For, as is all too evident from the Cabinet documents of this period, the British Government never intended to allow the Arab majority any voice in shaping the future of their own country. “The weak point of our position,” Balfour wrote to Lloyd George in February 1919, “is of course that in the case of Palestine we deliberately and rightly decline to accept the principle of self-determination” (PRO. FO 371/4179).
If the existing population were consulted, he added, they would “unquestionably” return an anti-Zionist verdict. And in reply to Curzon, Balfour stated quite categorically that:
In Palestine we do not propose even to go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country …. The Four Great Powers are committed to Zionism. And Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long traditions, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land. (PRO. FO 371/4185) (Anthony Nutting, Balfour and Palestine, a Legacy of Deceit)
Historian Jürgen Graf adds:
In the fall of 1917 the British government decided to transfer a considerable part of the forces fighting on the French battlefields to the Near East in order to drive the Turks, a German ally, out of Palestine. From a military viewpoint this was sheer madness, as it has been proven in innumerable wars that transferring troops from a main battlefield to a secondary one is a big mistake. The decision of the London-government provoked embarrassed head shakes from experienced military leaders. The enormous expedition actually succeeded in beating the Turks in Palestine (Jerusalem was conquered in December 1917), but the weakening of the Western front had catastrophic consequences for the British army. All the more because, after Russia’s dropping out of the war, the Germans were able to throw most of their units, until then tied up on the Russian front, to the West. The British suffered terrible losses, and only arrivals of huge numbers of American troops in the spring of 1918 prevented a total catastrophe. On the 2nd of November 1917, while the fighting in the Near East was in full swing, the minister of foreign affairs, Lord Arthur Balfour, had promised the Zionist Lionel Rothschild, in writing, that his government would support the efforts to create a Jewish homeland in Palestine. In order to be able to hand over this area to the Zionists, the English would have to conquer it first, of course. That is why they sent a big expedition of troops to the Near East without any regard for the catastrophic consequences for their own troops on the Western Front. Thus those responsible in London sacrificed tens of thousands of young Englishmen on the altar of the future state of Israel. (Jürgen Graf, translation of his introduction to The Controversy of Zion, from the German)
Although Zionists have betrayed authentic unadulterated Judaism and Zionists are descended from non-Jewish Khazars who have no links with such archetypal biblical figures as Moses, given the far more ancient plan to overthrow the existing order, it would be simplistic to declare that Zionists are the only malevolent Jews. If one could trust their veracity, there is one question which all Jews could answer clearly, which might resolve the doubt in enlightened Gentile minds as to whether or not Jews are principled: how many Jews would answer negatively the question “Does Israel have the right to exist?” Rabbi Yisrael Rosen has called for genocide against the Palestinians (Haaretz, 13 April, 2008), claiming that the Torah indirectly legitimises the destruction of Palestinians. Numerous significant rabbis agree. In his expert opinion, Rosen compares Palestinians with Amalekites. He writes that God justifies the killing of Amalekites in the Torah, and that this has become a component of Jewish justice.
So Israel’s religious authorities have incited and condoned genocide. If the Palestinians are the Amalekites of today, presumably, at Israel’s convenience, we could all be the “Amalekites” of tomorrow. Those that declare that the contrivance of Israel was not one of the greatest crimes of the 20th century and an inducement to genocide are clearly not motivated by any concern except “Is it good for the Jews?”
Even if reason shouts outs the very absurdity of this confrontation between the small and insignificant people of Israel [i.e., all Jewry worldwide, not just “the State of Israel”] and the rest of humanity... as absurd, as incoherent and as monstrous as it may seem, we are engaged in close combat between Israel and the Nations - and it can only be genocidal and total because it is about our and their identities. (Yitzhak Attia, director of French-language seminars at the Yad Vashem Holocaust institute in Tel Aviv in the Israel magazine April 2003)
Present conditions are so favourable for all Jews that few, excepting minorities like Neturei Karta, would risk expressing a contrary opinion. Jews are known for their hysteria and their exaggeration and inflation of all perceived opposition, as well as their tendency to disagree endlessly amongst themselves, but trifling deviations from the official line, exemplified by typical Jewish quibbling (“pilpulism”), do not alter their primary stance. While such Jews find support among Born-Again Christians and other Bible-thumpers, the remaining Gentiles would do well to remind themselves that support of Israel is incompatible with peace:
Among them there was a great movement, quite extensive in Vienna, which came out sharply in confirmation of the national character of the Jews: this was the Zionists. It looked to be sure, as though only a part of the Jews approved this viewpoint, while the great majority condemned and inwardly rejected such a formulation. But when examined more closely, this appearance dissolved itself into an unsavoury vapour of pretexts advanced for mere reasons of expedience, not to say lies. For the so-called liberal Jews did not reject the Zionists as non-Jews, but only as Jews with an impractical, perhaps even dangerous, way of publicly avowing their Jewishness. Their cohesiveness was affected in no way at all. (Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf)
This hair-splitting tendency was born out by the so-called “Split” in the Jewish community of the U.S.:
By 1919 Brandeis (Chief Justice Louis D. Brandeis) had transformed American Zionism from a 12,000-person movement into an organization with 176,000 members. He achieved this stunning success by adopting a counteroffensive approach. The Reform Jewish establishment insisted that Judaism was a religion, not a nationality; Jews were thus not “hyphenated Americans” but, rather, Americans of the Jewish faith. Zionism, with its emphasis on Jewish nationhood, threatened this conception, and the Reform Jewish leadership urged the immigrants to ignore it, for fear that it might taint all Jews with the stain of double loyalty. Brandeis rejected this conception. For him, true Americanism meant not the obliteration of ethnic origins in the name of uniformity but the opposite: the full exercise of the right to express ancestral endowment. Brandeis thus legitimated Zionism in a formula that enchanted Simon’s generation: “To be better Americans we must become better Jews, and to be better Jews we must become better Zionists.” (Pnina Lahav, Judgement in Jerusalem, Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century, University of California Press, 1997)
Among the very small number of “courageous” European gentiles who protest what they perceive as a Zionist-led world domination plot, it has lately become modish to distinguish between Zionist and non-Zionist Jews. Presumably, this relieves them of the burden of being “anti-Semites.” However, while a passing difference between one and the other (about money) is clearly explained below, the ageless drive for supremacy evidenced herein and accessible to anyone curious enough to look for it, is conveniently overlooked:
But Brandeis did not remain the captain of American Zionism for long. Chaim Weizmann—then president of the World Zionist Organization and Brandeis’s ally in persuading Great Britain to issue the Balfour Declaration—entered into a virulent clash with Brandeis. By June 1921 the discord ended with Brandeis’s defeat in the convention of the American Jewish Congress in Cleveland, Ohio, and with Weizmann’s declaration that “[t]here is no bridge between Washington and Pinsk.” (City in Belarus, on the border of Ukraine, pop. 77% Jewish, 1900)
***
The immediate reason for the disagreement betwe
en Brandeis and Weizmann concerned a financial institution called Keren ha-Yesod. Weizmann and the European Zionist leadership decided to establish a special fund of 25 million English pounds to finance the development of the Jewish community (the Yishuv) in Palestine. Brandeis thought ill of this idea. He criticized the budget as inflated, the American share as too large, and the commingling of donations and investments as fiscally unacceptable and managerially unwise. Weizmann, whose relationship with Brandeis had been rocky for some time, took the opposition as a casus belli. He decided to come to the United States and directly challenge Brandeis’s leadership. The struggle over the path of the Zionist Organization was, as Weizmann acknowledged, “a revival, in a new form and a new country, of the old cleavage between “East” and “West,”” between tradition and modernity.
He was referring to the 1904 struggle between his own Eastern European group—the Democratic Fraction—and Theodor Herzl, which ended with Weizmann’s victory. Brandeis and his followers had stirred in Weizmann the same old resentments against the well-to-do, urbane, and sophisticated westerners, like Herzl, who presumed to tell the Eastern Europeans how to conduct themselves. The rivalries were now revived on the American scene. Weizmann, who would ridicule Brandeis’s Jewishness as “Yankee Doodle Judaism,” painted Brandeis and his group as “plain Americans”—rule oriented, dogmatic, materialistic, calculating, and, above all, cold. By contrast, the Europeans presented themselves as men of vision, imbued with Jewish spirituality (yiddishkeit ), generous, and (of course) warm. One of Weizmann’s chief campaign speakers captured the distinction vividly when he claimed that Americans had goyische kops (gentile heads) whereas the Eastern Europeans possessed yiddische herzen (Jewish hearts). (ibid.)
Recommendations of the USA King-Crane Commission with regard to Syria-Palestine and Iraq (August 29, 1919)
E. We recommend, in the fifth place, serious modification of the extreme Zionist programme for Palestine of unlimited immigration of Jews, looking finally to making Palestine distinctly a Jewish state.
The Commission recognised also that definite encouragement had been given to the Zionists by the Allies in Mr. Balfour’s often quoted statement, in its approval by other representatives of the Allies. If, however, the strict terms of the Balfour Statement are adhered to - favouring “the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people,” “it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine” - it can hardly be doubted that the extreme Zionist programme must be greatly modified. For a national home for the Jewish people is not equivalent to making Palestine into a Jewish State; nor can the erection of such a Jewish State be accomplished without the gravest trespass upon the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine. - See more at: http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/392AD7EB00902A0C852570C000795153#sthash.8bTFWiEq.dpuf
***
It is the duty of Israeli leaders to explain to public opinion, clearly and courageously, a certain number of facts that are forgotten with time. The first of these is that there is no Zionism, colonialization or Jewish State without the eviction of the Arabs and the expropriation of their lands. (Yoram Bar Porath, Yediot Aahronot, July 14, 1972)
The following is from Israeli author Amoz Oz’s Dezember 17, 1982 interview with Ariel Sharon:
“You can call me anything you like. Call me a monster or a murderer. Just note that I don’t hate Arabs. On the contrary. Personally, I am much more at ease with them, and especially with the Bedouin, than with Jews. Those Arabs we haven’t yet spoilt are proud people, they are irrational, cruel and generous. It’s the Yids that are all twisted. In order to straighten them out you have to first bend them sharply the other way. That, in brief, is my whole ideology.”
“Call Israel by any name you like, call it a Judeo-Nazi state as does Leibowitz. Why not? Better a live Judeo-Nazi than a dead saint. I don’t care whether I am like Ghadafi. I am not after the admiration of the gentiles. I don’t need their love. I don’t need to be loved by Jews like you either. I have to live, and I intend to ensure that my children will live as well. With or without the blessing of the Pope and the other religious leaders from the New York Times. I will destroy anyone who will raise a hand against my children, I will destroy him and his children, with or without our famous purity of arms. I don’t care if he is Christian, Muslim, Jewish or pagan. History teaches us that he who won’t kill will be killed by others. That is an iron law.”
“Even if you’ll prove to me by mathematical means that the present war in Lebanon is a dirty immoral war, I don’t care. Moreover, even if you will prove to me that we have not achieved and will not achieve any of our aims in Lebanon, that we will neither create a friendly regime in Lebanon nor destroy the Syrians or even the PLO, even then I don’t care. It was still worth it. Even if Galilee is shelled again by Katyushas in a year’s time, I don’t really care. We shall start another war, kill and destroy more and more, until they will have had enough. And do you know why it is all worth it? Because it seems that this war has made us more unpopular among the so-called civilised world.”
“We’ll hear no more of that nonsense about the unique Jewish morality, the moral lessons of the holocaust or about the Jews who were supposed to have emerged from the gas chambers pure and virtuous. No more of that. The destruction of Eyn Hilwe (and it’s a pity we did not wipe out that hornet’s nest completely!), the healthy bombardment of Beirut and that tiny massacre (can you call 500 Arabs a massacre?) in their camps which we should have committed with our own delicate hands rather than let the Phalangists do it, all these good deeds finally killed the bullshit talk about a unique people and of being a light upon the nations. No more uniqueness and no more sweetness and light. Good riddance.”
“I personally don’t want to be any better than Khomeini or Brezhnev or Ghadafi or Assad or Mrs. Thatcher, or even Harry Truman who killed half a million Japanese with two fine bombs. I only want to be smarter than they are, quicker and more efficient, not better or more beautiful than they are. Tell me, do the baddies of this world have a bad time? If anyone tries to touch them, the evil men cut his hands and legs off. They hunt and catch whatever they feel like eating. They don’t suffer from indigestion and are not punished by Heaven. I want Israel to join that club. Maybe the world will then at last begin to fear me instead of feeling sorry for me. Maybe they will start to tremble, to fear my madness instead of admiring my nobility. Thank god for that. Let them tremble, let them call us a mad state. Let them understand that we are a wild country, dangerous to our surroundings, not normal, that we might go crazy if one of our children is murdered - just one! That we might go wild and burn all the oil fields in the Middle East! If anything would happen to your child, god forbid, you would talk like I do. Let them be aware in Washington, Moscow, Damascus and China that if one of our ambassadors is shot, or even a consul or the most junior embassy official, we might start World War Three just like that!”
...We are talking while sitting on the balcony of the pretty country house belonging to C. which is situated in a prosperous Moshav. To the west we see a burning sunset and there is a scent of fruit trees in the air. We are being served iced coffee in tall glasses. C. is about fifty years old. He is a man well known for his (military) actions. He is a strong, heavy figure wearing shorts but no shirt. His body is tanned a metallic bronze shade, the colour of a blond man living in the sun. He puts his hairy legs on the table and his hands on the chair. There is a scar on his neck. His eyes wander over his plantations. He spells out his ideology in a voice made hoarse by too much smoking:
“Let me tell me [sic] what is the most important thing, the sweetest fruit of the war in Lebanon: It is that now they don’t just hate Israel. Thanks to us, they now also hate all those Feinschmecker Jews in Paris, London, New York, Frankfurt and Montreal, in all their holes. At last they hate all these nice Yids, who say they are different from us, that
they are not Israeli thugs, that they are different Jews, clean and decent. Just like the assimilated Jew in Vienna and Berlin begged the anti-Semite not to confuse him with the screaming, stinking Ostjude, who had smuggled himself into that cultural environment out of the dirty ghettos of Ukraine and Poland. It won’t help them, those clean Yids, just as it did not help them in Vienna and Berlin. Let them shout that they condemn Israel, that they are all right, that they did not want and don’t want to hurt a fly, that they always prefer being slaughtered to fighting, that they have taken it upon themselves to teach the gentiles how to be good Christians by always turning the other cheek. It won’t do them any good. Now they are getting it there because of us, and I am telling you, it is a pleasure to watch...”
“Even today I am willing to volunteer to do the dirty work for Israel, to kill as many Arabs as necessary, to deport them, to expel and burn them, to have everyone hate us, to pull the rug from underneath the feet of the Diaspora Jews, so that they will be forced to run to us crying. Even if it means blowing up one or two synagogues here and there, I don’t care. And I don’t mind if after the job is done you put me in front of a Nuremberg Trial and then jail me for life. Hang me if you want, as a war criminal. Then you can spruce up your Jewish conscience and enter the respectable club of civilised nations, nations that are large and healthy.”
“What you lot don’t understand is that the dirty work of Zionism is not finished yet, far from it. True, it could have been finished in 1948, but you interfered, you stopped it. And all this because of the Jewishness in your souls, because of your Diaspora mentality. For the Jews don’t grasp things quickly. If you open your eyes and look around the world you will see that darkness is falling again. And we know what happens to a Jew who stays out in the dark. So I am glad that this small war in Lebanon frightened the Yids. Let them be afraid, let them suffer. They should hurry home before it gets really dark.”
Tell the Truth & Shame the Devil Page 46