For RationalThought: Is it American Policy to Destroy Israel?

[MarZutra]

Is it American Policy to destroy Israel? ..... Eugene Narrett (c) 
 

In a word, “no”; it is not the policy of the groups that apply America’s powers to destroy the Israel as a mostly Jewish entity of some kind. But to address this question fully, even in brief, one must review the Middle Eastern policy of Britain’s ruling interests as established from 1919-23. In those few years, Western policy toward a Jewish State in Israel was set forth and has persisted via America, the EU, UN and ancillary jihadists. The policy sustains dialectical attrition in the area where Israel should be and it has both rational (if profound selfishness can be termed “rational”) and obsessive aspects deeply rooted in Western culture.
 
In pursuing this history we will discover startling parallels between British-Western policy toward the Promised Land and the teachings of Aquarian gurus of shamballah like Alice Bailey not least in her preaching of a “world religion,” a “new civilization” to “emerge as the result of mass thinking” by the “Exponents of Love” [1]. 
 
In the aftermath of the Versailles Peace Conference of 1919, John Dove of the Rhodes-Milner Round Table (and editor of its eponymous journal from 1921-34), wrote a series of letters to fellow RT member and alumnus of New College, Oxford, Robert Lord Brand arguing the merits of “an Arab Federation” with its front door on the Mediterranean. Dove’s attitude toward the Arabs was filled with geographic anomalies and contradictions. He criticized the Western tendency to believe and act as if its civilization “was a nostrum for the ills of mankind everywhere” but also stated that “a stage of friendly tutelage [under Britain] is not necessarily a bad thing for the Arabs. On the contrary, advanced people can give so much to stimulate backward ones if they do it with sympathy.” Dove meant that England would not “facilitate Jewish immigration” to the “Jewish National Home” or “close settlement of Jews on the land,” the pledges by which the British secured the League of Nations Mandate to administer “Palestine” for themselves (and along with the pledges the invaluable help of Jewish soldiers and guides in defeating the Turks and Germans in the Promised Land from fall 1917-18). Rather, “Jews must be content to be part of such a potential unit” (the Arab Federation fronting on the Mediterranean). “Jews,” he wrote with the blithe, arrogant ignorance of an Oxonian, “have everything to gain from an Arab Federation” in which they will be welcome “if Zionism brings capital and labor to start industries” [2]. In other words, Jews can forget settling the land much less aspiring to or attaining sovereignty if Britain's policy-makers had anything to do about it. They also must forget the thirteen centuries of jihad and dhimmitude to which the Arabs had subjected them after their ancient State and Land was destroyed by the Romans and Greeks.
 
The several partitions of the Jewish National Home, effected or proposed from 1922-47 and the relentless compression of the semi-Jewish State fought and won from the 1940s to 1973 reflect the policy of Dove and the Round Table’s influence in White Hall, Washington and beyond. The pro-Arab stance behind clouds of rhetorical concern for Israel and the Jews has been a constant for almost nine decades.
 
The other end of the spectrum of ruling British policy toward a Jewish State in the Promised Land was articulated by Sir Alfred Viscount Milner in a June 27, 1923 address to the House of Lords. The previous year, Britain had detached all the lands east of the Jordan River (“Transjordan”) from the Jewish National Home and forbidden Jews to live or own land there. This he loftily termed, “the Balfour Declaration as we have ourselves interpreted it.” He then alluded to the ferocious anti-Jewish activities of the Mandatory authorities (General Louis Bols, Colonel Ronald Storrs, etc)* as the “artificial stimulus of the present Arab agitation” which proceeded from the prompting of the above officers in March 1920 through to the “Arab Revolt” of 1936-7, Arab leaders’ rejection of a Jewish state of any size at the Round Table meeting in 1939 and subsequently. Milner debunked without explicitly mentioning the “absorptive capacity of the land” argument for barring Jewish immigration, stating, accurately that “there is plenty of room in that country for several millions of inhabitants.” With five and a half million Jews and two million Arabs (drawn to the land by Jewish productivity) west of the Jordan the nation thrives despite attrition and although the heartland of Judea and Samaria remains largely undeveloped and empty, still “waiting for its children” to quote Mark Twain from the 1870s.
 
Milner concluded by noting that he had always been “a strong supporter of the pro-Arab policy” noting accurately that the new-minted Arab states “owe their independence [indeed their existence] to us and they can only maintain them with our help.” His words are true to this day, with American, Russian and EU help largely replacing that of Britain by 1960. “I look forward to an Arab Federation” Milner added, indicating the overlap between his views and that of Dove. But he added “that it would be a great mistake” if the Arabs continued “claiming Palestine [the land west of the Jordan River] as a part of the Arab Federation.” Milner believed that this land, the core of Israel could be “a Jewish National Home with Dominion status and a “permanent Mandate” but “must never become a Jewish state” [3]. ...
 
This war against Judaism and the Jews which necessarily is a war against a sovereign and intact Israel, Yisrael Shleimah is an attack on memory, remembrance as a habit, ideal, and practical basis for education, on free will and individualism opposed to a collective seeking to lose itself in rapture and “mass thinking”: that opposes slavery. This antipathy toward the Jewish idea is embedded in the Gnostic West as much or more than in the Islamic, pagan, or polytheistic east in which fatalism and stasis dominate creativity and individual choice. It is in this ideological conjunction that 'pragmatic' power brokers like Milner, Rhodes, Dove, Chamberlain, Brzezinski, Baker and many more meet  theosophical esoterics like Blavatsky, Bailey and their many New Age disciples and fellow travelers. Indeed the Thule society and Nazi party represented a commingling of these two approaches to world rule and "the Jewish problem."
 
Bailey’s views on the Jews and “the Jewish problem” veered from ones near to Nazism to views very compatible with those of the Dove-Chamberlain part of the Round Table, to Ernest Bevin, Anthony Eden and their successors who carried on a war against the Jews from 1920 into post war world to this day. “When humanity has solved the Jewish problem…in one vast humanitarian situation” (a world religion based on emanation from the Shamballah of wisdom enunciated by “the Buddha and the Christ”) “racial fusion will be possible.” This will occur “with the cooperation of the Jews” as one might see in the subservience to foreign powers of the official “Zionist” elite from Ben Gurion to Peres, Barak and Olmert and their supporters little known or noted in mass media. “The Jewish problem is a humanitarian problem," Bailey continued. "Only when the Jew lets go of his separative tendencies…and grasps as a race the inevitability of Karma…will he let go his racial acts and deeds of conquest, terrorism and cruelty”[4]. The spiritualist here sounds like a prospective General Secretary of the UN or the Arab League, or many a more mainstream Christian anti-Semite. Considering “the Jewish question,” she wrote, “remember that the Jews are found in every land, that their influence is potent and widespread, and that they wield most potently what we call money. They represent the energy and life of a previous solar system” (ibid)....
 
Equally familiar were her postwar pronouncements on the Jewish problem. As the English led the Western push to keep Europe’s surviving Jews behind barbed wire in “displaced person’s camps” and proposed shipping them to Poland, where there now was room [5], President Roosevelt told King Saud at the Crimea Conference, Bailey offered her own version of the White Paper, historical airbrushing and ignorance. “The fight over Palestine, fomented by the Zionists and not by the Jews…a fight which prevented the Jews from discovering how welcome they are in many countries [sic] and which has greed and not any love of Palestine [sic, the Promised Land, “to be a free people in our land” as the Jewish National Anthem, “The Hope” says] demonstrates the persistence of Bailey’s "church invisible" Jew-hating stereotypes (the Jewish desire to return to and settle Israel is from “financial” motive and “not by any humanitarian spirit”) and her synchronicity with British policy. The esoteric and exoteric aspects of Western attitudes toward the Jewish people, the Children of Israel are strikingly congruent and persistent. The Jews, she implies are synonymous with “the forces of entrenched evil that must be routed” before her Buddhist version of the Christ can come [6].
 
In her own style and for her own goals Bailey demanded the internationalization of Jerusalem “which is not a Jewish city,” she wrote embodying the plan of the Peel Commission plan of 1937, the UN partition of 1947, and the goal of all the “Jewish land for fake peace – Road Map” plans of the past seventy years. The above makes clear there is no point in helping such a person with a Hebrew-English dictionary, -- “the word Jerusalem means, “a place of peace” she claimed) for she was convinced it “is not a Jewish city” (hence the Temple Mount must be gutted and existing archaeological records buried in European museums or texts for specialists [7]; she could be a news anchor or op ed columnist today...
 
Thus many forces in the West, now led by America and including the “re-educated” (Bailey's term) Germans-EU and Japanese-Trilateralists pursue the policy of John Dove whose roots, as noted are as ancient as that composite entity, “Western Civilization.” More precisely, the geopolitical, -- diplomatic, intelligence, economic, military and ideological area in which the assault on the Jewish National Home proceeds is that small band bounded by the positions of Dove and Viscount Milner. Nothing has changed: the ambiguity, malice and attrition are rooted deeply in the West, as deep as its very life and there will be no peace until the self-proclaimed “Forces of Light” stand down in deference to the non-imperial desire to lead by example as set forth in the Books of Moses. The world would do well to give it a chance...
 
 
1. Alice Bailey, “the Effects of Externalization,” September 1949 in Externalization of the Hierarchy (Lucis Trust, 1957; 2001), 679
2. Carroll Quigley, the Anglo American Establishment (NY 1981), 171

* For the role of Bols, Storrs, and others see Samuel Katz, Lone Wolf: a Biography of Zev Jabotinsky (NY 1996)
3. Quigley. 172-6; “the Round Table continued to believe that a solution to the Zionist problem could be found in a partitioned Palestine within a Federation of Arab States.” Since 1969 this plan has been promoted as “the peace process” and currently, “the Road Map.” 
4. Bailey, “the Hidden Source of the Outer Turmoil,” January 1939 in Externalization, op. cit. 75-8.
5. President Roosevelt agreed with King Saud on this method of keeping the Jews out of the Promised Land. See document A/16 on the Crimea Conference in “the President’s Map Room Papers, Naval Aid’s files” at Yale University quoted at length in the Outpost, March 2005, 9; “the President wished to assure his majesty that he would do nothing to assist the Jews against the Arabs...” Indeed, the stance of America’s diplomatic establishment toward the Jews during the 1940s was brutally consistent with the above comments as documented at length by David S. Wyman, The Abandonment of the Jews: America and the Holocaust, 1941-5 (1984; 1998) and could be seen in the treatment of the thousand Jews shipped to Camp Oswego in December 1945 and subsequently.
6. Bailey, op. cit. 616-17, June 1947.
7. K.A. Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Tanach (Eerdmans 2003); James D. Long, The Riddle of the Exodus (Lightcatcher Books 2006, revised).
8. Externalization 39.
9. Ibid. 402-57; though she had not stopped fulminating against “the Jehovah concept” of “the Jewish dispensation” Bailey now argued that “the Black Lodge” had begun its assault with the German “attacks upon the Jews.” As if working for the War Office of propaganda eager, inter alia, to disguise Britain’s role in the holocaust, she excoriated “the Forces of Evil…who led the Axis Powers” – Hitler, Tojo, Goebbels, Ribbentrop, Himmler, Mussolini, Hess, Goering and others…who overpowered the minds of others” these “hateful, unloving individualities.” The individual, from whatever “race” or group remains the focus of her critique in favor of “group at-onement” and “mass thinking,” the ideology she shared with Hegel, Marx, Comte, and the globalists behind the UN (ibid. 31, “Seed Groups in the New Age,” July 1937 promoting “group activity,” “group recognition” and “the human family” as against Jewish “separativeness and hate,” 77).


[visit our site www.israelendtimes.com for the rest of this and other essays and to support our work. Thanks; you may disseminate with permission and proper citation. Eugene Narrett]