10/11 Wargame by the Brain of the US Government, Brookings: How Israeli Airstrike Against Iran Will Pass Off?

Were I Iranian President I’d nuke Israel yesterday- had I any Nuclear weapons- end the NWO for the sake of humanity.

Wargame by the Brain of the US Government, Brookings: How Israeli Airstrike Against Iran Will Pass Off?

Posted by Anders under English, Euromed

LATEST. The Daily Mail 10 Nov. 2011: Sources say the understanding at the top of the British Government is that Israel will attempt to strike against the nuclear sites ‘sooner rather than later’ – with logistical support from the U.S. A senior Foreign Office figure has revealed that ministers have been told to expect Israeli military action, adding: ‘We’re expecting something as early as Christmas, or very early in the new year.’


Summary: On December 14, 2009, the Brookings Institution´s Saban Center for Middle East Policy conducted a day-long simulation of the diplomatic and military fallout that could result from an Israeli military strike against the Iranian nuclear program. This is an excerpt from Brookings´ report.The following is now more relevant than ever – after the IAEO Report GOV/2011/63 and the rumors of imminent Israeli attacks on Iran. A hypothetical US National Security Council with former mermbers of that council, a hypothetical Israeli well-qualifed government committee and an Iranian hypothtical National Supreme Security Council with more uncertain qualifications participated in the wargame under the surveillance of senior observers. The reactions of Russia and China were not taken into consideration.

1. The game began with all teams receiving reports that a large-scale Israeli strike had already taken place against Iran.Control opted to have Israel not tell the United States before the strike that it would be attacking. We wanted to test a scenario in which Israel gets its fondest wish and does maximum damage to the Iranian targets.
2. The U.S. and Israel teams demonstrated very different approaches to the situation.
3. The U.S. team called for restraint on all sides and was heavily focused on the danger of unintended escalation,but pledged to defend Israel.
4. The Israel team accepted these conditions, at least initially, even while Israel was being hit by missiles from Iran, rockets from Hizballah.
5. Meanwhile, the U.S. team aggressively – but in vain -sought to make contact with the Iran team.
6. The Iran team saw opportunities to weaken Israel and demonstrate that Jerusalem would pay a heavy price for attacking Iran; to weaken the American regional position and undertake attacks on U.S. allies.
7. The Iran team ordered a wide range of actions meant simply to inflict pain on Israel without any larger strategic purpose,and thereby they did cross an American red line. If Israel had left some of the nuclear program intact the Iranian response would have been less dramatic. Besides Iran would mount terrorist attacks in Europe in order to make Europe turn its back on Israel and the US.
8. The Iran team concluded that the fact that many of the Israeli aircraft had traversed Saudi Arabia was proof of Israeli and Saudi collusion.
9. Iran persisted in lobbing small numbers of Shahab-3 ballistic missiles at Israeli targets, assisted by Hezbollah from Lebanon.
10. In response, the Israel team began to pressure the U.S. team – and was allowed to attack Hezbollah – but not Iran
11. Thus, as its final move, the Israel team ordered a fortyeight- hour air and special forces “blitz” against Lebanon – with a more farreaching air and ground attack to follow.
12.The endgame ended with the United States having given up on its efforts to engage Iran, having begun a massive military reinforcement of the Gulf region, and having committed itself (including publicly) to clearing the Strait of Hormuz and protecting Gulf oil exports, by force if necessary. Had the game gone on it would have ended with the destruction of all Iranian air-seaground assets in and around the Strait of Hormuz on top of the loss of its nuclear program.

DEBKAfile 9 Nov. 2011: Most Israelis now suspect that Iran already has the N-bomb but no one responsible is willing to admit it. That should be enough to make Israeli leadership think twice – unless they have an agreement with Iran.
The following is now more relevant than ever – after the IAEO Report GOV/2011/63.

On December 14, 2009, the Brookings Institution´s Saban Center for Middle East Policy conducted a day-long simulation of the diplomatic and military fallout that could result from an Israeli military strike against the Iranian nuclear program. This is an excerpt from Brookings´ report.

Brookings is a US think said to have been telling the United States Government how to conduct its affairs for the past 70 years – and is still doing so. So one can expect the US to behave as described below in an Israeli attack on Iran. However, the Brookings wargame does not take the reaction of Russia and China into consideration! The maximum damage to Iran´s nuclear project may not be seen – if the information about an undercover agreement between Israel and Iran about an Israeli attack to boost oil prices is correct.

Wargames present a representation of reality and must be tightly controlled to minimize the extent to which they misrepresent real-world events. Having multiple teams in any crisis simulation immediately introduces distortion because the teams and their interaction with each other cannot be modeled to reflect reality perfectly. In the December 14 simulation, Control allowed the U.S. and Israel teams to have extensive interaction. The U.S. and Israel teams were only allowed to communicate with the Iran team indirectly to try to simulate the absence of easy or extensive channels between the two sides.

Those on the U.S. team were highly accomplished former U.S. government personnel, all of whom had participated in National Security Council meetings while in government. All present, including a number of observers from the press, the U.S.government, and Brookings felt that their deliberations closely reflected how an American National Security Council would approach the scenario presented by the simulation. Similarly, those present—including one very senior-level Israeli observer who had participated in Israeli government cabinet-level discussions—felt that the Israel team had successfully modeled the behavior of an actual Israeli cabinet in such a situation. It was impossible for those on our Iran team to know how real Iranian decision-makers would act—or for Control or any of the observers to judge the accuracy of their portrayal. Considerable caution must be applied when suggesting how the results of a simulation ought to shape real-world policy-making decisions.

One team represented a A: hypothetical American National Security Council,a second team represented a B: hypothetical Israeli cabinet, and a third team represented a C: hypothetical Iranian Supreme National Security Council.

1. The game began with all teams receiving reports that a large-scale Israeli strike had already taken place against Iran, motivated by the breakdown of talks between Iran and the P5+1, the failure of the United Nations Security Council to endorse more than symbolic new sanctions against Iran, and the acquisition of highly valuable but highly perishable intelligence information regarding the existence of two secret Iranian nuclear facilities. Control opted to have Israel not tell the United States before the strike that it would be attacking. We wanted to test a scenario in which Israel gets its fondest wish and does maximum damage to the Iranian targets.

At first, many on the U.S. team were outwardly angry that the Israelis had not informed the US. However, during the course of the simulation, members of the U.S. team revealed that had Israel informed the United States of a planned strike, even at the eleventh hour, the United States would have demanded that Israel call it off. Some members of the U.S. team also noted that Israel’s decision not to inform the United States gave Washington the ability to say with complete sincerity that it had not condoned the attack and had not even been notified—positions that later became very important to the American strategy.

Because two successive American administrations have made it clear that they do not want Israel to strike Iran, Washington should not assume that it will be notified if Jerusalem makes the decision to do sodespite American opposition.

2. Right from the start, the U.S. and Israel teams demonstrated very different approaches to the situation—the aftermath of a successful Israeli airstrike—which created tremendous tension between them throughout the simulation. The Israel team believed (and hoped to convince the U.S. team) that Israel’s strike had created a terrific opportunity for the West to pressure Iran, weaken it, and possibly even undermine the regime. The U.S. team, conversely, felt that Israel had opened a potential Pandora’s Box and it was vital that they (the Americans) get it closed as quickly as possibly. U.S. team told themthat they had made a mess and should go sit in the corner and not do anything else while the United States cleaned it up.

3. The U.S. team called for restraint on all sides and was heavily focused on the danger of unintended escalation, not wanting the United States to be dragged into a conflict with Iran. But, the U.S. team did pledge the United States to Israel’s defense, and early on undertook numerous moves in support of that promise.

4. The Israel team accepted these conditions, at least initially, even while Israel was being hit by missiles from Iran, rockets from Hizballah (and a small number of rockets from Hamas), and terrorist attacks by all of the above. The Israel team did mount a pair of covert actions againstIranian targets that had already been planned and put in motion before the strike, but otherwise it simply took the hits.

5. Meanwhile, the U.S. team aggressively sought to make contact with the Iran team. Ostensibly, the purpose of these overtures was to bring about a ceasefire; however, several members of the U.S. team explicitly stated that they were hoping that the extraordinary circumstances of the crisis might allow Washington to transform its own relationship with Tehran.

Some members of both the U.S. and Israel teams averred that Israel’s strategy had been to start a war with Iran in the expectation that the United States would have no choice but to finish it. Not all members of the Israel team agreed with this perspective, some disagreed vehemently.

Irans position
6. The Iran team saw opportunities to weaken Israel and demonstrate that Jerusalem would pay a heavy price for attacking Iran; to weaken the American regional position and undertake attacks on U.S. allies which would demonstrate that the United States was a paper tiger and convince those allies that supporting a confrontational policy toward Iran would be painful for them as well.

7. The Iran team ordered a wide range of actions meant simply to inflict pain on Israel without any larger strategic purpose: firing small volleys of ballistic missiles first at the Dimona Nuclear Research Center, and then at Israeli air bases; asking Hizballah and Hamas to fire rockets at Israeli population centers; firing a salvo of missiles at the Saudi oil export processing center at Abqaiq; and attempting to stir disgruntled Saudi Shi’ah in the Eastern Province to attack the Saudi regime as best they could. The Iran team also opted immediately after the Israeli strike to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and mount terrorist attacks against Europe in the hope that it would convince European governments to turn on Israel and the United States, not just in the immediate circumstances of the crisis, but over the longer term as well.

8. The Iran team concluded that the fact that many of the Israeli aircraft had traversed Saudi Arabia was proof of Israeli and Saudi collusion. Thereby, they did overstep but the measured and balanced initial American response to these attacks convinced the Iran team that they were right in this assumption and caused them to push harder, to the point where they did cross an American red line and provoked the U.S. military response they had sought to avoid.

The Iran team indicated that a less successful Israeli strike (probably a much more likely occurrence), which left part of Iran’s nuclear program intact and which Israeli follow-on strikes could have threatened, would have made them more conservative in their response. According to the Iran team, the even-handed messages they received from the U.S. team, particularly the desire for face-to-face meetings, U.S. restraint, and lack of further Israeli military actions (obviously in response to the American demands) were signs of weakness and/or an aversion to conflict with Iran.

US nuclear Bunker-Blaster B61 – with 1/3 – 6 times the explosive capacity of the Hiroshima-Bomb.
The problem with radioactive Fallout and the pollution, while rebuffed by US-NATO military analysts, would be devastating, possibly with impact on a big area of the Middle East (incl. Israel) and the Central Asian region.

Consequences in Israel
9. Iran persisted in lobbing small numbers of Shahab-3 ballistic missiles at Israeli targets, and while they did relatively little damage, the Israeli government came under pressure in the media for having undermined the Israeli deterrent. However, of far greater significance were the Hizballah rocket attacks, which gradually increased to roughly 100 short-range rockets against targets in northern Israel each day and about a half-dozen longer-range rockets aimed at Haifa and Tel Aviv. Although the rockets killed very few people, they crippled the Israeli economy.
As one member of the Israel team put it to his counterpart on the U.S. team, “A third of our population is living in shelters 24/7.” Likewise, hundreds of thousands of Israelis were temporarily leaving Tel Aviv and Haifa.

10. In response, the Israel team began to pressure the U.S. team either to have the United States do something itself or allow Israel to fight back. By the end of the simulation, eight days after the initial strike, the Israel team had secured American permission to act against Hizballah, although the U.S. team

made clear that they did not want Israel responding directly to Iran in any way.

11. Thus, as its final move, the Israel team ordered a fortyeight- hour air and special forces “blitz” against Lebanon to try to diminish, if not eliminate, the rocket fire. The Israel team was already resigned to the likely failure of this operation and had begun preparing for a more far-reaching follow-on operation involving much larger Israeli Air Force strikes and extensive ground operations into Lebanon to smash Hizballah.

It is worth noting that even this highly aggressive Iran team specifically chose not to create problems for the United States in Iraq or Afghanistan, or to otherwise directly attack American targets. Israel was still being subjected to Iranian ballistic missile strikes and was unable to do anything about them.

The endgame
12. ended with the United States having given up on its efforts to engage Iran, having begun a massive military reinforcement of the Gulf region, and having committed itself (including publicly) to clearing the Strait of Hormuz and protecting Gulf oil exports, by force if necessary. Had the game gone on it would have ended with the destruction of all Iranian air-seaground assets in and around the Strait of Hormuz on top of the loss of its nuclear program.

Control remarks:
*The United States should at least recognize the potential for Iran to lash out more aggressively in response to a strike that does great damage to its nuclear program. And that a more conservative response from Tehran might indicate that the initial strike did little damage and that Iran was fearful of provoking follow-on attacks that might succeed where the first strike had failed.

One of the most important points that the simulation illustrated was the danger for Israel that any strike against Iran could well force Jerusalem to mount major counter-terror operations against Hizballah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza. If an Israeli prime minister is going to order an attack on
the Iranian nuclear program, he likely will have to be prepared to order major operations against Lebanon and Gaza too.*



2 responses to “10/11 Wargame by the Brain of the US Government, Brookings: How Israeli Airstrike Against Iran Will Pass Off?

  1. http://euro-med.dk/?p=25068

    US Defend Israel…..lol Israel is the bloody bully NOT Iran!!

    Reed saw it all..why?
    because he studied facts not fiction!

    ; that any Middle East war in which the West engaged would be waged for the primary purpose of enlarging the territory of the Zionist state, to accommodate this larger population; and that the two wars would effectively merge into one, in the course of which this dominant purpose would remain hidden from the embroiled masses until it was achieved, and confirmed by some new “world instrument”, at the fighting’s end.

    New York and California) are those to which the Jewish immigration of the last seventy years had evidently been directed for this purpose.* In 1952, when I watched, the voting for the two men was running fairly even when Mr. Dewey smilingly delivered the large package-vote of New York State against his party’s leader and for Mr. Eisenhower. Other “key states” followed suit and he received the nomination, which in the circumstances of that moment a1so meant the presidency.

    It also meant, in effect, the end of any genuine two-party system in America for the present; the system of elected representatives which is known as “democracy” sinks to the level of the one-party system in non-democracies if the two parties do not offer a true choice of policy. The situation was so depicted to Jewish readers by the Jerusalem Post on the eve of the election (Nov. 5, 1952), which instructed them that there was “not much to choose between the two”. (Mr. Eisenhower, Republican; Mr. Stevenson, Democrat) “from the point of view of the Jewish elector” and that Jewish interest should be concentrated on “the fate” of those Congressmen and Senators held to be “hostile to the Jewish cause”.

    Immediately after the new President’s inauguration (January, 1953) the British Prime Minister, Sir Winston Churchill hastened to America to confer with him, though not to Washington, where Presidents reside; Mr. Eisenhower suggested that they meet “at Bernie’s place”, Mr. Baruch’s Fifth Avenue mansion (Associated Press, Feb. 7, 1953). Mr. Baruch at that time had been urgently recommending the adoption of his “atom bomb plan” as the only effective deterrent to “Soviet aggression” (his remarks to the Senate Committee were quoted in an earlier chapter). Apparently he was not so suspicious of or hostile to the Soviet as he then seemed, for some years later he disclosed that the notion of a


    It involves the sending of troops to an international army similar to that which was contemplated under the United Nations Charter. . . I was never satisfied with the United Nations Charter. . .it is not based on an underlying law and an administration of justice under that law . . . I see no choice except to develop our own military policy and our own policy of alliances, without substantial regard to the non-existent power of the United Nations to prevent aggression . . . The other form of international organization which is being urged strenuously upon the people of the United States, namely, a


    world state with an international legislature to make the laws and an international executive to direct the army of the organization . . . appeares to me, at least in this century, to be fantastic, dangerous and impractical. Such a state, in my opinion, would fall to pieces in ten years . . . The difficulties of holding together such a Tower of Babel under one direct government would be insuperable . . . But above all, anyone who suggests such a plan is proposing an end to that liberty which has produced in this country the greatest happiness. . . the world has ever seen. It would subject the American people to the government of a majority who do not understand what American principles are, and have little sympathy with them. Any international organization which is worth the paper it is written on must be based on retaining the sovereignty of all states. Peace must be sought, not by destroying and consolidating nations, but by developing a rule of law in the relations between nations. . .”

    These extracts show that Senator Taft saw through today’s “deception of nations”; they explain also why his name was anathema to the powers which control “the vote of the key states” and why he was not allowed even to run for president.* The entire period of Mr. Eisenhower’s canvass, nomination, election and early presidency was dominated by “the Jewish question”; he might have been elected president only of the Zionists, so constantly were his words and deeds directed towards the furtherance of their ambition.

    Immediately after the nomination he told a Mr. Maxwell Abbell, president of the United Synagogue of America, “The Jewish people could not have a better friend than me” and added that he and his brothers had been reared by their mother in “the teachings of the Old Testament” (Mrs. Eisenhower was a fervent adherent of the sect of Jehovah’s Witnesses), and “I grew up believing that Jews were the chosen people and that they gave us the high ethical and moral principles of our civilization” (many Jewish newspapers, September 1952).

    This was followed by ardent professions of sympathy for “the Jews” and for “Israel” from both candidates on the occasion of the Jewish New Year (Sept., 1952); during this festival, also, American pressure on the “free” Germans in West Germany succeeded in extorting their signature to the agreement to pay “reparations” to Israel. In October came the Prague trial, with the charge of “Zionist conspiracy”, and Mr. Eisenhower began to make his menacing

    * Whether Senator Taft, had he become president would have found himself able to carry out the clear, alternative policy here outlined is a question now never to be answered. In the particular case of Zionism, which is an essential part of the entire proposition here denounced by him, he was as submissive as all other leading politicians and presumably did not discern the inseparable relationship between it and the “world state” ambition which he scarified. A leading Zionist of Philadelphia. a Mr. Jack Martin, was asked to become Senator Taft’s “executive secretary” in 1945 and records that his first question to Mr. Taft was, “Senator, what can I tell you about the aspirations of Zionism?” Taft is quoted as answering, in Balfourean or Wilsonian vein, “What is there to explain? The Jews are being persecuted. They need a land, a government of their own. We have to help them to get Palestine. This will also contribute incidentally to world peace . .” The contrast between this, the typical talk of a vote-seeking ward politician, and the enlightened exposition given above is obvious. Mr. Martin, who is described in the article now quoted (Jewish Sentinel, June 10, 1954) as Senator Taft’s “alter ego” and “heir”, after Taft’s death was invited by President Eisenhower to become his “assistant, advisor and liaison with Congress”. Mr. Martin’s comment: “President Eisenhower is ready to listen freely to your opinion and it is easy to advise him”.


    statement s about “anti-semitism in the Soviet Union and the satellite countries”.

    The charge of “anti-semitism” was deemed to be a vote-getter in the election itself and was brought by the outgoing president, Mr. Truman, against Mr. Eisenhower, who told an audience that he was overcome by the insinuation: “I just choke up and leave it to you”. Rabbi Hillel Silver of Cleveland (who threatened the Soviet Union with war on the count of “anti-semitism”) was called into conclave with Mr. Eisenhower and on emerging from it exonerated the aspirant from all anti-semitic taint (Rabbi Silver had offered a prayer at the Republican Convention which nominated Mr. Eisenhower; at the new President’s inauguration, and at Mr. Eisenhower’s request, he offered the prayer “for grace and guidance”.) Among the rival campaigners the outgoing Vice-President, a Mr. Alben Barkley, excelled all others. Of a typical statement by Mr. Barkley (“I predict a glorious future for Israel as a model on which most of the Middle East might pattern itself”) Time magazine said; “The star of the speech circuit is Vice President Alben Barkley, who for years has drawn up to $1 000 for each appearance. Barkley is a paid platform favourite for Israel bond-selling drives. Many Arabs think. . . that this fact has had an influence on United States policy in the Middle East; but not many Arabs vote in U.S. elections”.

    A few weeks after the inauguration the West German tribute agreement was ratified, a German Minister then announcing that the Bonn Government had yielded to pressure from America, which did not wish to appear openly as the financier of the Zionist state. In the same month (April 1953) Jewish newspapers, under the heading “Israel Shows Its Might”, reported that “The whole diplomatic corps and the foreign military attaches who watched the Israel Army’s biggest parade in Haifa, with the Navy drawn up offshore and units of the Air Force flying overhead, were duly impressed and the parade’ s aim, to demonstrate that Israel was ready to meet a decision in the field, was achieved”.

    In these circumstances, with various new “pledges” and undertakings given and noted for the future, with Stalin dead, Israel ready for “a decision in the field” and the “free” half of Germany toiling to pay tribute, one more presidential term began in 1953. A curious incident marked the great Inauguration Day parade in Washington. At the tail of the procession rode a mounted man in cowboy dress who reined in as he reached the presidential stand and asked if he might try his lariat. Obediently Mr. Eisenhower stood up and bowed his head; the noose fell around him and was pulled taut; the moving pictures showed a man, with bared head, at the end of a rope.

    The new president many have thought to utter simple platitudes when he said, “The state of Israel is democracy’s outpost in the Middle East and every American who loves liberty must join in an effort to make secure forever the future of this newest member of the family of nations”. In fact, this was a commitment, or so held by those to whom it was addressed, like similar words of Mr. Roosevelt and Mr. Woodrow Wilson. Eight years after Hitler’s death the new state, where


    Hitler’s very laws held and whence the native people had been driven by massacre and terror, was “democracy’s outpost” and all who “1oved liberty” must (the imperative) join to preserve it.

    If the new president thought he was free to form state policy, after he uttered such words, he was taught better within nine months of his inauguration. In October, 1953 the commitment was called, and imperiously. An effort to act independently, and in the American national interest, in an issue affecting “the newest member of the family of nations” was crushed, and the American President made to perform public penance, in much the same way that “Rockland” (Woodrow Wilson) was brought to heel in Mr. House’s novel in 1912.

    This humiliation of the head of what mankind saw as the most powerful government in the world is the most significant incident in the present story, which has recounted many episodes, similar in nature but less open to public audit. The series of Zionist attacks on the Arab neighbour-states (listed in the preceding section) began on Oct. 14, 1953, when every living soul in the Arab village of Qibya, in Jordan was massacred. This was a repetition of the Deir Yasin massacre of 1948, with the difference that it was done outside Palestine, and thus deliberately intimated to the entire body of Arab peoples that they all in time would suffer “utter destruction”, again with the connivance of “the West”.

    The facts were reported to the United nations by the Danish General Vagn Bennike, chief of the U.N. Truce Observation Organization (who received threats against his life) and his immediately, responsible subordinate, Commander E.D. Hutchison of the U.S. Navy, who described the attack as “cold blooded murder” (and was later removed). At the subsequent discussion before the U.N. Security Council, the French delegate said “the massacre” had aroused “horror and reprobation” in France and reproached Israel, the state founded on the claim of “persecution”, with “wreaking vengeance on the innocent”. The Greek delegate spoke of “the horrible massacre” and the British and American delegates joined in the chorus of “condemnation” (Nov. 9, 1953). In England the Archbishop of York denounced this “horrible act of terrorism” and a Conservative M.P., Major H. Legge-Bourke, called it “the culminating atrocity in a long chain of incursions into non-Israeli territory, made as part of a concerted plan of vengeance”.

    When these expressions of horror were uttered Israel had, in effect, been awarded an American bonus of $60,000,000 for the deed and the American President had publicly submitted to the Zionist “pressure” in New York. This is the chronology of events:

    Four days after the massacre (Oct. 18, 1953) the American Government “decided to administer a stern rebuke to its protegé” (The Times, Oct. 19). It announced that “the shocking reports which have reached the Department of State of the loss of lives and property involved in this incident convince us that


    those who are responsible should be brought to account and effective measures be taken to prevent such incidents in the future” (these words are worth comparing with what happened within a few days). The Times added that “behind this statement is a growing resentment at the high-handed way in which the Israel Government is inclined to treat the United States – presumably because it believes that it can always count on domestic political pressure in this country”. It was even reported (added The Times, as if with bated breath) “that a grant of several million dollars to the Israel Government may be held up until some guarantee is given that there will be no more border incidents”.

    Two days later (Oct. 20) the State Department announced that the grant to Israel would be halted. If President Eisenhower calculated that, with the election a year behind and the next three years ahead, his administration was free to formulate American state policy, he was wrong. The weakness of America, and the strength of the master-key method, is that an election always impends, if not a presidential election, then a Congressional, mayoral, municipal or other one. At that instant three candidates (two Jews and a non-Jew) were contending for the mayoralty of New York, and the campaign was beginning for the 1954 Congressional elections, when all 435 members of the House of Representatives and one third of the Senators were to seek election. Against this background, the screw was applied to the White House.

    The three rivals in New York began to outbid each other for the “Jewish vote”. Five hundred Zionists gathered in New York (Oct. 25), announced that they were “shocked” by the cancellation of “aid to Israel”, and demanded that the Government “reconsider and reverse its hasty and unfair action”. The Republican candidate wired to Washington for an immediate interview with the Secretary of State; returning from it he assured the anxious electors that “full U.S. economic aid will be given to Israel” (New York Times, Oct. 26) and said this would amount in all to $63,000,000 (nevertheless, he was not elected).

    Meanwhile the Republican party-managers clamoured at the President’s door with warnings of what would happen in the 1954 election if he did not recant. On October 28 he capitulated, an official statement announcing that Israel would receive the amount previously earmarked, and $26,000,000 of it in the first six months of the fiscal year, (out of a total of about $60,000,000).

    The Republican candidate for the New York mayoralty welcomed this as “recognition of the fact that Israel is a staunch bastion of free world security in the Near East”, and an act of “world statesmanship” typical of President Eisenhower. The true picture of what had produced the act was given by Mr. John O’ Donnell in the New York Daily News, Oct. 28: “The professional politicians moved in on him with a vengeance. Ike didn’t like it at all. . . but the pressure was so violent that to keep peace in the family he had to reverse himself. And the aboutface, politically and personally, was about the smartest and swiftest seen in this political capital of the world in many a month. . . For a week


    the pressure of candidates, seeking the huge Jewish vote in New York City, has been terrific. . . The political education of President Eisenhower has moved with dizzy speed in the last ten days”. (Nevertheless, the Republican Party did lose control of Congress in the 1954 election, this being the familiar and invariable result of these capitulations; and after even greater capitulations it suffered a still greater setback in 1956, when its nominee, again Mr. Eisenhower, was re-elected president).

    After this the American Government never again ventured to “rebuke its protegé” during the long series of equally “horrible acts” committed by it, and on the anniversary of Israel’s creation (May 7, 1954) the Israeli Army proudly displayed the arms received by it from the United States and Great Britain; a massive display of American and British tanks, jet aircraft, bombers and fighters was then offered to the view. (The United States had reported Israel “eligible for arms aid” on August 12, 1952, and Great Britain authorized arms exports to Israel by private dealers on January 17, 1952).

    Two years of relative quiet followed, but it was merely the hush of preparation; the next series of events was obviously being staged for the next presidential election year, 1956. In May 1955 (the month when Sir Anthony Eden succeeded Sir Winston Churchill as Prime Minister in England), the American Secretary of State, Mr. John Foster Dulles, like Mr. Balfour thirty years before, at last visited the country which was wrecking American foreign policy, as it had wrecked that of England. After his experience with the “rebuke”, so swiftly swallowed, he must have realized that he was dealing with the most powerful force in the world, supreme in his country, of which “Israel” was but the instrument used to divide and rule others.

    Like Mr. Balfour, he was received with Arab riots when he went outside Palestine. In Israel he was seen by few Israelis, being hurried in a c1osed car, between hedges of police, from the airport into Tel Aviv. The police operation for his escort and guard was called “Operation Kitavo”, Kitavo being Hebrew for “Whence thou art come”. The allusion is to Deuteronomy 26: “And it shall be, when thou art come into the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance . . . and the Lord hath avouched thee this day to be his peculiar people, as he hath promised thee, and that thou shouldest keep all his commandements, and to make thee high above all nations which he hath made . . . that thou mayest be an holy people unto the Lord thy God”. Thus an American Secretary of State was seen in Zionist Israel merely as a minor character in the great drama of “fulfilling” the Levitical Law.

    Mr. Dulles on his return said he had found that the Arabs feared Zionism more than Communism, a discovery of the obvious: the Arabs had read the Torah and seen its literal application to themselves at Deir Yasin and Qibya. He said in a television broadcast (according to the Associated Press, June 1, 1953), “the United States stands firmly behind the 1950 dec1aration made jointly with Britain


    and France; it pledges the three nations to action in the event the present Israeli borders are violated by any military action” (the famous “Tripartite Declaration”). I have not been able to discover if Mr. Dulles said this or was misquoted (the Dec1aration was supposedly impartial and guaranteed “Middle East frontiers and armistice lines not “Israeli borders” but this was the kind of news which always reached the Arabs and in fact the verbal lapse, or misquotation, came much nearer to the obvious truth of affairs.

    Once more the generations were passing, but the lengthening shadow of Zionism fell more heavily on each new one. Sir Winston Churchill, his powers at last failing, relinquished his post to the man on whom he had already bestowed it in the manner of a potentate determining the succession: “I take no step in public life without consulting Mr. Eden; he will carry on the torch of Conservatism when other and older hands have let it fall”. That being the case, Sir Anthony presumably inherited Sir Winston’s unqualified support for “the fulfilment of the aspiration s of Zionism” and might well have wished the torch in other hands, for it could only ruin, not illumine “Conservatism”, and England. From the moment when he reached the office for which all his life had prepared him his administration of it was bedevilled by “the problem of the Middle East”, so that his political end seemed likely to be as unhappy as that of Mr. Roosevelt and Mr. Woodrow Wilson.

    And, the scribe might add, that of President Eisenhower. In September 1955 he was stricken down, and although he recovered the pictures of him began to show the traits which appeared in those of Messrs. Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson towards the end of their terms. The “pressure” which these apparently powerful men have to endure in this, “the Jewish century”, seems to have some effect which shows in a careworn physiognomy. They are surrounded by the praisemakers, but if they try to follow conscience and duty they are relentlessly brought to book. After his first experience the general expectation was that he would not run a second time.

    He was not a Republican and during his first term felt uncomfortable as a “Republican” president. Indeed, soon after his inauguration his “vexation with the powerful right wing of the party” (in other words, with the traditional Republicans, who had wanted Senator Taft) “reached such extremes that for a time he gave prolonged thought to the idea of a new political party in America, a party to which persons of his own philosophy, regardless of their previous affiliations, might rally. . . He began asking his most intimate associates whether he did not have to start thinking about a new party. As he conceived it, such a party would have been essentially his party. It would have represented those doctrines, international and domestic, which he believed were best for the United States and indeed for the world.”* He only gave up this idea when Senator Taft’s death left the Republican Party without a natural leader and when the Senate, at

    * See footnote on page 537


    the President’s personal encouragement, censured Senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin for the ardour of his attack on Communism-in-government. The public anger aroused by the exposure of Communist infestation of the administration under Presidents Roosevelt and Truman was one of the main causes for the swing of votes to the Republican Party (and its nominee, Mr. Eisenhower) in 1952.

    Thus at the end of 1955 a presidential-election year again impended, in circumstances which the dominant power in America had always found ideal: an ailing president, party-politicians avid for “the Jewish vote”, a war situation in the Middle East and another in Europe. In such a state of affairs “domestic political pressure” in the capital of the world’s wealthiest and best-armed country might produce almost any result. The Republican party-managers, desperate to retain at least a nominal Republican in the White House if they could not gain a majority in Congress, gathered round a sick man and urged him to run. **

    The real campaign began, as always, a full year before the election itself. In September 1955 the Egyptian Government of President Gamel Abdel Nasser contracted with the Soviet Union for the purchase of some arms. The American, British and French “Tripartite Declaration” of 1950 provided that Israel and the Arab states might buy arms from the West. President Nasser, in justification of his act, stated (Nov. 16, 1955) that he had been unable to obtain “one single piece of armament from the United States in three years of trying” and accused the American government of “a deliberate attempt to keep the Arabs perpetually at the mercy of Israel and her threats”.



    The Zionist attack then turned on the core of responsible officials in the American State Department who (like those in the British Colonial Office and Foreign Office in the earlier generation) tried to ward off the perilous “commitments” to Israel. In November 1955 the world’s largest religious Zionist organization, the Mizrachi Organization of America, had dec1ared at Atlantic City that “a clique” of “anti-Israel elements in the United States State Department” was “blocking effective United States aid to Israel” (this, word for word, is the complaint made by Dr. Chaim Weizmann against the British responsible officials over a period of three decades, 1914-1947).


    On the eve of the Jewish Passover the mysterious “Voice of America” broadcast a commemoration, laden with explosive topical allusions, of “the escape of the Jews from the Egyptian captivity”. Considered in its obvious relationship to the propaganda bombardment of Egypt which was then in progress in Washington and London, this plainly portended violent events before the next Passover. The American people in general know nothing of what “The Voice of America” says, or to whom it speaks. Even my research has not discovered what official department is supposed to supervise this “voice”, which to listening peoples far away is taken to express the intentions of the American Government. I was able to learn that its funds, budgetary and other, are immense and that it is largely staffed by Eastern Jews. It appears to work in irresponsibility and secrecy.*

    From this moment the whole weight of Western propaganda was turned against Egypt. The events which followed might be considered in the light of Secretary of War, Henry Stimson’s diarial note in the period preceding Pearl Harbour, to the effect that the aim of President Roosevelt’s administration was

    * During the Hungarian uprising against the Soviet in October-November 1956, several American correspondents, returning from the shambles, and Hungarian fugitives attributed a large measure of responsibility for the tragedy to this “Voice”. The Americans had found the Hungarian people confident of American intervention; the Hungarians complained that, although the word “revolt” was not used, the “Voice” in effect incited and instigated revolt and held out the prospect of American succour. At the same time President Eisenhower told the American people, “We have never counselled the captive peoples to rise against armed force”. Similar criticisms were made against “Radio Free Europe”, a private American organization which operated from Germany under West German Government license.

    One of the first Hungarian refugees to reach America complained that the Voice of America and Radio Free Europe for years “picked at us” to revolt, but when the national uprising came no American help was given (New York Times, Nov. 23, 1956).

    The West German Government ordered an investigation into Radio Free Europe’s broadcasts during the Hungarian uprising (it operated from Munich) after widespread charges appeared in the West German press that it had, in effect, played a provocative part; as example, a script prepared on Nov. 5, 1956, while the uprising was in progress, told the Hungarian people that “Western military aid could not be expected before 2am tomorrow”, an obvious intimation that it would come at some moment (N.Y.T., Dec. 8, 1956) The gravest implication of a provocative purpose was contained in statements made by Mrs Anna Kethly, head of the Hungarian Social Democratic party, who escaped during the brief liberation of the country. She said that while she was in jail in 1952 Radio Free Europe in a broadcast to the captive countries said “that I was leading the underground liberation movement from my jail and quoted the names of several leaders of the alleged movement. I was taken out of the jail where I had been in complete seclusion since 1950 and confronted with hundreds of former militants of the Social Democratic party and the trade unions. All of them were tortured by the political police to confess their participation in the non-existent anti-Communist plot. There was absolutely no truth in the Radio Free Europe report; I had lived in complete seclusion since my arrest and had met nobody. Radio Free Europe has gravely sinned by making the Hungarian people believe that Western military aid was coming, when no such aid was planned” (N:Y.T., Nov. 30, 1956).

    Thus America spoke with two voices, those of the President addressing himself officially to the world, and of the “Voice” speaking in more dangerous terms over the head of the American people to the peoples of the world. At this period the New York Times described the official line: “High officials have made clear privately that the Administration wants to avoid being identified solely with Israel and thus surrendering the Arab countries to the influence of the Soviet Union”. The Arab peoples, if they ever heard of these “private” intimations, could not be expected to believe them, in view of what they heard from “The Voice of America” about the liberation of the Jews from “the Egyptian captivity”.


    to manoeuvre Japan into “firing the first shot”. Subsequent events had all the appearance of being designed to manoeuvre Egypt into firing the first shot. Egypt did not do this. Then the world found that the firing of a first shot was no longer necessary to qualify as an aggressor; the country in question could be dubbed the aggressor while it was being invaded, and even before that; so far had the resources of mass-propaganda developed in the 20th century. All the “condemnations” of Israel on the score of aggression had meant nothing.

    This crisis-period began on March 7, 1956 (just before the “Voice of America’s” Egyptian-captivity broadcast) when Sir Anthony Eden again faced the House of Commons on the eternal question. By that time his Socialist adversaries (despite the many “condemnations” of Israel) were furious in their demand for arms for Israel and “a new treaty of guarantees for Israel”; like the New York politicians, they saw the hope of office in new submissions to Zion. The Prime Minister “was subjected to a storm of vituperation and abuse beyond anything heard in the House of Commons since the last days of Neville Chamberlain’s prime ministership” (the New York Times); “It was a scene which, for a time, seemed to shock even those who had caused it; the Speaker himself had to intervene to plead that the House should give the Prime Minister a hearing” (the Daily Telegraph). Sir Anthony vainly protested that he had thereto been heard with courtesy “for over thirty years” by the House. At that moment he might have hoped for American support, for on the same day President Eisenhower said it was “useless to try to maintain peace in the Middle East by arming Israel, with its 1,700,000 people, against 40,000,000 Arabs” (the American procurement of arms for Israel was then under way).


    I cannot remember any more calculated or offensive provocation to a government with which “the West” was ostensibly seeking friendship. Such behaviour by the Washington and London governments has only become imaginable since they fell under the thrall of Zionism. American withdrawal of the offer, and the manner of withdrawal (its imitation by London is beyond comment) were clearly the true start of the war crisis of 1956, but the original source, the “pressure”, was not “American”. “Some Congressmen feared Zionist disapproval”, discreetly remarked the New York Times of the withdrawn offer to Egypt; and this was election year.

    Within the week President Nasser of Egypt nationalized the Suez Canal and at once the air was filled with war-talk, as in 1952-3 during the episode of “the Jewish doctors”. From that moment President Nassser received the “wicked man” treatment; this is the sure sign of the imminence of war. I have seen many “wicked men” built up in my life, and have observed that this propaganda can be turned on and off as by a tap, and infused with toxic effect into the public mind:


    The state of servitude into which England had fallen at this period was shown by two symbolic events. In June 1956 the “Anglo-Jewish Community” held a banquet at the Guildhall to commemorate “the three hundredth anniversary of the resettlement of the Jews in the British Isles”; the young Queen’s consort, the Duke of Edinburgh, was required to appear in a Jewish skullcap. In September the “Cromwell Association” held a service at the statue of the regicide and butcher of Drogheda to celebrate this same fiction (that he “restored” the Jews to England three hundred years before). In his speech the president of this body, a Mr. Isaac Foot, recommended that the young Prince Charles, when he reached the throne, take the name of “Oliver II”, because “We don’t want Charles III”. *



    Thus the British Prime Minister was sliding on a slippery path. Within the space of six weeks the “vital lifeline” and “matter of life and death” theme had become subordinate and the world faced the menace of war based on something that the Egyptian president would do if something else happened. From this point on “the mob” was fed with news of an impending Egyptian attack on Israel (


    These two policy statements gave the picture of a world in the Zionist thrall, and complemented the statements then being made by the British Government. They had no relation to any native American interest but reflected simply Zionist control of the election-machine, or the unshakeable belief of the party-managers in that control. (On this occasion events appeared to justify that belief; the Democratic Party, the higher bidder, captured Congress, although the nominal “Republican” was re-elected President).


    At the very moment of the invasion of Egypt another massacre of Arabs was carried out inside Israel and at a point far removed from the Egyptian frontier, namely, the frontier with Jordan, on the other side of Israel. 48 Arabs, men, women and children, of the village of Kafr Kassem, were killed in cold blood. This new Deir Yasin could only be taken by the Arabs, inside or outside Israel, as a symbolic warning that the fate of “utter destruction. . . man, woman and child . . . save nothing that breatheth” hung over all of them, for these people were of the small Arab population that stayed in Israel after Deir Yasin and the creation of the new state. The deed was officially admitted, after it had become widely known and was the subject of an Arab protest en route to the United Nations (where it seems to have been ignored up to the date of adding this footnote), by the Israeli premier, Mr. Ben-Gurion six weeks later (Dec. 12). He then told the Israeli Parliament that the murderers “faced trial”, but as the Arabs remembered that the murderers of Deir Yasin, after “facing trial” and being convicted, had been released at once and publicly feted, this was of small reassurance to them. Up to the time this footnote (Dec 20) I have not seen any allusion, among the millions of words that have been printed, to the fate of the 215,000 fugitive Arabs (U.N. Report, April 1956) who were huddled in the Gaza Strip when the Israelis attacked it and Egypt. The Israeli Government has announced that it will not give up this territory: earlier, it had announced that it would under no conditions permit the return of the Arab refugees to Israel. Therefore the lot of this quarter-million people, which at any earlier time would have received the indignant compassion of the world, has been entirely ignored. Presumably they are referred to in the only statement I have seen on the subject, the letter of eleven Arab states to the United Nations of Dec 14, stating that “Hundreds of men, women and children have been ruthlessly murdered in cold blood”, but there seems small prospect of impartial investigation or corroboration, and the Arab letter. itself says, “The whole story will never be told and the extent of the tragedy will never be known”. However, in the particular case of Kafr Kassem the facts are on authentic record.


    offered by the simultaneous events in Sinai and Hungary was thrown away, apparently through a series of miscalculations unprecedented, I should think, in history.

    I aim to show here that merely as a political gamble (surely it cannot be considered as an act of statesmanship) this was like the act of a man who might wager his entire fortune on a horse already withdrawn from a race. By no imaginable turn of events could it have benefited England or France).

    Of the three parties concerned, Israel had nothing to lose and much to gain: the world’s instant reprobation glanced off Israel when England and France dashed in to snatch the aggressor’s cloak and win its war; it was left deep in Egyptian territory, cheering its “conquest”. France had no more to lose, unhappily, than the lady in the soldiers’ song who “lost her name again”: France was left by its revolution the land of the recurrent fiasco, ever unable to rise out of the spiritual despondency where it lay. During 160 years it tried every form of government conceivable by man and found reinvigoration and new confidence in none. Its prime ministers changed so often that the public masses seldom knew their names; shadowy figures, they seemed indistinguishable even in appearance, and the French politician acquired a tradition of venality; the American comedian said he went to London to see the changing of the Guard and to Paris to see the changing of the Cabinet. A country rendered incapable, by a series of corrupted governments, of resistance to the German invader of its own soil in 1940, in 1956 invaded Egyptian soil in the service of Israel. But this was only an episode in the sad story of France since 1789 and could not much affect its future.

    England was a different case, an example, a great name and a tradition of honourable dealing not less in hard times than in good ones. England had a soul to lose, in such company, and no world to gain. England had shown wisdom in applying the lessons of history. It had not tried to petrify an empire and to ward off the tides of change with bayonets. It had accepted the inevitability of change and successfully ridden those tides, successively transforming its Empire of colonies, first into a Commonwealth of independent oversea nations and colonies, and next, as more and more colonies attained to self-government, into a great family of peoples, held together by no compulsion at all, but by intangible bonds which, as the Coronation of the young Queen Elizabeth showed in 1953, were, if anything stronger than ever before, not weaker. The avoidance of any rigid organization based on force, and the ever-open door to new forms of relationship between these associated peoples, made the family of nations sprung from “England” and “the British Empire” a unique experiment in human history, in 1956, and one of boundless promise, if the same course were continued.* The outstanding result of the apparent weakness of this elastic process was the strength it produced under strain; it yielded, without collapsing, to stresses which would have snapped a rigid organization based on dogmatic

    * See footnote on page 558.


    rules, and became taut again when the strain was past.

    Thus England had the whole achievement of British history to imperil, or lose, in 1956 by any act which, in fact or even in appearance, reversed the policy, or method, which had gained it so great a reputation and produced, on balance, good material results. In that light the British Government’s action of October 30, 1956 has to be considered.

    If the Suez Canal was “vital” to it, why had it ever withdrawn? If a friendly Egypt was vital after the withdrawal, why the ca1culated affront in July? If British ships were freely using the Canal, why the pretence that it was not “open” and that “the freedom and security of international shipping” were endangered? If any vital British interest was at stake, why did it wait until Israel attacked Egypt and only then attack Egypt?

    The question may be turned and scrutinized from every angle, and always the same answer emerges. This cannot have been done for the sake of Britain or France; the moment chosen is incriminating. It would not have been done at all, had Israel not existed; ergo, the humiliation which England (and France, if the reader will) suffered was in that cause. The involvement begun by Mr. Balfour fifty years before produced its logical consequence, and by this act its continuance was ensured when release from it was at last at hand.

    If any rational ca1culations of national interest prompted this foolhardiest of Jameson Raids, they will one day appear in the memoirs of men concerned; personally, I doubt if it can ever be justified. At this moment it can only be examined in the light of four weeks’ developments, which have already seen the great fiasco.

    The enterprise was evidently long prepared between two of the parties at least, Israel and France, evidence of that soon appeared.**

    * This method is the exact opposite of that by which the world would be ruled under the “world-government” schemes propounded from New York by Mr. Bernard Baruch and his school of “internationalists”. Their concept may in fact be called that of “super-Colonialism” and rests entirely on rigid organization, force and penalty. Speaking at the dedication of a memorial to President Woodrow Wilson in Washington Cathedral in December 1956, Mr. Baruch again raised his demand, in the following, startlingly contradictory terms: “After two world wars . . . we still seek what Wilson sought. ‘a reign of law based on the consent of the governed. . . that reign of law can exist only when there is the force to maintain it . . . which is why we must continue to insist that any agreement on the control of atomic energy and disarmament be accompanied by ironclad provisions for inspection, control and punishment of transgressors’ “.

    ** Correspondents of The Times, Reuters and other newspapers and agencies subsequently reported that they had seen French aircraft and French air officers in uniform on Israeli fields during the invasion, and at the “victory party” given in Tel Aviv by the Israeli air force, when the Israeli commander, General Moshe Dayan, was present. These reports agreed in an important point: that the French Air Force was present to “cover” or provide “an air umbrella” for Tel Aviv if it were attacked by Egyptian aircraft. Reuters reported that same French air officers admitted attacking Egyptian tanks during the Sinai fighting. As far as the French were concerned, therefore, the pretence of a descent on the Suez Canal to “separate” the belligerents was shown to be false. French officers and aircraft having been seen behind the Israeli lines in Israel and Sinai during the fighting. The Times correspondent reported “an undertaking on the part of France to do her best, if war broke out between Israel and Egypt, to prevent any action against Israel under the terms of the tripartite declaration of 1950 and to see that Israel had appropriate arms with which to fight”. The 1950 declaration pledged France impartially “to oppose the use of force or threat of force in that area. The three governments, should they find any of these states were preparing to violate frontiers or armistice lines, would . . . immediately take action. . to prevent such violations”.


    In England the Government (up to the time of concluding this book) has refused the demand for enquiry into the charge of collusion, which cannot be established in the British (as distinct from the French) case. There does seem a possibility that the British action was a sudden one, taken on the spur of a moment deemed to be favourable. In that case, it was a titanic misca1culation, for when the British and French “ultimatum” was launched the United States had already called an emergency meeting of the U.N. Security Council and presented a resolution censuring the Israeli attack and demanding that the Israelis withdraw from Egyptian territory (Oct. 29).

    Thus the only effect of the British and French attack was to divert the reprobation of the world from Israel to themselves and by November 7 (after a second resolution calling on Israel to withdraw) an overwhelming majority of the General Assembly had duly transferred the weight of its censure to “Britain and France”, Israel then appearing in the third place among the parties told to withdraw.*

    By that time the military fiasco was as clear as the political one; English ears had had to listen for nearly five days to the reports of British bombing of Egyptians, the Suez Canal was blocked by sunken ships, President Nasser was more popular in the Arab world than he had ever been, and the British Government was gradually retreating from “no withdrawal” through “conditional withdrawal” to “unconditional withdrawal”.

    President Eisenhower and his administration, made the most of these events. What was coming was evidently known in Washington, (as the attack on Pearl Harbour had been foreknown). American residents had been told to leave the danger zone some days before the attack, and in the two days preceding it President Eisenhower twice admonished Mr Ben-Gurion, once in “urgent” and then in “grave” terms; the only answer he received was a radio message, delivered to him during an aeroplane trip from Florida to Virginia, telling him that Mr. Ben-Gurion had launched the attack.

    However, the British government did not officially inform the President (or even the Dominion Governments) of its intention, and Mr, Eisenhower was able to present a face of patient suffering to his people when he appeared on the television screen with the words, “We believe it” (the attack) “to have been taken in error for we do not accept the use of force as a wise or proper instrument for the settlement of international disputes”. This was an irreproachable statement,

    * From that moment, following the example set by the American President, the weight of censure was by stages shifted from “Israel” to “Israel, Britain and France”, then to “Britain and France”, and in the last stage to “Britain” (thus recalling the transformation earlier effected in the case of Hitler’s persecution of men, which began as “the persecution of political opponents”, then became “the persecution of political opponents and Jews”, then “Jews and political opponents” and, at the end, “of Jews”).

    A characteristic public comment of this period was made by Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt, who was generally accepted in America as the voice of her husband, the late President. She said at a news conference three days before the presidential election (she was campaigning for the Democratic nominee), “I do not consider that Israel is an aggressor; she acted in self-defence . . . I believe Britain and France were technically guilty of aggression”, (New York Times, Nov, 4, 1956).


    against a background of culpability (the American-prompted supply of French, British and Canadian arms to Israel all through the summer). If the British Government counted on “Zionist pressure” in Washington,


    . I have not ignored anything known to me and I have presented what I know as truly as I am able. I have given the picture of our century as it appeared to a man involved, and as it was withheld from the public masses, who as they went along received only “the interpretation” according to what politicians held to be necessity.

    In our time, I judge, a barbaric superstition born in antiquity and nurtured through the ages by a semi-secret priesthood, has returned to plague us in the form of a political movement supported by great wealth and power in all great capitals of the world. Through the two methods used, revolution from below and the corruption of governments from above, it has come far towards success in a fantastic ambition of achieving world dominion, using these two instruments to


    incite nations against each other.

    I cannot presume to judge what is evil; thinking makes it so. I only know what I feel to be evil; perhaps I am wrong. Anyway, by my own sensations and standards I have felt, during the labour of preparing this book, that I lived with evil. The forces which have been projected into the 20th Century, as from some dinosauric cavern, are superstitious ones. I have had a constant sense of contact with the minds of men like Ezekiel, who in barbarous times had barbarous thoughts. I had a distinct feeling of re-encounter with such minds in our present time, though in a place recently redeemed from barbarism, when I read a book, A Pattern of Islands, by Sir Arthur Grimble.

    his recounts the author’s experiences, early in the 20thCentury, as a British colonial administrator in a remote group of Pacific islands, the Gilberts, where the people lived in a state of primeval superstition until 1892, when a British protectorate was proclaimed. I find an uncanny resemblance between the curses enumerated in Deuteronomy, which forms The Law of Zionist nationlism today, and the words of a curse an a cooking oven, used by these islands before the British came. The sorcerer, squatting naked in the dark before dawn over his enemy’s fireplace and stabbing it with a stick, mutters:

    “Spirit of madness, spirit of excrement, spirit of eating alive; spirit of rottenness! I stab the fire of his food, the fire of that man Naewa. Strike west of him, you! Strike east of him, you! Strike as I stab, strike death! Strangle him, madden him, shame him with rottenness! His liver heaves, it heaves, it is overturned and torn apart. His bowels heave, they heave, they are torn apart and gnawed. He is black mad, he is dead. It is finished: he is dead, dead, dead. He rots” .

    The comparison between this and many passages in Deuteronomy and Ezekiel is instructive in this time when the Talmud-Torah is literally invoked as The Law ordaining such deeds as that committed at Deir Yasin; the statement of the Jewish Encyclopaedia, that the Talmud teaches belief in the literal efficacy of cursing, is also relevant. Such passages always occur to me when politicians invoke “the Old Testament”; each time I wonder if they have read it, and if they comprehend the relationship between these superstitions of antiquity and current events, brought about with their help.

    In my judgment we have to deal with a force, released on the world in the 20th Century, the leaders of which think in terms of such superstitions; to what else can Dr. Chaim Weizmann’s belated, tormented words have alluded, ” . . . the resurgence of the old evil in a new and more horrible guise”.

    Only this element of dark superstition, in my estimate, can account for the fear to which the Jewish masses yield, when they surrender to Zionist nationalism. They were almost liberated from it by the century of emancipation and in another fifty years would have been involved in mankind, but now have been drawn back into its clutch. Again, I felt as if I were reading a description of the ghettoized


    masses in the Talmudic areas when I came across this description of pre-protectorate days in the Gilbert Islands:

    “A man with sixty generations of terror-struck belief whispering in his blood . . . was easy meat for the death magic. . . Generation on generation of sorcerers who willed evil, and of people who dreaded their power, had lived out their lives in these islands. The piled-up horror of their convictions had achieved, dawn the ages, a weight and shadow of its own, an ‘immanence that brooded over everything. It was man’s thoughts, more potent than ghosts, that haunted the habitation of men. One felt that practically anything could happen in that atmosphere”. .

    “Men’s thoughts, more potent than ghosts, haunted the habitations of men”. The words seemed to me to apply to the condition of these masses, with more than sixty generations of such beliefs whispering to them, who towards the end of last century began to be wrested back from the daylight towards the tribal gloom. Again, the liberation so barely missed seemed to me to be described in these words of an old woman of the Gilbert Islands who remembered the earlier time:

    “Listen to the voices of the people in their lodges. We work in peace, we talk in peace, for the days of anger are gone. . . How beautiful is life in our villages, now that there is no killing and war is no more”; and these words, again, most strongly recall Jeremiah’s lament for the former happiness of Israel (“the kindness of thy youth, the love of thine espousals”) in his rebuke to the heresy of “treacherous Judah”.

    The feeling I had, in tracing the story of this ancient superstition and its re-emergence as a political force in our century, was that of contact with a living, evil thing. The destructive revolution, in my view, is part of it and I could have written exactly what an American diplomat, Mr. Frank Rounds, junior, wrote in his diary on Christmas Day of 1951: “In Moscow, you feel that evil exists as a thing, as a presence; that is my thought this Christmas Day”.

    In this 20th Century process, which I feel as an accompanying, evil presence, all of us now alive, Jew and Gentile, are involved, and most of us will see the denouement. As to that, Mr. Bernard J. Brown in 1933 misgivingly wrote, “Of course we must be feared and eventually hated if we persist in absorbing everything America offers us and yet refuse to become Americans just as we have allways refused to become Russians or Pales.”

    This statement applies to all countries of the West, not only to America, but Mr Brown was wrong. What he foresaw is one thing the Talmudists can not achieve; hatred is their monopoly, and creed, and they cannot make Christians, oar Gentiles, hate Jews. The hateful things done by the West in this century were done under Talmudic prompting; hatred and vengeance are not innate in Westerners, and their faith forbids these. The teaching of hatred, as part of a religion, still comes only from the literal Torah-Tulmudists in the revolutionary area, in Palestine, and where they have nested in the Western capitals. No


    Westerner would speak as a Zionist leader spoke to a Jewish meeting at Johannesburg in May, 1953: “The beast that is called Germany must not be trusted. The Germans must never be forgiven and the Jews must never have any contact or dealings with the Germans”.

    The world cannot live like that, and for this reason the insensate plan must ultimately fail. This is the heresy which the teaching of Christ above all else repudiated; it is the one to which the political leaders of the West have lent themselves since Mr. Balfour, just fifty years ago, began to subordinate national policy to it. When the approaching climax has been overcome this heretic teaching, injected into the West from the Talmudic centre in Russia, will pass.

    As a writer, I believe it will pass sooner and with less trouble for all involved, the more the general masses know about what has gone on in these fifty years.

    For nothing is secret that shall not be made manifest; Neither anything hid, that shall not be known and come abroad – Luke 8: 17.



Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

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