“Planned Attack on Syria (?) Will Unleash War from North Africa to China´s Borders.”

Thu 15 Sep 2011

“Planned Attack on Syria (?) Will Unleash War from North Africa to China´s Borders.”

Posted by Anders under English, Euromed

LATEST: Reuters 14 Sept. 2011: Rights groups say street protests have been overwhelmingly peaceful so far. It is going to take a lot to topple Assad. He knows there is little appetite for military intervention. By imposing sanctions and calling for Assad to go, Western powers have already pulled the few levers of influence they have over Syria.

Reuters 8 Sept. 2011: Syrian protesters have been chanting slogans calling for international protection but there has been no hint in the West of an appetite for a repeat of NATO air strikes that played a major role in the overthrow of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.

Summary: Acc. to the Prison Planet, the same theatre now seems to be played before our eyes in relation to Syria as before the NATO attacks on Libya: 1. International sanctions 2. US and EU demands for Assad to step down 3. UN Resolution 4. No Fly Zone 5. A long, protracted NATO bombing campaign 6. “Regime-change. The build-up to war is undoubtedly connected to the Palestinian bid to achieve full statehood at the UN in September. Rumors have been flying around intelligence circles for weeks that the United States and/or Israel would launch a new conflict in order to derail the UN vote.

This is also the result reached by Professor Chossudovsky of the Global Research Center: He sees the EU oil embargo against Syria – that country´s economic lifeline – as yet another part of an inevitable and long planned NATO war against Syria – due to unleash a regional war including North Africa, the Middle East and beyond – reaching as far ast to the Chinese border.
Furthermore, Prof. Chossudovsky´s studies show that the majority of Syrians are not supporting the ongoing antigovernmental riots in Syria – an observation supported by The Independent on 5 Sept. Chossudovsky sees armed warriors from outside having entered Syria and mixed with peaceful demonstrators. The Independent 5 Sept. 2011 has the following statement: A middle-aged Christian man explained: “All the international media are liars. Al Jazeera, BBC, CNN – they are all lying. There is no trouble here in Damascus.” In contrast, The Spiegel on 24 Aug. has a story from an anonymous person translated to English from some unknown language about thugs in Damascus beating persons up who might have uttered opinions against the regime. Possibly from the refugee office in London which usually exaggerates enormously. However, the regime has banned foreign journalists, thus exposing itself to rumours.

What is more astounding, however, is that “The Crisis Group” 13 July 2011 (Rothschild agent George Soros on the Board – Zbigniew Brzezinski is adviser) also agree: “Desperate to survive at all costs, Syria’s regime appears to be digging its grave. The protest movement is strong and getting stronger but yet to reach critical mass. President Bashar Assad enjoyed some genuine popularity. Many Syrians dread chaos and their nation’s fragmentation. But whatever opportunity the regime once possessed is being jeopardised by its actions. There is little to gain and much to lose from a more interventionist approach – which is unlikely. Protesters claim they are entirely peaceful, but that assertion is hard to reconcile with witness testimony and with the vicious murder of several security officers. More plausibly, criminal networks, some armed Islamist groups, elements supported from outside and some demonstrators acting in self defence have taken up arms.The vast majority of casualties have been peaceful protesters. Officials argue that many Syrians still see things differently, that they are wary of the protest movement, suspecting it is a Trojan horse for Islamists and that the fall of the regime would mean sectarian civil war. They have a point”. The Council on Foreign Relations 18 Aug. 2011 shares the same attitude. The New York Times 27 Aug. 2011: Iran, Syria’s closest ally, called on the government in Damascus to recognize its people’s “legitimate” demands.

As for the sanctions, there is one similarity with NATO´s bombing campaign i Libya: The sanctions recently resolved on by the United States against Damascus are hitting the popular anti-regime movement hard . Neither in Damascus nor in any other part of the country has it been possible to withdraw cash using the most popular means: Visa or Mastercard credit cards, from the ATMs of Syrian banks. The two US-based multinationals blocked all Syrian transactions on August 20 as part of the most recent sanctions package.

The EUISS states that the EU cannot be neutral – that huge interests are at stake – probably the miscreant Euromediterranean Process. One more factor could be accelerating war in the Middle East: DEBKAfile 5 Sept. 2011: Debkafile’s military sources report that Tehran was about to move on from 20 percent enriched uranium to 60 percent – the last step before the 90 percent enrichment for weapons-grade fuel. The head of Iran’s atomic agency also revealed the imminent transfer of its critical enrichment facilities from Natanz to a heavily fortified subterranean facility. Western intelligence sources estimated Sunday, Sept. 4, that Iran’s advances had brought forward to the spring of 2012 the potential completion of between two and four bombs and the ability to conduct a nuclear test.
China and North Korea appear to have decided to keep their distance from the nuclear miscreant in Tehran.
On Aug. 31, French President Nicolas Sarkozy warned, “Iran’s attempts to build long-range missiles and nuclear weapons could lead unnamed countries to launch a pre-emptive attack.” Sarkozy´s remark is to be seen against the backdrop of the Bilderberger demand at their June 2011 meeting for a major and bloody war in The Middle East to raise oil prices!

However, NATO will probably hesitate – but the Syrian overnment may grow so desperate as to attack Israel as observers believe – and Assad´s cousin, Rami Makhlouf, has more than indicated in the New York Times.

In Syria, the same scenario is seen in the CIA/US Congress / George Soros funded and instigated “Arab Spring” theatre as before the attack on Libya (Infowars 18 Aug. 2011): Political condemnations, mendacious media propaganda about poor peaceful demonstrators – although many of them are well armed rebels. Giant pro-government demonstrators were described as antigovernment demonstrators, the numbers of whom were wildly exaggerated. Then came the US and EU demands that Pres. Assad resign. Lately ultimata and here have been forwarded that Assad stops the ongoing slaughter of “peaceful demonstrators of NGO-brainwashed, Muslim Brotherhood and “Al Qaeda” rebels – or Turkey, and Saudi Arabia supported by the US will invade the country -as affirmed by the Russian NATO envoy – who adds that this long planned attack will just be a jumping board for war on Iran. The response of the Syrian regime is said to be a likely attack on Israel. However, Turkey seems to turn its war rhetoric against Israel instead, threatening to attack the Israeli navy.

Prison Planet 24 Aug. 2011: More Western-backed provocateur actions within the country can be expected designed to sway international opinion in favour of the following: 1. International sanctions 2. UN Resolution 3. No Fly Zone 4. A long, protracted NATO bombing campaign 5. “Regime-change. The build-up to war is undoubtedly connected to the Palestinian bid to achieve full statehood at the UN in early September. Rumors have been flying around intelligence circles for weeks that the United States and/or Israel would launch a new conflict in order to derail the UN vote.
EUbusiness 19 Aug. 2011: Russia opposes calls by the United States and the European Union for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to step down, the Interfax news agency said Friday, citing a foreign ministry source.

Professor Michel Chossudovsky (1. video below) sees the EU oil embargo against Syria – that country´s economic lifeline – as yet another part of an inevitable and long planned NATO war against syria – due to unleash a regional war including North Africa, the Middle East and beyond –reaching as far ast to the Chinese border.

Prof. Cossudovsky seems right about majority of Syrians not supporting the ongoing armed Al Qaeda/ Muslim Brotherhood insurrection
The Independent 5 Sept. 2011; A middle-aged Christian man called Sari explained: “All the international media are liars,” he said. “Al Jazeera, BBC, CNN – they are all lying. There is no trouble here in Damascus.”
Syria’s more than 2 million Christians account for around 10 per cent of the total population and are just one minority in the patchwork of different creeds. But in interviews this week, some of them said many in their community were uneasy about the anti-government protests convulsing their country. According to one Christian activist called Yusef, many Christians have no great love for the Assad regime. Yet large numbers are worried about what will happen if he falls. Many others living in and outside the capital – particularly the business elite whose fortunes are tied to the regime – have their own vested interest in protecting the regime of President Bashar al-Assad. Said Dima, an alawite, who supports the insurgence: “Most of the people I know are not in favour of the uprising. They are very worried.”

Acc. to Prof. Chussodovsky, well-armed insurgents killing Christians and coming in from Turkey are among the Syrian demonstrators. He indicates they are part of intelligence (CIA) operations (2. video).

The Crisis Group 13 July 2011 (Rothschild agent George Soros on the Board – Zbigniew Brzezinski is adviser): Desperate to survive at all costs, Syria’s regime appears to be digging its grave. The protest movement is strong and getting stronger but yet to reach critical mass. President Bashar Assad enjoyed some genuine popularity. Many Syrians dread chaos and their nation’s fragmentation. But whatever opportunity the regime once possessed is being jeopardised by its actions.The international community, largely from fear of the alternative to the status quo, waits and watches, eschewing for now direct involvement. There is little to gain and much to lose from a more interventionist approach – which is unlikely.

Crude propaganda from the regime and its policy of banning outside reporters has ensured clouding about the situation. Protesters claim they are entirely peaceful, but that assertion is hard to reconcile with witness testimony and with the vicious murder of several security officers. More plausibly, criminal networks, some armed Islamist groups, elements supported from outside and some demonstrators acting in self defence have taken up arms.The vast majority of casualties have been peaceful protesters.

Officials argue that many Syrians still see things differently, that they are wary of the protest movement, suspecting it is a Trojan horse for Islamists and that the fall of the regime would mean sectarian civil war. They have a point, but the crisis of confidence with much of the population and loss of legitimacy is almost surely too deep to be overcome. Military intervention could unleash the very sectarian civil war the international community wishes to avoid, provoke further instability in an already unstable neighbourhood and be a gift to a regime that repeatedly has depicted the uprising as the work of foreign conspirators. Sanctions against regime officials can be of use, though this instrument almost has been exhausted. The Council on Foreign Relations 18 Aug. 2011 shares the same attitude
The New York Times 27 Aug. 2011: Iran, Syria’s closest ally, called on the government in Damascus to recognize its people’s “legitimate” demands on Saturday.

ANSAmed 25 Aug. 2011: The latest ”targeted” sanctions recently resolved on by the United States against Damascus are hitting the popular anti-regime movement hard. For over five months, the protest movement has been nurtured by economic and logistical support from individual households and from a network of Syrian businesspeople in the diaspora.

But for some days now, neither in Damascus nor in any other part of the country has it been possible to withdraw cash using the most popular means: Visa or Mastercard credit cards, from the ATMs of Syrian banks. The two US-based multinationals blocked all Syrian transactions on August 20 as part of the most recent sanctions package imposed by the United States government two days earlier. ”Western sanctions have never even scratched the regime,” Mr Safadi told us. ”they have always ended up by harming the people and small businesses”. Which is why Mr Safadi is angered at the decision to cut off Visa and Mastercard services: ”it is like taking water from the fish”. (ANSAmed).

Spiegel 24 Aug. 2011 has a horrible description of the conditions in Syria – apparently written by a journalist who was there – but without name. The article is stated to have been translated – without statement from which language. Is it from the usual propaganda office in London? I will just give you this excerpt: Every evening, the “ghosts” come. They laugh, chew nuts and heft their clubs. That’s truly what they’re called, shabiha, or “ghosts.” In reality, they’re the regime’s thugs, thousands of men who swarm out after the daily fast is broken to take up their posts outside the mosques of Damascus. At 10 p.m., when evening prayers end, they’re already waiting in front of the gates, armed and lurking threateningly between parked cars, ready to cut down anyone who dares to speak out against the president or the system.

EUISS 16 Aug. 2011: Europe and the West do not have the luxury of doing nothing. Having no policy is a policy in itself and there are huge interests at stake. The West cannot be neutral, hesitation translates into a license to kill.

Iran´s nuclear progress is now increasing the danger of an attack on it and its ally Syria

DEBKAfile 5 Sept. 2011: Debkafile’s military sources report that Tehran was about to move on from 20 percent enriched uranium to 60 percent – the last step before the 90 percent enrichment for weapons-grade fuel. The head of Iran’s atomic agency also revealed the imminent transfer of its critical enrichment facilities from Natanz to a heavily fortified subterranean facility. Western intelligence sources estimated Sunday, Sept. 4, that Iran’s advances had brought forward to the spring of 2012 the potential completion of between two and four bombs and the ability to conduct a nuclear test.China and North Korea appear to have decided to keep their distance from the nuclear miscreant in Tehran.
Last Wednesday, Aug. 31, French President Nicolas Sarkozy warned, “Iran’s attempts to build long-range missiles and nuclear weapons could lead unnamed countries to launch a pre-emptive attack.”

The Sunday Times Even before the fall of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi’s hateful regime, it was clear the last Labour Government had co-operated with the monster in all kinds of discreditable ways. It had sold him lots of weapons. It had welcomed, and almost certainly connived in, the Scottish Government’s early release of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, convicted of the 1988 Lockerbie bombing which caused the deaths of 270 people, 43 of them British.

Right: Pres Sarkozy ´s friendship with Bashar Asssad was still warm on 27 Apr. 2011.

Comment
The CIA / Soros organized “Arab Spring” is difficult to understand. Why do the forces of the New World Order want to destroy everything around them? In Europe and America through the immigration of the incompatible culture of Islam. Simultaneously the NWO is bombing the home countries of the Muslims into ruins. Is there a common denominator? Is it so that they want to chase even more Muslim refugees that cannot be rejected to Europe – knowing full well that the EU keeps all of them? Do they really believe that Muslim countries can be rebuilt as modern societies as long as the Koran and Sharia – which is even being promoted by Western powers in Libya – law prevail? Or is this the overture to a Depopulationist action and here – and here and here in a chaos, such as has never seen, World War III – as described in Albert Pikes letter to Mazzini” (written 1894 by a Freemason). In fact, the “War on Terror” is nothing but World War III, through which the NWO subdues stubborn countries one by one through war. The above also shows which plans the architects of the NWO and here/ NATO have with a few disobedient countries (Syria and Iran): subjugation through war – whether the affected peoples want it or not. Who has decreed it to come that way: our heads of state and government, our media editors and the usual bankster bosses aka the Bilderbergers at their June meeting 2011!

« 11. Sept.: Der rücksichtslose Character der “Weltgemeinschaft”/Neuen Weltordnung | “Geplanter NATO-Angriff auf Syrien (?) wird Krieg von Nordafrika bis nach der Grenze Chinas auslösen”. »

http://euro-med.dk/?p=24289

Exposing Democracy Promotion in the Middle East (تعزيز الديمقراطية الباطل)

Excellent piece of work by this investigative journalist!!

argonium79 on 28 Apr 2011

[CC English] Exposing Democracy Promotion in the Middle East
[CC French] La Promotion de la Démocratie au Moyen-Orient

Middle East analyst and investigative journalist Maidhc Ó Cathail exposes the Israel partisans, embedded in US governmental and quasi-governmental agencies, that have been involved behind the scenes in encouraging “democratic” reform in the Middle East.

http://thepassionateattachment.com

Mentioned:
Al-Jazeera, Tahrir Square, Washington Post, George Soros, Barack Obama, Eastern Europe, Color Revolution, Open Society Institute, USAID, National Endowment for Democracy, The International Republican Institute, National Democratic Institute, Mohamed ElBaradei, Muslim Brotherhood, International Crisis Group, Mondo Weiss, Israel Lobby, Arab Protests, Serbia, Srdja Popovic, Otpor, Slobodan Milosevic, April 6th Youth Movement, Belgrade, Facebook, Internet, Twitter, Canvas, Colonel Robert Helvey, Gene Sharp, From Dictatorship to Democracy, Autocracy, Georgia, Ukraine, Orange Revolution, Peter Ackerman, Wall Street, Drexel Burnham Lambert, Michael Milken, Albert Einstein Institution, International Center for Nonviolent Conflict, Freedom House, Thomas A. Dine, AIPAC, American Israel Public Affairs Committee, Max Kampelman, JINSA, The Jewish Institute For National Security Affairs, PNAC, Project for the New American Century, Neoconservative Movement, Trotskyism, Kenneth Adelman, Paula J. Dobriansky, Joshua Muravchik, Mark Palmer, Ronald Reagan, Crusade for Freedom, Allen Weinstein, Dr. Wiliam Robinson, CIA, Breaking the Real Axis of Evil, Herzliya Conference, Radical Islam, Uzi Landau, Avigdor Lieberman, Ariel Sharon, Judith Miller, Ahmed Chalabi, Steven Emerson, Council for a Community for Democracies, Frank C. Carlucci, The Carlyle Group, Jared Cohen, Google Ideas, Condoleezza Rice, Hilary Clinton, CyberDissidents.org, James Prince, Democracy Council, David Keyes, Natan Sharansky, The Case for Democracy, Withdrawal from Gaza, New Anti-Semitism, Israel, Zionist, Bernard Lewis, Iraq War, Dick Cheney, Clash of Civilizations, Nazism, Bolshevism, Christendom, Islam, Lebanonization, Iran, Ronald Lauder, WJC, World Jewish Congress, World Trade Center, 911, Anti Defamation League, ADL, Hungary, Austria, CME, Central European Media Enterprises, SignalOneTV, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Larry Diamond, Justice and Development, AK Party, Turkey, Gradual Democratization, Moderate Liberal Islamic Democracy, Carl Gershman, Oligarchy, Baathists, Islamists, Israel, Jewish People, Unemployment, Corruption

الجزيرة، ميدان التحرير، ثورة ملونة، معهد المجتمع المفتوح، الوكالة الأمريكية للتنمية، الصندوق الوطني للديمقراطية، محمد المعهد الجمهوري الدولي، والمعهد الوطني الديمقراطي، البرادعي، مجموعة الأزمات الدولية ، إسرائيل والعرب، أوتبور، 6 أبريل حركة الشباب، بوك، الإنترنت، والتغريد، قماش ، والعقيد روبرت هيلفي، جين شارب، الاستبداد، بيتر أكرمان، دريكسل بيرنهام لامبرت، مايكل ميلكن، مؤسسة ألبرت أينشتاين ، والمركز الدولي للنضال السلمي ، دار الحرية، وأمريكا اسرائيل ايباك جنة الشؤون العامة، والمعهد اليهودي ل شؤون الأمن القومي، مشروع القرن الأمريكي الجديد، مشروع القرن الأمريكي الجديد ، حركة المحافظين الجدد، الحملة الصليبية من أجل الحرية وكالة المخابرات المركزية ، مؤتمر هرتسليا، ومجلس للمجتمع للديمقراطيات، أفكار جوجل ، ومجلس الديمقراطية الجديدة ، معاداة السامية، الصهيونية، حرب العراق، وسوريا، مصر، صراع الحضارات، النازية، البلشفية، العالم المسيحي، وإيران، المؤتمر اليهودي العالمي، المملكة العربية السعودية، العدالة والتنمية، تركيا الديمقراطية بشكل تدريجي، ليبرالية إسلامية معتدلة الفساد الديمقراطية الأوليغارشية ، البعثيين والإسلاميين والشعب اليهودي، البطالة،

Category:
News & Politics

6 responses to ““Planned Attack on Syria (?) Will Unleash War from North Africa to China´s Borders.”

  1. argonium79 on 28 Apr 2011

    [CC English] Exposing Democracy Promotion in the Middle East
    [CC French] La Promotion de la Démocratie au Moyen-Orient

    Middle East analyst and investigative journalist Maidhc Ó Cathail exposes the Israel partisans, embedded in US governmental and quasi-governmental agencies, that have been involved behind the scenes in encouraging “democratic” reform in the Middle East.

    http://thepassionateattachment.com

    Exposing Democracy Promotion in the Middle East (تعزيز الديمقراطية الباطل)

    I knew something was up when the Copt Church was bombed 1/1/11 designed to destabilize Egypt. It was blamed on “Al-Qaeda from Gaza”. Flags went UP!!!! Mossad got caught running provacatuer operations in Egypt and was going on trial January 25, for recruiting Egyptians for “operations in Syria”. Mubarak and Gaddaffi had threatened Obama with the Israeli “Peace Plan”. All the countries that Israel does not like had CIA style civil unrest turned violent coups, from twitter and facebook. Adios Syria
    IranContraScumDid911 4 months ago 6
    Reply
    Wow…how did I miss this episode?

    You can even see the plan to propagandize the populace using T.V..
    FreedumbFighter28 4 months ago 3

  2. psychopathy33 on 17 Jan 2011

    TALMUD and Genocidal Zionism (READ!).
    .
    Don’t be deceived, find out the difference between
    Torah Jews (Essenes), and Talmud Jews (Babylonian Pharisees):

    “The Talmud teaches that
    the extermination of Christians is a necessary sacrifice.”

    Who Is Esau-Edom? Zionism,
    Edomite Deception and Murderous Psychopathy:
    http://www.yudu.com/item/details/350295/Who-is-Esau-Edom- .
    http://www.scribd.com/doc/51678658/Who-is-Esau-Edom .

    *

    Essenes, An Esoteric Spiritual Order:
    http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=B06BA45005731C1D .

    *

    Sound effects from FREESOUND:
    http://www.freesound.org .

    *

    “We have forced the Christians into wars without number. Wars have a special value for Jews (Zionists?), since Christians massacre each other and make more room for us Jews. Wars are the Jews’ Harvest: the Jew banks grow fat on Christian wars. Over 100 million Christians have been swept off the face of the earth by wars, and the end is not yet.” — Rabbi Reichorn.

    “We are god’s chosen people … most Jews do not like to admit it, but our god is Lucifer — so I wasn’t lying — and we are his chosen people. Lucifer is very much alive.” — Harold Wallace Rosenthal.

    “Jesus saith unto them, ‘Did ye never read in the scriptures, `The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes.`? Therefore I say unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof. And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.’ ” [ST MATTHEW 21]

    “And I will lay my vengeance upon Edom by the hand of my people Israel: and they shall do in Edom according to mine anger and according to my fury; and they shall know my vengeance, saith the Lord God.” [EZEKIEL 25]

    “And they (souls) cried with a loud voice saying, ‘How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?’ And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled.” [REVELATION 6]

    *

    Tags: talmud the book of genocide horror babylon babylonian pharisee pharasaism talmudism luciferian lucifer esau edom edomites khazars kenites ashkenazim nazis antichrist conspiracy illuminati children synagogue satan seed bilderberg CFR zionism rampant racism new world order NWO false jews true real torah essenes esoteric spiritual tribe house judah asher dan joseph david israel jacob jesus christ God revelation matthew bible gospel prophecy freesound 2012

    *

    Category:
    Non-profits & Activism

    CONCENTRATION ON THE QU’RAN WHILE IGNORING THE MAIN SOURCES OF EVIL!

    SOMEONE ELSE SINGS THE PRAISES TO DOUGLAS REEDS BOOK- WHAT A REAL EYE OPENER IT IS- TO THE CORRUPT STINKING ZIONIST FILTH THAT SERVES IN ALL WESTERN GOVERNMENTS- THEN CLAIM- THEY WORK FOR YOU- WHEN IN TRUTH- THATS THE LAST PEOPLE THEY SERVE!

    AJHenry
    April 8, 2011 – 9:24 pm
    A brief excerpt from Douglas Reed’s absolutely essential Controversy of ZionP

    THE TALMUDIC VENGEANCE

    During the centuries the West had gradually improved the conduct of warfare from the savagery of primitive times to the civilized code which it reached by the end of the reign of Louis XIV. The nations came ever more to accept this overriding code, which outlawed the insensate killing or maltreatment of noncombatants and the plunder of their property, which provided for the immunity of a flag of mercy, and laid down that enemy dead, wounded and prisoners must be cared for as the combatant’s own…

    Certain symbolic deeds were evidently meant to establish the authorship, or nature, of the vengeance. These crowning acts of symbolism were the reproductions, after nearly thirty years, of the similar acts committed during the revolution in Russia: the Talmudic boast left on the wall of the Romanoffs’ death chamber and the canonization of Judas Iscariot. After the Second World War the Nazi leaders were hanged on the Jewish Day of Judgment in 1946, so that their execution was presented to Jewry in the shape of Mordecai’s vengeance on Haman and his sons. Then in the Bavarian village of Oberammergau, where the world-famous Passion Play had been performed for three centuries, the players of the chief parts were put on trial for “Nazi activities” before a Communist court. Those who appeared as Jesus and the apostles were all declared guilty; the one performer acquitted was he who took the part of Judas…

    The statement about the “six million Jews”, allowed to pass without question by the men on the bench, was the end-product of this process. In six years of war the Germans, Japanese and Italians, using every lethal means, killed 824,928 British, British Commonwealth and American fighting-men, merchant sailors and civilians. Assuming that the Germans killed, say, half of these in Europe, they killed (according to this assertion) fifteen times as many Jews there. To do that, they would have needed such quantities of men, weapons, transports, guards and materials as would have enabled them to win the war many times over…

    The Nuremberg trial formed the model for many lesser “war crimes” trials; these have been discussed, from the legal and moral point of view, in the books of Mr. Montgomery Belgion, Mr. F.J.P. Veale and the late Captain Russell Grenfell. A little of the truth about them filtered out in the course of years. In 1949 an American Administration of Justice Review Board, appointed after numerous protests, reported on some of the American military court trials at Dachau, where 297 death sentences had been approved. The report spoke of “mock trials” to which the defendants had been brought hooded, with ropes round their necks, and “tried” before mock-altars with crucifixes and candles; they were subjected to brutal treatment in the effort to extort confessions which then could be produced before the real trial (the prisoners were led to believe that the mock-trial was the genuine one).

    The biggest of these trials was the “Malmedy trial” of 1945-1946, at which

    402

    forty-three prisoners were sentenced to death. This trial related to the killing of American prisoners by SS. troops near Malmedy in 1944, and bitter feeling against any proved guilty was to be expected from American prosecutors. However, the tormentors of these prisoners were not Americans, as those who remember the admirable bearing of American troops in Germany after the First World War might expect. They were Jews from Austria who had entered the United States just before the Second War and, under Mr. Roosevelt’s regime, had quickly been taken into the American army and American uniform. A genuine American who was present at these mock-trials (a veteran court reporter) stated that he left the service of the War Crimes Branch in disgust after witnessing the “brutal sadism” practised by one of the inquisitors. Then the chief American prosecutor in this trial, a colonel, admitted to a Senate subcommittee that he had known about the mock-trials; he thought they were proper if the trial court itself was informed of the method used to obtain the defendants’ confessions, and said the prisoners should have known that the black-mass trial was a false one because they were not assigned defence counsel.

    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/04/06/toben-questions-israels-wrong-beliefs/

    NUREMBERG TRIALS- TORTURE WAS ALLOWED- MOCK TRIALS- NOT TO MENTION- JUST WHO IS IT WAS THAT TRIED THE GERMANS………WHAT A FARCE!!

  3. 2009

    http://iamthewitness.com/books/Douglas.Reed/The.Controversy.of.Zion/05.The.Fall.of.Babylon.htm

    The resemblance between the pattern of events today (that is to say, the shape taken by the outcome of the two World Wars) and that of the fall of Babylon is too great to be accidental, and in fact can now be shown to have been deliberately produced. The peoples of the West in the present century, had they realized it, were governed under “the Judaic Law”, not under any law of their own, by the forces that controlled governments.

    TRY READING THE WHOLE CHAPTER…..

  4. Israel – The Zionist State By Douglas Reed [Harbinger of World War III] It has been said by insiders from many quarters that three world wars will be necessary in order to complete the long-laid plan for World Dominion. After WWI, the Versailles treaty – of which the measures against Germany guaranteed a second World War – M. Clemenceau boasted that ‘we are carrying the war on into the peace’. “Full Responsibility for the First world War, lies squarely on the shoulders of the International Jewish Bankers. They are responsible for millions of dead and dying”. — U.S. Congress – Record 67th Congress, 4. Sitting, Senate Document nr. 346) “The bolshevik Revolution in Russia was the work of Jewish planning and Jewish dissatisfaction. Our Plan is to have a New world Order. what worked so wonderfully in Russia, is going to become Reality for the whole world.” — The American Hebrew Magazine, 10, Sept. 1920 “By using the new atheist exile politics they [the Zionists] provoked and increased anti-Semitism in Europe which led to the Second world War. . . The worldwide boycott against Germany in 1933 and the later all-out declaration of war against Germany, initiated by the Zionist leaders and the World Jewish Congress. . . ” — Rabbi Schwartz, New York Times, Sept. 30, 1997 On April 27, 2002 an article in the Arizona Daily Star carried a report with a statement by Ra’anan Gissen, a senior adviser to Ariel Sharon. WWIII Is Coming ‘Whether They Like It Or Not’ – Top Sharon Aide “The Terror attacks on September 11 and extreme turmoil in the Middle East point to one thing – World War III, a spokesman for Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said Friday during a visit to Tucson.” “We’ve been fighting a war for the past 18 months, which is the harbinger of World War III. The world is going to fight, whether they like it or not. I’m sure”. [Gissen stated] In the first half of this chapter of Douglas Reed’s book, Controversy of Zion, we’re given a detailed — almost microscopic — look behind the scenes at the manipulations, threats, bribes and murders committed in order to secure the vote by the United Nations, mandating the ‘state’ of Israel as a homeland for the so-called Jews. He describes the ‘contest’ between Republicans and Democrats — their fawning promises of capitulation — before the upcoming presidential election to garner financial support and votes from the Jews. Many people died in their attempts to sound the warning, including Mr. James Forrestal, U.S. Secretary for Defence, when he failed to heed the warnings of Bernard Baruch to ‘back off’. The second half of the chapter draws a gruesome picture of the bloody terror in Palestine that began simultaneously with the UN mandate. This a MUST READ, even for those who believe they know the facts. Reed’s research appears to be indisputable and verifiable. You’ll read statements by many people in high places who feared for the future of the world if the mandate was passed, and they predicted it would lead to a third world war. First, a couple of paragraphs from the preface to explain the twenty-two-year gap between the completion of this vital book and it’s publication, which can be purchased from Omni Christian Book Club. You can find ordering information in our Resources section, at the bottom of the page. Here’s the preface excerpt: “. . . The disappearance into almost total oblivion of Douglas Reed and all his works was a change that could not have been wrought by time alone. Indeed, the correctness of his interpretation of the unfolding history of his time found some confirmation in what happened to him when at the height of his powers. “After 1951, with the publication of Far and Wide, in which he set the history of the United States of America into the context of all he had learned in Europe of the politics of the world, Reed found himself banished from the bookstands, all publishers’ doors closed on him, and those books already written liable to be withdrawn from library shelves and ‘lost’, never to be replaced. “His public career as a writer now apparently at an end, Reed was at last free to undertake a great task for which all that had gone before — his years as a foreign correspondent, his travels in Europe and America, his conversations and contacts with the great political leaders of his day, plus his eager absorption through reading and observation of all that was best in European culture — were but a kind of preparation and education that no university could provide and which only the fortunate and gifted few could fully use. “Experiences which other men might have accepted as defeat, served only to focus Reed’s powers on what was to be his most important undertaking — that of researching and retelling the story of the last 2,000 years and more in such a way as to render intelligible much of modern history which, for the masses, remains in our time steeped in darkness and closely guarded by the terrors of an invisible system of censorship. . . ” IVOR BENSON, Durban, Natal, August 1978 Benson goes on to tell of Reed’s three-year period of research and writing the book, with the Epilogue being added in 1956, then, the book gathering dust for twenty-two years, until it was finally published in 1978 by the Dolphin Press, Durban, Natal, South Africa. Knowing this, dear reader — knowing how desperately you are NOT wanted to have this information — I hope your desire for truth and understanding is strong enough that you will get the book and read it from cover to cover. It does, indeed, lay the groundwork for other smaller gems written by various authors — several of which are posted here — that help us to at least begin to grasp the breadth and depth of an International Priesthood’s insidious, centuries-long plan for World Dominion. This is not to say that Doug Reed is infallible, for, being human, that would be impossible. We’ve given here a few excerpted quotes from the chapter as it so pertains to today, reminding you it was written fifty years ago. Many of Reed’s statements appear to be prophetic. Actually, he saw the ‘writing on the wall’. We’ve broken the chapter into two parts as it’s among the few longest chapters of the book and we present it to you, with love. — Jackie — January 27th, 2004 ______________________________________ * . . . everyone connected with it will be hunted down and put to death * . . . this means that even the Zionist state set up after the Second World War by no means fulfills the intention of those who made the Balfour Declaration, and that further conquests of Arab lands have yet to be made by war. * As in American elections, so in this British one of 1945 the power to “deliver the votes” was shown. Mr. Churchill had gone far in “arming the Jews” and in privately committing himself to Zionism, but not far enough for Dr. Weizmann. * In England at the mid-century, control of the press was virtually complete. * They depict what will inevitably happen one day, but that day has been put back to some time after another ruinous era in Palestine, which will probably involve the world. * Then he [Harry Truman] turned his gaze on domestic affairs and the next Congressional and presidential elections. In these, he knew (and said), the Zionist-controlled vote was decisive. * The “activists” (as they prefer to call themselves) were left with power to ignite a third world conflict when they pleased. * Very large sums were obtained from Jewish contributors and they would be influenced in either giving or withholding by what the President did on Palestine”. * If American troops in the 1950’s or 1960’s [or 1990’s or in the 21st Century] find themselves in the Middle East, any of them who have read Mr. Forrestal’s Diaries should know how they come to be there. * Mr. Forrestal must have acted from a sense of duty, not of hope, when he implored Mr. McGrath “to give a lot of thought to this matter because it involved not merely the Arabs of the Middle East, but also might involve the whole Moslem world with its four hundred millions of people: Egypt, North Africa, India and Afghanistan”. * His [Mr. Forrestal’s] end needs to be described here, before the armed seizure of Palestine is recorded; it is the classic case of persecution by defamation, leading to death. ______________________________________________ Here’s the last two paragraphs of the preceding chapter, “The Talmudic Vengeance”, for the sake of continuity. [All emphasis is the author’s.] This brings the story nearly down to our present day and what remains will be discussed in a concluding chapter. When the revolution spread outward into the area abandoned to it by the West in 1945 the history of 1917-1918 in Russia was repeated. A Talmudic vengeance was wreaked and Jewish governments were with obvious intent set up everywhere. There was no great change in that state of affairs, either real or apparent, for another eight years, What was done reaffirmed once more the nature of the revolution and of its directing force and Talmudic purpose. THE ZIONIST STATE pages 423 – 469 The revolution, having spread into the half of Europe held clear for it by the Western Allies, did one more thing: in the manner of a serpent striking, it thrust out a tongue that reached to the southern shores of Europe, across the Mediterranean and into the tiny land called Palestine. The money, equipment, escort and convoy were provided by the West, but the revolution supplied the two indispensable constituents of the Zionist State: the people to invade it and the arms which made its conquest certain. The West connived, but the Zionist state in the last analysis was the creation of the revolution, which in this manner fulfilled the Levitical doctrine of “the return”. These incursions into Europe and into Arabia were the sole “territorial gains” reaped from the Second War, in the early stages of which the Western “premier-dictators” for a second time had publicly renounced all thought of territorial gain. The result of these two developments was to leave, in bisected Europe and bisected Palestine, two permanent detonation points of new war, which at any moment could be set off by any who might think to further their ambitions by a third war. The reader will recall that in the years preceding the Second War, Zionism was in collapse in Palestine; and that the British Parliament in 1939, having been forced by twenty years of experience to realize that the “Jewish National Home” was impossible to realize, had decided to abandon the unworkable “Mandate” and to withdraw after ensuring the parliamentary representation of all parties in the land, Arab, Jews and others. The reader then beheld the change which came about when Mr. Churchill became Prime Minister in 1940 and privately informed Dr. Weizmann (according to Dr. Weizmann’s account, which has not been challenged) that he “quite agreed” with the Zionist ambition “after the war. . . to build up a state of three or four million Jews in Palestine”. Mr. Churchill always expressed great respect for parliamentary government but in this case, as a wartime potentate, he privily and arbitrarily overrode a policy approved, after full debate, by the House of Commons. After that, the reader followed Dr. Weizmann in his journeys to America and saw how Mr. Churchill’s efforts “to arm the Jews” (in which he was opposed by the responsible administrators on the spot) received support from there under the “pressure” of Dr. Weizmann and his associates. That was the point at which the reader last saw the Zionist state in gestation. Throughout 1944, as Mr. Churchill records in his war memoirs, he continued to press the Zionist ambition. “It is well known I am determined not to break the pledges of the British Government to the Zionists expressed in the Balfour Declaration , as modified by my subsequent statement at the Colonial Office in 1921, No change can be made in policy without full discussion in Cabinet”. (June 23, 1944). The policy had been changed after full discussion in Cabinet and Parliament, in 1939. Here Mr. Churchill simply ignored that major decision on policy and reverted to the earlier one, echoing the strange words of another Colonial Secretary (Mr. Leopold Amery, earlier quoted) that this policy could not change. Again, “There is no doubt that this (treatment of Jews in Hungary) is probably the greatest and most horrible crime ever committed in the whole history of the world. . . “all concerned in this crime who may fall into our hands, including the people who only obeyed orders by carrying out the butcheries, should be put to death after their association with the murders has been proved.. . “Declarations should be made in public, so that everyone connected with it will be hunted down and put to death” (July 11, 1944). Here Mr. Churchill, like President Roosevelt and Mr. Eden, implicitly links the execution of captives solely with their crimes against Jews, thus relegating all other sufferers to the oblivion into which, in fact, they fell. Incidentally, the reader saw in the last chapter that Jews were among the tormentors, as well as among the victims. To continue: “I am anxious to reply promptly to Dr. Weizmann’s request for the formation of a Jewish fighting force put forward in his letter of July 4th (July 12, 1944). I like the idea of the Jews trying to get at the murders of their fellow-countrymen in Central Europe and I think it would give a great deal of satisfaction in the United States. I believe it is the wish of the Jews themselves to fight the Germans everywhere. It is with the Germans they have their quarrel”. (July 26th, 1944). If Mr. Churchill, as stated by Dr. Weizmann, had agreed to the building up “of a state of three or four million Jews in Palestine”, he must have known that the Zionists had a much larger quarrel with the population of Arabia, and that any “Jewish fighting force” would be more likely to fall on these innocent third parties than on the Germans. Mr. Churchill’s last recorded allusion (as wartime prime minister) came after the fighting in Europe ended: “The whole question of Palestine must be settled at the peace table. . . I do not think we should take the responsibility upon ourselves of managing this very difficult place while the Americans sit back and criticise. “Have you ever addressed yourselves to the idea that we should ask them to take it over?. . . I am not aware of the slightest advantage which has ever accrued to Great Britain from this painful and thankless task. Somebody else should have their turn now”. (July 6, 1945) This passage (considered together with President Roosevelt’s jocular remark to Stalin, that the only concession he might offer King Ibn Saoud would be “to give him the six million Jews in the United States”) reveal the private thoughts of these premier-dictators who so docilely did the bidding of Zion. Mr. Churchill wished he could shift the insoluble problem to the American back: Mr. Roosevelt would gladly have shifted it on to some other back. In this matter the great men, as an unwary remark in each case shows, behaved like the comedian who cannot by any exertion divest himself of the gluey flypaper. Mr. Churchill, in this inter-office memorandum, was not aware “of the slightest advantage that has ever accrued to Great Britain from this painful and thankless task”. But in public, when Zion was listening, he continued (and to the moment of writing this book continues) to applaud the Zionist adventure in a boundless manner which aroused the curiosity even of Jewish critics (as will be seen). At the time when Mr. Churchill dictated this last memorandum his words about “settling the question of Palestine at the peace table” were so irrelevant that he might have had humorous intent in using them. The issue was closed, for the Zionists had arms, the men to use these arms were to be smuggled through Europe from the revolutionary area by the West (as shown in the last chapter), and both major political parties in England and America were ready to applaud any act of aggression, invasion or persecution the transmigrants committed with the arms they had obtained. This was particularly evident in the case of the Socialist party in England, which at that time was still the country chiefly involved in the fate of Palestine. The Labour party (as it called itself) in England presented itself as the champion of the poor, defenceless and oppressed; it had been born and bred in the promise of old-age pensions, unemployment relief, free medicine and the care and relief of the destitute, poor or humble generally. As the war drew towards its end this party at long last saw before it the prospect of office with a substantial majority. Like the Conservative party (and both parties in America) it apparently calculated that victory was even at this stage not quite certain and that it could be ensured by placating Zion. Thus it placed at the head of its foreign policy the aim to drive from a little country far away some people who were poorer, more friendless and longer oppressed than even the British worker in the worst days of the Industrial Revolution. In 1944 its leader, Mr. Clement Attlee, proclaimed the new, crowning tenet of British Socialism: “Let the Arabs be encouraged to move out (of Palestine) as the Jews move in. Let them be handsomely compensated for their land, and their settlement elsewhere be carefully organized and generously financed”. (Twelve years later nearly a million of these people, encouraged to move out by bombs, still languished in the neighbour Arab countries of Palestine, and the British Socialist Party, at every new turn of events, was more claimant than ever for their further chastisement). The British Socialists, when they made this statement, knew that the Zionists, under cover of the war against Germany, had amassed arms for the conquest of Palestine by force. General Wavell, the commander in the Middle East, had long before informed Mr. Churchill that “left to themselves, the Jews would beat the Arabs” (who had no source of arms-supply). General Wavell’s view about the Zionist scheme was that of all responsible administrators on the spot, and for that reason he was disliked by Dr. Weizmann. The reader has already seen, as far back as the First War, that Dr. Weizmann’s displeasure was dangerous even to high personages and it may have played a part in General Wavell’s removal from the Middle East command to India. The official British History of the War in the Middle East describes General Wavell as “one of the great commanders in military history” and says tiredness, caused by his great responsibilities, was aggravated by the feeling that he did not enjoy the full confidence of Mr. Churchill, who bombarded his Middle East commander with “irritating” and “needless” telegrams about “matters of detail”. By his relegation General Wavell may have been another victim of Zionism, and British military prowess have suffered accordingly in the war; this cannot be established but it is a reasonable surmise. In 1944 assassination again appeared in the story. Lord Moyne, as Colonial Secretary, was the Cabinet minister then responsible for Palestine, the post earlier held by Lord Lloyd (who had been rudely rebuked by Mr. Churchill for tardiness in “arming the Jews” and had died in 1941). Lord Moyne was the friend of all men, and sympathetic to Judaism, but he shared the view of all his responsible predecessors, that the Zionist enterprise in Palestine would end disastrously. For that reason, and having sympathy for suffering mankind in general, he was inclined to revive the idea of proving land in Uganda for any Jews who truly needed to find a new home somewhere. This humane notion brought him the mortal hatred of the Zionists, who would not brook any diversion of thought from the target of their ambition: Palestine. In 1943 Lord Moyne modified his view, according to Mr. Churchill, who suggested that Dr. Weizmann should go to Cairo, meet Lord Moyne there and satisfy himself of the improvement. Before any meeting could come about, Lord Moyne was assassinated in Cairo (November 1944) by two Zionists from Palestine, one more peacemaker thus being removed from a path strewn with the bones of earlier pacifiers. This event for a moment disturbed the flow of Mr. Churchill’s memoranda to his colleagues about “arming the Jews”, and the responsible men in Palestine once again urgently recommended that Zionist immigration thither be suspended. Mr. Churchill’s reply (November 17, 1944) was that this would “simply play into the hands of the extremists”, whereon the extremists were left unhindered in their further plans and their tribe increased. As the Second War approached its end in Europe Mr. Churchill’s hopes of some spectacular transaction which would happily integrate the Chazars in Arabia faded. If his suggestion (that Ibn Saoud be made “lord of the Middle East, provided he settles with you”, i.e. Dr. Weizmann) was ever conveyed by Dr. Weizmann to President Roosevelt, an episode of 1944 may have been the result of it. An American, Colonel Hoskins, (“President Roosevelt’s personal representative in the Middle East”; according to Dr. Weizmann) then visited the Arab leader. Colonel Hoskins, like all qualified men, had no faith in the plan to set up a Zionist state but was in favour of helping Jews to go to Palestine (if any so wished) in agreement with the Arabs. He found that King Ibn Saoud held himself to have been grossly insulted by Dr. Weizmann of whom he spoke “in the angriest and most contemptuous manner, asserting that I (Dr. Weizmann) had tried to bribe him with twenty million pounds to sell out Palestine to the Jews”, and he indignantly rejected any suggestion of a deal on such terms. Therewith all prospect of any “settlement” vanished and Colonel Hoskins also passed from the story, another good man defeated in his attempt to solve the insoluble problem posed by Mr. Balfour. Thus, as the war entered its last months, only two alternatives remained. The British Government, abandoning the decision of 1939, could struggle on, trying to hold the scales impartially between the native inhabitants and their besiegers from Russia; or it could throw up “the Mandate” and withdraw, whereupon the Zionists would expel the native inhabitants with arms procured from the European and African theatres of war. This second great moment in the Palestinian drama approached. Mr. Roosevelt had been told by Dr. Weizmann that the Zionists “could not rest the case on the consent of the Arabs” but had remained non-committal. Mr. Churchill, according to Dr. Weizmann, had committed himself, in private, and in 1944 Dr. Weizmann grew impatient to have from Mr. Churchill a public committal in the form of an amended Balfour Declaration which would award territory (in place of the meaningless phrase “a national home”) to Zion (in 1949 he was still very angry that Mr. Churchill, on the “pretext” that the war must first be finished, refrained from making this final public capitulation). Like Macbeth, Dr. Weizmann’s “top-line politicians” flinched and shrunk as the moment for the deed approached. Neither Mr. Churchill nor Mr. Roosevelt would openly command their soldiers to do it and the Zionists furiously cried “Infirm of purpose!” Then, Mr. Roosevelt went to Yalta, wearing the visage of doomed despair which the news-reel pictures recorded, arranged for the bisection of Europe, and at the end briefly informed Mr. Churchill (who was “flabbergasted” and “greatly disturbed” by the news, according to Mr. Hopkins) that he was going to meet King Ibn Saoud on board the U.S. cruiser Quincy. What followed remains deeply mysterious. Neither Mr. Roosevelt nor Mr. Churchill had any right to bestow Arab land on the lobbyists who beleaguered them in Washington and London; nevertheless, what was demanded of them was, in appearance, so small in comparison with what had just been done at Yalta, that Mr. Roosevelt’s submission and some harsh ultimatum to Kin Ibn Saoud would have surprised none. Instead, he suddenly stepped out of the part he had played for many years and spoke as a statesman; after that he died. He left Yalta on February 11, 1945, and spent February 12, 13 and 14 aboard the Quincy, receiving King Ibn Saoud during this time. He asked the king “to admit some more Jews in to Palestine” and received the blunt answer, “NO”. Ibn Saoud said that “there was a Palestine army of Jews all armed to the teeth and. . . they did not seem to be fighting the Germans but were aiming at the Arabs”. On February 28 Mr. Roosevelt returned to Washington. On March 28 Ibn Saoud reiterated by letter his verbal warning (since confirmed by events) of the consequences which would follow from American support of the Zionists. On April 5 President Roosevelt replied reaffirming his own pledge verbally given to Ibn Saoud that: “I would take no action, in my capacity as Chief of the Executive Branch of this Government which might prove hostile to the Arab people”. On April 12 he died. This pledge would never have become known but for the action of an American statesman, Secretary of State James G. Byrnes, who published it six months later (October 18, 1945) in a vain attempt to deter Mr. Roosevelt’s successor, President Truman, from taking the very “action hostile to the Arabs” which President Roosevelt swore he would never commit. Mr. Roosevelt’s pledge was virtually a deathbed one, and another of history’s great unanswered questions is, did he mean it? If by any chance he did, then once more death intervened as the ally of Zionism. His intimate Mr. Harry Hopkins (who was present at the meeting and drafted a memorandum about it) sneered at the suggestion that it might have been sincerely intended, saying that President Roosevelt was “wholly committed publicly and privately and by conviction” to the Zionists. (This memorandum records Mr. Roosevelt’s statement that he had learned more from Ibn Saoud about Palestine in five minutes than he had previously learned in a lifetime; out of this, again, grew the famous anecdote that Ibn Saoud said, “We have known for two thousand years what you have fought two world wars to learn”. However, Mr. Hopkins may conceivably not be a trustworthy witness on this one occasion, for immediately after the meeting he, the president’s shadow, mysteriously broke with Mr. Roosevelt, whom he never saw again! Mr. Hopkins shut himself in his cabin and three days later, at Algiers, went ashore, “sending word” through an intermediary that he would return to America by another route. The breach was as sudden as that between Mr. Wilson and Mr. House. What is clear is that the last few weeks and days of Mr. Roosevelt’s life were overshadowed by the controversy of Zion, not by American or European questions. Had he lived, and his pledge to Ibn Saoud become known, Zionism, which so powerfully helped to make and maintain him president for twelve years, would have become his bitter enemy. He died. (The pledge was categorical: it continued, “no decision will be taken with regard to the basic situation in Palestine without full consultation with both Arabs and Jews”; this was direct repudiation of Dr. Weizmann, who had told him, “we could not rest the case on Arab consent”.) Thus, cloaked in a last-moment mystery, Mr. Roosevelt too passed from the story. A parting glimpse of the throng which had gathered round him during his twelve-year reign is given by the senior White House correspondent, Mr. Merriman Smith; this description of a wake shows that the carousing of Yalta accompanied the president even to his grave: “Most of the people on the train were members of the Roosevelt staff. Before the train was out of sight of the crepe-hung Hyde Park depot, they started what turned out to be a post-funeral wake. Liquor flowed in every compartment and drawing-room. The shades were drawn throughout the train and from the outside it looked like any train bearing mourners home. But behind those curtains, the Roosevelt staff had what they thought was a good time. Their Boss would have approved. . . “I saw one of the top New Dealers hurl a tray of empty glasses into a toilet and shout in mock bravado, “Down the hatch, we won’t need you any more’. Porters and club stewards bustled up and down the corridors with gurgling, sloshing trays. If you hadn’t known the people in the drawing room, you would have thought they were on their way home from a football game. Some of the people were using whisky as an antidote for worry over their jobs. . . “I could hear an alcoholic chorus of Auld Lang Syne. . . ” Such were the trappings of statesmanship, during those last days when “the boys” toiled towards another “victory”, when the Communist armies seized half of Europe, and the Zionists from Russia were convoyed by the West towards the invasion of Palestine. In this question of Palestine, Mr. Roosevelt was liberated from his dilemma by death. Mr. Churchill was left to face his. He had courted Zionist favour from the days of the 1906 election. He had been a member of the British Government in 1917, of which another member (Mr. Leopold Amery, quoted in a Zionist paper in 1952) said, “We thought when we issued the Balfour Declaration that if the Jews could become a majority in Palestine they would form a Jewish state. . . We encouraged not a divided Palestine, which exists only west of the Jordan”. Mr. Churchill never publicly stated any such intention (indeed, he denied it), but if it was his view this means that even the Zionist state set up after the Second World War by no means fulfills the intention of those who made the Balfour Declaration, and that further conquests of Arab lands have yet to be made by war. The governing word in the passage quoted is “if”: “if the Jews could become a majority. . .” By 1945 three decades of Arab revolt had shown that the Zionists never would “become a majority” unless the Arabs were driven out of their native land by arms. The question that remained was, who was to drive them out? Mr. Roosevelt had sworn not to. Dr. Weizmann, ever quick to cry “I stay here on my bond”, liked to claim that Mr. Churchill was committed as far as Dr. Weizmann wanted him to go. Even Mr. Churchill could not do this deed. He, too, then was liberated from his dilemma; not by death, but by electoral defeat. His memoirs express wounded pride at this rebuff; “All our enemies having surrendered unconditionally or being about to do so, I was immediately dismissed by the British electorate from all further conduct of their affairs”. It was not as simple as that. The future historian has to work from such material, but the living participant knows better, and I was in England and saw the election when Mr. Churchill was “dismissed”. In truth the British electorate could hardly have been expected to see in the outcome of the war (of which Mr. Churchill is the bitterest critic) cause for a vote of thanksgiving to Mr. Churchill, but there were other reasons for his defeat than mere disillusionment. As in American elections, so in this British one of 1945 the power to “deliver the votes” was shown. Mr. churchill had gone far in “arming the Jews” and in private committing himself to Zionism, but not far enough for Dr. Weizmann. In England at the mid-century, control of the press was virtually complete, in this question: Zionist propaganda at the election turned solidly against Mr. Churchill and was waged in behalf of the Socialists, who had given the requisite promise of support for “hostile action” against the Arabs. (“The Arabs should be encouraged to move out as the Jews move in. . .”). The block of Jewish Members of Parliament swung over in a body to the Socialist party (and was strongest in the left wing of it, where the Communists lurked). With high elation the Zionist saw the discomfiture of their “champion” of 1906, 1917 and 1939. Dr. Weizmann says that the Socialist victory (and Mr. churchill’s “dismissal”) “delighted all liberal elements”. This was the requital for Mr. Churchill’s forty years of support for Zionism; he had not actually ordered British troops to clear Palestine of Arabs and, for a while, was an enemy. Thus Mr. Churchill was at least reprieved from the task of deciding what to do about Palestine and should not have been so grieved as he depicts himself, when he was dismissed soon after “victory”. The British Socialists, at last provided with a great majority in parliament, then found at once that they were expected by forcible measures to “encourage the Arabs to move out”. When they too shrank from the assassin’s deed the cries of “betrayal” fell about their ears like hailstones. Dr. Weizmann’s narrative grows frantic with indignation at this point; the Socialist government, he says, “within three months of taking office repudiated the pledge so often and clearly, even vehemently, repeated to the Jewish people”. During forty years Lord Curzon seems to have been the only leading politician caught up in this affair to realize that even the most casual word of sympathy, uttered to Dr. Weizmann, would later be held up as “a pledge”, solemnly given and infamously broken. Among the victorious Socialists a worthy party-man, one Mr. Hall, inherited the Colonial Office from Lord Lloyd, Lord Moyne and others dead or defamed, and was barely in it when a deputation from the World Zionist Congress arrived: “I must say the attitude adopted by the members of the deputation was different from anything which I have ever experienced. It was not a request for the consideration by His Majesty’s Government of the decisions of the Zionist conference, but a demand that His Majesty’s Government should do what the Zionist Organization desired them to do”. Ten years later an American ex-president, Mr. Truman, recalled similar visits during his presidency in similar terms of innocent surprise; in 1945 the thing had been going on since 1906 without disturbing Mr. Hall’s political slumbers. Soon after this he was ousted from the Colonial Office, his suitability for a peerage suddenly being realized. The Socialist government of 1945, which in domestic affairs must have been nearly the worst that a war-weary country, in need of reinvigoration, could have received, in foreign affairs did its country one service. It saved, of honour, what could be saved. Under pressure from the four corners of the world it refused to play the assassin’s part in Palestine; if it did not protect the Arabs, and by that time it probably could not protect them, at least it did not destroy them for the Zionist taskmaster. This achievement was the sole work of a Mr. Ernest Bevin, in my estimation the greatest man produced in British political life during this century. According to report, King George VI, the most unobtrusive of monarchs, urged the incoming Socialist prime minister, Mr. Attlee, to make his best and strongest man Foreign Secretary, because the state of the world so clearly demanded this. Mr. Attlee thereon revised a list already drafted, expunging the name of some worthy “liberal” who might have involved his country in the coming pogrom of Arabs, and inserting that of Mr. Bevin. By 1945 Palestine was clearly too big an issue for Colonial Secretaries to handle; it was, and will long remain, the major preoccupation of Prime Ministers and Foreign Secretaries, Presidents and Secretaries of State in England and America, because it is the most inflammable source of new wars. In 1945, as soon as “victory” was won, it was seen to dominate and pervert the politics of all nation-states. Without awe, Ernest Bevin, the farm lad from Somerset and the dockers’ idol, took up the bomb and sought to remove the fuse. Had he received support from one leading man in any Western country he might have saved the day. They all fell on him like wolves; there was something of the camp-meeting and of revivalist hysteria in the abandon of their surrender to Zionism. He was a robust man, with the beef and air of the West Country in his bones and muscle and its fearless tradition in his blood, but even he was physically broken within a few years by the fury of unremitting defamation. He was not spiritually daunted. He realized that he had to do with an enterprise essentially conspiratorial, a conspiracy of which the revolution and Zionism were linked parts, and he may be unique among politicians of this century in that he used a word (“conspiracy”) which has a dictionary meaning plainly applicable to this case. He bluntly told Dr. Weizmann that he would not be coerced or coaxed into any action contrary to Britain’s undertakings. Dr. Weizmann had not experienced any such instruction, at that high level, since 1904, and his indignation, surging outward from him through the Zionist organizations of the world, produced the sustained abuse of Mr. Bevin which then followed. Mr. Churchill, had he remained prime minister, would apparently have used British arms to enforce the partition of Palestine. That seems to be the inescapable inference from his memorandum to the Chiefs of Staff Committee (January 25, 1944), in which he said “the Jews, left to themselves, would beat the Arabs; there cannot therefore be any great danger in our joining hands with the Jews to enforce the kind of proposals about partition which are set forth. . . ” The reader may see how greatly circumstances alter cases. The bisection of Europe was for Mr. Churchill “a hideous partition, which cannot last”. Partition in Palestine was worthy to be enforced by “joining hands with the Jews”. Mr. Bevin would have no truck with such schemes. Under his guidance the Socialist government announced that it “would not accept the view that the Jews should be driven out of Europe or that they should not be permitted to live again in these (European) countries without discrimination, contributing their ability and talent towards rebuilding the prosperity of Europe”. The words show that this man understood the nature of Zionist chauvinism, the problem posed by it and the only solution. They depict what will inevitably happen one day, but that day has been put back to some time after another ruinous era in Palestine, which will probably involve the world. He was either the first British politician fully to comprehend the matter, or the first to act with the courage of his knowledge. The Socialist government of 1945 was driven, by responsible office, to do what all responsible governments before it had equally been forced to do; to send out one more commission of enquiry (which could but repeat the reports of all earlier commissions) and in the meantime to regulate Zionist immigration and to safeguard the interest of the native Arabs, in accordance with the pledges of the original Balfour Declaration. Dr. Weizmann considered this “a reversion to the old, shifty double emphasis on the obligation towards the Arabs of Palestine” and the Zionist power went to work to destroy Mr. Bevin on whose head, for the next two years, a worldwide campaign was turned. It was concentric, synchronised and of tremendous force. First, the Conservative party was sent into action. The Socialists had defeated them by capitulations to Zionism, which brought them the help of the controlled press. The conservatives, being out of office, played this trump card against the Socialists, and in turn made their capitulations to Zion. This was at once made clear: the party proclaimed that it would combat the domestic and support the foreign policy of the Socialists, but from the moment of the Socialist declaration about Palestine it made one exception to the second rule: it began a sustained attack on the Socialist government’s policy about Palestine, which meant, on Mr. Bevin. At that point Mr. Churchill, safe in opposition, demeaned himself by accusing Mr. Bevin of “anti-Jewish feelings”, a shot taken from the locker of the Anti-Defamation League (which added a new epithet, “Bevinism”, to its catalogue of smearwords). No such traducement of a political adversary ever came from Mr. Bevin, Mr. Churchill’s outstanding colleague during the long war years. Thus Mr. Bevin, at the post of greatest danger, received the full support of the opposition party in all matters of foreign policy save one: Palestine. He might yet have saved the day but for the intervention of the new American president, Mr. Harry S. Truman, with whose automatic elevation (on the death of the incumbent) from the Vice-Presidency the story of the 20th Century resumed the aspect of Greek tragedy (or of a comedy of errors). Mr. Truman involved his country up to the neck in the Palestinian imbroglio at the very moment when in England, at long last, a man had arisen who was able and staunch enough to liquidate the disastrous venture. Unless a man has that genius which needs no basis in acquired knowledge, a small town in the Middle West and Kansas City are poor places for learning about world affairs. Mr. Truman, when the presidency was thrust upon him, had two major disqualifications for the office. One was native remoteness from world politics, and the other was too close acquaintance with ward politics, of which he had seen much. In Kansas City he had watched the machine at work; he knew about patronage, ward bosses and stuffed ballot-boxes. He had received the impression that politics were business, and essentially simple in the basic rules, which allowed no room for high-falutin’ ideas. A middle-sized, hale, broadly-smiling man who was to sign the order for an act of destruction unprecedented in the history of the West, he strode briskly on to the stage of great events. He decided at Potsdam that “Uncle Joe” was “a nice guy” and there completed Mr. Roosevelt’s territorial rearrangements in Europe and Asia. He arranged for the atom-bombing of defenceless Hiroshima and Nagasaki. No comparable series of acts ever fell to the lot of a once-bankrupt haberdasher precipitated into the office of a “premier-dictator”. Then he turned his gaze on domestic affairs and the next Congressional and presidential elections. In these, he knew (and said), the Zionist-controlled vote was decisive. While Mr. Bevin strove to undo the tangle, Mr. Truman undid Mr. Bevin’s efforts. He demanded that a hundred thousand Jews be admitted immediately to Palestine, and he arranged for the first partisan commission of enquiry to go to Palestine. This was the only means by which any commission could ever be expected to produce a report favourable to the Zionist scheme. Two of its four American members were avowed Zionists; the one British member was Zionist propagandist and a left-wing enemy of Mr. Bevin. This “Anglo-American Commission” went to Palestine, where Dr. Weizmann (for perhaps the tenth time in some thirty years) was the chief personage heard. It recommended (though “cautiously”) the admission of one hundred thousand “displaced persons” (the term was presumably meant to mislead the public masses and was at the moment of some importance; no truly displaced persons wanted to go to Palestine). Therewith the fat of the next war was in the fire, and an American president publicly supported “hostile action” against the Arabs, for it was that. The next Zionist Congress (at Geneva in 1946) joyfully recorded this new “pledge” (Mr. Truman’s “suggestion” and the partisan commission’s “cautious recommendations”). This was a characteristic Zionist Congress, being composed chiefly of Jews from Palestine (who had already migrated there) and from America (who had no intention of going there); the herded-mass, to be transported thither, was not represented. Dr. Weizmann’s description of the decisions taken are of great significance. He says the congress “had a special character” and showed “a tendency to rely on methods. . . referred to by different names: “resistance’, ‘defence’, ‘activism’.” Despite these “shades of meaning” (he says) “one feature was common to all of them: the conviction of the need for fighting against British authority in Palestine, or anywhere else, for that matter”. Dr. Weizmann’s guarded remarks must be considered in the context of his whole book and of the entire history of Zionism. What he means is that the Zionist World Congress at Geneva in 1946 decided to resume the method of terror and assassination which had proved effective in Russia in the germinating-stage of the two-headed conspiracy. The congress knew this to be the method “referred to by different names” during its discussions, for it had already been resumed in the assassination of Lord Moyne and many terrorist exploits in Palestine. The prompting impulse for the Congress’s decision (which in fact it was) came from the American president’s recommendation that a hundred thousand people should be forcibly injected into Palestine. The Zionists took that to be another “pledge”, committing America to approval of anything they might do, and they were right. Dr. Weizmann knew exactly what was at stake and in his old age shrank from the prospect that reopened before him: reversion to the worship of Moloch, the god of blood. He had seen so much blood shed in the name of revolutionary-Communism and revolutionary-Zionism, the two causes which had dominated his parental home and home town in the Pale. In his youth he had exulted in the riots and revolutions and had found the assassinations a natural part of the process; in his maturity he had rejoiced in the ruin of Russia despite the decades of bloodshed which ensued. For fifty-five years he had cried havoc and unloosed dogs of war. Almost unknown to the masses embroiled in two wars, he had become one of the most powerful men in the world. Beginning in 1906, when he first wheedled Mr. Balfour, he had gradually risen until his word in the lobbies was law, when he could command audience of monarchs and obedience of presidents and prime ministers. Now, when the enterprise he had so long schemed for was on the brink of consummation, he recoiled from the bloodstained prospect that opened immeasurably before him; blood, and more blood, and at the end. . . what? Dr. Weizmann remembered Sabbata Zevi. He was against “trucking to the demoralizing forces in the movement”, the cryptic phrase he uses to cover those referred to by Mr. Churchill as “the extremists”, and by the administrators on the spot as “the terrorists”. This meant that he had changed as his end approached, for without terrorism Zionism would never have established itself at all and if, in 1946, his Zionist state was to be achieved, this could only be done by violence. Thus at the last Dr. Weizmann realized the futility of his half-century of “pressure behind the scenes” and no doubt saw the inevitable fiasco that lay ahead, after the Zionist state had been born in terror. Psychologically, this was a moment of great interest in the story. Perhaps men grow wise in their old age; they tire of the violent words and deeds which seemed to solve all problems in their conspiratorial youth, and this revulsion may have overtaken Chaim Weizmann. If it did, it was too late to alter anything. The machine he had built had to continue, of its own momentum, to its own destruction and that of any in its path. The remaining future of Zionism was in the hands of “the demoralizing forces in the movement”, and he had put it there. He was denied a vote of confidence and was not re-elected president of the World Zionist Organization. Forty years after Herzl, he was cast aside as he had cast Herzl aside, and for the same essential reason. He and his Chazars from Russia had overthrown Herzl because Herzl wanted to accept Uganda, which meant renouncing Palestine. He was overthrown because he feared to re-embark on the policy of terror and assassination, and that also meant renouncing Palestine. The note of despair sounded even earlier, in his allusions to Lord Moyne’s murder: “Palestine Jewry will. . . cut out, root and branch, this evil from its midst. . . this utterly un-Jewish phenomenon”. These words were addressed to Western ears and were specious; political murder was not “an utterly un-Jewish phenomenon” in the Talmudic areas of Russia where Dr. Weizmann spent his revolutionary and conspiratorial youth, as he well knew, and a series of similar deeds stained the past. Indeed, when he spoke to a Zionist audience he candidly admitted that political murder was not an “utterly un-Jewish phenomenon” but the opposite: “What was the terror in Palestine but the old evil in a new and horrible guise”. This “old evil”, rising from its Talmudic bottle to confront Dr. Weizmann at Geneva in 1946, apparently accounts for the note of premonition which runs through the last pages of his book of 1949 (when the Zionist state had been set up by terror). The Moyne murder, he then forebodingly said, “illumines the abyss into which terrorism leads”. Thus in his last days Dr. Weizmann saw whither his indefatigable journey had led: to an abyss! He lived to see it receive a first batch of nearly a million victims. From the moment of his deposition effective control passed into the hands of “the terrorists”, as he calls them, and his belated cry of “Back!” fell on empty air. The “activists” (as they prefer to call themselves) were left with power to ignite a third world conflict when they pleased. Dr. Weizmann survived to play a determining part in the next stage of the venture but never again had true power in Zionism. From 1946 the terrorists took command. They set to work to drive the British from Palestine first, and knew they could not fail in the state of affairs which had been brought about during the Second War. If the British defended either themselves or the semitic Arabs the cry of “anti-semitism” would rise until the politicians in Washington turned on the British; then, when the British left, the terrorists would drive out the Arabs. The terror had been going on for many years, the Moyne murder being only one incident in it; indeed, one of the harassed Colonial Secretaries, Mr. Oliver Stanley, in 1944 told the House of Commons that it had sensibly impeded “the British war effort”, or in other words, prolonged the war (he is a trustworthy witness, for he was hailed by the Zionists at his death as “a staunch friend”). In 1946 and 1947, after the Geneva Congress, it was intensified, hundreds of British soldiers being ambushed, shot while asleep, blown up and the like. The terror was deliberately given the visible appearance of “the old evil” when two British sergeants were slowly done to death in an orchard and left hanging there. The choice of this Levitical form of butchery (“hanging on a tree”, the death “accursed of God”) signified that these things were done under the Judaic Law. The British government, daunted by the fury of the American and British press, under common constraint, feared to protect its officials and soldiers, and one British soldier wrote to The Times: “What use has the army for the government’s sympathy? It does not avenge those who are murdered, nor does it prevent any further killings. Are we no longer a nation with sufficient courage to enforce law and order where it is our responsibility to do so?” This was the case. The great Western governments had fallen, under “irresistible pressure”, into a nerveless captivity, and Britain and America had ceased, anyway for the time, to be sovereign nations. At length the British government, in despair, referred the problem of Palestine to the new organization in New York called “the United Nations” (which had as little right to dispose of Palestine as the League of Nations before it). Delegates from Haiti, Liberia, Honduras and other parts of “the free world” thronged to Lake Success, a forlorn suburban pond outside New York. There was an hissing in the world at this time and from the parent UNO bodies called COBSRA, UNRRA, UNESCO uncoiled. On this particular day something called UNSCOP (United Nations Special Committee on Palestine) rendered to UNO its report recommending “the partition of Palestine”. Dr. Weizmann (though deposed by the Zionist Organization for his warnings against terrorism) was once more the chief authority heard by UNSCOP in Jerusalem, and then quickly returned to New York where, in October and November of 1947, he dominated the hidden scene as lobbyist supreme. “Irresistible pressure” operated with relentless force. The delegates whom the public masses saw on the moving-picture screens were puppets; the great play was all behind the curtain and in that, Chesterton’s “real world”, of which the multitude saw nothing, two great operations were in progress, by means of which the fate of Palestine was settled far from the debating halls of the United Nations. First, hundreds of thousands of Jews from Russia and Eastern Europe were being smuggled across Western Europe to invade Palestine. Second, the approach of an American presidential election was being used by the Zionists as a means to set the rival parties there bidding against each other for Zionist support, and thus to ensure that the decisive American vote in the United Nations would be cast for the invasion. In each case, and as in the preceding three decades, men arose who strove to disentangle their countries from its consequences. The secret convoying of the Eastern Jews across Western Europe was revealed by a British general, Sir Frederick Morgan (to whose work in planning the invasion of Normandy General Eisenhower’s book pays tribute). When the fighting ended General Morgan was lent by the British War Office to “UNRRA”, the offspring-body of the United Nations which was supposed to “relieve and rehabilitate” the sufferers from the war. General Morgan was put in charge of the most hapless of these (the “displaced persons”) and found that “UNRRA”, which cost the American and British taxpayer much money, was being used as an umbrella to cover the mass-movement of Jews from the eastern area to Palestine. These people were not “displaced persons”. Their native countries had been “liberated” by the Red Armies and they were able to live in them, their welfare ensured by the special law against “Anti-semitism” which all these communized countries received from their Communist overlord. They had not been “driven from Germany”, where they had never lived. In fact, these were, once more, the Ostjuden, the Chazars, being driven by their Talmudic masters to a new land for a conspiratorial purpose. In this way a new war was being cooked over the embers of the dying one and General Morgan twice (in January and August 1946) publicly stated that “a secret organization existed to further a mass movement of Jews from Europe, a second Exodus”. Senator Herbert Lehman, a prominent Zionist who was Director General of UNRRA, said this warning was “anti-semitic” and demanded General Morgan’s resignation. He relented when General Morgan disclaimed “anti-semitic” intent, but when the general repeated his warning eight months later he was summarily dismissed by the new Director General, a Zionist sympathizer and former Mayor of New York, Mr. Fiorello La Guardia, known to New Yorkers as The Little Flower. Mr. La Guardia then appointed a Mr. Myer Cohen in General Morgan’s place. The British government hastened to punish General Morgan by retiring the celebrated invasion-planner, stating (falsely) that this was at his request. Two independent bodies of high status confirmed General Morgan’s information; in the servient condition of the press their disclosure received little publicity. A Select Committee on Estimates of the British House of Commons reported (November 1946) that “very large numbers of Jews, almost amounting to a second Exodus, have been migrating from Eastern Europe to the American zones of Germany and Austria with the intention in the majority of cases of finally making their way to Palestine. It is clear that it is a highly organized movement with ample funds and great influence behind it, but the Subcommittee were unable to obtain any real evidence who are the real instigators”. A War Investigating Committee sent to Europe by the United States Senate said that “heavy migration of Jews from Eastern Europe into the American zone of Germany is part of a carefully organized plan financed by special groups in the United States”. The picture, once again, is of a conspiracy supported by the Western governments, in this case the American one in particular. The “organization” in America disposed of American and British public funds lavishly, and effected the mass-transfer of population under the cloak of war-relief. Its leaders were able summarily to dismiss high officials, publicly-paid, who exposed what went on, and the British government supported this action. Although by that time (1946-1947) the perfidy of the revolutionary state was supposed to have been realized by the Western politicians (so that “cold war” was waged with it), the three governments of Washington, London and Moscow acted in perfect accord in this one matter. The “exodus” came from Russia and from the part of Europe abandoned by the West to the revolution. No man may leave the Soviet state without permission, most rarely granted, but in this case the Iron Curtain opened to release a mass of people, just large enough to ensure immediate war and permanent unrest in the Near East. Just as smoothly, thirty years before, the frontiers and ports of Germany (an enemy), England (an ally) and America (a neutral) had opened to allow the revolutionaries to go to Russia. On both occasions, at this supreme level of policy, the super-national one, there were no allies, enemies or neutrals; all governments did the bidding of the supreme power. One of the British Colonial Secretaries earlier involved in Zionism and the Balfour Declaration of 1917, Mr. Leopold Amery, had said: “We thought when we issued the Balfour Declaration that if the Jews could become a majority in Palestine they would form a Jewish state”. In 1946-1948, at last, this though was being realized, in the only way possible: by the mass-transplantation of Eastern Jews to Palestine. Only one thing still was needed: to obtain from “the United Nations” some act of mock-legalization for the invasion about to occur. To ensure that, the capitulation of the American president was necessary; and the way to bring that about was to threaten his party-advisers with the loss of the approaching presidential elections, which lay a year ahead. A third war was in truth being hatched, in the thinning fog of the second war, by this clandestine movement of population, and in America (after the dismissal of General Morgan in Europe) the two men whose offices made them directly responsible tried to nip the peril in the bud (One was General Marshall, whose intervention in the question of invading Europe and later in that of China have been shown by their consequences to have been most ill-omened. In the question of Palestine he showed prudence. In 1947 he was Secretary of State and was thus chiefly responsible, under the president, for foreign policy. He strove to ward off his country’s involvement in the Palestinian fiasco and, as in all such cases, his relegation soon followed. The other man was Mr. James Forrestal, Secretary for Defence. He was a successful banker, brought into government in wartime for his executive ability; he was wealthy and only the impulse to serve his country can have moved him to take office. He foresaw disastrous consequences from involvement and died believing he had utterly failed in his effort to avert it. Of all the men concerned during two generations, he alone left a diary which fully exposes the methods by which Zion controls and manipulates governors and governments. Mr. Truman went further than even President Roosevelt in taking foreign policy and national security out of the province of the responsible ministers, and in acting contrary to their counsel under the pressure applied through electoral advisers. The story is made complete by Mr. Forrestal’s Diary, Mr. Truman’s own memoirs, and Dr. Weizmann’s book. The struggle behind the scenes for control over the American president, and therewith of the Republic itself, lasted from the autumn of 1947 to the spring of 1948, that is, from the United Nations debate about the partition of Palestine to the proclamation of the Zionist state after its forcible seizure. Dates are important. In November 1947, the Zionists wanted the “partition” vote and in May 1948 they wanted recognition of their invasion. The presidential election was due in November 1948, and the essential preliminary to it, the nomination contests, in June and July 1948. The party-managers instructed Mr. Truman that re-election was in the Zionist gift, the opposition candidate received similar advice from his party managers. Thus the election campaign took on the nature of an auction, each candidate being constantly under pressure from his organizers to outbid the other in supporting the invasion of Palestine. In these circumstances the successful candidate could only feel that election was a reward for “supporting partition” in November 1947 and “granting recognition” in May 1948. Nothing could more clearly illustrate the vast change which the mass-immigration of Eastern Jews, in the period following the Civil War, had brought about in the affairs of the American Republic. Mr. Forrestal left a full account of the chief moves in this fateful, hidden contest. The time-bomb planted by Mr. Balfour thirty years earlier reached its explosion-moment when the British government in 1947 announced that it would withdraw from Palestine if other powers made impartial administrations there impossible; this was the reply to President Truman’s proposal that 100,000 “displaced persons” be allowed to enter Palestine immediately. Mr. Truman’s responsible advisers at once informed the American government of the consequences which would flow from a British withdrawal. General Marshall told the American Cabinet that such a British withdrawal “would be followed by a bloody struggle between the Arabs and Jews” (August 8, 1947), and his Under Secretary of State, Mr. Robert Lovett, pointed to the danger of “solidifying sentiment among all the Arabian and Mohammedan peoples” against the United States (August 15, 1947). This warning was at once answered by the voice of party-politics. At a Cabinet lunch Mr. Robert Hannegan (Postmaster General, but previously national chairman of the President’s party, the Democratic Party) urged the President to “make a statement of policy on Palestine” demanding “the admission of 150,000 Zionists”. Thus the party-man’s counsel was that President Truman should respond to the British warning by increasing his bid for Zionist electoral support, from 100,000 to 150,000 persons. Mr. Hannegan said this new demand “would have a very great influence and great effect on the raising of funds for the Democratic National Committee” and, as proof of what he promised, added that the earlier demand (related to 100,000 immigrants) had produced the result that “very large sums were obtained from Jewish contributors and they would be influenced in either giving or withholding by what the President did on Palestine”. Thus the issue from the outset was presented to the President in the plainest terms of national interest on the one hand and party-contributions, party-votes and party-success on the other. It was argued throughout the months that followed and finally determined on that basis, without any gloss. Mr. Forrestal’s alarm became acute. CON.T http://saxonmessenger.christ
  5. http://www.controversyofzion.info/Controversybook/Controversybook_eng_13.htm

    which will not be

    79

    fulfilled until a much greater area in the Middle East has been conquered, “other Gods” have been thrown down, and “all nations” have been enslaved.

    Using the power over governments which it had gained through emancipation, the ruling sect achieved a second “return” to the chosen land, and thus reestablished the Law of 458 BC, with its destructive and imperial mission. A chauvinist fever, which yet must run its course, was injected into the veins of world Jewry; the great power wielded over Western governments was used to a co-ordinated end; and the whole destructive ordeal of the West in the Twentieth Century was related to and dominated by the ancient ambition of Zion, revived from antiquity to become the dogma of Western politics.

    This fifth phase is about fifty-five years old as the present book is written, and its first results are formidable. The “Mosaic Law” has been superimposed on the life of Western peoples, which in fact is governed by that law, not by any law of their own. The political and military operations of two world wars have been diverted to promote the Zionist ambition and the life and treasure of the West have been poured out in support of it.

    Forty years of continuous bloodshed in Palestine have obviously been but the prelude to what is yet to come there. Any third world war may begin and spread outward from Palestine, and if one were to start elsewhere it would in its course foreseeably revolve around and turn on the ambition of Zion, which will not be

    79

    fulfilled until a much greater area in the Middle East has been conquered, “other Gods” have been thrown down, and “all nations” have been enslaved.

    Dr. Kastein sees in this fifth phase the golden age when “history may be resumed” (after the meaningless interregnum known as the Christian era) and Zionism, as “the possessor of a world mission,” will re-enter into a destined inheritance, culminating in world dominion, of which it was criminally dispossessed in AD 70 (when “history” was interrupted).

    This narrative has now reached the third of these five phases, the long one when the Talmudic scribes in the Academy at Jamnia began with infinite industry to spin The Law into a much greater web, of endless ramifications, from which a Jew could hardly escape without dire penalty. By means of it the seemingly impossible was achieved: a breed of people dispersed throughout the world was for seventeen hundred years kept apart from mankind and was trained for a destructive task in the Twentieth Century of the Christian era.

    Some account of that remarkable period of preparation and organization, when a fence was built around the Judaic Law, so that “liberty” should not absorb the special people or weaken their destructive force, is here appropriate.

    Next

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s