June 21, 2006

By Ted Belman

The Secret War Against the Jews by John Loftus and Mark Aarons was published in 1994. It was sub-titled “How Western Intelligence Betrayed the Jewish People.”

I quote from Deane Rink’s review of this book.

“The modern world begins, the authors suggest, at the end of World War I, when British diplomat/adventurers Jack Philby (father of Soviet spy Kim Philby and legendary Arabist) and Lawrence of Arabia endeavour to unify a bunch of warring Bedouin tribes into nationhood, best represented by Saudi Arabia. Aware that black gold (oil) lies underneath the desert sands, Philby gingerly befriends Ibn Saud, and makes him the first Saudi king. But Philby is not solely interested in empire, even his own British one; he is interested in making money, and forges an alliance with an American intelligence agent in charge of Middle Eastern affairs, Allen Dulles. By the 1930s, Ibn Saud and Philby are secret supporters of the Nazi rise to political power in Germany, and bring Dulles, a NYC-based corporate lawyer for Sullivan and Cromwell, in on their scheme. It is a triple game driven by their hatred of Zionism and the Jews, motivated by their obsessive seeking of profits, and designed to completely transform the landscape of the Middle East. […] This double-dealing by British and American corporations continues throughout World War II… “

The review continues with a synopsis of events in this war for the next fifty years. Loftus, in his book, concludes by congratulating the Jews for having won the war. I think he spoke too soon.

The conspiracy to destroy Israel is clearly reflected in the “peace process”. Prior to the Six Day War, President Johnson, an oil man, told Nasser that he would help him with intelligence and sent the USS Liberty to spy on Israel. Although Israel was confident that it would win handily, no one else was. The victory shocked the world and in the view of the conspirators, had to be undone. So when Resolution 242 was being drafted a few months later, by Under Secretary of State, Eugene Rostow and others, they sought to protect Israel and assure it of secure and recognized borders but they weren’t able to exclude the following. “Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war ..”. This statement was and is legally and historically erroneous. Territory has always been acquired by war and a distinction has always been made between aggressive and defensive wars. It was bad enough that Israel was created in ’48 with ridiculous borders but it would be a catastrophe if Israel was allowed to retain the lands acquired by the ’67 war and so the conspirators set about cutting Israel down to size.

Israel was caught by surprise in the ’73 Yom Kippur War but still had a few hours opportunity to attack first and Kissinger counseled against it. During the war Kissinger delayed rearming Israel for a number of days as he want Israel to get a “bloody nose” first. Nixon prevailed and a massive airlift took place in time. Remember that Europe denied landing and refueling rights to this airlift requiring the US to strong arm Portugal into allowing the same.

When Israel dramatically turned the war around, it was Kissinger who prevented Israel from crushing the Egyptian Third Army or marching on Cairo or Damascus if it so choose. Kissinger argued at the time that in the interests of peace, the Arab’s should be enabled to save face.

On December 17, 1975, Henry Kissinger met with Sadun Hammadi, Iraqi Minister of Foreign Affairs. A transcript of this meeting has been published which discloses Kissingers attempts to assuage the concerns of Hammadi.

“Kissinger: I think, when we look at history, that when Israel was created in 1948, I don’t think anyone understood it. It originated in American domestic politics. It was far away and little understood. So it was not an American design to get a bastion of imperialism in the area. It was much less complicated: And I would say that until 1973 the Jewish community had enormous influence. It is only in the last two years, as a result of the policy we are pursuing, that it has changed,

We don’t need Israel for influence in the Arab world. On the contrary, Israel does us more harm than good in the Arab world [..]

We can’t negotiate about the existence of Israel but we can reduce its size to historical proportions.

I don’t agree Israel is a permanent threat. How can a nation of three million be a permanent threat? They have a technical advantage now. But it is inconceivable that peoples with wealth and skill and the tradition of the Arabs won’t develop the capacity that is needed. So I think in ten to fifteen years Israel will be like Lebanon–struggling for existence, with no influence in the Arab world.

You mentioned new weapons. But they will not be delivered in the foreseeable future. All we agreed to is to study it, and we agreed to no deliveries out of current stocks. So many of these things won’t be produced until 1980, and we have not agreed to deliver them then. [..].
If the issue is the existence of Israe1, we can’t cooperate. But if the issue is more normal borders, we can cooperate.

Aide: Your Excellency, do you think a settlement would come through the Palestinians in the area? ‘How do you read it? Is it in your power to create such a thing?

Kissinger: Not in 1976. I have to be perfectly frank with you. I think the Palestinian identity has to be recognized in some form. But we need the thoughtful cooperation of the Arabs. It will take a year or a year and to do it, and will be a tremendous fight. An evolution is already taking place.

Aide: You think it will be part of a solution?

Kissinger: It has to be. No solution is possible without it. But the domestic situation is becoming favorable. More and more questions are being asked in Congress favorable to the Palestinians.

In the same year according to Eurabia and Prof Eidelberg’s synopsis of it, the Euro-Arab Dialogue commenced and the Arabs set the conditions for this Euro-Arab symbiosis:

1) European policy would be independent from, and opposed to that of the United States;
2) recognition by Europe of a “Palestinian people,” and the creation of a “Palestinian” state;
3) European support for the PLO;
4) the designation of Arafat as the sole and exclusive representative of that so-called Palestinian people;
5) the de-legitimizing of the State of Israel, both historically and politically, its shrinking into non-viable borders, and the Arabization of Jerusalem.

This became European policy.

Francisco Gil-White thoroughly documents the US role in giving birth to a Palestinian state in his invaluable Understanding the Palestinian Movement

“What is beyond question is that, at least by 1977, the master-pet relationship between the CIA and Hajj Amin’s movement was firmly in place. In 1977, the US was holding high-level secret talks with Hajj Amin’s PLO/Fatah that violated a 1975 agreement with Israel not to do that.[77a]

In public, US president Jimmy Carter worked very hard to give PLO/Fatah the dignity of a government in exile. The explicit point of Jimmy Carter’s diplomacy was to give international legitimacy to the demand for a PLO state in the West Bank and Gaza, and it was in fact Jimmy Carter who first proposed such a state, with the PLO obediently following about a week later, though up to this point the PLO had loudly rejected the idea of a PLO state in the West Bank and Gaza.[79]

In 1978, when Israel tried to defend itself from PLO terrorist attacks coming from the PLO bases in southern Lebanon, vigorous US pressure forced the Israelis to back down.[80]
In 1981, against Israeli objections, Ronald Reagan pushed hard for a PLO state in the West Bank and Gaza.[81]

In 1982-1983 the Reagan administration rushed into Lebanon to protect the PLO from being destroyed by the Israelis, after the Israelis invaded Lebanon once again to protect themselves from PLO attacks against Israeli civilians in the Galilee. The US exerted very strong pressure on the Israelis to back down, and then provided a military safe passage for the PLO so that they could make their new home in Tunis.[82]

In 1985, certain Israeli politicians, following US wishes, tried hard to advance the political interests of the PLO. In the same year, some Italian politicians who, it has now been established, were part of a covert (pro-fascist) CIA effort in Europe, sacrificed their political careers for the sake of advancing the political image of the PLO against Israel. Meanwhile, Ronald Reagan denied the Holocaust. This was not Reagan’s senility: the entire administration was behind the effort.[83]

In 1987-88, the PLO launched the First Intifada in the West Bank and Gaza (though the media pretended it was a “spontaneous uprising”). The US cooperated closely with the effort to blame supposed Israeli brutality for the First Intifada, and to use the accusation as a reason to advance the project to create a PLO state in the West Bank and Gaza.[84]

In 1989, with Dick Cheney leading the charge, the US began supporting a PLO state in the West Bank as supposedly the “only solution” to the Arab-Israeli conflict.[85]

In 1991, a critical year, George Bush Sr.’s administration literally forced the Israelis — with threats — to participate in what became the Oslo so-called ‘peace’ process, the purpose of which was to bring the PLO out from Tunis and into the Jewish state, where it would become the government over the Arab population living in the West Bank and Gaza, from which position the PLO has been indoctrinating these Arabs into Hajj Amin’s genocidal ideology, and murdering any Arabs who disagree, as Hajj Amin also used to do.[86]

In 1994, the same year that Yasser Arafat was given a Nobel Peace Prize (!!), and which saw the debut of the Oslo ‘peace’ process by bringing the PLO into Israel, Bill Clinton’s CIA was training the PLO. This, despite the fact that Arafat’s henchmen were explaining to the Western press, in English, in the same year of 1994, that they would use their CIA training to kill Jews and any Arabs who didn’t like that, in accordance with Hajj Amin’s ideology.[87]

When Yasser Arafat died, the US enthusiastically endorsed his replacement Mahmoud Abbas (alias Abu Mazen), who, like Yasser Arafat, has always shared Hajj Amin’s ideology and therefore wishes to exterminate the Jewish people.[88]

What is clear from all this is that the US the EU and the Arab League are supporting the PLO in its efforts to cut Israel down to “historical proportions” as promised by Kissinger some thirty years ago. In effect they condone terror as a means to bring this about.

Many friends of Israel believe, and for good reason, that Israel can’t resist the combined onslaught of these forces and should give in to the inevitable and salvage what it can. Sharon and Olmert both came to this conclusion and so “disengagement” and “realignment” were born.

Die-hards are entitled to ask whether such a policy will lead to real peace or Israel’s destruction. Kissinger himself forecasted that “in fifteen years Israel will be like Lebanon–struggling for existence…”

So long as the US and the EU remain committed to the goal of returning Israel to the pre ’67 borders I don’t see how Israel can hold out.

But the times they are achanging.

What is necessary is for the US to come to the conclusion that the creation of Palestine is not in its interest. The increasing influence of Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas and the Brotherhood are not just a threat to Israel but to America and her “friends” Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia too. This is recognized by all. So I don’t see a Palestinian state being created for years, if ever.

Because of this threat, Israel has a window of opportunity to chart its own course. Israel should enlarge Jerusalem and start building in E1. The US is too weak now and must hold the line against the Jihadists. Accordingly I doubt it will seriously pressure Israel.

ADDENDUM added April 23/07

The Vast Power of the Saudi Lobby

Even during the Saudi-led oil embargo of 1973-74, an exceedingly hostile action against the United States supposedly justified by Washington’s support of Israel in the Yom Kippur War, the Nixon administration treaded very softly. Despite the illegality of the embargo — it arguably violated international law as well as a bilateral commercial agreement between the United States and Saudi Arabia — the White House and the State Department could hardly have been more diplomatic toward their Bedouin friends.

As the historian J.B. Kelly recounts, the U.S. ambassador to Riyahd, James Akins, did his best to placate King Faisal by urging the Saudi’s American-owned oil concessionaire ARAMCO to, in Aken’s words, “hammer home” to the White House that the embargo wouldn’t be lifted unless “the political struggle [between Israel and the Arabs] is settled in [a] manner satisfactory to [the] Arabs.”

U.S. had emergency plan for attacking Israel in 1967
“The ultimate objective would be to stop aggression and insure the territorial integrity of all the Middle Eastern states,” he was informed in cable No. 6365 of the Joint Chiefs, with a copy to EUCOM.

Conway’s reply to this, dated May 28, is described in the top-secret study as “a strong plea for complete impartiality.” The United States was liable to lose its influence to the Soviets, the general warned, and therefore it must demonstrate “strict neutrality” and avoid open support for Israel.

The true importance of the Middle East lay in the American-Soviet context of the Cold War, Conway argued, and the American stance must derive from those considerations, not from “local issues.”