Another presidential election year in America lays just ahead, one offering its usual cheap imitation of democracy but whose outcome potentially might be even more fiendish and nightmarish than election years of the recent past. It could be argued that in a good many areas, such as extra-judicial killings of American citizens for instance, Obama has been even worse than Bush, while the Gingrichean Republicans have of course already begun buzzing Iowa like a hive of human-headed locusts. It doesn’t look as if this time there’s really going to be a lesser of two evils to vote for—or if there is, the difference is likely to reside in the imagination of the individual voter more so than upon the plane of material existence.
Election years are when the rush by US officials to abandon any semblance of reason or adherence to reality becomes even more pronounced than usual, and nowhere is this more true than in regards to Israel. And it is here, of course, where Obama and the Republicans come to full agreement: they both love and adore the Zionist state and desire to give it more and more of our tax dollars and blood. But one wonders: how would they react were they suddenly to find themselves on the receiving end of an insidious partition plan that would permanently divide up the United States of America?
I ask that question because on November 29, 1947—exactly 64 years ago—Palestinians found themselves in just such a predicament with their country arbitrarily divided and apportioned out in a partition plan voted on by the United Nations. The plan was adopted by the UN General Assembly as Resolution 181, and in one fell swoop it gave the Jews 55 percent of Palestine, while the indigenous Palestinians were left with 45 percent. Zionists today are fond of pointing out that this measure was “rejected” by the Palestinians, almost as if to say, “See? We Jews were making a genuine sacrifice for peace. It was the Palestinians who were being unreasonable.” One answer to that of course is that for the Jews there was no “sacrifice” involved. None whatever. Palestine did not belong to them. Who in their right mind would turn down 55 percent of something to which they have no right or title? At the time, Jews made up only 33 percent of the population of Palestine, and that 33 percent held deeds to only 7 percent of the land. So yes, quite naturally, the Jews were more than willing to be “reasonable.”
But there are other things to consider as well. Americans should ask themselves how they might possibly react were the UN suddenly to draw a line down the middle of the US and announce that from that point forward all land west of the Mississippi River would belong to a population of Yiddish-speaking immigrants from the Caucasus Mountains of Russia. The people of Texas, Arizona, Colorado—all other western-states residents as well—could then either, a) abandon their homes, farms, and ranches, and relocate east of the Mississippi, or b) stay where they were and be content to live in a country ruled by the Yiddish immigrants—immigrants who, incidentally, fancy themselves “chosen people” and who proclaim the land was given them by God. Would Americans have placidly accepted such a fate? Or would we have fought to hold onto our country? Everyone knows the answer to that. We would have fought—which is precisely what the Palestinians did.
This in fact was predicted by the CIA in a declassified report dated November 28, 1947—one day before the UN vote. The agency’s prognosis of the situation seems almost prescient now in retrospect:
Armed hostilities between Jews and Arabs will break out if the UN General Assembly accepts the plan to partition Palestine into Jewish and Arab States as recommended by the UN Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP).
Inflamed by nationalism and religious fervor, Arabs in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Transjordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia as well as Palestine are determined to fight against any force, or combination of forces, which attempts to set up a Jewish state in Palestine. While the governments of the Arab states are not expected to make official declarations of war, they will not attempt to keep their people (especially fanatical tribesmen) from joining the battle; they may even encourage such action and furnish clandestine assistance…
The Zionists, for their part, are determined to have a state in Palestine or, in the view of extreme elements, all of Palestine and Transjordan as well. Whatever the UN recommends, they will attempt to establish a Jewish state after the British withdrawal (now set by the British for August 1948). The Jews are expected to be able to mobilize some 200,000 fighters in Palestine, supplemented to a limited extent by volunteers and recruits from abroad. The Jewish armed groups in Palestine are well equipped and well trained in commando tactics. Initially, they will achieve marked success over the Arabs because of superior organization and equipment. As the war of attrition develops, however, the Jewish economy (severely strained by mobilization) will break down; furthermore, the Jews will be unable continuously to protect their extended supply lines and isolated settlements or to plant and cultivate their fields in the face of constant harassing, “hit and run” Arab attacks. Without substantial outside aid in terms of manpower and material, they will be able to hold out no longer than two years.
The “substantial outside aid” of course ended up being provided by the US. We can also infer from the above that the “extreme elements” of the Zionist movement were already planning to take all of Palestine in any event, and that possibly they viewed the partition plan as little more than a stepping stone toward that wider goal. One other especially noteworthy observation found in the report is that American companies held lucrative contracts in Arab oil producing states and that US support for the partition plan was likely to be contrary to our own national interest. Or as the CIA analyst put it:
The US, by supporting partition, has already lost much of its prestige in the Near East. In the event that partition is imposed on Palestine, the resulting conflict will seriously disturb the social, economic, and political stability of the Arab world, and US commercial and strategic interests will be dangerously jeopardized.
Of course it didn’t require a CIA analyst to know that the partition plan was bad news and that trouble lay ahead if it passed. In fact, the notion of dividing up the land in such a manner seems so absurd it almost boggles our minds to think the measure passed at all, and now, looking back, we can see that the decision of November 29, 1947 was calamitous—not only for the Palestinians, but for the rest of the world as well. So why on earth did the majority of nations support it? Well as may be expected, Zionist threats and pressure had a lot to do with it. The following quotes come from Wikipedia:
Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru spoke with anger and contempt for the way the UN vote had been lined up. He said the Zionists had tried to bribe India with millions and at the same time his sister, Vijaya Lakshmi Pandit, had received daily warnings that her life was in danger unless “she voted right.”
The Zionists apparently even found it necessary to coerce the US government as well—at least if we are to believe what Harry Truman had to say:
President Truman later noted, “The facts were that not only were there pressure movements around the United Nations unlike anything that had been seen there before, but that the White House, too, was subjected to a constant barrage. I do not think I ever had as much pressure and propaganda aimed at the White House as I had in this instance. The persistence of a few of the extreme Zionist leaders—actuated by political motives and engaging in political threats—disturbed and annoyed me.”
The above comment is rather peculiar, for as we know, Truman was a bit of a Christian Zionist and a staunch supporter of Israel. When the Jews declared their state on May 14, 1948, good old Harry, who today has a village named for him in Israel, extended official recognition just 11 minutes after the formal announcement was made, making the US the first nation to do so. So we have to ask: was Truman really “annoyed,” or was his statement issued for public consumption? Difficult to say with certainty, but what we do know is Truman worked hard behind the scenes lining up votes for the partition plan. He essentially established a precedent for what later became standard practice by the US—of twisting arms at the UN on Israel’s behalf. UN delegates from at least three different countries—Pakistan, Liberia, and the Philippines—all went on record reporting US pressure in favor of the plan:
In the days before the vote, the Philippines’ representative General Carlos P. Romulo stated, “We hold that the issue is primarily moral. The issue is whether the United Nations should accept responsibility for the enforcement of a policy which is clearly repugnant to the valid nationalist aspirations of the people of Palestine. The Philippines Government holds that the United Nations ought not to accept such responsibility.” After a phone call from Washington, the representative was recalled and the Philippines’ vote changed.
But the proud rulers of India stood firm by their convictions. India voted against Resolution 181, as did 12 other nations—Cuba, Iran, Afghanistan, Greece, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, and Yemen. On the other hand, a total of 33 countries voted to divest the Palestinians of 55 percent of their land. The list includes the US (despite President Harry’s having to suffer an “annoying” amount of pressure); it also includes Canada, France, and the Soviet Union, along with a number of countries we can easily imagine must have been subjected to intense US pressure: Bolivia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guatemala, Haiti, Liberia, Panama, the Philippines, Paraguay, and others. The Palestinians themselves, not being an officially recognized “nation” at the time (as they still are not), had no vote or say in the matter. None.
It’s probably reasonable to assume that support from a good many of these non-Semitic, gentile nations rested on the widespread belief at the time that European Jews were descended from the Jews of the Bible, but of course as we now know, the ancestry of the Ashkenazi Jews traces back to the Khazars of southern Russia—not the biblical Israelis. So even that part of the Zionist enterprise was fraudulent as well. Palestine was handed over to a people who had no historical ties to the land, had never even set foot on it prior to the late 19th century.
So that was what happened in late November, 1947. Now here we are, 64 years later, with a prescient CIA report on our hands and an America standing at the threshold of extirpation. We find our country burdened, plagued even, by a confederacy of politicians who, snouts in the gentile hog trough, have pledged their allegiance to Israel while heaping disdain on the 99 percent of Americans who struggle to make ends meet. And in regards to Palestine, as with many other things, they have adopted an Orwell-speak. Thus it is the Palestinians who have become the “terrorists,” while the Yiddish-speaking immigrants from the Caucasus are loudly and vehemently proclaimed the rightful owners of the land:
“All the people that live in the West Bank are Israelis, they’re not Palestinians,” averred GOP candidate Rick Santorum recently. “There is no Palestinian (sic). This is Israeli land.”
For his own part, Herman Cain seems to agree with Santorum—that not only “Israel” itself but even the entire West Bank as well should be considered part and parcel of the Jewish homeland. In a Fox News interview, here , Cain opposes calls for a return to the pre-1967 borders while also outlining what he refers to as the “Cain Doctrine”—essentially a pledge that US soldiers will fight and die for the Zionist cause in whatever war Israel may choose to start anywhere in the world.
“Let me just tell you what the Cain Doctrine would be as it relates to Israel if I were president,” he blusters. “You mess with Israel, you are messing with the United States of America. It’s that simple.”
Or consider the words of the current puppet in the White House. “America’s commitment to Israel’s security is unshakeable, and our friendship with Israel is deep and enduring,” said Obama in a September speech at the UN, this after publicly vowing to veto any UN recognition of a Palestinian state in the West Bank or Gaza.
Apparently Texas Governor Rick Perry feels Obama’s support for Israel hasn’t been “unshakeable” enough, however.
“Simply put, we would not be here today at the precipice of such a dangerous move if the Obama policy in the Middle East wasn’t naive, arrogant, misguided and dangerous,” said Perry, giving his thoughts on the UN’s Palestinian statehood debate.
You may have been under the impression that six million Jews died at the hands of the Nazis, but apparently GOP candidate New Gingrich feels that number is mistaken—and in a recent interview, here , the former House speaker ups the figure to seven million:
If the Israelis, having endured the Holocaust and the loss of seven million Jews in World War II, conclude that an Iranian nuclear weapon poses the threat of a second holocaust, because two nuclear weapons on Tel Aviv and Jerusalem would be the equivalent of a second holocaust. If they conclude that is a risk they cannot live with, we should respect their concern for survival. I think that we should clearly indicate to the world that we would support whatever they think they have to do to survive.
More recently Gingrich called for a bombing of Iranian oil refineries.
GOP candidate Michelle Bachmann, the queen of the Tea Party, is quite blunt, not to mention pessimistic, about it: we either support Israel or we’re doomed.
“I am convinced in my heart and in my mind that if the United States fails to stand with Israel, that is the end of the United States,” says Bachmann. “We have to show that we are inextricably entwined, that as a nation we have been blessed because of our relationship with Israel, and if we reject Israel, then there is a curse that comes into play.”
Apparently overlooking the small matter of the Ashkenazi Jews being descended from the Khazars, Bachmann has obviously bought into Genesis 12:3, which has God promising to “bless” those who bless Abraham and his descendants, while throwing “curses” upon those who don’t.
But the award for the most “pro-Israel” position of all would probably have to go to Mitt Romney, who promises that if elected president he won’t dare make a move on the Arab-Israeli conflict, or apparently Middle East policy in general, without first getting approval from—yes, you guessed it—the leaders of Israel.
The actions that I will take will be actions recommended and supported by Israeli leaders. I don’t seek to take actions independent of what our allies think is best, and if Israel’s leaders thought that a move of that nature would be helpful to their efforts, then that’s something I’ll be inclined to do. But again, that’s a decision which I would look to the Israeli leadership to help guide. I don’t think America should play the role of the leader of the peace process, instead we should stand by our ally. Again, my inclination is to follow the guidance of our ally Israel, as to where our facilities and embassies would exist.
Presumably, Romney would even be “inclined” to start World War 3 should Zionist chieftains deem it “helpful to their efforts.” Enough is enough. We’ve had 64 years of this stuff. Is it not about time US military forces started arresting these people for treason and shutting down Zionist media outlets in the US? As for Palestine, is it not about time to deport the Yiddish-speaking immigrants back to the Caucasus Mountains and turn the land back over to the Palestinians?
I believe it is.Posted by Richard Edmondson at 11/29/2011 11:33 AM
River to Sea
Uprooted Palestinian
Uprooted Palestinian
No comments:
Post a Comment