America is an enemy to Arabs and Isreal. PART 2

1949-1953 [ negative ]

In Israel's hour of supreme need, the US allied with Israel's mortal enemies.
____________________________________________________________

After the war of 1947-48, the fledgling Jewish state was in bad shape and needed to reconstruct after the terrible wartime sacrifices. But that was in fact only the first of Israel's problems. After the war, this diminutive strip of land also had to absorb hundreds of thousands of refugees from Nazi slaughter. And yet this was not all. In addition there were also hundreds of thousands of suddenly impoverished Jewish refugees from the Mizrachim Diaspora, who had been chased out by the predominantly Muslim states of North Africa, the Arabian peninsula, and the Near East.

And yet..., and yet this was not all that Israel miraculously overcame. The Encyclopedia Britannica explains that,

"In the period 1949–53 Arab attacks killed hundreds of Israelis, four-fifths of whom were civilians."

Hundreds of Jewish farmers living by Israel's borders were murdered by state-sponsored Arab terrorist attacks.

Obviously, no country that simply stood by and did nothing to help Israel while it faced all this could call itself her ally. And this is why many people, who believe the US has always been Israel's ally, believe also that Israel pulled through during this critical period thanks to massive US sponsorship. But are they right?

Notice what the Encyclopedia Britannica writes next:

"Israel’s potential allies, including the United States, were preoccupied with the Cold War and were willing to placate Arab leaders in order to limit Soviet influence among the Arab states, especially Egypt, which looked to Moscow for help against Britain and France, the remaining colonial powers in the region."

In other words, the US did much worse than stand by and do nothing in Israel's hour of supreme need - it allied with Israel's mortal enemies, the same who had just tried to exterminate the Jews in the War of Independence.

And this was not just any alliance, for the US government sent some of the Nazis it was recruiting to create its intelligence services to Egypt, to train the Egyptian military and security services. The same Nazis would train in Cairo Yasser Arafat's Fatah organization, as documented in the following piece:

The Encyclopedia Britannica therefore makes a logical error in the quote above, for it describes the behavior of an enemy state as the behavior of a "potential ally." This is a common error, and therefore a closer analysis of Britannica's behavior will help clarify why ordinary people have such a twisted understanding of US foreign policy in the Middle East.

Why is the Encyclopedia Britannica calling the US
a "potential ally" of Israel?
_______________________

Would anybody refer to Egypt as a "potential ally of Israel"? Of course not - it is absurd to speak this way of an outright enemy. But since the US was allied with Israel's mortal enemies, why then call it a "potential ally of Israel" instead of what it obviously was - an enemy state?

Apparently, because 'everybody knows' that the US is supposed to be allied with Israel. So the words "potential ally" communicate to the Encyclopedia's readers that it was aberrant or at least atypical for the US, in the years 1949 to 1953, to support those seeking the extermination of the Israeli Jews. Britannica tries to back up its insinuation of a 'natural' US-Israeli friendship by 'explaining' that the US position supposedly resulted from real-politick considerations made 'necessary' by the Cold War, and thus by implication not (banish the thought!) from US enmity toward Israel or the Jewish people.

Britannica's readers will accept this argument only if they know nothing of the following:

1) that the US Establishment was in good measure responsible for the rise of the German Nazi party

2) that Franklin Delano Roosevelt's government actively and enthusiastically cooperated with Hitler's Final Solution, even while fighting the German Nazi armies

3) that the US government absorbed thousands of Nazi war criminals from all over Europe - with the blood of millions of Jews, Russians, Slavs, Gypsies, and others on their hands - at the end of WWII in order to create US Intelligence, even as it continued its wartime policy of denying visas to desperate European Jews

4) that the US did not help the Israeli Jews in their 1947-48 War of Independence, but instead slapped an arms embargo on the Israeli Jews and declared it no longer supported the creation of the State of Israel, even as Israel defended itself from the Arab armies that proudly meant to exterminate her people and

5) that neither did the US condemn its close ally, Britain, for exporting captured Nazi war criminals to serve as officers in the Arab armies that attacked Israel.

In a world with truly independent academic and journalistic institutions, as opposed to covertly corrupted ones, the public would know that up to the year 1953 the US had been a major enemy of Israel, and of the Jews more generally. Run-of-the-mill skepticism would then make it impossible for people to accept the proposition that, in the period immediately following 1953, it was somehow obvious that the US would be Israel's "potential ally". However,

a) this is not a normal world - many crucial facts have been kept from ordinary people by a corrupt mainstream media, and corrupt academic institutions; and, therefore,

b) ordinary people are not normal skeptics - they routinely assume that anything in the Encyclopedia Britannica or the New York Times (etc.) is automatically authoritative and fair, and therefore does not deserve special scrutiny (as it has supposedly already been scrutinized by independent and objective historians and journalists).

Under such circumstances, when prestigious publications repeat, over and over again, and matter-of-factly, that the US supposedly supports Israel, that the US is supposedly Israel's only friend, that the US Congress is supposedly controlled by Israel, etc., etc., ordinary people end up concluding that it's simply true: just as the sky is the color blue and the Pope is a Catholic, the US is... the ally of Israel! Contrary facts - such as the US's alliance during the years 1949-53 with countries pledged to destroy Israel - will be discussed as fleeting aberrations. Not, in other words, as evidence that a skeptic may want to put on the table in order to determine fairly and scientifically whether or not the US ruling elite really is an ally.

But why are the Encyclopedia Britannica and the mass media distorting the truth in order to hide the fact that the US ruling elite attacks the Jews? You can get a clue by taking a look at Leslie Gelb, who is a) a high-powered US government operative involved with US Intelligence and US foreign policy, b) a New York Times journalist, and c) editorial advisor to the Encyclopedia Britannica:

"Gelb was director of Policy Planning and Arms Control for International Security Affairs at the Department of Defense from 1967 to 1969, winning the Pentagon's highest award, the Distinguished Service Award. Robert McNamara appointed Gelb as director of the project that produced the controversial Pentagon Papers on the Vietnam War.

He was diplomatic correspondent at The New York Times from 1973 to 1977.

He served as an Assistant Secretary of State in the Carter Administration from 1977 to 1979, serving as director of the Bureau of Politico-Military Affairs and winning the Distinguished Honor Award, the highest award of the US State Department.

He returned to the Times in 1981; from then until 1993, he was in turn its national security correspondent, deputy editorial page editor, editor of the Op-Ed Page, and columnist. This period included his leading role on the Times team that won a Pulitzer Prize for Explanatory Journalism in 1986 for a six-part comprehensive series on the "Star Wars" Strategic Defense Initiative).

Gelb became President of the Council on Foreign Relations in 1993 and as of 2005 is its President Emeritus."

Because mainstream news and academic publications, as we have seen, routinely employ Newspeak (the reality-inverting language of Orwell's 'Big Brother', where war is peace, freedom is slavery, and the US ruling elite is an ally of Israel), wool has been successfully pulled over the eyes of the citizenry, preventing political awareness. This has greatly endangered the survival of the Jewish state, for even Israeli Jews believe the US ruling elite is on their side, and an enemy that has not been recognized is not one that can easily be defended against.

____________________________________________________________

1955 [ mixed ]

The US forces Israel to withdraw from Sinai, but makes some concessions to the Israelis.
____________________________________________________________

In October 1955, Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser beefed up his military considerably with help from the Soviet Union, and then announced a blockade of the Strait of Tiran, Israel's only port south of Elat.

Israeli prime minister David Ben Gurion decided to act.

Since Britain and France wanted to regain the Suez Canal from Egypt, the three countries reached an agreement under which IDF (Israeli Defense Forces) seized the Sinai. The British and French then invaded the canal zone under pretext of protecting it. An infuriated Dwight D. Eisenhower forced the British and French to withdraw. Israel also withdrew, but not before extracting an agreement from the US to place a UN peacekeeping force in the Sinai, and a written promise from Secretary of State John Foster Dulles that the Strait of Tiran would be treated as a protected, international waterway. On the face of it this looks positive, but it is worth pointing out that the Israeli military occupation of the Sinai is what gave Ben Gurion the bargaining leverage to force it. The US's heart was not bleeding for Israel - certainly not the heart of John Foster Dulles, a Nazi supporter whose brother Allen Dulles had been responsible for creating the CIA out of escaped Nazi war criminals.

____________________________________________________________

1955-1965 [ positive (in one regard only) ]

Israel indirectly gets some US weapons.
____________________________________________________________

For the next ten years, Israel received arms from France, and from West Germany. Since West Germany got its weapons from the US, this may be considered indirect US assistance.

Caveat: It is worth pointing out, however, that it wasn't the US selling weapons to the Israelis.

____________________________________________________________

1958 [ negative ]

Israel assists US military intervention in the Middle East; when this places Israel in danger, the US does...nothing.
____________________________________________________________

1958 was a bad year for US and British influence in the Middle East. An army coup in Iraq toppled the pro-Western government there, and Nasser attempted similar subversion in pro-Western Lebanon and Jordan.

"President Eisenhower dispatched the Marines to Lebanon in order to forestall a possible collapse of pro-Western forces there. Israel was requested to allow British overflights for transporting troops to aid the Hashemite regime in Jordan."

Despite the fact that the Israelis obliged the Americans and the British, these latter

"refused to bargain with [Israeli prime minister David] Ben-Gurion about a military or political reward for his compliance with their requests."

But not only that:

"when the Soviets threatened Israel for having opened its airspace to Western forces, and Ben-Gurion, deeply distressed, tried to cancel the permission for overflights, he was strongly rebuked by [US Secretary of State John Foster] Dulles. The incident pointed up Israel's fundamental weakness, and its desperate search for allies against the threat posed by Nasser and Nasserism - and it pointed up also the exploitative attitude of the United States and Great Britain toward Israel..."

____________________________________________________________

1964 [ mixed ]

The US abandoned its previous official policy of trying to get Israel to relinquish the territories won in the War of Independence. Why had it been trying to do this?
____________________________________________________________

Israeli historian Anita Shapira writes:

"It was not until 1964 that an Israeli prime minister was officially welcomed at the White House, when Lyndon Johnson received Levi Eshkol."

This should be terribly surprising to anybody who was assuming that the US and Israel had been the best of friends since the founding of the state. But this is even more surprising:

"In their joint statement at the conclusion of the visit, Johnson proclaimed the need to maintain the territorial integrity of all the states in the region. ...this was the first time Washington abandoned the idea of changing the borders of the 1949 armistice line."

Shapira comments,

"If even a government as friendly to Israel as the government of the United States was not prepared during that perilous [pre-1964] time to guarantee the 1949 borders (what today is called the ‘Green Line’), then Israel’s situation was in truth fraught with great danger, and Ben-Gurion’s obsession with Israel’s fragility was not illusory."

Why does Shapira say the United States was so friendly? The points reviewed above in this chronology make it clear that the US had been an enemy state. Shapira's allegation of US friendship is therefore a gratuitous apology for the US.

It is not her only one. Notice that she first explains with candor that in 1964 "the US abandoned the idea of changing the borders of the 1949 armistice line," which means - what? That up until then, the US had been trying to change those borders. But then Shapira redescribes this policy as follows: "the United States was not prepared during that perilous [pre-1964] time to guarantee the 1949 borders." There is a very big difference between the first statement and the second. Not agreeing to guarantee somebody else's borders is to proclaim neutrality; trying to change Israel's 1949 borders - what the US in fact did - was an outright attack.

Let me explain why.

The 1947 partition line that created Israel had produced a country that was essentially a virtually indefensible (because very narrow) strip of coastline.And yet the Israeli Jews accepted this partition. The Palestinian Arabs did not accept and, with the surrounding Arab states, and aided by Britain, attacked the state of Israel and boasted of the impending genocide of the Jews.[27]

But the Israeli Jews stunned the world by winning the war, and they marginally thickened their narrow strip of coastline as a result. This made it a wee bit easier to defend. The resulting border is what Shapira calls the "1949 armistice line" and also "the Green Line."

Now, an attacked state is under no obligation to give back territory that its enemies lost after launching an unprovoked war of aggression - especially when they made it very clear that they meant to commit genocide and, moreover, had not abandoned this insane goal. And the survival of the Jewish state required securing its borders against further such attacks, which the Arab states had promised would be forthcoming. Thus, if it was only in 1964 that "Washington abandoned the idea of changing the borders of the 1949 armistice line," what follows? That up until 1964 the US had been waging a diplomatic attack against Israel, attempting to strip it of territory that Israel had legitimately won, and which was indispensable to its defense against terrorist states pledged to the extermination of the Jewish people.

By describing the US's behavior in a completely different way, as a failure to guarantee Israel's borders, Shapira is apologizing for the US.

I note that Anita Shapira is considered a Zionist. If you are an ordinary person - i.e. not a historian of Israel - and you come across her arguments, you will find yourself having to choose between the following two interpretations:

a) either Anita Shapira, an Israeli patriot, cannot reason about who Israel's friends are, or

b) since Anita Shapira is the historian, and you aren't, she must know a lot more about US policies over the years, and so you take what she says on her implicit authority that there are other facts which mitigate the impression of US enmity towards Israel.

Ordinary people are at a disadvantage in terms of access to information, and they are of a respectful and generous disposition towards figures of established authority, so they will tend to choose interpretation b.

The documentation in this piece is meant to empower ordinary people to ask the question: Where are those mitigating facts that supposedly establish the friendliness of the US towards Israel? Can anybody list them?

____________________________________________________________

1964-1967 [ negative ]

Although Israel suffered terrorist attacks from its Arab neighbors during these years, when they staged a full-scale military provocation, the US refused to help.
____________________________________________________________

For years prior to the 1967 war, there were terrorists attacks against Israeli civilians from the Jordanian and Syrian borders, while Nasser promised an impending Arab genocide of the Jews.

"…Syria used the Golan Heights, which tower 3,000 feet above the Galilee, to shell Israeli farms and villages. Syria's attacks grew more frequent in 1965 and 1966, while Nasser's rhetoric became increasingly bellicose: 'We shall not enter Palestine with its soil covered in sand,' he said on March 8, 1965. 'We shall enter it with its soil saturated in blood.'"

To get an idea of Nasser's mood and intentions immediately prior to the 1967 war, consider this speech which the Egyptian President gave to the Arab Trade Unionists on May 26, 1967

[Quote From Nasser To Arab Trade Unionists Starts Here]

"If Israel embarks on an aggression against Syria or Egypt, the battle against Israel will be a general one and not confined to one spot on the Syrian or Egyptian borders. The battle will be a general one and our basic objective will be to destroy Israel. I probably could not have said such things five or even three years ago. If I had said such things and had been unable to carry them out my words would have been empty and worthless.

Today, some eleven years after 1956, I say such things because I am confident. I know what we have here in Egypt and what Syria has. I also know that other States Iraq, for instance, has sent its troops to Syria; Algeria will send troops; Kuwait also will send troops. They will send armored and infantry units. This is Arab power. This is the true resurrection of the Arab nation, which at one time was probably in despair."

[Quote From Nasser To Arab Trade Unionists Ends Here]

Then, in 1967, the Arab countries surrounding Israel mobilized, staging a provocation. Israeli foreign minister Abba Eban went on an emergency trip seeking French, British, and American aid. He got nothing.[29]

A short reflection on propaganda
_____________________________

Journalist Dilip Hiro recently wrote an article about US meddling in the Middle East, where he presents what is supposed to be a brief history of it. His account includes the following paragraph:

"The emergence of Israel in 1948 added a new factor. Following its immediate recognition of Israel, Washington devised a military-diplomatic strategy in the region which rested on the triad of Saudi Arabia, Iran, and the new state of Israel, with the overall aim of keeping Soviet influence out of the Middle East. While each member of the troika was tied closely to the U.S., and links between Iran and Israel became progressively tighter, Saudi Arabia and Israel, though staunchly anti-Communist, remained poles apart. Nonetheless, the overall arrangement remained in place until the Islamic revolution in Iran in 1979."

What Dilip Hiro writes is false, of course. We have seen (sticking only to the most significant stuff), that:

1) In the 1930s, the US ruling class sponsored the antisemitic (among other things) American eugenics movement, and sponsored also the rise of the especially antisemitic German eugenics movement, which came to be known as German "National Socialism," or Nazism.

2) During World War II, the United States had a visa and war policy designed to assist the "Final Solution," as the Nazis called their extermination program against the European Jewish population.

3) After the war, the United States absorbed the entire Nazi war criminal infrastructure and out of that created US Intelligence.

4) In 1947, the United States was opposed to the creation of the State of Israel and voted "pro" in the UN only because the Soviet Union made a passionate speech in favor of a Jewish state where this people could live safe from genocide.

5) During Israel's War of Independence the United States did not help Israel. On the contrary, the US, even as Israelis were being murdered by the Arab armies that had promised to exterminate the Israeli Jews, slapped an arms embargo on the Israeli Jews. For good measure, the US government reversed itself and officially declared its opposition to the creation of the State of Israel. This reversal was defeated by the largest demonstration of ordinary Americans ever seen in the streets of New York City, which was called to protest the policy reversal. Meanwhile, Great Britain, the United States' closest ally, was assisting the combined Arab attempt to destroy Israel.

6) In the period 1949-53, the United States allied with Israel's mortal enemies during a very difficult period in which Israel's existence was always in the balance.

7) Up to the year 1964 the United States had been trying to take territory away from Israel, and in the period 1964-1967 the US did absolutely nothing while Israel's Arab enemies once again attempted to destroy her (unless the US was secretly assisting these enemies).

Let us now read again what journalist Dilip Hiro wrote:

"Following its immediate recognition of Israel, Washington devised a military-diplomatic strategy in the region which rested on the triad of Saudi Arabia, Iran, and the new state of Israel, with the overall aim of keeping Soviet influence out of the Middle East. ...each member of the troika was tied closely to the U.S. ...[and] the overall arrangement remained in place until the Islamic revolution in Iran in 1979."

What Dilip Hiro writes is obviously intended to feed the belief that the United States and Israel have been supposedly joined at the hip ever since Israel was created. But this is propaganda. Washington did not immediately recognize Israel, and Israel was in no sense tied closely to the US. Neither did any such alliance last until 1979 because it didn't exist in the first place. On the contrary, Israel's existence was constantly threatened thanks significantly to US foreign policy.

I point out that Dilip Hiro isn't nobody. He is a veteran journalist who has written many articles over the years in the following publications: The Observer, The New York Times, the Weekend Australian, The Independent, The Guardian, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, and The Toronto Star.

Dilip Hiro is a big-deal journalist, and he is sold as an expert on the Middle East.

But Dilip Hiro's propaganda is not a monopoly of the mainstream media. The text I quoted is from an article that Dilip Hiro wrote for TomDispatch.com, which sells itself as "a regular antidote to the mainstream media."

____________________________________________________________

1967 [ negative ]

After the Six-Day War, the US put pressure on Israel to relinquish the territory gained, even though it knew it was indispensable to Israeli defense.
____________________________________________________________

Following another surprising Israeli victory in the 1967 war, Israel ended up controlling the Sinai, the Golan Heights, the Gaza Strip, and the West Bank. In November of that year, the UN Security Council passed UN Resolution 242 which called for

"Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict."

This was simply outrageous because earlier that year - despite being victorious after yet another genocidal provocation - Israeli prime minister Levi Eshkol had immediately offered Israel's Arab enemies to take back these territories on condition that they promise never to attack Israel again. The Arabs refused.

You read correctly: that's all the Israelis were asking, and nothing like this -- not even remotely like it -- has ever happened in the history of warfare. Never before has a victorious state, after defending itself against an attack, and winning territory, offered to give it back in exchange for a promise of peace. And that's without mentioning that the attack was an attempted genocide.

But the Arabs refused!

Given this, how could the UN Security Council now demand that Israel return these territories? That was simply absurd, not to mention immoral. The US could have used its veto power in the Security Council to stop this resolution, but didn't.

Matters, however, are worse, because according to University of Pennsylvania political science professor Ian Lustick, the US has adopted Resolution 242 as its official policy.

"[US] policy, in some sense, has stayed, in a formal way, more or less where it’s always been, which is not a bad place. That is, officially, we believe that there ought to be a solution based on Resolution 242, which seems to suggest almost complete Israeli withdrawal from the territories, except for mutually agreed changes."

That was said in 2002. It is likely that Ian Lustick knows what he is talking about on this point, because he works for US Intelligence.

But the most important point here is that this policy of the United States is one that the US pursues even though it knows it will prepare the ground for the destruction of Israel. The demonstration follows.
Immediately after the 1967 Six Day War, a Memorandum for the [US] Secretary of Defense that had for subject “Middle East Boundaries,” and signed by Earle G. Wheeler, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was submitted. It said:

“From a strictly military point of view Israel would require the retention of some captured Arab territory in order to provide militarily defensible borders.”

This study was quite specific, explaining that Israel needed to hold most of the West Bank because,
“This border area [along the Jordanian West Bank] has traditionally been lightly held by military forces and defenses consist[ing] mainly of small, widely separated outposts and patrols and, therefore, afforded an area where launching of saboteurs and terrorists into Israel was relatively easy...”
On the Syrian border,
“Israel must hold the commanding terrain east of the boundary of 4 June 1967 which overlooks the Galilee area.”
This is a reference to the Golan Heights, from which the Syrians had been shelling Israeli farmers in the Galilee, as we saw above . The Pentagon study concurs: “During the period January 1965 to February 1967, a total of 28 sabotage and terrorist acts occurred along this border.”
Concerning Jerusalem, the Pentagon study states that
“To defend the Jerusalem area would require that the boundary of Israel be positioned to the east of the city to provide for the organization of an adequate defensive position.”
And about the Gaza strip, the Pentagon study states that,
“The Strip, under Egyptian control, provides a salient into Israel a little less than 30 miles long and from four to eight miles wide. It has served as a training area for the Palestine Liberation Army... Occupation of the Strip by Israel would reduce the hostile border by a factor of five and eliminate a source for raids and training of the Palestine Liberation Army.”
Now, since the surrounding Arab states have remained pledged to destroy Israel, these territories are absolutely indispensable as a buffer against the next attack. But this is the territory from which the US, in its official policy, as Ian Lustick explains, would like Israel completely to withdraw from. What would be the effect of such a withdrawal? That Israel would become vulnerable once again to a combined Arab attack, as the 1967 Pentagon study quoted here makes clear (so it is not as if the US mistakenly thinks that Israel can defend itself without these territories).
If the US wants Israel to withdraw from territories that, according to the same US, Israel absolutely needs in order to protect itself from its antisemitic and genocidal enemies, can the US be an ally of Israel?

____________________________________________________________

1967-70 [ negative ]

The Arabs attack the Israelis. The US response is to try and remove the Israelis from territory they need for their defense.
____________________________________________________________

What became known as the War of Attrition began as early as 1967 with Egyptian shelling of Israeli positions near the Suez Canal. It was a costly war that took the lives of 1,424 Israeli soldiers and more than 100 civilians, there were also another 2000 soldiers and 700 civilians wounded.

The United States worked to reward the Egyptians by pushing for a cease-fire and negotiations that would lead to an Israeli withdrawal. But Egypt violated the cease-fire. "Despite the Egyptian violations, the UN-sponsored talks resumed... The talks were swifly short-circuited, however, by UN Special Envoy Gunnar Jarring, when he accepted the Egyptian interpretation of Resolution 242 and called for Israel's total withdrawal to the pre-June 5, 1969, demarcation lines."

Simultaneously, Yasser Arafat's PLO launched terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians from Jordanian territory.

In 1969-70 the US proposed the Rogers Plan, after Richard Nixon's Secretary of State William Rogers. The point of this plan was, among other outrages, to enforce UN RESOLUTION 242,which called for Israeli withdrawal from the territories that a Pentagon study  had identified as indispensable to Israeli defense!

The Israelis were naturally dead set against this, and on December 22, 1969, Israel's cabinet formally rejected the Rogers Plan. However Israel's hand was forced by the fact that the Soviets were heavily involved with Egypt's attack. "[W]hen Israeli fighter planes shot down four Egyptian planes flown by Soviet pilots..., [f]earing Soviet retaliation, and uncertain of American support, Israel in August accepted a cease-fire and the application of Resolution 242."

Caveat: "In a [apparently non-binding] vote in the US Congress in 1970, 70 Senators [70%] and 280 Representatives [64%] rejected Secretary of State Rogers' peace plan as being too one-sided against Israel."

____________________________________________________________

1970 [ positive ]

Washington temporarily abandons the diplomatic effort to make Israel withdraw from the territories.
____________________________________________________________

In 1970 Jordan's King Hussein led a punishing attack against the PLO terrorists who had taken over the areas of Jordan bordering Israel, from which they committed terrorist outrages not only against Israeli civilians but also Jordanian civilians and foreigners. This led to great tensions with Syria, but Syria did not invade Jordan, apparently to avoid a conflict with Israel. "It was widely believed in Washington that deployment of Israeli troops along the Jordan River had deterred a large-scale Syrian invasion of Jordan. As a result, President Richard M. Nixon increasingly viewed Israel as an important strategic asset, and the Rogers Plan was allowed to die."

Caveat: Notice again, however, that this had nothing to do with the US caring about Israel. The deeply anti-Israel Rogers Plan was abandoned only when the US discovered strategic reasons to support Israel against Soviet client states such as Syria, and to protect its own client state, Jordan. And, as we've seen above, the Rogers plan was not, in fact, really allowed to die. US official policy has always been the implementation of UN Resolution 242, which was the core of the Rogers Plan.

____________________________________________________________

1973 [ positive ]

The US assisted Israel in the Yom Kippur War
____________________________________________________________

The Yom Kippur war of 1973 was a joint surprise attack by Egypt and Syria that caught the Israelis unprepared. They were facing catastrophe, and turned to the US. The Americans at first were reluctant, but "Washington's reluctance to help Israel changed rapidly when the Soviet Union launched its own resupply effort to Egypt and Syria."

Caveat: Notice that the US was reluctant to help, and did not intervene until its prestige in the Cold War context was threatened by the involvement of the Soviets on the other side.

When Zionist Jews, grateful for the support Israel supposedly gets from the US, wish to defend the argument that the US is a friend, they can only mention three substantive points.

1) the war of 1973

2) the financial aid Israel gets from the US (only a bit more than what Egypt gets), and

3) the weapons Israel gets from the US (less than what Saudi Arabia gets; see 1979 section).

That's all one can list. We see here that one should not consider US help in 1973 as a sign of 'friendship' or alliance. The US was just making Cold War moves, and this one turned out to be convenient. When such moves are not convenient, the US goes right back to attacking Israel.

Further below I will address the issues of financial and military aid, and I will show that these, too, are mirages.

____________________________________________________________

1973-1975 [ negative ]

The US supported the election of a pro-PLO Nazi war criminal to the post of UN Secretary General.
____________________________________________________________

Immediately after the Arab defeat of 1973, “the heads of state present” at the Arab League summit convened in Algiers on 26-28 November 1973, “recognized the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) as the only representative of the Palestinian people.” They had decided that defeating Israel required a new strategy, so the push began to demand the creation of a 'Palestinian' state in the West Bank, led by someone who could be counted on never to stop until he had exterminated the Jews: Yasser Arafat. In 1974 the governing body of the PLO, the Palestine National Council, produced the 'Plan of Phases,' a Trojan Horse strategy that would promise peace in return for allowing the PLO into the Jewish State.

Arafat had been mentored by the Mufti Hajj Amin, one of the top leaders of Hitler's Final Solution, who bequeathed to his protégé an Islamist and antisemitic genocidal ideology. Veteran's of the Mufti's terrorist Arab Higher Committee helped form Arafat's al Fatah organization, which, by 1970 had swallowed the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO - formed in 1964), while keeping its name.Arafat's movement, therefore, is essentially an unbroken link in a chain of genocide, a direct extension of Hitler's Final Solution. A state led by Arafat's terrorist organization could be armed to the teeth by other Arab states, thus resuming the charge to destroy Israel and exterminate the Jews.

That this demand for a Palestinian state represented a strategy by the Arab states to extend their genocidal attacks against Israel through other means is quite obvious. In fact, they began pushing the idea in 1969 over the objections of none other than Yasser Arafat, on whose behalf they were supposedly doing this! Arafat evidently felt this new strategy of extermination was too slow, and he didn't pronounce himself dramatically and publicly in favor until 1977.

The problem here was political: in order to get international pressure on Israel to allow a Palestinian state in the West Bank, the Palestinians had to be presented as victims. How to do this? It was not easy because the Israeli occupation was quite benign, despite the fact that the acquired territories were inhabited by an enemy population that had supported a genocidal war against Israeli Jews in 1967.

So presenting Palestinians as 'victims' required defining 'oppression' as the absence of a Palestinian state, and blaming this absence on the Israelis, never minding (1) that the Palestinian Arabs had refused the UN partition creating such a state in 1947; (2) that the Jordanians, who had illegally occupied the West Bank in 1948 had not bothered to create a "Palestinian" Arab state by 1967; and 3) that the Arab states refused Israel's offer to take back the lands lost in 1967 in return for a promise of peace.

The first salvo attacking Israel for having had to defend itself [!] was, as we saw, UN RESOLUTION 242 , which was passed immediately after the Arab defeat of 1967. Then, as the campaign for a PLO state gathered steam in the 1970s, two new attacks from the UN. The first was in 1974, when Yasser Arafat, the genocidal antisemite and protegé of a leading Nazi war criminal, was invited to give a speech to the UN General Assembly, and was received with the protocols of a chief of state [!].The second came a year later when the UN passed Resolution 3379 which equated Zionism with racism [!]

It was a Nazi war criminal, Kurt Waldheim, who presided over both these events as UN Secretary General.

This was the Nazis celebrating the Nazis, using their control of the highest world forum to attack the Jews.

Accusations that Waldheim was a Nazi war criminal were made at the time.[45]Did US officials know that Kurt Waldheim was a Nazi war criminal? But of course. As the New Republic explained in 1986, Waldheim participated in

"...the ‘Kozara Massacres’ [which] took place on West Bosnia (now Yugoslavia), under the command of General Friedrich Stahl. In the campaign 71 Germans died, 5,000 of the enemy were killed (including many noncombatants), and 12,000 taken prisoner. In a ‘cleansing operation’ afterward, hundreds of peasants were shot. Sixty-eight thousand [68,000] local inhabitants, including 23,000 children, were taken away to be murdered at the local concentration camp of Jasenovac."

For his exertions in this massive slaughter of innocent Serbs, Jews, and Roma (Gypsies), Kurt Waldheim was given the Zvonimir medal by the Ustashe Croatian fascists, an honor “awarded to only three German officers - out of some 20,000 German soldiers in that campaign.”

The above is but a portion, and it would take us too far afield to list here the entire criminal dossier of this man, but the point is that Waldheim was a well-known Nazi exterminator. It would be entirely remarkable if US Intelligence, which was created by absorbing tens of thousands of Nazi war criminals ,didn't know who Kurt Waldheim was. So the US ruling elite had to know what it was doing when, on the eve of Waldheim's becoming UN Secretary General,

"George Bush, the American [UN] delegate, issued a statement saying that Mr. Waldheim was 'ideally equipped' for the job."

That was George Bush Sr., and he likely knew precisely who Waldheim was when he said that because he was already connected with the CIA. Shortly thereafter, Bush would become Director of the CIA, and later president of the United States.

In fact the US ruling elite liked Waldheim so much that they later lobbied passionately to get him a third term at the UN (blocked by China). Doesn't that suggest, then, that the policy of demonization of Israel in order to create a PLO state was not only an Arab and UN policy, but also a US policy?

Read on...

____________________________________________________________

1975 [ negative ]

The US reached an agreement with Israel not to have contacts with the PLO. The US immediately violated the agreement.
____________________________________________________________

In 1975 the US reached an agreement with Israel not to have any contact with the PLO. However, in 1981 the New York Times wrote that,

"In fact, however, the Central Intelligence Agency has for several years maintained and occasionally used a little publicized, so-called 'back-channel' line of communications with P.L.O. headquarters in Beirut."

The word 'several' corresponds very well to the number of years that had gone by since the agreement: six. It appears, therefore, that the US violated its agreement with Israel immediately after signing it - but definitely by 1977, as we shall see below.

The New York Times also explains the methods the CIA used to circumvent this agreement.

"The Central Intelligence Agency regularly employs private contractors. In recent years, the State Department has used private intermediaries with the Palestine Liberation Organization, the Government having promised Israel not to deal officially with the P.L.O."

____________________________________________________________

1977 [ negative ]

Jimmy Carter worked hard to give the terrorist PLO the dignity of a 'government in exile,' and then he teamed up with the Soviets to try and saddle Israel with a PLO terrorist state next door.
____________________________________________________________

A busy year.

The UN strategy to demonize Israel and make the PLO appear respectable had worked beautifully, so that by 1977 a young West Bank Palestinian interviewed by Newsweek could say: "Unlike ten years ago, we now have the sympathy of the entire world."The world's political climate having thus shifted to the degree necessary, US president Jimmy Carter, choosing his moment carefully, declared publicly his support for a "Palestinian homeland." This is what the New York Times reported on May 13, 1977:

“[Congress] watches, with a mixture of admiration and doubt, Jimmy Carter’s efforts to reassure the Israelis while trying to get them back to the pre-1967 borders with a new Palestinian ‘homeland’ on their flank.”

It is certainly of some interest that the US president came out in favor of a PLO state (what 'Palestinian homeland' has always meant) before the PLO ever supported the idea. In fact, before the US president's announcement of his support for a 'Palestinian homeland,' the PLO had been the staunchest opponent of a PLO state in the West Bank and Gaza! This is worth a short detour.

Consider this note from 1969:

“… recent rejection by Al Fatah representative of all plans to establish Palestinian state on Jordan West Bank and in Gaza Strip noted; Palestinian National Council member Dr S Dabbagh urges commandos to prepare now for strategy they will follow if Arab states accept political settlement.”

Al Fatah is the dominant faction within the PLO - it calls all the shots. The Palestinian National Council is the legislative body of the PLO. Thus, what we have above is a total rejection by the PLO, in 1969, of a PLO state in the West Bank.

In 1970, after the PLO caused a civil war in Jordan, the issue of giving the PLO a state in the West Bank was again discussed. Again, the PLO said no, as reported in the New York Times:

"There has been speculation that the establishment of a Palestinian state in Jordan's west-bank territory, now under Israeli occupation, might be raised as a solution for the Palestinians. Any discussion of this issue here [in Egypt] with Mr. Arafat, however, has been secret. The commando chief has publicly criticized the proposal."

Why didn't the PLO want its own state in the West Bank?

The answer to that question will be found in the PLO Charter - or perhaps I should say charters (plural) as there have been two. The first charter dates from 1964, and in article 24 it states:

Article 24: This Organization does not exercise any territorial sovereignty over the West Bank in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, on the Gaza Strip or in the Himmah Area.

The PLO went out of its way, as you can see above, to state that the West Bank and Gaza (1) were not "Palestinian" lands, (2) belonged rightfully to Jordan and Egypt, respectively, and (3) were of no interest to the PLO. In 1968, however, the PLO Charter was rewritten and this is the charter that remains current to this day. This second charter states the following in its first two articles:

Article 1: Palestine is the homeland of the Arab Palestinian people.

Article 2: Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit.

The boundaries of the territory called "Palestine" during the British Mandate included the West Bank and Gaza, plus the rest of present day Israel.This means that in the 1968 Charter, the PLO did now begin claiming the West Bank and Gaza as "Palestinian" lands. Why the abrupt 180-degree reversal? Because the year before, in 1967, after the surrounding Arab states had provoked a war with the goal of exterminating the Israeli Jews, the Israelis had emerged victorious, and had captured the West Bank and the Gaza strip.

In other words, there is no such thing as a fixed "Palestinian land" as far as the PLO is concerned; there is just land that Jews live on. Since the Jews returned to live in the West Bank and Gaza after 1967, these territories - which the PLO had explicitly maintained it had nothing to do with - suddenly became of great interest to the PLO and were called for the first time "Palestinian" by the PLO. This is easily explained, because the PLO's purpose is to exterminate the Israeli Jews, as specified most explicitly in the PLO Charter. This is why Article 9 of the 1968 charter says that “armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine.” In other words, wherever Jews live in the Middle East, the PLO will claim that this is "Palestinian" land that has to be liberated exclusively by killing Jews. Any appearance that the PLO is conducting peaceful negotiations is merely a front.

So, the reason the PLO was for a long time reluctant to join the call for a PLO state is that the tactical and temporary abandonment of a policy to kill all the Jews in the Middle East was a bitter pill to swallow for an organization that was in a big hurry to complete the ecstatic extermination that is its mission.

None of this, of course, was a secret to US President Jimmy Carter. The Arab states, since 1969, had been pushing for a PLO state in the West Bank and Gaza. And after the Arab defeat in the 1973 war, Arafat had promulgated in 1974 his "Plan of Phases", “according to which the Palestine Liberation Organization [PLO] would acquire whatever territory it could by negotiations, then use that land as a base for pursuing its ultimate goal of Israel’s annihilation.”

So this is the context in which Jimmy Carter announced his support for a "Palestinian homeland" in 1977. In other words, the US president had to know that his statement would be interpreted as support for a PLO state, and he knew also that such a state would be dedicated to the extermination of the Israeli Jews.

And how interesting that the PLO, less than a week after the announcement by the US President, followed suit and declared itself for the first time in support of a West Bank PLO state.

"PLO spokesman Mahmoud Labady says PLO views Pres Carter's concept of Palestinian homeland as important contribution to 'just and durable' peace in Middle East…  Says PLO would agree to establishment of Palestinian state on West Bank and in Gaza Strip…"

Of course, this did not mean that the PLO was abandoning its goal of destroying Israel. It meant only that, following the US president's lead, it was shifting tactics. But how come the US president and the PLO leadership appeared so coordinated, announcing their new positions within a week of each other? Were they working together through that back channel that the New York times talks about ?

Two months later, on July 22, as if to grease the wheels of the claim just endorsed by the American president, "Yasir Arafat's Palestine Liberation Organization became the first nonstate ever granted membership in a United Nations organization... The PLO [now] has observer status in the United Nations itself."

To give a terrorist organization the status of a government at the UN is an outrage. But the UN does not commit outrages like this left and right. The Tamil Tigers, for example, do not have a seat at the UN. Neither does Al Qaeda. So the UN was careful to honor the terrorist organization that needed to be legitimized in order to destroy Israel.

The US appeared to be on Israel's side when it denounced the elevation of the PLO to the status of a government at the UN. Was it?

You may answer that question for yourself. The man inducting the PLO into the UN, which policy the US government officially said it opposed, was Nazi war criminal Kurt Waldheim. But this is the same Waldheim for whom the US government had lobbied, saying that he was perfect for the top UN job, even though it knew perfectly well who Waldheim was so one can certainly be suspicious that the US government's official opposition to UN membership for the PLO was hypocritical.

Our suspicion is rewarded. Underneath the surface, the US was playing a very different game. Two days before the US protested, alongside Israel, that the PLO was being inducted into the UN, it had already been reported that the Carter administration and the PLO were "involved in secret high-level contacts." And just one week later, on August 2:

"Reports in the state-controlled Egyptian news media said the Americans were suggesting that the Palestinians form a government in exile as one way of making themselves eligible for [the] Geneva [peace conference]. The argument, the reports said, was that the Palestine Liberation Organization can not now be invited because it does not represent a state."(my emphasis)

So what happened is this:

Loudly, the US government said, "no to government status for the PLO at the UN." Much more quietly, it said, "yes to government status for the PLO so it can negotiate for a Palestinian state at Geneva." Since it was the UN that organized the Geneva peace conference, and since a state run by the PLO would allow the PLO a seat at the UN anyway, the second American statement exactly denies the first.Hmm... When the US's loud public barks and its cupped-hand whispers to the side contradict each other, guess which is the real policy? Read on...

Things were moving fast. Less than a week later, on August 8, the US was said to be

"anxious over [the] Israeli refusal to accept 2 Arab pre-conditions to [the Geneva peace] conf[erence], including relinquishment of most of the territory occupied since [the] '67 war, and acknowledgement of right for existence of some kind of Palestinian state."

And just a month after that, on September 18, the US State Dept. announced that

"Palestinians [i.e. the PLO] should be involved in [the] peacemaking process at Geneva... [The] Israeli press [saw these] US moves and comments as leaning towards establishment of [a] separate Palestinian state, anathema to most Israelis."[56]

Clearly, the US wanted a PLO state on the territory Israel had gained in 1967, despite the fact that a Pentagon study had already concluded this would mean the destruction of Israel .US diplomacy, with the prestige of a world power that supposedly defends democracy, was teaching people everywhere a lesson about what they ought to see as just and fair. People learned that it was just and fair for the Arab states to demand a Palestinian state run by a genocidal antisemitic terrorist in strategic Israeli territory in return for -- for what? In return for an Arab promise to cease attacking Israel with the goal of exterminating the Jews, as they had done in 1967.

You may pop your eyes back into your head, if you can find them. If it looks like an absurdity, and walks like an absurdity... (And if it looks like a US attack on Israel, and walks like a US attack on Israel...)

But the US was not quite done. Two weeks later, on October 1st, the US and the USSR published the "Joint U.S.-Soviet statement on the Middle East," stating their joint position in matters relating to the proposed Geneva peace conference. This called for negotiating with the PLO to create a Palestinian state if the PLO accepted UN Resolution 242 (which resolution was an outrage against the Israelis , and if they accepted Israel's right to exist.

Israel then went into high gear and "Israeli leaders... made strenuous efforts to realign Israel's policy with that of the United States." They had to, because in reaching an agreement with the Soviet Union that the PLO should govern a Palestinian state in the West Bank, the US had neglected to consult its supposed ally, Israel. The US had tried to pull a fast one. Vigorous negotiations by Israeli Foreign Minister Moshe Dayan in New York yielded the Israel-US working paper on Geneva on October 5.

"In this paper, Israel in effect rejected the U.S.-Soviet statement, insisted on Resolution 242 as the basis for talks but said that 242 did not mean territorial withdrawal; the PLO was not mentioned and there would be no Palestinian state."

In other words, Dayan's emergency diplomacy prevented the disaster that the US had deceitfully, and in collusion with the Soviet Union, tried to bring on Israel.

The US is supposed to be a friend. But wouldn't an enemy of Israel try hard to set up a Palestinian state run by a genocidal terrorist whose movement is an extension of the final solution?And wouldn't an enemy use deception to get other powerful states (the Arabs, the USSR) to gang up on tiny Israel?

When people excuse the US's dirty tricks in foreign policy, they usually do so by saying that it was supposedly necessary to fight the Cold War. Now they say it is necessary to fight the supposed war on terrorism. The US has always cultivated an image that opposes both terrorists and communists. Here, however, neither explanation could work. This was done on behalf of the PLO terrorists and it was done in collusion with the communist Cold War enemy, the Soviet Union. In other words, even the pretense of opposing terrorists, and the fight against the comunists, are both abandoned when it comes to Israel, because attacking Israel is apparently more important than all that! 

So how is the behavior of the US different from that of an enemy of Israel?

____________________________________________________________

1978 [ negative ]

When Israel tried to defend itself from the PLO terrorists, the US forced Israel to stand back
____________________________________________________________

The PLO was killing Israeli civilians from its bases in southern Lebanon, so Israel invaded southern Lebanon in 1978.

The United States reaction?

“In June 1978, Prime Minister [Menachem] Begin, under intense American pressure, withdrew Israel's Litani River Operation forces from southern Lebanon… The withdrawal of Israeli troops without having removed the PLO from its bases in southern Lebanon became a major embarrassment to the Begin government…”

Keep in mind that the US invaded Panama on the official grounds that one American soldier had been killed. But when scores of Israeli civilians were being murdered by the PLO terrorists, the US would not allow Israel to protect itself.

 CHAMAKHE MAURIENI IS A MOROCCAN BORN FREELANCE WRITER,ENTERPRENEUR,AND AUTHOR.ADD HIM ON FACEBOOK:www.facebook.com/chamakhe.maurieni
  HIS LATEST BOOK IS TITLED FACEBOOK IS DECEPTION_- VOLUME ONE AND VOLUME TWO