The History of Israel-US Relations How the “special relationship” was created

The History of Israel-US Relations

How the “special relationship” was created

Alison Weir
September 2011

hile many people are led to believe that US support for Israel is driven by the American establishment and U.S. national interests (an analysis that benefits Israel and is particularly promoted by Israel partisans), the facts don’t support this theory. The reality is that for decades U.S. experts opposed Israel and its founding movement. They were simply outmaneuvered and eventually replaced.

Like many American policies, U.S. Middle East policies are driven by a special interest lobby. However, the Israel Lobby, as it is called today in the U.S.[i], consists of vastly more than what most people envision by the word “lobby.”

It is considerably more powerful, far more pervasive, and consistently more deceptive than any other. And even though the movement for Israel has been operating in the U.S. for over a hundred years, most Americans are completely unaware of this movement and its attendant ideology – a measure of its unique power over public knowledge.

The success of this movement to achieve its goals, partly due to the hidden nature of much of its activity, has been staggering. It has also been at almost unimaginable cost.

It has led to massive tragedy in the Middle East: a hundred year war of violence and loss; sacred land soaked in sorrow.

What is less widely known is how profoundly damaging this movement has been to the United States itself. It has targeted every sector of American society for manipulation; worked to involve Americans in tragic, unnecessary, and almost catastrophically costly wars; dominated Congress for decades; determined which candidates may be contenders for the U.S. presidency; promoted bigotry toward an entire population, religion and culture; caused Americans to be exposed to escalating risk; and then exaggerated this danger (while disguising its cause) to foment irrational fears that are enabling the dismemberment of some of our nation’s most fundamental freedoms and cherished principles.

All this for a nation that today has reached a peak population of a little over seven million people; smaller than New Jersey.[ii]

The beginnings
The Israel Lobby is just the tip of an older and far larger iceberg known as “political Zionism,” an international movement that largely began in the late 1800s with the goal of creating a Jewish state somewhere in the world. In 1897 this movement, led by a European journalist named Theodore Herzl[iii], coalesced in the First Zionist World Congress, held in Basle, Switzerland, which established the World Zionist Organization, representing approximately 120 groups the first year; 900 the next.[iv]

While Zionists considered such places as Argentina, Uganda, and Texas, [v] they eventually settled on Palestine for the location of their proposed Jewish State, even though Palestine was already inhabited by a population that was 95 percent Muslim and Christian, who owned 99 percent of the land.[vi] As numerous Zionist diary entries, letters, and other documents show, these non-Jews were simply going to be pushed out – financially, if possible; by the sword if necessary.[vii]

In the U.S. Zionism largely began in the 1880s, although an earlier project with both a domestic and international focus called “The Board of Delegates of American Israelites” was organized in1861, which coalesced to block an effort by the Union during the Civil War to prepare a constitutional amendment declaring America a Christian nation.[viii]

In 1870 the group organized protest rallies around the country and lobbied Congress to take action against reported Romanian pogroms that had killed “thousands” of Jews. Although the chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee chair suggested that such reports might be exaggerated, under pressure from this group the Senate ordered the committee to take up the matter with the State Department. Eventually, it turned out the total killed had been zero.[ix]

In the 1880s groups advocating the setting up of a Jewish state began popping up around the country. Emma Lazarus, the poet whose words would adorn the Statue of Liberty, promoted Zionism throughout this decade.[x]

Reports from the Zionist World Congress in Basle, which four Americans had attended, gave this movement a major stimulus, galvanizing Zionist activities in almost every American city with a large Jewish population.[xi]

By the early 1890s organizations promoting Zionism existed in New York, Chicago, Baltimore, Milwaukee, Boston, Philadelphia, and Cleveland.[xii] Between December 1897 and the summer of 1898 numerous Zionist societies were founded in the East and the Midwest. In 1898 the first annual conference of American Zionists convened in New York on, ironically, the 4th of July, where they formed the Federation of American Zionists, (FAZ).[xiii]

In 1887 President Grover Cleveland appointed a Jewish ambassador to Turkey, establishing a precedent that every president, both Republican and Democrat, followed for the next 30 years. Jewish historian David G. Dalin explains that presidents recognized the importance of the Turkish embassy for Jewish Americans:

“…especially for the growing number of Zionists within the American Jewish electorate, since the Jewish homeland of Palestine remained under the direct control of the Turkish government. During this era, the ambassadorship to Turkey came to be considered a quasi-Jewish domain.”[xiv]
By 1910 the number of Zionists in the U.S. approached 20,000 and included lawyers, professors, and businessmen. Even in its infancy, when it was still considered relatively weak, Zionism was becoming a movement to which Congressmen, particularly in the eastern cities, began to listen.[xv]

It continued to expand and by 1914 several additional Zionist groups had cropped up. The religious Mizrachi faction was formed in 1903, the Labor party in 1905 and Hadassah, the women’s Zionist organization in 1912. And this was just the beginning.[xvi]

A Zionist official wrote in 1912 of “the zealous and incessant propaganda which is carried on by countless societies.”[xvii]

The State Department Objects
The State Department – not dependent on votes and campaign donations, and charged with recommending and implementing policies beneficial to all Americans, not just one tiny sliver working on behalf of a foreign entity – were less enamored with Zionists, who they felt were trying to use the American government for a project damaging to the United States. In memo after memo, year after year, U.S. diplomatic and military experts pointed out that Zionism was counter to both U.S. interests and principles.[xviii]

Secretary of State Philander Knox was perhaps the first in the pattern of State Department officials rejecting Zionist advances. In 1912, when the Zionist Literary Society approached President Taft for an endorsement, Knox turned them down flat, noting that “problems of Zionism involve certain matters primarily related to the interests of countries other than our own.”[xix]


While Zionists suffered one small setback in 1912, they garnered a far more significant victory in the same year; one that was to have enormous consequences both internationally and in the United States and that was part of a pattern of influence that continues through today.

Louis Brandeis

In 1912 prominent Jewish American attorney Louis Brandeis, who was to go on to become a Supreme Court Justice, became a Zionist. Within two years he became head of the international Zionist Central Office, which had moved to America a little while before.[xx]

While Brandeis is an unusually well-known Supreme Court Justice, very few Americans are aware of his significant and clandestine role in World War I, of his connection to Palestine, and of his actions that provide a kernel of factual basis for claims made decades later by antiwar activists called “anti-Semitic” for suggesting them.

Brandeis was a close personal friend of President Woodrow Wilson and used this position to advocate for the Zionist cause, at times serving as a conduit between British Zionists and the president.

In 1916 President Wilson named Brandeis to the Supreme Court. While Brandeis officially resigned from all his private clubs and various affiliations, including his leadership of Zionism, behind the scenes he continued this work, receiving daily reports in his Supreme Court chambers and issuing orders to his loyal lieutenants.[xxi]

When the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) was reorganized in 1918, Brandeis was listed as its “honorary president.” However, he was more than just “honorary.” As historian Donald Neff writes, “Through his lieutenants, he remained the power behind the throne.” One of these lieutenants was future Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter, another particularly well-regarded justice, and another whose Zionist activities have largely gone unnoted.[xxii]

Zionist membership expanded dramatically during World War I, despite the efforts of some Jewish anti-Zionists, who called the movement a “foreign, un-American, racist, and separatist phenomenon.”[xxiii]

World War I & the Balfour Declaration
Zionists played a role in America’s entry into World War I. Whether this was a major role, as Zionists claimed and British leaders believed, or a minor one, is unclear. What is clear, however, is that: (1) The Zionist role, whether large or small, in the American entry into Britain’s side in the “Great War” was a significant factor in world history,[xxiv] and (2) this fact has been almost completely covered up in U.S. history classes.

From the very beginning of their movement, Zionists realized that if they were to succeed in their goal of creating a Jewish state on land that was already inhabited by non-Jews, they needed Great Power backing. They tried the Ottoman Empire, which controlled Palestine at the time, but were turned down (although they were told that Jews could settle throughout other parts of the Ottoman empire and become Turkish citizens).[xxv]

They then turned to Britain, which was also initially less than enthusiastic. Famous English Arabists such as Gertrude Bell pointed out that Palestine was Arab and that Jerusalem was sacred to all three major monotheistic faiths.

Future Foreign Minister Lord George Curzon similarly stated that Palestine was already inhabited by half a million Arabs who would “not be content to be expropriated for Jewish immigrants or to act merely as hewers of wood and drawers of water for the latter.” [xxvi]

However, once the British were embroiled in World War I, and particularly during 1916, a disastrous year for the Allies, Zionists were able to play a winning card. They promised the British government that Zionists in the U.S. would push America to enter the war on the side of the British, if the British promised them they would support a Jewish home in Palestine afterward.[xxvii]

This pledge helped push Britain to support Zionism and resulted in the famous “Balfour Declaration,” a letter addressed to Lord Rothschild (which, while signed by British Foreign Minister Lord Balfour, was actually written by secret Zionist Leopold Amery[xxviii]).

In this declaration Britain promised to “view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people” and to “use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object.” It then qualified this somewhat by stating: “it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine.” The “non-Jewish communities” were 90 percent of Palestine’s population at that time.

While this was a less than ringing endorsement of Zionism, Zionists considered it a major breakthrough as it cracked open a door that they would later force wider and wider open.

These Balfour-WWI negotiations are referred to in various documents. For example, Samuel Landman, a leader of the Zionist-revisionists and secretary of the world Zionist organization, described them in a 1935 article in World Jewry:

“After an understanding had been arrived at between Sir Mark Sykes and [Zionists] Weizmann and Sokolow, it was resolved to send a secret message to Justice Brandeis that the British Cabinet would help the Jews to gain Palestine in return for active Jewish sympathy and for support in the USA for the Allied cause, so as to bring about a radical pro-Ally tendency in the United States.[xxix]
British Colonial Secretary Lord Cavendish, in a memorandum to the British Cabinet in 1923, reminded his colleagues:

“The object [of the Balfour Declaration] was to enlist the sympathies on the Allied side of influential Jews and Jewish organizations all over the world…[and it is arguable that the negotiations with the Zionists…did in fact have considerable effect in advancing the date at which the United States government intervened in the war.”[xxx]
Former British Prime Minister Lloyd George similarly referred to this deal, telling a British commission in 1935:

“Zionist leaders gave us a definite promise that, if the Allies committed themselves to giving facilities for the establishment of a national home for the Jews in Palestine, they would do their best to rally Jewish sentiment and support throughout the world to the Allied cause. They kept their word.”
American career Foreign Service Officer Evan M. Wilson, who had served as Minister-Consul General in Jerusalem, writes of Balfour:

“The pledge was given to the Jews largely for the purpose of enlisting Jewish support in the war and of forestalling a similar promise by the Central Powers.”[xxxi]
In 1917 President Wilson, who had been voted into office by Americans who believed his promises that he would keep them out of the war, changed course and plunged the U.S. into a tragic and pointless European conflict in which hundreds of thousands were killed and injured.[xxxii] Over 1,200 American citizens who opposed the war despite the rousing song about “Over There” were rounded up and imprisoned, some for years.[xxxiii]

Paris Peace Conference – 1919
The influence of Brandeis and other Zionists in the U.S. had enabled Zionists to form an alliance with Britain, one of the world’s great powers, a remarkable achievement for a non-state group and a measure of Zionists’ immense power. As historian Kolsky states, the Zionist movement was now “an important force in international politics.” [xxxiv]

After the war was over, American Zionists sent a delegation to Paris to join with other Jewish organizations at the conference, particularly the World Zionist Organization, to lobby for a Jewish “home”[xxxv] in Palestine and to push for Balfour wording to be incorporated in the peace accords.[xxxvi] They were strengthened by the fact that the American delegation to the Peace Conference also contained a number of highly placed Zionists.

Zionists were opposed in Paris by American Christian leaders from Mideast churches and colleges, a group that consistently supported Palestinian rights to self-determination through the years. Despite their efforts, joined by numerous prominent Christian leaders – including two of the most celebrated pastors of their day – they were, as a a pro-Israel author notes, “simply outgunned.”[xxxvii]

The most prominent American in the Middle East at the time, Dr. Howard Bliss, President of Beirut’s Syrian Protestant College (later to become the American University of Beirut), traveled to Paris to urge forming a commission to determine what the people of the Mideast wanted for themselves, a suggestion that was embraced by the U.S. diplomatic staff in Paris.[xxxviii]

Princeton’s Professor Philip Brown asserted that Zionism would be disastrous for both Arabs and Jews and went to Paris to lobby against it.[xxxix]

William Westermann, director of the State Department’s Western Asia Division, similarly opposed the Zionist position, writing that [it] impinges upon the rights and the desires of most of the Arab population of Palestine.” He and other US diplomats felt that Arab claims were much more in line with Wilson’s principles of self-determination and circulated Arab material.[xl]

President Wilson decided to send a commission to Palestine to investigate the situation in person. After spending six weeks in the area interviewing both Jews and Palestinians the commission, known as the King-Crane commission[xli], recommended against the Zionist position of unlimited immigration of Jews to make Palestine a distinctly Jewish state.[xlii]

The commissioners stated that the erection of a Jewish state in Palestine could be accomplished only with “the gravest trespass upon the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine,” pointing out that to subject the Palestinians “to steady financial and social pressure to surrender the land, would be a gross violation of the principle [of self-determination] and of the peoples’ rights…”[xliii]

They went on to point out that “the well-being and development” of the people in the region formed “a sacred trust, that the people of the region should become completely free, and that the national government should derive their authority from the initiative and free choice of the native populations.”[xliv]

Zionists through Brandeis dominated the situation, however, and managed to have the report suppressed until years after the Peace Accords were enacted. As a Zionist historian noted, “With the burial of the King-Crane Report, a major obstacle in the Zionist path disappeared.”[xlv] The US delegation was forced to follow Zionist directives.[xlvi]

Using “anti-Semitism” to promote Zionism
Long before Hitler, Zionists were pushing alleged European “anti-Semitism” as a way to procure support for their movement. In 1919 a brilliant young diplomat named Hugh Gibson was nominated to be U.S. Ambassador to Poland. After he arrived in Poland, he began to report that there were far fewer anti-Semitic incidents than being alleged. He wrote his mother: “These yarns are exclusively of foreign manufacture for anti-Polish purposes.”

His dispatches came to the attention of Brandeis and his protégé (and future supreme Court Justice) Felix Frankfurter, who demanded a meeting with Gibson. Gibson later wrote of their accusations:

“I had [they claimed] done more mischief to the Jewish race than anyone who had lived in the last century. They said…that my reports on the Jewish question had gone around the world and had undone their work…. They finally said that I had stated that the stories of excesses against the Jews were exaggerated, to which I replied that they certainly were and I should think any Jew would be glad to know it.”[xlvii]
Frankfurter hinted that if Gibson continued these reports, Zionists would block his confirmation by the Senate.

Gibson was outraged and sent a 21-page letter to the State Department. In it he shared his suspicions that this was part of “a conscienceless and cold-blooded plan to make the condition of the Jews in Poland so bad that they must turn to Zionism for relief.”

In 1923 another American diplomat in Poland, Vice Consul Monroe Kline, confirmed Gibson’s analysis:

“It is common knowledge that [Zionists] are continually and constantly spreading propaganda, through their agencies over the entire world, of political and religious persecution,” adding “The Jew in business oppresses the Pole to a far greater extent than does the Pole oppresses the Jew in a political way.”[xlviii]
By 1922 there were 200,000 Zionists in the U.S. and by 1948 this had grown to almost a million.[xlix] The Yiddish press from a very early period espoused the Zionist cause. By 1923 only one New York Yiddish newspaper failed to qualify as Zionist. Yiddish dailies reached 535,000 families in 1927.[l]

Using “anti-Semitism” to promote the Zionist agenda continued during the rise of Hitler, when Zionists sabotaged refugee efforts and at times collaborated with Nazis in their quest to convince the world of the necessity of creating a Jewish state in Palestine.[li]

Journalist Erskine B. Childers, son of a former Irish Prime Minister, wrote:

“One of the most massively important features of the entire Palestine struggle was that Zionism deliberately arranged that the plight of the wretched survivors of Hitlerism should be a ‘moral argument’ which the West had to accept. This was done by seeing to it that Western countries did not open their doors, widely and immediately, to the inmate of the DP [displaced persons] camps. It is incredible that so grave and grim a campaign has received so little attention in accounts of the Palestine struggle – it was a campaign that literally shaped all subsequent history. It was done by sabotaging specific Western schemes to admit Jewish DPs.”[lii]
When FDR made several efforts to provide havens for Nazi refugees, Zionists opposed these projects because they did not include Palestine. Morris Ernst, FDR’s international envoy for refugees, wrote:

“…active Jewish leaders decried, sneered and then attacked me as if I were a traitor. At one dinner party I was openly accused of furthering this plan of freer immigration in order to undermine political Zionism… Zionist friends of mine opposed it.”[liii] Ernst wrote that he found the same fanatical reaction among all Jewish groups and their leaders, who, he found, were “little concerned about human blood if it is not their own.”[liv]
FDR finally gave up, telling Ernst: “We can’t put it over because the dominant vocal Jewish leadership of America won’t stand for it.”[lv]

Fabricating “anti-Semitism” in Iraq
A number of people report that Zionist agents worked to cause Jews in various parts of the world to flee to Israel. Author and former CIA operative Wilbur Crane Eveland reports:

“In an attempt to portray the Iraqis as anti-American and to terrorize the Jews, the Zionists planted bombs in the U.S. Information Service library and in the synagogues. Soon leaflets began to appear urging Jews to flee to Israel… most of the world believed reports that Arab terrorism had motivated the flight of the Iraqi Jews whom the Zionists had ‘rescued’ really just in order to increase Israel’s Jewish population.”[lvi]
Similarly, Naeim Giladi, a Jewish-Iraqi author who later lived in Israel and the U.S., writes:

“Jews from Islamic lands did not emigrate willingly to Israel; that, to force them to leave, Jews killed Jews; and that, to buy time to confiscate ever more Arab lands, Jews on numerous occasions rejected genuine peace initiatives from their Arab neighbors. I write about what the first prime minister of Israel called ‘cruel Zionism.’ I write about it because I was part of it.”[lvii]
The modern Israel Lobby is born
The immediate precursor to today’s lobby began in the early 1940s under the leadership of Rabbi Abba Hillel Silver, originally from Lithuania. He created the American Zionist Emergency Council (AZEC), which by 1943 had acquired a budget of half a million dollars at a time when a nickel bought a loaf of bread.

On addition to this money, Zionists had become influential in creating the United Jewish Appeal in 1939[lviii], giving them access to the organization’s gargantuan financial resources: $14 million in 1941, $150 million by 1948.[lix]

With their extraordinary funding, AZEC embarked on a campaign to target every sector of American society. In the words of AZEC organizer Sy Kenen, they launched “a political and public relations offensive to capture the support of Congressmen, clergy, editors, professors, business and labor.”[lx] [lxi]

AZEC instructed activists to “make direct contact with your local Congressman or Senator” and to go after union members, wives and parents of servicemen, Jewish war veterans. They were provided with form letters to use and schedules of anti-zionist lecture tours to oppose and disrupt.

When Silver disliked a British move in 1945 that would be harmful to Zionists, AZEC booked Madison Square Garden, ordered advertisements, and mailed 250,000 announcements – the first day. By the second day they had organized demonstrations in 30 cities, a letter-writing campaign, and induced 27 U.S. Senators to give speeches about Palestine.[lxii]

Zionist action groups were organized at the grassroots level with more than 400 local committees under 76 state and regional branches. Books, articles and academic studies were funded by AZEC; millions of pamphlets were distributed. There were massive petition and letter writing campaigns. They targeted college presidents and deans and managed to get more than 150 to sign one of their petitions.[lxiii]

As Rabbi Elmer Berger describes in his memoirs, there was a “ubiquitous propaganda campaign reaching just about every point of political leverage in the country.”[lxiv]

In its 48th Annual Report the Zionist Organization of America bragged of the “immensity of our operations and their diversity. We reach into every department of American life…”[lxv]

Berger and other anti-Zionist Jewish Americans tried to organize against “the deception and cynicism with which the Zionist machine operated,” but failed to obtain anywhere near their level of funding. Among other things, people were afraid of “the savagery of personal attacks” anti-Zionists endured.[lxvi]

When Berger and a colleague from the anti-Zionist American Council for Judaism opposed a Zionist resolution in Congress, Emanuel Celler, a New York Democrat who was to serve in Congress for almost 50 years, told them: “They ought to take you b…s out and shoot you.”

Jacob Javits, another well-known Congressman, this one a Republican, told Zionist women: “We’ll fight to death and make a Jewish State in Palestine if it’s the last thing that we do.”[lxvii]

When Jewish schools didn’t sufficiently promote the Zionist cause, Zionists would infiltrate their boards of directors. When this didn’t work, they would start their own pro-Zionist schools.[lxviii]

In 1943-44 the ZOA distributed over a million leaflets and pamphlets to public libraries, chaplains, community centers, educators, ministers, writers and “others who might further the Zionist cause.”[lxix]

Zionist monthly sales of books totaled between 3,000 and 4,000 throughout 1944-45. Books by non-Jewish authors were subsidized by the Zionists and promoted jointly with commercial publishers, some making the nation’s best seller lists.”[lxx]

Christian support is actively pushed
Silver and other Zionists played a significant role in creating Christian support for Zionism. Secret Zionist funds, eventually reaching $150,000 in 1946, were used to revive an elitest Protestant group, the American Palestine Committee. Silver’s headquarters issued a directive:

“In every community an American Christian Palestine Committee must be immediate organized.”
AZEC formed another group among clergymen, the Christian Council on Palestine.

An internal AZEC memo stated that the aim of both groups was to “crystallize the sympathy of Christian America for our cause.”

By the end of the World War II the Christian Council on Palestine had grown to 3,000 members and the American Palestine Committee boasted a membership of 6,500 public figures, including senators, congressmen, cabinet members, governors, state officers, mayors, jurists, clergymen, educators, writers, publishing, civic and industrial leaders.”[lxxi]

Historian Richard Stevens points out that Christian support was largely gained by exploiting their wish to help people in need. The Zionists proclaimed “the tragic plight of refugees fleeing from persecution and finding no home,” thus linking the refugee problem with Palestine as allegedly the only solution.

Steven explains:

“The reason for this was clear. For while many Americans might not support the creation of a Jewish state, traditional American humanitarianism could be exploited in favor of the Zionist cause through the refugee problems.”[lxxii]
Few if any of these Christian supporters had any idea of the nature of Zionism and that the creation of the Jewish state would entail a massive expulsion of hundreds of thousands of the non-Jews who made up the large majority of Palestine’s population, creating a new and much longer lasting refugee problem.

Nor did they learn that during and after Israel’s founding 1947-49 war, Zionist forces attacked a number of Christian sites. Author Donald Neff reports:

“…after the capture by Jewish forces of Jaffa on May 13, 1948, two days before Israel’s birth, there was desecration of Christian churches. Father Deleque, a Catholic priest, reported:
“‘Jewish soldiers broke down the doors of my church and robbed many precious and sacred objects. Then they threw the statues of Christ down into a nearby garden.’ He added that Jewish leaders had reassured that religious buildings would be respected, ‘but their deeds do not correspond to their words.’
“On May 31, 1948, a group of Christian leaders comprising the Christian Union of Palestine publicly complained that Jewish forces had used 10 Christian churches and humanitarian institutions in Jerusalem as military bases and otherwise desecrated them. They added that a total of 14 churches had suffered shell damage, which killed three priests and made casualties of more than 100 women and children.
“The group’s statement said Arab forces had abided by their promise to respect Christian institutions, but that the Jews had forcefully occupied Christian structures and been indiscriminate in shelling churches.
“It said, among other charges, that ‘many children were killed or wounded’ by Jewish shells on the Convent of Orthodox Copts on May 19, 23 and 24; that eight refugees were killed and about 120 wounded at the Orthodox Armenian Convent at some unstated date; and that Father Pierre Somi, secretary to the Bishop, had been killed and two wounded at the Orthodox Syrian Church of St. Mark on May 16.”[lxxiii]
After Zionist soldiers invaded and looted a convent in Tiberias, the U.S. Consulate sent a bitter dispatch back to the State Department complaining of “the Jewish attitude in Jerusalem towards Christian institutions.’”[lxxiv] [lxxv]

State Department & Pentagon opposition
State Department and Pentagon analysts consistently opposed Zionism, considering it deeply harmful to US interests and counter to fundamental American principles. The view of American career Foreign Service Officer Evan M. Wilson, who had served as Minister-Consul General in Jerusalem, was typical:

“As my thinking on the substance of the Palestine question evolved, especially following a visit that I paid to Palestine in 1946, I came to the conclusion that for our government to advocate the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine against the will of the majority of the inhabitants of that country (the Arabs) would be a mistake that would have an adverse effect upon world peace and upon U.S. interests.”[lxxvi]
Loy Henderson, director of the Office of Near Eastern and African Affairs, was one of a many career American diplomats who frequently wrote of this. In a memo to Secretary of State James Byrnes after World War II, Henderson stated:

“….support by the Government of the United States of a policy favoring the settling up of a Jewish State in Palestine would be contrary to the wishes of a large majority of the local inhabitants with respect to their form of government. Furthermore, it would have a strongly adverse effect upon American interests throughout the Near and Middle East….
He went on to emphasize:

“At the present time the United States has a moral prestige in the Near and Middle East unequaled by that of any other great power. We would lose that prestige and would be likely for many years to be considered as a betrayer of the high principles which we ourselves have enunciated during the period of the war.”
When Zionists began a campaign to push a partition plan through the UN, in which 55 percent of Palestine would be given to a Jewish state, even though Jews represented only 30 percent of the inhabitants and owned only about 6 percent of the land[lxxvii], Henderson strenuously recommended against supporting their proposal.

He stated that such a partition would have to be implemented by force and emphasized that it was “not based on any principle.” He went on to write:

“…[partition] would guarantee that the Palestine problem would be permanent and still more complicated in the future….[proposals for partition] are in definite contravention to various principles laid down in the [UN] Charter as well as to principles on which American concepts of Government are based. These proposals, for instance, ignore such principles as self-determination and majority rule. They recognize the principle of a theocratic racial state and even go so far in several instances as to discriminate on grounds of religion and race…”[lxxviii]
Henderson noted that this was a fundamental violation of American principles, stating:

“We have hitherto always held that in our foreign relations American citizens, regardless of race or religion, are entitled to uniform treatment.” [lxxix]
On Nov 24th Loy Henderson circulated yet another anti-partition memorandum:

“I feel it again to be my duty to point out that it seems to me and all the members of my Office acquainted with the Middle East that the policy which we are following in New York at the present time is contrary to the interests of the United States and will eventually involve us in international difficulties of so grave a character that the reaction throughout the world, as well as in this country, will be very strong…”[lxxx]
Zionists attacked Henderson virulently, calling him “anti-Semitic,” demanding his resignation, and threatening his family. They tried to pressure the State Department to, as one analyst described it,

“…play with him the historic game of musical chairs” in which officials who recommended Middle East policies “consistent with the nation’s interests were transferred to theatres of diplomatic activity where the Middle East was not an issue.”[lxxxi]
In 1948 Truman sent Henderson to the slopes of the Himalayas, as Ambassador to Nepal. (In recent years, virtually every State Department country desk has typically been directed by a Zionist.)

Henderson was far from alone in making his recommendations. He emphasized that his views were not only those of the entire Near East Division but were shared by “nearly every member of the Foreign Service or of the Department who has worked to any appreciable extent on Near Eastern problems.”[lxxxii]

He wasn’t exaggerating. Official after official and agency after agency opposed Zionism.

In 1947 the CIA’s “Review of the World Situation as It Relates to the Security of the United States” reported that Zionist leadership, “exploiting widespread humanitarian sympathy” with Jews, was pursuing objectives that would endanger both Jews and “the strategic interests of the Western powers in the Near and Middle East.[lxxxiii]

George F. Kennan, the State Department’s Director of Policy Planning, issued a top secret document entitled “Report by the Policy Planning Staff on Position of the United States with Respect to Palestine” on January 19, 1947 that outlined the enormous damage done to the US by the partition plan.

He cautioned that “important U.S. oil concessions and air base rights” could be lost be through US support for partition and warned that the USSR stood to gain by the partition plan.

Kennan pointed out that because of Zionist-induced sponsorship of partition:

“U.S. prestige in the Muslim world has suffered a severe blow and US strategic interests in the Mediterranean and Near East have been seriously prejudiced. Our vital interests in those areas will continue to be adversely affected to the extent that we continue to support partition….” [lxxxiv]
Henry F. Grady, who has been called “America’s top diplomatic soldier for a critical period of the Cold War” and who headed up a 1946 commission to try to come up with a solution for Palestine, later wrote about the power of the Zionist lobby in countering their efforts:

“I have had a good deal of experience with lobbies but this group started where those of my experienced had ended….. I have headed a number of government missions but in no other have I ever experienced so much disloyalty”…… “in the United States, since there is no political force to counterbalance Zionism, its campaign are apt to be decisive.”[lxxxv]
Grady concluded that without Zionist pressure, the U.S. would not have had “the ill-will with the Arab states, which are of such strategic importance in our ‘cold war’ with the soviets.[lxxxvi]

Undersecretary of State Dean Acheson was another who strenuously opposed what he felt was a potentially disastrous Zionist agenda. Acheson biographer Robert Beisner writes that Acheson’s sympathies “were with Marshall and the Department professionals” and reports that Acheson “worried that the West would pay a high price for Israel.” Author John Mulhall reports Acheson’s strong opinion:

“…to transform [Palestine] into a Jewish State capable of receiving a million or more immigrants would vastly exacerbate the political problem and imperil not only American but all Western interests in the Near East.”[lxxxvii]
Secretary of Defense James Forrestal also tried, unsuccessfully, to oppose the Zionists. He was outraged that Truman’s Mideast policy was based on what he called “squalid political purposes,” asserting that “United States policy should be based on United States national interests and not on domestic political considerations.”[lxxxviii]

Forrestal represented the general Pentagon view when he said “no group in this country should be permitted to influence our policy to the point where it could endanger our national security.”

When Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Jr., a young Congressman, warned that the democratic party would lose if an anti-partition plan were proposed, Forrestal responded: “I think it is about time that somebody should pay some consideration to whether we might not lose the United States.”[lxxxix]

Zionists attacked Forrestal venemously and Berger recalls that he became “the favorite whipping boy of the Zionist-dominated press.” Zionist Walter Winchell and pro-Soviet Drew Pearson (Forrestal also opposed Stalin) launched vicious personal attacks.[xc] At odds with Truman on a number of issues, in 1949 Forrestal was hospitalized in the National Naval Medical Center with a diagnosis of severe depression, where it was reported that he committed suicide. His brother, a businessman, did not believe this cause of death.[xci]

The head of the State Department’s Division of Near Eastern Affairs, Gordon P. Merriam, was yet another high level official who warned against the partition plan:

“U.S. support for partition of Palestine as a solution to that problem can be justified only on the basis of Arab and Jewish consent. Otherwise we should violate the principle of self-determination which has been written into the Atlantic Charter, the declaration of the United Nations, and the United Nations Charter–a principle that is deeply embedded in our foreign policy. Even a United Nations determination in favor of partition would be, in the absence of such consent, a stultification and violation of UN’s own charter.”[xcii]
Merriam added that without consent, “bloodshed and chaos” would follow, a tragically accurate prediction.

A report by the National Security Council warned that the Palestine turmoil was acutely endangering the security of the United States. A CIA report stressed the strategic importance of the Middle East and its oil resources.[xciii]

Kermit Roosevelt, Teddy Roosevelt’s nephew and a legendary intelligence agent, was another who was deeply disturbed by events, noting:

“The process by which Zionist Jews have been able to promote American support for the partition of Palesine demonstrates the vital need of a foreign policy based on national rather than partisan interests… Only when the national interests of the United States, in their highest terms, take precedence over all other considerations, can a logical, farseeing foreign policy be evolved. No American political leader has the right to compromise American interests to gain partisan votes…”[xciv]
He went on:

“The present course of world crisis will increasingly force upon Americans the realization that their national interests and those of the proposed Jewish state in Palestine are going to conflict. It is to be hoped that American Zionists and non-Zionists alike will come to grips with the realities of the problem.”
When Eleanor Roosevelt, who was heavily influenced by Zionists[xcv], and others on an the “American Association for the United Nations” decided to allot funds for pro-partition ads in the New York Times, Kermit’s wife tried to prevent the disbursement. As usual when one tried to oppose Zionists, she failed.[xcvi]

An internal State Department memorandum accurately predicted beforehand what actually came to pass:

“…the Jews will be the actual aggressors against the Arabs. However, the Jews will claim that they are merely defending the boundaries of a state which were traced by the UN…In the event of such Arab outside aid the Jews will come running to the Security Council with the claim that their state is the object of armed aggression and will use every means to obscure the fact that it is their own armed aggression against the Arabs inside which is the cause of Arab counter-attack.”[xcvii]
American Vice Consul William J. Porter, predicted, with deadly accuracy, that there would be no Arab State in Palestine.[xcviii]

Pro-Israel agenda dominates US policies
In 1949 US Consul Burdett reported that Israeli officials were openly bragging about the power of the Jewish American community to influence US policy. He reported: “Israel eventually intends to obtain all of Palestine….”[xcix]

American Ambassador Lewis W. Douglas tried to convince Truman not to accede to Zionist wishes, arguing: “…no public office, however great its prestige, is worth gambling with the vital interests of the US.”[c]

Opposing such analysts was Truman’s political advisor, Clark Clifford, who believed that the Jewish vote and contributions were essential to winning the upcoming presidential election. Truman’s opponent, Dewey, took similar stands for similar reasons.

Truman’s Secretary of State George Marshall, the renowned World War II General and author of the Marshall Plan, was furious to see electoral considerations taking precedence over policies that were in the national interest. He condemned what he called a “transparent dodge to win a few votes,” which would cause “[t]he great dignity of the office of President [to be] be seriously diminished.”

Marshall wrote that the counsel offered by Clifford “was based on domestic political considerations, while the problem which confronted us was international. I said bluntly that if the President were to follow Mr. Clifford’s advice and if in the elections I were to vote, I would vote against the President…”

Truman wrote in his memoirs: “I do not think I ever had as much pressure and propaganda aimed at the White House as I had in this instance.” There were now about a million dues-paying Zionists in the U.S.[ci]

Then, as now, in addition to unending pressure there was financial compensation, Truman reportedly receiving a suitcase full of money from Zionists while on his train campaign around the country.[cii]

Personal influences

One person key in such Zionist financial connections to Truman was Abraham Feinberg, a wealthy businessman who was later to play a similar role with Kennedy and Johnson. While many Americans at the time and since have been aware of Truman’s come-from-behind win over Dewey, few people know about the critical role of Feinberg and the Zionist lobby in financing Truman’s victory.

An individual inside the US government who worked to influence policy was David K. Niles, executive assistant first to FDR and then to Truman. Niles, according to author Alfred Lilienthal, was “a member of a select group of confidential advisers with an often-quoted passion for anonymity. Niles… though occasionally publicized as Mr. Truman’s Mystery Man, remained totally unknown to the public.”[ciii] Behind the scenes Niles was regularly briefed by the head of the Washington Office of the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA).

When it was discovered that top secret information was being passed on to the Israeli government, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Omar Bradley told Truman he would have to choose between Bradley and Niles. Not long after, Niles resigned and went on a visit to Israel.[civ]

Another who helped influence Truman was his old Kansas City friend and business partner, Eddie Jacobson, active in B’nai B’rith and “a passionate believer in Jewish nationalism,” who was able to procure Zionist access to the President at key times. [cv] Truman credited Jacobson with making a contribution of “decisive importance.”[cvi]

Evan M Wilson, a longtime diplomat who had been U.S. Consul General in Jerusalem, later wrote that Truman had been largely motivated by “domestic political considerations.”[cvii] At least one of Truman’s key policy speeches had been drafted primarily by the Washington representative of the Jewish Agency.[cviii]

Acting Secretary of State James E. Webb in a dispatch to Secretary of State Acheson noted the obvious:

“Past record suggests Israel has had more influence with US than has US with Israel.”[cix]

Pushing through the UN Partition Plan
Just as Zionists had succeeded in pushing U.S. support of the partition strategy over the objections of US experts, they managed to push it through the UN using an orchestrated campaign of bribes and threats.

Robert Nathan, who had worked for the government and was particularly active in the Jewish Agency, wrote afterward, “We used any tools at hand,” such as telling certain delegations that the Zionists would use their influence to block economic aid to any countries that did not vote the right way.[cx] Another Zionist proudly described their activities:

“Every clue was meticulously checked and pursued. Not the smallest or the remotest of nations, but was contacted and wooed. Nothing was left to chance.”[cxi]
Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter, along with ten senators and Clark Clifford, threatened the Philippines (seven bills were pending on the Philippines in Congress). David Niles organized similar pressure on Liberia; Harvey Firestone pressured Liberia. Bernard Baruch told France they would lose U.S. aid if they voted against partition. Latin American delegates were told that the Pan-American highway construction project would be more likely if they voted yes. Delegates’ wives received mink coats (the wife of the Cuban delegate returned hers); Costa Rica’s President Jose Figueres reportedly received a blank checkbook. Haiti was promised economic aid if it would change its original vote opposing partition.[cxii]

Before the vote the Philippine delegate had given a passionate speech against partition, defending the inviolable “primordial rights of a people to determine their political future and to preserve the territorial integrity of their native land…” He went on to say that he could not believe that the General Assembly would sanction a move that would place the world “back on the road to the dangerous principles of racial exclusiveness and to the archaic documents of theocratic governments.”[cxiii]

Twenty-four hours later, after intense Zionist pressure, the delegate was forced to vote in favor of partition.

Even the U.S. delegation to the U.N. was so outraged at supporting partition that the State Department director of U.N. affairs was sent to New York to “prevent the U.S. delegation from resigning en masse.”[cxiv]

33 massacres later, Israel comes into existence
The passing of the partition resolution in November 1947 trigged the violence that State Department and Pentagon analysts had predicted and for which Zionists had been preparing. There were at least 33 massacres of Palestinian villages,[cxv] half of them before a single Arab army joined the conflict. Zionist forces were better equipped and had more men under arms than their opponents[cxvi] and by the end of Israel’s “War of Independence” over 750,000 Palestinian men, women, and children were ruthlessly expelled. Zionists had succeeded in the first half of their goal: Israel, the self-described Jewish State, had come into existence.[cxvii]

Descriptions of the massacres, by both Palestinians and Israelis, are nightmarish. An Israeli eyewitness reported that at the village of al-Dawayima:

“The children they killed by breaking their heads with sticks. There was not a house without dead….One soldier boasted that he had raped a woman and then shot her.”[cxviii] One woman testified that a man shot her nine-month-pregnant sister and then cut her stomach open with a butcher knife.[cxix]
Swiss Red Cross representative Jacques de Reynier was one of the first to arrive at the massacre of the small, neutral Palestinian village, Deir Yassin, in April 1948 (before any Arab armies had joined the war). Author George Ball (who had been undersecretary of state under Johnson and Kennedy, and ambassador to the United Nations) writes that the representative “found 150 bodies thrown into a cistern and another 40 to 50 at one side. He counted in all 254 dead, including 145 women, of whom 35 were pregnant.”[cxx]

The attackers reportedly lined up families – men, women, grandparents and children, even infants – and shot them.

An eyewitness and future colonel in the Israeli military later wrote of the Irgun and Stern members:

“They didn’t know how to fight, but as murderers they were pretty good.”[cxxi]
Reynier wrote in his diary that when he arrived members of the Zionist underground militia known as the Irgun,[cxxii] were still entering houses with guns and knives. He saw one young Jewish woman carrying a blood-covered dagger, saw another stab an old couple at the doorway of their home. Reynier wrote that the scene reminded him of S.S. troops he had seen in Athens.

Richard Catling, British assistant inspector general for the criminal division, reported:

“There is… no doubt that many sexual atrocities were committed by the attacking Jews. Many young school girls were raped and later slaughtered. Old women were also molested.”[cxxiii]
The attack was perpetrated by two Zionist militias (whose heads, Menachem Begin and Ytzakh Shamir, were later to become Prime Ministers of Israel) and was coordinated with the main Zionist forces, whose elite unit participated in part of the operation.[cxxiv]

Menachem Begin, head of the Irgun who later became Israeli Prime Minister, sent the following message to his troops about their victory at Deir Yassin:

“Accept my congratulations on this splendid act of conquest. Convey my regards to all the commanders and soldiers. We shake your hands. We are all proud of the excellent leadership and the fighting spirit in this great attack. We stand to attention in memory of the slain. We lovingly shake the hands of the wounded. Tell the soldiers: you have made history in Israel with your attack and your conquest. Continue thus until victory. As in Deir Yassin, so everywhere, we will attack and smite the enemy. God, God, Thou has chosen us for conquest.”[cxxv]
Approximately six months later, Begin (who had also publicly taken credit for a number of other terrorist acts, including blowing up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, which had killed 91 people) came on a tour of America. The tour’s sponsors included such prominent Americans as playwright Ben Hecht, a fervent Zionist who applauded Irgun violence[cxxvi], and eventually included 11 Senators, 12 governors, 70 Congressmen, 17 Justices, and numerous other public officials.

As a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee remarked:

“Put any petition with the name Jew on it before a candidate in an election year, and you can get anyone to sign anything.”
The State Department, fully aware of his violent activities in Palestine, tried to reject Begin’s visa but was overruled by Truman.[cxxvii]

Begin later proudly admitted his terrorism in an interview for American television. When the interviewer asked him, “How does it feel, in the light of all that’s going on, to be the father of terrorism in the Middle East?” Begin proclaimed, “In the Middle East? In all the world!”)[cxxviii]

Terrorists set up US front groups
The Irgun had been operating in the U.S. since the 1930s. As one of their leaders later wrote, “It was in Europe of those days that the idea of transferring the focal point of our activity to the United States was born, and it was from there that we left on a mission that lasted far longer than originally planned…”[cxxix]

The “we” referred to a small group known as the Irgun Delegation that operated in the U.S. from the late 1930s until 1948 and that formed a half dozen front organizations for what they themselves called “a military operation” and that largely consisted of propaganda aimed at the American public.[cxxx]

Two of the leaders were Yitshaq Ben-Ami (father of the founder of today’s J-Street) and “Peter Bergson,” the pseudonym of the senior Irgun officer working outside Palestine, Hillel Kook. The group is often called the Bergson Group. [cxxxi] [cxxxii]

Among their numerous activities they lobbied Congress and the White House, organized a march on Washington, D.C. of 500 Rabbis, placed full-page ads in newspapers around the U.S., and produced a pageant “We Will Never Die!” celebrating the Jewish contribution to Western civilization, written by Ben Hecht, directed by Moss Hart, featuring music by Kurt Weil, and starring Edward G. Robinson.

Forty thousand attended its New York performances. It then went on to play in most of America’s largest cities.[cxxxiii]

While the various organizations created by the Irgun Delegation frequently pushed for rescuing European Jews, one of the major demands was for the creation of a “Jewish Army of Stateless and Palestinian Jews.” This was a goal that Revisionist Zionists had sought even before the Nazi holocaust had begun and is believed to have had a mixed agenda. Author William Rubinstein writes:

“It is rather difficult to believe that Bergson’s implausible proposal did not have far more to do with creating the nucleus of a Jewish Palestinian force, to be used against the British and the Arabs, than with saving Europe’s Jews from the Nazis.”[cxxxiv]
Critics point out that the delegation did not manage to rescue any Jews during the Nazi holocaust.[cxxxv]

Bergson-Kook’s uncle was Rabbi Avraham Yitzhak Kook, originally from Eastern Europe, who became the “Chief Rabbi of Israel” even before it became a state, worked toward the Balfour Declaration in Britain, and most importantly, devised an ideology that merged a kabalistic version (the Cabbala holds that every non-Jew is an embodiment of Satan) of religious Judaism with political Zionism, founding an extremist religious Zionism that continues today.[cxxxvi]

Rabbi Kook, who achieved saintly status among his followers in Israel and the U.S., stated: “The difference between a Jewish soul and souls of non-Jews… is greater and deeper than the difference between a human soul and the souls of cattle.”[cxxxvii]

In addition to spanning the Jewish religious-secular continuum, the Irgun Delegation spanned the political spectrum, its historian Judith Baumel writing that it “evinced many of the unique characteristics of Eastern European protofascism” while also forming partnerships with communists and Jews who belonged to left-wing American groups.[cxxxviii]

All of this was hidden from view, however, as the “Bergson Boys” aimed for the American man in the street, using tantalizing slogans, illustrated advertisements, and “seductive curiosity-whetting gimmicks.” As its Baumel notes, the Irgun Delegation’s primary triumph was to “understood the power of Madison Avenue.”[cxxxix]

Another terrorist front group, the Political Action Committee for Palestine, was formed by Rabbi Baruch Korf, who indirectly admitted that the financing of terrorism was among its activities. In 1948 Korf published a large advertisement in the New York Post calling a State Department policy against enforcing partition “pure and simple anti-Semitism… plain everyday anti-Semitism, incorporated in the hearts and minds of those who govern free America.”[cxl]

Author Grant Smith, filing numerous Freedom of Information Requests, has uncovered information on numerous such illegal Zionist activities. The Truman administration, with Feinberg as a major campaign donor, failed to act on CIA reports about Feinberg and Zionist illicit arms trafficking from the US. [cxli]

Among these was the “Sonneborn Institute,” named after its founder, Rudolf G. Sonneborn, scion of a wealthy German-Jewish family from Baltimore. [cxlii]

Sonneborn had first met Zionist leader and future Israeli Prime Minister David Ben Gurion in 1919 when Sonneborn, at the behest of family friend Supreme Court Justice Brandeis, had traveled to the Versailles peace conference as secretary of a Zionist delegation and afterward gone on a tour of Palestine.[cxliii]

In 1945 Sonneborn and Ben Gurion hosted a meeting of 17 well-connected guests at a Sonneborn’s Manhattan penthouse. They came from Los Angeles, Toronto, Miami, Birmingham, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Columbus, Minneapolis, St. Louis, Newark, New Haven and New York. One was a rabbi, five were lawyers, the others were highly successful businessmen.

The purpose, Ben Gurion explained, was to create a secret underground organization that would be the American arm of the Zionist paramilitary in Palestine, the Haganah. The organization was to have a representative in at least 35-40 industry groups, and in one month alone there were meetings in Memphis; Ohio; New Jersey; Cedar Rapids; Iowa City; Baton Rouge; Dallas; Washington DC; and 40 more were scheduled. [cxliv]

The purpose was to raise money and support “for purposes which could not be publicized or even fully disclosed.” A variety of front groups were created for military arms and equipment smuggling of everything from machine guns to B-17s.[cxlv]

US authorities tried to stop what were not only illegal but also extremely damaging activities. In 1948 the Director of Central Intelligence, Rear Admiral R.H. Hillenkoetter, filed a top-secret report with the Secretary of Defense about the Zionist arms trafficking. He warned:

“U.S. National security is unfavorably affected by these developments and it could be seriously jeopardized by continued illicit traffic in the ‘implements of war.’”[cxlvi]
Smith reports that under Truman “the role of Feinberg and Haganah operative groups active in arms trafficking within the US, like the terrorist charges, would only be lightly investigated and seldom prosecuted.”[cxlvii]

Palestinian refugees
By 1949 as a result of Israel’s “War of Independence” and its campaign to cleanse the land of as many non-Jews as possible,[cxlviii] there were hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees. U.S. Representative in Israel McDonald sent an urgent report to Truman:

“Arab refugee tragedy is rapidly reaching catastrophic proportions and should be treated as a disaster. …..Of approximately 400,000 refugees approaching winter with cold heavy rains will, it is estimated, kill more than 100,000 old men, women and children who are shelterless and have little or no food.”[cxlix]
The number of refugees continued to grow, reaching at least three-quarters of a million. U.S. Diplomats in Cairo and Amman described a disastrous situation in which the “almost nonexistent resources” of Arab countries inundated by desperate, starving Palestinian refugees were stretched almost to the breaking point.

The State Department reported that during the last nine months of 1948 Arab states had donated $11 million to refugee aid, stating, “This sum, in light of the very slender budgets of most of these governments, is relatively enormous.”[cl]

During this time, the report noted, “…the total direct relief offered…by the Israeli government to date consists of 500 cases of oranges.”[cli]

Meanwhile, Israel had acquired properties worth at least $480 million in 1947 dollars; one estimate put the figure at $35 billion in 1990 dollars.[clii]

“In the process of “Judaizing” Palestine, numerous convents, hospices, seminaries, and churches were either destroyed or cleared of their Christian owners and custodians. In one of the most spectacular attacks on a Christian target, on May 17, 1948, the Armenian Orthodox Patriarchate was shelled with about 100 mortar rounds—launched by Zionist forces from the already occupied monastery of the Benedictine Fathers on Mount Zion.

The bombardment also damaged St. Jacob’s Convent, the Archangel’s Convent, and their appended churches, their two elementary and seminary schools, as well as their libraries, killing eight people and wounding 120.”[cliii]

Truman, whose caving in to Zionist pressures had helped create the disaster, now tried to convince Israel to allow the refugees to return to their homes. His main representative working on this was Mark Ethridge, former publisher of the Louisville Courier Journal.

Ethridge was disgusted at Israel’s refusal, reporting to the State Department:

“What I can see is an abortion of justice and humanity to which I do not want to be midwife…”[cliv]
The State Department finally threatened to withhold $49 million of unallocated funds from an Export-Import Bank loan to Israel if it did not allow at least 200,000 refugees to return. The U.S. coordinator on Palestine refugee Matters George C. McGhee delivered the message to the Israeli ambassador and later described his response:

“The ambassador looked me straight in the eye and said, in essence, that I wouldn’t get by with this move, that he would stop it… Within an hour of my return to my office I received a message from the White House that the President wished to dissociated himself from any withholding of the Ex-Im Bank loan.”[clv]
Edwin Wright, a State Department Middle East specialist from 1945-47, was the subject of an oral history interview many years later for the Truman Library. As he stated when this was completed:

“The material I gave Professor McKinzie was of a very controversial nature–one almost taboo in U.S. circles, inasmuch as I accused the Zionists of using political pressures and even deceit in order to get the U.S. involved in a policy of supporting a Zionist theocratic, ethnically exclusive and ambitious Jewish State. I, and my associates in the State Department, felt this was contrary to U.S. interests and we were overruled by President Truman.”[clvi]
Zionist influence in the media
As historian Richard Stevens notes, Zionists early on learned to exploit the essential nature of the American political system: that policies can be made and un-made through force of public opinion and pressure. Procuring influence in the media, both paid and unpaid, has been a key component of their success.[clvii]

From early on, the Zionist narrative largely dominated news coverage of the region. A study of four leading newspapers’ 1917 coverage showed that editorial opinion almost universally favored the Zionist position. Author Kathleen Christison notes that “editorials and news stories alike applauded Jewish enterprise, heralding a Jewish return to Palestine as ‘glorious news’.” Other studies showed the same situation for the 1920s.

Christison writes:

“The relatively heavy press coverage is an indicator of the extent of Zionist influence even in this early period. One scholar has estimated that, as of the mid-1920s, approximately half of all New York Times articles were placed by press agents, suggesting that U.S. Zionist organizations may have placed many of the articles on Zionism’s Palestine endeavors.”[clviii]
At one point when the State Department was trying to convince Israel to allow Palestinian refugees to return, Secretary of State Marshall wrote:

“The leaders of Israel would make a grave miscalculation if they thought callous treatment of this tragic issue could pass unnoted by world opinion.”[clix]
Marshall underestimated the ability of Zionists to minimize the amount of information on this from reaching Americans. A State Department study in March 1949 found the American public was “unaware of the Palestine refugee problem, since it has not been hammered away at by the press or radio.”[clx]

As author Alfred Lilienthal explained in 1953:

“The capture of the American press by Jewish nationalism was, in fact, incredibly complete. Magazines as well as newspapers, in news stories as well as editorial columns, gave primarily the Zionist views of events before, during, and after partition.”[clxi]
When the Saturday Evening Post published an article by Milton Mayer that criticized Jewish nationalism (and carried two other articles giving opposing views), Zionists organized what was probably the worst attack on the Post in its long history.

The magazine was inundated with vitriolic mail, subscriptions cancelled, and advertising withdrawn. The Post learned its lesson, later refusing to publish an article that would have again exposed it to such an onslaught, even though the editor acknowledged that the rejected piece was a “good and eloquent article.”[clxii]

This was typical in a campaign in which Zionists exploited sympathy for victimized Jews, and when this did not sufficiently skew reporting about Palestine, they used financial pressure. Lilienthal writes:

“If ‘voluntary’ compliance was not ‘understanding’ enough, there was always the matter of Jewish advertising and circulation. The threat of economic recriminations from Jewish advertisers, combined with the fact that the fatal label of ‘Anti-Semite’ would be pinned on any editor stepping out of line, assured fullest press cooperation.”[clxiii]
Author Christison records that from the moment partition was voted by the UN, “[T]he press played a critical role in building a framework for thinking that would endure for decades.” She writes that shortly before May 15, 1948, the scheduled beginning of the Jewish State, a total of 24 U.S., British, and Australian reporters converged on Palestine.

“Virtually all reporting was from the Jewish perspective. The journals the Nation and the New Republic both showed what one scholar calls ‘an overt emotional partiality’ toward the Jews. No item published in either journal was sympathetic to the Arabs, and no correspondent was stationed in Arab areas of Palestine, although some reporters lived with, and sometimes fought alongside, Jewish settlers.”[clxiv]
Bookstores were inundated with books espousing the Zionist point of view to enthusiastic press reviews. Conversely, the few books published that dared to provide a different perspective were given scathing reviews, when they were reviewed at all.[clxv]

When Professor Millar Burrows of the Yale School of Divinity, a distinguished scholar and archaeologist, wrote Palestine Is Our Business, the American Zionist Council distributed a publication labeling his book “an anti-Semitic opus.”

In fact, Professor Burrows’ life history showed the opposite. He had been one of the organizers and Vice-President of the National Committee to Combat Anti-Semitism and had long been active in the interfaith movement in New Haven.[clxvi]

When the eminent dean of Barnard College, Virginia Gildersleeve, a highly distinguished personage with impeccable credentials as a humanitarian, wrote that Palestinian refugees should be allowed to return to their homes, a campaign was begun against her as a Christian “anti-Semite.”[clxvii]

Gildersleeve, who had been instrumental in drafting the Preamble to the U.N. Charter and had taken a leading role in creating the U.N. Human Rights Commission, later devoted herself to working for human rights in the Middle East. She testified before Congressional committees and lobbied President Truman, to no avail. In her memoir, she attributed such failures to “the Zionist control of the media of communication.”[clxviii]

Dorothy Thompson, Katharine Hepburn & Lauren Bacall

America’s most famous female journalist of the time also attempted valiantly, but unsuccessfully, to tell Americans about Palestinian refugees.

According to the Britannica encyclopedia, Dorothy Thompson was one of the most famous female journalists of the 20th Century.

Her column was in newspapers all over the country, her radio program listened to by tens of millions of Americans, she had been married to one of America’s most famous novelists, graced the cover of Time Magazine, been profiled by America’s top magazines and was so well-known that “Woman of the Year,” a Hollywood movie featuring Kathryn Hepburn and Spencer Tracey and a Broadway play starring Lauren Bacall were based on Thompson.[clxix]

She had been the first journalist to be expelled by Adolph Hitler and had raised the alarm against the Nazis long ahead of most other journalists. She had originally supported Zionism, but then after the war had visited the region in person. She began to speak about Palestinian refugees, narrated a documentary about their situation[clxx], and condemned Jewish terrorism.

Thompson was viciously attacked in an orchestrated campaign of what she termed “career assassination and character assassination.” She wrote: “It has been boundless, going into my personal life.” She wrote of this organized attack: “…when letter after leter is couched in almost identical phraseology I do not think the authors have been gifted with telepathy.”[clxxi]

She was dropped by the New York Post, whose editor Ted Thackry, and his wife, Dorothy Schiff, were said by other Post editors to be close to the Irgun and Menachem Begin. Begin, the Irgunists, the Stern Gang and other Zionists organizations had what was termed “inordinate access” to the Post’s editorial board.[clxxii] Dorothy Schiff, granddaughter of financier Jacob Schiff and owner of the Post, later divorced Thackry and married Rudolf Sonneborn. [clxxiii]

Her mail was filled with ferocious accusations that she was “anti-Semitic.” One such correspondent told her that her “filthy incitements to porgroms” would not be tolerated by New York’s Jews.[clxxiv]

Before long, her column and radio programs, her speaking engagements, and her fame were all gone. Today, she has largely been erased from history.

In the coming decades other Americans were similarly written out of history, forced out of office, lives and careers destroyed; history distorted, re-written, erased; bigotry promoted, supremacy disguised, facts replaced by fraud.

Very few people know this history. The excellent books that document it are largely out of print, their facts and very existence virtually unknown to the vast majority of Americans, even those who focus on the Middle East. Instead, false theories have been promulgated, mendacious analyses promoted, chosen authors celebrated, others assigned to oblivion.

George Orwell once wrote: “’Who controls the past, controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.’.”[clxxv]

Perhaps by rediscovering the past, we’ll gain control of the present, and save the future.

End Notes
[i] In Israel it is typically called “the Jewish lobby”


[accessed July 21, 2011]

[iii] Herzl’s seminal book The Jewish State is online at:

Herzl devoted all his time to this movement, eventually dying at the age of 44 leaving his family penniless. An article in the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz reports that his daughter Pauline suffered from emotional problems from youth and eventually died of morphine addiction. His son Hans converted to Christianity in 1924, at which time he was abandoned by the Jewish community and denounced publicly. He committed suicide following his sister’s death. A book about Herzl’s children was written in the 1940s but was suppressed by the World Zionist Organization, which decided to bury Pauline and Hans in Bordeaux, despite their wish to be buried beside their father in Austria, “probably to avoid tarnishing Herzl’s image.”

– Uni, Assaf. “Hans Herzl’s wish comes true – 76 years later.” Ha’aretz, 19.09.06. Online at:

[iv] The next year there were 900 groups. Perceptions of Palestine, by Kathleen Christison, p. 22.

[Davis, 1 – it was first just called the Zionist Organization; its name officially changed to the WZO in 1960. Most people use the two names interchangeably.

According to its website, today the WZO “consists of the following bodies: The World Zionist Unions, international Zionist federations; and international organizations that define themselves as Zionist, such as WIZO, Hadassah, Bnai-Brith, Maccabi, the International Sephardic Federation, the three streams of world Judaism (Orthodox, Conservative, Reform), delegation from the CIS – Commonwealth of Independent States (former Soviet Union), the World Union of Jewish Students (WUJS), and more.”

[v] Mulhall, John W., CSP. America and the Founding of Israel: An Investigation of the Morality of America’s Role. Los Angeles: Deshon Press, 1995. Pp. 47, 51-52.

[vi] “The Palestine Problem: An Overview” Walid Khalidi, Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 21, No. 1 (Autumn, 1991). Published by: University of California Press on behalf of the Institute for Palestine Studies

The best resources on the pre-Israel population are:

Salman Abu-Sitta, Phd. The Atlas of Palestine 1917-1966. London: Palestine Land Society, 2010.

McCarthy, Justin, The Population of Palestine: Population History and Statistics of the Late Ottoman Period and the Mandate, Columbia University Press, New York, 1990. Produced by the British mandatory administration.

Khalidi, Walid, Ed. All that Remains: The Palestinian Villages Occupied and Depopulated by Israel in 1948. Washington DC: Institute for Palestine Studies, 1992.

A Survey of Palestine: Prepared in December 1945 and January 1946 for the information of the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry, by the British mandatory Commission, 1946. Reprinted in 1991 by the Institute for Palestine Studies, Washington DC. Two volumes.

Supplement to Survey of Palestine: Notes compiloed for the information of the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine, June 1947. Reprinted in 1991 by the Institute for Palestine Studies, Washington DC.

[vii] Masalha, Nur. Expulsion of the Palestinians: The Concept of “Transfer in Zionist Political Thought, 1882-1948. Fourth Printing, 2001. Washington D.C.: Institute for Palestine Studies, 1992.

[viii] Goldberg, JJ. Jewish Power: Inside the American Jewish Establishment. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison Wesley, 1996. P. 97.

[ix] Goldberg 98-99


[xi] Kolsky, Thomas, Jews Against Zionism: the American Council for Judaism, 1942-1948 (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1990), p. 24.

In a 1918 reorganization the FAZ renamed itself the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA). Kolsky 26.

[xii] Kolsky, Thomas, Jews Against Zionism: the American Council for Judaism, 1942-1948 (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1990), p. 24.

[xiii] Kolsky, Thomas, Jews Against Zionism: the American Council for Judaism, 1942-1948 (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1990), p. 24.

In a 1918 reorganization the FAZ renamed itself the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA). Kolsky 26.

[xiv] Dalin, David G. “At the Summit: Presidents, Presidential Appointments, and Jews,” Maisal, Sandy L. and Forman, Ira N. editors. Jews in American Politics: Essays, Lanham, Md: Roman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc. 2004. P. 32-34. (The appointee was Oscar Straus, whose brothers owned Macy’s Department Store and whom TR later named to his cabinet. Dalin reports a humorous incident that occurred at a dinner years later for Straus and Roosevelt:

“In his remarks, Roosevelt had stated that Straus had been appointed on the basis of merit and ability alone; the fact that he was Jewish had played no part in Roosevelt’s decision to appoint him. A few minutes later, in introducing Straus, [another speaker, the Jewish financier and philothropist Jacob] Schiff, who was a bit deaf and had evidently not heard Roosevelt’s remarks, recounted how Roosevelt had sought his advice as to who would be the most suitable and eminent Jewish leader to appoint to his cabinet.”

[xv] Neff, Donald. Fallen Pillars: U.S. Policy towards Palestine and Israel since 1945. Reprint Edition 2002. Washington, DC: Institute for Palestine Studies, 1995. P.8.

Neff, the author of five books on Israel, was Jerusalem Bureau Chief and then a Senior Editor for Time magazine. Pillars, perhaps the best book on the history of the US-Israel relationship, will soon be re-published by the Council for the National Interest. It can be pre-ordered at:

[xvi] Kolsky, 25.

[xvii] Stevens, Richard P., American Zionism and U.S. Foreign Policy 1942-1947. New York: Pageant Press. Inc. Reprinted by the Institute for Palestine Studies, 1970. P. 20.

[xviii] Neff, 9

[xix] Neff 10.

[xx] Neff 10; John 15; Christison 28.

[xxi] Neff, Pillars, p. 12.

Author Benjamin Ginsberg reports that Brandeis also “played a decisive role in planning Wilson’e economic program, and particularly in formulating the Federal Reserve.” – The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993, p. 93.

[xxii] Neff 12; John & Hadawi, p. 59-60.

Felix Frankfurter’s work on behalf of Zionism spanned many years. FDR was to appoint him to the Supreme Court in 1939, and even before this time he used his “access to the president to bring Zionist issues to his attention and urge his intercession on behalf of the Zionist cause. –Christison, Kathleen. Perceptions of Palestine. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2000. P. 47

[xxiii] Kolsky 25, 32


[xxv] Mulhall, p.50.

[xxvi] Mulhall p. 66. This was a sadly deft prognosis, writing of Jerusalem in the early 1960s, the American Consul General in Jerusalem found: “I think I can safely make the general comment that in present-day Israel… the Arabs are very much of ‘hewers of wood and drawers of water’” for the dominant Israelis – Jerusalem, Key to Peace, Evan M. Wilson, p. 33.

[xxvii] John, p 68-70: “The British government was advised that ‘previous overtures to American Jewry to support the Allies had received no attention was because the approach had been to the wrong people. It was to the Zionist Jews that the British and French governments should address their parleys.’ Sir Mark Sykes was particularly weighed down by the secret Sykes-Picot Agreement, which had promised that the British would support Arab independence, insisting that it was impossible to offer Palestine to the Jews. He was told that Brandeis had just become a Supreme Court Justice, and that he had President Wilson’s ear. This began the negotiations with the Zionists.


[xxix] (March 1, 1935], cited in John 72)

[xxx] Davidson, Lawrence, America’s Palestine: Popular and Official Perceptions from Balfour to Israeli Statehood. Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2001. 11-12. Citation: Ingrams, Doreen, ed. Palestine Papers, 1917-1922. New York: George Braziller, 1973, 173.

[xxxi] Decision on Palestine, Evan M. Wilson, p. xv.

[xxxii] Deaths and injuries were 364,800: [accessed July 21, 20110

[xxxiii] Wilson’s Alien and Sedition acts resulted in the jailing 1,200 American citizens; “Walter C. Matthey of Iowa was sentenced to a year in jail for applauding an anticonscription speech. Walter Heynacher of South Dakota was sentenced to five years in Leavenworth for telling a younger man that ‘it was foolishness to send our boys over there to get killed by the thousands, all for the sake of wall Street.’…Abraham Sugarman of Sibley County, Minnesota, was sentenced to three years in Leavenworth for arguing that the draft was unconstitutional and remaking, ‘This is supposed to be a free country. Like Hell it is.’” – Kauffman, Bill. Ain’t My America: The long, Noble History of Antiwar Conservatism and Middle-American Anti-Imperialism. New York: 2008, Metropolitan books, Henry Holt and Company. Page 74.

The song “Over There” was written by George M. Cohan, who received the Congressional Medal of Honor for it in 1940, when America was about to join another world war:

[xxxiv] Kolsky 12.

[xxxv] While this subterfuge was used in the beginning years, the goal was to create a state, as Felix Frankfurter wrote: “ ‘I need not tell you that the phrase, ‘that Palestine be established as a Jewish Home’ was a phrase of purposeful ambiguity.” [John, p. 118]. In the Zionists’ Memorandum to the Peace Conference they stated that Palestine “shall be placed under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will ensure the establishment therein of the Jewish national home and ultimately render possible the creation of an autonomous Jewish commonwealth. [John, p. 125]

[xxxvi] John, p. 115

[xxxvii] Paul Charles Merkley, Christian Attitudes towards the State of Israel. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2001, p. 6.

Harry Emerson Fosdick –

Henry Sloane Coffin,9171,722722-1,00.html

[xxxviii] Mulhall 76-77; John129; Davidson 20.

[xxxix] Mulhall p 77

[xl] Mulhall p. 77


[xlii] Bitter Harvest: Palestine 1914-1979, by Sami Hadawi, p. 17-18.

[xliii] Mulhall, p. 79.

[xliv] Mulhall, 78.

[xlv] Mulhall, p. 80.

[xlvi] Mulhall, 80.

[xlvii] Pillars, p. 20

[xlviii] Pillars, 20

[xlix] Neff, p. 17. Tivnan, p. 30

[l] Stevens, Richard P., American Zionism and U.S. Foreign Policy 1942-1947. New York: Pageant Press. Inc. Reprinted by the Institute for Palestine Studies, 1970, p. 20.

[li] The article “Denying Nazi-Zionist collusion: The Sacramento Bee, Darrell Steinberg, and Islamophobia” refers to the various books that described this:

This was well known in the State Department. For example, State Dept. Near East expert Harry N. Howard states: “…there was discussion of liberalizing American immigration laws in this period. The Zionists opposed that liberalization on the ground that this would not be a solution as far as they were concerned. They wanted a political, not necessarily a humanitarian, solution –that is, they wanted a state.” – Oral History Interview with Harry N. Howard, Truman Library, Washington, D.C., June 5, 1973: [accessed July 2011]

[lii] Hadawi, P. 38: Citation: The Spectator (London) Magazine, 22 July 1960.

[liii] Mulhall, p. 109.

[liv] Lilienthal, p. 27, citing So Far So Good, by Morris L. Ernst (New York: Harper, 1948), pp. 170-177.

[lv] Mulhall, P. 109.

[lvi] Eveland, William Crane. Ropes of Sand, America’s Failure in the Middle East. W W Norton & Co Inc. p. 48

For more on Eveland see “In Memoriam: A Respectful Dissenter: CIA’s Wilbur Crane Eveland” By Mary Barrett, The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, March 1990, Page 28.

[lvii] Giladi, Naeim, The Jews of Iraq,” The Link, April ⁄ May 1998

[lviii] Berger, p. 9.

[lix] Christison, p. 73.

[lx] Neff, Pillars, p. 23.

[lxi] Tivnan, p. 24

[lxii] Tivnan, p. 24

[lxiii] Neff, Pillars, p. 23.

[lxiv] Berger, p. 11.

[lxv] Stevens, p. 101.

[lxvi] Berger, 16-17.

[lxvii] What Price Israel, by Alfred M.Lilienthal, p. 63

[lxviii] Stevens, p. 24.

[lxix] Stevens, p. 22.

[lxx] Stevens, p. 23

[lxxi] Stevens, p. 27-28.

[lxxii] Stevens, p. 28.

[lxxiii] Fifty Years of Israel, by Donald Neff, American Educational Trust, p. 200. Available online at:

[lxxiv] Green, p. 42.

[lxxv] Researchers may wish to explore an interesting though speculative discussion about what may be an earlier effort by Zionists to influence Christians. Many years before AZEC targeted Christians, an annotated version of the bible known as the Scofield Reference Bible had been published, which pushed what was a previously somewhat fringe “dispensationalist” theology calling for the Jewish “return” to Palestine.

Some analysts have raised questions about Scofield and how and why the Oxford University Press published his book. Scofield, who had been something of a shyster and criminal and had abandoned his first wife and children, mysteriously became a member of an exclusive New York men’s club in 1901. Biographer Joseph Canfield (The Incredible Scofield and His book) comments, “The admission of Scofield to the Lotus Club, which could not have been sought by Scofield, strengthens the suspicion that has cropped up before, that someone was directing the career of C. I. Scofield.”

Canfield suggests that Wall Street lawyer Samuel Untermeyer, who was also a member of the Lotus Club, may have played a role in Scofield’s project, writing that “Scofield’s theology was most helpful in getting Fundamentalist Christians to back the international interest in one of Untermeyer’s pet projects – the Zionist Movement.”

Prof. David W. Lutz, in “Unjust War Theory: Christian Zionism and the Road to Jerusalem,” writes: “Untermeyer used Scofield, a Kansas city lawyer with no formal training in theology, to inject Zionist ideas into American Protestantism. Untermeyer and other wealthy and influential Zionists whom he introduced to Scofield promoted and funded the latter’s career, including travel in Europe.”

Irish journalist Maidhc O Cathail (“Zionism’s Un-Christian Bible”) suggests that “absent such powerful connections, it is hard to imagine ‘this peer among scalawags’ ever getting a contract with Oxford University Press to publish his bible.”

[lxxvi] Wilson, p. xiii.


Abu-Sitta, Salman H. The Atlas of Palestine 1917-1966 (2010 Edition). London: Palestine Land Society, 2010.

McCarthy, Justin. The Population of Palestine. New York: Columbia University Press, 1990.

Israel was also getting much richer land: “85 percent of all the citrus lands, almost all the industries, the deep water port and the railway, most of the coastline, practically all the water resources,” according to U.S. diplomat Henry F. Grady, Adventures in Diplomacy, p. 170. An unpublished manuscript in the Truman Museum can be viewed at:

To learn more about Grady see The memoirs of Ambassador Henry F. Grady:

from the Great War to the Cold War, by Henry Francis Grady, John T. McNay, 2009, University of Missouri Press.

In 1984 a book was published by Harper & Row entitled From Time Immemorial: The Origins of the Arab-Jewish Conflict over Palestine. The author is given as Joan Peters. The book’s “Acknowledgements” section lists historians Bernard Lewis, Philip M. Hauser, Martin Gilbert, and Walter Laqueur as having assisted in the project. This book, making the astounding claim that there were virtually no indigenous Palestinians, that Arabs had largely come only after Zionists’ wonderful entrepreneurial skills provided them jobs, was given rave reviews by Barbara Tuchman, Theodore H. White, Elie Wiesel, Lucy Dawidowicz Arthur J. Goldberg (former Supreme Court Justice and U.S. ambassador to the UN), Saul Bellow, and virtually every major book review section in the U.S.: New York Times Book Review, Washington Post Book World, National Review, New Republic, Atlantic Monthly, Los Angles Times, etc.

However the book was shown to be fraudulent when researcher Norman Finkelstein investigated its footnotes and found them to be less than honest; book reviewers in Britain and Israel called the book “preposterous” and a “web of deceit.” Harper & Row eventually stopped publishing the book, but it can still be found in bookstores, now published by something called “JKAP Publications” located in Chicago. “Historian” BarbaraTuchman continued to claim that the Palestinian people were a “fairy tale.”

Astoundingly, Harvard Professor Alan Dershowitz seems to have appropriated, without attribution, Peters’ material in his 2003 book, The Case for Israel, published by John Wiley & Sons.

For more information see Norman G. Finkelstein’s Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History, and his article “Disinformation and the Palestine Question: The Not-So-Strange Case of Joan Peters’s From Time Immemorial,” in Blaming the Victims: Spurious Scholarship and the Palestinian Question, edited by Edward Said and Christopher Hitchens. Pp. 33-69. This article is online at:

[lxxviii] Neff, Pillars, 20

[lxxix] Neff, pp. 46-47.

[lxxx] Neff, p. 49.

[lxxxi] Memoirs of an Anti-Zionist Jew, by Elmer Berger, p. 21.

Berger writes that in a personal conversation with him, Henderson had said:

“I hope you and your associates will persevere. And my reason for wishing this is perhaps less related to what I consider American interests in the Middle East than what I fear I see on the domestic scene. The United states is a great power. Somehow it will surmount even its most foolish policy errors in the Middle East. But in the process there is a great danger of creating divisiveness and anti-Semitism among our own people. And if this danger materializes to a serious extent, we have seen in Germany and in Europe that the ability of a nation to survive the consequences is in serious question.”

[lxxxii] Wilson, p. 117

Wright confirms this, p.

[lxxxiii] Green, Taking Sides, p. 20.

[lxxxiv] Neff, 57.

[lxxxv] Grady, Henry F. Adventures in Diplomacy, p. 170. Unpublished manuscript in the Truman Library, which can be viewed at:

Grady, Henry Francis and McNay, John T. The memoirs of Ambassador Henry F. Grady:

from the Great War to the Cold War. 2009: University of Missouri Press.

[lxxxvi] Grady, Adventures, p. 166.

[lxxxvii] Mulhall. P.130. Robert L. Beisner, Dean Acheson: A Life in the Cold War, read it online

[lxxxviii] Neff, 29.

[lxxxix] Lilienthal, p. 75.

[xc] Lilienthal, p. 75.


[xcii] Neff, pp. 42-43.

[xciii] Lilienthal, p. 60.

[xciv] The Passionate Attachment: America’s Involvement with Israel, 1947 to the Present, by George W. Ball and Douglas B. Ball, p. 22

[xcv] Some examples:

Edwin Mr. Wright, a State Department expert on the Middle East who was assisting the U.N./U.S. delegation as a staff member, reports that Eleanor Roosevelt, who was on the U.N. delegation, received a letter telling her that Wright was “anti-Semitic and in Arab pay.” – p. 43.

“Rabbi Stephen Wise, the pre-eminent spokesman for American Zionism, and his daughter Justine Polier, were personal friends of Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt with as much access to the White House as anyone.” – William J. vanden Heuvel, “America, Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Holocaust.” Keynote address of the fifth annual Franklin & Eleanor Roosevelt Distinguished Lecture, Oct. 17, 1996 at Roosevelt University in Chicago. [accessed July 22, 2011]

[xcvi] Lilienthal, p. 62: Eleanor Roosevelt, convinced by Zionists of their cause, had strongly opposed Loy Henderson. When Henderson had warned, accurately, that partition would provoke violence, Eleanor responded:

“Come now, come, Mr. Henderson, I think you’re exaggerating the dangers. You are too pessimistic….I’m confident that when a Jewish state is once set up, the Arabs will see the light; they will quiet down; and Palestine will no longer be a problem.” (Neff, Pillars, 64) (Wilson, 116)

There is no evidence that Eleanor ever acknowledged her error.

[xcvii] Neff, p. 65, citation: “Draft Memorandum by the Director of the Office of United Nations Affairs (Rusk) to the Under Secretary of State (Lovett),” Secret, Washington May 4, 1948, FRUS 1948, pp. 894-95.

[xcviii] Wilson, p. 131

[xcix] Neff, Pillars, p. 96.

[c] Neff, Pillars, p. 90. Citation: “The Ambassador to the United Kingdom (Dougas) to the Secretary of State,” Top Secret, NIACT, US Urgent, London, October 14, 1948–3 pm., FRUS 1948, pp. 1474-76.

[ci] Neff, Pillars, p. 50.

[cii] Gore Vidal wrote: “Sometime in the late 1950s, that world-class gossip and occasional historian, John F. Kennedy, told me how, in 1948, Harry S. Truman had been pretty much abandoned by everyone when he came to run for president. Then an American Zionist brought him two million dollars in cash, in a suitcase, aboard his whistle-stop campaign train. ‘That’s why our recognition of Israel was rushed through so fast.’” –Foreword, Jewish History, Jewish Religion, by Israel Shahak, pp. vii-viii

This book, published by Pluto Press, is online at:

[ciii] Lilienthal, pp.71-72.

[civ] Lilienthal, pp. 72-73.

Stephen Green, in Taking Sides: America’s Secret Relatoins with a Militant Israel, pp. 53-54, describes a May 1948 investigation into “someone in the Pentagon” who was making files available to the pre-Israeli military known as the Haganah. Evidence pointed to Lt. Col. Elliot A. Niles. “According to the agent report on the investigation,” Green writes, “Niles was ‘an ardent Zionist, formerly a high official of the B’nai B’rith, and lately in charge of veterans liaison for the Veterans Administration.’” Investigators concluded that Niles and another person had photostated files and sent them to the Haganah. “This particular report” Green writes, “was adjudged by its author to be rated A-2, i.e., A for ‘source completely reliable,’ and 2 for ‘information probably true.’”

[cv] Lilienthal, What Price Israel, p. 72.

[cvi] Christison, p.69.

[cvii] Decision on Palestine: How the U.S. Came to Recognize Israel, by Evan M. Wilson, Hoover Institution Press, 1979, p. 149.

Wilson served in the U.S. Foreign Service from 1937-67, many of those years involved with Palestine. Upon retirement he was given the Department of State’s Superior Honor Award.

[cviii] Wilson, p. 98.

[cix] Neff, Pillars, p. 96.

[cx] Wilson, pp. 125-127.

[cxi] Lilienthal, p. 47, citation: Emanuel Newmann, in American Zionist, February 5, 1953.

[cxii] Mulhall, pp.140-145. Bitter Harvest: Palestine 1914-1979, by Sami Hadawi, Caravan Books, 1979, pp. 72-73. Stevens, pp. 178-182.

[cxiii] Lilienthal, pp. 47-49

[cxiv] Lilienthal, Alfred M. The Zionist Connection: What Price Peace? New York: Dodd, Mead & Company, 1978, p. 87.

[cxv] Al Abbasiyya (4 May ‘48), Abu Shusha (14 May ‘48), Ayn az Zaytun (2 May ‘48), Balad ash Sheikh (25 April ‘48), Bayt Daras (11 May ‘48), Beer Sheba (21 Oct ‘48), Burayr (12 May ‘48), Al Dawayima (29 Oct ‘48), Deir Yassin (9 April ‘48), Eilaboun (29 Oct ‘48), Haifa (21 April ‘48), Hawsha (15 April ‘48), Husayniyya (21 April ‘48), Ijzim (24 July ‘48), Isdud (28 Oct ‘48), Jish (29 Oct ‘48), Al Kabri (21 May ‘48), Al Khisas (18 Dec ‘48), Khubbayza (12 May ‘48), Lydda (10 July ‘48), Majd al Kurum (29 October ‘48), Mannsurat al Khayt (18 Jan ‘48), Khirbet, Nasir ad Din (12 April ‘48), Qazaza (9 July ‘48), Qisarya (15 Feb ‘48), Sa’sa (30 Oct ‘48), Safsaf (29 Oct ‘48), Saliha (30 Oct ‘48), Arab al Samniyya (30 Oct ‘48), Al Tantoura (21 May ‘48), Al Tira (16 July ‘48), Al Wa’ra al-Sawda (18 April ‘48), Wadi ‘Ara (27 Feb ‘48). Palestinian Refugees Right to Return and Repatriation, by Mazin Qumsiyeh, PhD.

[cxvi] Christison, p. 81.

Numerous other histories of this period also report on this. See Stephen Green, Taking Sides, pp. 47-75, for a discussion of troop strengths, armaments, and Zionist efforts, largely successful, to distort the facts on these in the press and in various books, including O Jerusalem, by Larry Collins and Dominique Lapierre,” still widely marketed.

[cxvii] There are numerous excellent books on this period. Three of the finest are: Sami Hadawi, Bitter Harvest: Palestine 1914-1979; Nur Masalha, Expulsion of the Palestinians: The Concept of “Transfer in Zionist Political Thought, 1882-1948; and Ilan Pappe, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine.

[cxviii] Neff, Pillars, p. 68.

[cxix] Mulhall, p. 153.

Albert Einstein, Hannah Arendt, and a number of others wrote a letter to the New York Times condemning this and other actions by Begin and his group. The letter, which was published December 4, 1948, provides considerable information on the situation:

[cxx] The Passionate Attachment, America’s Involvement with Israel, 1947 to the present, by George W. Ball and Douglas B. Ball, pp. 28-29.

[cxxi] McGowan, Daniel. “A Jewish Eye-Witness: An interview with Meir Pa’il.” Remembering Deir Yassin: The future of Israel and Palestine. Daniel McGowan and Marc H. Ellis, editors. New York: Olive Branch Press, imprint of Interlink Publishing Group, Inc., 1998. 35-46.

Israeli military historian Col Pa’il, who was then a member of the Haganah, was there as an observer to evaluate the fighting ability of the Irgun and Stern Gang.

[cxxii]Irgun Zevai Leumi, normally just called the Irgun. While this is often portrayed as a small, rogue element within the Zionist underground, it’s interesting to note that it had units in 23 countries worldwide (including in the U.S.), engaged in fund-raising, recruiting, hiring, training, purchasing, and shipping operations.” Green, p. 47.

[cxxiii] Mulhall 153.

See also Sheila Cassidy, “Assault and Massacre.” Remembering Deir Yassin: The future of Israel and Palestine. Daniel McGowan and Marc H. Ellis, editors. New York: Olive Branch Press, imprint of Interlink Publishing Group, Inc., 1998. 47-49.

From the same book see also Pat McDonnel Twair, “The Surviving Children of Deir Yassin” 50-51.

Survivor testimonies can be read at [accessed July 21, 2011]

e.g.: Ms. Haleem Eid stated: “A man [shot] a bullet into the neck of my sister Salhiyeh who was nine months pregnant. Then he cut her stomach open with a butcher’s knife.”

[cxxiv] Menachem Begin, who became prime minister in 1977, was head of the Irgun; Yitzhak Shamir, who was elected Prime Minister in 1983, was a head of the Stern Gang. Neither was at Deir Yassin personally. The attack was coordinated ahead of time with the Haganah, which thereby broke an agreement that had been made with the mayor of Deir Yassin in which both sides had agreed that neither would fire against the other. The Haganah’s Palmach unit took part in the attack, but reportedly left before the worst of the massacre.

–McGowan, Daniel. “A Jewish Eye-Witness: An interview with Meir Pa’il.” Remembering Deir Yassin: The future of Israel and Palestine. Daniel McGowan and Marc H. Ellis, editors. New York: Olive Branch Press, imprint of Interlink Publishing Group, Inc., 1998. 35-46.

[cxxv] Ball, p. 29.

Author Kathleen Christison notes that when Begin became Prime Minister, for the U.S. media “it became generally unacceptable to use the word [terrorist] with respect to either Begin or his successor Yitzhak Shamir, whose pre-state underground organization, the Stern Gang, had also committed acts of terrorism.” – Perceptions of Palestine, p. 172

Shamir had approved the pre-Israel assassination of UN mediator Folke Bernadotte, a Swedish Count who had helped rescue thousands of Jews from the Nazis.

[cxxvi] In response to the bombing of the King David Hotel, Hecht wrote: “Every time you let go with your guns at the British betrayers of your homeland, the Jews of America make a little holiday in their hearts.” – Lilienthal, p. 33:

The bombing killed 41 Palestinians, 28 British, and 17 Jews. – Neff, Pillars, p. 40.

[cxxvii] Lilienthal, 79

[cxxviii] Howe, Russell Warren. “Fighting the ‘Soldiers of Occupation’ From WWII to the Intifada.” Seeing the Light: Personal Encounters with the Middle East and Islam.” Edited by Richard H. Curtiss and Janet McMahon. Washington, D.C.: American Educational Trust, 1997. Pp. 38-39.

[cxxix] Baumel, Judith Tydor. The “Bergson Boys” and the origins of contemporary Zionist militancy. P. 1. The speaker is Alexander Rafaeli. [accessed July 2011]

[cxxx] Baumel 1.

[cxxxi] Medoff, Rafael. “The Bergson Group vs. The Holocaust – and Jewish Leaders vs. Bergson.” The Jewish Press, posted June 6, 2007.

Baumel, p.8. The group was close to Jabotinsky and included his nephew [accessed July 2011].

Among the groups they formed were “American League for a Free Palestine,” “Hebrew Committee for National Liberation,” and “the Emergency Committee for the Rescue of European Jewry”, often with a dual message: demanding the rescue of European Jews and the opening up of Palestine to Jewish immigration. Most Zionist and anti-Zionist organizations opposed the Bergson group, but it managed to enlist a number of prominent Americans, from Ben Hecht to Eleanor Roosevelt. [accessed July 23, 2011]

[cxxxii] The Holocaust Encyclopedia states:

Bergson’s primary assignment in the United States was to mobilize support for the IZL and for the creation of Jewish military units, and, later to gather support for the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine. Bergson set out to accomplish these tasks by creating a series of interlocking organizations, including the Committee for a Jewish Army of Stateless and Palestinian Jews, the American League for a Free Palestine, the Emergency Committee to Save the Jewish People of Europe, and the Hebrew Committee for National Liberation. Supporters of these organizations included Harry Truman, Dorothy Parker, Herbert Hoover, Will Rogers, Jr., Labor leader William Green, U.S. Solicitor General Fowler Harper, and U.S. Interior Secretary Harold Ickes. [accessed July 2011]

[cxxxiii] Rubinstein, William D. The Myth of Rescue. London: Routledge, 1997. pp 97.

[cxxxiv] Rubinstein, page 98.

[cxxxv] Baumel, p. 261.

[cxxxvi] [accessed July 23, 1011].

Shahak, Israel and Mezvinsky, Norton. Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel. London: Pluto Press, 1999. pp. ix, 55-69. Also: “According to the Lurianic Cabbala, the world was created solely for the sake of Jews; the existence of non-Jews was subsidiary.”

Dr. Israel Shahak, was a holocaust survivor and, until his death in 2001, a highly regarded Israeli professor of biochemistry; Dr. Norton Mezvinsky was a professor of history (now retired) who in 2002 was named by the Connecticut State University Board of Trustees an official “Connecticut State University Professor…a signal honor, reserved for faculty members who fulfill the highest ideals of outstanding teaching, scholarly achievement and public service.”

Another book on this subject matter is Jewish History, Jewish Religion, by Israel Shahak, which can be read at:

[cxxxvii] Shahak and Mezvinsky, p. ix.

Brownfeld, Allan C. “Book Review: Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel.” Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, March 2000, pages 105-106. [accessed July 23, 2011]

[cxxxviii] Baumel, p. 256.

[cxxxix] Baumel, pp. 258-9.

[cxl] Stevens, 192.

[cxli] Smith, Grant F. Declassified Deceptions: The Secret History of Isaiah L. Kenen and the Rise of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), Washington, DC: Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy, Inc., 2007, p. 34.


This weapons smuggling and other Zionist preparations for war were well-known to British and American analysts, who knew from the beginning that the Arabs would be certain losers in a war with Zionists, whose well-trained and armed combatants would outnumber the Arabs’ similar combatants by at least four to one. Analysts were also aware that the Zionists planned to expand beyond the partition allotment. – Ball, p. 24.

[cxliii] Slater, Leonard, The Pledge, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1970. P. 21-23.

[cxliv] Slater, p. 94-123.

[cxlv] Slater, p. 124.

Smith, Grant. Chapter 4.

[cxlvi] Smith, Grant, p. 63.

[cxlvii] Smith, 37.

[cxlviii] For full details, see The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, by Israeli historian Ilan Pappe.

[cxlix] Neff, Pillars, p. 68.

[cl] Neff, Pillars, p. 69. Transjordan’s entire government budget at the time was only $5 million.

[cli] Neff, Pillars, p. 69.

[clii] Neff, Pillars, p. 72.

[cliii] Strindberg, Anders. “Forgotten Christians,” The American Conservative, May 24, 2004. Online at:

[cliv] Neff, Pillars, p. 75.

[clv] Neff, Pillars, pp. 76-77. Citation: George McGhee, Envoy to the Middle World: Adventures in Diplomacy (New York: Harper & Row), 1983) p. 37.

[clvi] Oral History Interview by Richard D. McKinzie for the Harry S. Truman Library and Museum with Edwin M. Wright. General staff G-2 Middle East specialist, Washington, 1945-46; Bureau Near East-South Asian-African Affairs Department of State, since 1946, country specialist 1946-47, advisor U.N. affairs, 1947-50, advisor on intelligence 1950-55. The interview was conducted in Wooster, Ohio on July 26, 1974. On April 3, 1977 Wright added a letter and footnotes to the interview. [Accessed July 21, 2011]

[clvii] Stevens, p. 207.

[clviii] Christison, p. 40, citation: Lawrence Davidson, “Press, State Department and Popular Perceptions,” p. 34.

[clix] Neff, Pillars, p. 67.

[clx] Neff, Pillars, p. 73.

[clxi] Lilienthal, p. 94.

[clxii] Lilienthal, p. 103.

[clxiii] Lilienthal, p. 94

[clxiv] Christison, p. 81.

[clxv] Lilienthal, p. 97.

[clxvi] Lilienthal, pp. 97-98

[clxvii] Berger, pp. 35-38.

Dean Gildersleeve, a Protestant Christian, had been the only woman member of the U.S. UN delegation in San Francisco. For more information on her see:

[clxviii] Many a Good Crusade, Virginia Gildersleeve, p. 412.

[clxix] The information from this section comes largely from American Cassandra: The Life of Dorothy Thompson, by Peter Kurth; Dorothy Thompson: A Legend in her Time, by Marion K Sanders; Personal History, by Vincent Sheean, and Dorothy & Red (Dorothy Thompson & Sinclair Lewis), by Vincent Sheean.

[clxx] “Sands of Sorrow” –

[clxxi] Kurth, 384.

[clxxii] Kurth, 384.

[clxxiii]“The Press: Free Speech for the Boss,” Time, Nov. 17, 1958. Online at:,9171,810661,00.html

[clxxiv] Kurth, 383.

[clxxv] George Orwell, 1984. An interesting discussion of this quote can be read at:


Thompson was viciously attacked in an orchestrated campaign of what she termed “career assassination and character assassination.” She wrote: “It has been boundless, going into my personal life.” She wrote of this organized attack: “…when letter after leter is couched in almost identical phraseology I do not think the authors have been gifted with telepathy.”[clxxi]

She was dropped by the New York Post, whose editor Ted Thackry, and his wife, Dorothy Schiff, were said by other Post editors to be close to the Irgun and Menachem Begin. Begin, the Irgunists, the Stern Gang and other Zionists organizations had what was termed “inordinate access” to the Post’s editorial board.[clxxii] Dorothy Schiff, granddaughter of financier Jacob Schiff and owner of the Post, later divorced Thackry and married Rudolf Sonneborn. [clxxiii]

Her mail was filled with ferocious accusations that she was “anti-Semitic.” One such correspondent told her that her “filthy incitements to porgroms” would not be tolerated by New York’s Jews.[clxxiv]

Before long, her column and radio programs, her speaking engagements, and her fame were all gone. Today, she has largely been erased from history.

In the coming decades other Americans were similarly written out of history, forced out of office, lives and careers destroyed; history distorted, re-written, erased; bigotry promoted, supremacy disguised, facts replaced by fraud.

Very few people know this history. The excellent books that document it are largely out of print, their facts and very existence virtually unknown to the vast majority of Americans, even those who focus on the Middle East. Instead, false theories have been promulgated, mendacious analyses promoted, chosen authors celebrated, others assigned to oblivion.

George Orwell once wrote: “’Who controls the past, controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.’.”[clxxv]

Perhaps by rediscovering the past, we’ll gain control of the present, and save the future.

Slavic Ashkenazi, the non-semitic “Eastern Jews”, who are now said (by the Judaist statisticians) to comprize almost the whole of Jewry.


Douglas Reeds “The Controversy of Zion” now on the internet!
Commensing in 1951, as Britains foremost World War II correspondent, he spent more than three years writing “The Controversy of Zion” – all 300.000 words of it. He completed the epilogue in 1956. Although there is correspondence to show that the book was once discussed with his publisher, the manuscript was never submitted, but remained for 22 years gathering dust in his home in Durban, South Africa.
Would he have loved the internet! Now, half a century later, it exists, and must assist in the dissemination of his powerful truth. Several chapters show how much he would have loved this possibility. Just as much as the zionist censors of the internet hate this breach in their worldwide brainwashing and control of the media.
In Europe during the years immediately before and after World War II, the name of Douglas Reed was on everyone’s lips. His books were being sold by the tens of thousands. He was known with intimate familiarity throughout the English-speaking world by a vast army of fans. And then he was banished. Was it this book? Take a look at these chapters and judge for yourself…..


George Orwell once wrote: “’Who controls the past, controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.’.”[clxxv]


3 responses to “The History of Israel-US Relations How the “special relationship” was created

  1. Same happened in Germany as reported by Douglas Reeds’ book.

    From the same book see also Pat McDonnel Twair, “The Surviving Children of Deir Yassin” 50-51.

    Survivor testimonies can be read at [accessed July 21, 2011]

    e.g.: Ms. Haleem Eid stated: “A man [shot] a bullet into the neck of my sister Salhiyeh who was nine months pregnant. Then he cut her stomach open with a butcher’s knife.”

    Commie troops from Russia Germany ww2.


    These are three portraits from the gallery of 1938. I could show you a hundred others.

    I belong to those cads who put loyalty among the human virtues, and I have not forgotten Jews whom I knew in the British Army during the war. Those Jews, long-established in England, were all right; but the great mass of new Jewish immigrants that we are getting now are mortally dangerous to us.

    I, with all the horror I have of National Socialism and the dread I have of Germany under National Socialism, shall say some hard things about the Jews. I have watched and studied them now, all over Europe, for many years and know my subject.

    In England the fashion is to profess complete incomprehension of the movements in progress in Europe to restrict the influence of the Jews. This attitude towards the Jews is the sheet anchor, in their continual claim to be humane, of those English people who put a screen of self-complacency between themselves and everything that is wrong or needs changing: how can the foreigner be right in saying we are perfidious or arrogant or class-ridden or inhumane when we have this tolerant and magnanimous feeling about the Jews? We feel ‘a generous indignation’ about the treatment of the Jews. We may not care a fig about Spanish women and children being blown to bits by German and Italian bombs. But our British love of fair play is revolted by the treatment of the Jews.

    For us, these people say, there is no Jewish problem. For them, the favoured followers of the God-of-things-as-they-are, on whose own corns the Jewish problem does not tread, there is similarly no slum problem. There are, somewhere, slums, about which you occasionally feel a generous indignation. Is there a Derelict Areas problem? No, there are Derelict Areas. Is there a German problem? No, there is Germany.

    There is a Jewish problem. Like the slum problem and the German problem you will leave it until it devours you.

    I wrote various incidental passages about Jews in Insanity Fair. Because many people either could not understand or did not accept the things I said, I am going to make myself crystal clear this time.

    One British newspaper and two American ones spoke reproachfully of my anti-Semitism. If you discuss this question at all the welkin immediately rings with the yelping of ‘Anti-Semite’, often from people who have nothing more than a languid indifference about it, but like using phrases of this sort because Englishmen always play cricket, don’t you know, and hang it, play the game, sir.

    I had a letter from a reader in Palestine who said, ‘You have written a good book, save for your appallingly ignorant and callous attitude towards the Jews’. This did not convince me, because many people said similar things about Insanity Fair. The Communists thought it was good save for the part about Soviet Russia, the Fascists liked it apart from its references to Germany and Italy, the Old School Tie Brigade thought it would have been a good book but for its allusions to the public school system in England, and these, as the literary critic of a journal mainly devoted to pushing the sale of women’s underclothes wrote, indicated ‘a regrettable tendency towards Left ideas’. The close connection between the manufacture and sale of camisoles and true-blue, die-in-the-last-ditch, backs-up and chins-to-the-wall, down-with-the-Reds, up-with-the-good-old-flag-Blimpery is a thing I shall investigate one day.

    I had two letters which made me think, long and carefully, which made me take out my knowledge and feelings and convictions about the Jews, put them under the microscope, scrutinize them meticulously for the microbes of prejudice or ignorance. After that long examination I was satisfied. I decided to take these letters as my text when I came to write again about the Jews.

    The first was from a young American Jew, an earnest request for information. He had read Insanity Fair twice, with great interest, he said, and it had left his mind simmering with questions about the Jews, to which he could not find the answer himself, so that, rather pathetically, he wanted it from me. What did I really think about them? I seemed to think their troubles to some extent were of their own making. Did I believe that? He thought the Jews were just buffeted about. For his own part he had lost all feeling of Jewish cohesion.

    I do think this. But I do not believe there is any Jew, anywhere, who has lost all feeling of Jewish cohesion. Many wish they could, but none do.

    The second letter came from a Jewess in South Africa. She wrote in deep distress about events in Insanity Fair. Up to the last, she wrote, she believed that England had something up her sleeve, but now, ‘the strong arm that England used to wield lay withered beneath the poppies in Flanders fields’. But the book had been a comfort to her in this mental agony that so many people are experiencing in our time: it was, she said, in a shell-burst of superlatives, magnificent, gallant, terrible. Then she asked, ‘You write repeatedly of your Jewish “acquaintances”. Have you never had a Jewish friend? What have you in your heart for the Jews? Is it pity?’

    Stimulating sentences, that acted on me like the cue that prompts an actor to his lines.

    The word ‘acquaintances’ was carefully chosen. I have never had a Jewish friend. I never shall. I could, if Jews were Jews, subjects of a Jew state, avowedly foreigners in other lands, not professedly Germans, Englishmen, Hungarians, Austrians, Poles.

    I have sharpened my wits on the conversation of Jews, I admire their quick-wittedness. If there were a Jewish nation I would make it an ally of England because I believe that, for their own cause, the Jews would fight like lions. I know that many of them fought in the armies of Germany and France and England, I know that each of these Jews wanted his side to win. But I also know that they had less to fear if their side lost, that they prosper in defeat and chaos. I saw this in Germany and Austria and Hungary.

    I distrust the fiction that these Jews are Germans or Frenchmen or Englishmen, when I know that they are in all countries closely welded communities working, first and foremost, for the Jewish cause. Walk any Saturday evening along Oxford Street or Regent Street, contemplate those thousands of hatless young men, of carefully dressed and arm-linked young women coming up from the east to go to the great film theatres round Piccadilly and Marble Arch, to invade the chocolate-sundae corner palaces. Do you believe these are English people? Do they?

    Will they help us to re-make England into a sturdy and well-found land of craftsmen and farmers and sailors? Do they not rather stand for cheap and tawdry frocks, and their corollary, sweated labour (if you have the energy, go down into the East End and visit the people who cut and sew those frocks), for gaudy Babylonian film temples, for your blasted Glamour Girls, for trashy imitation jewellery, for spurious marble halls at the sign of the fish-and-chip?

    But that is another question. No penny-in-the-slot machine could produce its response more quickly than that question brings the answer from me. I know the answer.

    ‘What have you in your heart for the Jews? Is it pity?’

    The answer is: ‘What have you in your heart for Gentiles?’

    That brings you at a stroke to the root of the matter. Not anti-Semitism was first, but anti-Gentilism. You have heard a lot in recent years about Hitler’s Nuremberg anti-Jewish laws, with their ban on intermarriage, which the Germans call race-defilement.

    A most intelligent and cultured and open-minded Jew in Budapest said to me, ‘After all, the Nuremberg laws are only the translation into German of our own Mosaic laws, with their ban on intermarriage with Gentiles’.

    Race-antagonism began, not with the Gentiles, but with the Jews. Their religion is based on it. This racial lunacy which you detest in the Germans has possessed the Jews for thousands of years. When they become powerful, they practise it; as they consolidate their position in one trade after another, in one profession or another, the squeeze-out of Gentiles begins. That was why you found, in Berlin and Vienna and Budapest and Prague and Bucharest, newspapers with hardly a Gentile on the editorial staff, theatres owned and managed by Jews presenting Jewish actors and actresses in Jewish plays praised by the Jewish critics of Jewish newspapers, whole streets with hardly a non-Jewish shop in them, whole branches of retail trade monopolized by Jews.

    Jews, if you know them well enough and understand these things enough for them to talk openly with you, will admit this. They cannot deny it.

    In the beginning was anti-Gentilism. This, not the perfidy of the Gentiles, prevents the assimilation of the Jews. This prevents them from ever becoming Germans or Poles or Italians. This keeps them welded together as alien communities in foreign lands, communities ultimately hostile to the Gentile.

    It is their religion? Good, but it is the reason why they cannot be assimilated.

    In the defeated countries the Jews did not use the great power they achieved to promote and accelerate assimilation. They used it to increase the power and wealth of the Jews, and their intensive mutual collaboration, in that era to oust non-Jews from professions, trades and callings, was the outward and visible sign that anti-Gentilism remained within them. The race barriers that had existed against the Jews were broken down, every path was open; but the race-barrier within themselves still existed, and thus you had the misuse of this freedom and those grave signs of its abuse, the exploitation of cheap labour and of young non-Jewish womanhood, which were so repugnant a feature of life in Berlin and Vienna, and still are seen to-day, as I write, in Budapest and Prague.

    These are grave things, which need to be understood.

    The inner knowledge of this seemingly unbridgable gulf causes many Jews to take on protective colouring, to change their names, to outdo their Gentile neighbours in vocal patriotism, to obscure the fact that they are Jews. Some, a few, marry Gentiles; to the main body of Jews they are renegades who have ‘married outside the faith’. Some, a few, have themselves baptized; but they remain Jews.

    In three Central European capitals that I know the baptism of Jews, since the annexation of Austria, has become an industry. The step is taken in all cynicism, as a business proposition, a means of getting into countries which have banned the admission of Jews, a device to tide over the years until the anti-Semitic wave subsides again. The Jews joke about it among themselves, and the Jews I know, who talk frankly with me because they know that I understand the racket, joke about it with me. One Jew, discussing it with me, told me of an acquaintance who, to his annoyance, found that he had to pass through a period of instruction in the faith he was about to acquire before he received the coveted baptismal certificate, and how he cut short the priest’s explanation of the immaculate conception with the words, ‘Schaun S’, ich glaube Ihnen sämtliche Sachen’ (Look here, I believe everything). This was thought very funny and sent a roar of laughter round the table. In one of the capitals I speak of, several hundred Jews were baptized as Church of England Christians in the summer of 1938, and by a trick they succeeded in predating the baptismal certificates, so that the reason for the conversion should not be ‘too apparent. The convert is usually re-converted to the Hebraic faith when the anti-Semitic period passes.

    These baptized Jews, who have no belief whatever in Christianity, join the community of ‘non-Aryan Christians’ for whom your Church leaders constantly appeal.

    An industry has also grown up around the very distress of the Jews, namely, the industry of marriages bought and sold. All English readers have seen reports of cases where foreign Jewesses have paid foreigners to marry them in order to acquire another nationality and be beyond the reach of immigration bans and business hindrances. The most coveted of all passports — the passport, not the nationality or the husband, is the coveted thing — is the British. I was told by a Jew in Prague, ‘Any young Englishman could earn a million Kronen by marrying a Jewess from here’. His table neighbour commented, ‘He wouldn’t need to be young’, and much laughter followed.

    As I write, the Prague newspaper which makes a speciality of brothel advertisements is earning a large revenue each day by publishing the announcements of emigrant Jews who have their papers in order and offer to take a wife with them, if she has a sufficient dowry; of Jewesses who seek a foreigner or a passage-booked emigrant as a husband and offer large financial inducements; and of foreigners who offer to marry Jewesses, and give them the benefits of another nationality, at a high price. These are some of the advertisements in current issues: ‘American is prepared to marry Jewess’; ‘I seek, for my brother, who is about to emigrate to South America, a wife, Jewess; not over 24, dowry essential’; ‘Marriage of convenience offered by respectable Yugoslav’; ‘Distinguished Englishman offers name-marriage to Jewess’.

    No Jew ever mistakes the man he is dealing with. He knows at once whether the other man is a Jew or a Gentile; it is the first question he asks himself.

    How many Gentiles know when they have to do with a Jew? How often have you heard, ‘Is he really a Jew? The thought never occurred to me. He doesn’t look like one’.

    The feeling towards Gentiles that is given the Jew when he comes into the world and is fostered in him within his family circle, is that the Gentiles are people, more stupid than the Jews, who can be used to bring profit and advantage to the Jews.

    It is a fundamentally hostile attitude, the strength of which is that the Gentiles, by and large, do not realize its existence. All the means of protective colouring are used to further it. Outside that family circle the Jew is a matey, hail-fellow-well-met brother citizen. That is not in his heart, nor in his eyes, if you look into them. You are a man against whom he has to pit his wits, to outdo his potential enemy. The basis of it lies in his religion. It is all very good if both sides realize what is afoot. But it makes assimilation impossible.

    There are two bitterly antagonistic schools of Jewish thought. One is for assimilation, for ignoring that unbridgeable gulf fixed by the Jewish faith, for settling in the midst of the Christian communities and the various nations, and taking on their forms of life and characteristics.

    If you have a young and sturdy race and set a low limit on the number of the Jews, this works fairly well – as for instance, in Serbia. The Serbs were too virile for the Jews to reach disproportionate influence among them – and there were not many Jews. But when a new influx of Jews begins, under the influence of wars or an anti-Semitic movement elsewhere, the trouble starts.

    The other Jewish school of thought is for boldly accepting the truth, that Jews are Jews and unassimilable, for setting up a National Jewish state somewhere of which all Jews should be subjects.

    It is, in my view, the solution and ought at all cost to be done. Then the native citizen of other countries would know with whom he had to deal and what motives he might expect in that citizen of a foreign state. It would put an end to the Jew who constantly steps across the frontiers and repeatedly changes his language, his nationality, and his professed allegiance, who is a German to-day, an Austrian to-morrow, a Hungarian the day after, and next week an Englishman, who claims a privileged place in the world that is open to no other race or faith, who, in the name of love for that particular country in which he happens at the moment to be, works bee-like for war against the anti-Semitic state that he has left.

    Here you have the ruling idea of the dummer Christ again, the stupid Gentile who can be egged on to fight the other Gentiles in order to exterminate anti-Semitism. Organized international Jewry ought, in the name of dignity alone, to put a stop to this. Protest and fight against anti-Semitism as much as you like, but do not expect the nations to go to war about it.

    I spent many years in Germany, both before and after Hitler came to power, and there had the opportunity to study the Jews in the heyday of their power. They were still almost debarred from the army, but apart from that might attain to any post in Germany. The period of opening freedom and opportunity which began in the eighteen hundreds had reached its golden climax. Every door was open.

    How did they use this freedom? To work for Germany? From what I saw, I do not think so. No man’s hand was against them, but they used it to increase and fortify Jewish power and wealth to the detriment of the non-Jewish community.

    The Jews are not cleverer than the Gentiles, if by clever you mean good at their jobs. They ruthlessly exploit the common feeling of Jews, first to get a foothold in a particular trade or calling, then to squeeze the non-Jews out of it. I have chosen journalism for my first example, because I know a deal about it.

    It is not true that Jews are better journalists than Gentiles. They held all the posts on these Berlin newspapers because the proprietors and editors were Jewish. The opinions of these newspapers were quoted abroad as samples of German opinion. They represented the Jewish interest exclusively, in their attitude to both foreign and domestic affairs. If another country was friendly towards Jews, they were friendly towards that country: if it was anti-Jewish they attacked it.

    I remember a case, when a Lord Mayor of Berlin was detected taking bribes from a Jewish contractor. His wife had received an expensive fur coat, of Nerz, which I think is mink, and the scandal stank to heaven, so that the street boys were singing a parody of a then popular song, ‘Wenn du einmal dein Herz verschenkst, dann schenk’ es mir’. They sang: ‘Wenn du mal einen Nerz verschenkst, dann schenk’ ihn mir’. I remember how the Jewish newspapers tried to whitewash that scandal, to divert attention from the fact that the firm of contractors was a Jewish one. I observed this same attitude, on the part of Jewish newspapers, towards an endless series of financial scandals and criminal trials in which Jews were concerned, in Berlin and in Vienna.

    In Berlin, in those days, Jewish newspapers, which had their exact counterparts in Vienna, Budapest and Prague, gave daily space in their small advertisement columns to brothel announcements, blatant and unashamed, with address and telephone number. In Berlin and Vienna this has now been stopped. About Budapest I am not sure. In Prague one of them continues to do this to the very hour in which I write. I have to-day’s issue before me. It has a dozen announcements of this kind:

    Charming young Frenchwoman desires to let a beautifully furnished room to a well-to-do gentleman visiting Prague.
    An attractive young lady has comfortably furnished rooms to let.
    Body culture. A strict young lady imparts instruction in the new crawling-gymnastics.
    And so on, through the whole alphabet of procuration.
    What journalism is this? Is this ‘being cleverer than we are’? Of course you can make money like that, by publishing advertisements that other newspapers will not accept, but are you a better publisher, a better newspaper man for it? Or a less scrupulous one?

    In Vienna, in 1937, it was even possible to read in one of these newspapers an advertisement for a virgin, the price offered being a holiday by the sea. The advertisement read:

    Young man seeks the acquaintance, as the first friend [Freund, in this sense, means accepted lover] of her life of an attractive young girl, for a holiday in Italy together. He will pay all expenses. Three weeks in fairyland! Afterwards, loving friendship.
    The only comment which this advertisement aroused, in the Vienna of that time, was a mild reproof, ‘This is really going a bit far’, from the Catholic Reichspost.
    In the Berlin of yesteryear most of the theatres were Jewish-owned or Jewish-leased, most of the leading film and stage actors were Jews, the plays performed were often by German, Austrian or Hungarian Jews and were staged by Jewish producers, applauded by Jewish dramatic critics in Jewish newspapers.

    Was superior talent the explanation for this Jewish predominance? In my view, it was not. It was due to Protektion, a word that opens every Jewish door between Hamburg and Constanza.

    This is the system. You are a Jew, you encounter another Jew. He does you a small service or you do him one, usually something a little irregular by strict standards. On that basis an enormous superstructure of Protektion, of ramificatory and interlocking acquaintanceships and recommendations, is built up which reaches across all frontiers and unites the whole Jewish world.

    Do you think superior talent enables a Jewish actor or actress smoothly to step from leading parts in Berlin to leading parts in Vienna, when Hitler appears, and again from leading parts in Vienna, when Hitler appears there, to leading parts in London? Do you think non-Jewish talent would find the same open-armed reception from film and theatrical and operatic producers in London, in Paris and New York? Do you think it is a whim of nature that Jews from Poland, Russia, Galicia or Central Europe are needed to put English history on the screen, to portray famous figures of English history, a British officer, a Tudor prince? Do you imagine no Englishmen are available?

    Some of these cases are simply fantastic. The Jew, in such a plight, has a long lead on the non-Jewish fugitive, who faces a world in which he has no single friend, in which he must begin again from scratch, in which his chances of even getting across the frontiers are infinitely worse than those of the Jew, because he has not that Protektion in the outer world.

    In Berlin, one day, there was a Jewish journalist, a member of the staff of one of those snappy, sensational, bedtime-story sheets. Came Hitler, and he retired to Vienna, and joined a newspaper of the same sort there. Came Hitler, and he retired to Prague. Came Hitler, to the Sudeten German lands.

    This man could by no stretch of imagination be called a German, an Austrian, or a Czech. He was a Jew, born in some place that once was Russia and now was Poland or Lithuania or Estonia or heaven knows what. He had supplied ‘the German view’ from Berlin, ‘the Austrian view’ from Vienna, ‘the Czechoslovak view’ from Prague.

    Now I saw him, day by day, in hotel lounges, deep in conference with well-meaning but ill-informed English people who had come to ‘help the Czechs’. He poured a heart-rending tale into their ears, threatened to commit suicide. This was no destitute fugitive, but a slick fellow who was always well-fed and well-dressed and stepped smoothly across the frontier into another land every time that anything happened to make him move on.

    By these means, he was one of the first to get away. I don’t think this was what English people meant by ‘helping the Czechs’, But within a few weeks he was in London. A week or two later he wrote to another Jew in Prague in this sense: ‘I am having a wonderful time. I am staying in the household of an English lord, who is most kind to me. If you wish to send your wife to England, just let me know; I can arrange it immediately. I have good prospects of getting on to the English Press.’

    Soon this man will be giving the world ‘the English view’, writing about the intense indignation that English people feel at the things that Germany does. It is fantastic. If England encourages this sort of thing, England is a lunatic asylum.


    2011 LUNATIC HOUSE …Where we expect illegals to report- just because they were told to……………………..


    The admission of these people to England is a thing in the free gift of the Government, save for such checks as, for the nonce, public discussion, and such part of the Press as remains immune to Jewish influence, may put on it. Already a barrage of intimidation is touched off against any man who tries to expose the danger to England of this new Jewish immigration.

    I have seen this same system at work in Berlin, in Vienna, in Prague, in Budapest. As soon as a man’s name gets the label of anti-Semitism tagged on to it, the grape-vine gets to work, the moles get busy. Yet this is not anti-Semitism, but self-protection.

    Mr. Herbert Metcalfe, the Old Street magistrate, who through the particular scope of his court has a great deal to do with Jewish immigrants, in dealing with a particularly bad case, said the way stateless Jews were pouring into England was an outrage, that the right policy would be to punish them sternly, not merely take them by the scruff of the neck and throw them out, and gave three of them six months hard labour apiece for having got into the country without permits.

    I know this type of Jew, and in my view Mr. Metcalfe was about right. But immediately a drumfire of invective and recrimination against Mr. Metcalfe opened.

    Do you believe this campaign sprang from the Englishman’s innate humanity, sympathy for the under-dog, love of fair play? No, it was partly the balm with which the Englishman of to-day soothes his conscience, mainly the result of Jewish instigation. How many Englishmen to-day would be prepared to admit five thousand non-Jewish, anti-Hitler Germans, skilled workers, men of peace and goodwill and democrats, with their wives and families, to England or the Dominions? No, they are Reds. They are not ‘Germans’ or ‘Austrians’, they are ‘Reds’.

    You Englishmen, who know how hard it is for an Englishman, without family influence, without money, without the Old School Tie to break through the iron ring of privilege, of preference, of nepotism, of wealth, of class-hatred, consider these things. Look at your Englishmen, in Durham, in Jarrow, in Shoreditch, in Hoxton. Do something about them first.

    When I was last in London I saw many faces I knew, many people of a type that I knew, and was not cheered by what I saw, in the streets, in the picture pages of the Press, in the reports of criminal trials.

    If you have eyes to see, take a look at this London of yours, the greatest city of the world, in 1939. Go, with open eyes, from Marble Arch to Hyde Park Corner, along Piccadilly to Leicester Square, down the Strand to Fleet Street and St. Paul’s, from there to Holborn Viaduct and back along Oxford Street. It is as if a drag-net had been cast over Berlin and Vienna and Budapest and Prague and Naples and Paris and Warsaw and Cracow, and the catch dumped down here in this paradise of gilt, chromium, plush and neon-lighting, where Shakespeare once mustered his players, where Milton and Chaucer walked, whence Drake and Raleigh sailed in search of new worlds, where English craftsmen once, long ago, made gates of good wrought iron and chests of good oak, where Englishmen once served Englishmen with beef and beer, and where Englishmen now sit in imitation marble halls eating poached eggs and drinking coffee.

    Put your heads through the doors of the restaurants, Petit Paris, Klein Berlin, Mañana’s, Hoggenstein’s, Posenovitch’s, Umpsky’s, and all the others, and see who is eating, who is serving, there. Stroll through the lounges, accursed word, of the cheap but splendiferous hotels round Piccadilly, the Strand and Marble Arch, and see what manner of people are reclining in those cushioned depths.

    Take up your newspaper and read the small advertisements on the front page:

    This is to certify that Ignacio François Wienerwaldski has applied for naturalization and that if any know just cause or impediment …
    I, Aloysius Ibrahim Espagnolovitch, hereby give notice that I have changed my name to Arthur Etonharrow …
    Turn over the page and look at the ‘Situations Required’.
    Three Viennese sisters (Jewish), who do not wish to be separated, seek positions in an English household.
    Young German (refugee) seeks post as tutor.

    If you have any acquaintances who have engaged such applicants, ask them how long they remained in their employment after reaching England, how soon they left to set up a little business, whether they found a way to bring their sisters and brothers, sons and daughters to England too.
    Your newspapers, if you read them diligently and with discernment, carefully study the names and the pictures, give you a good picture of your London. Consider the following items collected from The Times:

    First, these, about two young Englishmen:

    Albert Smith, a van boy, 18, of Forest Gate, was sent to prison for a month at West Ham Police Court yesterday when he was charged with stealing 1s. from a cash till of a shop in Forest Gate.
    At Thames Police Court yesterday John Brown, 19, pleaded guilty to stealing ten shillings from his employer and was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment.

    Now look at these items, all taken from The Times in that same month:
    A Financial Shark. Bankrupt Dutchman sent to prison. Before Mr. Dummett, at Bow Street Police Court yesterday, —-, a Dutch subject, was charged that he, being an undischarged bankrupt, was concerned in the management of a company without the leave of the Court by which he was adjudged bankrupt … In 1935 he was adjudicated bankrupt, with liabilities amounting to £3,549 and assets 10s. 11d. Mr. Dummett sentenced —- to four months imprisonment. Notice of appeal was given.
    Woman’s Wanderings through Europe. Smuggled into Britain in Ship’s Bunker. At Bow Street yesterday —- … After the advent of Hitler, said defendant, she fled to Poland, then went to Antwerp, where a sailor said he would help her to get to England for £10 … On the third day the sailor came and said, You are safe now, you are in London’ … The magistrate said this was one of those distressing cases. He would make a recommendation for deportation, but the chances were that nothing would be done … A nominal fine of 10s. was imposed.

    Foreign Criminals Imprisoned. Three aliens, two men and a woman, were charged at Bow Street yesterday with landing in this country without the consent of the Immigration Officer. [I ought to explain to you that this means that they were smuggled in, against payment, and that only a few of those who do it are caught.] They were —-, a Russian; —-, a Russian; —-, a Peruvian. Detective-Inspector Muscle, of the Flying Squad, said he saw and arrested the accused in Limehouse. The woman —-, told him she had arrived in London an hour before, having landed in England at a port she did not know. She had paid a Greek sailor £5 and was put on board a boat she did not know. —- had been convicted twice in this country and recommended for deportation, while in 1934 he was convicted in Detroit, U.S.A. —- had no recorded convictions against her in this country, but the Berlin police stated that she was known to the Paris Police under another name. —- had convictions against him dating from 1911 in Dresden, Vienna, Warsaw, Milan, Copenhagen and Zürich; he had been expelled from Denmark and Italy and deported from this country. Detective-Inspector Muscle described the accused as ‘a gang of dangerous international criminals’. Sentence was passed. Detective-Inspector Muscle then stated that he had just received a telegram from the Paris police, who had identified —- by fingerprints as a woman named —-, who was sentenced for theft in Paris in 1934.

    These in a few weeks. The drag-net has caught a few small fish from the shoals that are swimming about in London. Now go through the West End, for your edification, with an open eye, and see what you have in London. When I was there I sometimes thought I was back in the Kurfürstendamm, the Kärntnerstrasse, the Andrássy Ut, the Wenceslas Platz. Here they were, neither toiling nor spinning, but flashing the diamond ring on their little fingers, occupying all the most prominent seats in the lounges of the cheap hotels, reading the papers in half a dozen languages, that pestiferous gang, with their well-manicured hands, their ever-roving eyes, their oiled hair, their natty suits, their aggressive manners, that I had seen in the main streets and cafés of half a dozen capitals.

    First, these, about two young Englishmen:

    Albert Smith, a van boy, 18, of Forest Gate, was sent to prison for a month at West Ham Police Court yesterday when he was charged with stealing 1s. from a cash till of a shop in Forest Gate.
    At Thames Police Court yesterday John Brown, 19, pleaded guilty to stealing ten shillings from his employer and was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment.


    This is the story. In 1919 a Red Republic was proclaimed in the land of the Magyars. Of the Government, of the twenty-six People’s Commissars, eighteen were Jews! The Jews had untrammelled power in Hungary, and they packed the administration, so that the Jews, in that period, were not a powerful though camouflaged class, but overtly the ruling class.

    They had a straw man, an Auslage Goy, as President, the good master-bricklayer Alexander Garbai, but he had nothing to say. Theirs was the Hungarian Kingdom, the power and the glory. Aaron Cohen (Béla Kun), Josef Pogany, Tibor Szamuelly (Samuels) and the others reigned unchallenged, and did some very unpleasant things. Their fingers were no whit less quick on the trigger than those of Ad Hitler or Al Capone.

    Many people are puzzled by the leading part that the Jews play in Communism. How can the Jews, who love money, be for a doctrine which denies the right of private property, the right to amass wealth?, they ask their little selves. The answer is that there is always money at the top, and at the top is a thing that attracts Jews more than money – power. Hungary had given the Jews everything they could desire. One Jew, Ludwig Hatvány, wrote:

    The old Hungary gave me everything: wellbeing, security, rank and title. The university and the academy stood open to me.
    He was of those who supported the Bolshevist regime and afterwards fled into exile.
    The Rumanians chased Béla Kun out of Hungary. He failed to do the one thing which could have given him any hold on the people – take land from the big landowners and give it to the landless peasants. Instead, he nationalized all the land. But to give land to the peasants was a thing not in the hearts of these men; they were as ruthless as any other tyrants. Hard on his heels came Admiral Horthy; quickly the old regime reinstated itself in power; Hungary after a world war was exactly as she had been before it.

    Inevitably, there was a rabid anti-Jewish outbreak. Officers, with improvised detachments, rampaged the land and hanged some Jews, and were not always careful to choose the right ones.

    That was in 1919. By 1920 anti-Jewish feeling was already dwindling, by 1921 it was dead, and the Jews were moving to another period of increasing influence and prosperity. A remarkable thing, when you think of the want that stalked Hungary, of the passions that had been aroused.

    At first, to dissociate themselves from the Red regime and to escape the vengeance that seemed likely to follow it, masses of Jews had themselves baptized: in 1919, 7146; in 1920, 1925; in 1921 only 827, thereafter a very small number annually. The need for protective colouring was diminishing. The number of re-conversions, from Christianity to the Mosaic religion, rose steeply.

    Seventeen years later, in 1938, the Jews in Hungary were richer and more powerfully established than ever before. The memory of the Béla Kun regime seemed completely to have faded; anti-Semitism, but for the ominous rumblings from the north-west, would have been a dead letter. On paper, as always, the proportion of the Jews to the population was very small – about 600,000, or 6.5 per cent of the total, including confessing Jews, baptized Jews, and half-Jews.

    In this matter of the Jews, figures are great prevaricators, for the actual picture that Hungary presented to the human eye was a completely different one. It was a picture of Jewish predominance, in very many walks of life, out of all proportion to their numbers, even assuming that these were much greater than the statistics showed. They were — they are, as I write — a group with a standard of wellbeing and power far above any other in the country.

    They owned 46 per cent of all industrial undertakings. They manned 70 per cent of the boards of all companies representing big business. On the boards of the leading banking houses their share was between 75 and 80 per cent; 67.2 per cent of private brokers and 36 per cent of banking clerks were Jews. They had even gained possession of 11.7 per cent of all land in Hungary – against the urgent warnings of a Zionist leader, who many years before had told them:

    You are making a fatal mistake in acquiring landed property. You already own more than half of the immovable property in this land. The people cannot in the long run tolerate such a conquest. Only by force of arms can a minority, which is alien to the people and is not historically renowned like the old aristocracy, maintain its hold on such possessions.
    Of the bigger estates, 17.6 per cent were in Jewish hands; 34.4 per cent of all doctors were Jews, 49.2 per cent of all lawyers, 31.6 per cent of all journalists. In Budapest, the capital, where between a quarter and a third of the entire population is Jewish, the proportion was much higher. The publishing and printing trades were almost exclusively Jewish, all privately-owned theatres were Jewish, and 40.5 per cent of film theatres.
    To get a clearer picture of this almost monopolistic control take the boards of the twenty leading industrial undertakings in Hungary in 1934-35. Of 336 names 235 were Jewish; 290 of the biggest industrial concerns in Hungary were under the control of the ten biggest banks. Of 319 names on the boards 223 were Jewish.

    In 1936, 19 newspapers in Budapest employed 418 editors, journalists and contributors; 306 were Jewish.

    Now leave the figures and look at Budapest, at the retail trade, the mightiest of all the Jewish strongholds. Here the Jewish preponderance is clearest to the naked eye, because it is behind the counter, not upstairs in the board-room. In Budapest there are miles of streets where you may search vainly for a non-Jewish shop. It is very difficult, if you wish to buy anything, not to buy it from a Jew.

    The contrast between this strongly entrenched Jewish community, all its units earning a good living, and the poverty of the workers in outer Budapest, of the peasants in many parts of the country, is striking and depressing. Most of the workers work for Jews and, when they get their meagre pay envelope, hand it to their wives, who trot along to the Jewish shopkeeper and give it back, and so the money, like the music, goes round and round and comes out – where? Nowhere where the worker or the peasant can get at it.

    It is, in its way, a new tyranny, comparable with that of the nobles and the Church in the Middle Ages, the tyranny of money-power instead of the tyranny of inherited privilege, and it needs remedying just as much as those other tyrannies, which still linger on.

    This is the problem that has to be solved, as it seems to me: that the Jews, given full equality of opportunity, use it to oust the others and acquire the status of a privileged class.

    Come with me on a few journeys through the Hungarian countryside and watch the system at work there.

    Come to Mezökövesd, where the tourists are taken on Sundays in charabancs, because on Sundays the peasants put on their pretty costumes and all go to church, and this delights the tourists, who feel they are really getting to know Hungary, lunch well at the restaurant round the corner, which is decorated in the Hungarian-operetta style and is especially put there for tourists and has about as much relation to life in Mezökövesd as the Berkeley Buttery has to the good old English life of Bethnal Green, and are whisked back to Budapest in their charabancs.

    But we will go to Mezökövesd not on Sunday, but on Saturday afternoon. The peasants and villagers are at work; they are not wearing those picturesque costumes. They are at their daily grind, which lasts from dawn to dusk. They are bitterly poor. Money is a rare thing to them, even small coins. They think themselves lucky if they have enough to eat.

    On all sides of you you will see these faces lined and wrinkled by toil and care and weather, these figures warped by heavy labour. But go a little farther and you come to the village square, a place where the church stands and the road widens and there are a few shops and women sit by piles of pumpkins – the village meeting-place. If Mezökövesd were London this would be Piccadilly Circus.

    All those shops, every one of them, has a Jewish name above it. It is Saturday afternoon, and the owners are not working. They, too, stand about the market-place, or at any rate, the young men; the older men and the women sit in the shops, talking.

    If you close your eyes to the market-place and only look at those young men, this is London, this is Piccadilly Circus. They are just the same Jews that you see there. They wear natty suits, close-fitting shoes, new hats on carefully-barbered heads. They are well-to-do. They are the lords of this remote little town, with its dusty and rutty road, with the geese running about, with oxen-hauled wagons passing to and fro.

    The rest, the church, the lean and hungry peasants, the mean cottages, is just backcloth. On the long winter evenings those peasant women spend hours, by the dim light of a paraffin lamp, stitching and embroidering, stitching and embroidering, stitching and embroidering. Round the corner is a shop, where a well-dressed Jewish gentleman sits reading the Pesti Naplo. From him you may buy those attractive hand-worked bedspreads and tablecloths, the products of so many midwinter nights’ work – at a price, a high one. The peasants sell them to him – at a low one. In Budapest there are many of these shops, all Jewish-owned, where the arts and crafts of Hungary fill the windows and the foreign tourists pause with little cries of pleasure at the pretty things they see.

    Next time you pass one of those shops think of the people who make these things. Try and get someone to take you to the homes of the people who make them, watch them at work.

    In Czechoslovakia the peasants sell these things direct to the buyer – in the market-place, in the street. Why not in Hungary? Is it forbidden? By whom, and for whom?

    Come to Esztèrgom, the cradle of Hungary, where the first Hungarian kings had their palace on that craggy eminence overlooking the Danube and the bridge which, until recently, took you into Czechoslovakia, but now the land on the other side is Hungarian again. Come there, too, on a Saturday afternoon, see exactly the same thing happen there in the tiny market-place. Perhaps in a hundred years Esztèrgom will be a great and rich and populous and important town. That little market-place will be growing into a local Piccadilly Circus. Sites there will be the most valuable in all Esztèrgom. They are all owned by Jews. All the shops bear Jewish names, first modest ventures in gilt, chromium, nickel and neon-lighting are being made. The young Jews, in their town clothes, stand about, talking. The town lads run about barefoot, beg watermelon-rinds from the greengrocer, gnaw them till the light shows through the husk.

    Come to Kecskemet. This is a town, quite a big one. Here they make that excellent apricot brandy which the Prince of Wales discovered for the Hungarians – so the Hungarians say. Here is a big square. One of the biggest buildings in it is the synagogue. A deal of money, such a synagogue costs. All round the square are the glittering Jewish, shop signs. The countryside around is poor, the peasants harassed by want. Out of the synagogue come the Jews of Kecskemet, important, well-dressed, talking in gesticulating groups – a people apart.

    Go where you will in Hungary, in every town and every larger village you will find the synagogue among the most prominent buildings, the banks, the shops, the picture theatres, the filling stations, owned by the Jews.

    Go where you will in Hungary and you will find that the native craftsman and handworker is almost extinct. Where he still exists he makes lovely things, but he is almost impossible to find. The few shops in the village market-place are a replica in miniature of Budapest – cheap china, shoddy and ready-made, trashy jewellery, artificial silk stockings, tawdry frocks, the harvest of a young Jewish-controlled industry working to the lowest possible level of taste and material.

    I once went to a great fair on the outskirts of Budapest and was staggered by the nightmare assortment of cheap machine-made goods that I saw there, that the peasants, come in from the countryside, were avidly buying. At one stall a Jew was selling the most hideous collection of cheap oleographs of the Christian God and His prophets that I ever saw, all in gilt frames. I ransacked that fair for something that I wanted to buy, something that, when I was in other lands, would give me pleasure to look at and remind me of Hungary, that lovely Hungary of the abundant fields and the peasants working in them, not this Hungary of inferior machine-made wares.

    At last I found a man who sold jugs and vases and cups that he had moulded and baked and painted himself. At last, something echt, something genuine, something Hungarian. He had a few drinking-cups, bottoms-up cups that you have either to hold in your hand or empty and put down, you can’t stand them on the table and sip. They were lovely. I bought four, and only wish I had bought the other two that he had. I never look at them without delight. They cost sixpence each. To me they were beyond price.

    ‘The Jews’ paradise’, my Jewish acquaintance had called Hungary. I had taken a good look at it and agreed with him. I was not convinced that the Jews had been good for Hungary. If you want to study this question, which is playing so large a part in our time, Hungary is a good place to begin.

    I was impressed in Hungary, as I had been in Vienna up to the very moment when Hitler marched in, as I was later in Prague, by the apparent unconcern of the Jews. England, France, America and the whole of the outer world were ringing with the tale of Jewish persecution, yet in these cities, with Hitler at their very door, they went their way seemingly unperturbed, made no change in their mode of life or their way of enjoying it, predominated, just as they had always done, in the showier cafés and restaurants and hotels and bars and night-clubs. This continues at this moment, as I write, in Prague, in November 1938. Only a few miles away, at this very moment, synagogues are burning. Thousands of Jews have been turned out, neck and crop, from Germany into Poland; hundreds into Czechoslovakia. Here in Prague the Jews are eating, laughing, dancing as if they had no cares. Of all the prevalent misconceptions about the Jews the worst is that they are cowardly. They are most courageous – for a cause that is their own. They are also irrepressible.

    Many people were puzzled by something I once wrote about the Jews – that when Hitler had passed away they would still he trading in the Kurfürstendamm, in the Kärntnerstrasse. You seem to be right about some things, they said, but you are clearly nuts about this. The Jews are being exterminated. Soon they will be no more.

    Don’t believe it. You are fooling yourself if you do. Try and realize that the great majority of the Jews who were in Germany when Hitler came to power are there now, that the majority of the shops in such main shopping thoroughfares as the Kurfürstendamm are Jewish — I write this in the knowledge that they were wrecked yesterday, and I wonder how those British insurance companies are feeling about it — and this mass of Jews will stay there.

    Of course they will go through bad times, but they will stay there and survive them. Hitler should live, say, another twenty years, or thereabouts. From Vienna the Jews were banished ‘for all time’ — a favourite phrase of the Führer — in 1422, and subsequent clearances were made in 1554, 1567, 1573, 1575, 1600, 1614 and 1624. In 1670 they were banished for all time again. All through the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, in spite of periodic banishments, their influence increased. In 1879 the last strongholds — State service and university chairs — fell to them. In 1937 Vienna had more Jews than ever before and they prospered exceedingly.

    I don’t think the Jews made good or fair use, on the whole, of the flinging-open of all doors to them, and they are now descending somewhat from the peak of power and affluence to which the World War brought them. A new period of restriction has begun. No one can foresee at this moment how long it will last or how much damage it will do them. That it will relax again, sometime, is as certain as that the sun will rise to-morrow.

    For my part, I am convinced of one thing, and I know that many Jews in their hearts agree with me about this: that the relaxation, when it comes, should not be used, for instance, to make Berlin again at some future time what Berlin was before 1933. For this reason I find some of the things that I see in London to-day sinister and ominous.

    The Jews have a part to play if anti-Semitism is to be killed. In London to-day they are doing just what they did in Berlin. They are deserting the East, flooding the West, flooding Hampstead and Maida Vale, squeezing-out, flaunting.

    There are nearly two million unemployed in England, millions of English people are living in conditions that disgrace the richest country in the world, and it isn’t good enough. The theory of the free fox in the free henroost has got to be exploded.

    Why have I written all these things, at such length? First, because I know something about the matter and because I, who have helped many Jews by word and deed, like to say just what I think when somebody yelps ‘anti-Semite’ at me.

    Secondly, because I believe the only way to settle this eternal wrangle to everybody’s satisfaction, including the Jews, since the Jews will not change their anti-Gentile religion, would be to found a National Jew State for them, and if I were Hitler I would do that: what a sweet revenge, to be the man who solved the Jewish problem and put an end to anti-Semitism!

    Thirdly, because I believe that if you cannot have your Jewish state, then you must resolutely close your frontiers to any more Jews and apply yourself diligently to assimilating those that you have, but in this case you must safeguard yourself against their rise to disproportionate power and affluence through methods which, in our code, amount to unfair competition.

    At a railway station in Prague I watched a trainload of refugees move out into an unknown future. They were all men. They were all Germans, from the Sudeten German lands that Hitler has annexed. These were Socialists and Communists, men whose lives were in peril. They were bound for England and, after that, somewhither, none knew.

    Their womenfolk and children stood on the platform weeping, not knowing when they would see their husbands and fathers again. The men, good, sturdy German working men, stood at the windows and watched them. They said hardly a word. Their faces showed resignation and dejection. They just stood and looked at their wives and children on the platform.

    Among them was one Jew. On the platform stood his mother and sister, different from the working-class women around, better dressed. The Jew, alone of all those men, had something to say. ‘Wir kommen wieda’, he announced loudly, to the waiting crowd at large, ‘We’ll be back’. The other men remained silent and expressionless; they knew that they would not be coming back. The Jew spoke again, to his sister. ‘Trachte, dass du bald nachkommst’, he said. ‘Try and get out soon.’ Why, I wondered, if he thought he would be back.

    The train moved out. The men at the windows looked silently at their people on the platform, nodded sadly with their heads, made no other movement. The Jew leaned out of the window, cried, loudly, ‘Wir kommen wieda!’ The crowd gazed after him, made no response. The other men still stood silently at their windows, nodding their heads in farewell. The Jew raised his arm, fist clenched, in the workers’ greeting. On the little finger a diamond flashed in the light of the lamps.

    Now, why? I asked myself, as I came away. He simply is not of those men, those working men, neither he nor his ring nor his rather theatrical cry nor his mother nor his sister. They are all quite different, they belong somewhere else. Then why was he there, and what were his innermost motives?

    I could find no answer. He was just different.






    the jews owned 85% of the Berlin banks at the time when Hitler broke jewish supremacism inside Germany thru political science. The jews inside America are only about 4% of the population but for the last 95 years have enjoyed total domination of the USA banks, USA media sources and the USA political bodies. American citizens are allowed to “elect” their political representives only from the source pool which has already been “selected” for them by their jewish money masters.

    TheTruthMustPrevail 10 months ago 33



Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s