29/12 Obama Secretly Preparing for Syria Intervention

RT Reported last night that armed Libyan activists are in Syria!!

Obama Secretly Preparing for Syria Intervention

by Sibel Edmonds

This morning I woke up to the following news headlines. Let me correct myself: This morning I found the US media and their quasi extension reporting on stale, at least 6-month old US operations on Syria. Now, that’s much better. I think it is safe to assume that the media has been given a ‘green light’ by the White House and Pentagon to report on long-ongoing war preparations, aka ‘intervention’ plans, on Syria while making it sound as fresh-new-recent. Let’s read together:

Obama Administration Secretly Preparing Options for Aiding the Syrian Opposition

As the violence in Syria spirals out of control, top officials in President Barack Obama‘s administration are quietly preparing options for how to assist the Syrian opposition, including gaming out the unlikely option of setting up a no-fly zone in Syria and preparing for another major diplomatic initiative.

And here is the almost comical egregious part:

After several weeks of having no top-level administration meetings to discuss the Syria crisis, the National Security Council (NSC) has begun an informal, quiet interagency process to create and collect options for aiding the Syrian opposition, two administration officials confirmed to The Cable.

Right! According to these ‘reporters’, up until now our imperialistic hawks have been sitting on their butts and doing absolutely nothing on Syria’s months-long prewar crisis! Just read the following by MSM’s favorite source WINEP, and please try not to laugh:

Andrew Tabler, a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said that the administration was caught off-guard by how the opposition became militarized so quickly. The administration’s message had been to urge the opposition to remain peaceful, but that ship has now sailed, he said.

All right; I’ll forgive you for laughing out loud. I admit; I laughed so hard I ended up with the hiccups. Now, let’s look at the casual introduction of Washington’s main artery, front, in executing their next takeover [All Emphasis Mine]:

The options that are under consideration include establishing a humanitarian corridor or safe zone for civilians in Syria along the Turkish border, extending humanitarian aid to the Syrian rebels, providing medical aid to Syrian clinics, engaging more with the external and internal opposition, forming an international contact group, or appointing a special coordinator for working with the Syrian opposition (as was done in Libya), according to the two officials, both of whom are familiar with the discussions but not in attendance at the meetings.

Basically, the Washington Bosses are telling their ‘boys’ what they’ve been doing since last May in Turkey, inside the Incirlik base, but tweaking the time-line, changing it to soon-to-come action plans.

A few months ago these same MSM dudes were given all the documents and witnesses on the operations mentioned above which began in May 2011. I broke the story (since the MSM and their quasi buddies refused to run it) in November. And let me provide you with every single plan-operation quoted by the media as ‘soon-to-come,’ and show you how every single one was already reported here at Boiling Frogs Post based on our military sources in Turkey and the US:

On November 21, we reported that:

The joint US-NATO secret training camp in the US air force base in Incirlik, Turkey, began operations in April- May 2011 to organize and expand the dissident base in Syria.

Col. Riad al-Assad has been in Turkey, working with U.S. & NATO, right inside the US Incirlik Base in Turkey, to do exactly what he vehemently denies: smuggle US weapons into Syria, participate in US psychological and information warfare inside Syria as the middle-man whom Syrian protesters tend to trust, and help with funneling intelligence and military operators across the border and night-time drop offs by air.

The HQ also includes an information warfare division where US-NATO crafted communications are directed to dissidents in Syria via the core group of Syrian military and Intelligence defectors.

Just compare the facts we reported on November 21 to the Washington ‘plans’ quoted by the Media as ‘soon-to-come’:

The options that are under consideration include establishing a humanitarian corridor or safe zone for civilians in Syria along the Turkish border, extending humanitarian aid to the Syrian rebels, providing medical aid to Syrian clinics, engaging more with the external and internal opposition, forming an international contact group, or appointing a special coordinator for working with the Syrian opposition (as was done in Libya), according to the two officials, both of whom are familiar with the discussions but not in attendance at the meetings.

Next, on December 3rd, we reported the following on the intentional censorship of these facts by the US media:

The story above only goes as far as ‘France’ and the French factor. It stops short of France and other NATO member nations led by the United States in NATO member country-Turkey.

I immediately started checking our infamous US mainstream media sites- still nothing on this significant information. I then contacted one of my high-level sources and asked why he had come to me with his documented report instead of going directly to the big guys. With several credible insiders as his corroborators and a high-level official in Turkey, he would have no problem getting their attention. And his response? Well here it is minus a few expletives:

Who said we didn’t go to MSM first? We got them the info back in October. First they were interested and drooling. At least the reporters. Then, they disappeared. We sat and waited for a few weeks, and no one followed up. It is Turkey. It is NATO. It is our CIA guys. The media hot shots would not touch those cases without State Department sanction attached…

By the way, our report, these confirmed facts, were reported by major international news outlets, and several major Turkish newspapers ran further confirmation reports.

Here is my interview with Russia Today on the story:
US, NATO troops train Syrian rebel militants in Turkey –

Well, ladies and gentlemen, here we are: the US mainstream media has begun reporting on the real operations albeit with dictated time-line adjustments, twisted facts and a highly-adjusted tone. I am going to correct myself one more time:

The controlled reporting and propaganda by the Washington war machine has not been limited to the US mainstream media. Many popular quasi alternative channels have followed the exact same trend, the most troubling one being AntiWar.Com. For several months they refused to run any of these confirmed reports while they ran every single bit of propaganda coverage by the US mainstream media on Syria. Today, with the green light from Washington, and with the US MSM in the forefront, they ran the neocon-produced and widely neocon-quoted article on Obama’s not-so-secret plans on Syria. Check it out here.

I published a brief commentary on the very troubling switch of position and changes at AntiWar.Com, a site that I used to support and consider one of my favorites. Since their management change they have been banning not only me but other well-respected true alternatives. And they have been losing many supporters while gaining mystery-undisclosed funders. But the most troubling change is their consistent coverage of the New York Times, Washington Post and the rest of the US government and corporate propaganda machine. I have researchers who are compiling data on their recent changes, and running background checks on their new team members who have successfully altered this once truly valuable source of information.

I despise hypocrisy, and hypocrisy appears to be one of their newly gained characteristics. On one hand, they trash the US mainstream media and Soros-Funded quasi alternatives for smearing Ron Paul, and they pound us with the unreliability and falsehood of the MSM. And I completely agree with those positions. Yet, on the other hand, every single day they fill their entire website with the same exact MSM produced war propaganda and falsehoods. As I have said before, I hope it is not too late to put them back on track during this war-filled period when real AntiWar information sources are badly needed. And I hope you will all help with getting this accomplished. We have more than enough war propaganda machines, and cannot afford to lose the very few who were once on our side.

Source : Boiling Frogs


Sibel Edmonds is the founder and publisher of Boiling Frogs Post, an online news, analysis, and weekly Podcast interview site covering select but significant blacked out stories and issues. Ms. Edmonds is also the founder and director of National Security Whistleblowers Coalition, NSWBC, a nonprofit organization dedicated to aiding national security whistleblowers. PEN American Center awarded Ms. Edmonds the 2006 PEN/Newman’s Own First Amendment Award for her “commitment to preserving the free flow of information in the United States in a time of growing international isolation and increasing government secrecy”. She is also the recipient of the 2004 Sam Adams Foundation Award. Ms. Edmonds has a MA in Public Policy and International Commerce from George Mason University, and a BA in Criminal Justice and Psychology from George Washington University. She is certified as a Court Appointed Special Advocate and as an instructor for the Women’s Domestic Violence Program. She is fluent in Turkish, Farsi and Azerbaijani.

She has appeared on national radio and TV as a commentator on matters related to whistleblowers, national security, and excessive secrecy & classification, and has been featured on CBS 60 Minutes, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, and in the New York Times, Washington Post, Vanity Fair, The American Conservative, and others.


December 30, 2011 – 2:23 am
Your Government has gone Rogue , are the Patriots going to do something BEFORE they find themselves in the Gulag wishing they had not wasted their chance whilst free ?
The AL is reporting “all quiet” in Syria , exactly what the Turkish delegation said weeks before . The Syrian Government says it is armed mercenaries coming across from the Turkish border committing the murders and have proof . The Russians have a fleet docked there and have not reported that the Syrian Government is killing it’s people , never loan used fighter Jets to kill them to warrant a “no fly zone” !
These Ziobeasts need rounding up , this is not an “anti Semitic” statement as they are NOT Jewish ! They number in thousands and we in BILLIONS , they are cunning in that they have infiltrated the Government and the media but is that enough to protect them from being arrested ?

Log in to Reply Youssef – Beirut
December 30, 2011 – 2:47 am
The US and Israel are dying to enter into a military conflict with Iran, but are lacking a valid excuse to do so.

The “leaking” of this information now serves the very specific purpose to try to push Iran into making a “first move” that could be used as such excuse.

I don’t think the Iranians are dumb enough to fall into such trap. This means we can expect another false flag operation, probably on US soil again, soon. Very soon, as the deadline for the massive positions on Oil Futures taken by the Israelis lately is quickly closing in.


The Truth the whole truth was told regarding WW1 and WW2…..There goes the flying pig wearing a pink Tutu!!

1916-17 Onwards, We’ve been fed a pack of lies!!


3 responses to “29/12 Obama Secretly Preparing for Syria Intervention

  1. http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/12/29/obama-secretly-preparing-for-syria-intervention/

    newsupload2010 on 16 Dec 2011

    Uploaded by RTAmerica on Dec 15, 2011
    There have been reports of hundreds of American and NATO troops training militants on the Syrian border to overthrow Al-assad’s regime. According to a former FBI official this has been going on since May 2011. Why are we not hearing about this on American mainstream media? Sibel Edmonds, president of the National Security Whistle blowers Coalition, exposes what is going on around Syria.

    Follow Liz on Twitter at http://twitter.com/LizWahl

    News & Politics


  2. One man i’d bring back from the dead..Douglas Reed.

    52] This significant disclosure comes from a book, Eisenhower. The Inside Story, published in 1956 by a White House correspondent, Mr. Robert J. Donovan, evidently at Mr. Eisenhower’s wish, for it is based on the minutes of Cabinet meetings and other documents which relate to highly confidential proceedings at the highest level. Nothing of the kind was ever published in America before and the author does not explain the reasons for the innovation. Things are recorded which the President’s Cabinet officers probably would not have said, had they known that they would be published; for instance, a jocose suggestion that a Senator Bricker and his supporters (who were pressing a Constitutional amendment to limit the President’s power to make treaties, and thus to subject him to great Congressional control) ought to be atom-bombed. (return)

    [53] The most significant domestic events of President Eisenhower’s first term (in view of the fact that his election chiefly expressed the desire of American voters, in 1952, to redress the proved Communist infestation of government and combat the menace of Communist aggression) were the censure of the most persistent investigator, Senator McCarthy, which received the President’s personal encouragement and approval; and the ruling of the United States Supreme Court in 1955, which denied the right of the forty-eight individual States to take measures against sedition and reserved this to the Federal Government. This ruling, if given effect, will greatly reduce the power of the Republic to “contend with sedition” (the “Protocols”). The third major domestic event was the Supreme Court ruling against segregation of White and Negro pupils in the public schools, which in effect was directed against the South and, if pressed, might produce violently explosive results. These events draw attention to the peculiar position held in the United States by the Supreme Court, in view of the fact that appointments to it are political, not the reward of a lifetime’s service in an independent judiciary. In these circumstances the Supreme Court, under President Eisenhower, showed signs of developing into a supreme political body (Supreme Politburo might not be too inapt a word), able to overrule Congress. The United States Solicitor General in 1956, Mr. Simon E. Sobeloff, stated, “In our system the Supreme Court is not merely the adjudicator of controversies, but in the process of adjudication it is in many ways the final formulator of national policy” (quoted in the New York Times, July 19, 1956).(return)

    [54] However, fourteen months later (Jan 4, 1957), after the attack on Egypt, Mr. Hanson Baldwin, writing from the Middle East, confirmed the continuance of “defenceless” Israel’s military predominance: “Israel has been, since 1949, the strongest indigenous military force in the area. She is stronger today, as compared with the Arab states, than ever before.”(return)

    [55] “The supply of arms by Soviet Czechoslovakia made Jews in Israel and elsewhere look to the Soviets as deliverers,” Johannesburg Jewish Times, Dec. 24, 1952.(return)

    [56]“The state of Israel will be defended if necessary with overwhelming outside help,” Governor Harriman, New York Times, March 23, 1955.(return)

    [57] In the intervening years another book had appeared. Mr. Chesly Manly’s The U.N. Record, which said that four senior officials of the American Foreign Service, called from the Middle East to Washington during the congressional elections of 1946 for consultation on the Palestine question, had presented the Arab case and received from President Truman the answer, “Sorry, gentlemen, I have to answer hundreds of thousands who are anxious for the success of Zionism; I do not have hundreds of thousands of Arabs among my constituents.” Mr. Truman’s submissiveness to Zionist pressure, when in office, and his complaint about it, when in retirement, thus are both on record.(return)

    [58] This is an example, in the new generation, of the “outside interference, entirely from Jews” of which Dr. Weizmann bitterly complained in the earlier one. The Council feared and fought the involvement of the West in Zionist chauvinism. It was headed by Mr. Lessing Rosenwald, formerly head of the great mercantile house of Sears, Roebuck, and Rabbi Elmer Berger. Meeting in Chicago at this period, it resolved that President Truman’s memoirs “confirm that Zionist pressures – labelled as those of American Jews – were excessive beyond all bounds of propriety” and “offered a spectacle of American citizens advancing the causes of a foreign nationalism” The reader, if he refers to earlier chapters, will see how precisely the situation in England in 1914-1917 had been reproduced in America in 1947-8 and 1955-6.(return)

    [59] Six months later, on the eve of the presidential election and immediately before the Israeli attack on Egypt, the New York Daily News appealed to “the Jewish voter” by recounting the following Republican services: “The Eisenhower Administration has not seen its way clear to supplying Israel with heavy hardware, because of various touchy international situations. However, the Administration, last April and May, did help Israel get 24 Mystere jet planes from France, and last month Canada announced sale of 24 Sabre jets to Israel. Mr. Dulles was declared by Israeli officials to have actively used United States Government influence in promoting both the French and Canadian plane sales.”(return)

    [60] 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.” (return)

    [61] The fact that this “‘pressure” was used is authentic. It was everywhere recorded in terms of an American success by the American press, for instance, “Secretary of State Dulles was confident that he could win the friendship of the Arabs, as when he brought pressure on the British to get out of Egypt, while retaining that of the Israelis (New York Times, Oct. 21, 1956).(return)

    [62] [Hamlet, 1, v.](return)

    [63] The same shadow was with deliberate intent cast across the coronation of Queen Elizabeth in 1953. As part of the festival the newly-crowned queen reviewed at Spithead a great assembly of war vessels from every country that could send a ship. Among the many craft, between the lines of which the Queen’s ship passed, was one alone, the crew of which did not cheer (a mistake, the later explanation asserted). This Soviet ship was the Sverdlov, named for Yankel Sverdlov, the assassin of the Romanoff family, in whose honour the town where they were butchered, Ekaterinburg, was renamed Sverdlovsk.(return)

    [64] [Queen’s Counsel / King’s Counsel.](return)

    [65] The inevitable twin-reproach, of “anti-semitism,” was also raised against him during the election campaign. A rabbi who knew him well came forward to defend him against it.(return)

    [66] I had in mind what is known to American politicians as “the Farley law.” Named after an exceptionally astute party-manager, Mr James A. Farley, who was held to have contrived the early electoral triumphs of Mr. Roosevelt, the essence of this “law” is that American voters have decided by mid-October for whom they will vote and only their candidate’s death, war or some great scandal between then and November 6 can change their minds. The morning after the Israeli attack on Egypt Mr. John O’Donnell wrote, “Spokesmen in the worried State Department, Pentagon” (War Office) “and headquarters of both parties agree that the Israelis launched their attack on Egypt because they were convinced that the United Slates would take no action in an Israeli war so close to the Presidential elections … Word came through to political headquarters that American Zionists had informed Tel Aviv that Israel would probably fare better under a Democratic administration of Stevenson and Kefauver than under a Republican regime of Eisenhower and Nixon” (New York Daily News).(return)

    [67] 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.(return)

    [68] 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 .”(return)

    [69] 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.”(return)

    [70] 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).(return)

    [71] The United States, of course, is the occupant, by conquest or by purchase, of British, Dutch, French and Spanish colonies, and of vast Mexican and Russian territories. Only the virtual extirpation, during the life of the American Republic, of the original inhabitants of this great area produces a present picture differing from that of today’s British, Dutch, French and Spanish colonies, with their millions of “colonial peoples.” American’s oversea possessions, by conquest or purchase, are few. The Panama Canal Zone, which is under permanent United States sovereignty, is a separate case; if it proves anything, in relation to the Suez Canal and Britain, it proves only the advantages of good “title” and of military adjacency.(return)

    [72] “The President said he would tell the marshall” (Stalin) “something indiscreet, since he would not wish to say it in front of Prime Minister Churchill … The British were a peculiar people and wished to have their cake and eat it too … He suggested the ‘internationalizing’ of the British colony of Hong Kong and that Korea be placed under a trusteeship with the British excluded. Stalin indicated that he did not think this was a good idea and added that ‘Churchill would kill us.’ When post-war political questions came up, he often took positions that were anti-British.” (New York Times, March 17, 1955).(return)

    [73] Two weeks later, after this chapter was finished, the same newspaper dismissed Britain as henceforth “a second class power.”(return)

    [74] A development which may have been foreshadowed by a report (if it was accurate) published in the New York Times on December 30, 1956, that “fewer than 900 of the 14,000 Jews who have fled from Hungary … have decided to resettle in Israel,” the “vast majority” preferring to go to America or Canada. On the other hand, if they follow the example of their predecessors they will swell the mass of “explosive” Eastern Jews there whose transplantation, during the last seventy years, has produced the present situation; the incitement of these against America was shown by quotation from Jewish authorities in the preceding chapter.(return)

    [75] As to the Suez affair, the apt footnote was supplied by President Eisenhower on January 5, 1957 when he asked Congress for standing authority to use the armed forces of the United States against “overt armed aggression from any nation controlled by international Communism” in the Middle East. He thus envisaged doing very much what he had censured the Eden Government for doing. An example of “overt” aggression is presumably the sinking of the Maine in Havana Harbour; the explosion was “overt” and it was attributed to Spain. Before and after the attack on Egypt the international press began to accuse one Arab nation after another of being “controlled” by international Communism, and President Eisenhower’s request to Congress again opens the prospect that the much-heralded extirpation of Communism might prove, in the event, to be an attack on the Arabs, not on Communism. The description, “controlled by Communism,” is incapable of definition or proof, and simple to falsify through propaganda. For instance, the New York Times on Dec 2. 1956 published pictures of “Russian tanks captured by the Israelis” during the attack an Egypt. Readers’ objections led it to admit that the tanks were in fact American. Whether they were captured from the Egyptians remains open to question; anyone can photograph a tank and write a caption. Israel was originally set up with Soviet arms, but is not on that account said to be “controlled by international Communism.”

    The news of President Eisenhower’s act was followed by a sharp rise in various Israel shares on the American Stock Exchange and by sermons of praise in several New York synagogues. A possible reason for this was the fact that the President undertook to act militarily in the Middle East only in response to request from “any nation or group of nations” attacked. As Egypt was widely declared to be “the aggressor” in the attack on itself in October 1956, this proviso again lies open to many interpretations, at need. If the words were earnestly meant, they imply that American forces would have been used, on Egyptian request, to repel the Israeli attack of October, 1956. That is difficult to imagine; to put it mildly, American military intervention in response to a request from any other Middle Eastern state than Israel is hard to picture; however, times change and all things are possible.(return)

    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).

    In England Sir Anthony found all hands against him. The Daily Telegraph (ostensibly of his own party) might in its news reports appear shocked by his treatment in the House, but editorially it said the case for giving Israel arms was “incontrovertible,” a word which always spares the need for supporting argument. His opponents, the Socialists, cast off all restraint in their eagerness to overthrow him by way of Israel. The leading leftist journal, the New Statesman, in two successive issues said that England had no right or means to wage war in any circumstances whatever and should lay down all arms (“Effective defence is now beyond our means and disarmament is the only alternative to annihilation,” March 10) and that England should arm Israel and pledge itself to go to war for Israel (“War is less likely if Israel is supplied with up to date arms and the Labour Party is correct in urging that Israel must now have them … The problem is not so much the undesirability of guaranteeing a frontier which has not yet been formally established … but the military problem of assembling and delivering the necessary force … Is sufficient naval strength available in the Eastern Mediterranean? Does Mr Gaitskell (the Socialist leader) “even feel sure that the British public would back him in going to war, probably without the endorsement of the United Nations, in defence of Israel?” (March 17).

    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.[60]

    From this moment the whole weight of Western propaganda was turned against Egypt.

    What has changed over the decades?


  3. Douglas Reed…

    Thank God we don’t produce Englishmen of that kind any longer. To-day we are full of the Christian virtue of toleration. We tolerate everything, but particularly slums, derelict areas, starvation, the use of coloured troops against Spanish working people, China, Czechoslovakia – everything.


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