America is an enemy to Arabs and Isreal. PART 3

1979 [ negative ]

Jimmy Carter began large-scale US sponsorship of antisemitic Islamist terrorists, especially in Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia.
____________________________________________________________

The Carter administration began an effort, in tandem with the Islamist Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and the Islamist president of Pakistan (Zia ul Haq), to fund an Islamist terrorist force in Afghanistan, which effort Reagan later intensified.The point of this was to suck the Soviet Union into a quagmire, and it succeeded. One of the consequences of this policy was that these Islamist terrorists spawned an international underground mercenary movement known as the 'mujahedin,' as well as international terrorist organizations that mobilize Muslim hatred of Jews, such as Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda.

Carter also began at this time a secret buildup of Saudi Arabia's military, which Reagan also continued, and which made this country

"ultimately...the largest beneficiary of U.S. weapons sales in the entire world [and] one of the most heavily armed countries in the world."

We are speaking, of course, of the country that funds the Palestinian extremists and which stirs antisemitic Islamism all over the globe; a country whose minister of the interior is charged with looking after the health of the Palestinian terrorist movement;a country whose government-sponsored clerics daily recommend the slaughter of Jews in their sermons.

The year after this US military buildup of Saudi Arabia began, Saudi King Fahd explained in public what he meant by jihad:

“In 1980, King Fahd of Saudi Arabia gave a clear definition: ‘What is meant by jihad is a united, comprehensive, integrated Arab-Islamic confrontation in which we place all our resources and our spiritual, cultural, political, material and military potential in a long and untiring ‘Holy War’ against Israel, of course, who else?’”

Given that the US has made this country "the largest beneficiary of U.S. weapons sales in the entire world," whose side is the US on? Israel's? Some will say, "But Saudi Arabia is buying its weapons; this is not a US handout." Yes, however, there is no such thing as 'just business,' here, because the Saudis mean to destroy Israel. If you call yourself my friend and you sell a gun to someone you know has been hired to kill me, the fact that the hired assassin paid for the gun will not work as a defense for your behavior.

Others will say, "But the US ruling elite is doing this for cheap oil." Emperor's Clothes has produced much analysis to show that US foreign policy is not conducted primarily to obtain cheap oil, as many claim.But even if we were to accept the "it's for oil" hypothesis, we are left with the fact that the US ruling elite wants cheap oil badly enough to turn itself into an effective enemy of Israel, arming more than any other country in the world a state committed to the extermination of the Israeli Jews. Whether or not the US ruling elite produces a policy out of a specific animosity against the Israeli Jews or because of some other interest, the question that matters is this: What are the material consequences - for Israel - of US foreign policy? If the consequences of this policy are that Israel ends up destroyed, will it matter if the US did it to get cheap oil?

Something else that happened in the year 1979 is that Jimmy Carter set in motion the Iranian 'hostage crisis,' partly in order to raise the prestige of the PLO:

"[George W.] Bush's family knew a lot about the Nazis. And guess what? Far from being enraged by Hitler's ambitions, they actively endorsed them. GW's grandfather, Prescott, was married to the daughter of George Herbert Walker, president of the Union Banking Corporation. Through this organisation, both men helped German industrialists consolidate Hitler's political power. In 1942, the Roosevelt administration seized all the corporation's shares, including those held by Prescott Bush (by now a board member) under the Trading With The Enemy Act. The government made clear that huge sections of this business had operated on behalf of Nazi Germany and had greatly assisted its war effort."
Apologists for Prescott Bush will say, for example, that "Bush had [only] one share" in the Union Banking Corp., and that "The documents do not show any evidence Bush directly aided that effort [to assist the Nazis]." This suggests to the reader that Prescott Bush is guilty only if his aid to the Nazis brought him considerable profits in the form of dividends from his shares, and suggests also that to blame him for helping the Nazis we need to find his fingerprint in these particular documents! But why? The Bank was involved in helping the Nazis in a significant way, and "Prescott Bush was one of seven directors of Union Banking Corp." [All the quotes in this paragraph taken from: "Bush Ancestor's Bank Seized by Gov't"; By Jonathon D. Salant; Associated Press; Friday 17 October 2003]
[1b] “Henry Ford, who was so impressed by the efficient way meat packers slaughtered and dismantled animals in Chicago, made his own unique contribution to the slaughter of people in Europe. Not only did he develop the assembly-line method that Germans used to kill Jews, but he launched a vicious anti-Semitic campaign that helped make the Holocaust happen.
In the early 1920s Ford’s weekly newspaper, the Dearborn Independent, published a series of articles based on the text of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, an anti-Semitic tract that had been circulating in Europe. Ford published a book-length compilation of the articles entitled The International Jew, which was translated into most of the European languages and was widely disseminated by anti-Semites, chief among them the German publisher Theodor Fritsch, an early supporter of Hitler. Thanks to a well-financed publicity campaign and the prestige of the Ford name, The International Jew was hugely successful both domestically and internationally. The International Jew found its most receptive audience in Germany where it was known as The Eternal Jew. Ford was enormously popular in Germany. When his autobiography went on sale there, it immediately became the country’s number one bestseller. In the early 1920s The Eternal Jew quickly became the bible of the German anti-Semitism, with Fritsch’s publishing house printing six editions between 1920 and 1922.

After Ford’s book came to the attention of Hitler in Munich, he used a shortened version of it in the Nazi propaganda war against the Jews of Germany. In 1923 a Chicago Tribune correspondent in Germany reported that Hitler’s organization in Munich was ‘sending out Mr. Ford’s books by the carload.’ Baldur von Schirach, the leader of the Hitler Youth movement and the son of an aristocratic German father and American mother, said at the postwar Nuremberg war crimes trial that he became a convinced anti-Semite at age seventeen after reading The Eternal Jew. ‘You have no idea what a great influence this book had on the thinking of German youth. The younger generation looked with envy to symbols of success and prosperity like Henry Ford, and if he said the Jews were to blame, why naturally we believed him.’

Hitler regarded Ford as a comrade-in-arms and kept a life-sized portrait of him on the wall next to his desk in his office in Munich. In 1923 when Hitler heard that Ford might run for President of the United States, he told an American reporter, ‘I wish that I could send some of my shock troops to Chicago and other big American cities to help in the elections. We look to Heinrich Ford as the leader of the growing Fascist movement in America. We have just had his anti-Jewish articles translated and published. The book is being circulated in millions throughout Germany.’ Hitler praised Ford in Mein Kampf, the only American to be singled out. In 1931, when a Detriot News reporter asked Hitler what Ford’s portrait on the wall meant to him, Hitler said, ‘I regard Henry Ford as my inspiration.’

In 1938, on the occasion of his seventy-fifth birthday, Henry Ford, the great admirer of the efficient way they slaughtered and cut up animals in America, accepted the Grand Cross of the Supreme Order of the German Eagle, the highest honor Nazi Germany could bestow on a foreigner (Mussolini was one of the three other foreigners to be so honored).”

SOURCE: “Animals, Slavery, and the Holocaust”; Logos; Spring 2005; vol. 4, iss. 2.; by Charles Patterson
http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_4.2/patterson.htm

[2] Carroll, J. 2001. Constantine's Sword: The Church and the Jews. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. (p.522)

[2a] Levin, K. 2005. The Oslo syndrome: Delusions of a people under siege. Hanover, NH: Smith and Kraus. (p.120)

[2b] The Oslo Syndrome (p.121)

[2c] The Oslo Syndrome (p.122)

[2d] The Oslo Syndrome (p.122)

[2e] The Oslo Syndrome (p.124)

[3] Primary sources for the PBS film "America and the Holocaust"
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/holocaust/filmmore/index.html

[4] "Report to the Secretary on the Acquiescence of this Government in the Murder of the Jews," initialed by Randolph Paul for the Foreign Funds Control Unit of the Treasury Department, January 13, 1944.

SOURCE: Primary sources for the PBS film "America and the Holocaust"
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/holocaust/filmmore/reference/primary/
somereport.html

[5] Memo from Assistant Secretary of State Breckinridge Long, to State Department Officials dated June 26, 1940, outlining effective ways to obstruct the granting of U.S. visas.

SOURCE: Primary sources for the PBS film "America and the Holocaust"
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/holocaust/filmmore/
reference/primary/barmemo.html

[6] Clarence E. Pickett was Executive Secretary of the Quaker organization American Friends Service Committee from 1929-1950.

[7] Letter from Margaret E. Jones, an American Quaker working with European Jews hoping to emigrate to the U.S., expressing her distress at the impact of Breckinridge Long's memo.

SOURCE: Primary sources for the PBS film "America and the Holocaust"
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/holocaust/filmmore/
reference/primary/barletter.html

[8] Entry from Assistant Secretary of State Breckinridge Long's diary in which he notes that President Roosevelt supports his policy of encouraging consulates to "postpone and postpone and postpone" the granting of visas. From: "The War Diary of Breckinridge Long"; ed. Fred L. Israel; University of Nebraska Press, 1966.

SOURCE: Primary sources for the PBS film "America and the Holocaust"
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/holocaust/filmmore/reference/
primary/presentryfrom.html

[9] A report written by Adoph Held, the president of the American Jewish Labor Committee recounting President Roosevelt's 29-minute meeting on December 8, 1942 with a small delegation of American Jewish Leaders.

SOURCE: Primary sources for the PBS film "America and the Holocaust"
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/holocaust/filmmore/reference/
primary/presareport.html

[10] Primary sources for the PBS film "America and the Holocaust"
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/holocaust/filmmore/reference/
primary/index.html#pres

Memorandum of Conversation by Mr. Harry L. Hopkins, Special Assistant to President Roosevelt regarding a meeting with Anthony Eden March 27, 1943:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/holocaust/filmmore/reference/
primary/presmemorandum.html

[11] Primary sources for the PBS film "America and the Holocaust"
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/holocaust/filmmore/reference
/primary/index.html#bomb

To read the summary of the Auschwitz escapees:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/holocaust/filmmore/reference/primary/
bombsummary.html

[12] Primary sources for the PBS film "America and the Holocaust"
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/holocaust/filmmore/reference/
primary/bombcable.html

[13] Primary sources for the PBS film "America and the Holocaust"
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/holocaust/filmmore/reference/
primary/bombjacob.html

[14] Primary sources for the PBS film "America and the Holocaust"
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/holocaust/filmmore/reference/
primary/index.html#bomb

To read the memorandum:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/holocaust/filmmore/reference/
primary/bombthomas2.html

[15] Primary sources for the PBS film "America and the Holocaust"
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/holocaust/filmmore/reference/
primary/bombbenjamin.html

[16] Primary sources for the PBS film "America and the Holocaust"
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/holocaust/filmmore/reference/
primary/bombworld.html

[17] Primary sources for the PBS film "America and the Holocaust"
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/holocaust/filmmore/reference/
primary/index.html#bomb

To read the letter:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/holocaust/filmmore/reference/
primary/bombjohn.html

[18] Carroll, J. 2001. Constantine's Sword: The Church and the Jews. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. (p.231)

[18a] In his history of the eugenics movement, Edwin Black (2003:215) points out that “Winston Churchill [was] an enthusiastic supporter of eugenics.” That's the same eugenics movement out of which came the German Nazi party.

Winston Churchill was also a class warrior who was irrevocably against giving women, and men without property, the right to vote (‘universal suffrage’): “‘We already have enough ignorant voters,’ he remarked, ‘and don’t want any more’” (Addison 2005:50). And he thought a good way to solve labor problems was to shoot striking workers dead. Here’s an example, as explained by Churchill’s biographer Paul Addison, from the period when Winston Churchill was Home Secretary:

“During the summer of 1911, when strikes in the docks spread to the railways, [Winston Churchill] was seized by a nightmare vision... Overriding the local authorities, he dispatched troops to many parts of the country and gave army commanders discretion to employ them. When rioters tried to prevent the movement of a train at Llanelli, troops opened fire and shot two men dead. Churchill’s blood was up and when Lloyd George intervened to settle the strike Churchill telephoned him to say that it would have been better to go on and give the strikers ‘a good thrashing.’” (Addison 2005:54)

Winston Churchill is also on record stating that ‘whites’ can exterminate ‘non-whites’ with impunity:

"I do not admit, for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America, or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher grade race, or at any rate, a more worldly-wise race, to put it that way, has come in and taken their place." (quoted in Addison 2005:137)

With the above for context, one is not exactly surprised to find that Churchill, “In February 1933,” which is the same year that Adolf Hitler became German chancellor, “…praised [Italian fascist leader Benito] Mussolini…as ‘the greatest lawgiver among living men’” (Addison 2005:140). Nor is one surprised to find Churchill’s biographer Paul Addison admitting that “With fascism as such…he had no quarrel” (ibid.). But Addison is understating matters here, and a quick glance at some of Churchill’s behaviors is enough to make one wonder whether World War II will not perhaps deserve a different interpretation from the one traditionally given.

As Addison explains, in 1927 Churchill led a cabinet revolt and thereby derailed an agreement that the United States had been seeking with Britain to allow expansion of the American navy (ibid. pp.126-127). Churchill sprang this stunt, mind you, when the British representatives at the conference had already agreed to sign. This was an obstacle to the further spectacular enrichment of American steel magnate Charles M. Schwab, because it was Schwab who would be providing the steel for an expanded American navy. But he could not exactly be sore with Churchill, who in his earlier capacity as WWI British Minister of Munitions had enriched Schwab spectacularly by placing orders with him (ibid. p.128).

Two years later Schwab would have an opportunity to demonstrate that, indeed, he was not sore at Churchill. You see, in 1929 Winston Churchill ended up ‘on the street,’ so to speak: “The Conservative government was defeated in 1929, and Churchill, now out of office, was in need of income. …[He] was now increasingly dependent on his writing and public speaking to sustain his lifestyle,” as explained in a a Library of Congress exhibit on Churchill that may be inspected here:
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/churchill/wc-affairs.html

For Churchill this was a vexing problem indeed because “his lifestyle” can only be described as royally extravagant, but as chance would have it Charles M. Schwab just now invited the unemployed British politician to promenade himself all around the American continent in Schwab’s private railcar—at no expense (Addison 2005:128).

Like Churchill, Charles M. Schwab was a class warrior who thought the right way to deal with a strike was to crush it by calling in the state police and threatening sympathetic businesses.

"In 1910, he crushed a 108-day strike at Bethlehem Steel. ‘I will not be in the position of having management dictated to by labor,’ he said. It was not until 1941, two years after Schwab died, that organized labor arrived at Bethlehem Steel."
http://www.bethlehempaonline.com/schwab_bio.html

The way Schwab crushed that strike was by calling in the state police and threatening any businesses that sided with the striking workers, as recorded in this Bethlehem Steel timeline called “Forging America: the Story of Bethlehem Steel,” by McCall.com:
http://www.mcall.com/news/specials/bethsteel/all-bstimeline-
1910,0,1493803.htmlstory

Schwab got his start in the steel business ingratiating himself to Andrew Carnegie, another class warrior who believed the way to solve labor disputes was to shoot the strikers dead, and who was the main financier of the American eugenics movement. (The fact that these unimaginably wealthy men found it so easy to get the police organs of the state to act repressively against their own workers is not surprising given that the American government was enthusiastically pushing the anti-worker eugenics movement, as documented extensively in Edwin Black's War Against the Weak).

At Schwab's invitation, then, Churchill now took the mother of all vacations on Schwab’s luxury-hotel-cum-railcar and traveled to city after American city, giving lucrative talks. Matters were arranged so that Winston Churchill would travel down to California to meet with William Randolph Hearst, the man who essentially owned all of Hollywood and half of the United States print media (Addison 2005:128). Hearst wined and dined Churchill at his St. Simeon castle, and assembled for him an audience “dotted with Hollywood figures and pretty much representing the whole film industry,” to whom the British politician declaimed: “You are an educational institution which spreads its influence all over the world…” (Leary 2001). After this Hearst put Churchill on a stipend: “a lucrative contract for Churchill to contribute regular articles to the Hearst Press” (Addison 2005:128-129).

Now Churchill could afford his lifestyle.

The conclusion to Winston Churchill’s remarkable tour of the United States was a speech he gave to the Iron and Steel Institute, where Charles M. Schwab was the CEO. Here there was a miraculous metamorphosis, and the erstwhile bitter enemy of American naval expansion now became its most passionate advocate, because, what could be better for everybody? (Addison 2005:126-127, 129). It doesn’t look good, especially when you consider that prior to making for himself a hero’s reputation during World War II Churchill had been widely considered a shameless and unprincipled opportunist who would do anything to get himself ahead (Addison 2005:44).

But there’s more.

Winston Churchill’s employer, William Randolph Hearst, the same one who in 1936 was being called “the most influential American fascist…the keystone of American fascism” (Lundberg 1936:343), was an intimate friend of the German millionaire Putzi Hanfstaengl, who was nothing less than Adolf Hitler’s financial backer and press secretary (Pizzitola 2002:27-28). Consistent with all that, Hearst attended the famous Nuremberg rallies with the hysterically adoring crowds that Leni Riefenstahl immortalized in her famous Nazi propaganda films, staying in the same hotel with all the top Nazis. Goebbels’ Nazi propaganda ministry went out of its way to report the gushing reactions of Hearst’s son George (ibid. pp.308-310). There were accusations at the time—deserved ones, it appears—that Hearst had made an agreement with Hitler to give him good press in the United States (ibid.).

Soon after two powerful American class warriors, Hearst and Schwab, had turned Winston Churchill, another class warrior, into the obedient advocate of American naval expansion, the future wartime British prime minister, on the eve of Hitler’s coming to power, had a quite friendly meeting with Putzi Hangstaengl. I remind you that Hanfstaengl was Hearst’s good friend and also Hitler’s spokesman and financier (Addison 2005:140). This was soon followed by Churchill’s declaration, as Adolf Hitler was taking power in Germany, that Italian fascist Benito Mussolini was God’s gift to the world (see above). What are we to make of this, in combination with the fact that Churchill’s own eugenic ideology included a rather strongly articulated belief that a good way to rid the world of useless ‘riffraff’ was to get countries to make war on each other?

“...[the] social Darwinian views of war[,] which he had acquired as a subaltern in the 1890s..., were indeed to endure into the Second World War, according to a memorandum in the FBI’s file on Churchill. In an off-the-record discussion with American newspapermen in 1943 [that is to say, during WWII, while the Jews of Europe were being exterminated], a source who had been 'intimately associated' with Churchill reported that someone had asked him how it was that God could make such a beautiful sunrise and then permit so much misery in the world.

Churchill made a lengthy statement that there was no peace on earth save in death; that all life is war, a struggle for survival; that the best in men comes out in time of war; that in times of war the real improvements are achieved, and that under the stress of war tremendous progress is made for the good of living. Churchill stated that when war ends, men settle down to taking things easy, to complacency, and only war will compel more progress.” (Addison 2005:89)

SOURCES:

Addison, P. 2005. Churchill: The unexpected hero. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Black, E. 2003. War against the weak: Eugenics and America's campaign to create a master race. New York: Four Walls Eight Windows.

Leary, D. T. 2001. Winston S. Churchill in California. California History 70:167(17).

Lundberg, F. 1936. Imperial Hearst: A social biography. New York: Equinox Cooperative Press.

Pizzitola, L. 2002. Hearst over Hollywood. New York: Columbia University Press.

[18b] Two interesting excerpts follow. The first is from the Encyclopedia Britannica (the emphasis is mine):

"[Nazi General] Guderian's tanks had swept up past Boulogne and Calais and were crossing the canal defense line close to Dunkirk when, on May 24, an inexplicable order from Hitler not only stopped their advance but actually called them back to the canal line just as Guderian was expecting to drive into Dunkirk. Dunkirk was now the only port left available for the withdrawal of the mass of the BEF [British Expeditionary Force] from Europe...

Three days passed before Brauchitsch, the German Army commander in chief, was able to persuade Hitler to withdraw his orders and allow the German armored forces to advance on Dunkirk. But they met stronger opposition from the British, who had had time to solidify their defenses, and almost immediately Hitler stopped the German armored forces again, ordering them instead to move south and prepare for the attack on the Somme-Aisne line."

Source: "World War II." Encyclopædia Britannica from Encyclopædia Britannica Online.
http://proxy.library.upenn.edu:8409/eb/article?tocId=53541
[Accessed April 4, 2005]

Here is another summary, from the BBC:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/ww2/A1057312

As France fell rapidly, the Allies' northern and southern forces were separated by the German advance from the Ardennes to the Somme. The Allied armies in the north were being encircled.

By 19 May 1940 the British commander, Viscount Gort, was considering the withdrawal of the British Expeditionary Force (BEF) by sea. But London was demanding more action and on 21 May, Gort launched an attack from Arras.

This attack lacked the necessary armour and General Heinz Guderian's tanks continued past Boulogne and Calais to cross the canal defence line close to Dunkirk, the only port left for an Allied withdrawal from Europe.

On 24 May, just as Guderian was expecting to drive into Dunkirk, Hitler gave the surprise order to withdraw back to the canal line. Why the order was given has never been explained fully.

One possible explanation is that Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring, head of the Luftwaffe, assured Hitler that his aircraft alone could destroy the Allied troops trapped on the beaches at Dunkirk. Others believe Hitler felt that Britain might accept peace terms more readily without a humiliating surrender. Whatever the reason, the German halt gave the Allies an unexpected opportunity to evacuate their troops.

Evacuation began on 26 May and gained urgency the next day, when Field Marshal Walter von Brauchitsch, the German Commander-in-Chief, persuaded Hitler to rescind his orders and German tanks again advanced on Dunkirk.

By this time the Allies had strengthened their defences and the tanks met heavy resistance. Almost immediately, Hitler ordered them instead to move south for the imminent attack on the Somme-Aisne line, another lucky break for the Allies.

...By 4 June, when the operation ended, 198,000 British and 140,000 French and Belgian troops had been saved, but virtually all of their heavy equipment had been abandoned.

Notice that the explanations for Hitler's orders to Guderain are not exactly convincing.

Given that "high mist...interfered with the accuracy of the German bombers," as explained by another BBC article on the evacuation, why would Hitler have taken seriously any boast by Goering that his airplanes alone could do the job? Especially given that, in the English Channel, high mist is a daily occurrence and was to be expected in the first place!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/war/wwtwo/dunkirk_spinning_07.shtml

And in any case, what was the argument against a combined land-air attack?

The other proffered explanation is hardly better. What principle of military theory would hold that declining to win a battle decisively is the way to force the other side to give up? And yet this is what we are told: "Others believe Hitler felt that Britain might accept peace terms more readily without a humiliating surrender."

A decisive, humiliating defeat is precisely what typically forces a country at war to surrender. It was at hand. As the BBC article quoted at length above explains, even with Hitler's orders to Guderain, "the Germans had taken over a million Allied prisoners in three weeks at a cost of 60,000 casualties." Another little push and nothing would have been left of Britain's ability to fight, making it easy for Hitler to force his terms of surrender. So what Hitler did is precisely the opposite of what he should have done if what he wanted was for Britain to surrender. Especially considering that, as the same article explains, "the evacuation was a major boost to British morale and enabled the Allies to fight another day."

Aside from all that, is charity toward the enemy supposed to characterize Adolf Hitler?

So, given the explanations proffered, no wonder that "Why [Hitler's] order was given has never been explained fully." Perhaps there was an agreement between Churchill and Hitler?

[18c] Uncle Sam's Nazi's, The Washington Post, April 24, 1988, Sunday, Final Edition, BOOK WORLD; PAGE X11, 905 words, Peter Grose, REVIEW

[19] This is what the chief of the Palestine desk in the State Department's Near East section, Frazier Wilkins, wrote in 1947:

"[T]he unsettled Palestine problem, made more difficult by the pressure for post-war migration of displaced Jews from Europe to Palestine, is an irritant to Anglo-American relations [because the British were violently opposed to the creation of a Jewish State]. It is also prejudicial to American-Arab relations... Continued agitation and uncertainty regarding the Palestine question, by weakening the Anglo-American position in the Near East, permits a more rapid extension of Soviet Russian objectives, and is distressing to Christians everywhere..."

Distressing to Christians everywhere! Can it be clearer that these people were antisemites?

But "When Truman and American public opinion recognized the right of the Jews to a state and of the refugees to immigrate to Palestine, the State Department experts lost virtually all freedom to maneuver."

Virtually, but not all. For example, prior to the vote on partition at the UN, Greece informed the Jewish Agency that they could not support partition, but that they would abstain from voting. And yet, on November 26, 1947, the day set for this important vote, "the representative from Greece, expressed opposition to the plan." And "General Carlos P. Romulo of the Philippines, also inveighed against partition." This surprised the Jewish Agency, which had regarded the Philippines as a 'sure' thing. Greece and the Philippines were dependent on the United States; it was clear therefore, that the American delegates had made little effort to persuade these two countries to support the US position. In other words, the US supported partition, in the figure of its president, and the UN delegates were accordingly instructed to vote in favor. However, the US did not expend much political capital, even with its puppets (this assumes that the State Department did not exert pressure on US puppets behind closed doors to vote against partition).

Source for the above: Milstein, U. 1996. History of the War of Independence: A nation girds for war. Vol. 1. New York: University Press of America. (pp. 37, 427)

As soon as the November 29, 1947 resolution authorizing partition was passed, the Arab leaders, who knew they were not ready for a confrontation with Jewish forces,

"set themselves goals that seemed practicable: frustrating the UN decision and forestalling the founding of the state of Israel. They planned to convince many supporters of the November 29 resolution to switch sides, then overturn the decision with another vote in the UN General Assembly. The Arabs had learned from the very first stages of the dispute that aggressiveness was highly effective in international relations. The  western powers, which did not want war, were prepared to sacrifice the Jews of Eretz-Yisra'el to prevent risk to themselves. If the Arabs had succeeded in mobilizing sufficient support, they might have prevented the creation of Israel. The aim of the Arab threats was to induce the minimalist Zionists [those who did not insist on a bona-fide Jewish state] and the United States to reconsider their decisions. The minimalists in the Zionist camp could have concluded that it was better to forego independence and instead accept a compromise such as that suggested by the UNSCOP minority. They wanted independence but not war. The Americans also feared war, and US State Department officials, who had opposed partitioning Palestine before the UN vote, had not changed their minds."

"The goal of the Arab attack on the  cities [the Jewish towns in Eretz-Yisra'el]...was more political than military, and the political balance tilted in their favor at the conclusion of this stage of the war. They had proved that their vow to fight partition was not an idle threat and that the two peoples could not live together within the partition boundaries established by the United Nations...Early in 1948, even some political leaders who had voted for partition, particularly in the United States, came to doubt whether the resolution of November 29 had been wise or could be realized."

Source for the above: Milstein, U. 1996. History of the War of Independence: The first month. Vol. 2. New York: University Press of America. (pp. 24-25, 99)

[19a] Half a Loaf, The Jerusalem Post, November 28, 1997, Friday, FEATURES; Pg. 8, 4322 words, Abraham Rabinovich

[19aa] From a US government exhibit on the Marshall Plan.
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/marshall/mars1.html

[19b] Oral History: A founding father recalls the beginning of Israeli statehood; Special Reports: "Israel at 50"; CNN; From CNN Interactive Writer Barbara McCann. 1998.
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1998/israel/oral.history/

[19c] Source: Howard M Sachar, A History of Israel: From the Rise of Zionism to Our Time, (New York: Knopf, 1979), p. 333
[19cc] U.S. ASKED TO LIFT EMBARGO ON ARMS; Special to THE NEW YORK TIMES; New York Times (1857-Current file); Jan 17, 1948; ProQuest Historical Newspapers The New York Times (1851 - 2001); pg. 4.
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/embargo.pdf

[19d] Bard, M. G. 2002. Myths and Facts: A Guide to the Arab-Israeli Conflict. Chevy Chase, MD: American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise (AICE). (pp.38, 42)

[19dd] Josiah Wedgwood is quoted in: Rapoport, Louis. 1999. Shake heaven and earth: Peter Bergson and the struggle to rescue the Jews of Europe, Gefen, Jerusalem and New York. (p.18)
If you wish to read about how how the British instigated anti-Jewish Arab riots, you will find the most complete documentation here:

“HOW DID THE ‘PALESTINIAN MOVEMENT’ EMERGE? The British sponsored it. Then the German Nazis, and the US.”; Historical and Investigative Research; 13 June 2006; by Francisco Gil-White.
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/pal_mov4.htm

Some of this material was originally published here:

“Anti-Semitism, Misinformation, And The Whitewashing Of The Palestinian Leadership”; Israel National News; May 26, '03 / 24 Iyar 5763; by Francisco J. Gil-White
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/article.php3?id=2405

[19e] 100,000 JAM RALLY IN JEWISH PROTEST; New York Times (1857-Current file); Apr 5, 1948; ProQuest Historical Newspapers The New York Times; pg. 1.
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/apr.pdf

[19f] To read about how (1) the Mufti Hajj Amin al Husseini created the Palestinian movement, (2) led Adolf Hitler's Final Solution, (3) mentored Yasser Arafat, and (4) grandfathered Al Fatah, the organ that controls the PLO, go here, where you will find the most complete documentation:

“HOW DID THE ‘PALESTINIAN MOVEMENT’ EMERGE? The British sponsored it. Then the German Nazis, and the US.”; Historical and Investigative Research; 13 June 2006; by Francisco Gil-White.
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/pal_mov4.htm

Some of this material was originally published here:

“Anti-Semitism, Misinformation, And The Whitewashing Of The Palestinian Leadership”; Israel National News; May 26, '03 / 24 Iyar 5763; by Francisco J. Gil-White
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/article.php3?id=2405

[20] Source: "The Ben-Gurion Era: Continuing Tensions." "Israel" Encyclopædia Britannica from Encyclopædia Britannica Online.
http://www.search.eb.com/eb/article?eu=109507
[Accessed November 22, 2003].

[20a] Encyclopædia Britannica | From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclop%C3%A6dia_Britannica

[20b] Leslie Gelb | From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leslie_H._Gelb

[21] "The Ben-Gurion Era: The Suez War." "Israel." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2003.  Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 22 Nov, 2003
http://www.search.eb.com/eb/article?eu=109507

[22] To get a sense for John Foster Dulles, consider that in October 1935 he wrote an article for the Atlantic Monthly entitled "The Road to Peace" where he excused Nazi Germany’s secret rearmament as an action taking back their freedom.

About his brother, Allen Dulles, consider the following:

"Policy concerning clandestine use of former Nazi collaborators during the early cold war years was shaped by a series of National Security Council directives and intelligence projects sponsored by the Policy Planning Staff of the State Department, then under the leadership of George F. Kennan, according to records discovered recently in the US State Department archives. Kennan was at the time assigned the task of internal policy oversight of all US clandestine operations abroad. His initiatives - along with those of Allen Dulles, Frank Wisner, and a number of other latter-day CIA executives - helped convince Truman's NSC to approve a comprehensive program of covert operations that were explicitly modeled on the Vlasov Army, an anti-Communist émigré campaign created by the SS and the Nazi Foreign Office during World War II. Scholars and propagandists who had once collaborated in formulating the Nazis' political warfare program were brought into the United States to provide brains for the new operation."

Source: Simpson, C. 1988. Blowback: America's recruitment of Nazis and its effects on the Cold War. New York: Weidenfeld & Nicholson. (p.8)

(see also 1945 section)

[23] "The Ben-Gurion Era: Continuing Tensions." "Israel" Encyclopædia Britannica  from Encyclopædia Britannica Online. http://www.search.eb.com/eb/article?eu=109507
[Accessed November 22, 2003].

[24] The Failure Of Israel's "New Historians" To Explain War And Peace: The Past Is Not a Foreign Country, by Anita Shapira
http://ontology.buffalo.edu/smith//courses01/rrtw/Shapira.htm  

[25] The Failure Of Israel's "New Historians" To Explain War And Peace: The Past Is Not a Foreign Country, by Anita Shapira
http://ontology.buffalo.edu/smith//courses01/rrtw/Shapira.htm  

[26] Source: Israeli Foreign Ministry
http://www.israel-mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH0dt70 

[27] Addressing the UN Security Council in April 1948, Jamal Husseini, Spokesperson for the Mufti [Hajj Amin's] Arab Higher Committee (the organization that officially spoke for the Palestinian movement), said: "The representative of the Jewish Agency told us yesterday that they were not the attackers, that the Arabs had begun the fighting. We did not deny this. We told the whole world that we were going to fight." -- Source: Security Council Official Records, S/Agenda/58, (April 16, 1948), p. 19

And they also told the whole world what the fighting would be about. Azzam Pasha, Secretary General of the Arab League, promised before that war: "This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades." -- Source: Howard M Sachar, A History of Israel: From the Rise of Zionism to Our Time, (New York: Knopf, 1979), p. 333

[28] The quotation about Syria shelling Israeli farmers in the Galilee from the Golan Heights is from: Howard Sachar, A History of Israel: From the Rise of Zionism to Our Time, (NY: Alfred A. Knopf, 1979), p. 616.

The source for Nasser's speech is the Israeli Foreign Ministry:
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Foreign%20Relations/Israels%20Foreign%20
Relations%20since%201947/1947-1974/7%20Statement%20by%20President
%20Nasser%20to%20Arab%20Trade%20Unio

[29] "Neither the Jordanian nor the Syrian borders were quiet during the years leading up to the Six-Day War, but all Israelis were taken by surprise when in May 1967 increasingly violent clashes with Palestinian guerrillas and Syrian army forces along Lake Tiberias led to a general crisis. The Soviet Union alleged that Israel was mobilizing to attack Syria, and the Syrian government, in turn, chided President Nasser of Egypt for inaction. Nasser then mobilized his own forces, which he promptly sent into the Sinai after he ordered that UN forces there be withdrawn, and announced a blockade of the Strait of Tiran. The encirclement of Israel was complete when King Hussein of Jordan, despite secret Israeli pleas, felt compelled to join the Arab war coalition. In reaction, Eshkol mobilized the IDF and sent his foreign minister, Abba Eban, on a futile trip to seek French, British, and American aid."

Source: "Labour rule after Ben-Gurion: The Six Day War" -- Israel." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2003.  Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 22 Nov, 2003
http://www.search.eb.com/eb/article?eu=109507

[29a] "Playing the Democracy Card: How America Furthers Its National Interests in the Middle East"; By Dilip Hiro; TomDispatch.com; Thursday 17 March, 2005.
http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=2268

[30] The full text of Resolution 242 may be read here:
http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH00p40

[31] "It was not clear how military victory could be turned into peace. Shortly after the war's end Israel began that quest, but it would take more than a decade and involve yet another war before yielding any results. Eshkol's secret offer to trade much of the newly won territory for peace agreements with Egypt, Jordan, and Syria was rejected by Nasser, who, supported by an emergency resupply of Soviet arms, led the Arabs at the Khartoum Arab Summit in The Sudan in August 1967 in a refusal to negotiate directly with Israel."

Source: "Labour Rule After Ben-Gurion: Troubled victory" "Israel." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2003.  Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 2 Nov, 2003
http://www.search.eb.com/eb/article?eu=109507

[31a] http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people2/Lustick/lustick-con4.html

[31b] Ian Lustick boasts in his curriculum vitae that he works for US Intelligence. He is also a professor of political science at the University of Pennsylvania. His academic work is a series of attacks on Israel, and a passionate defense of the idea that the PLO should be given its own state in the West Bank and Gaza. As non-coincidence would have it, Ian Lustick appears to have had a lot to do with getting me fired from the University of Pennsylvania merely for having documented that the PLO traces its roots to the German Nazi Final Solution. To read about that, visit:
http://www.hirhome.com/bio.htm

[31c] This Pentagon document was apparently declassified in 1979 but not published until 1984. It was published by Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs:
http://www.jinsa.org/articles/print.html?documentid=496

It was also published by the Journal of Palestine Studies:
"Memorandum for the Secretary of Defense"; Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 13, No. 2. (Winter, 1984), pp. 122-126.
This file is especially useful because it shows a map with the "minimum territory needed by Israel for defensive purposes."
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/pentagon.pdf

Finally, the Pentagon study is republished as an appendix in:
Netanyahu, B. 2000. A durable peace: Israel and its place among the nations, 2 edition. New York: Warner Books. (APPENDIX: The Pentagon Plan, June 29, 1967; pp.433-437)

[32] Bard, M. G. 2002. Myths and Facts: A Guide to the Arab-Israeli Conflict. Chevy Chase, MD: American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise (AICE). (p.71-72)

[33] Library of Congress Country Study on Israel
http://countrystudies.us/israel/26.htm

See also: "What was the Rogers Plan in 1969" by Palestine Facts
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1967to1991_rogers_1969.php

To see the text of the plan visit "The Rogers Plan", Jewish Virtual Library
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/History/rogers.html

[34] "What was the Rogers Plan in 1969" by Palestine Facts
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1967to1991_rogers_1969.php 

[35] http://www.psych.upenn.edu/~fjgil/fatahpalestinians.htm 

[36] Library of Congress Country Study on Israel
http://countrystudies.us/israel/26.htm 

[37] "The decline of Labour dominance: The Yom Kippur War" "Israel." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2003.  Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 23 Nov, 2003
http://www.search.eb.com/eb/article?eu=109507

[37a] 1973. The Algiers Summit Conference. MERIP Reports 23:13-16.

[37b] “Shortly after signing the Declaration of Principles and the famous handshake between [PLO leader Yasser] Arafat and [Israeli prime minister] Yitzhak Rabin on the White House lawn, Arafat was declaring to his Palestinian constituency over Jordanian television that Oslo was to be understood in terms of the [PLO’s] Palestine National Council’s 1974 decision. This was a reference to the so-called 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.”

SOURCE: Levin, K. 2005. The Oslo syndrome: Delusions of a people under siege. Hanover, NH: Smith and Kraus. (p.ix)

[38] To learn about the history of Arafat and the Palestinian movement, you will find the most complete documentation here:

“HOW DID THE ‘PALESTINIAN MOVEMENT’ EMERGE? The British sponsored it. Then the German Nazis, and the US.”; Historical and Investigative Research; 13 June 2006; by Francisco Gil-White.
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/pal_mov4.htm

Some of this material was originally published here:

“Anti-Semitism, Misinformation, And The Whitewashing Of The Palestinian Leadership”; Israel National News; May 26, '03 / 24 Iyar 5763; by Francisco J. Gil-White
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/article.php3?id=2405

[39] The New York Times Company: Abstracts; Information Bank Abstracts; New York Times; March 14, 1969, Friday; Section: Page 8, Column 1; Length: 119 Words; Journal-Code:  Nyt

"Differences between Palestinian leaders and Arab govts over any pol settlement apparently are intensifying; Beirut Al Nahar repts Palestine Liberation Orgn gave Arab League Council note charging acceptance of Security Council Nov '67 resolution by Arab states is infringement on right of Palestinians to their nation; note reptdly holds Palestinians will determine their stand toward Arab govts on basis of attitude of govts on Palestine question; recent rejection by Al Fatah repr of all plans to establish Palestinian state on Jordan west bank and in Gaza Strip noted; Palestinian Natl Council member Dr S Dabbagh urges commandos to prepare now for strategy they will follow if Arab states accept pol settlement."

[40] New York Times; May 17, 1977, Tuesday; Section: Page 5, Column 1; Length: 106 Words; Byline: By Marvine Howe; Journal-Code:  Nyt; Abstract:

"PLO has reptdly joined Egypt, Syria and Saudi Arabia in proposing establishment of ind Palestinian state on West Bank and Gaza Strip as part of overall Middle East settlement.  Syrian Pres Assad reptdly carried plan with him to Geneva to present to Pres Carter.  Informants say 3 Arab countries agree that proposed state should be joined in fed with Jordan.  Say PLO insists that state be set up first before decision is made on form of future relationship with Jordan.  Say PLO leaders feel it is premature to speak of recognizing Israel's existence (M)."

[41] Israel's administration of the West Bank and Gaza followed a war provoked by the Arab states in 1967. Despite that, Israel's administration of these territories was quite benign. This is Newsweek, writing ten years later in 1977:

"Arab living standards [in the West Bank] have jumped more than 50 per cent in the past ten years, and employment has nearly doubled, largely because of the $250 million annual trade that has grown up between the West Bank and Israel. The Israelis have also kept the Jordan River bridges open, allowing 1 million Arabs a year to cross and to keep their markets in Jordan for such products as olive oil, soap and farm produce. The Israelis also allow the Arabs to elect their own officials, even though the winners are often radical activists. Still, the Arabs say they have never been more unhappy. . ." Source: Newsweek, June 13, 1977, UNITED STATES EDITION, INTERNATIONAL; Pg. 55, 849 words, The West Bank Today, Milan J. Kubic

So the Israelis installed a benign regime on the West Bank despite the fact that this was the population of one of its attackers in 1967, Jordan, in a war that was pledged to destroy Israel through genocide. But this enemy population was nevertheless allowed freedom of the press, the freedom to elect its own leaders, however radical, border crossings with Jordan, and the ability to take jobs in Israel. Can anybody imagine another country doing that, under the circumstances?

Me neither.

[42] "ABSTRACT: Palestine Liberation Orgn (PLO) leader Yasir Arafat is accorded protocal honors of chief of state Nov 13 by UN General Assembly.  Does not sit in chair of chief of state proferred him by Assembly Pres Abdelaziz Bouteflika, but stands with one hand on it as delegates applaud his speech.  Honor for Arafat reflects growing influence of third world countries in UN decisions.  US Mission spokesman says US UN Amb John A Scali was not pleased by decision to treat Arafat as chief of state.  Arafat holds audience like chief of state after his speech to Assembly.  Jordanians join line of delegates to congratulate him, although they have been persuaded reluctantly by other Arab countries to forfeit claims to west bank of Jordan River for creation of Palestinian state.  Arafat is guest of honor at reception given by Egyptian UN delegate Ahmed Esmat Abdel Meguid. Later, Arafat is seen leaving Waldorf Towers for unknown destination (M)."

Source: The New York Times Company: Abstracts; Information Bank Abstracts; NEW YORK TIMES; November 14, 1974, Thursday; SECTION: Page 25, Column 7; LENGTH: 157 words; BYLINE: BY RAYMOND H ANDERSON.

[43] http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH0cfx0 

[44] Kurt Waldheim was stationed in Yugoslavia during WWII, where some of the most unbelievable atrocities were committed.

[Quote From Encyclopedia Britannica Starts Here]

Kurt Waldheim served in the Austrian army as a volunteer (1936–37) before he began to study for a diplomatic career. He was soon conscripted into the German army, however, and served on the Russian front until 1941, when he was wounded. Waldheim's later claims that he spent the rest of the war studying law at the University of Vienna were contradicted by the rediscovery in 1986 of documents suggesting that he had been a German army staff officer stationed in the Balkans from 1942 to 1945...

...Waldheim was not reelected to a third term as UN secretary-general in 1981. He ran as the People's Party candidate for president of Austria in 1986. His candidacy became controversial when rediscovered wartime and postwar documents pointed to his being an interpreter and intelligence officer for a German army unit that had engaged in brutal reprisals against Yugoslav partisans and civilians and that had deported most of the Jewish population of Salonika (Thessaloníki), Greece, to Nazi death camps in 1943.

[Quote From Encyclopedia Britannica Ends Here]

Source: Waldheim, Kurt. Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved July 29, 2003, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online. http://www.search.eb.com/eb/article?eu=77915

[45] In 1981, when Waldheim stepped down from his post at the UN, UPI wrote: "Claims that he was a Nazi were investigated over and over and proved unfounded." -- United Press International, December 3, 1981, Thursday, BC cycle, International, 650 words, Kurt Waldheim, U.N. secretary general.

This shows that the allegations were made. Later, as is now known, documentation surfaced to demonstrate this (see above footnote).

[45a] CIA Helped Bush Senior In Oil Venture; By Russ Baker and Jonathan Z. Larsen; The Real News Project; January 8, 2007
http://realnews.org/rn/content/zapata.html

[46] The  US even backed Waldheim for an unprecedented third term (which Waldheim did not win). The following is from an Associated Press wire written at the time when the UN was deliberating either reelection for Waldheim, or the election of a successor.

"Breaking her silence on U.S. support for Waldheim last week, [U.S. Ambassador] Mrs. [Jeane J.] Kirkpatrick told reporters that she and Soviet Ambassador Oleg A. Troyanovsky had agreed that the Austrian incumbent was "the kind of nonpartisan person" both their governments could "get a fair shake from." The Americans regard Waldheim as an exponent of Western parliamentary democracy. To the Soviets, he is a known quantity from a small European state that has pledged since the end of World War II to remain neutral in international affairs." -- The Associated Press, November 21, 1981, Saturday, AM cycle, International News, 1144 words, The Race for U.N. Secretary-General, By O.C. DOELLING, Associated Press Writer, UNITED NATIONS

[47] Source: The New York Times, May 17, 1981, Sunday, Late City Final Edition, Section 6; Page 77, Column 3; Magazine Desk, 11464 words, "Putting The Hostages' Lives First"

[47a] The New York Times, June 14, 1987, Sunday, Late City Final Edition, Section 4; Page 1, Column 1; Week in Review Desk, 1284 words, PRIVATE WARRIORS; Hearings Detail a Policy Improvised by Outsiders, By DAVID E. ROSENBAUM, WASHINGTON

[48] Newsweek, June 13, 1977, UNITED STATES EDITION, INTERNATIONAL; Pg. 55, 849 words, The West Bank Today, Milan J. Kubic.

[48a] Source: The Policy Of Confusion, By James Reston; New York Times (1857-Current file); May 13, 1977; ProQuest Historical Newspapers The New York Times (1851 - 2001); pg. 20

[48b] Source: The New York Times Company: Abstracts; Information Bank Abstracts; New York Times; March 14, 1969, Friday; Section: Page 8, Column 1; Length: 119 Words; Journal-Code: Nyt

[48c] http://www.palestine-un.org/mission/frindex.html
(Click on "Palestine Liberation Organization" on the left)

[48d] http://www.palestine-un.org/mission/frindex.html
(Click on "Palestine Liberation Organization" on the left)

[48e] The maps below show that the British Mandate definition of "Palestine" included the West Bank and Gaza. The map on the right is enlarged and shows the West Bank in yellow, and the Gaza strip in red.

 

[48f] Translation: The Associated Press, December 15, 1998, Tuesday, AM cycle, International News, 1070 words, Clinton meets with Netanyahu, Arafat, appeals for progress, By TERENCE HUNT, AP White House Correspondent, EREZ CROSSING, Gaza Strip. [Emphasis added]

Article 9…says that “armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine.”

Article 15 says it is “a national duty to repulse the Zionist imperialist invasion from the great Arab homeland and to purge the Zionist presence from Palestine.”

Article 22 declares that “the liberation of Palestine will liquidate the Zionist and imperialist presence and bring about the stabilization of peace in the Middle East.”

[48g] Nasser and Arafat Discussing Role of Commandos
By RAYMOND H. ANDERSON Special to The New York Times
New York Times (1857-Current file); Aug 27, 1970; ProQuest Historical Newspapers The New York Times (1851 - 2001)
pg. 3

[48h] “Shortly after signing the Declaration of Principles and the famous handshake between [PLO leader Yasser] Arafat and [Israeli prime minister] Yitzhak Rabin on the White House lawn, Arafat was declaring to his Palestinian constituency over Jordanian television that Oslo was to be understood in terms of the [PLO’s] Palestine National Council’s 1974 decision. This was a reference to the so-called 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.”

SOURCE: Levin, K. 2005. The Oslo syndrome: Delusions of a people under siege. Hanover, NH: Smith and Kraus. (p.ix)

[49] New York Times; May 17, 1977, Tuesday; Section: Page 5, Column 1; Length: 106 Words; Byline: By Marvine Howe; Journal-Code:  Nyt; Abstract:

"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.  Stresses that Carter's references to homeland require clarification.  Says Carter should say where homeland will be located.  Says PLO refuses fed with Jordan.  Says PLO would agree to establishment of Palestinian state on West Bank and in Gaza Strip.  Calls for Israeli withdrawal from occupied territories, recognition of Palestinian 'rights,' end of settlement policy in occupied areas, end to immigration to Israel and repatriation of Palestinians expelled in '48 (M)."

[50] New York Times; May 17, 1977, Tuesday; Section: Page 5, Column 1; Length: 106 Words; Byline: By Marvine Howe; Journal-Code:  Nyt; Abstract:

"PLO has reptdly joined Egypt, Syria and Saudi Arabia in proposing establishment of ind Palestinian state on West Bank and Gaza Strip as part of overall Middle East settlement.  Syrian Pres Assad reptdly carried plan with him to Geneva to present to Pres Carter.  Informants say 3 Arab countries agree that proposed state should be joined in fed with Jordan.  Say PLO insists that state be set up first before decision is made on form of future relationship with Jordan.  Say PLO leaders feel it is premature to speak of recognizing Israel's existence (M)."

[51] The Associated Press, July 22, 1977, AM cycle, 426 words, GENEVA, Switzerland

[51a] The New Republic, June 16, 1986 v194 p20(4); “The Waldheim file: complete and unexpurgated”; by Peter Lubin.
[51b] SECURITY COUNCIL NAMES WALDHEIM TO SUCCEED THANT, BY HENRY TANNER; Special to The New York Times
New York Times 1857-Current; Dec 22, 1971; ProQuest Historical Newspapers The New York Times (1851 - 2001); pg. 1

[52] New York Times; July 20, 1977, Wednesday; Section: Page 8, Column 3; Length: 81 Words; Journal-Code:  Nyt; Abstract:

"Beirut newspaper Al Anwar repts Carter Adm and Palestinian guerrilla leaders are involved in secret high-level contacts.  Cites June 24 meeting between William W Scranton, reptdly representing Carter, and PLO repr Basil Akl, London.  Says exch began in May with note from PLO head Yasir Arafat delivered to Carter by Saudi Prince Fahd.  Note reptdly outlined Arafat's views on PLO role in Arab-Israeli Geneva peace talks and on Palestinian state and peace treaties with Israel (S)."

[53] The Associated Press, August 2, 1977, AM cycle, 911 words, By BARRY SCHWEID, Associated Press Writer, ALEXANDRIA, Egypt

[54] "Secretary-General Kurt Waldheim will leave Feb. 1 on East for talks on resuming the Geneva peace conference, a well-placed source said Monday.

Waldheim will visit Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Syria and possibly Lebanon, the source said, and also will talk with officials of the Palestine Liberation Organization at an unspecified location.

The secretary general is acting under a Dec. 9, 1976, General Assembly resolution asking that he contact parties to the Mideast conflict in an effort to get the conference resumed by the end of March." -- The Associated Press; January 10, 1977, AM cycle; LENGTH: 203 words; DATELINE: UNITED NATIONS, N.Y.

[55] The New York Times Company: Abstracts; Information Bank Abstracts; New York Times; August 8, 1977, Monday; Section: Page 1, Column 4; Length: 147 Words; Byline: By Bernard Gwertzman; Journal-Code:  Nyt; Abstract:

"Bernard Gwertzman writes disagreements over Middle East peace strategy might provoke confrontation between US and Israeli leaders.  Notes Sec of State Vance agrees with Arab nations that principles for peace settlement should be agreed upon before convening Geneva conf.  Describes Israeli desire to start conf without any pre-conditions.  Observes US is anxious over Israeli refusal to accept 2 Arab pre-conditions to conf, including relinquishment of most of the territory occupied since '67 war and acknowledgement of right for existence of some kind of Palestinian state.  Remarks if Israelis continue to refuse to make commitments before conf, Pres Carter has said he would publicly issue peace plan.  Notes Carter's view that Israeli Prime Min Begin will not risk open confrontation with US if plan seems equitable to Israeli population and narrowly-based pol coalition (M)."

[56] The New York Times Company: Abstracts; Information Bank Abstracts; New York Times; September 18, 1977, Sunday; Section: Section 4; Page 3, Column 3; Length: 102 Words; Byline: By William E Farrell; Journal-Code:  Nyt; Abstract:

"State Dept announcement that Palestinians should be involved in peacemaking process at Geneva adds to tartness that has emerged between Carter and Begin Adms since 2 men met in July.  Israeli press sees US moves and comments as leaning towards establishment of separate Palestinian state, anathema to most Israelis.  Newspaper Haaretz says present US position is liable to increase danger of war since it is bound to toughen Arabs' stand as well as pushing Israel into corner.  Israelis also fear that US may be moving toward affirming PLO as legitimate repr of Palestinian interests.  Illus of Pres Carter (M)."

[57] "Joint US-Soviet statement on the Middle East- 1 October 1977"; 1 Oct 1977; Historical Documents; Israeli Foreign Ministry; VOLUMES 4-5: 1977-1979.
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Foreign%20Relations/Israels%20Foreign%20Relations
%20since%201947/1977-1979/50%20Joint%20US-Soviet%20statement%20on%20the
%20Middle%20East-%201

[58] "Israel-US working paper on The Geneva Conference - 5 October 1977"; 5 Oct 1977; Historical Documents; Israeli Foreign Ministry; VOLUMES 4-5: 1977-1979.
http://www.nic.gov.il/MFA/Foreign%20Relations/Israels%20Foreign%20Relations
%20since%201947/1977-1979/54%20Israel-US%20working%20paper%20on%20
The%20Geneva%20Conferenc

[58a] Source: “Israel 1967-1991; Lebanon 1982”; Palestine Facts. http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1967to1991_lebanon_198x_backgd.php

[59] Jimmy Carter's National Security Advisor proudly explained to Le Monde the Islamist strategy, and its point: to destroy the Soviet Union by agitating Islamist terrorism along its Asian borders. To learn more about this, and to read the Le Monde interview, visit:

"Ex-National Security Chief Brzezinski admits: Afghan Islamism Was Made in Washington: Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser in 'Le Nouvel Observateur'" Comments by Jared Israel
http://emperors-clothes.com/interviews/brz.htm

To learn more about the US's Islamist strategy read:

Zalmay Khalilzad - Special US Envoy for Islamic Terror!
Emperor's Clothes; 1 March 2003; by Jared Israel
http://emperors-clothes.com/archive/khalilzad-facts.htm

Also, the analysis, cited below, of George Bush Sr.'s Gulf War, demonstrates that it was fought to protect Islamist Tehran. This is not entirely surprising given that the Carter administration created The US Central Command (CENTCOM) in 1979, the same year that the Ayatollah Khomeini came to power, and explicitly to protect Khomeini's Islamist and antisemitic Iran. The references in this analysis provide an avalanche of documentation that ever since Carter the US has followed a vigorous policy of covert sponsorship of Islamist terrorism, in order to destabilize competing powers.

"Why the First Gulf War? To Protect Iranian Islamism: Little-known facts make it clear that this was the real purpose of Bush senior's war," by Francisco Gil-White
http://emperors-clothes.com/gilwhite/gulfwar1.htm

[60] "The Arming of Saudi Arabia" Transcript of PBS FRONTLINE Show #1112; Air Date: February 16, 1993
http://emperors-clothes.com/news/arming-i.htm

[61] Speaking of a fund-drive in the various Gulf states to support the Palestinian terrorist movement, the London Times reported:

"In Saudi Arabia, the money was officially raised in the name of the Saudi Committee for the Support of the al-Quds Intifada, a group set up to support the Palestinian uprising. But some of it - no one knows quite how much - will be spent on compensating the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.

The head the committee, Prince Naif bin Abdul Aziz, the Interior Minister, said in a statement: 'The committee will continue to provide direct assistance to the families of Palestinian martyrs and those wounded while resisting the occupation.'"

Source: The Times (London). April 23, 2002, Tuesday, Features, 1563 words, The blood donors, Scott Parkes and Nick Day

If you would like to understand this in greater detail, read on:

London Times calls massive incentives for terrorism... 'heroic generosity'!

A 2002 article by the London Times carried the following heading:

"In a three-day TV marathon, Saudi citizens donated Pounds 70 million, including expensive cars and gold jewellery, to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers."(1)

This was not a bake sale - on the contrary, it was a massive effort, and organized from the very top. The Saudi Interior Minister, Prince Naif, no less, is officially in charge of such things.

"The grand total across the [Persian Gulf] region could surpass Pounds 150 million. In Saudi Arabia, the money was officially raised in the name of the Saudi Committee for the Support of the al-Quds Intifada, a group set up to support the Palestinian uprising...

The head of the committee [is] Prince Naif bin Abdul Aziz, the Interior Minister...

The appeal, launched by King Fahd, was backed from the very top of Saudi society, as one might expect (state-run television is directly controlled by the Ministry of Information)."

Now, this money does not go exclusively "to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers," but also to the making of explosives, paying the salaries of terrorist leaders, and so forth. I will address that further below.

Here, however, let us imagine for a moment that the money really does go exclusively "to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers." In such a case the London Times' heading would be appropriate, but it would then be necessary in the body of the article to make a comment.

What comment?

The London Times should explain to its readers that a Saudi fund-drive for the families of suicide bombers is part of a massive incentive program to murder innocent Jewish civilians. Why? Because,

1)  Palestinian Arab children are indoctrinated from an early age, in the schools run by Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Authority, to believe that they should hate Jews and should also look forward to slaughtering them by becoming suicide 'martyrs.'(2)

2)  And then Palestinian Arabs hear officially sponsored Islamist clerics on Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Authority TV - not every once in a while, but every day - exhorting "Blessings to whoever put a belt of explosives on his body or on his sons and plunged into the midst of Jews crying: 'Allah Akbar, praise to Allah'". They are also told of heavenly rewards - sexual and otherwise - for their acts of murder.(3)

Thus, when on top of all this they hear that their own families will be generously rewarded with money, this becomes an extra inducement for these young men (and some women!) to go murder Israeli children while destroying their own tender lives.

That's the minimal interpretation of the Saudi fund-drive - as a massive incentive program for terror. But the London Times never makes this obvious point. Instead, the London Times tries hard to elicit sympathy for the Saudi terrorist fund-drive by dramatizing the donations as selfless sacrifices - we are told that "Newlywed couples pledged their savings, fathers gave away their daughters' dowries." The Times then lauds these Saudis for "their eagerness to give, and to give generously, to their brethren suffering under the onslaught of the Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon."

Not content with this, the London Times actually goes out of its way to qualify as 'unsurpassable generosity' a donation made explicitly in the hopes that it will lead to the murder of Israelis:

"...few of the people who turned up at the Riyadh offices of Saudi state television could surpass the generosity of 26-year-old Mohamed al-Qahtani. He had come to offer his car to the cause. 'I hope it will reach the Palestinian areas,' he announced proudly, 'so a Palestinian fighter can use it to blow up a military barracks and kill soldiers.'"

Now, it is not exactly easy to elicit sympathy for terrorism. Widespread antisemitism makes it easier, in this particular case, but still... terrorism is simply awful. So the Times is careful, as we saw above, to refer to Palestinians Arabs as besieged underdogs "suffering under the onslaught of the Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon."

And yet that is still not quite enough to convey that Saudis who give their passionate millions to an antisemitic terrorist cause are 'good guys,' whereas Israeli Jews who will be the victims of this terror are 'bad guys.' Why not? Because Israeli children who die in suicide attacks obviously cannot be responsible for any onslaught by Sharon, real or imagined. So to prevent compassion for such children to 'pollute' its readers minds, the Times must tell its readers that the only imaginable reply of an allegedly oppressed Palestinian people is to slaughter innocent Jews. This "what else can they do?" argument is actually put forward in so many words, and twice:

"Raid Qusti, a Saudi writer...thinks suicide bombers are misunderstood by people in the West... 'A suicide bomber is so oppressed that he feels the only way to fight is to blow himself up. Is it up to the West to judge where the money should go?'

...Abdul Rahman, 19'...[says]... 'They are desperate. What would you do in their situation? They are at war...They are right to attack the Israelis in this way. There is nothing else they can do.'

These people were quoted with no comment from the London Times.

The money also goes to making explosives, etc.

Much of the money raised in these fund-drives - perhaps the bulk - goes directly to the terrorist organizations of the Palestinians, not to the families of suicide bombers. How do we know this? Because the money is sent to the Palestinian Authority (PA), and the supreme authority at the PA, who therefore controls the disbursement of funds, is Yasser Arafat, the man who runs the Palestinian terrorist movement.(4)

And the Saudis are not the only ones sending money, as the London Times also informs us:

"In Jerusalem last week, the US Secretary of State Colin Powell noted the dire situation in some Palestinian towns and announced a $30 million US contribution to the UN Relief and Works Agency [UNRWA] on top of the $80 million already contributed annually.

None of that, of course, will end up paying for explosives."

Of course? What is the London Times, a newspaper? Or the joint US-PLO propaganda office?

It is child's play to show that much of the UNRWA money goes to making explosives. Well, I say it is child's play for a researcher. The ordinary readers of the London Times will simply assume that the 'free press' is telling them the truth and go on about their day. For such readers - the overwhelming majority - a fictitious reality is constructed with matter-of-fact lies. But here below is what 20 minutes of research revealed.

The first item of interest is that the people who work at the UN refugee camps get their salaries from UNRWA.

"UNRWA has the largest operational presence in the West Bank and Gaza Strip in terms of the financial resources it makes available, the services it provides, the infrastructure it has set up, and the staff it employs. The 1.2 million Palestine refugees represent 49 per cent of the population in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

The Agency's 1996 budget for West Bank and Gaza is $ 136 million. It employs 8,500 staff, the majority of whom are themselves refugees."(5)

Suppose - just for the sake of argument - that these refugee camps are being used as terrorist bases. If so, then UNRWA money is going to terror, because the people who staff these camps - most of them Palestinian Arab refugees - are all salaried by UNRWA. This therefore makes it quite interesting that on 31 March 2003, the Simon Weisenthal Center made precisely this allegation: that "UNRWA is complicit in terrorism because it turns a blind eye to militant activity in 'its' camps."

The wording above is the UNRWA's own, from a document where it defended itself against these allegations.(6) This is why the crucial word, 'its', appears in quotes. What is the UNRWA's point? That they wash their hands of any terrorism being organized in the camps, because these are not their camps [i.e. the UNRWA's]. They don't even run them. Here is their explanation on this point:

"UNRWA does not run refugee camps. It is a UN agency with a clearly defined mandate, in accordance with which it provides health, education and other humanitarian services to refugees, only one third of whom live in refugee camps. The Agency has never been given any mandate to administer, supervise or police the refugee camps or to have any jurisdiction or legislative power over the refugees or the areas where they lived. The Agency has no police force, no intelligence service and no mandate to report on political and military activities. This responsibility has always remained with the host countries and Israel, who maintained law and order, including within refugee camps."(6)

If the UNRWA is not responsible for what happens at those refugee camps upon which, as "largest operational presence in the West Bank and Gaza Strip in terms of the financial resources," it lavishes its considerable millions, then who is? Well, whoever runs the camps, says UNRWA. And who is that? The UNWRA clarifies:

...based on Israel's bilateral agreements with the Palestinian Authority and the terms of the Oslo Accords, responsibility for security and law and order in area "A" (including all eight camps in Gaza and 12 of those in the West Bank) was passed to the Palestinian Authority...(6)

Thus, many of the Palestinian refugee camps are under the jurisdiction of the Palestinian Authority, which is run by the terrorist Yasser Arafat.

So how are these refugee camps, which Arafat controls, run?

In February 2002 BBC reporters were taken inside the Jenin UN refugee camp and reported seeing a secret "bomb-making factory" and a "weapons making factory." This makes it not too surprising that

"Jenin, just a few miles from the Israeli town of Afula, has become one of the most important bases from which suicide attacks are launched."(7)

Now, which terrorists are these, who had their bomb-making and weapons-making factories in "the most secret location of all, in the heart of Jenin," in the UN refugee camp? The BBC explains: "We are with the Al-Aqsa brigade, the military wing of Yasser Arafat's Fatah organisation." By the way, Al-Aqsa is considered "the deadliest Palestinian militia."(8) So Arafat, who runs many UN refugee camps, is using them to hide the activities of his worst terrorists.

What does this mean?

That the London Times assertion - "None of that [UNRWA money], of course, will end up paying for explosives" - is contradicted by a little bit of research showing that, in fact, quite a lot of UNRWA money was going to what the BBC, in February 2002, called a "bomb-making factory" in the UN refugee camp at Jenin. What is truly incredible is that the London Times should have matter-of-factly denied this - adding "of course" - in April 2002. That is, just two months after the BBC piece appeared.

This is how propaganda works, not how news is reported. Joseph Goebbels could hardly have been more blatant in his denial of the truth.

The Jenin-brewed terrorism is what made it necessary for the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) to ferret out the terrorists in the UN refugee camp. The UN took no responsibility for the violence that had been coming from Jenin. On the contrary, when the IDF took matters into its own hands, the UN (with the help of the Western media) tried to accuse Israel of having committed a massacre at Jenin. Of course, the IDF did not. You may read documentation on that here:

"THE ROAD TO JENIN: The Racak 'massacre' hoax, and those whose honesty it places in doubt: Helena Ranta, NATO, the UN, The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN, The Associated Press, and Human Rights Watch"; Historical and Investigative Research; 16 April 2003; by Francisco Gil-White
http://www.hirhome.com/yugo/ranta.htm

Notes for this footnote:

(1) April 23, 2002, Tuesday, Features, 1563 words, The blood donors, Scott Parkes and Nick Day

(2) Planting the seeds of the next war, The Jerusalem Post, June 29, 2003, Sunday, OPINION; Pg. 6, 853 words, Itamar Marcus

HIGHLIGHT:
Why are PA children being taught that the Negev, Beersheba, and the Sea of Galilee are Palestine? The writer is director of Palestinian Media Watch, www.pmw.org.il, and was Israel's representative to the Israeli-Palestinian- American Anti-Incitement Committee.

BODY:
One of the most meaningful gauges of the integrity of the peace process and its likelihood of success is the degree to which the parties educate toward peace. It is by this yardstick that the Palestinian Authority's education apparatus, formal and informal, has been such a dismal disappointment.

Instead of seizing the opportunity to educate future generations to live with Israel in peace the PA has done everything in its power to fill young minds with hatred.

Making matters worse the PA has been spreading two clever lies about its schoolbooks that have succeeded in deflecting international pressure for change.

PA Foreign Minister Nabil Shaath answered Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom's complaint about the schoolbooks by saying that the PA has "spent five years" rewriting the books - implying they are now acceptable.

Then, he added, Israel itself used these same old Jordanian books for educating the local Arab population "for 30 years," which means it can have no valid complaint to the PA.

The truth about the PA schoolbooks is that they contain anti-Semitic content, delegitimize Israel's existence and incite to hatred and violence.

For example, the new 6th-grade Reading the Koran openly presents anti-Semitic messages as children read about Allah's warning to the Jews that because of their evil Allah will kill them: "...Oh you who are Jews ...long for death if you are truthful... for the death from which you flee, that will surely overtake you..."

In other sections they learn of Jews being expelled from their homes by Allah, and in another Jews are said to be like donkeys: "Those Jews who were charged with the Torah, but did not observe it, are like a donkey carrying books...."

This religious-based anti-Semitism is particularly dangerous because children are taught that hating Jews is God's will. Islam also contains positive attitudes toward Jews - yet PA educators chose to incorporate only hateful teachings.

The new PA schoolbooks Shaath is so positive about compare Israel to colonial Britain: "Colonialism: Palestine faced the British occupation after the First World War in 1917, and the Israeli occupation in 1948."

Moreover, the book refers to Israel exclusively as Palestine. For example: "Among the famous rocks of southern Palestine are the rocks of Beersheba and the Negev" and "Palestine's Water Sources - ... The most important is the Sea of Galilee."

But the Negev, Beersheba and the Sea of Galilee are in Israel and do not border the disputed territories of Judea and Samaria. So why are PA children taught these areas are Palestine?

Educating against Israel's existence is further cemented through tens of maps in the schoolbooks in which Palestine encompass all of Israel. Israel does not exist on any map, within any borders at all.

The PA defends its schoolbook maps by arguing that since there are no final borders the map is not portraying modern Palestine but Mandatory Palestine. That is an insult to our intelligence. Are we expected to believe that when Palestinian children see the map called Palestine in all their schoolbooks they imagine Britain a half-a-century ago? And that when Beersheba is called Palestine, the children are picturing biblical history?

ANOTHER new book teaches what must be done for "occupied Palestine" and the "stolen homeland."

"Islam encourages this love of homeland and established the defense of it as an obligatory commandment for every Muslim if even a centimeter of his land is stolen. I, a Palestinian Muslim, love my country, Palestine..."

The complete and total message Palestinian children are taught is that Jews, according to Allah, are like donkeys; Israel is a colonial occupier that stole their land; the cities, lakes and deserts of Israel are occupied Palestine; and that the children have an obligation to liberate it if even a "centimeter is stolen."

Shaath's other lie - that Israel used these same old books - is particularly resourceful, as the best lies include a grain of truth.

Israel did indeed use Jordanian books to educate the local Arab population. However, it reprinted the books without the hate content. In fact, Jordan registered a complaint with the UN charging that Israel's changing the schoolbooks was a violation of international law, but the UN checked what Israel had done and approved it.

The PA put back into the old Jordanian material all the hate content that Israel had removed.

Moreover, three years ago some foreign governments offered to pay to reprint the versions that didn't contain hateful material, but the PA turned them down.

Finally, all the books cited here were written during the most optimistic periods of the peace process, before the violence began in September 2000. They are not a reflection of the war, but they were a contributing factor to it.

By dismissing the criticism and retaining this hateful material the PA is planting the seeds of the next war in their young people. And the defenders of this PA hate- education - including some Israelis - are nurturing those seeds of war.

  Isreal and Parlestinia should live as one state,but this will only happen when the eveil hand of the United states of America is cut off from the middle east.CHAMAKHE MAURIENI.


 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