European exiles that operated under the protection of the Vatican. At least half a dozen senior leaders of Intermarium can be readily identified as Nazi collaborators.” -- Christopher Simpson, Blowback (p.89)

This is the same Intermarium that, in cooperation with US intelligence, set up several rat lines to get Nazi war criminals out of Europe after the war. Many to the US (to read about the secret US absorption of thousands of Nazi war criminals, after the war, see 1945 section).

“Cardinal Spellman of New York served as a crucial go-between in CIA-Vatican negotiations... The US government, the cardinal said, had secretly ‘released large sums in ‘black currency’ in Italy to the Catholic Church.’ This “black currency” did not come from American taxpayers. Rather, a substantial part of the funding for clandestine activities in Italy came from captured Nazi German assets, including money and gold that the Nazis had looted from the Jews... The CIA withdrew about $10 million from the fund in late 1947, laundered it through a myriad of bank accounts, then used that money to finance sensitive Italian operations. This was the ‘black currency’ that Cardinal Spellman asserted was given to the Vatican for anti-Communist agitation. Much of the CIA’s $10 million Italian war chest was delivered through clandestine campaign contributions to Christian Democratic candidates... [and] many of the remnants of the Fascists’ wartime ruling apparatus, as well as most of the police, had joined Christian Democratic ranks after 1945...” -- Christopher Simpson, Blowback (p.91-92)

Since the Christian Democratic parties were set up by the CIA-Vatican alliance to be fronts for the fascists, it matters that Gulio Andreotti, Bettino Crazi's foreign minister, was a Christian Democrat. Both prime minister Craxi and foreign minister Andreotti are now known to have been involved with an extensive CIA terrorist operation in Italy that had murdered leaders of the Italian left. This was all uncovered during the early 90s when a few brave Italian magistrates risked their lives to investigate this and make their findings public, producing a scandal that shook Italian society to the core. When this scandal broke, the British daily The Independent wrote that:

"The main loser seems to be the Socialist leader, Bettino Craxi. He said that when he was prime minister he never knew about it. Then a letter was produced with his signature saying he had been informed."[117]

What the same article reports about Craxi's foreign minister, Giulio Andreotti, makes it clear that the latter was even more clearly implicated in this terrorist business, and also that he was apparently a secret tool of NATO. I hate to be redundant but this really must be said again: Andreotti's Christian Democratic party, dominant in Italy in the post war, was "acked by the Vatican and at one time by CIA money."[118] The violence sponsored by these people was no laughing matter.

"Historically, there is the grim record of seven, unresolved terrorist-type attacks between 1969 and 1984 in which 150 people died: the 1980 Bologna train station massacre of 85 people was the most infamous. It has long seemed probable that those attacks were the work of right-wing sympathizers, well positioned within the Italian state, whose major concern was to push Italian public opinion to the right and halt the advance of an Italian Communist Party which touched 34 per cent at the 1976 general election.

Despite years of trials and retrials, and traces of wrongdoing involving Italian Secret Services, the CIA, the Masonic lodge P2 and the Mafia in all seven investigations, only a handful of minor figures have been sentenced, while no organization has been held responsible. Put simply, most of these attacks appear to have been 'covered up'.[119]

The above is from an article in the Irish Times that was using the occasion of another terrorist bombing in Italy, this one in Florence, in 1993, to look back. The Irish Times added:

"On the day before the Florence bomb, the former prime minister, Senator Giulio Andreotti, was answering questions about the murder of a journalist. Mr Andreotti is currently being investigated on both murder and Mafia collusion charges.

Just one week ago, the former Socialist prime minister, Mr Bettino Craxi, predicted a new season of bombs."

You can't make this stuff up.

It seems, therefore, that Craxi and Andreotti were American stooges in what was (is?) a rather deep and extensive covert penetration by US intelligence of the Italian Establishment. From this point of view, it is now easier to explain Craxi's and Andreotti's entirely absurd behavior in the Achille Lauro affair: they only appeared to be Italian politicians. In reality, they were paid US agents, and they had a job to do: make the PLO a player, offend Israel, and teach the whole world that antisemitism was the name of the game - again.
 

3. Ronald Reagan denies the Holocaust
__________________________________

Ronald Reagan was famous for delegating authority. But the task of offending Jews he took firmly into his own hands, launching yet a third simultaneous attack on Israel in this busy year of 1985.

"President Reagan, who earlier declined to visit the site of a Nazi concentration camp during his visit to Germany next month because he said it would be 'out of line,' has decided to lay a wreath at a German war cemetery where many Nazi soldiers were buried after the Battle of the Bulge, the White House announced today."[120]

This naturally created an uproar. You may wonder, how is it possible for the president of a country that fought the German Nazis to do something like this?

Well, but did the US fight the German Nazis? The US Establishment, remember, helped fund the rise of the Nazi party, and the government under Roosevelt energetically cooperated with Hitler's Final Solution (see sections on 1930s and 1939-45). After the war, the US illegally and in secret absorbed the entire Nazi war criminal organization in order to create the CIA (see 1945 section). It is hard to argue, therefore, that America's belated entry into the World War stems from the US Establishment's in-principle objection to Nazi ideology. Isn't it more reasonable to suppose that the US invaded Europe because the Soviets were on their way to the Atlantic? That the US had no objection to Nazis can be seen from the fact that, as soon as the Nazis were whipped into obedience again in 1945, the US immediately redeployed them. From this perspective it is hardly surprising that Reagan should have sought a) to re-normalize German Nazism, and b) to re-normalize antisemitism with a high-profile spitting session on the Jews.

And that's what this was.

The US president was very careful to insult the Jews. In the uproar that followed the proposed itinerary of his visit to Germany (made public well in advance, so as to guarantee the uproar), prominent Jewish leaders such as Elie Wiesel explained publicly to the American president that

"there could be no trade-off by combining visits to a camp and to the cemetery. 'A visit to this particular cemetery is to us unacceptable,' he said."[121]

The way a master dismisses a nagging slave, Ronald Reagan replied that maybe he would add a visit to a Nazi concentration camp site, but that in any case "no thought was being given to eliminating a visit to the Bitburg [Nazi] cemetery."[122]

I emphasize: this was all carefully premeditated and deliberate. German chancellor Helmut Kohl had actually

"proposed that Reagan join him...in visiting both a World War II cemetery and a concentration camp site, [and yet] Reagan's advance men accepted the first, but declined the second."[123]

I am not trying to make Helmut Kohl look good - to include the Nazi cemetery was an outrage anyway, and in fact Kohl was apologizing for the Nazis in public.[124] My point is that the American president went out of his way to out-Nazi the German chancellor and make known his intentions to lay a wreath to honor the Nazis and to simultaneously disrespect the victims of the Shoah.

In fact, Reagan announced this a whole month in advance of his trip, guaranteeing an extended pandemonium that carried the news all around the world. And to make sure nobody thought there had been a mistake, when the protests began he did not give an inch. Then he

"unleashed a new wave of Jewish fury... by claiming that German soldiers buried [in that cemetery] were 'victims' of the Nazis 'just as surely as the victims in the concentration camps.'"[125]

But some might think this was Reagan's idiosyncrasy, or his administration's. To dispel any such notion, powerful members of the American Establishment, such as Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger, added their voices, calling on president Reagan not to cancel his visit to the Nazi cemetery.[126] Amazing, because even in Germany many were confused and disturbed by this, so Reagan could have taken the easy way out by calling it all a 'mistake.'

No. In the end he laid his wreath. On the graves of Nazis.

If worldwide Jewish pressure could not get Reagan to do the slightest of symbolic retreats on such an obvious moral issue, with the whole world watching in amazement, what was the ulterior meaning?

Simple: this was 'the leader of the free world' doing Holocaust denial via diplomacy-speech. That's what this was.

US president Ronald Reagan, the most important man in the world, took the loudest megaphone in history, the Western mass media, and screamed at the top of his voice, for a whole month, that antisemitism was normal again. The Jews, who continue to think (whether approving or disapproving) that the US establishment is pro-Jewish and pro-Israel, were deaf to how this reverberated on the walls of everybody else's subconscious.
 

4. Who was in charge of US covert operations in 1985?
_______________________________________________

Given so much US overt and also covert activity to attack Israel, you may wonder, who was in charge of US intelligence operations during the year of 1985? That was Vincent Cannistraro, "Director of NSC Intelligence from 1984 to 1987" where he was responsible for "coordinating intelligence programs throughout the [Reagan] administration."[127]

Cannistraro was the man in charge.

You may recall that it was Cannistraro who explained the love-affair between the US and the PLO, revealing that American diplomats in Beirut relied on the PLO terrorists for their security. This is before the Israelis prepared a knockout blow against the PLO that brought the Americans sweeping in to save these terrorists from destruction (see 1982 section).

It is also Cannistraro who first helped the CIA train the Contra terrorists in Nicaragua and then directed the Contra program from his new perch at Reagan's National Security Council.[128] Simultaneously, the US was illegally sending arms to the antisemitic Islamists in Iran (and notice the cynicism: the US made Israel deliver the weapons).[128a] Two massive government conspiracies running at the same time, which, as you may recall, became one of the biggest scandals in US history (though nobody served jail time and many of them are back in power in Bush Jr.'s administration).

At the end of the year, the Associated Press carried the headline "Wave Of Terrorism Voted Top Story Of 1985."[130] Cannistraro, a trainer of terrorists, and responsible for "coordinating intelligence programs throughout the [Reagan] administration" oversaw a great deal of this - including, of course, the activities of that prized US pet: the PLO.

Now that nobody seems to remember the Iran-Contra double mega-scandal of the 1980s, Cannistraro has resurfaced as a major opponent of Israel, and he parades himself as "ABC News intelligence analyst Vincent Cannistraro."[128] He is presented by the Orwellian media as a counter-terrorist.[129]

To learn more about Vincent Cannistraro, anti-Israeli propagandist, and creator of the Nicaraguan Contra terrorist force, read:

The mainstream Western media loves Raymond McGovern and Vincent Cannistraro, former CIA agents and anti-Israeli propagandists; by Francisco Gil-White
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/mprot2.htm


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Should you believe ‘former CIA officials’ such as Raymond McGovern and Vincent Cannistraro?; by Francisco Gil-White
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/mprot3.htm


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How the mass media covers for Vincent Cannistraro, terrorist, and creator of the Nicaraguan Contras”; by Francisco Gil-White
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/mprot4.htm
 

It is also worth pointing out that the CIA director in 1985 was William Casey, who was appointed to that post by Ronald Reagan after Casey ran his presidential campaign. Who is William Casey?

Well, in the section on 1945, it was explained that the US absorbed almost the entire Nazi war criminal organization and out of that created the CIA.

"Frank Wisner, a dashing young Wall Street lawyer who had distinguished himself in underground OSS intrigues [the OSS is the precursor to the CIA] in Istanbul and Bucharest, headed the coordinating team."

This coordinating team was tasked with the job of absorption of the Nazi war criminal infrastructure [my emphasis, below].

"Frank Wisner's Special Intelligence Branch staff, which was engaged in work with [Nazi war criminal Reinhart] Gehlen [who was the most important Nazi asset], had more than its share of brilliant operatives who were to leave their marks on the history of US espionage. They included Richard Helms, for example, later to become CIA deputy director for clandestine operations and eventually agency director under Presidents Johnson and Nixon; William Casey, CIA director under President Reagan; Harry Rositzke, soon to become chief of CIA clandestine operations inside the USSR and later CIA chief of station in India; and, of course, Wisner himself, soon to be chief of all American clandestine warfare operations worldwide."[131]

That US president Ronald Reagan should have sought to normalize the Nazis, and to re-normalize antisemitism, is surprising only to those who do not know this history.

[nikmatdam]

____________________________________________________________

1987-1988 [ negative ]

The 'First Intifada' was a US-PLO strategy used to represent the Arabs in West Bank and Gaza as supposedly oppressed 'underdogs'
____________________________________________________________

Late in 1987, commercial strikes, rock-throwing riots, and other disturbances began taking place in the West Bank and Gaza. By early 1988, this was being called the 'intifada.' The interpretation in the mass media was that this was a 'spontaneous uprising' in reaction to supposed Israeli oppression. For example, on 12 January 1988, the British daily The Guardian produced the following headline:

"An uprising that took the Israelis by surprise: How Jerusalem misjudged the spontaneous unrest in the occupied territories."[131a]

The Guardian also reported that,

"In yesterday's leaflets the Arabic word intifada (root: shake, convulse, tremble) - and roughly but unsatisfactorily translated as 'uprising' - recurred again and again."

I shall demonstrate that the intifada was not spontaneous in the least, but rather was a planned strategy of the terrorist PLO. But first things first. I will address the following questions in sequence.

1) Does a confrontation between well-armed soldiers and rock-throwing boys demonstrate that the first oppress the second?

2) What was the broader context of pro-PLO diplomacy at the UN in which the 'intifada' took place?

Once the above two questions have been answered, I will address a third question.

3) Was the PLO directly behind the 'intifada'?

Put together, my argument will be the following. The impression that the rock-throwing Palestinian Arabs were 'underdogs' and therefore the 'good guys' is a facile and mistaken one. But this impression was carefully constructed to coincide with the effort at the UN to create a diplomatic process leading to a PLO state. Not coincidentally, it was the PLO that produced the intifada as a ploy to assist this process.

Finally, I will argue that,

4) The United States was behind it all.


1. Does a confrontation between well-armed soldiers and rock-throwing boys demonstrate that the first oppress the second?
________

The main images of the 'intifada' were rock-throwing Palestinian Arab boys in confrontation with fully armed Israeli soldiers. With images like that, just a little bit of editorializing would produce an impression of supposed Israeli oppression of the Palestinian Arabs. The media editorialized it precisely like that, with gusto. And the PLO milked that for all it was worth.

However, it is important to understand that who the good guys are is not directly established by who is holding a rock and who is holding a gun. Consider the following, from the very beginning of the unrest:

"Khalil al Wazir, the senior military aide to Palestine Liberation Organization chairman Yasser Arafat, has said that disturbances in the occupied West Bank and Gaza strip are certain to continue as long as Israeli troops continue their present tactics.

Al Wazir, better known by his codename Abu Jihad, spoke in an interview with the BBC correspondent in Tunis, blaming the recent wave of violence on what he called savage behavior by Israeli soldiers.

In the latest incident, Israeli soldiers Monday shot and killed a Palestinian mother of five and wounded five others during protests in the West Bank city of Ramallah, 10 miles north of Jerusalem. The soldiers fired into the air and then at the legs of the protesters as they rushed to the scene after an Israeli woman motorist was injured by a rock thrown at her car, said the spokesman.

A military source said the Arab woman killed in the clash, identified by the hospital as Amayat Hindi, 35, was apparently a passerby and not among the protesters. The army was investigating the shooting, added the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity. Four of the wounded were treated in nearby Ramallah hospital, while a fifth, who was slightly injured, was treated briefly at the scene and released, the military added."[134b]

So the PLO blamed the unrest on supposedly "savage behavior by Israeli soldiers." What savage behavior?

We hear of a "Palestinian mother of five" killed by the Israelis, by name Amayat Hindi. The PLO implies that she was willfully killed; the Israelis claim that she was an accidental casualty. According to the Israelis, the soldiers were not trying to kill anybody, and so had fired into the air and then at people's legs. But they did have to do something because an "Israeli woman motorist" was in danger of being killed by the rock throwers. Who's right?

A UPI wire of the same day, reporting on the same event, had more detail about this. There are some discrepancies with the above. For example, the woman's name is not given as Amayat Hindi but as Inayad Hindi, and in the UPI wire she is not a mother of five but of eight. However, UPI concurs that she was 35 years old, that the number of people wounded in the same incident was five, and that the trouble started when the rock-throwers injured an Israeli motorist.

Why did Inayad Hindi die? UPI explains:

"Cornered Israeli troops shot and killed a mother of eight and wounded five people during a general strike by Arabs protesting an attempt by Jews to pray at one of Islam's holiest sites.

[nikmatdam]

(...)

Inayad Hindi, 35, a school teacher and a mother of eight, was hit by gunfire from Israeli troops who were trapped by a mob in the center of Ramallah, about 9 miles north of Jerusalem, Israeli military sources said."[134c]

If the Israeli troops had been "cornered" and "trapped" by the rock-throwing mob, then, since rocks can maim and kill, and since there were quite a few rock throwers, the soldiers had an obligation to defend themselves, and moreover to defend the Israeli motorist. But they obviously did not shoot to kill, otherwise a lot of people would have died. Only one person died, and it appears to have been an accident, because it is unlikely that a schoolteacher and mother of eight was throwing rocks. And the Arab and Israeli sides agree about this because, as the same wire explains, "A spokesman at Ramallah Government Hospital, where Hindi was pronounced dead on arrival, said she was shopping when she was shot."

We also learn above that the Arab rock throwers were not protesting Israeli oppression - they were upset that a few Jews wanted to worship, so they started throwing rocks, because that Jews should pray was very offensive to them. In the words of one PLO/Hamas Arab Muslim Nazi interviewed by UPI,

"'They're all so mad about the Jews who want to go to the mosque to pray,' said Omar Said, 32, who kept his brassware shop open."

Of course, Omar was putting it a bit tendentiously. It is false that the Jews wanted to go pray at the mosque, obviously, because Jews do not pray at mosques. What Omar leaves out is that the site of the mosque is also the site of Solomon's Temple. The Jews were few and they were not going there to drive the Arabs out; they just wanted to pray too.

So what emerges is that what the PLO calls "savage behavior by Israeli soldiers" was in fact perfectly decent behavior by Israeli soldiers, who, with minimum harm to their attackers, did their best to protect an Israeli civilian and then their own selves from a rock-throwing mob that had enraged itself merely because a few Jews wanted to pray.

But this information is in the wires, which almost nobody reads except for a few journalists. What people read is what appears in newspapers, and newspapers (and other mass media) tended to adopt the PLO interpretation of the unrest. To give you a taste for what usually happens in the major papers, consider what the three newspapers that covered this particular incident said.

First, the highly regarded Christian Science Monitor wrote:

"Israeli soldiers shot and killed a PLO/Hamas Arab Muslim Nazi mother of five and wounded five other people yesterday during protests that swept the occupied territories, an Army spokesman and witnesses said.

Troops opened fire in Ramallah to disperse about 500 PLO/Hamas Arab Muslim Nazi students who marched in the main square, the spokesman said."[134e]

That's it. The entire context is missing, and it makes the Israelis look very bad. The soldiers fired "to disperse about 500 PLO/Hamas Arab Muslim Nazi students"? Well yes, but what happened to the fact that these students were throwing rocks and had endangered the life of one innocent Israeli citizen? What about the fact that these students had "cornered" and "trapped" the soldiers? These facts are not mentioned.

The Toronto Star ran the headline, "PLO/Hamas Arab Muslim Nazis riot as mom shot by Israelis." But, of course, the only way to write a correct title with those words is to put them like so: "Mom accidentally shot by Israelis as PLO/Hamas Arab Muslim Nazis riot." What the Toronto Star wrote suggests that the riots were caused by the death of Inayad Hindi, something that is not true. The body of that article 'reported' as follows:

"Israeli forces shot dead a PLO/Hamas Arab Muslim Nazi mother of five and wounded five other people yesterday in demonstrations that quickly spread in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip...

The demonstrations had several causes but participants told reporters they were mainly to protest Israeli police action near Islamic holy sites in Jerusalem Sunday."[134f]

The explanation is of course false. The PLO/Hamas Arab Muslim Nazi Arabs were not protesting "police action." They themselves explained how they were upset that a few Jews wanted to pray. And nothing is said about the fact that the rock throwers had attacked an Israeli civilian whom the soldiers rushed to protect.

Finally, The Herald ran the headline "Mother Killed." Not "Arab intolerance reaches rock-throwing pitch as Arabs riot to protest Jewish prayer," or "Protecting a civilian, Israeli soldiers trapped by enraged Arab mob." No, what you must remember is that the Jews killed a mom. Monsters. Underneath the "Mother Killed" title, The Herald writes simply "Israeli soldiers shot and killed a PLO/Hamas Arab Muslim Nazi mother of five who was searching for her children today, during a violent protest by about 500 Arab students."[134g] Nothing more.

Of course, this is only one incident, but it is instructive. The main lessons are three.

a) It is possible for the 'bad guys' to be the ones throwing rocks at fully armed soldiers, and therefore if PLO/Hamas Arab Muslim Nazi Arabs throw rocks at Israeli soldiers we cannot rush to conclude that they are responding to supposed Israeli oppression.

b) Since the PLO tried to claim that the obviously correct and compassionate behavior of the Israeli soldiers in this case was supposedly "savage," it follows that we need to examine PLO accusations of supposed Israeli brutality during the intifada with the utmost skepticism.

c) We cannot trust the mass media which people consume to report things accurately. There is a very strong bias to distort the truth in order to make the Israelis look like oppressors, and to make the PLO/Hamas Arab Muslim Nazi Arabs look like victims.

One final point, here: it is important to remember that rock-throwing is not 'non-violence.' And yet there was a big push in the mainstream Western media to represent the PLO/Hamas Arab Muslim Nazi 'intifada' as supposedly non-violent. For example, an article that appeared in the Financial Times towards the beginning of the intifada went so far as to compare the PLO terrorist George Habash (who "remains an influential and durable figure in the PLO") to Mahatma Ghandi.

"Dr George Habash, leader of the revolutionary Popular Front for the Liberation of Eretz Yisrael, seems an unlikely advocate of a Gandhi-style campaign of civil disobedience in the West Bank and Gaza Strip."[134h]

But Ghandi's followers were not throwing rocks; they were non-violent. Therefore, a rock-throwing campaign cannot be called "Ghandi-style." Moreover, Ghandi never in his life advocated terrorism. By contrast, as the same Financial Times article explains,

"Dr Habash's PFLP was behind a series of spectacular terrorist actions carried out in the early 1970s by an organization calling itself 'Black September.' These included the 1972 Munich Olympic Games massacre of Israeli athletes which outraged world opinion.

He said the 'methods and means' practiced by the PFLP in the early 1970s had been discontinued because 'it made us lose the support of international opinion.' But he added that his organization 'had the right' to use all legitimate means, including armed struggle, to achieve its aims."

Habash was making it clear that he had no philosophical commitment to rock-throwing (which is very different from non-violence), and that the present strategy had been adopted merely because it was better at building sympathy for the PLO/Hamas Arab Muslim Nazi Arabs. He reserved the right to return to outright terrorism (that's the kind of "armed struggle" that the PFLP waged) when he saw fit.

And I must also point out that the intifada did not limit itself to throwing rocks. A year after the intifada started, the New York Times wrote the following:

"...after 12 months...the stone throwing, hurling of firebombs, painting of graffiti slogans on walls and other longstanding tactics of the uprising 'have become institutionalized, a way of life,' Mr. Barghouti [a PLO/Hamas Arab Muslim Nazi newspaper editor in East Jerusalem] said."[134i]

Notice the phrase, "Hurling of firebombs...". And this sort of thing was one of the "longstanding tactics" that had been "institutionalized" in the intifada.

There can be no argument here: firebombs are not merely weapons (as rocks also are), they are explosive weapons. So it should be obvious that the intifada was quite violent. The image of supposedly non-violent "civil disobedience" defended by the media rested merely on the force asymmetry: the Israeli soldiers had bigger weapons. But a force asymmetry - as the example of the incident in which Inayad Hindi accidentally died demonstrates - is insufficient to establish who has the moral high ground.


2. What was happening at the UN while the intifada raged in the West Bank and Gaza?
______________________

The so-called 'intifada' was the backdrop to a simultaneous effort in the UN, also beginning in late 1987, to produce a Middle East ‘Peace’ Conference. This was under Kurt Waldheim's successor Secretary General Javier Perez de Cuellar, who managed to get practically every country in the world to declare its support for including the PLO in the proposed talks.

The point of this, no different from the Nazi Kurt Waldheim's own pro-PLO moves at the UN (see 1974, 1975, and 1977 sections), was to legitimize the PLO as a political player, and the accusations of supposed Israeli oppression provided every government with political cover for supporting the terrorist PLO. This all had an impact on ordinary people, who are usually innocent pawns in the media machinations of the world's ruling classes. Thus, by January 1998, when the supposedly spontaneous riots in the West Bank and Gaza were being baptized 'intifada', a poll estimated that 78% of all Americans favored such a ‘peace’ conference. Of those, 74% supported PLO participation in it.[132]

The United States government officially pretended to be the lonely opponent to PLO participation in the proposed 'peace' conference (this is the sort of thing that convinces Israelis that the US is their 'only friend'). And Yasser Arafat pretended to believe the US's official declarations.

“Eretz Yisrael Liberation Organization leader Yasser Arafat today praised the Soviet Union for its efforts toward a Middle East peace settlement, but...he said that the major obstacles to an international conference on the middle east - to be attended by the five permanent members of the UN security council, plus all sides involved in the middle east conflict, including the PLO - were the US administration and Israel.”[133]

But was the US an obstacle? In fact, no. As the same wire explained,

“The PLO leader said that Israeli foreign minister Shimon Peres and his supporters favor such a conference.”

What does this mean? We already saw that the US had a policy of going radically out of its way to protect the PLO terrorists from the Israelis (see 1982 section), and also that Shimon Peres, taking direct instruction from the US, had a policy of radically going out of his way to do the US’s bidding in order to betray Israel and assist the US’s pro-PLO policy (see 1985 section). It therefore follows that if Shimon Peres was for including the PLO in the Middle East ‘peace’ conference, then so was the US, regardless of what American officials said in public.

But what American officials said in public actually confirms this analysis, because the US official position was that

“Washington will not recognize or negotiate with the PLO until it endorses U.N. Resolutions 242 and 338 - which imply recognition of Israel’s right to exist - and renounces violence and ‘terrorism.’”[134]

This was a sly maneuver: presented as a defense of Israel, it was in fact the most vicious attack. As you may recall, UN Resolution 242 called for Israeli withdrawal from the territories it had conquered in 1967 after being attacked by the surrounding Arab states. The goal of Israel’s Arab attackers had been genocide (see 1964-67 section), and they were promising other such attacks. Concluding the obvious, a US Defense Department study done immediately after the 1967 Six Day War stated that if Israel withdrew from the conquered territories it would be committing suicide (see 1967 section). And yet, despite this, the US immediately adopted the official position that Israel should withdraw, and even conducted some rather aggressive diplomacy to try to implement UN Resolution 242 (see 1969 section).

So, during the intifada, the US position was that it would not “recognize or negotiate with the PLO” unless the PLO accepted a resolution that laid the groundwork for a PLO state. Nice trick. What this makes clear is that the US was merely biding its time, waiting for the moment when it could appear to yield to international pressure to include the PLO in the talks, thus lessening the appearance of having an anti-Israel policy.

It remains to be shown that the 'first intifada' (so-called to distinguish it from the more recent 'Al-Aqsa intifada') was not a spontaneous reaction to Israeli oppression, but a deliberate strategy of the PLO meant to produce the appearance of Israeli oppression. I turn to that next.


3. Was the PLO directly behind the 'intifada'?
_______________________________________

In the context of the rock-throwing riot "by about 500 Arab students" in which Inayad Hindi was accidentally killed, on 15 October 1987 UPI identified one Layai Shatt as "head of [Bir Zeit] university's student council and a key PLO/Hamas Arab Muslim Nazi activist." UPI reported:

"'If [US Secretary of State George] Shultz is here to find out the point of view of the PLO/Hamas Arab Muslim Nazis in the occupied territories, we could tell him that our people's uprising in the last few days is the answer,' Shatt said, speaking from a stage draped with the outlawed Eretz Yisrael Liberation Organization flag.

Unrest in the occupied territories and tensions between Arabs and Jews have risen in recent weeks. Security sources say supporters of the PLO might have incited some of the unrest to show Shultz the extent of its support."[134a]

So the people organizing the unrest were draping themselves in the PLO flag, and Israeli security was saying that the PLO was behind it. Was the PLO behind it? Well, consider what another UPI wire, from the same day, 15 October 1987, reported:

"A security crackdown that netted at least 40 suspected Arab guerrillas in the Gaza Strip has dealt a 'substantial' blow to a major terrorist ring operating in the Israeli-occupied territory, a senior Israeli security official said Thursday.

Evidence turned up after a shoot-out last week between Israeli soldiers and four suspected members of the Islamic Jihad guerrilla organization also led authorities to several arms caches hidden in houses in Gaza City, said the official, who requested anonymity...

...Members of the Gaza group are Sunni Moslems with ties to the Fatah wing of the Eretz Yisrael Liberation Organization, the Israeli official said.

There is growing concern in Israel about the spreading influence of Islamic Jihad in Gaza and the West Bank...

In what appears to have been its first overt political act in Gaza, the group last week called for a three-day commercial strike in Gaza City to protest the Oct. 6 slayings of the four alleged guerrillas by Israeli troops...

Authorities said the four were on their way to carry out a major terrorist attack inside Israel when they were surprised by security forces.

The discovery of the alleged guerrilla network in Gaza was ''one of the consequences'' of the clash, the security official said.[134d]

What we learn above is that Islamic Jihad, a component of Yasser Arafat's own organization, Fatah, the biggest and most important wing of the PLO, was operating in the West Bank and Gaza at the very start of the intifada, and there was "growing concern in Israel about the spreading influence of Islamic Jihad in Gaza and the West Bank."

Some of these Fatah operatives were attempting a terrorist attack in Israel when they got caught. In addition, "In what appears to have been its first overt political act in Gaza, the group last week called for a three-day commercial strike in Gaza City." I remind you that this is at the very start of the intifada, and the central characteristic of the intifada was, precisely, commercial strikes and rock-throwing riots (and "hurling of firebombs").

This would seem unequivocally to establish PLO leadership in the supposedly 'spontaneous' intifada. But if there were any doubts about that, all anybody had to do was listen to Yasser Arafat and other senior members of the PLO. A couple of months later, after practically every country in the world lined up, one by one, to demand that the PLO terrorists be included in a Middle East ‘peace’ conference, the PLO, which apparently prefers prime numbers to round ones, celebrated its 23rd anniversary by ordering violence all over the West Bank and Gaza. It is right at this time that the violence got baptized 'intifada'.

“New Year’s Day [January 1st, 1988] was the 23rd anniversary of the founding of Al-Fatah. The Eretz Yisrael Liberation Organization had called on Arabs in the Gaza Strip and West Bank to demonstrate in commemoration of Fatah Day, as the day is known.”[135]

Towards the end of January, a UPI wire with the headline "Senior offiical says PLO is behind PLO/Hamas Arab Muslim Nazi unrest" reported:

“The Eretz Yisrael Liberation Organization is inciting the 6-week-old campaign of unrest in the Israeli-occupied territories, a senior Eretz Yisrael Liberation Organization official said in an interview published Monday.

‘The PLO is the PLO/Hamas Arab Muslim Nazi revolution and its leader. The PLO/Hamas Arab Muslim Nazi leadership inside the territories is part of the leadership in the outside,’ Salah Khalaf said…”[136]

The wire explained that Khalaf was nothing less than "second in command to PLO chairman Yasser Arafat." And Khalaf was not kidding. As we already saw above, Islamic Jihad, a component of Fatah, was active in the West Bank and Gaza and responsible for organizing strikes and riots (in addition to preparing terrorist attacks).

But this information is in the wires. The major newspapers apparently did not want ordinary people to know what was being reported in the wires, nor did they want their audiences, apparently, to believe that Yasser Arafat had anything to do with the intifada. This is what the British daily The Guardian wrote:

"The conventional, and probably correct, wisdom is that the trouble erupted spontaneously in Gaza on December 9 after four PLO/Hamas Arab Muslim Nazis were killed in a road accident involving an Israeli vehicle. The initial force of the disturbances seemed to surprise both sides: even the PLO leader, Mr Yasser Arafat, who has no interest in diminishing his own importance, has conceded that his organisation was taken aback by the dimensions of the unrest."[131a]

Did Arafat "concede" that? Not when he was talking to Arabs, in Arabic, at a rally held in an Arab country: Kuwait. And that information was in the wires. For example, this one, from the Chinese service Xinhua:

“Addressing a rally here on Saturday night to mark the 23rd anniversary of the creation of the Fatah guerrilla organization, Arafat said that the PLO is directly responsible for the current uprising in the occupied lands. He added that he made a decision on December 8 to refrain from using any weapons during the PLO/Hamas Arab Muslim Nazi struggle. During their demonstrations, PLO/Hamas Arab Muslim Nazi teenagers and youths, with persistence and determination, only threw stones at Israeli soldiers, Arafat said.”[137]

Notice that Arafat's decision of December 8 was one day before December 9, and it is on December 9 that, according to The Guardian, the intifada "erupted spontaneously." What was The Guardian's excuse for getting this wrong? Who knows, because what Arafat said at that rally in Kuwait was reported on 3 January 1988, and The Guardian was writing on 12 January 1988.

And yet, for those who paid attention, it was not impossible to find, even in the pages of a major Western newspaper, PLO leaders explaining that they had planned the whole intifada. The same Financial Times article examined above, in which PLO leader George Habash explained the point of the rock-throwing strategy, also contains this:

"Dr Habash insisted that, despite claims to the contrary, the traditional leadership of the PLO was helping to direct the rebellion in the occupied territories. 'The uprising was planned,' he said."[134h]

Why did Habash have to clarify this? Who was making "claims to the contrary"? That would be the mainstream Western media, which was pushing what The Guardian calls "The conventional, and probably correct, wisdom": namely, "that the trouble erupted spontaneously."

And what was the point of Arafat's and Habash's rock-throwing strategy? Obviously to produce TV images and photographs of fully armed Israeli soldiers in confrontation with “PLO/Hamas Arab Muslim Nazi teenagers and youths” - boys - armed only with rocks: David vs. Goliath, with the Israeli army in the role of Goliath. Everybody loves an underdog. The media obliged, and the PLO milked it for all it was worth, alleging that Israel was using excessive force.

“The central committee and the revolutionary council of the PLO/Hamas Arab Muslim Nazi National Liberation Movement (Fatah) called today on the PLO/Hamas Arab Muslim Nazi people to close their ranks under the leadership of the Eretz Yisrael Liberation Organization (PLO) to carry on the uprising in the occupied territories. This was contained in a statement published here today by the Fatah, the mainstream of the PLO… The statement…also condemned the US and Israel for trying to use every means to crack down on the PLO/Hamas Arab Muslim Nazi uprising.”[138]

So the PLO condemned Israel for supposedly using excessive force against the “PLO/Hamas Arab Muslim Nazi uprising.” David vs. Goliath. The problem with that interpretation, of course, is that the PLO had ordered the violence in the West Bank and Gaza; the Israelis had not started anything. Moreover, as we can see above, the PLO was calling for the violence to continue.

To keep appearances, as we also see above, the PLO added a condemnation of the US. But that was absurd because the US had already joined the rest of the world with condemnations of supposed Israeli ‘brutality.’

[nikmatdam]

“The State Department today defended the U.S. vote against Israel in the U.N. Security Council… pokesman Charles E. Redman…insist[ed] on the U.S. right to vote against human rights violations committed by friend or foe. He said the vote against Israel’s threat to deport Palestinians fomenting violence was in line with longstanding U.S. criticism of human rights violations. ‘Our position, the firmness we attach to it, has been evident from the beginning,’ Redman said.”[139]

And the PLO had rejoiced publicly: “Arafat described the US vote against Israel as ‘a step forward.’”[140]

Now, consider. The US position was that if Palestinian Arabs fomented violence this was not a human rights violation. But should Israel make a threat “to deport Palestinians fomenting violence” - not kill them, not incarcerate them, but just deport them - in an attempt to protect law-abiding people on both sides, that would be a human rights violation.

It is hard to imagine a more extreme anti-Israel stance.

Especially when you consider that the terrorist PLO leaders had themselves explained that they were the ones inciting the violence because they were in a celebratory mood. And worse even when you consider that Yasser Arafat himself made clear, for anybody listening, that the rock-throwing image was just a ploy (or "a phase"), and that more serious forms of violence would be used.

“At a Kuwait rally Sunday commemorating the PLO’s 23rd anniversary, Arafat described the recent unrest in the occupied territories as a phase, saying ‘other weapons will be used in future battles at the appropriate time.’ He did not elaborate.”[141]

“Other weapons…” Yes, for example,

“The Fatah movement, mainstream of the Palestine Liberation Organization, has claimed responsibility for the commando operation which was carried out at dawn today south of the Kiryat Shmuna settlement, northern Israel. Lebanese radio today quoted a spokesman for the Fatah movement as saying here that one of its groups clashed with Israeli troops 700 meters south of the Kiryat Shmuna settlement, inflicting several casualties on Israeli troops while one of the three-member Fatah group died… According to a Jerusalem report, a squad of Palestinian guerrillas ‘infiltrated’ into northern Israel after midnight Wednesday… A Palestinian commando group flying on a glider from south Lebanon raided an Israeli army camp in the same region on November 25 last year, killing six Israeli soldiers.”[142]

That was in the same month of January 1988, and it was a terrorist attack. The only reason no Israeli civilians died in this incident is that the Israeli soldiers spotted the PLO terrorists and prevented them from attacking Kiryat Shmuna (they were only 700 meters away from the civilians in the settlement when they were stopped).


4. The United States was behind it all
________________________________

To better understand the US role, here, let us go back to Shimon Peres. As stated above, the images of Palestinian Arabs as besieged underdogs, produced by the rock-throwing riots, were timed to coincide with the ongoing diplomatic push for a Middle East ‘peace’ conference that would include the PLO terrorists and would lay the groundwork for a PLO state in the West Bank. The US was pretending to oppose PLO participation but, as we have seen, Shimon Peres, US agent, was acting as a PLO diplomat, thus giving the US cover for the moment when Washington decided it was now convenient to change its official stance and call for including the PLO in the Middle East talks.

“Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres says negotiations with Israel’s Arab foes could end the violent crisis in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and lead to a long-term regional accord.

Peres, who has expressed conditional support for an international conference, on Sunday renewed his call for discussions to solve the unrest that has disrupted 20 years of mostly peaceful occupation of the region…

The foreign minister has given his conditional endorsement to an international conference attended by the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council - the United States, Soviet Union, Britain, France and China - Israel and its Arab opponents, including the Palestine Liberation Organization…

Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, however, opposes any international conference and has vowed that the recent Palestinian rioting in the occupied territories would not push Israel toward talks.”[143]

Shimon Peres’ statement that “the unrest…has disrupted 20 years of mostly peaceful occupation of the region” was correct. The Palestinian Arabs had never had it better than under Israeli ‘occupation.’[144] But if the Israelis had ruled the Palestinian Arabs benignly, and if the riots had been started by the PLO not in reaction to Israeli oppression, but in order to create the appearance of such, then Peres' support for rewarding the PLO for this violence by including it in a Middle East ‘peace’ conference was…treason.

The point of Shimon Peres’ public stance was to make it possible for the US to begin relaxing its public pretense of opposition to PLO participation. After all, Shimon Peres was the Israeli foreign minister, so if he was pro-PLO then the US could afford to push the PLO as well. In late January, just one week after the PLO terrorist incursion into northern Israel (see above),

“[US Secretary of State George] Shultz…held an unusual 20-minute session with two Palestinians. They proposed establishment of a Palestinian state on land now held by Israel. It would be controlled by the Palestine Liberation Organization.”[145]

The wire does not say who these two Palestinians were, but as you will see below, it was probably two prominent members of the PLO, Edward Said and Ibrahim Abu Lughd. Not content with that, as the same wire explains, the Reagan administration was also seeking to sell missiles to Jordan. And that was not all. In addition,

“The Reagan administration is also considering a request from Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, who is meeting today with President Reagan, that the United States build an M1 tank factory in Egypt. The tanks that would be produced would be sold by Egypt to Iraq and other countries.”

Later, Shultz met with two PLO members, and these were apparently the same two people referred to above as “two Palestinians” seeking US support for a PLO state. Meeting with these two prominent PLO members was no different from meeting with Yasser Arafat, and the PLO itself made this clear when, in the context of this meeting, it publicly approved of it and authorized future such meetings.[146]

The Egyptians celebrated all this in the open.

“Egyptian foreign minister Esmat Abdel-Meguid today described US Secretary of State George Shultz’s meeting with two Palestinian professors Saturday in Washington as a constructive and positive step in the right direction. …The two Palestinian professors, Edward Said and Ibrahim Abu Lughd, are members of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) legislative body - the Palestinian National Council. …Egypt welcomes Shultz’s mideast tour which begins next week, and hopes that the tour will give impetus to the peace process…”[147]

By contrast,

“Benjamin Netanyahu today said he resigned as Israel’s United Nations ambassador so he could speak out against Secretary of State George P. Shultz’s meeting with two Arab-Americans linked to the PLO.”[148]

There was also some opposition - or in any event a show of opposition - in the US Congress.

“A group of 21 senators is writing Secretary of State George Shultz asking him to refrain from meeting with members of the Palestine Liberation Organization during his upcoming trip to the Middle East...

Defending the meeting, Shultz said he wanted to hear the views of Edward Said and Ibrahim Abu Lughod about Palestinian representation in Mideast talks.”[149]

A few days after Shultz’s first meeting with the two prominent PLO members, the US vetoed UN sponsored ‘peace’ talks but only because it was pursuing its own initiative behind closed doors, a strategy it was putting together with Egypt.[150] Naturally, this was against Israel’s interests, and not long after Shultz announced that the US and Egypt had put together a really good deal, a headline announced: “Shamir cheered [in Israel] for opposing U.S. peace initiative.”[151]

The US was going out of its way, as usual, to attack Israel.

Long story short, by the end of 1988, as Ronald Reagan got ready to hand over power to his successor, George Bush Sr., a UPI article with the headline “Reagan lays foreign policy groundwork for Bush” could state the following:

“Reagan has crossed the bridge and decided that the U.S. can carry on a dialogue with the Palestine Liberation Organization. Reagan said PLO chairman Yasser Arafat had met the U.S. conditions for such negotiations…”[152]

The US had come out of the closet and was now officially doing what it had been doing all along: supporting the PLO. Since US Intelligence had always been cozy with the PLO, it was fitting that “Bush,” as the same wire observed, “will be the first president to have headed the CIA.”

The next year, a US Defense Department study would put its seal on the new official stance towards the PLO, and that brings us to 1989.

[nikmatdam]

____________________________________________________________

1989 [ negative ]

With Dick Cheney, the US began supporting a PLO state in the open as the 'only solution' to the Arab-Israeli conflict.
____________________________________________________________

I recommend reading the following:

In 1989 U.S. Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney Pushed to Create a PLO State!

Article from the Washington Times with introduction by Jared Israel
http://emperors-clothes.com/gilwhite/fuller.htm
 

It is a reprint of an article, with a Jared Israel introduction, from The Washington Times with the following title: "Rand study urges birth of West Bank state" (November 8, 1989; Wednesday, Final Edition; Section: Part A; WORLD; Pg. A7; Byline: James M. Dorsey).

About this Washington Times article, it is important not to be distracted by the word "Rand", in the title, which identifies this study as having been done by the Rand Corporation, a supposedly private think tank. In fact, Rand might as well be a government department. Just one example: Donald Rumsfeld, who was Secretary of Defense in the Ford administration, and now once again in George Bush Jr.'s administration, was chairman of Rand from 1981 to 1986. Simultaneously, during the years 1983-84, he was Ronald Reagan's special envoy to the Middle East (and, by the way, Reagan carried out a consistently and radically antisemitic policy in the Middle East, for which see the 1981, 1982-83, 1985 and 1987-88 sections).[153]

About the particular Rand study that is our focus, the Washington Times article explains,

"Entitled 'The West Bank of Israel: Point of No Return?' and requested by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the study was compiled by Graham Fuller, senior Middle East analyst for the CIA during the Reagan administration."

But the study was not merely requested by the Secretary of Defense and done by a CIA operative, it was also "sponsored by the Defense Department." One guesses, therefore, that this study concluded what its sponsors wanted it to conclude. And what was that? The study "concluded that the Israeli-Arab conflict can only be resolved by creating a West Bank Palestinian state."

And who is the Secretary of Defense who requested and sponsored this study? That would be Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney, leader of the supposedly pro-Israel "neo-cons", and now vice-president in Bush Jr.'s administration.

Keep that in mind.

Keep in mind also that, in 1967 (see 1967 section) a different study, done in-house at the same Defense Department, concluded that if Israel withdrew from the West Bank (a condition for creating a "West Bank Palestinian state"), Israel would be destroyed.

Is this a contradiction? The 1967 Defense Department study concluded that if Israel did not hold on to the West Bank it was in mortal danger, and the 1989 Defense Department study concluded that "the Israeli-Arab conflict can only be resolved by creating a West Bank Palestinian state." But despite the appearance this is not necessarily a contradiction, because the quoted sentence from the 1989 study does not say "peacefully resolved." The extermination of the Israeli Jews by the Arabs is one way to "resolve" the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Now, consider the Israeli reaction to this. The Washington Times article states:

"Released shortly before the expected mid-November arrival in Washington of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, the Rand Corp. report is certain to fuel already widespread Israeli fears that the Bush administration is attempting to lure Israel into talks with the Palestine Liberation Organization... Israel charges that discussion of Palestinian independence would constitute a mortal threat to the Jewish state."

The Israelis thought that the American push for a Palestinian state was synonymous with a state run by the PLO, and in their opinion this would "constitute a mortal threat to the Jewish state." Now, even if the Americans really thought that the Israeli assessment of the situation was in error, there was no question that this is how the Israelis felt about it. So the question is: Would an ally of Israel pursue a policy that Israel thought would lead to its destruction? Is that how an ally behaves?

Of course not. An ally would respect Israel's wishes. And a neutral country would stay out of it. It takes an enemy to go out of one's way to do things that Israel considers a mortal threat. After all, this had nothing to do with US "national security."

But was the Israeli assessment of the situation - which agrees with the explicit conclusion of the 1967 US Defense Department study - unreasonable? No. Given that Palestinian Arab independence is synonymous with the Palestinian Arabs being ruled by the PLO, Israel was right about the threat posed by such independence. For you see, the PLO is not merely a terrorist organization, but one descended from Adolf Hitler's Final Solution, the purpose of which was to kill every last living Jew. This Nazi heritage of the PLO is documented here:

"How did the 'Palestinian movement' emerge? The British sponsored it. Then the German Nazis, and the US."
by Francisco Gil-White.
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/pal_mov4.htm
 

Naturally, US Intelligence knows all about this, so when Graham Fuller from the CIA produced a report that "concluded that the Israeli-Arab conflict can only be resolved by creating a West Bank Palestinian state," it cannot have had a peaceful resolution in mind, because what the US wanted was a PLO state.

The Washington Times says,

"'...with the establishment of direct talks between the United States and the PLO, Israel now has, whether it wants them or not, indirect negotiations with the PLO,' the study said.

...Mr. Fuller [author of the report] argued that '...the ultimate emergence of a Palestinian state on the West Bank [is] inevitable. . . No other solution any longer seems viable.'"

So the US established direct talks with the PLO, following which it concluded that it should give the worst antisemitic terrorists in the world their own state right next to Israel. Subsequently, the US would apply the strongest pressure on Israel to accept a 'peace' process leading to this outcome, as we shall see.

Is this the behavior of an ally?

[nikmatdam]

____________________________________________________________

1991 [ negative ]

Bush Sr.'s administration forced Israel to participate in the Oslo process, which brought the PLO into the West Bank and Gaza.
____________________________________________________________

On 6 December 2001, the US Ambassador to Israel, Daniel C. Kurtzer, gave a talk at the BESA Center, Bar Ilan University, entitled "The American Role in the Oslo Process." Remarkably, given that title, the US ambassador began by denying that the US had played a role in the Oslo process:

"In dissecting the American role in Oslo, I think the title of my talk should be "The American Perspective on Oslo," since the Oslo process took place largely outside the direct purview of the United States."[153a]

I shall now review the facts that refute this duplicitous presentation of the American role in the Oslo process. The catalyst for the Oslo process, as we shall see, were the October 1991 Madrid talks, without which the Oslo process wouldn't have happened. So it is significant that the US forced the Israelis to go to Madrid.

On April 19, 1991, The Independent wrote this:

"FATIH JABAR [An otherwise unidentified Arab whom they interviewed] had some advice for James Baker, the US Secretary of State, who flew to Israel last night to continue his peace-making efforts. ''Stop financial aid to Israel for six months, and order the Israelis to pull out from the occupied territories,'' he urged, sipping coffee in the cool lounge of his home in this quiet village south-west of Nablus. 'They'll have no choice but to comply.'

...While Mr Shamir continues to indicate support for a regional conference, there is no hint of a new willingness on his part to make meaningful concessions at the negotiating table. If Mr Baker is to shift the Israeli prime minister, it seems he might have to take Mr Jabar's advice and hit Mr Shamir in the pocket, conceivably by withholding the $10bn (pounds 5.6bn) in housing loan guarantees Israel needs to build homes for Soviet immigrants. For if there is one issue that concerns the prime minister as much as his commitment to the retention of the territories, it is the absorption of Soviet Jews. Only if this process is threatened, might he consider what is, for him, almost the unthinkable - an eventual pullout from parts of the occupied territories."[155]

And take Jabar's advice they did. The Independent was prophetic. This is what the Times of London wrote only a few days later:

"...American officials, including William Brown, the ambassador to Israel, and Senator Robert Dole, have warned Israel that it will not receive a sympathetic hearing in Washington if it does not co-operate with the administration's peace plans for the region following the Gulf war."[156]

Specifically, the US threat against Israel became the following:

"The message to the Shamir government is clear enough: Unless the Israelis agree to a freeze on settlement activity in the occupied territories before and during the ["peace"] conference, there will be no U.S. loan guarantees to help finance the resettlement of Russian immigrants. Implicit in the warning are two further threats: If Israel remains obdurate, hold the conference without it and let the political chips fall where they may; and further down the line, diminish or cut off the annual U.S. grants and loans to the Jewish state. Whether one thinks the Bush-Baker preconditions are justified or not, and given a visible decline in pro-Israel sentiment in Congress and the country, it is obvious...that the president can make the loan guarantee warning stick."[156a]

In other words, the American message to the Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Shamir was: go to Madrid, or else no money for resettlement of Russian immigrants, and no further grants or loans to the Jewish state: we will choke you off. Moreover, if you don't go, said the US to Shamir, we will hold the conference anyway, and "let the political chips fall where they may." The US had threatened to decide the future of Israel without Israel "if Israel remain[ed] obdurate."

There can be no question on this point: the US was passionately interested in making the Madrid talks happen, and flexed all its muscle.

Some American observers simply could not understand why this was going on. Here is Charles Krauthammer scratching his head on the pages of the Washington Post:

[Quote from Charles Krauthammer starts here]

"It is a rule in the Middle East: Israel wins every war, and the great powers step in to save the Arabs from the consequences of defeat. Regardless of whose side you think justice is on, one thing is indisputable: The result of such rescues is more war. The losers are given the chance to continue the fight.

In 1956, for example, Israel won the Sinai from Egypt. Eisenhower forced Israel to give it back. Ten years later Egypt broke the agreement under which Sinai had been returned, blockaded Israel and started the Six-Day War. In the 1982 Lebanon war, Yasser Arafat and the PLO were cornered in Beirut. The U.S. and other Western countries intervened to save them [see 1982-83 section]. Saved, they later returned to Lebanon to fight another day.

The Palestinians have just lost another war, and the United States is preparing another rescue. The Palestinian intifada, the uprising against Israel, is dead. The Palestinians, exhausted and defeated, are demoralized, having nothing to show for three years of strikes and stone throwing. Worse, in a replay of the Arab uprising of 1936-1939, the intifada has turned most monstrously on itself. Far more Palestinians are dying at the hands of brother Palestinians than at the hands of Israelis.

"Everyone remains terrified when he hears a knock on his door at night," writes the Palestinian newspaper Al Fajr. "This fear multiplies when he discovers that the knocker is not a[n Israeli] soldier but rather a masked [Palestinian] man, swathed completely in black from head to toe, armed with an ax or a sword, who requests that his host, or his son or daughter, come out 'for only five or ten minutes!' The next day, we hear on Israeli radio or television that a bound and disfigured body with signs of torture and stab wounds has been discovered."

This is how the uprising ends. Moreover, the Palestinians have not just lost the intifada. They managed to lose a second war this year, the gulf war, their proxy war against Israel and the West. They staked their political and diplomatic capital on Saddam and lost again.

In the normal course of events, a people having undone themselves yet again with their extremism, having so exhausted the patience of their friends and sponsors, having maneuvered themselves into political marginality, would have to make their own peace overtures to their enemies or fade away.

Instead, James Baker and the U.S. administration come riding in to rescue the cause at its weakest, to keep the grievance alive and to advance its demands in an international forum. Shouting "land for peace," they single-handedly revive a cause for which, as the Palestinians will tell you, no Arab state - not Saudi Arabia, not Jordan, certainly not Syria - really cares. And they demand that Israel, the only organic American ally in the region (meaning a country that no coup could ever shake from its friendship with the United States), gamble its existence at a conference at which that slogan is to be the centerpiece.

Why? In part, as a reward - "linkage" - for the Arabs who allowed us to go to war to save them from Saddam. This reasoning is even crazier than it sounds because the Saudis and gulf Arabs, after the Palestinians lined up with Saddam, have lost all enthusiasm for the Palestinian cause."[157]

[Quote from Charles Krauthammer ends here]

Krauthammer cannot be right that the Arab states were utterly reluctant to push for a PLO state, given that the idea of a PLO state was theirs long before the PLO itself signed on (see 1977 section). However, it is significant that Krauthammer got the distinct impression that the Arab states didn't want a PLO state more badly than the US did!

The upshot of US Secretary of State James Baker's strong-arming of the Israelis - with economic threats - was to force them to accept a "peace" process in Madrid.

"The Madrid Invitation, inviting Israel, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and the Palestinians to an opening conference jointly sponsored by the US and the Soviet Union on October 30, 1991, represented the result of US Secretary of State James Baker's shuttle diplomacy in the eight months following the Gulf War. The Madrid peace conference was a watershed event. For the first time, Israel entered into direct, face-to-face negotiations with Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, and the Palestinians. In order to make this possible, since Israel would not negotiate with the terrorist PLO, the Palestinians were represented by individuals from the West Bank and Gaza who were not associated with the PLO. This was a sham, as everyone knew, and PLO figures were in the hotels guiding the Palestinian delegation throughout the proceedings.

...Madrid was also the catalyst for the 1993 series of non-public talks in Norway between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs that launched what became known as the Oslo peace process. Once the Oslo process began, the Madrid structure of talks faded away."[158]

In other words, the Madrid talks, to which the US practically forced Israel to go, were the engine that set in motion the Oslo 'peace' process, the purpose of which was to bring the PLO, a defeated organization, out of exile in Tunis and into the West Bank, where it would become the government, in preparation for getting a West Bank state - courtesy of the United States. From this position, the PLO was able once again - and better than ever, in fact - to kill innocent Israeli civilians.

Does this make sense in terms of the idea that the US is a friend of Israel? Hardly.

I will also point out that, if the US was officially outside of the Oslo process - after forcing Israel to participate in it - this does not mean they didn't call all the shots every step of the way. To see how Norwegian "peacemaking" efforts really work, and just how independent they are of the NATO powers, consult:

The Oslo War Process
http://www.hirhome.com/yugo/oslo-intro.htm

Norwegians are the diplomatic 'advance guard' of the US-European empire. They helped destroy Yugoslavia. They set Israel on the path to destruction. Now they will finish destroying Sri Lanka. Next: India.
 

[nikmatdam]

____________________________________________________________

1994 [ negative ]

Yasser Arafat was given a Nobel Peace Prize, and the CIA trained the PLO, even though Arafat's henchmen were saying in public, this very year, that they would use their training to oppress Arabs and kill Jews.
____________________________________________________________

On October 15 1994, the St. Louis Post Dispatch wrote that:

“Israeli leaders Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres shared the Nobel Peace Prize with PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat on Friday for their roles in forging the historic Israeli-Palestinian peace pact.”[160]

In defending their stunning decision to give the world’s top peace prize to the most famous antisemitic terrorist, which decision caused controversy in Oslo and led to the furious resignation of Kare Kristiansen from the Nobel Peace Prize Committee, Francis Sejersted, the Nobel committee chairman, explained as follows:

“‘We are not evaluating the life work of our recipients,’ Sejersted said. He said the prize honored the ‘specific act’ of the Israel-PLO peace pact, signed on Sept. 13, 1993, that led to Palestinian autonomy.”

In other words, Arafat had been given a Nobel Peace Prize because, in exchange for getting authority over the West Bank and Gaza Arabs, he had written a letter to the Israeli government in which he stated that:

“…the PLO renounces the use of terrorism and other acts of violence and will assume responsibility over all PLO elements and personnel in order to assure their compliance, prevent violations and discipline violators.”[161]

This was an obvious move. The Israeli public would never have allowed the PLO to become the government in the West Bank and Gaza unless  the PLO promised an end to the killing of innocent Jews. Implicit in the above promise was the PLO commitment to “prevent violations” by other terrorist groups as well, because the Israeli government, which was ceding its authority in the territories, would no longer be in a position to do so.

But it is truly remarkable that Yasser Arafat got the Nobel Prize for making this promise, because he got this prize in October 1994, and already in May of that year he had made clear to his Muslim followers in a Johannesburg mosque that this promise was a lie, as reported in the London paper the Evening Standard:

“A tape-recording has surfaced of PLO leader Yasser Arafat speaking to Moslem followers in a Johannesburg mosque… Mr Arafat was exhorting his followers to prosecute a ‘jihad ... to liberate Jerusalem’. Mr Arafat does not deny the tape’s authenticity, but now says he meant ‘jihad’ in a metaphorical sense. A verbal jihad. A jihad of ideas. Nothing to do with violence. Mr Arafat’s effrontery adds insult to injury. In 1980, King Fahd of Saudi Arabia gave a clear definition: ‘What is meant by jihad is a united, comprehensive, integrated Arab-Islamic confrontation in which we place all our resources and our spiritual, cultural, political, material and military potential in a long and untiring ‘Holy War’ against Israel, of course, who else?’ So even if Mr Arafat really did mean ‘jihad’ in this novel, non-violent sense, his legions of followers would not have picked up the sophisticated nuance. They would have taken it to mean that the peace process was just a stratagem: a Trojan Horse which should now be exploited with maximum violence. At best, Mr Arafat was irresponsible. At worst, deeply dishonest.”[162]

It certainly does not appear from the above that Arafat had any real intention of keeping his Oslo promises. On the contrary, as the Evening Standard points out, Arafat’s language is consistent with a plan to use the Oslo process as a ‘Trojan Horse’: talk peace, use that talk to get an Arab proto-state on the West Bank, and then use that proto-state (and eventually a bona-fide state) to kill Israelis. This was to be expected from an organization created by a leader of Adolf Hitler’s Final Solution, whose constitution calls for the extermination of the Israeli Jews.[162a] But what was the matter with the Nobel Peace Prize Committee? They weren’t reading the Evening Standard?

They didn’t have to. The same article (above) in which we read about how the Nobel Peace Prize was given to Yasser Arafat, as it was being given, reports that

“…the [Nobel] winners had little time to savor the award. They spent the day struggling with a worsening crisis over the kidnapping of an Israeli soldier by Islamic radicals.

Later, in a rescue attempt Friday night in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, the kidnapped soldier was killed, along with three of his captors and an Israeli commando taking part in the raid.”

Arafat's official position on the kidnapping of that Israeli soldier - by Hamas - was as follows:

"Arafat condemned the kidnapping but had previously refrained from confronting the fundamentalists, fearing that any attempt to disarm them or arrest their leaders would result in a civil war."[162b]

That was the official position. And it was bad enough: I don't like the killings of Jews, Arafat said, but I am going to let them continue. In reality, however, Arafat was quite happy with the kidnapping, and the reason he didn't interfere with Hamas is that he was coordinating with Hamas the killing of Israelis (as we shall see below), and meant to use the Oslo process as a ‘Trojan Horse’ precisely to that end (as we already saw him explain above).

Years later, Faisal Husseini, Arafat’s second-in-command until he died, would confirm in declarations to the Arab press that there was never any intention to stop the killing of innocent Israelis, choosing himself the expression ‘Trojan Horse’ to characterize the Oslo process, as reported in the Baltimore Sun:

“…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.’”[163]

That was in 2001. But let us go back to 1994, the focus of this section, to examine more closely the PLO’s intentions at the very start of the Oslo accords. Is there any question that they always meant for Oslo to function as a Trojan Horse to destroy Israel?

The man supposedly in charge of keeping the PLO’s promises to go after the terrorists was Jibril Rajoub, because he was the head of the PLO’s security service. But would he do it? From the beginning, Jibril Rajoub made it perfectly clear -- in public, in English, to the Western press -- that he wouldn’t.

You see, Jibril Rajoub has a brother, “Nayef Rajoub, [who] is a 35-year-old prayer leader aligned with the militant Islamic Hamas organization.”[164] That quotation comes from a 1994 Associated Press wire entitled “Brothers Swear Off Violence.” Were the brothers jointly swearing off violence against Israel? Not at all. They were swearing off violence against each other.

“Nayef Rajoub said he would be willing to cooperate with the Palestinian authority his brother represents, if Hamas is permitted to act as an opposition.

He wants to stage demonstrations against the autonomy agreement, to hold rallies and make mosque speeches, and to continue to fight against Israelis, including with violence.”

The words "including with violence" carry an obvious specific meaning. Nayef Rajoub, with Hamas, was explaining to the Associated Press that he didn’t expect his brother’s PLO security service to get any trouble from Hamas so long as the PLO allowed Hamas to go on killing innocent Israeli civilians. The same AP wire reported that:

“His brother [Jibril Rajoub] said his forces will not fire at Islamic activists…

‘To think that Palestinians will attack Palestinians is a rotten idea,’ Jibril Rajoub said. ‘We are not outsiders.’”

Given that his brother Nayef Rajoub is a leader of "Islamic activists," why doubt Jibril Rajoub's sincerity that he means no harm to "Islamic activists"? But what is the likelihood that Jibril Rajoub is sincere when he says, in his capacity as a top PLO official, that the idea “that Palestinians will attack Palestinians is a rotten idea”?

To help answer that question, consider this news item from 1992, immediately before the Oslo Process gave formal authority to the PLO over the lives of Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza:

“On Tuesday the body of a 30-year-old [Arab] mother of seven was dumped outside her home in Rafah refugee camp [in Gaza]. She gave birth to twins two months ago. PLO ‘Black Panthers’ claimed responsibility.

On June 7, after a wave of protests over the slaughter of dozens of alleged [Palestinian Arab] collaborators, supporters of HAMAS and the main PLO faction Fatah distributed in Gaza the text of a ‘charter of honor.’

A key element of the accord was a call to regulate the killing of collaborators through reference to the highest levels of the Palestinian leadership in the territories. The murder of innocents was condemned.

The [Israeli] army says more than 85 Palestinians on the Gaza Strip have been murdered as collaborators so far this year [this is in June] - adding that most were not collaborators.”[165]

The degree of cooperation between Hamas and the PLO, the supposed rivals, when it comes to extra-judicial murders directed against ordinary Palestinian Arabs is striking: they wanted “to regulate the killing of collaborators through reference to the highest levels of the Palestinian leadership in the territories.” What the PLO and Hamas mean by “collaborators” is of course people who want to live in peace with their Jewish neighbors, and who assist the Israeli government in their efforts to defeat organizations devoted to the killing of innocent Jewish men, women, and children, the same organizations that destroy innocent Palestinian Arab children by using them as human bombs.

Of course, the PLO and Hamas also kill anybody who disagrees with them in any way, for any reason, which is consistent with the Israeli claim that “most [of those killed] were not collaborators.” Are the Israelis right? Well, consider that there was “a wave of protests over the slaughter of dozens of alleged collaborators.” That was Palestinian Arabs protesting. Consider also that, according to a 1993 report by the human rights organization B’tselem, “between 750 and 950 Palestinians ‘suspected of collaboration’ with Israeli authorities have been killed by Palestinian activists since the beginning of the intifada” and that “less than 50 percent of those killed for suspicion of collaborating with Israel were actually working with Israeli authorities.”[166]

Did things change in 1994, when the PLO became the official government over the West Bank and Gaza Arabs?

To answer that question, consider the following UPI wire from 1994. It is reporting on the PLO's policy towards PLO terrorists who were being released from Israeli prisons as part of the madness that is the Oslo process.

[Quote from UPI wire begins here]

The Palestinian police force in the Gaza Strip will issue personal weapons to a select number of former prisoners released from Israeli jails so that they can protect themselves from revenge killings, a senior local Palestine Liberation Organization leader said Wednesday.

The former inmates, along with others who were deported by Israel and later allowed to return, were arrested for killing Palestinians suspected of collaborating with Israel. The police force says they remain targets for the family members of those they executed while Israel still occupied Gaza.

''We want to arm prisoners and returnees, to allow them to protect themselves against any revenge taken by families of Palestinians killed for collaborating with Israel,'' said Rasheed Abu Shbak, a senior leader of the PLO's mainstream Fatah faction in Gaza, and a member of the ''preventive security'' unit of the police force.

Already, Mohammed Ajour, 27, who had been serving three consecutive life sentences for killing three collaborators and was released last week, received a Kalashnikov sub-machine gun from the police. Abu Shbak said about 50 others would also receive guns.

The Israeli government has released approximately 3,400 Palestinan prisoners since signing the Cairo agreement with the PLO on May 4, which implemented self-rule in Gaza and the West Bank town of Jericho.

During the Palestinian uprising, or intifada, more than 600 Palestinians from Gaza suspected of being collaborators with Israel were killed by armed members of different PLO and Islamic factions.

Palestinian security forces said that the phenomenon of families killing recently released prisoners is continuing and is considered serious.[167]

[Quote from UPI wire ends here]

The first thing that must sink in is that everything you have read, you have read correctly.

It was Israel that had arrested the killers of innocent Palestinian Arabs; the PLO’s “preventive security,” by contrast, armed these killers with sub-machine weapons the minute the Oslo ‘Peace’ Process required the madness that they be released from prison. To the extent that the families of the murdered Palestinians really wanted to seek revenge against these murderers (and who can doubt it?), what this situation suggests is seething hatred by a good number of Palestinian Arabs against the PLO (certainly if the PLO considered that the problem “is continuing and is considered serious”). But this had already been established, because if significant numbers of Palestinian Arabs did not hate the PLO, the PLO would not be going around murdering so-called “collaborators” in the first place.

Now let’s get back to Jibril Rajoub.

Recall that in 1994, as the Oslo ‘Peace’ Process got under way, Rajoub said that “to think that Palestinians will attack Palestinians is a rotten idea.” Since in the same year of 1994 the PLO was arming the murderers of Palestinian Arabs, Rajoub cannot have meant that literally. What he meant was, as he also explained, that “his forces will not fire at Islamic activists,” which is to say (at least) that Jubril Rajoub's PLO policemen would not be firing on the Hamas terrorists, led by his brother Nayef Rajoub.

Did Jibril Rajoub say that his PLO security service would act against anybody? As a matter of fact he did, and also in 1994:

“The West Bank’s tough new security chief said Monday he’d permit dissidents to express their views but would come down hard on militants seeking to topple PLO leader Yasser Arafat’s new government.

‘Those who are violent, we will deal with them with violence,’ said Jibril Rajoub, 41, a confidant of Arafat who took over the PLO’s security apparatus here after returning from six years in exile Sunday.”[168]

The Hamas terrorists are certainly violent, but Jibril Rajoub had already explained that he would not mess with them. So what emerges from the above declarations is that the point of Jibril Rajoub’s ‘policemen’ would be to keep Arafat in power: same old same-old. This was further clarified in a Xinhua wire the next day:

“Jibril Rajoub, palestinian security chief, told the East Jerusalem Arabic daily Al-Quds Friday that there were three categories of weapon owners, namely, ‘fighters against occupation, collaborators and personal security.’ He said the last type should be registered and the second confiscated. He did not say what should be done with the ‘fighter’ group.[169]

“Collaborators” - that is, opponents of the PLO - would have their weapons confiscated. Rajoub does not say that “fighters against occupation” - which is to say terrorists who kill innocent Israeli men, women, and children - would have their weapons confiscated because, of course, they wouldn’t. So there is little question that, from the start, the PLO had no intention of keeping its Oslo promises to fight terrorism.

But here is the most amazing thing: Rajoub’s explanations of how he would oppress the Palestinian Arabs and allow terrorism against Israeli civilians to go on are all from May 1994. I remind you that Arafat’s declarations in a Johannesburg mosque that he would use the Oslo Process as a ‘Trojan Horse’ to destroy Israel, reported for all to see in the London's Evening Standard, are also from May 1994. The Nobel Peace Prize Committee therefore had to know what it was doing when it gave Arafat the peace prize several months later in October 1994.

We have seen that the US twisted Israel’s arm to participate in the sham Oslo process that brought unrepentant terrorists dedicated to kill innocent Israelis to become the government over the West Bank and Gaza Arabs (see 1991 section). But what we now want to know is this: Could it be that the US was directly behind this man, Jibril Rajoub? Could it be that the US itself saw to Rajoub’s training, a man who attacks innocent Palestinian Arabs, and cooperates with anybody dedicated to murdering innocent Jews?

Sad to say, but it appears that it could. Two years later, the Associated Press reported the following:

[AP quote starts here]

“The U.S. Central Intelligence Agency trained Palestinian security chiefs in anti-terrorist warfare, Israel TV reported Monday.

The TV said Jibril Rajoub and Mohammed Dahlan, two of PLO chief Yasser Arafat’s top security lieutenants, were trained ‘in the United States in methods of fighting terrorism.’

The report said the CIA ‘on an ongoing basis’ is trying to help Palestinian authorities in their battle against Islamic fundamentalist militants who have been trying to wreck the peace process with deadly bombings in Israel.

The TV report could not be immediately confirmed.

Rajoub is head of the Palestinian Preventive Security in the West Bank and Dahlan is his counterpart in the Gaza Strip.”[170]

[AP quote ends here]

The AP was speaking in the past tense: "Yasser Arafat's top security lieutenants were trained 'in the United States.'" Since we are told that they were supposedly trained "in methods of fighting terrorism," it is clear that the US was claiming to have trained them so that the PLO could carry out its Oslo promises, which in turn probably means they must have been trained as early as 1994, or earlier.

Although the AP says that “The [Israel] TV report could not be immediately confirmed,” in fact the AP had no good reason to doubt it, because only a few days earlier the AP had reported that:

[AP quote starts here]

Arafat met Saturday with a delegation of senior CIA officials who arrived in Gaza to boost security measures against Muslim militants.

...Arafat was seeking logistical back-up from the CIA for his battle against the Hamas.

The hour-long, secretive meeting with the CIA, at which Palestinian security leaders also were present, was held at Arafat’s vacation home in Beit Hanoun near the Erez checkpoint, the border of the Palestinian-run Gaza Strip, Palestinian sources said.

The American delegation was headed by the deputy CIA director, George J. Tenet, according to the sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

They said Arafat presented the group with a list of security requests such as equipment, specially trained dogs, funds and expertise to discover explosives, as well as training in counter-terrorism for the Palestinian police.[171]

[AP quote ends here]

So there has apparently been a close relationship between the PLO and the CIA. In fact, a wire from 1998 explains that the Wye River agreement between Israel and the PLO made the CIA officially responsible for the PLO!

[Inter-Press Service quote starts here]

“One of the more remarkable features of the recent Wye River Memorandum, signed by Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), is the role assigned to the United States' own Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

Under Wye, Washington's secret agents have been charged with ensuring that the PLO comply with clauses requiring action against "terrorist" opposition.

[nikmatdam]

(…)

The CIA began training Palestinian security personnel at the PSS's counter-intelligence center in Jericho run by Major Jibril Rajoub. In September 1996 the Paris-based al-Watan al-Arabi newspaper disclosed that the CIA was training Palestinian security officers in the United States.”[172]

[Inter-Press Service quote ends here]

Now, of course, officially, the PLO and the CIA were required to say that all this cooperation between them was meant to fight terrorism. The Associated Press says that “Arafat was seeking logistical back-up from the CIA for his battle against the Hamas.” And Inter-Press Service puts it this way: “Washington's secret agents have been charged with ensuring that the PLO comply with clauses requiring action against 'terrorist' opposition.” This makes it clear that it is supposed to be the CIA's job to make sure that the PLO combats terrorism.

So, given that Jibril Rajoub, Arafat's top policeman, was explaining in public, in the English-language wires, that he would use his training to keep Arafat in power against any opponents, and to murder innocent Arab Palestinians who in any way interfered with terrorism against the Israelis, the question is this:

Why did the CIA train him?

Is it because the CIA didn't know that Rajoub had explained what he would do? That's impossible. Whatever else the CIA does, it has to be reading the news. And since the CIA had officially pledged itself to making sure that the PLO would combat terrorism, it had officially pledged itself to determine what kind of person the PLO's top policeman, Jibril Rajoub, was, and what his intentions might be. So the hypothesis that the CIA made one of its infamous and supposedly endless 'mistakes' is dead on arrival.

But you don't know, yet, just how dead on arrival the 'CIA mistake hypothesis' is. In addition to all the above, the PLO made it clear that it would not interfere with the terrorist organization Islamic Jihad. As if that were not enough, Rajoub left no doubt that he and his men would use their own training to attack Israel themselves. And he made all of this clear in 1994. I turn to this next.

The “militant Islamic Jihad faction,” reported an Associated Press wire from 16 November 1994, “calls itself the ‘body bag gang,’” according to a proud member “who wore a white satin robe and hood reminiscent of Ku Klux Klan outfits.” This character also explained that Islamid Jihad “has recruited more than 50 volunteers to carry out suicide attacks ‘in any place in which there are Jews.’” He said, “Every...school or hospital inside Israel, any place in which there are Jews, is a target for a suicide action.” We also read that “An Islamic Jihad follower last week bicycled into an army post in the Gaza Strip and set off 10 kilos of explosives, killing himself and three Israeli officers.”[172a]

The reaction of the PLO police? As explained in the same Associated Press wire,

“On Wednesday, 45 Islamic Jihad followers were released from a Gaza City jail after Palestinian police said they were not linked to the group's military wing and Friday's suicide bombing.”

How likely is it that the PLO’s “Palestinian police” had sincerely established the innocence of these “Islamic Jihad followers”?

For starters, I remind you that earlier we learned the following: “the Islamic Jihad guerrilla organization ...[has] ties to the Fatah wing of the Palestine Liberation Organization [PLO]” (see 1987 section). But aside from that, the “Palestinian police” that vouched for the innocence of the “Islamic Jihad followers” in its custody was composed of criminals wanted for killing Palestinians opposed to terrorism, and these same policemen were chanting for the destruction of Israel at their graduation ceremony from Jibril Rajoub's training regime.

This remarkable news is reported in the same wire mentioned above:

[AP quote begins here]

“Meanwhile, Israeli officials sharply criticized the Palestinian self-rule government over a graduation ceremony held Tuesday for 60 recruits for the Palestinian security service in the autonomous West Bank town of Jericho.

Israeli media said 10 of the graduates were fugitives wanted by Israel, most of them for killing suspected Palestinian collaborators.

During the ceremony, the commander of the recruits, Abu Fahed, said that ‘the struggle will continue until Jerusalem, Haifa and Beisan (Beit Shean) are liberated.’ All three are towns in Israel.

Other speakers called for ‘armed struggle’ against Israel.”[172a]

[AP quote ends here]

This didn’t make those in the Israeli government who had sold the Oslo process to their compatriots as a strategy for peace look any good. After all, the PLO had been in exile, in Tunis, before the Oslo process had brought them in to become the government over the West Bank and Gaza Arabs (see 1982-83 section). So the proper reaction for these Israeli leaders would have been to apologize, declare the Oslo process null and void, send the Israeli troops back in, and put the PLO infrastructure in jail. Instead, these Israeli leaders merely stomped their foot, weakly, and did nothing, to which the PLO's Jibril Rajoub replied, “get used to it,” as explained in the same wire:

[AP quote begins here]

“Deputy Foreign Minister Yossi Beilin, one of the architects of the Sept. 13, 1994 Israel-PLO accord, said the remarks were grave and could not be ignored.

‘This is definitely not in keeping with our agreement and we must warn about this and hold in-depth discussions with the Palestinian authority,’ Beilin told Israel army radio.

But Jibril Rajoub, the West Bank's Palestinian security chief, said it was time to let go of the past.

He said all graduates were members of Arafat's mainstream Fatah faction. ‘All Fatah people were fugitives (at one time) and now we are starting a new page,’ he told Israel radio.”[172a]

[AP quote ends here]

What "new page"? The Islamic Jihad people who were promising murder against innocent Israeli civilians have "ties to the Fatah wing of the Palestine Liberation Organization," which Rajoub calls "Arafat's mainstream Fatah faction." And other members of "Arafat's mainstream Fatah faction" were being recruited as "Palestinian police" and being told by their commander, at their graduation ceremony, that they had been trained to attack Israel! As if that were not enough, many of the new recruits were murderers of innocent Palestinian Arabs.

I have to emphasize: this was all reported in the wires. So the CIA had to know that Jibril Rajoub would use his CIA training to attack Israel and to oppress the Palestinian Arabs rather than to fight the Hamas, led in part by his own brother. Neither would he fight Islamic Jihad, his own boys.

And the CIA cannot argue that anything had changed in this regard by 1996, when two wires (quoted above) reported on how the CIA had been training the PLO security services. The following headline-plus-summary, which appeared in The Guardian, is from 1996:

The Guardian (London), July 6, 1996, THE GUARDIAN FOREIGN PAGE; Pg. 16, 3147 words, YASSER ARAFAT'S TOOLS OF REPRESSION; The Palestinian Authority stands accused of corruption, extortion and the intimidation of its people. The proliferation of largely unaccountable security forces seems to be out of control and oppression is rife: David Hirst in Gaza reports on a state in the making apparently immune to criticism, David Hirst.

So the CIA knowingly helped create the terrorist henchmen of “a state in the making apparently immune to criticism,” which is to say, a PLO gangster state - dedicated, by the way, to the destruction of Israel. This is certainly consistent with the fact that the United States went quite out of its way to twist Israel's arm with threats in order to force the Jewish state to accept the PLO as the government in the West Bank and Gaza. (see 1991 section).

And I note that the PLO oppression of the Palestinian Arabs never stopped. An Associated Press wire from 2004 explains that “the [PLO’s] Gaza Security and Protections unit [has been] nicknamed the ‘death squad’ by Palestinians” because it goes around killing the very Palestinians it supposedly protects.[173]  This shows that the United States' support for the PLO can have absolutely nothing to do with a concern for ordinary Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza.

What, then, can be the US's goal be? Certainly not 'helping the Israeli Jews.'

[nikmatdam]

____________________________________________________________

1996-1997 [ negative ]

The United States exerted such strong pressure on the Netanyahu government (including threats) that, even though Netanyahu had been elected on an anti-Oslo platform, he had the necessary cover to betray the Israeli public that had elected him.
____________________________________________________________

The following is taken from:

Levin, K. 2005. The Oslo syndrome: Delusions of a people under siege. Hanover, NH: Smith and Kraus. (pp.393-411)

“The most significant for Netanyahu of the pressures to resume negotiations despite PA [Palestinian Authority -- i.e. PLO] non-compliance [i.e. despite PLO sponsorship of terror attacks against innocent Israelis] were those coming from domestic sources and from the Clinton Administration.

...Netanyahu had measures available to him to try and counter both. He could potentially have used his exceptional oratorical skills to go over the heads of political foes and even a hostile Israeli media and effectively present the merits of his positions directly to the Israeli public. In addition, his insistence on PA compliance enjoyed extensive support in the American Congress... But...on August 14, 1996, he reentered negotiations with [PLO leader Yasser] Arafat without having made any headway on the compliance issue.

...[In late 1996] Arafat issued an urgent call to his people to defend the holy sites on the [Temple] Mount [which were in absolutely no danger], and he succeeded in triggering widespread rioting, initially in Jerusalem and then elsewhere as well. In addition, he unleashed his armed forces, including snipers, to attack Israeli soldiers in what became known in Israel as the ‘Checkpoint War.’ In the ensuing four days, fifteen Israeli soldiers were shot dead by Palestinian police and about sixty Palestinians were killed.

In the public relations war that accompanied the battles on the ground, Arafat again bested Netanyahu as he had done vis-à-vis the resumption of negotiations. The Israeli left attacked Netanyahu for allegedly having acted provocatively by opening the tunnel exit [to an excavation near the Temple Mount] and having thereby triggered the violence. The Israeli media echoed this view. Most foreign governments and foreign media took the same stance, with many in the media claiming that Israel had dug a tunnel under the Temple Mount. Again, as any of their correspondents in Jerusalem could have ascertained for themselves, Israel had not dug a tunnel nor was the existing tunnel under the Temple Mount.

The Checkpoint War demonstrated once more Arafat’s continued commitment to using violence and terror as weapons against Israel. But most observers outside the country, and indeed half of Israel, chose to ignore this and to continue perceiving Arafat as Israel’s ‘peace partner.’

...Netanyahu, failing to counter effectively the increased pressure on him mounted in the wake of events around the tunnel opening, responded to the pressure by reentering negotiations with the PA, briefly terminated in the context of the fighting, and by agreeing in the ensuing weeks to terms of withdrawal from Hebron. He did so despite his still not having secured any reversal of the PA’s pattern of noncompliance with its Oslo obligations.

...The Israeli army completed its withdrawal from the ceded areas of Hebron within hours of the Knesset approval of the agreement on January 16. Almost immediately, the PA initiated harassment of the Jewish enclave in Hebron, with rioting, stone throwing, firebombing, and gunfire. This continued on and off thereafter. The [Israeli] government added the events in Hebron to its list of talking points on the Palestinian Authority’s violations of its Oslo commitments and frequently reiterated its demand for reciprocity. But it nevertheless went ahead and offered on March 7 to hand over another 9.1 percent of West Bank territory to the Palestinians as the first of those ‘further deployments’ called for in the Interim Agreement.

...Also during this time, additional incidents of violence, in many instances perpetrated by Palestinian ‘police,’ including terrorist attacks initiated by Palestinian armed forces, added further to the violations invoked by the Netanyahu government in its demands for Palestinian compliance. Among such incidents were the murder of another thirty-eight Israelis, injury of hundreds more, many aborted terrorist attacks, and myriad stonings, firebombings, and acts of arson.

...In January, 1998, the Cabinet unanimously passed a resolution linking further redeployment [i.e. further handing of territory to the PLO’s PA] to PA fulfillment of commitments made or reiterated as part of the Hebron agreement.

But...Israel’s political opposition and media continued to urge [Netanyahu’s] government to move forward with territorial concessions, to advance the ‘process,’ and the [so-called] Peace Movement held rallies protesting the government’s alleged foot-dragging. To the degree that the government’s arguments regarding Palestinian non-compliance and the importance of reciprocity were noted at all, they were characterized as ploys being used by Netanyahu to obstruct ‘progress.’

…the Clinton Administration...effectively rejected Netanyahu’s demands for reciprocity. Indeed, it not only pushed Israel to proceed with territorial concessions without Palestinian compliance but insisted that the next round of territorial concessions exceed the dimensions proposed by the Israelis in March, 1997. Early in 1998, the State Department came up with the figure of 13 percent as the proper size of the next West Bank withdrawal, based not on any consideration of Israel’s strategic position and defense needs but simply on the fact that an additional 13 percent would place the nice round number of 40 percent of the West Bank under Arafat’s control. In effect, the administration reneged both on its formal endorsement of the reciprocity principle in the ‘Note for the Record’ and on its acknowledgment at the time of the Hebron accord that Israel had the right to determine the dimensions of the further interim redeployments.

Once more, there appear to have been steps that Netanyahu could have taken to counter both domestic and American circles that were undermining his stance on Palestinian noncompliance. At home, he could have done more to go over the heads of the opposition parties, the media, and even elements of his fractious coalition who did not fully share his jaundiced views of Oslo. he could have addressed the Israeli public [which public, after all, had elected him to office on an anti-Oslo platform] more directly and more forcefully on the dangers posed by Palestinian policies and evasions.

...When Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, in the spring of 1998, imperiously, and with veiled threats, summoned Netanyahu to Washington to finalize a 13 percent withdrawal plan, Netanyahu chose to remain at home. In response to this confrontation, many members of Congress publicly and forcefully sided with Netanyahu...

...But [Netanyahu] failed in both the domestic and American arenas to utilize effectively the resources available to him. Domestically, the pressures for more unilateral Israeli concessions persisted unchecked. With the United States, Netanyahu simply yielded and acceded in October, 1998, to attending a summit with Arafat and Clinton at Wye Plantation in order to hammer out a redeployment agreement that was obviously to be based on the American proposals of Israel ceding, an additional 13 percent of the West Bank. ...[Netanyahu ] capitulated, and in doing so not only failed to make effective use of congressional backing but undercut those in Congress who most firmly supported him and had most vociferously argued, with Netanyahu, that a withdrawal of the dimensions prescribed by the administration, at least under current circumstances, posed too great a threat to Israel.”

[nikmatdam]

____________________________________________________________

2005 [ negative ]

Mahmoud Abbas, who will soon have total control over Gaza, is the one who invented the strategy of talking 'peace' the better to slaughter Israelis. The US ruling elite loves Mahmoud Abbas.
( written before Gaza was turned over to the PLO )
____________________________________________________________

Below I analyze various excerpts from an article by MEMRI (Middle East Media Research Institute), which provides the invaluable service of translating into English much of what is published in the Arab press. The piece I will quote from discusses MEMRI’s translation of an article in Al Sharq Al-Awsat where the Arab author explains to his Arab audience what PLO chief Mahmoud Abbas’s ideology is. And it is this: to talk ‘peace’ in order to soften, divide, and confuse the Israelis, the better to prepare them for slaughter.

MEMRI writes:

In an article in the London-based Arabic daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, reprinted in the Palestinian daily Al-Quds on July 4, 1999, the journalist Saleh Qallab discusses the importance of the polarization of Israeli society - which was evident in the last general elections. The author’s analysis focuses on the political thought of PLO Executive Committee Secretary General, Mahmoud Abbas, aka “Abu Mazen,” who was the first to claim that the fragmentation of Israeli society is relevant to the Arab strategy in the peace process.[174]

The ‘peace’ process, for Mahmoud Abbas, is a tool for destroying Israel. Does this makes sense? Yes: the PLO Charter calls for the destruction of Israel, and Mahmoud Abbas has always been a high official in the PLO (see above quote). So it makes sense that for Mahmoud Abbas the 'peace' strategy is a good one only if it turns out to help divide the Israelis, making them more vulnerable.

The MEMRI article continues:

“The Arab interest in the Israeli elections focused on political aspects,” writes Qallab, “but neglected one important issue: the unprecedented racial and religious polarization that showed Israel as a mosaic of different races and groups... Israel was seen [in the last elections] as it was never seen before - divided, flooded with internal feuds, and composed of people who have nothing to do with one another.”

“Most Arabs failed to notice this phenomenon, with the exception of the PLO Abu Mazen, who [recently] wrote a 73 page study of the racial and religious polarization in Israel... Abu Mazen was the first to focus on the mosaic-nature of the Israeli society and one of his studies on this topic earned him a Ph.D. from a Soviet university.”

Qallab recalls that Abu Mazen was the first to attribute importance to the fragmentation of Israeli society - 20 years ago: “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.”

So 'Abu Mazen' (whose real name is Mahmoud Abbas), according to this Arabic article in Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, is a specialist on how to use the talk of ‘peace’ to create divisions in Israeli society, the better to exploit those divisions with a view towards the eventual destruction of the Jewish state. In fact, since, according to Qallab, Abbas inaugurated this kind of thinking as far back as 1979, long before the Oslo strategy took hold, it would appear that Mahmoud Abbas is the intellectual author of the Oslo strategy.

Back to MEMRI:

Qallab states that Abu Mazen is a pioneer of the realistic school, which, in his opinion, included former Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, “who…told some PLO leaders, including Yasser Arafat, Abu Iyad, and Khaled Al-Hassan, that it was necessary to bring the Israelis down from their tanks to the ground and cause them a sense of security and peace, to allow their social maladies to appear and to prevent their unification in the face of a[n external] danger.”

There is no question that this strategy has worked. Qallab writes:

“It is clear that the racial and religious polarization, which was in the forefront of the last elections in Israel, did not develop in a vacuum but rather was the accumulated result of a [process] that started with the Egyptian-Israeli peace negotiations, continued with the Oslo Accords and later the peace treaty with Jordan...”

“...In the introduction to his book Racial and Religious Polarization in Israel, Abu Mazen poses a question: ‘What may better increase and escalate the conflicts and racial and religious contrasts in the Israeli society: a state of war or a state of peace?’…”

Abu Mazen’s purpose is clear. If it weren't, Saleh Qallab, the author of the translated article, makes sure that the reader understands, pointing out that all-out war has been abandoned only as a strategic necessity, and only in the short-term:

“…There is no doubt that the war [with Israel] was essential and that it might be essential [again] in the future. However, since the current stage is the stage of peace, this process must be exhausted and there should be an advantage gained from all these current conflicts, including the deep dispersal in the composition of Israeli society.”

“…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.”

This is more than clever. UN Resolution 242 is in fact a radical attack against Israel, designed to strip it of territory that the Pentagon, in 1967, determined was essential to the defense of Israel, and without which it could not survive (see 1967 section). So even the overt posture of ‘peace’ is in fact an attack in its specific proposals. ‘Peace’ only makes its appearance, in the Arab strategy, when the word ‘peace’ is pronounced in public for the purposes of duping well-meaning Jews. Of course, the danger in this strategy lies in the possibility that those well-meaning Jews will be made aware of what is really going on. Therefore, Saleh Qallab recommends:

“…This issue should not even be discussed at this stage while the peace process is still underway…”

So the strategy is designed to fool well-meaning Jews into believing that the Palestinian Arab leadership really wants peace. This strategy produced the Oslo Process, which is how come the PLO, a terrorist organization that was living in exile, got to become the government over the West Bank and Gaza Arabs, from which position it has been killing lots of innocent Israelis: the Second Intifada. Mahmoud Abbas invented this strategy.

I point out that although Arafat posed for the cameras, the guy putting his signature on the Oslo agreement was Mahmoud Abbas:

“…at 11 a.m., before some 3,000 guests on the South Lawn, including former presidents Jimmy Carter and George Bush, [Shimon] Peres and PLO Executive Committee member Mahmoud Abbas are to sign an agreement between Israel and the PLO conferring limited self-rule on the Palestinians living in Gaza and the West Bank.”[175]

Did the Palestinian Arab terrorists always understand that, once Mahmoud Abbas replaced Yasser Arafat, he intended to continue the policy of tricking the Israelis with talk of ‘peace’ the better to murder them? But of course. To begin with, Mahmoud Abbas explained to them early on what he would do. Consider this remark by David Warren in the Ottawa Citizen immediately after Arafat died:

“In Israel/Palestine, we wait upon repercussions from another re-election of an old regime: Arafat [is] definitively gone…, but Mahmoud Abbas pledged to continue Arafat's irredentist policies. Throughout the West, we seem to be assuming that Mr. Abbas is a lot more pragmatic than his words would suggest, if they were taken at face value.”[176]

And why was the press, “throughout the West, ...assuming that Mr. Abbas is a lot more pragmatic than his words would suggest”? Why did the Western press apologize for a terrorist when this terrorist was not even saying that he wanted peace? If Abbas was saying that he would “continue Arafat's irredentist policies,” then, indeed, why not take him “at face value”?

Now, of course, to make it a bit easier for the Western press, Abbas did at one point begin talking ‘peace’ as he prepared to take power. But the Fatah terrorists certainly didn’t think he meant it.

“…in the Balata refugee camp near the West Bank city of Nablus, about 1,000 Palestinians - including scores of armed, masked militants affiliated with Fatah - demonstrated for the continuation of the uprising.

The demonstrators also declared their support for Mahmoud Abbas [a.k.a. Abu Mazen], the new head of the Palestinian Liberation Organization and Fatah’s candidate in Jan. 9 presidential elections.”[177]

The words "the uprising", above, are a reference to the terrorist Second Intifada. This is what the "militants affiliated with Fatah" - meaning the Fatah terrorists - wanted to continue. But if the "militants affiliated with Fatah" who burst onto the streets to chant their support for more murders of innocent Israelis thought that Mahmoud Abbas was serious with his talk of ‘peace,’ why then would these lusty terrorists support him?

And notice that the Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigade branch of Fatah was particularly passionate about Abbas, taking his side vociferously when it seemed like Marwan Barghouti, another Fatah leader, might seek the post:

“Abbas already has been nominated as Fatah's presidential candidate, so Barghouti must run as an independent. But as a leading Fatah member, he would likely undermine Abbas' prospects… Zakaria Zubeidi, the 29-year-old West Bank leader of the Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades, a violent group linked to Fatah, said he would back Abbas. "Barghouti ... should resign from Fatah," he told The Associated Press.”[178]

The Al Aqsa Martyr’s Brigades, as Newsday once explained, is “the deadliest Palestinian militia,”[179] so what we see above is that the most extreme Palestinian Arab terrorists are also the most enthusiastic supporters of Mahmoud Abbas. They must be quite aware, then, that when Abbas says ‘peace’ he is just doing this to soften and divide the Israelis; that Abbas is trying “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.”

It turns out, in support of this analysis, that Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade quickly claimed responsibility for the February 25 suicide bombing that broke the Sharm El Sheikh cease-fire between Israel and Mahmoud Abbas’s Palestinian Authority,[180] something that was subsequently confirmed when

“The Israeli army…identified the Tel Aviv suicide bomber as a young Palestinian university student…[by name] Abdullah Badran, 21… Badran was a member of the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, an armed wing of the Palestinian mainstream Fatah Movement...”[181]

So, as I have argued elsewhere, Mahmoud Abbas himself gave the order for the terrorist attack on 25 February, 2005.[182] How do I know this? Because Mahmoud Abbas is the leader of Fatah, the PLO, and the Palestinian Authority, and the structure of Fatah, the PLO, and the Palestinian Authority is utterly authoritarian, so it is inconceivable that Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, which is part of Fatah, carried out a suicide bombing on 25 February without Mahmoud Abbas giving the order. If it had, and if Mahmoud Abbas disagreed with such actions, then he naturally would have castigated the Brigades publicly. Instead, Abbas’s Palestinian Authority pretended that the Lebanese Hezbollah - a terrorist group that was denying responsibility - was responsible.[183]

Therefore, Mahmoud Abbas broke the cease-fire.

And he has kept at it. This is from 15 July 2005:

[nikmatdam]

“Terrorists, including those from the PA’s Fatah party military arm, the Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigade, recently have attacked Jewish communities in the western Negev and Gaza with almost 100 shells and rockets every week.”[184]

None of this should really be surprising because Mahmoud Abbas is a committed antisemitic terrorist whose PhD thesis is an exercise in Holocaust denial.[185]

Why then did anybody end up convinced that Abbas wanted peace? Well, partly because the press kept saying that Abbas was a peacemaker. For example, Thomas L. Friedman, who has a long career attacking Israel in the pages of the New York Times, wrote the following in February 2004:

“…in the past two years, Mr. Sharon has crushed Mr. Arafat's corrupt Palestinian Authority, but failed to lift a finger to empower more responsible Palestinians - like Mahmoud Abbas and Muhammad Dahlan.”[186]

How credible is Friedman when he vouches for Mahmoud Abbas? Well, consider that Friedman also vouches for Muhammad Dahlan who, along with Jibril Rajoub, was the top cop in Arafat’s Palestinian Authority. These two, as you may recall, were openly explaining that they would use their policemen to kill Arabs who opposed the murder of Jews, and to murder Jews, even as the CIA was training both Rajoub and Dahlan, all of which was reported in the wires (see 1994 section). Friedman is therefore hardly a credible character witness for Abbas.

Is Friedman a bad journalist or a liar? Well, a journalist who doesn't even read the wires is a very bad journalist. Would a journalist who was that bad have a high-profile perch at the New York Times? On the other hand, a liar would be disregarding - rather than failing to read - the wires. Could a liar be working for the New York Times? That depends on what you think the New York Times really is.

The problem, in any case, is that people who write for the New York Times do not typically have their credibility examined. On the contrary, Friedman was given the National Book Award for nonfiction for his book From Beirut to Jerusalem, which is a long string of slanderous accusations against Israel but which is nevertheless "still considered the definitive work on the Middle East."[186a]

That said, Friedman's anti-Israel attacks are certainly not the only reason why many people have believed that Mahmoud Abbas is supposedly a relative moderate and peacemaker. Another reason can be gleaned from the following excerpt:

[Quote from Jerusalem Post begins here]

When Abbas started his term [as Palestinian ‘prime minister’] over a year ago, he looked forward to working on a peace agreement with US President George Bush and Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, but…Abbas said that he quit because he felt that Sharon made no concessions, Bush was reluctant to help, and he was attacked by his Palestinian colleagues.

When asked what kind of attacks, Abbas replied, ‘Incitement.’ When pressed on what kind of incitement, he said…‘I felt that someone was going to kill me, or cause bloodshed within Fatah itself.’

Asked if Arafat investigated the matter, he answered, ‘I don’t want to mention anyone by name. But I’ll give you something to understand: I don’t have any relationship with Arafat from the resignation to this day. I live in Ramallah and he’s 100 meters away. I don’t go to him, I don’t meet with him, I don’t have any relations with him.’[187]

[Quote from Jerusalem Post ends here]

Since almost any other Palestinian Arab who disagreed in this manner with Arafat was as good as dead, it is striking that Abbas went out of his way to name Arafat specifically (though he wasn’t naming any names!) as the person who wanted him dead, and yet managed not only to stay alive but to succeed Arafat when the PLO leader died. And Mahmoud Abbas won by unanimous vote in the PLO executive committee, no less![188]

Perhaps this is because Abbas is skilled at staying alive and maneuvering for political gain. But it is also possible, is it not, that the fight between Arafat and Abbas was staged. After all, Mahmoud Abbas is the author of the idea that lying to the Israelis with talk of ‘peace’ is the way to defeat them. Why not also lie to the Israelis with a staged fight between him and Arafat meant to position Abbas as the guy whose life was in danger because he wanted ‘peace’ so badly? Wouldn’t this be perfect for Mahmoud Abbas’s strategy? It would. (Anybody who has watched pro-wrestling in the US will have a perfect model for what I am talking about, provided we assume that the audience is genuinely naive.)

Certainly, if the Abbas-Arafat ‘fight’ was staged, we can easily explain why the worst among the Palestinian Arab terrorists were keen for Abbas to succeed Arafat (as we saw above). They could certainly be confident that, with Abbas, they would go right on killing Jews, because Abbas had invented the Oslo strategy. This is precisely the strategy that, over the past decade, had allowed an exiled terrorist group, the PLO, to become the government over the West Bank and Gaza Arabs, from which position it could once again kill lots of Jews.

But then, given that it was the United States ruling elite that forced the Israelis to participate in the Oslo process (see 1991 section), and that the CIA trained the PLO police forces created by Oslo to attack the Israelis (see 1994 section), one expects that perhaps the US ruling elite and Mahmoud Abbas will turn out to be closely aligned. After all, when the US forced the Israelis to participate in the Oslo process, it was implementing Mahmoud Abbas’s preferred strategy. It is not exactly a surprise to find, then, that “Mr Abbas, who is also known as Abu Mazen, is a favorite of the Americans,” as the Guardian explained when Arafat was taken to Paris to die.[189] And perhaps it is not a coincidence that the whole ‘fight’ between Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas, which positioned Abbas ideally to take the Oslo strategy one deadly step further, took place at the instigation of the US president. As the Glasgow Herald explained, “[Abbas] served as prime minister of the Palestinian Authority (PA) after George Bush made clear Mr. Arafat had to relinquish some of his powers.”[190] (Obviously, tiny terrorist groups don't get to call the shots; superpowers call the shots.)

And as soon as Mahmoud Abbas was made prime minister, he and George Bush started singing in unison:

“Mr Bush… - with Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian Prime Minister standing beside him - called the [security] fence (more properly a wall) a ‘problem’ that did not help the road-map peace plan being pushed by the United States and other big powers for an overall Middle East settlement by the end of 2005.”[191]

Some might argue that the fence is a solution to a problem, the problem being the murders of innocent Israelis. Certainly an ally of Israel would tend towards that interpretation, which is the obvious one. But no, to Mr. Bush the problem was the fence. (Because it made the murders of innocent Israelis more difficult?)

And notice that the plan was for “an overall Middle East settlement by the end of 2005.” That’s code for a PLO state. As I write, in July 2005, everything is running right on schedule, as the Israelis living in Gaza will soon be cleansed out of there, by the Israeli government, so that the PLO can have total control over this territory.

US president George Bush has been pushing hard for this:

“Anxious to maintain the momentum towards an Israeli-Palestinian settlement, President George Bush has pointedly urged Ariel Sharon to halt an expansion of a key Jewish settlement on the West Bank, bitterly opposed by the Palestinians.

Hosting the Israeli Prime Minister at his Texas ranch, Mr. Bush backed Mr. Sharon’s plan to dismantle the 21 Israeli settlements in Gaza. But, in an unmistakable reference to the Maale Adumim settlement, close to Jerusalem where Israel plans to build 3,650 homes, the President told reporters that he asked Mr. Sharon “not to undertake any activity that contravenes the road map or prejudices final status obligations.”[192]

So Bush is happy that Sharon will cleanse Gaza of its Israeli citizens to give this territory to the PLO, but he made clear this was not enough. In addition, existing settlements in the West Bank should not be expanded, and no further Jewish housing should be built in Jerusalem. This was in April 2005, right at the same time that Palestinian terrorists were firing on Israeli civilians, as explained in the same article:

“Mr Sharon’s first visit to the President’s ranch in Texas came at an especially delicate moment, amid renewed violence in Gaza that threatens a two-month ceasefire.”

Things have not changed since April 2005. The following is from July 18, 2005.

“...Israeli troops and tanks remain massed along the Gaza Strip borders, poised for a major military intervention, if the Palestinian leadership does not stop militant attacks.

During the past week, six Israelis have died - five in a suicide bombing in the coastal city, Netanya, and another in a rocket attack by Palestinian militants from Gaza.

...Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice is...expected in the region, this week, to ensure Israel's disengagement from Gaza stays on track for mid August.”[193]

I established earlier that the US is not concerned in the least for the Palestinian Arabs (see 1994 section). What we now see amply demonstrated is that the US government cannot be worried that innocent Israelis are being murdered by the PLO. Why? Because the US wants, very badly, for the PLO to have total control over Gaza, from which strategic Israeli territory the Israelis Jews, the US is quite convinced, must be cleansed. The only thing the US is worried about is the possibility that the current violence against Israeli Jews may have become so extreme that it could yet prevent the PLO terrorists from getting Gaza by mid-August, as originally scheduled. So the Secretary of State of the most powerful country in the world is speedily sent to this speck of the Earth “to ensure Israel's disengagement from Gaza stays on track for mid August.”

I'll ask again: Is the US an ally of Israel?

More to come (soon)...

[nikmatdam]

____________________________________________________________

Footnotes and Further Reading
____________________________________________________________

[63] The Associated Press, November 13, 1981, Friday, AM cycle, International News, 368 words, UNITED NATIONS:

"The U.N. General Assembly, with Israel and the United States casting 'no' votes, voted 109-2 Friday to condemn the Israel for its June 7 raid on an Iraqi nuclear reactor and asked the Security Council to order sanctions against it.

Thirty-four nations abstained.

It was the third U.N. vote on the issue. The U.N. Security Council voted June 19 to "strongly condemn" the raid. On Wednesday, the General Assembly voted to tack an anti-Israeli amendment onto a resolution praising the International Atomic Energy Agency. The amendment branded the attack a serious threat to development of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes...."

[64] United Press International, December 17, 1981, Thursday, AM cycle, International, 378 words, By R.M. SORGE, UNITED NATIONS:

"The U.N. Security Council unanimously declared the Israeli annexation of the Syrian Golan Heights as ''null and void'' Thursday night and told the Jewish state to rescind its decision.

The United States supported the moderately worded resolution, which does not condemn Israel nor threaten to impose sanctions in case of non-compliance as had been requested by Syria.

It was adopted by a 15-0 vote after hours of backroom diplomatic bickering over its final text. The United States asked for minor changes in the text of the provisional resolution but finally agreed to its text.

The resolution asks the U.N. Secretary-General to report on the implementation of the resolution within two weeks, and declares the Council would meet before Jan. 5 in case of non-compliance ''to consider the necessary measures in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.''

The United States, however, has made clear that it would still oppose any attempt to impose sanctions against the Jewish state in line with the resolution.

U.S. Ambassador Charles Lichenstein, speaking directly after the vote, reiterated that the United States would not accept the unilateral Israeli decision, though..."

[65] The New York Times, December 23, 1981, Wednesday, Late City Final Edition, Section A; Page 3, Column 4; Foreign Desk, 724 words, WALDHEIM SEES HOPE IN U.S.-ISRAEL STRIFE, By BERNARD D. NOSSITER, Special to the New York Times, UNITED NATIONS, N.Y., Dec. 22

"Secretary General Kurt Waldheim said today that the strained Israeli-American relations reflected 'an objective reassessment' by the United States of its interests in the Middle East.

The American support for Security Council resolutions rebuking Israel, he said, demonstrates that the United States 'wants good relations with both sides,' Arab and Israeli.

'I think this is a positive element,' he said, 'an objective attitude toward problems in the world.' Mr. Waldheim spoke in an interview as he was about to leave office. His term expires Dec. 31 but he plans to stay on at the Secretary General's Sutton Place mansion through January. Then he intends to consult Chancellor Bruno Kreisky in Vienna about a possible diplomatic assignment from Austria. He is also considering offers to teach here and what he called an avalanche of requests to speak.

Mr. Waldheim said he was surprised by the vehemence of Prime Minister Menachem Begin's attack on the United States. 'I have seldom heard words expressed as the ones used by Israel to the U.S.,' he said.

A Display of Tension

After Israel annexed the Golan Heights, and Washington suspended talks to carry out the strategic cooperation agreement with Israel, Mr. Begin accused Washington of treating his nation like a 'vassal state' and a 'banana republic.'

This language, Mr. Waldheim said, 'represents the tension in the area and between the two countries.' American support for resolutions declaring the annexation illegal and condemning Israel's raid on an Iraqi nuclear reactor in June are an effort by Washington 'to create confidence' in its Middle East policy, Mr. Waldheim said.

He regards the talks between Egypt and Israel on PLO/Hamas Arab Muslim Nazi autonomy as fruitless. 'These talks cannot produce a solution,' he said. 'Israel wants to give administrative autonomy and stop there.'

'If we accept the legitimate rights of the PLO/Hamas Arab Muslim Nazi people, this can't be achieved by the autonomy talks under the Israeli interpretation,' he said.

Mr. Waldheim said the PLO/Hamas Arab Muslim Nazis should be given the right of self-determination and this could not exclude an independent, sovereign state. Israel strenuously rejects any such plan."

[66] "President Reagan, in a meeting with 32 Jewish supporters, sought today to calm their concerns over possible anti-Semitism in his approach to a Middle East peace settlement and the U.S. sale of military equipment to Saudi Arabia.

Jacob Stein, White House liaison with the Jewish community, said 'there was a very full, respectful but extremely candid give and take' during the session.

Later in the day, the president was to meet with the presidents of 34 Jewish organizations.

Stein said the participants expressed 'the depth of feeling in the Jewish community, the great concern over perceptions of anti-Semitism, of anti-Jewish attitudes.'

Stein quoted Reagan as saying his administration 'will not condone anti-Semitism and will attack it wherever it surfaces.'

Those who attended the meeting with Reagan refused to talk to reporters as they left the White House.

Stein said the president assured his audience the administration will not deal with the Eretz Yisrael Liberation Organization until it renounces terrorism, recognizes Israel and accepts U.N. Security Council resolutions calling for Israeli withdrawal from occupied territory and acceptance of Israel's right to exist.

The White House adviser also 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 PLO/Hamas Arab Muslim Nazi 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.

Stein said discussions soon between administration officials and Israeli Defense Minister Ariel Sharon would demonstrate 'the true nature of the validity and sincerity of the commitment of the president to Israel's security.'" -- 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

[67] http://www.jimmycarterlibrary.org/documents/campdavid/accords.phtml

[68] The New York Times, October 17, 1981, Saturday, Late City Final Edition, Section 1; Page 23, Column 1; Editorial Desk, 927 words, BE BOLD, MR. BEGIN, By Edgar M. Bronfman

[69] Jewish leader OKs Reagan peace plan, Christian Science Monitor (Boston, MA), September 23, 1982, Thursday, Midwestern Edition, Pg. 12, 428 words, By Daniel Southerland, Staff correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor, Washington

[70] The Washington Post, September 6, 1982, Monday, Final Edition, First Section; World News; A1, 807 words, Israel Rebuffs Reagan, Approves 3 Settlements, By Edward Walsh, Washington Post Foreign Service, JERUSALEM, Sept. 5, 1982

[71] See above footnote.

[72] "Eretz Yisrael Liberation Organization." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2003.  Encyclopædia Britannica Online.

25 Nov, 2003  <http://www.search.eb.com/eb/article?eu=59547>.

[73] http://www.psych.upenn.edu/~fjgil/fatahpalestinians.htm

[74] The Washington Post, December 26, 1982, Sunday, Final Edition, First Section; A1, 2354 words, Arafat's PLO Once Again Rides Crest of Defeat, By Loren Jenkins, Washington Post Foreign Service, BEIRUT

[75] See  above footnote.

[76] Who is Vincent Cannistraro? "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..." This information, and the PBS interview from which the quote in the text was taken, may be found here:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/target/interviews/

[77] The New York Times, September 22, 1982, Wednesday, Late City Final Edition, Section A; Page 16, Column 1; Foreign Desk, 922 words, CONGRESS SHOCKED AT REFUSAL OF ISRAEL TO HAVE AN INQUIRY, By HEDRICK SMITH, Special to the New York Times, WASHINGTON, Sept. 21

"The Israeli Cabinet's decision against a special inquiry into the Beirut massacre came as a new shock here today, fueling Congressional criticism of the Begin Government and dimming prospects for proposed aid increases.

The appearance of what one member of Congress called 'a Government whitewash' added to a sequence of Israeli actions in Lebanon that have produced growing disillusionment with Prime Minister Menachem Begin, eroded political support for Israel and stiffened Congressional backing for President Reagan's tough stance toward the Israeli Government.

[nikmatdam]

(...)

Both President Reagan's decision to join in a multinational force and his Sept. 1 proposals for an Arab-Israeli settlement were endorsed today by Edgar M. Bronfman, president of the World Jewish Congress, who said his position reflected a survey of all 67 international affiliates of his group.

Mr. Bronfman, who met with Vice President Bush today, put out a statement that also called on the Israeli Government to authorize an immediate inquiry into the Beirut killings."

[78]

[78a] Christian Science Monitor (Boston, MA), November 15, 1983, Tuesday, Pg. 1, 899 words, The Mideast's undrawn daggers, By Ned Temko, Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor, Jerusalem

[78b] The New York Times, January 29, 1983, Saturday, Late City Final Edition, Section 1; Page 1, Column 2; Foreign Desk, 816 words, LEBANON CAR-BLAST KILLS 14 AT CENTER FOR ARAFAT P.L.O. WING, By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN, Special to the New York Times, BEIRUT, Lebanon, Jan. 28

[78c] The Washington Post, December 14, 1983, Wednesday, Final Edition, First Section; A1, 999 words, U.S. Ships Attack Syrian Posts East of Beirut, By Herbert H. Denton, Washington Post Foreign Service, BEIRUT, Dec. 13, 1983

[78d] The New York Times, December 20, 1983, Tuesday, Late City Final Edition, Section A; Page 1, Column 6; Foreign Desk, 867 words, U.S. 'EXPECTS' ISRAEL TO STOP HINDERING ARAFAT EVACUATION, By BERNARD GWERTZMAN, Special to the New York Times, WASHINGTON, Dec. 19

[78e] Christian Science Monitor (Boston, MA), January 4, 1984, Wednesday, National; Pg. 1, 851 words, Heat on Reagan for Mideast policy review, By Brad Knickerbocker, Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor, Washington

[78f] The New York Times, March 8, 1984, Thursday, Late City Final Edition, Section A; Page 1, Column 1; Foreign Desk, 940 words, NEW U.S. STRATEGY ON MIDEAST BEGUN, By LESLIE H. GELB, Special to the New York Times, WASHINGTON, March 7

[79] The Guardian (London), September 20, 1985, 818 words, Third World Column: Israel's many tongues abroad / Representation and activisim in the Jewish Diaspora, By DAVID LANDAU

[80] The Toronto Star, September 16, 1985, Monday, FINAL EDITION, NEWS; Pg. A2, 195 words, Bronfman's Moscow trip is revealed, AP, NEW YORK

FULL TEXT: "NEW YORK (AP) - A quiet milestone was marked last week when Edgar Bronfman, 59, became the first president of the World Jewish Congress to meet with Kremlin officials in Moscow.

But his departure for the Soviet Union a week ago Sunday was not announced; the Soviets did not publicly acknowledge his visit on Monday and Tuesday; and his return to New York on Thursday went unreported.

The trip was made public only when Israeli Foreign Minister Yitzhak Shamir criticized it in an interview with the Jerusalem Post.

Shamir said Bronfman is 'not authorized to negotiate on behalf of Israel and the Jewish people.'

When plans for the visit were disclosed in January, Bronfman said he hoped to discuss the imprisonment of Jewish dissidents and curbs on Jewish emigration. He also said he would meet with trade officials to discuss business in his capacity as head of the Seagram liquor empire.

The Post also reported Bronfman took a message from Prime Minister Shimon Peres to Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev calling on the Soviet Union to resume diplomatic relations with Israel.

'I can confirm nothing,' said a Bronfman spokesman, Bob Kasmire."

[81] The Guardian (London), September 20, 1985, 818 words, Third World Column: Israel's many tongues abroad / Representation and activisim in the Jewish Diaspora, By DAVID LANDAU

[82] The Guardian (London), July 22, 1985, 556 words, Peres sends positive signals to Soviet leader / Israeli Premier reportedly hoping for reestablishment of bilateral diplomatic relations, From IAN BLACK, JERUSALEM

"The Prime Minister, Mr Shimon Peres, has reportedly sent a message to the Soviet leader, Mr Mikhail Gorbachev, expressing the hope that the two countries can solve the problems preventing them from reestablishing diplomatic relations after a break of 18 years.

According to Israel radio, Mr Peres conveyed the message verbally through Mr Edgar Bronfman, President of the World Jewish Congress, who is to visit Moscow shortly.

The message reortedly stresses that Israel is not hostile towards the Soviet Union, and expresses the hope that a strong leader like Mr Gorbachev will be able to settle the bilateral issue between the two countries.

The message follows the embarrassment in Jerusalem caused by last Friday's leak about a secret meeting between the Israeli and Soviet ambassadors to France. Israel confirmed that the meeting had taken place, but refused to give details. Tass news agency denied what it called a 'fabrication.'

According to Israel Radio, the two envoys discussed the possibility of easing restrictions on Jewish emigration from the Soviet Union, stopping anti-Soviet propaganda, Israeli agreement with Syria over the future of the occupied Golan Heights, and reestablishing diplomatic relations between Moscow and Jerusalem, severed by the Soviet Union after the 1967 war."

[

[nikmatdam]

83] > Christian Science Monitor (Boston, MA), October 16, 1985, Wednesday, International; Pg. 7, 1274 words, Israel tries to renew relations with Soviets, By Mary Curtius, Special to The Christian Science Monitor, Jerusalem

"* Last July, news leaked of a meeting in Paris between the Israeli and Soviet ambassadors to France. According to a cable leaked to Israel Radio's diplomatic correspondent, the Soviet ambassador said in the meeting that Moscow was willing to renew relations with Israel and permit unrestricted emigration of Soviet Jews if Israel would at least partially withdraw from the Golan Heights it captured from Syria in 1967.

The leak caused a tremendous outcry in Israeli political circles, and the Soviets soon after seemed to take pains to reiterate their stance that Moscow would restore ties with Israel only after Israel withdrew from all the occupied territories and made peace with its neighbors.

* At this week's regular Cabinet session, Peres felt compelled to issue a communique stating that he did not send a plan to withdraw from the Israeli-annexed Golan Heights to the Soviets via World Jewish Congress President Edgar Bronfman. Mr. Bronfman recently visited Moscow, and carried with him a message for Mr. Gorbachev from Peres. One Israeli newspaper also reported that Bronfman carried a position paper on a phased Israeli withdrawal from the strategic Golan Heights."

> The Times (London), November 10 1985, Sunday, Issue 8414., 586 words, Will Third-World wars start the third world war? / Middle East, ROY ISACOWITZ

"In a secret message delivered to the Kremlin by World Jewish Council chairman Edgar Bronfman in September, Peres reportedly declared Israel's willingness to relinquish parts of the Golan Heights, which were captured from Syria in 1967."

[84] The Guardian (London), September 20, 1985, 818 words, Third World Column: Israel's many tongues abroad / Representation and activisim in the Jewish Diaspora, By DAVID LANDAU

[Quote From The Guardian Starts Here]

Bronfman went to Moscow not only to talk business, but, in his capacity as President of the World Jewish Congress... Bronfman hoped to meet Mr Gorbachev. He carried a letter from the Israeli Prime Minister, Shimon Peres, but was very soon back in New York, refusing to disclose whom he met and what, if anything, he had achieved...

In Amman, meanwhile, leaders of the American Jewish Congress have just met King Hussein, Crown Prince Hassan and senior Jordanian Ministers. Earlier, they were received in Cairo by President Mubarak. On Wednesday they crossed the Jordan to report to Mr Peres. 'We believe,' they announced, 'that King Hussein and President Mubarak now wish to widen the peace between Egypt and Israel to include other Arab countries. They believe in the urgency of doing so now, before forces of political and religious extremism make the task impossible ..We expressed to Egyptian and Jordanian officials our strong view that at this time the Prime Minister of Israel is prepared to go as far as any Israeli head of government can in moving towards peace.'

The message they brought to Mr Peres, from both Mubarak and Hussein, was: put the PLO to the test, and allow it some role in the diplomatic process. But this, of course, is anathema to the Likud half of the government, led by Mr Yitzhak Shamir.

His response has been not merely to reject the substance of the talks in Amman, but to blast the American Jewish figures for presuming to speak on these matters. The 'American Jewish Congress is a peanut-sized organisation,' he said, in a bitter interview. 'It has allowed itself to be used by the Arabs . who seek to drive a wedge between the Diaspora and Israel ..'

Mr Shamir, who is also foreign minister, extended the same logic to attack Edgar Bronfman. 'What does he understand about international relations?' he demanded. 'The World Jewish Congress should confine itself to work within philanthropic frameworks. Du Pont's drilling expertise gave Brongman no right to speak for Jewish issues.'

There was an issue of principle involved here; 'The world must know that Israel represents the Jewish people on Jewish problems.'

[Quote From The Guardian Ends Here]

[85] Financial Times (London,England), July 23, 1985, Tuesday, SECTION I; European News; Pg. 2, 656 words, Moscow denies plan to restore Israeli links, BY PATRICK COCKBURN IN MOSCOW

"[Israeli foreign minister Yitzhak Shamir] criticised his own Premier for sending a goodwill message to Mr Mikhail Gorbachev, the Soviet leader, through Mr Edgar Bronfman, the president of the World Jewish Congress who is due to visit the Soviet Union soon. Israel can talk directly to the Soviet Union, the minister said, it does not need intermediaries."

[nikmatdam]

[86] The Guardian (London), September 20, 1985, 818 words, Third World Column: Israel's many tongues abroad / Representation and activisim in the Jewish Diaspora, By DAVID LANDAU

[Quote From The Guardian Starts Here]

Bronfman went to Moscow not only to talk business, but, in his capacity as President of the World Jewish Congress... Bronfman hoped to meet Mr Gorbachev. He carried a letter from the Israeli Prime Minister, Shimon Peres, but was very soon back in New York, refusing to disclose whom he met and what, if anything, he had achieved...

In Amman, meanwhile, leaders of the American Jewish Congress have just met King Hussein, Crown Prince Hassan and senior Jordanian Ministers. Earlier, they were received in Cairo by President Mubarak. On Wednesday they crossed the Jordan to report to Mr Peres. 'We believe,' they announced, 'that King Hussein and President Mubarak now wish to widen the peace between Egypt and Israel to include other Arab countries. They believe in the urgency of doing so now, before forces of political and religious extremism make the task impossible ..We expressed to Egyptian and Jordanian officials our strong view that at this time the Prime Minister of Israel is prepared to go as far as any Israeli head of government can in moving towards peace.'

The message they brought to Mr Peres, from both Mubarak and Hussein, was: put the PLO to the test, and allow it some role in the diplomatic process. But this, of course, is anathema to the Likud half of the government, led by Mr Yitzhak Shamir.

His response has been not merely to reject the substance of the talks in Amman, but to blast the American Jewish figures for presuming to speak on these matters. The 'American Jewish Congress is a peanut-sized organisation,' he said, in a bitter interview. 'It has allowed itself to be used by the Arabs . who seek to drive a wedge between the Diaspora and Israel ..'

Mr Shamir, who is also foreign minister, extended the same logic to attack Edgar Bronfman. 'What does he understand about international relations?' he demanded. 'The World Jewish Congress should confine itself to work within philanthropic frameworks. Du Pont's drilling expertise gave Brongman no right to speak for Jewish issues.'

There was an issue of principle involved here; 'The world must know that Israel represents the Jewish people on Jewish problems.'

[Quote From The Guardian Ends Here]

[87] The Times (London), November 14 1985, Thursday, Issue 62295., 948 words, Israel on brink as Peres seeks to dismiss Sharon / Coalition government threatened as Premier demands apology from Trade and Industry Minister, From IAN MURRAY, JERUSALEM

[88] February 18, 1985, Monday, AM cycle, International News, 672 words, Peres and Craxi Oppose International Peace Conference on Mideast, By ARTHUR MAX, Associated Press Writer, ROME

[89] January 5, 1985, Saturday, AM cycle, International News, 555 words, Mubarak, Andreotti Depart After Meetings With Hussein, By JOHN RICE, Associated Press Writer, AMMAN, Jordan

[90] The Washington Post, March 16, 1985, Saturday, Final Edition, First Section; A1, 913 words, Shultz Sees Hope For Better Relations, By Don Oberdorfer, Washington Post Staff Writer

[91] Christian Science Monitor (Boston, MA), October 16, 1985, Wednesday, International; Pg. 7, 1274 words, Israel tries to renew relations with Soviets, By Mary Curtius, Special to The Christian Science Monitor, Jerusalem

[nikmatdam]

92] Financial Times (London,England), June 3, 1985, Monday, SECTION I; Pg. 2, 314 words, U.S. move on Mideast divides Israeli Cabinet, BY DAVID LENNON IN TEL AVIV

FULL TEXT: "THE possibility that the U.S. may soon hold talks with a joint Jordanian-Palestinian delegation on ways to renew the pease process in the Middle East has divided the Israeli Cabinet.

Some ministers fear this will lead to back door recognition of the PLO by the U.S. and have demanded that Jerusalem immediately informs Washington that Israel opposes this development.

Speaking after the Cabinet meeting yesterday Mr David Levy, a deputy premier and Housing Minister, said 'It is de facto back door recognition of the PLO.'

He demanded an immediate reply by Israel rejecting what he called the contradictory position taken by the U.S.

But in an effort to prevent an open rift within the national unity government Mr Shimon Peres, the Prime Minister, urged restraint until it is known which Palestinians will participate in the talks.

The moves by the U.S. emerged in a message which Mr Peres received on Saturday from Mr George Schultz, the U.S. Secretary of State. In the message he said that Washington will move in the coming weeks to hold preliminary discussions with such a delegation.

This follows the visit to the U.S. last week by King Hussein of Jordan, whose declaration about his willingness to enter into peace talks was described in the Schultz message as a step forward in the peace process.

Mr Yitzak Shamir, the vice premier and Foreign Minister, said yesterday that he does not consider anything positive came out of King Hussein's visit to the U.S. Mr Shamir said King Hussein has only added obstacles to peace negotiations by calling for an international conference.

He also rejected American suggestions that Israel should take part in negotiation with members of the Palestine National Council, who are not members of the PLO. Mr Shamir stressed that the PNC is a part of the PLO and that the leadership of the PLO is elected by the PNC."

[93] See preceding footnote.

[94] December 18, 1984, Tuesday, AM cycle, International News, 552 words, Libya claims France violates Chad withdrawal agreement, By KEVIN COSTELLOE, Associated Press Writer, ROME, Libya-France

[95] February 18, 1985, Monday, PM cycle, International News, 607 words, By KEVIN COSTELLOE, Associated Press Writer, ROME

"Prime Minister Shimon Peres of Israel arrived in Rome today for talks with Pope John Paul II and Premier Bettino Craxi of Italy, both of whom have angered Jewish leaders by meeting with PLO chief Yasser Arafat.

Peres' plane from Tel Aviv landed at Rome's Ciampino military airport. He was greeted by Craxi, and the two men left immediately for a meeting at the premier's office.

John Paul infuriated Israelis by meeting with the Palestine Liberation Organization leader in September 1982. The pope, immediately after the meeting, called for a dialogue between the Israelis and Palestinians.

Menachem Begin, who was Israel's prime minister at the time, said the Roman Catholic church leader's meeting with Arafat had aroused 'disgust,' while other political leaders said the talks were insulting.

Israel refuses to negotiate with the PLO, calling it a terrorist organization dedicated to the destruction of the Jewish state."

December 18, 1984, Tuesday, AM cycle, International News, 552 words, Libya claims France violates Chad withdrawal agreement, By KEVIN COSTELLOE, Associated Press Writer, ROME, Libya-France

"Jalloud is the second in command in Libya's radical government headed by Col. Moammar Khadafy.

At his news conference, he also said Libya had been hurt by the lower demand for oil and praised Italian Premier Bettino Craxi for meeting with Yasser Arafat, the chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization.

...Craxi held an unannounced meeting with Arafat in Tunisia earlier this month and Jallou said, 'We think that the meeting with Arafat was a step in the right direction and we think that it's a courageous step on the part of Italy's democratic forces.'

Craxi, a socialist, hopes to rally the 10 Common Market nations behind a Middle East peace initiative when Italy takes over the presidency of the organization in January. His plan calls for the PLO to join in the negotiations, a stand rejected by Israel.

Jalloud, who met with Craxi, President Sandro Pertini and Pope John Paul II, said he had invited Craxi to visit Libya early next year."

[96] The Guardian (London), December 8, 1984, 448 words, Middle East peace hopes / New initiative expected, By our Foreign Staff

[97] The New York Times, March 17, 1985, Sunday, Late City Final Edition, Section 1; Part 1; Page 12, Column 6; Foreign Desk, 225 words, Mubarak Maintains Position on Mideast, Reuters, CAIRO, March 16

[98] The Washington Post, October 8, 1985, Tuesday, Final Edition, First Section; A1, 656 words, Italian Cruise Ship Seized off Egypt With 450 Aboard; Release of 50 Palestinians Asked; 28 Americans Cited as Passengers, By Christopher [censored], Washington Post Foreign Service, CAIRO, Oct. 7, 1985

[99] The New York Times, October 11, 1985, Friday, Late City Final Edition, Section A; Page 1, Column 3; Foreign Desk, 1802 words, PORT OF ISRAEL DESCRIBED AS TARGET OF TERRORISTS WHO SEIZED VESSEL, By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN, Special to the New York Times, JERUSALEM, Oct. 10

"The four Palestinians aboard the Achille Lauro intended to stay aboard as passengers until the cruise liner reached Ashdod, Israel, and then planned either to shoot up the harbor or take Israelis hostage, according to Israeli, Palestinian and other Arab informants. The Israelis were to be held to bargain for the release of 50 Palestinians held in Israeli jails.

The leader of the faction that ordered the operation, Mohammed Abbas, also known as Abul Abbas, is a close associate of Yasir Arafat, the chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization, and was reportedly sent by Mr. Arafat to deal with the hijackers after their original plan to infiltrate Israel at Ashdod had gone awry.

Crew Discovered Arms Cache

According to the informants, the four members of the group aborted their plans and seized the ship when their weapons were discovered by the crew after the Achille Lauro had left Alexandria on Monday. The informants say the original plan and the hijacking were part of a bungled attempt to exact revenge for Israel's raid last week on the P.L.O. headquarters near Tunis.

When relations between the P.L.O. and Italy seemed jeopardized by the seizure of the ship and an American passenger was killed by the apparently panicked hijackers, Mr. Arafat and Abul Abbas ordered the hijackers to return to Port Said and surrender.

This picture was pieced together from information provided by Israeli Foreign Ministry and military officials, Arab analysts in Beirut and a statement issued today in Nicosia, Cyprus, by a spokesman of Abul Abbas's faction in the Palestine Liberation Front, one of the guerrilla groups in the Palestine Liberation Organization."

[100] "In a telephone interview from Algiers, a senior aide to the P.L.O. leader, Yasir Arafat, said that members of his P.L.O. faction were not involved and that the gunmen belonged to a new, small guerrilla band composed of residents of the Sabra and Shatila refugee districts of Beirut."

Source: The New York Times, October 8, 1985, Tuesday, Late City Final Edition, Section A; Page 1, Column 6; Foreign Desk, 1378 words, SHIP CARRYING 400 SEIZED; HIJACKERS DEMAND RELEASE OF 50 PALESTINIANS IN ISRAEL, By JOHN TAGLIABUE, Special to the New York Times, ROME, Tuesday, Oct. 8