How the "Special Relationship" was created

By Alison Weir

June 26, 2012 "Information Clearing House" -- While many people are led to believe that US support for Israel is driven by the American establishment and U.S. national interests, the facts don’t support this theory. The reality is that for decades U.S. experts opposed Israel and its founding movement. They were simply outmaneuvered and eventually replaced.­

Like many American policies, U.S. Middle East policies are driven by a special interest lobby. However, the Israel Lobby, as it is called today in the U.S.[1], consists of vastly more than what most people envision in the word “lobby.”

As this article will demonstrate, it is considerably more powerful and pervasive than other lobbies. Components of it, both individuals and groups, have worked underground, secretly and even illegally throughout its history, as documented by scholars and participants.

And even though the movement for Israel has been operating in the U.S. for over a hundred years, most Americans are completely unaware of this movement and its attendant ideology – a measure of its unique power over public knowledge.

The success of this movement to achieve its goals, partly due to the hidden nature of much of its activity, has been staggering. It has also been at almost unimaginable cost.

It has led to massive tragedy in the Middle East: a hundred-year war of violence and loss; sacred land soaked in sorrow.

What is less widely known is how profoundly damaging this movement has been to the United States itself.

As we will see in this two-part examination of the pro-Israel movement, it has targeted virtually every significant sector of American society; worked to involve Americans in tragic, unnecessary, and profoundly costly wars; dominated Congress for decades; increasingly determined which candidates could become serious contenders for the U.S. presidency; and promoted bigotry toward an entire population, religion and culture.

It has promoted policies that have exposed Americans to growing danger, and then exaggerated this danger (while disguising its cause), fueling recent actions that dismember some of our nation’s most fundamental freedoms and cherished principles.

All this for a nation that today has reached a peak population of, at most, 7.4 million people; smaller than New Jersey.[2]

The beginnings

The Israel Lobby is just the tip of an older and far larger iceberg known as “political Zionism,” an international movement that began in the late 1800s with the goal of creating a Jewish state somewhere in the world. In 1897 this movement, led by a European journalist named Theodore Herzl[3], coalesced in the First Zionist World Congress, held in Basle, Switzerland, which established the World Zionist Organization, representing approximately 120 groups the first year; 900 the next.[4]

While Zionists considered such places as Argentina, Uganda, and Texas,[5] they eventually settled on Palestine for the location of their proposed Jewish State, even though Palestine was already inhabited by a population that was 95 percent Muslims and Christians, who owned 99 percent of the land.[6] As numerous Zionist diary entries, letters, and other documents show, Zionists planned to push out these non-Jews – financially, if possible; violently if necessary.[7]

Political Zionism in the U.S.

In the 1880s groups advocating the setting up of a Jewish state began popping up around the United States.[8] Emma Lazarus, the poet whose words would adorn the Statue of Liberty, promoted Zionism throughout this decade.[9] A precursor to the Israeli flag was created in Boston in 1891.[10]

Reports from the Zionist World Congress in Basle, which four Americans had attended, gave this movement a major stimulus, galvanizing Zionist activities in American cities that had large Jewish populations.[11]

By the early 1890s organizations promoting Zionism existed in New York, Chicago, Baltimore, Milwaukee, Boston, Philadelphia, and Cleveland.[12] In 1897-98 numerous additional Zionist societies were founded in the East and the Midwest. In 1898 the first annual conference of American Zionists convened in New York on the 4th of July, where they formed the Federation of American Zionists (FAZ).[13]

In 1887 President Grover Cleveland appointed a Jewish ambassador to Turkey, which at that time controlled Palestine, Zionists’ target location for a Jewish state. Jewish historian David G. Dalin reports that presidents recognized the importance of the Turkish embassy for Jewish Americans, “…especially for the growing number of Zionists within the American Jewish electorate, since the Jewish homeland of Palestine remained under the direct control of the Turkish government.”

Every president, both Republican and Democrat, followed this precedent for the next 30 years. “During this era, the ambassadorship to Turkey came to be considered a quasi-Jewish domain,” writes Dalin. [14]

By 1910 the number of Zionists in the U.S. approached 20,000 and included lawyers, professors, and businessmen. Even in its infancy, when it was still considered relatively weak, Zionism was becoming a movement to which Congressmen listened, particularly in the eastern cities.[15]

The movement continued to expand, and by 1914 several additional Zionist groups had cropped up. The religious Mizrachi faction was formed in 1903, the Labor party in 1905 and Hadassah, the women’s Zionist organization, in 1912. And this was still just the beginning.[16]

A Zionist official writing in 1912 proudly proclaimed “the zealous and incessant propaganda which is carried on by countless societies.”[17]

By 1922 there were 200,000 Zionists in the U.S. and by 1948 this had grown to almost a million. [18] The Yiddish press from a very early period espoused the Zionist cause. By 1923 only one New York Yiddish newspaper failed to qualify as Zionist. Yiddish dailies reached 535,000 families in 1927.[19]

The State Department Objects

State Department officials – not dependent on votes and campaign donations, and charged with recommending and implementing policies beneficial to all Americans, not just one tiny sliver working on behalf of a foreign entity – were less enamored with Zionists, who they felt were trying to use the American government for a project damaging to the United States. In memo after memo, year after year, U.S. diplomatic and military experts pointed out that Zionism was counter to both U.S. interests and principles.[20]

Secretary of State Philander Knox was perhaps the first in the pattern of State Department officials rejecting Zionist advances. In 1912, when the Zionist Literary Society approached the Taft administration for an endorsement, Knox turned them down flat, noting that “problems of Zionism involve certain matters primarily related to the interests of countries other than our own.”[21]

Despite that small setback in 1912, Zionists` garnered a far more significant victory in the same year; one that was to have enormous consequences both internationally and in the United States and that was part of a pattern of influence that continues through today.

Louis Brandeis, Zionism, and the “Parushim”

In 1912 prominent Jewish American attorney Louis Brandeis, who was to go on to become a Supreme Court Justice, became a Zionist. Within two years he became head of the international Zionist Central Office, which had moved to America from Germany a little while before.[22]

While Brandeis is an unusually well known Supreme Court Justice, very few Americans are aware of the significant role he played in World War I and of his connection to Palestine.

Brandeis recruited ambitious young men, often from Harvard, to work on the Zionist cause – and further their careers in the process. Author Peter Grose writes:

“Brandeis created an elitist secret society called the Parushim, the Hebrew word for ‘Pharisees’ and ‘separate,’ which grew out of Harvard’s Menorah Society. As the Harvard men spread out across the land in their professional pursuits, their interests in Zionism were kept alive by secretive exchanges and the trappings of a fraternal order. Each invited initiate underwent a solemn ceremony, swearing the oath 'to guard and to obey and to keep secret the laws and the labor of the fellowship, its existence and its aims.'”[23]

At the secret initiation ceremony, the new member was told:

"You are about to take a step which will bind you to a single cause for all your life. You will for one year be subject to an absolute duty whose call you will be impelled to heed at any time, in any place, and at any cost. And ever after, until our purpose shall be accomplished, you will be fellow of a brotherhood whose bond you will regard as greater than any other in your life–dearer than that of family, of school, of nation."[24]

‘We must work silently, through education and infection’

An early recruiter explained: “An organization which has the aims we have must be anonymous, must work silently, and through education and infection rather than through force and noise.” He wrote that to work openly would be "suicidal" for their objective.

Grose reports their methodology:

“The members set about meeting people of influence here and there, casually, on a friendly basis. They planted suggestions for action to further the Zionist cause long before official government planners had come up with anything. For example, as early as November 1915, a leader of the Parushim went around suggesting that the British might gain some benefit from a former declaration in support of a Jewish national homeland in Palestine.”[25]

Brandeis was a close personal friend of President Woodrow Wilson and used this position to advocate for the Zionist cause, at times serving as a conduit between British Zionists and the president.

In 1916 President Wilson named Brandeis to the Supreme Court. Although Brandeis officially resigned from all his private clubs and affiliations, including his leadership of Zionism, behind the scenes he continued this Zionist work, receiving daily reports in his Supreme Court chambers and issuing orders to his loyal lieutenants.[26]

When the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) was reorganized in 1918, Brandeis was listed as its “honorary president.” However, he was more than just “honorary.”

As historian Donald Neff writes, “Through his lieutenants, he remained the power behind the throne.” One of these lieutenants was future Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter, another particularly well-regarded justice, and another whose Zionist activities have largely gone unnoted.[27]

Zionist membership expanded dramatically during World War I, despite the efforts of some Jewish anti-Zionists, who called the movement a “foreign, un-American, racist, and separatist phenomenon.”[28]

World War I & the Balfour Declaration

Unlike some wars, most analysts consider WWI a pointless conflict that resulted from diplomatic entanglements rather than some travesty of justice or aggression. Yet, it was catastrophic to a generation of Europeans.

The United States joined this unnecessary war a few years into the hostilities, costing many American lives, even though the U.S. was not party to the alliances that had drawn other nations into the fray. This even though Americans had been strongly opposed to entering the war and President Woodrow Wilson had won with the slogan, “He kept us out of war.”

Americans today are aware of these facts. What few know is that Zionists pushed for the U.S. to enter the war on Britain’s side as part of a deal to gain British support for their colonization of Palestine.

From the very beginning of their movement, Zionists realized that if they were to succeed in their goal of creating a Jewish state on land that was already inhabited by non-Jews, they needed backing from one of the “Great Powers.” They tried the Ottoman Empire, which controlled Palestine at the time, but were turned down (although they were told that Jews could settle throughout other parts of the Ottoman empire and become Turkish citizens).[29]

They then turned to Britain, which was also initially less than enthusiastic. Famous English Arabists such as Gertrude Bell pointed out that Palestine was Arab and that Jerusalem was sacred to all three major monotheistic faiths.

Future Foreign Minister Lord George Curzon similarly stated that Palestine was already inhabited by half a million Arabs who would “not be content to be expropriated for Jewish immigrants or to act merely as hewers of wood and drawers of water for the latter.”[30]

However, once the British were embroiled in World War I, and particularly during 1916, a disastrous year for the Allies, Zionists were able to play a winning card. Zionist leaders promised the British government that Zionists in the U.S. would push America to enter the war on the side of the British, if the British promised to support a Jewish home in Palestine afterward.[31]

As a result, in 1917 British Foreign Minister Lord Balfour issued a letter to Zionist leader Lord Rothschild. Known as the Balfour Declaration, this letter promised that Britain would “view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people” and to “use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object.”

The letter then qualified this somewhat by stating that it should be “clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine.” The “non-Jewish communities” were 90 percent of Palestine’s population at that time, vigorous Zionist immigration efforts having slightly expanded the percentage of Jews living in Palestine by then.[32]

The letter, while officially signed by British Foreign Minister Lord Balfour, was actually written by Leopold Amery, a British official who, it came out later, was a secret Zionist[33].

While this letter was a less than ringing endorsement of Zionism, Zionists considered it a major breakthrough as it cracked open a door that they would later force wider and wider open.

These Balfour-WWI negotiations are referred to in various documents. For example, Samuel Landman, secretary of the World Zionist Organization, described them in a 1935 article in World Jewry:

“After an understanding had been arrived at between Sir Mark Sykes and [Zionists] Weizmann and Sokolow, it was resolved to send a secret message to Justice Brandeis that the British Cabinet would help the Jews to gain Palestine in return for active Jewish sympathy and for support in the USA for the Allied cause, so as to bring about a radical pro-Ally tendency in the United States."[34]

British Colonial Secretary Lord Cavendish, in a memorandum to the British Cabinet in 1923, reminded his colleagues:

“The object [of the Balfour Declaration] was to enlist the sympathies on the Allied side of influential Jews and Jewish organizations all over the world… and it is arguable that the negotiations with the Zionists…did in fact have considerable effect in advancing the date at which the United States government intervened in the war.”[35]

Former British Prime Minister Lloyd George similarly referred to this deal, telling a British commission in 1935:

“Zionist leaders gave us a definite promise that, if the Allies committed themselves to giving facilities for the establishment of a national home for the Jews in Palestine, they would do their best to rally Jewish sentiment and support throughout the world to the Allied cause. They kept their word.”

American career Foreign Service Officer Evan M. Wilson, who had served as Minister-Consul General in Jerusalem, writes of Balfour:

“The pledge was given to the Jews largely for the purpose of enlisting Jewish support in the war and of forestalling a similar promise by the Central Powers [Britain’s enemies in World War I]”.[36]

In 1917 President Wilson, who had been voted into office by Americans who believed his promises that he would keep them out of the war, changed course and plunged the U.S. into a tragic and pointless European conflict in which hundreds of thousands were killed and injured.[37] Over 1,200 American citizens who opposed the war were rounded up and imprisoned, some for years.[38]

The influence of Brandeis and other Zionists in the U.S. had enabled Zionists to form an alliance with Britain, one of the world’s great powers, a remarkable achievement for a non-state group and a measure of Zionists’ immense power. As historian Kolsky states, the Zionist movement was now “an important force in international politics.”[39]

Paris Peace Conference 1919: Zionists defeat Christian leaders’ calls for self-determination

After the war, the victors met in a peace conference and agreed to a set of Peace Accords that addressed, among many issues, the fate of Ottoman Empire’s Middle East territories. The Allies stripped the defeated Empire of its Middle Eastern holdings and divided them between Britain and France, which were to hold them under a “mandate” system until the populations were “ready” for self-government. Britain got the mandate over Palestine.

Zionists, including Brandeis, Felix Frankfurter, the World Zionist Organization, and an American delegation, went to the conference to lobby for a Jewish “home”[40] in Palestine and to push for Balfour wording to be incorporated in the peace accords.[41] The official U.S. delegation to the Peace Conference also contained a number of highly placed Zionists.

Distinguished American Christians posted in the Middle East, who consistently supported self-determination, went to Paris to oppose Zionists. Numerous prominent Christian leaders in the U.S. – including two of the most celebrated pastors of their day – also opposed Zionism. However, as a pro-Israel author notes, they were “simply outgunned” by Zionists.[42]

The most prominent American in the Middle East at the time, Dr. Howard Bliss, President of Beirut’s Syrian Protestant College (later to become the American University of Beirut), traveled to Paris to urge forming a commission to determine what the people of the Middle East wanted for themselves, a suggestion that was embraced by the U.S. diplomatic staff in Paris.[43]

Princeton Professor Philip Brown, in Cairo for the YMCA, provided requested reports to the U.S. State Department on what Zionism's impact would be on Palestine. He stated that it would be disastrous for both Arabs and Jews and went to Paris to lobby against it.[44]

William Westermann, director of the State Department’s Western Asia Division, which covered the region, similarly opposed the Zionist position. He wrote that "[it] impinges upon the rights and the desires of most of the Arab population of Palestine.” Westermann and other US diplomats felt that Arab claims were much more in line with Wilson’s principles of self-determination and circulated Arab material.[45]

President Wilson decided to send a commission to Palestine to investigate the situation in person. After spending six weeks in the area interviewing both Jews and Palestinians, the commission, known as the King-Crane commission, recommended against the Zionist position of unlimited immigration of Jews to make Palestine a distinctly Jewish state.[46]

The commissioners stated that the erection of a Jewish state in Palestine could be accomplished only with “the gravest trespass upon the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine,” pointing out that to subject the Palestinians “to steady financial and social pressure to surrender the land, would be a gross violation of the principle [of self-determination] and of the peoples’ rights…”[47]

They went on to point out that “the well-being and development” of the people in the region formed “a sacred trust,” that the people should become completely free, and that the national governments “should derive their authority from the initiative and free choice of the native populations.”[48]

The report stated said that meetings with Jewish representatives made it clear that "the Zionists looked forward to a practically complete dispossession of the present non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine,” concluded that armed force would be required to accomplish this, and urged the Peace Conference to dismiss the Zionist proposals.[49] The commission recommended that "the project for making Palestine distinctly a Jewish commonwealth should be given up.”[50]

Zionists through Brandeis dominated the situation, however, and the report was suppressed until after the Peace Accords were enacted. As a pro-Israel historian noted, “with the burial of the King-Crane Report, a major obstacle in the Zionist path disappeared.”[51] The US delegation was forced to follow Zionist directives.[52]

Ultimately, the mandate over Palestine given to Britain, supported the Zionist project and included the Balfour language. According to the mandate, Britain would be “responsible for putting into effect the [Balfour] declaration … in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine….”[53]

Brandeis and Frankfurter vs. U.S. diplomat

The idea behind Zionism was to create a state where Jews worldwide could escape anti-Semitism.[54]

There are various documented cases in which fanatical Zionists exploited, exaggerated, invented, or even perpetrated “anti-Semitic” incidents both to procure support and to drive Jews to immigrate to the Zionist-designated homeland.[55] A few examples are discussed below.

One such case involved a young diplomat named Hugh Gibson, who in 1919 was nominated to be U.S. Ambassador to Poland. After he arrived in Poland, Gibson, who was highly regarded and considered particularly brilliant,[56] began to report that there were far fewer anti-Semitic incidents than Americans were led to believe. He wrote his mother: “These yarns are exclusively of foreign manufacture for anti-Polish purposes.”[57]

His dispatches came to the attention of Brandeis and his protégé (and future supreme Court Justice) Felix Frankfurter, who demanded a meeting with Gibson. Gibson later wrote of their accusations:

“I had [Brandeis and Frankfurter claimed] done more mischief to the Jewish race than anyone who had lived in the last century. They said…that my reports on the Jewish question had gone around the world and had undone their work…. They finally said that I had stated that the stories of excesses against the Jews were exaggerated, to which I replied that they certainly were and I should think any Jew would be glad to know it.”[58]

Frankfurter hinted that if Gibson continued these reports, Zionists would block his confirmation by the Senate.

Gibson was outraged and sent a 21-page letter to the State Department. In it he shared his suspicions that this was part of “a conscienceless and cold-blooded plan to make the condition of the Jews in Poland so bad that they must turn to Zionism for relief.”

In 1923 another American diplomat in Poland, Vice Consul Monroe Kline, echoed Gibson’s analysis:

“It is common knowledge that Zionists are continually and constantly spreading propaganda, through their agencies over the entire world, of political and religious persecution.”[59]

Zionists and Nazis

Perhaps the most extreme case of Zionist exploitation of anti-Semitism to further their cause came during the rise of Adolf Hitler. Historians have documented that Zionists sabotaged efforts to find safe havens for Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany in order to convince the world that Jews could only be safe in a Jewish state.[60]

When FDR made several efforts to provide havens for Nazi refugees, Zionists opposed these projects because they did not include Palestine.

Morris Ernst, FDR’s international envoy for refugees, wrote in his memoir that when he worked to help find refuge for those fleeing Hitler, “…active Jewish leaders decried, sneered and then attacked me as if I were a traitor. At one dinner party I was openly accused of furthering this plan of freer immigration [into the U.S.] in order to undermine political Zionism… Zionist friends of mine opposed it.”[61]

Ernst wrote that he found the same fanatical reaction among almost all Jewish groups, whose leaders, he found, were “little concerned about human blood if it is not their own.”[62]

FDR finally gave up, telling Ernst: “We can’t put it over because the dominant vocal Jewish leadership of America won’t stand for it.”[63]

Journalist Erskine B. Childers, son of a former Irish Prime Minister, wrote in the Spectator in 1960, “One of the most massively important features of the entire Palestine struggle was that Zionism deliberately arranged that the plight of the wretched survivors of Hitlerism should be a ‘moral argument’ which the West had to accept.”

He explained that “this was done by seeing to it that Western countries did not open their doors, widely and immediately, to the inmate of the DP [displaced persons] camps.”

Childers, author of several books on conflict resolution and peace-keeping who later became Secretary General of the World Federation of United Nations Associations, commented: “It is incredible that so grave and grim a campaign has received so little attention in accounts of the Palestine struggle – it was a campaign that literally shaped all subsequent history. It was done by sabotaging specific Western schemes to admit Jewish DPs.”[64]

Zionist fake “hate” attacks on Iraq Jews

Zionists wished for a massive “in-gathering of Jews” in one state, but most Iraqi Jews wanted nothing to do with it, according to Iraq’s then-Chief Rabbi. “Iraqi Jews will be forever against Zionism,” the rabbi stated[AU1] .

"Jews and Arabs have enjoyed the same rights and privileges for 1,000 years and do not regard themselves as a distinctive separate part of this nation," the rabbi declared.[61]

Zionists worked to change that by covertly attacking Iraqi Jews so as to induce them to "flee" to Israel. Zionists planted bombs in [AU2] synagogues and in an American building [AU3] "in an attempt to portray the Iraqis as anti-American and to terrorize the Jews," according to Author and former CIA officer Wilbur Crane Eveland.

"Soon leaflets began to appear urging Jews to flee to Israel," writes Eveland, and "... most of the world believed reports that Arab terrorism had motivated the flight of the Iraqi Jews whom the Zionists had 'rescued' really just in order to increase Israel’s Jewish population."

Similarly, Naeim Giladi, a Jewish-Iraqi author who later lived in Israel and the U.S., describes this program from the inside: “I write about what the first prime minister of Israel called ‘cruel Zionism.’ I write about it because I was part of it.”

Giladi states that “Jews from Islamic lands did not emigrate willingly to Israel.” In order “to force them to leave,” Giladi writes, “Jews killed Jews.” He goes on to say that in an effort “to buy time to confiscate ever more Arab lands, Jews on numerous occasions rejected genuine peace initiatives from their Arab neighbors.”[65]

The modern Israel Lobby is born

The immediate precursor to today’s pro-Israel lobby began in the early 1940s under the leadership of Rabbi Abba Hillel Silver, originally from Lithuania. He created the American Zionist Emergency Council (AZEC), which by 1943 had acquired a budget of half a million dollars at a time when a nickel bought a loaf of bread.

In addition to this money, Zionists had become influential in creating the United Jewish Appeal in 1939, giving them access to the organization’s gargantuan financial resources: $14 million in 1941, $150 million by 1948.[66]

With its extraordinary funding, AZEC embarked on a campaign to target every sector of American society. In the words of AZEC organizer Sy Kenen, it launched “a political and public relations offensive to capture the support of Congressmen, clergy, editors, professors, business and labor.”[67] [68]

AZEC instructed activists to “make direct contact with your local Congressman or Senator” and to go after union members, wives and parents of servicemen, and Jewish war veterans. AZEC provided activists with form letters to use and schedules of anti-Zionist lecture tours to oppose and disrupt.

A measure of its power came in 1945 when Silver disliked a British move in 1945 that would be harmful to Zionists, AZEC booked Madison Square Garden, ordered advertisements, and mailed 250,000 announcements – the first day. By the second day they had organized demonstrations in 30 cities, a letter-writing campaign, and convinced 27 U.S. Senators to give speeches.[69]

Grassroots Zionist action groups were organized with more than 400 local committees under 76 state and regional branches. AZEC funded books, articles and academic studies; millions of pamphlets were distributed. There were massive petition and letter writing campaigns. AZEC targeted college presidents and deans, managing to get more than 150 to sign one petition.[70]

Rabbi Elmer Berger, executive director of the American Council for Judaism, which opposed Zionism in the 1940s and 50s, writes in his memoirs that there was a “ubiquitous propaganda campaign reaching just about every point of political leverage in the country.”[71]

The Zionist Organization of America bragged of the “immensity of our operations and their diversity” in its 48th Annual Report, stating, “We reach into every department of American life…”[72]

Berger and other anti-Zionist Jewish Americans tried to organize against “the deception and cynicism with which the Zionist machine operated,” but failed to obtain anywhere near their level of funding. Among other things, would-be dissenters were afraid of “the savagery of personal attacks” anti-Zionists endured.[73]

Berger writes that when he and a colleague opposed a Zionist resolution in Congress, Emanuel Cellar, a New York Democrat who was to serve in Congress for almost 50 years, told them: “They ought to take you b…s out and shoot you.”

When it was unclear that President Harry Truman would support Zionism, Cellar and a committee of Zionists told him that they had persuaded Dewey to support the Zionist policy and demanded that Truman also take this stand. Cellar reportedly pounded on Truman’s table and said that it Truman did not do so, “We’ll run you out of town.[74]

Jacob Javits, another well-known Congressman, this one a Republican, told a Zionist women’s group: “We’ll fight to death and make a Jewish State in Palestine if it’s the last thing that we do.”[75]

Richard Stevens, author of American Zionism and U.S. Foreign Policy, 1942-1947, reports that Zionists infiltrated the boards of several Jewish schools that they felt didn’t sufficiently promote the Zionist cause. When this didn’t work, Stevens writes, they would start their own pro-Zionist schools.[76]

Stevens writes that in 1943-44 the ZOA distributed over a million leaflets and pamphlets to public libraries, chaplains, community centers, educators, ministers, writers and “others who might further the Zionist cause.”[77]

Alfred Lilienthal, who had worked in the State Department, served in the U.S. Army in the Middle East from 1943-45, and became a member of the anti-Zionist American Council for Judaism, reports that Zionist monthly sales of books totaled between 3,000 and 4,000 throughout 1944-45.

He reports that Zionists subsidized books by non-Jewish authors that supported the Zionist agenda. They would then promote these books jointly with commercial publishers. Several of them became best sellers.[78]

Zionists manufacture Christian support

Silver and other Zionists played a significant role in creating Christian support for Zionism, a project Brandeis encouraged.[79]

Secret Zionist funds, eventually reaching $150,000 in 1946, were used to revive an elitist Protestant group, the American Palestine Committee.

Silver’s headquarters issued a directive saying, “In every community an American Christian Palestine Committee must be immediate organized.”[80]

Historian and former New York Times journalist Peter Grose, sympathetic to Zionism, writes that the Christian committee’s operations “were hardly autonomous. Zionist headquarters thought nothing of placing newspaper advertisements on the clergymen’s behalf without bothering to consult them in advance, until one of the committee’s leaders meekly asked at least for prior notice before public statements were made in their name.”[81]

AZEC formed another group among clergymen, the Christian Council on Palestine. An internal AZEC memo stated that the aim of both groups was to “crystallize the sympathy of Christian America for our cause.”[82]

By the end of World War II the Christian Council on Palestine had grown to 3,000 members and the American Palestine Committee boasted a membership of 6,500 public figures, including senators, congressmen, cabinet members, governors, state officers, mayors, jurists, clergymen, educators, writers, publishing, and civic and industrial leaders.

Historian Richard Stevens writes that Christian support was largely gained by exploiting their wish to help people in need. Steven writes that Zionists would proclaim “the tragic plight of refugees fleeing from persecution and finding no home,” thus linking the refugee problem with Palestine as allegedly the only solution.[83]

Stevens explains that the reason for this strategy was clear: “…while many Americans might not support the creation of a Jewish state, traditional American humanitarianism could be exploited in favor of the Zionist cause through the refugee problems.”[84]

Few if any of these Christian supporters had any idea that the creation of the Jewish state would entail a massive expulsion of hundreds of thousands of the non-Jews who made up the large majority of Palestine’s population, creating a new and much longer lasting refugee problem.

Nor did they learn that during and after Israel’s founding 1947-49 war, Zionist forces attacked a number of Christian sites. Donald Neff, former Time Magazine Jerusalem bureau chief and author of five books on Israel-Palestine, reports in detail on Zionist attacks on Christian sites in May 1948, the month of Israel’s birth.

Neff tells us that a group of Christian leaders complained that month that Zionists had killed and wounded hundreds of people, including children, refugees and clergy, at Christian churches and humanitarian institutions.

For example, the group charged that “‘many children were killed or wounded’ by Jewish shells on the Convent of Orthodox Copts…; eight refugees were killed and about 120 wounded at the Orthodox Armenian Convent…; and that Father Pierre Somi, secretary to the Bishop, had been killed and two wounded at the Orthodox Syrian Church of St. Mark.”

“The group’s statement said Arab forces had abided by their promise to respect Christian institutions, but that the Jews had forcefully occupied Christian structures and been indiscriminate in shelling churches,” reports Neff.

He quotes a Catholic priest: “‘Jewish soldiers broke down the doors of my church and robbed many precious and sacred objects. Then they threw the statues of Christ down into a nearby garden.’ [The priest] added that Jewish leaders had reassured that religious buildings would be respected, ‘but their deeds do not correspond to their words.’"

After Zionist soldiers invaded and looted a convent in Tiberias, the U.S. Consulate sent a bitter dispatch back to the State Department complaining of “the Jewish attitude in Jerusalem towards Christian institutions.’”

Zionist Colonization Efforts in Palestine

As early Zionists in the U.S. and elsewhere pushed for the creation of a Jewish state, Zionists in Palestine simultaneously tried to clear the land of Muslim and Christian inhabitants and replace them with Jewish immigrants.

This was a tall order, as Muslims and Christians accounted for more than 95 percent of the population of Palestine. Zionists planned to try first to buy up the land until the previous inhabitants had emigrated; failing this, they would use violence to force them out. This dual strategy was discussed in various written documents cited by numerous Palestinian and Israeli historians.

As this colonial project grew, the indigenous Palestinians reacted with occasional bouts of violence; Zionists had anticipated this since people usually resist being expelled from their land.

When the buy-out effort was able to obtain only a few percent of the land, Zionists created a number of terrorist groups to fight against both the Palestinians and the British. Terrorist and future Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin later bragged that Zionists had brought terrorism both to the Middle East and to the world at large.

By the eve of the creation of Israel, the Zionist immigration and buyout project had increased the Jewish population of Palestine to 30 percent and land ownership from 1 percent to approximately 6 percent.

This was in 1947, when the British at last announced that they would end their control of Palestine. Britain turned the territory’s fate over to the United Nations.

Since a founding principle of the UN was “self-determination of peoples,” one would have expected to the UN to support fair, democratic elections in which inhabitants could create their own independent country.

Instead, Zionists pushed for a General Assembly resolution to give them a disproportionate 55 percent of Palestine. (While they rarely announced this publicly, their stated plan was to later take the rest of Palestine.

U.S. Officials Oppose Zionism

The U.S. State Department opposed this partition plan strenuously, considering Zionism contrary to both fundamental American principles and US interests.

For example, the director of the State Department’s Office of Near Eastern and African Affairs consistently recommended against supporting a Jewish state in Palestine. The director, named Loy Henderson, warned that the creation of such a state would go against locals’ wishes, imperil US interests and violate democratic principles.

Henderson emphasized that the US would lose moral standing in the world if it supported Zionism:

“At the present time the United States has a moral prestige in the Near and Middle East unequaled by that of any other great power. We would lose that prestige and would be likely for many years to be considered as a betrayer of the high principles which we ourselves have enunciated during the period of the [second world] war.”

When Zionists began pushing the partition plan in the UN, Henderson recommended strongly against supporting their proposal, saying that such a partition would have to be implemented by force and was “not based on any principle.” He warned that partition “would guarantee that the Palestine problem would be permanent and still more complicated in the future.…”

Henderson elaborated further on how plans to partition Palestine would violate American and UN principles:

“...[Proposals for partition] are in definite contravention to various principles laid down in the [UN] Charter as well as to principles on which American concepts of Government are based. These proposals, for instance, ignore such principles as self-determination and majority rule. They recognize the principle of a theocratic racial state and even go so far in several instances as to discriminate on grounds of religion and race.…”

Zionists attacked Henderson virulently, calling him “anti-Semitic,” demanding his resignation, and threatening his family. They pressured the State Department to transfer him elsewhere; one analyst describes this as “the historic game of musical chairs” in which officials who recommended Middle East policies “consistent with the nation’s interests” were moved on.

In 1948 Truman sent Henderson to the slopes of the Himalayas, as Ambassador to Nepal (then officially under India). (In recent years, virtually every State Department country desk has been directed by a Zionist.)

But Henderson was far from alone in making his recommendations. He wrote that his views were not only those of the entire Near East Division but were shared by “nearly every member of the Foreign Service or of the [State] Department who has worked to any appreciable extent on Near Eastern problems.”

He wasn’t exaggerating. Official after official and agency after agency opposed Zionism.

In 1947 the CIA reported that Zionist leadership was pursuing objectives that would endanger both Jews and “the strategic interests of the Western powers in the Near and Middle East.”

Henry F. Grady, who has been called “America’s top diplomatic soldier for a critical period of the Cold War,” headed a 1946 commission aimed at coming up with a solution for Palestine. Grady later wrote about the Zionist lobby and its damaging effect on US national interests.

Grady argued that without Zionist pressure, the U.S. would not have had “the ill-will with the Arab states, which are of such strategic importance in our ‘cold war’ with the soviets.” He also described the decisive power of the lobby:

“I have had a good deal of experience with lobbies but this group started where those of my experience had ended..... I have headed a number of government missions but in no other have I ever experienced so much disloyalty…. [I]n the United States, since there is no political force to counterbalance Zionism, its campaigns are apt to be decisive.”

Former Undersecretary of State Dean Acheson also opposed Zionism. Acheson’s biographer writes that Acheson “worried that the West would pay a high price for Israel.” Another Author, John Mulhall, records Acheson’s warning of the danger for American interests:

“...to transform [Palestine] into a Jewish State capable of receiving a million or more immigrants would vastly exacerbate the political problem and imperil not only American but all Western interests in the Near East.”

The head of the State Department’s Division of Near Eastern Affairs, Gordon P. Merriam, warned against the partition plan on moral grounds:

“U.S. support for partition of Palestine as a solution to that problem can be justified only on the basis of Arab and Jewish consent. Otherwise we should violate the principle of self-determination which has been written into the Atlantic Charter, the declaration of the United Nations, and the United Nations Charter – a principle that is deeply embedded in our foreign policy. Even a United Nations determination in favor of partition would be, in the absence of such consent, a stultification and violation of UN’s own charter.”

Merriam added that without consent, “bloodshed and chaos” would follow, a tragically accurate prediction.

An internal State Department memorandum accurately predicted how Israel would be born through armed aggression masked as defense:

“...the Jews will be the actual aggressors against the Arabs. However, the Jews will claim that they are merely defending the boundaries of a state which were traced by the UN.… In the event of such Arab outside aid the Jews will come running to the Security Council with the claim that their state is the object of armed aggression and will use every means to obscure the fact that it is their own armed aggression against the Arabs inside which is the cause of Arab counter-attack.”

And American Vice Consul William J. Porter foresaw one last outcome of the “partition” plan: that no Arab state would actually ever come to be in Palestine.

Truman Accedes to Pro-Israel Lobby

President Harry Truman, however, ignored this advice and chose instead to support the Zionist partition plan. Truman’s political advisor, Clark Clifford, believed that the Jewish vote and contributions were essential to winning the upcoming presidential election, and that supporting the partition plan would garner that support. (Truman’s opponent, Dewey, took similar stands for similar reasons.)

Truman’s Secretary of State George Marshall, the renowned World War II General and author of the Marshall Plan, was furious to see electoral considerations taking precedence over policies based on national interest. He condemned what he called a “transparent dodge to win a few votes,” which would make “[t]he great dignity of the office of President seriously diminished.”

Marshall wrote that the counsel offered by Clifford “was based on domestic political considerations, while the problem which confronted us was international. I said bluntly that if the President were to follow Mr. Clifford’s advice and if in the elections I were to vote, I would vote against the President.…”

Secretary of Defense James Forrestal also tried, unsuccessfully, to oppose the Zionists. He was outraged that Truman’s Mideast policy was based on what he called “squalid political purposes,” asserting that “United States policy should be based on United States national interests and not on domestic political considerations.”

Forrestal represented the general Pentagon view when he said that “no group in this country should be permitted to influence our policy to the point where it could endanger our national security.”

A report by the National Security Council warned that the Palestine turmoil was acutely endangering the security of the United States. A CIA report stressed the strategic importance of the Middle East and its oil resources.

Similarly, George F. Kennan, the State Department’s Director of Policy Planning, issued a top-secret document on January 19, 1947 that outlined the enormous damage done to the US by the partition plan (“Report by the Policy Planning Staff on Position of the United States with Respect to Palestine”).

Kennan cautioned that “important U.S. oil concessions and air base rights” could be lost through US support for partition and warned that the USSR stood to gain by the partition plan.

Kermit Roosevelt, Teddy Roosevelt’s nephew and a legendary intelligence agent, was another who was deeply disturbed by events, noting:

“The process by which Zionist Jews have been able to promote American support for the partition of Palestine demonstrates the vital need of a foreign policy based on national rather than partisan interests…. Only when the national interests of the United States, in their highest terms, take precedence over all other considerations, can a logical, farseeing foreign policy be evolved. No American political leader has the right to compromise American interests to gain partisan votes.…”

He went on:

“The present course of world crisis will increasingly force upon Americans the realization that their national interests and those of the proposed Jewish state in Palestine are going to conflict. It is to be hoped that American Zionists and non-Zionists alike will come to grips with the realities of the problem.”

Pro-Israel Pressure on General Assembly Members

When it was clear that, despite US support, the partition recommendation did not have the two-thirds support of the UN General Assembly required to pass, Zionists pushed through a delay in the vote. They then used this period to pressure numerous nations into voting for the recommendation. A number of people later described this campaign.

Robert Nathan, a Zionist who had worked for the US government and who was particularly active in the Jewish Agency, wrote afterward, “We used any tools at hand,” such as telling certain delegations that the Zionists would use their influence to block economic aid to any countries that did not vote the right way.

Another Zionist proudly stated: “Every clue was meticulously checked and pursued. Not the smallest or the remotest of nations, but was contacted and wooed. Nothing was left to chance.”

Financier and longtime presidential advisor Bernard Baruch told France it would lose U.S. aid if it voted against partition. Top White House executive assistant David Niles organized pressure on Liberia; rubber magnate Harvey Firestone pressured Liberia.

Latin American delegates were told that the Pan-American highway construction project would be more likely if they voted yes. Delegates’ wives received mink coats (the wife of the Cuban delegate returned hers); Costa Rica’s President Jose Figueres reportedly received a blank checkbook. Haiti was promised economic aid if it would change its original vote opposing partition.

Longtime Zionist Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter, along with ten senators and Truman domestic advisor Clark Clifford, threatened the Philippines (seven bills were pending on the Philippines in Congress).

Before the vote on the plan, the Philippine delegate had given a passionate speech against partition, defending the inviolable “primordial rights of a people to determine their political future and to preserve the territorial integrity of their native land...”

The delegate went on to say that he could not believe that the General Assembly would sanction a move that would place the world “back on the road to the dangerous principles of racial exclusiveness and to the archaic documents of theocratic governments.”

Twenty-four hours later, after intense Zionist pressure, the Philippine delegate voted in favor of partition.

The U.S. delegation to the U.N. was so outraged when Truman insisted that they support partition that the State Department director of U.N. Affairs was sent to New York to prevent the delegates from resigning en masse.

On Nov 29, 1947 the partition resolution, 181, passed. While this resolution is frequently cited, it was of limited (if any) legal impact. General Assembly resolutions, unlike Security Council resolutions, are not binding on member states. For this reason, the resolution requested that “[t]he Security Council take the necessary measures as provided for in the plan for its implementation,” which the Security Council never did. Legally, the General Assembly Resolution was a “recommendation” and did not create any states.

What it did do, however, was increase the fighting in Palestine. Within months (and before Israel dates the beginning of its founding war) the Zionists had forced out 413,794 people. Zionist military units had stealthily been preparing for war before the UN vote and had acquired massive weaponry, some of it through a widespread network of illicit gunrunning operations in the US under a number of front groups.

The UN eventually managed to create a temporary and very partial ceasefire. A Swedish UN mediator who had previously rescued thousands of Jews from the Nazis was dispatched to negotiate an end to the violence. Israeli assassins killed him and Israel continued what it was to call its “war of independence.”

At the end of this war, through a larger military force than that of its adversaries and the ruthless implementation of plans to push out as many non-Jews as possible, Israel came into existence on 78 percent of Palestine.

But let us take a closer look at the violence that followed the UN recommendation.

Massacres and the Conquest of Palestine

The passing of the partition resolution in November 1947 triggered the violence that State Department and Pentagon analysts had predicted and for which Zionists had been preparing. There were at least 33 massacres of Palestinian villages, half of them before a single Arab army joined the conflict.

Zionist forces were better equipped and had more men under arms than their opponents and by the end of Israel’s “War of Independence” over 750,000 Palestinian men, women, and children were ruthlessly expelled. Zionists had succeeded in the first half of their goal: Israel, the self-described Jewish State, had come into existence.

The massacres were carried out by Zionist forces, including Zionist militias that had engaged in terrorist attacks in the area for years preceding the partition resolution.

Descriptions of the massacres, by both Palestinians and Israelis, are nightmarish. An Israeli eyewitness reported that at the village of al-Dawayima: “The children they killed by breaking their heads with sticks. There was not a house without dead….One soldier boasted that he had raped a woman and then shot her.”[4]

One Palestinian woman testified that a man shot her nine-month-pregnant sister and then cut her stomach open with a butcher knife.[5]

One of the better-documented massacres occurred in a small, neutral Palestinian village called Deir Yassin in April 1948 – before a single Arab army had joined the conflict. A Swiss Red Cross representative was one of the first to arrive on the scene, where he found 254 dead, including 145 women, 35 of them pregnant.

Witnesses reported that the attackers lined up families – men, women, grandparents and children, even infants – and shot them.

An eyewitness and future colonel in the Israeli military later wrote of the militia members: “They didn’t know how to fight, but as murderers they were pretty good.”

The Red Cross representative who found the bodies at Deir Yassin arrived in time to see some of the killing in action. He wrote in his diary that Zionist militia members were still entering houses with guns and knives when he arrived. He saw one young Jewish woman carrying a blood-covered dagger and saw another stab an old couple in their doorway. The representative wrote that the scene reminded him of S.S. troops he had seen in Athens.

Richard Catling, British assistant inspector general for the criminal division, reported on “sexual atrocities” committed by Zionist forces. “Many young school girls were raped and later slaughtered,” he reported. “Old women were also molested.”

The Deir Yassin attack was perpetrated by two Zionist militias and coordinated with the main Zionist forces, whose elite unit participated in part of the operation. The heads of the two militias, Menachem Begin and Ytzakh Shamir, later became Prime Ministers of Israel.

Begin, head of the Irgun who later became Prime Minister of Israel, sent the following message to his troops about their victory at Deir Yassin:

“Accept my congratulations on this splendid act of conquest. Convey my regards to all the commanders and soldiers. We shake your hands. We are all proud of the excellent leadership and the fighting spirit in this great attack. We stand to attention in memory of the slain. We lovingly shake the hands of the wounded. Tell the soldiers: you have made history in Israel with your attack and your conquest. Continue thus until victory. As in Deir Yassin, so everywhere, we will attack and smite the enemy. God, God, Thou has chosen us for conquest.”[11]

Approximately six months later, Begin (who had also publicly taken credit for a number of other terrorist acts, including blowing up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, killing 91 people) came on a tour of America. The tour’s sponsors included playwright Ben Hecht, a fervent Zionist who applauded Irgun violence,[12] and eventually included 11 Senators, 12 governors, 70 Congressmen, 17 Justices, and numerous other public officials.

The State Department, fully aware of his violent activities in Palestine, tried to reject Begin’s visa but was overruled by Truman.[14]

Begin later proudly admitted his terrorism in an interview for American television. When the interviewer asked him, “How does it feel, in the light of all that’s going on, to be the father of terrorism in the Middle East?” Begin proclaimed, “In the Middle East? In all the world!”[15]

Terrorists set up U.S. front groups

The Irgun had been operating in the U.S. since the 1930s. As one of their leaders later wrote, “It was in Europe of those days that the idea of transferring the focal point of our activity to the United States was born, and it was from there that we left on a mission that lasted far longer than originally planned…”[85]

The “we” referred to a small group known as the Irgun Delegation that operated in the U.S. from the late 1930s until 1948 and that formed a half dozen front organizations for what they themselves called “a military operation” and that largely consisted of propaganda aimed at the American public.[86]

Two of the leaders were Yitshaq Ben-Ami (father of the founder of today’s J-Street) and “Peter Bergson,” the pseudonym of the senior Irgun officer working outside Palestine, Hillel Kook. The group is often called the Bergson Group.[87]

Among their numerous activities they lobbied Congress and the White House, organized a march on Washington, D.C. of 500 Rabbis, placed full-page ads in newspapers around the U.S., and produced a pageant “We Will Never Die!” celebrating the Jewish contribution to Western civilization, written by Ben Hecht, directed by Moss Hart, featuring music by Kurt Weil, and starring Edward G. Robinson.

Forty thousand attended its New York performances. It then went on to play in most of America’s largest cities.[88]

While the various organizations created by the Irgun Delegation frequently pushed for rescuing European Jews, one of the major demands was for the creation of a “Jewish Army of Stateless and Palestinian Jews.” This was a goal that Revisionist Zionists had sought even before the Nazi holocaust had begun and is believed to have had a mixed agenda.

Author William Rubinstein writes: “It is rather difficult to believe that Bergson’s implausible proposal did not have far more to do with creating the nucleus of a Jewish Palestinian force, to be used against the British and the Arabs, than with saving Europe’s Jews from the Nazis.”[89]

Critics point out that the delegation did not manage to rescue any Jews during the Nazi holocaust.[90]

Bergson-Kook’s uncle was Rabbi Avraham Yitzhak Kook, originally from Eastern Europe, who became the “Chief Rabbi of Palestine,” worked toward the Balfour Declaration in Britain, and most importantly, devised an ideology that merged a kabalistic version of religious Judaism (the Cabbala holds that every non-Jew is an embodiment of Satan) with political Zionism, founding an extremist religious Zionism that continues today.[91]

Rabbi Kook, who achieved saintly status among his followers in Israel and the U.S., stated: “The difference between a Jewish soul and souls of non-Jews… is greater and deeper than the difference between a human soul and the souls of cattle.”[92]

In addition to spanning the Jewish religious-secular continuum, the Delegation spanned the political spectrum, its historian Judith Baumel writing that it “evinced many of the unique characteristics of Eastern European protofascism” while also forming partnerships with communists and Jews who belonged to left-wing American groups.

All of this was hidden from view, however, as the “Bergson Boys” aimed for the American man in the street, using tantalizing slogans, illustrated advertisements, and “seductive curiosity-whetting gimmicks.” As Baumel notes, the Irgun Delegation’s primary triumph was to understand “the power of Madison Avenue.”[93]

Another terrorist front group, the Political Action Committee for Palestine, was formed by Rabbi Baruch Korf, who indirectly admitted that the financing of terrorism was among its activities.

In 1948 Korf published a large advertisement in the New York Post calling a State Department policy against enforcing partition “pure and simple anti-Semitism… plain everyday anti-Semitism, incorporated in the hearts and minds of those who govern free America.”[94]

Author Grant Smith, filing numerous Freedom of Information Requests, has uncovered information on numerous such illegal Zionist activities. The Truman administration, with Feinberg as a major campaign donor, failed to act on CIA reports about Feinberg and Zionist illicit arms trafficking from the US.[95]

Among these was the “Sonneborn Institute,” named after its founder, Rudolf G. Sonneborn, scion of a wealthy German-Jewish family from Baltimore.[96]

Sonneborn had first met Zionist leader and future Israeli Prime Minister David Ben Gurion in 1919 when Sonneborn, at the behest of family friend Supreme Court Justice Brandeis, had traveled to the Versailles peace conference as secretary of a Zionist delegation and afterward gone on a tour of Palestine.[97]

In 1945 Sonneborn and Ben Gurion hosted a meeting of 17 well-connected guests at Sonneborn’s Manhattan penthouse. They came from Los Angeles, Toronto, Miami, Birmingham, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Columbus, Minneapolis, St. Louis, Newark, New Haven and New York. One was a rabbi, five were lawyers, and the others were highly successful businessmen.

The purpose, Ben Gurion explained, was to create a secret underground organization that would be the American arm of the Zionist paramilitary in Palestine, the Haganah. The organization was to have a representative in at least 35-40 industry groups, and in one month alone there were meetings in Memphis, Ohio, New Jersey, Cedar Rapids, Iowa City, Baton Rouge, Dallas, Washington DC, and 40 more were scheduled.[98]

Their objective was to raise money and support “for purposes which could not be publicized or even fully disclosed.” A variety of front groups were created for military arms and equipment smuggling of everything from machine guns to B-17s.[99]

Zionist youth groups were organized, the members sometimes helping load guns onto boats headed for Palestine.

US authorities tried to stop what were not only illegal but also extremely damaging activities.

In 1948 the Director of Central Intelligence, Rear Admiral R.H. Hillenkoetter, filed a top-secret report with the Secretary of Defense about the Zionist arms trafficking. He warned:

“U.S. National security is unfavorably affected by these developments and it could be seriously jeopardized by continued illicit traffic in the ‘implements of war.’”[100]

Author Grant Smith reports that under Truman “the role of Feinberg and Haganah operative groups active in arms trafficking within the US, like the terrorist charges, would only be lightly investigated and seldom prosecuted.”

Infiltrating displaced person’s camps in Europe to funnel people to Palestine

A similar underground campaign was operating in Europe. Zionist cadres infiltrated Europe’s displaced person’s camps to orchestrate a clandestine operation to funnel people to Palestine.

When it turned out that only a minority of Jewish refugees wished to go to Palestine, a Zionist report by Rabbi Klaussner concluded that “the people must be forced to go to Palestine.”

Author Alfred Lilienthal reports that numerous means were employed, including confiscation of food rations, dismissal from work, expulsion from the camps, taking away legal protection and visa rights; in one case, “even the public flogging of a recalcitrant recruit for the Israel Army.”[101]

The American public, however, was led to believe that European Jews desperately wished to go to Palestine, and the well-organized and well-funded operation behind this (including $25 million from the Jewish Joint Distribution Committee) was hidden from view.

A British general who had been Eisenhower’s deputy credited with the buildup for the Normandy invasion, Sir Frederick Morgan, publicly noted that many of the refugees were well dressed and well fed – “their pockets bulging with money” – and concluded that something must be encouraging their travels.

Morgan commented: “The Jews seem to have an organized plan for becoming a world force, a weak force numerically, but one which will have a generating power for getting what they want.”

He was attacked viciously by the press and others; comedian Eddie Cantor took out a New York Times ad saying, “I thought Hitler was dead.”

The World Jewish Congress stated officially and duplicitously, “General Morgans allegation of ‘ secret Jewish force inside Europe aiming at a mass exodus to Palestine’ is… fanatically untrue.”

Morgan was forced to apologize, despite, as a pro-Israel author writes, “Morgan’s analysis of the situation was quite correct.”[102]

The Sieff group:

Blocking a counter-Balfour declaration

Another secret group working on behalf of Zionism was formed in 1942 by Israel M. Sieff, a British clothing magnate who was temporarily living in the U.S.

The Sieff group was, as historian Grose puts it, “a sophisticated version of Brandeis’s Parushim.”

While its existence was never openly acknowledged, it grew into the secret back channel through official Washington during the last years of FDR’s presidency and the critical first years of Truman’s.

Its members included such men as Ben Cohen, a member of the White House staff; Robert Nathan, in intelligence; David Ginsburg, a New Deal bureaucrat; David Lilienthal, chairman of the Tennessee Valley Authority, and David Niles, a high White House official under both Roosevelt and Truman. Grose reports:

“The little nucleus possessed the entree and the clout to carry the message of Jewish Palestine into the highest policymaking circles – through casual suggestion, indirection, chance remarks among well-placed colleagues in the corridors of power and the salons of social Washington.”[103]

When State Department and English diplomats, concerned that Zionist activities were causing serious harm to the war effort, were about to issue a “reverse Balfour” declaration on July 27, 1943 calling on these activities to cease, the Sieff group, Felix Frankfurter, Henry Morgenthau, Jr., David Niles, Bernard Baruch, et al took emergency, and successful, action to block it.[104]

Palestinian refugees

By 1949 as a result of Israel’s “War of Independence” and its campaign to cleanse the land of as many non-Jews as possible,[105] there were hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees. The U.S. Representative in Israel sent an urgent report to Truman:

“Arab refugee tragedy is rapidly reaching catastrophic proportions and should be treated as a disaster. …..Of approximately 400,000 refugees approaching winter with cold heavy rains will, it is estimated, kill more than 100,000 old men, women and children who are shelterless and have little or no food.”[106]

The number of refugees continued to grow, reaching at least three-quarters of a million. U.S. Diplomats in Cairo and Amman described a disastrous situation in which the “almost nonexistent resources” of Arab countries inundated by desperate, starving Palestinian refugees were stretched almost to the breaking point.

The State Department reported that during the last nine months of 1948 Arab states had donated $11 million to refugee aid, stating, “This sum, in light of the very slender budgets of most of these governments, is relatively enormous.”[107]

During this time, the report noted, “…the total direct relief offered…by the Israeli government to date consists of 500 cases of oranges.”[108]

Meanwhile, Israel had acquired properties worth at least $480 million in 1947 dollars; one estimate put the figure at $35 billion in 1990 dollars.[109]

Journalist and academic Anders Strindberg reports:

“In the process of 'Judaizing' Palestine, numerous convents, hospices, seminaries, and churches were either destroyed or cleared of their Christian owners and custodians. In one of the most spectacular attacks on a Christian target, on May 17, 1948, the Armenian Orthodox Patriarchate was shelled with about 100 mortar rounds—launched by Zionist forces from the already occupied monastery of the Benedictine Fathers on Mount Zion.

"The bombardment also damaged St. Jacob’s Convent, the Archangel’s Convent, and their appended churches, their two elementary and seminary schools, as well as their libraries, killing eight people and wounding 120.”[110]

Truman, whose caving in to Zionist pressures had helped create the disaster, now tried to convince Israel to allow the refugees to return to their homes. His main representative working on this was Mark Ethridge, former publisher of the Louisville Courier Journal.

Ethridge was disgusted at Israel’s refusal, reporting to the State Department:

“What I can see is an abortion of justice and humanity to which I do not want to be midwife…”[111]

The State Department finally threatened to withhold $49 million of unallocated funds from an Export-Import Bank loan to Israel if it did not allow at least 200,000 refugees to return. The U.S. coordinator on Palestine Refugee Matters George C. McGhee delivered the message to the Israeli ambassador and later described his response:

“The ambassador looked me straight in the eye and said, in essence, that I wouldn’t get by with this move, that he would stop it… Within an hour of my return to my office I received a message from the White House that the President wished to dissociated himself from any withholding of the Ex-Im Bank loan.” [112]

Edwin Wright, a State Department Middle East specialist from 1945-66, was the subject of an oral history interview many years later for the Truman Library. He stated when this was completed:

“The material I gave Professor McKinzie was of a very controversial nature--one almost taboo in U.S. circles, inasmuch as I accused the Zionists of using political pressures and even deceit in order to get the U.S. involved in a policy of supporting a Zionist theocratic, ethnically exclusive and ambitious Jewish State. I, and my associates in the State Department, felt this was contrary to U.S. interests and we were overruled by President Truman.”[113]

Zionist influence in the media

As historian Richard Stevens notes, Zionists early on learned to exploit the essential nature of the American political system: that policies can be made and un-made through force of public opinion and pressure. Procuring influence in the media, both paid and unpaid, has been a key component of their success.[114]

From early on, the Zionist narrative largely dominated news coverage of the region. A study of four leading newspapers’ 1917 coverage showed that editorial opinion almost universally favored the Zionist position. Author Kathleen Christison notes that “editorials and news stories alike applauded Jewish enterprise, heralding a Jewish return to Palestine as ‘glorious news’.” Other studies showed the same situation for the 1920s. Christison writes:

"The relatively heavy press coverage is an indicator of the extent of Zionist influence even in this early period. One scholar has estimated that, as of the mid-1920s, approximately half of all New York Times articles were placed by press agents, suggesting that U.S. Zionist organizations may have placed many of the articles on Zionism’s Palestine endeavors.”[115]

At one point when the State Department was trying to convince Israel to allow Palestinian refugees to return, Secretary of State Marshall wrote:

“The leaders of Israel would make a grave miscalculation if they thought callous treatment of this tragic issue could pass unnoted by world opinion.”[116]

Marshall underestimated the ability of Zionists to minimize the amount of information on this from reaching Americans. A State Department study in March 1949 found the American public was “unaware of the Palestine refugee problem, since it has not been hammered away at by the press or radio.”[117]

As author Alfred Lilienthal explained in 1953:

“The capture of the American press by Jewish nationalism was, in fact, incredibly complete. Magazines as well as newspapers, in news stories as well as editorial columns, gave primarily the Zionist views of events before, during, and after partition.”[118]

When the Saturday Evening Post published an article by Milton Mayer that criticized Jewish nationalism (and carried two other articles giving opposing views), Zionists organized what was probably the worst attack on the Post in its long history.

The magazine was inundated with vitriolic mail, subscriptions cancelled, and advertising withdrawn. The Post learned its lesson, later refusing to publish an article that would have again exposed it to such an onslaught, even though the editor acknowledged that the rejected piece was a “good and eloquent article.”[119]

This was typical in a campaign in which Zionists exploited sympathy for victimized Jews, and when this did not sufficiently skew reporting about Palestine, they used financial pressure. Lilienthal writes:

“If ‘voluntary’ compliance was not ‘understanding’ enough, there was always the matter of Jewish advertising and circulation. The threat of economic recriminations from Jewish advertisers, combined with the fact that the fatal label of ‘Anti-Semite’ would be pinned on any editor stepping out of line, assured fullest press cooperation.”[120]

Author Christison records that from the moment partition was voted by the UN, “the press played a critical role in building a framework for thinking that would endure for decades.” She writes that shortly before May 15, 1948, the scheduled beginning of the Jewish State, a total of 24 U.S., British, and Australian reporters converged on Palestine.

“Virtually all reporting was from the Jewish perspective. The journals the Nation and the New Republic both showed what one scholar calls ‘an overt emotional partiality’ toward the Jews. No item published in either journal was sympathetic to the Arabs, and no correspondent was stationed in Arab areas of Palestine, although some reporters lived with, and sometimes fought alongside, Jewish settlers.”[121]

Bookstores were inundated with books espousing the Zionist point of view to enthusiastic press reviews. Conversely, the few books published that dared to provide a different perspective were given scathing reviews, when they were reviewed at all.[122]

When Professor Millar Burrows of the Yale School of Divinity, a distinguished scholar and archaeologist, wrote Palestine Is Our Business, the American Zionist Council distributed a publication labeling his book “an anti-Semitic opus.”

In fact, Professor Burrows’ life history showed the opposite. He had been one of the organizers and Vice-President of the National Committee to Combat Anti-Semitism and had long been active in the interfaith movement in New Haven.[123]

When the eminent dean of Barnard College, Virginia Gildersleeve, a highly distinguished personage with impeccable credentials as a humanitarian, wrote that Palestinian refugees should be allowed to return to their homes, a campaign was begun against her as a Christian “anti-Semite.”[124]

Gildersleeve, who had been instrumental in drafting the Preamble to the U.N. Charter and had taken a leading role in creating the U.N. Human Rights Commission, later devoted herself to working for human rights in the Middle East. She testified before Congressional committees and lobbied President Truman, to no avail. In her memoir, she attributed such failures to "the Zionist control of the media of communication."[125]

Dorothy Thompson, played by Katharine Hepburn & Lauren Bacall

America’s most famous female journalist of the time also attempted valiantly, but unsuccessfully, to tell Americans about Palestinian refugees.

According to the Britannica encyclopedia, Dorothy Thompson was “one of the most famous journalists of the 20th Century.”[126]

Her column was in newspapers all over the country, her radio program listened to by tens of millions of Americans, she had been married to one of America’s most famous novelists, graced the cover of Time magazine, been profiled by America’s top magazines and was so well-known that “Woman of the Year,” a Hollywood movie featuring Kathryn Hepburn and Spencer Tracey and a Broadway play starring Lauren Bacall, were based on Thompson.[127]

She had been the first journalist to be expelled by Adolph Hitler and had raised the alarm against the Nazis long ahead of most other journalists. She had originally supported Zionism, but then after the war had visited the region in person. She began to speak about Palestinian refugees, narrated a documentary about their plight[128], and condemned Jewish terrorism.

Thompson was viciously attacked in an orchestrated campaign of what she termed “career assassination and character assassination.”

She wrote: “It has been boundless, going into my personal life.” She wrote of this organized attack:“…when letter after letter is couched in almost identical phraseology I do not think the authors have been gifted with telepathy.”[129]

She was dropped by the New York Post, whose editor Ted Thackry, and his wife, Dorothy Schiff, were said by other Post editors to be close to the Irgun and Menachem Begin. Begin, the Irgunists, the Stern Gang and other Zionists organizations had what was termed “inordinate access” to the Post’s editorial board.[130]

(Dorothy Schiff, granddaughter of financier Jacob Schiff and owner of the Post, later divorced Thackry and married Rudolf Sonneborn.[131])

Thompson’s mail was filled with ferocious accusations that she was “anti-Semitic.” One such correspondent told her that her “filthy incitements to pogroms” would not be tolerated by New York’s Jews.[132]

Before long, her column and radio programs, her speaking engagements, and her fame were all gone. Today, she has largely been erased from history.

In the coming decades other Americans were similarly written out of history, forced out of office, lives and careers destroyed; history distorted, re-written, erased; bigotry promoted, supremacy disguised, facts replaced by fraud.

Very few people know this history. The excellent books that document it are largely out of print, their facts and very existence virtually unknown to the vast majority of Americans, even those who focus on the Middle East. Instead, false theories have been promulgated, mendacious analyses promoted, chosen authors celebrated, others assigned to oblivion.

George Orwell once wrote: “'Who controls the past, controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.'.”[133]

Perhaps by rediscovering the past, we’ll gain control of the present, and save the future.

Alison Weir is the president of the Council for the National Interest, a former journalist and the founder of If Americans Knew, a nonprofit organization that focuses on the Israel-Palestine conflict, specializing in statistical analysis. Weir writes and speaks widely about Israel-Palestine, with particular focus on media coverage. Her articles on the subject have been published in anthologies both in the U.S. and abroad and in diverse online and print publications.

End Notes and additional information

Works Cited

Alexander, Michael. Jazz Age Jews. Princeton, NJ: Princeton UP, 2001. Print.

Abu-Sitta, Salman H. Atlas of Palestine, 1917-1966. London: Palestine Land Society, 2010. Print.

"Balfour Declaration Author Was a Secret Jew, Says Prof." JWeekly (Jewish Bulletin of San Francisco) Jan 15 (1999). Print. Accessed athttp://www.jweekly.com/article/full/9929/balfour-declaration-author-was-a-secret-jew-says-prof/

Ball, George W., and Douglas B. Ball. The Passionate Attachment: America's Involvement with Israel, 1947 to the Present. New York: W.W. Norton, 1992. Print.

Barrett, Mary. "In Memoriam: A Respectful Dissenter: CIA's Wilbur Crane Eveland." Washington Report on Middle East Affairs March (1990). Print.

Baumel-Schwartz, Judith Tydor. The "Bergson Boys" and the Origins of Contemporary Zionist Militancy. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse UP, 2005. Print.

Beisner, Robert L. Dean Acheson: a Life in the Cold War. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2006. Print.

Berger, Elmer. Memoirs of an Anti-Zionist Jew. Beirut: Institute for Palestine Studies, 1978. Print.

Brownfeld, Allan. C. "Book Review: Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel." Washington Report on Middle East Affairs March (2000): 105-06. Print.

Burrows, Millar. Palestine Is Our Business. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1949. Print.

Canfield, Joseph M. The Incredible Scofield and His Book. Vallecito, CA: Ross House, 2004. Print.

Christison, Kathleen. Perceptions of Palestine: Their Influence on U.S. Middle East Policy. First Paperback Printing ed. Berkeley, Calif: University of California, 2000. Print.

Cornelius, John. "The Hidden History of the Balfour Declaration." Washington Report on Middle East Affairs Nov. (2005): 44-50. Print.

Online at http://www.wrmea.com/component/content/article/278-2005-november/8356-special-report-the-hidden-history-of-the-balfour-declaration.html

Curtiss, Richard H., and Janet McMahon. Seeing the Light: Personal Encounters with the Middle East and Islam. Washington, D.C.: American Educational Trust, 1997. Print.

Davidson, Lawrence. America's Palestine: Popular and Official Perceptions from Balfour to Israeli Statehood. Gainesville (Fla.): University of Florida, 2001. Print.

Davis, John Herbert. The Evasive Peace: a Study of the Zionist-Arab Problem. First American ed. [N.Y.]: New World, 1970. Print.

"Dorothy Thompson." Encylopaedia Britannica Online. Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2011. Web. <http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/592960/Dorothy-Thompson>.

Esber, Rosemarie M. Under the Cover of War: the Zionist Expulsion of the Palestinians. Alexandria, VA: Arabicus & Media, 2008. Print.

Eveland, Wilbur. Ropes of Sand: America's Failure in the Middle East. London: W.W. Norton, 1980. Print.

Finkelstein, Norman G. Beyond Chutzpah: on the Misuse of Anti-semitism and the Abuse of History. Berkeley: University of California, 2005. Print.

Gildersleeve, Virginia Crocheron. Many a Good Crusade: Memoirs of. New York: Macmillan, 1955. Print.

Ginsberg, Benjamin. The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1993. Print.

Goldberg, Jonathan J. Jewish Power: inside the American Jewish Establishment. Reading, Mass. [u.a.: Addison-Wesley, 1996. Print.

Grady, Henry Francis, and John T. McNay. The Memoirs of Ambassador Henry F. Grady: from the Great War to the Cold War. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri, 2009. Print.

Green, Stephen. Taking Sides, America's Secret Relations with a Militant Israel. Brattleboro: Amana, 1988. Print.

Grose, Peter. Israel in the Mind of America. New York: Knopf, 1984. Print.

Gurock, Jeffrey S. American Zionism Mission and Politics. London: Routledge, 1998. Google Books.

Hadawi, Sami. Bitter Harvest: Palestine between 1914-1979. New-York: Caravan, 1979. Print.

"The Israel Lobby Archive." Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy. Web. <http://irmep.org/ILA/default.asp>.

"The Israel Lobby Archive." Web.

John, Robert, and Sami Hadawi. The Palestine Diary 1914-1945 Britain's Involvement (Vol. I). Reprint of Third Ed. Charleston: BookSurge, 2006. Introduction by Arnold Toynbee. Print.

Kauffman, Bill. Ain't My America: the Long, Noble History of Antiwar Conservatism and Middle American Anti-imperialism. New York: Metropolitan, 2008. Print.

Khalidi, Walid. All That Remains: the Palestinian Villages Occupied and Depopulated by Israel in 1948. Washington, DC: Institute for Palestine Studies, 1992. Print.

Khalidi, Walid. "The Palestine Problem: An Overview." Journal of Palestine Studies 21.1 (1991): 5-16. Print.

Kolsky, Thomas A. Jews against Zionism: the American Council for Judaism, 1942-1948. Philadelphia: Temple UP, 1990. Print.

Kurth, Peter. American Cassandra: the Life of Dorothy Thompson. Boston: Little, Brown, 1990. Print.

Lilienthal, Alfred M. The Zionist Connection: What Price Peace? New York: Dodd, Mead, 1978. Print.

Lilienthal, Alfred M. What Price Israel? 50th Anniversary ed. Haverford, PA: Infinity.com, 2004. Print.

Maisel, Louis Sandy, Ira N. Forman, Donald Altschiller, and Charles Walker Bassett. Jews in American Politics. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2004. Print.

Marton, Kati. A Death in Jerusalem. New York: Arcade, 1996. Print.

McCarthy, Justin. The Population of Palestine: Population History and Statistics of the Late Ottoman Period and the Mandate. New York: Columbia UP, 1990. Print.

McGowan, Daniel A., and Marc H. Ellis. Remembering Deir Yassin: the Future of Israel and Palestine. New York: Olive Branch, 1998. Print.

McKinzie, Richard D. "Oral History Interview with Edwin M. Wright." Truman Library. 26 July 1974. Web. 21 July 2011. <http://www.trumanlibrary.org/oralhist/wright.htm>.

REMOVE McKinzie, Richard D. "Oral History Interview with Edwin M. Wright." Truman Library July 26 (1974). Print.http://www.trumanlibrary.org/oralhist/wright.htm

McKinzie, Richard D. "Truman Library - Edwin M. Wright Oral History Interview." Harry S. Truman Library and Museum. Truman Library, July 26, 1974. Web. July 2011. <http://www.trumanlibrary.org/oralhist/wright.htm>.

Medoff, Rafael. "The Bergson Group vs. The Holocaust – and Jewish Leaders vs. Bergson." The Jewish Press June 6 (2007). Print.

Menuhin, Moshe. The Decadence of Judaism in Our Time. Beirut: Institute for Palestine Studies, 1969. Print.

Merkley, Paul Charles. Christian Attitudes towards the State of Israel. Montreal: McGill-Queen's UP, 2001. Print.

Mulhall, John W., CSP. America and the Founding of Israel: an Investigation of the Morality of America's Role. Los Angeles: Deshon, 1995. Print.

Naeim, Gilad. "The Jews of Iraq." The Link April-May (1998). Print.

Neff, Donald. Fallen Pillars: U.S. Policy towards Palestine and Israel since 1945. Reprint ed. Washington D.C.: Institute for Palestine Studies, 2002. Print.

Neff, Donald. Fifty Years of Israel. Washington, D.C.: American Educational Trust, 2000. Print.

Nur, Masalha. Expulsion of the Palestinians: the Concept of "transfer" in Zionist Political Thought, 1882-1948. Fourth ed. Washington, DC: Inst. for Palestine Studies, 2001. Print.

Pappé, Ilan. The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine. Oxford: Oneworld, 2007. Print.

Qumsiyeh, Mazin B. Sharing the Land of Canaan: Human Rights and the Israeli-Palestinian Struggle. London: Pluto, 2004. Print.

"The Press: Free Speech for the Boss." Time Nov. 17 (1958). Print. online at http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,810661,00.html

Rubinstein, William D. The Myth of Rescue: Why the Democracies Could Not Have Saved More Jews from the Nazis. London: Routledge, 1997. Print.

Rubinstein, William D. "The Secret of Leopold Amery." History Today 49.Feb (1999). Print.

Said, Edward W., and Christopher Hitchens. Blaming the Victims: Spurious Scholarship and the Palestinian Question. London: Verso, 1988. Print.

Sanders, Marion K. Dorothy Thompson: a Legend in Her Time. New York: Avon, 1974. Print.

"Sands of Sorrow (1950) Palestinian Arab Refugee Camps Video - YouTube." YouTube. 1950. Web. 09 July 2011. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQ6lIsl-pHU>.

Sarna, Jonathan D., Ellen Smith, and Scott-Martin Kosofsky. The Jews of Boston. New Haven, CT: Yale UP, Combined Jewish Philanthropies of Greater Boston, 2005. Print.

Schmidt, Sarah. "The Parushim: A Secret Episode in American Zionist History." American Jewish Historical Quarterly 65.Dec (1975): 121-39. Print. Online athttp://www.councilforthenationalinterest.org/news/israellobby/item/1217-the-parushim-a-secret-episode-in-american-zionist-history

Shahak, Israël, and Norton Mezvinsky. Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel. London: Pluto, 1999. Print.

Shahak, Israel. Jewish History, Jewish Religion: the Weight of Three Thousand Years. London [etc].: Pluto, 1997. Print.

Sheean, Vincent. Dorothy and Red. Greenwich, CT: Fawcett Publications, 1964. Print.

Sheean, Vincent. Personal History. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, Doran & Comapany, 1935. Print.

Slater, Leonard. The Pledge. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1970. Print.

Smith, Grant F. Declassified Deceptions: the Secret History of Isaiah L. Kenen and the Rise of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Washington, D.C.: Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy, 2007. Print.

Snetsinger, John. Truman, the Jewish Vote, and the Creation of Israël. Stanford Calif.: Stanford Univ., 1974. Print.

Stevens, Richard P. American Zionism and U.S. Foreign Policy, 1942-1947. Reprinted by the Institute for Palestine Studies, 1970. New York: Pageant, 1962. Print.

Strindberg, Anders. "Forgotten Christians." American Conservative May 24 (2004). Print.

Supplement to Survey of Palestine Notes Compiled for the Information of the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine. Washington, D.C.: Inst. of Palestine Studies, 1991. Print.

A Survey of Palestine. Prepared in December 1945 and January 1946 for the Information of the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry, by the British Mandatory Commission, 1946. Washington, D.C.: Institute for Palestine Studies, 1991. Two volumes. Print.

"Time Line for Rabbi Avraham Yitzchak Kook (1865-1935)." Rabbi Kook on Weekly Torah Portion (Parsha), Jewish Holidays and Psalms (Tehillim). Web. July 2011. <http://www.ravkooktorah.org/timeline.htm>.

Tivnan, Edward. The Lobby: Jewish Political Power and American Foreign Policy. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1987. Print.

"Truman Library - Edwin M. Wright Oral History Interview." Harry S. Truman Library and Museum. Web. 09 Dec. 2011. <http://www.trumanlibrary.org/oralhist/wright.htm>.

"Truman Library - Edwin M. Wright Oral History Interview." Harry S. Truman Library and Museum. Web. July 2011.

REMOVE "Truman Library - Edwin M. Wright Oral History Interview." Harry S. Truman Library and Museum. Web. July 2011. <http://www.trumanlibrary.org/oralhist/wright.htm>.

Uni, Assaf. "Hans Herzl's Wish Comes True - 76 Years Later." Ha'aretz [Israel] 19 Sept. 2006. Print. http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/hans-herzl-s-wish-comes-true-76-years-later-1.197621

United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. “Peter Bergson.” Holocaust Encyclopedia. Http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007041. Accessed July, 2011

Urofsky, Melvin Irving. We Are One: American Jewry and Israel. Garden City, N.Y: Anchor/Doubleday, 1978. Print.

Web. <http://www.trumanlibrary.org/oralhist/wright.htm>.

Wilson, Evan M. Decision on Palestine: How the U.S. Came to Recognize Israel. Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution, Stanford University, 1979. Print.

Wilson, Evan M. Jerusalem, Key to Peace. Washington: Middle East Institute, 1970. Print.

Wright, Edwin M. The Great Zionist Cover-up: a Study and Interpretation. Cleveland, OH: Northeast Ohio Committee on Middle East Understanding, 1975. Print.

[1] In Israel it is typically called “the Jewish lobby,” perhaps reflective of the fact that today virtually all the mainstream Jewish organizations in the U.S., both religious and secular – the ADL, Jewish Federations, Jewish Community Relations Councils, the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, Jewish Studies departments, etc – advocate for Israel. Benjamin Ginsberg, in the anthology Jews in American Politics, notes that the “greatest triumph of American Jewish organizations during the postwar period” was to secure recognition of the state of Israel over the objections of the U.S. State and Defense Departments and then to successfully urge the U.S. government to provide Israel with billions of dollars over the subsequent decades.

However, such unanimity was only created after years of strenuous and sometimes secretive efforts to overcome the objections of anti-Zionist Jewish individuals and organizations, and even now, JJ Goldberg’s contention, made in his informative book Jewish Power, may hold considerable truth: “…the broader population of Americans Jews… are almost entirely unaware of the work being done in their name.”

Goldberg, Jonathan J. Jewish Power: inside the American Jewish Establishment. Reading, Mass. [u.a.: Addison-Wesley, 1996. 7.

http://israelipalestinian.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID

=636&print=true

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/34000.html [accessed July 21, 2011]

is online at: http://fliiby.com/file/239266/f8rd51benn.html

“Herzl devoted all his time to this movement, eventually dying at the age of 44 leaving his family penniless. An article in the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz reports that his daughter Pauline suffered from emotional problems from youth and eventually died of morphine addiction. His son Hans converted to Christianity in 1924, at which time he was abandoned by the Jewish community and denounced publicly. He committed suicide following his sister’s death. A book about Herzl’s children was written in the 1940s but was suppressed by the World Zionist Organization, which decided to bury Pauline and Hans in Bordeaux, despite their wish to be buried beside their father in Austria, “probably to avoid tarnishing Herzl's image.”

– Uni, Assaf. "Hans Herzl's Wish Comes True - 76 Years Later." Ha'aretz [Israel] 19 Sept. 2006. Print.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/hans-herzl-s-wish-comes-true-76-years-later-1.197621

[4] Christison, Kathleen. Perceptions of Palestine: Their Influence on U.S. Middle East Policy. First Paperback Printing ed. Berkeley, Calif: University of California, 2000. Print.

Davis, John Herbert. The Evasive Peace: a Study of the Zionist-Arab Problem. First American ed. [N.Y.]: New World, 1970. Print. 1.

It was first just called the Zionist Organization; its name officially changed to the WZO in 1960. Most people use the two names interchangeably.

According to the WZO website, today the organization “consists of the following bodies:

The World Zionist Unions, international Zionist federations; and international organizations that define themselves as Zionist, such as WIZO, Hadassah, Bnai-Brith, Maccabi, the International Sephardic Federation, the three streams of world Judaism (Orthodox, Conservative, Reform), delegation from the CIS – Commonwealth of Independent States (former Soviet Union), the World Union of Jewish Students (WUJS), and more.”

http://www.en.wzo.org.il/home/P102.jsp?arc=109068

[5] Mulhall, John W., CSP. America and the Founding of Israel: an Investigation of the Morality of America's Role. Los Angeles: Deshon, 1995. Print. 47, 51-52.

[6] Khalidi, Walid. "The Palestine Problem: An Overview." Journal of Palestine Studies 21.1 (1991): 5-16. Print. Online at http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCYQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.palestine-studies.org%2Fenakba%2Fhistory%2FKhalidi%2C%2520Walid_The%2520Palestine%2520Problem.pdf&ei=NungTvyWJIOdiAL2v9D_Dg&usg=AFQjCNGyYU86-Jf9T5qsvLiPl43bNIlHWQ

The best resources on the pre-Israel population are:

Abu-Sitta, Salman H. Atlas of Palestine, 1917-1966. London: Palestine Land Society, 2010. Print.

McCarthy, Justin. The Population of Palestine: Population History and Statistics of the Late Ottoman Period and the Mandate. New York: Columbia UP, 1990. Print.

Khalidi, Walid. All That Remains: the Palestinian Villages Occupied and Depopulated by Israel in 1948. Washington, DC: Institute for Palestine Studies, 1992. Print.

A Survey of Palestine. Prepared in December 1945 and January 1946 for the Information of the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry, by the British Mandatory Commission, 1946. Washington, D.C.: Institute for Palestine Studies, 1991. Two volumes. Print.

Supplement to Survey of Palestine Notes Compiled for the Information of the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine. Washington, D.C.: Inst. of Palestine Studies, 1991. Print.

[7] Nur, Masalha. Expulsion of the Palestinians: the Concept of "transfer" in Zionist Political Thought, 1882-1948. Fourth ed. Washington, DC: Inst. for Palestine Studies, 2001. Print.

An example of the fanaticism to be found within some segments of the movement is represented by a statement by Dr. Israel Eldad:

“Israel is the Jews land… It was never the Arabs land, even when virtually all of its inhabitants were Arab. Israel belongs to four million Russian Jews despite the fact that they were not born here. It is the land of nine million other Jews throughout the world, even if they have no present plans to live in it.” – Wright, p.1, citing The Times of Israel, August 19, 1969.

Eldad was a strategist for a pre-state underground militia who later became a lecturer at several Israeli universities, authored a number of books, and in 1988, Eldad was awarded Israel’s Bialik Prize for his contributions to Israeli thought.

Another example is described by Israeli Uri Avneri, who quotes a song that was being sung while he was growing up in Palestine (cited by Wright, 9):

“We have returned, Young and Powerful

We have returned, We the Mighty

To conquer our Homeland, In a storm of War,

To redeem our land, with a lofty hand,

With blood and fire, Judea fell

With blood and fire, Judea shall rise.”

[8] An earlier project with both a domestic and international focus,“The Board of Delegates of American Israelites,” was organized in 1861, which coalesced to block an effort by the Union during the Civil War to prepare a constitutional amendment declaring America a Christian nation.[8]

In 1870 the group organized protest rallies around the country and lobbied Congress to take action against reported Romanian pogroms that had killed “thousands” of Jews. The chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee suggested that such reports might be exaggerated, but under pressure from “Israelite” board, the Senate ordered the committee to take up the matter with the State Department. Eventually, it turned out the total killed had been zero.[8]

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/lazarus.html

[10] Sarna, Jonathan D., Ellen Smith, and Scott-Martin Kosovsky. The Jews of Boston. New Haven, London : Yale University Press, Combined Jewish Philanthropies of Greater Boston, 2005. 252.

Online at

Encyclopaedia Britannica; online at http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1355322/Israel-flag-of

[11] Kolsky, Thomas A. Jews against Zionism: the American Council for Judaism, 1942-1948. Philadelphia: Temple UP, 1990. Print. 24.

[12] Kolsky, 24.

[13] In a 1918 reorganization the FAZ renamed itself the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA). Kolsky, 26.

[14] Dalin, David G. “At the Summit: Presidents, Presidential Appointments, and Jews.” Jews in American Politics. Editors: Maisel Louis Sandy, Ira N. Forman, Donald Altschiller, and Charles Walker Bassett. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2004. Print. 32-34.

(The appointee was Oscar Straus, whose brothers owned Macy’s Department Store and whom TR later named to his cabinet. Dalin reports a humorous incident that occurred at a dinner years later for Straus and Roosevelt:

“In his remarks, Roosevelt had stated that Straus had been appointed on the basis of merit and ability alone; the fact that he was Jewish had played no part in Roosevelt’s decision to appoint him. A few minutes later, in introducing Straus, [another speaker, the Jewish financier and philothropist Jacob] Schiff, who was a bit deaf and had evidently not heard Roosevelt’s remarks, recounted how Roosevelt had sought his advice as to who would be the most suitable and eminent Jewish leader to appoint to his cabinet.”

[15] Neff, Donald. Fallen Pillars: U.S. Policy towards Palestine and Israel since 1945. Reprint Edition. Washington D.C.: Institute for Palestine Studies, 2002. 8.

Neff, the author of five books on Israel, was Jerusalem Bureau Chief and then a Senior Editor for Time magazine.

[16] Kolsky, 25.

[17] Stevens, Richard P. American Zionism and U.S. Foreign Policy, 1942-1947. Reprinted by the Institute for Palestine Studies, 1970. New York: Pageant, 1962. Print. 20

[18] Neff, p. 17. Tivnan, p. 30

[19] Stevens, Richard P., American Zionism and U.S. Foreign Policy 1942-1947. New York: Pageant Press. Inc. Reprinted by the Institute for Palestine Studies, 1970, p. 20.

[20] Neff, 9.

[21] Neff, 10.

[22] Neff, 10. Christison, 28. John, Robert, and Sami Hadawi. The Palestine Diary 1914-1945 Britain's Involvement (Vol. I). Reprint of Third Ed. Charleston: BookSurge, 2006. Introduction by Arnold Toynbee. Print. 59.

[23] Grose, Peter. Israel in the Mind of America. New York: Knopf, 1984. Print. 53.

The Menorah Society was also a secretive Zionist organization. An essay from the time states that the Menorah Society “camouflaged its Zionism by organizing itself as a purely nonpartisan body so as to obtain a larger membership.” The writer reports that “practically all the leaders and active workers in the Menorah organization are Zionists… the thing of which the Menorah boasts now…is its little list of prize conversions to Zionism. – Kosofsky, 256.

[24] Schmidt, Sarah. "The Parushim: A Secret Episode in American Zionist History." American Jewish Historical Quarterly 65.Dec (1975): 121-39. Print.121. Online at

http://www.councilforthenationalinterest.org/news/israellobby/item/1217-the-parushim-a-secret-episode-in-american-zionist-history

Schmidt writes: "The image that emerges of the Parushim is that of a secret underground guerilla force determined to influence the course of events in a quiet, anonymous way."

Schmidt gives the entire oath and response of the Parushim initiation:

A member swearing allegiance to the Parushim felt something of the spirit of commitment to a secret military fellowship. At the initiation ceremony the head of the Order informed him:

You are about to take a step which will bind you to a single cause for all your life. You will for one year be subject to an absolute duty whose call you will be impelled to heed at any time, in any place, and at any cost. And ever after, until our purpose shall be accomplished, you will be fellow of a brotherhood whose bond you will regard as greater than any other in your life-dearer than that of family, of school, of nation. By entering this brotherhood, you become a self-dedicated soldier in the army of Zion. Your obligation to Zion becomes your paramount obligation... It is the wish of your heart and of your own free will to join our fellowship, to share its duties, its tasks, and its necessary sacrifices.

The initiate responded by swearing:

Before this council, in the name of all that I hold dear and holy, I hereby vow myself, my life, my fortune, and my honor to the restoration of the Jewish nation, -to its restoration as a free and autonomous state, by its laws perfect in justice, by its life enriching and preserving the historic speech, the culture, and the ideals of the Jewish people.

To this end I dedicate myself in behalf of the Jews, my people, and in behalf of all mankind.

To this end I enroll myself in the fellowship of the Parushim. I pledge myself utterly to guard and to obey and to keep secret the laws and the labor of the fellowship, its existence and its aims. Amen.

Schmidt reports that Henrietta Szold, founder of Hadassah, the Women's Zionist Organization, was an early member of the Parushim.

She writes: “Brandeis … began to assign the Parushim to carry out special "missions" for him. In particular the Parushim were to serve as a school for leaders, and under Kallen's direction its members initially became the leading activists of the reorganized American Zionist movement.”

[25] Grose, p. 54.

American professor Horace Kallen was a major mover and the original founder of the Parushim.

In his book American Zionism: Mission and Politics, Jeffrey Gurock writes (p. 135): “Brandeis conducted a vigorous search of his own for ‘college men,’ particularly young graduates of Harvard Law School, whom he co-opted to leadership or special assignments for the regular and emergency Zionist organizations he controlled. Among those recruited were men like Felix Frankfurter, Judge Julian Mack, Walter Lippmann [who seems to have largely turned them down], Bernard Flexner [one of the founders on the Council on Foreign Relations], Benjamin Cohen [high official under both FDR and Truman], and others who achieved national and international eminence.”

Read online at: http://is.gd/gghCG9

[26] Neff, Pillars, p. 12.

Brandeis also “played a decisive role in planning Wilson’s economic program, and particularly in formulating the Federal Reserve.”

-- Ginsberg, Benjamin. The Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1993. Print. 93

[27] Neff 12; John & Hadawi, p. 59-60.

Felix Frankfurter’s work on behalf of Zionism spanned many years. FDR was to appoint him to the Supreme Court in 1939, and even before this time he used his “access to the president to bring Zionist issues to his attention and urge his intercession on behalf of the Zionist cause. – Christison, 47

“At Brandeis’s behest, Frankfurter also became involved with American Zionism. In 1917 Frankfurter accompanied Ambassador Henry Morgenthau to Turkey and Egypt to see what could be done for the settlements in Palestine during the World War. Frankfurter also attended the peace conference in Paris as a representative of the American Zionist movement and as a liaison for Brandeis.” - Alexander, Michael. Jazz Age Jews. 91

Financier Jacob Schiff had created a position for Frankfurter at Harvard early in his career.

[28] Kolsky, 25, 32.

[29] Mulhall, 50.

http://www.politicalforum.com/ethnic-religious-conflicts/164679-sultan-abdul-hamid-zionist-colonization-palestine.html

[30] Mulhall p. 66. This was a sadly deft prognosis, writing of Jerusalem in the early 1960s, the American Consul General in Jerusalem found: “I think I can safely make the general comment that in present-day Israel… the Arabs are very much of ‘hewers of wood and drawers of water’” for the dominant Israelis – Wilson, Evan M. Jerusalem, Key to Peace. Washington: Middle East Institute, 1970. 33.

[31] John, p 68-70: “The British government was advised that ‘previous overtures to American Jewry to support the Allies had received no attention was because the approach had been to the wrong people. It was to the Zionist Jews that the British and French governments should address their parleys.’ Sir Mark Sykes was particularly weighed down by the secret Sykes-Picot Agreement, which had promised that the British would support Arab independence, insisting that it was impossible to offer Palestine to the Jews. He was told that Brandeis had just become a Supreme Court Justice, and that he had President Wilson’s ear. This began the negotiations with the Zionists.

Zionists had retained Lloyd George’s law firm in approximately 1903. For a detailed discussion of the Lusitania incident and other aspects of the U.S. entry into WWI see Cornelius, John. "The Hidden History of the Balfour Declaration." Washington Report on Middle East Affairs Nov. (2005): 44-50. Print.

Online at http://www.wrmea.com/component/content/article/278-2005-november/8356-special-report-the-hidden-history-of-the-balfour-declaration.html

[32]

[33] "Balfour Declaration Author Was a Secret Jew, Says Prof." JWeekly (Jewish Bulletin of San Francisco) Jan 15 (1999). Print.

Accessed at http://www.jweekly.com/article/full/9929/balfour-declaration-author-was-a-secret-jew-says-prof/

Rubinstein, William D. "The Secret of Leopold Amery." History Today 49. Feb (1999). Print.

Online at http://www.councilforthenationalinterest.org/news/israellobby/item/1205-balfour-declaration-author-was-a-secret-jew-says-prof

Amery, who had kept his Jewish roots secret, worked for Zionism in a number of ways. A pro-Israel writer reports: “As assistant military secretary to the Secretary of State for War, Amery played a pivotal role in the establishment of the Jewish Legion, consisting of three battalions of Jewish soldiers who served, under Britain’s aegis, in Palestine during the First World War and were the forerunners of the IDF. ‘I seem to have had my finger in the pie, not only of the Balfour Declaration, but of the genesis of the present Israeli Army’, he notes proudly.

“As Dominions Secretary (1925-29) he had responsibility for the Palestine Mandate, robustly supporting the growth and development of the Yishuv – Weizman recalled Amery’s “unstinting encouragement and support” and that Amery “realized the importance of a Jewish Palestine in the British imperial scheme of things more than anyone else. He also had much insight into the intrinsic fineness of the Zionist movement”. In 1937, shortly after testifying before the Peel Commission on the future of Palestine, Amery helped to organise a dinner in tribute to the wartime Jewish Legion at which his friend Jabotinsky was guest of honour. Amery became an increasingly vociferous critic of the British government’s dilution of its commitments to the Jews of Palestine in order to appease the Arabs, and fulminated in the Commons against the notorious White Paper of 1939, which set at 75,000 the maximum number of Jews to be admitted to Palestine over the ensuing five years. ‘I have rarely risen with a greater sense of indignation and shame or made a speech which I am more content to look back upon’, he remembered. And he became an arch-critic of Chamberlain and Appeasement.”

[34] World Jewry, March 1, 1935, cited by John, p. 72.

[35] Davidson, Lawrence, America’s Palestine: Popular and Official Perceptions from Balfour to Israeli Statehood. Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2001. 11-12.

[36] Wilson, Evan M. Decision on Palestine: How the U.S. Came to Recognize Israel. Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution, Stanford University, 1979. Print. p. xv.

Moshe Menuhin, scion of a distinguished Jewish family that moved to Palestine during the early days of Zionism (and father of the renowned musicians), also writes about this aspect. In addition, he states that the oft-repeated claim that the British rewarded Weizman for his “discovery of TNT” was false, quoting Weizmann’s autobiography Trial and Error, p. 271:

“For some unfathomable reason they always billed me as the inventor of TNT. It was in vain that I systematically and repeatedly denied any connection with, or interest in, TNT. No discouragement could put them off.” – Menuhin, Moshe. The Decadence of Judaism in Our Time. Beirut: Institute for Palestine Studies, 1969. Print. 73-74.

[37] Deaths and injuries were 364,800:

http://www.taphilo.com/history/war-deaths.shtml [accessed July 21, 2011]

[38] Wilson’s Alien and Sedition acts resulted in the jailing 1,200 American citizens:

“Walter C. Matthey of Iowa was sentenced to a year in jail for applauding an anticonscription speech. Walter Heynacher of South Dakota was sentenced to five years in Leavenworth for telling a younger man that ‘it was foolishness to send our boys over there to get killed by the thousands, all for the sake of Wall Street.’…Abraham Sugarman of Sibley County, Minnesota, was sentenced to three years in Leavenworth for arguing that the draft was unconstitutional and remarking, ‘This is supposed to be a free country. Like Hell it is.’” – Kauffman, Bill. Ain't My America: the Long, Noble History of Antiwar Conservatism and Middle American Anti-imperialism. New York: Metropolitan, 2008. Print. 74.

One of the songs that helped recruit Americans to fight in the war, “Over There,” was written by George M. Cohan, who received the Congressional Medal of Honor for it in 1940, when America was about to join another world war:

http://www.firstworldwar.com/bio/cohan.htm

[39] Kolsky 12.

[40] While this subterfuge was used in the beginning years, the goal was to create a state, as Felix Frankfurter wrote: “ ‘I need not tell you that the phrase, ‘that Palestine be established as a Jewish Home’ was a phrase of purposeful ambiguity.” [John, p. 118]. In the Zionists’ Memorandum to the Peace Conference they stated that Palestine “shall be placed under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will ensure the establishment therein of the Jewish national home and ultimately render possible the creation of an autonomous Jewish commonwealth. [John, p. 125]

[41] John, p. 115

[42] Merkley, Paul Charles. Christian Attitudes towards the State of Israel. Montreal: McGill-Queen's UP, 2001. Print. 6.

Harry Emerson Fosdick - http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/131christians/pastorsandpreachers/fosdick.html

Henry Sloane Coffin

http://www.pres-outlook.com/reports-a-resources/presbyterian-heritage-articles/1683-pastor-educator-ecumenist-henry-sloan-coffin-1877-1954.html

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,722722-1,00.html

http://archive.jta.org/article/1949/01/26/3017334/protestant-church-leader-warns-against-political-zionism-says-judaism-is-a-religion

[43] Mulhall, 76-77; John, 129; Davidson, 20.

Mulhall, p 77. Online at http://www.al-bushra.org/America/ch5.html

Mulhall p. 77 Online at http://www.al-bushra.org/America/ch5.html

[46] Hadawi, Sami. Bitter Harvest: Palestine between 1914-1979. New-York: Caravan, 1979. Print. 17-18.

[47] Mulhall, p. 79.

[48] Mulhall, 78.

[49] Grose, 88.

Mulhall, 79 Online at http://www.al-bushra.org/America/ch5.html

[51] Melvin Urofsky, cited in Mulhall, 80

[52] Mulhall, p. 80.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/palmanda.asp

[54] Herzl

[55] From its earliest days Zionism espoused what Zionists call the "ingathering of the exiles" -- all Jews worldwide were to come to Israel to live. See articles on this topic on the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs and elsewhere.

[56] He was admitted to the Foreign Service in 1907 with the highest grades of those entering that year. One commentator called him “one of the greatest diplomatists the USA has had in two generations.” Wikipedia, accessed Feb. 16, 2012: Letter to Michael Francis Gibson, February 14, 1955, copy on file at the Hoover Institution.

[57] Neff, p. 20. Grose, 94-95.

[58] Pillars, p. 20, Grose, 94-95.

[59] Pillars, 20

[60] The article “Denying Nazi-Zionist collusion: The Sacramento Bee, Darrell Steinberg, and Islamophobia” refers to the various books that described this:http://ifamericansknew.org/media/sacbee.html

This was well known in the State Department. For example, State Dept. Near East expert Harry N. Howard states: “…there was discussion of liberalizing American immigration laws in this period. The Zionists opposed that liberalization on the ground that this would not be a solution as far as they were concerned. They wanted a political, not necessarily a humanitarian, solution --that is, they wanted a state.” - Oral History Interview with Harry N. Howard, Truman Library, Washington, D.C., June 5, 1973:

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/oralhist/howardhn.htm [accessed July 2011]

[61] Mulhall, 109.

[62] Lilienthal, Alfred M. What Price Israel? 50th Anniversary ed. Haverford, PA: Infinity.com, 2004. Print. 27. Citing So Far So Good, by Morris L. Ernst (New York: Harper, 1948), pp. 170-177.

[63] Mulhall, P. 109.

[64] Hadawi, 38: Citation: The Spectator (London) Magazine, 22 July 1960.

[65] Naeim, Gilad. "The Jews of Iraq." The Link April-May (1998). Print. http://www.ifamericansknew.org/history/ref-giladi.html

[66] Berger, Elmer. Memoirs of an Anti-Zionist Jew. Beirut: Institute for Palestine Studies, 1978. 9. Christison, 73.

[67] Neff, 23.

[68] Tivnan, Edward. The Lobby: Jewish Political Power and American Foreign Policy. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1987. Print. 24.

[69] Tivnan, 24

[70] Neff, 23.

[71] Berger, 11.

[72] Stevens, 101.

[73] Berger, 16-17.

[74] Wright, 25.

[75] Lilienthal, 63.

[76] Stevens, 24.

[77] Stevens, 22.

[78] Lilienthal

[79] Urofsky, Melvin Irving. We Are One: American Jewry and Israel. Garden City, N.Y: Anchor/Doubleday, 1978. Print. 37.

[80] Neff, 23-24.

[81] Grose, 173.

[82] Neff, 23.

[83] Stevens, 28.

[84] Researchers may wish to explore an interesting though speculative discussion about what may be an earlier effort by Zionists to influence Christians. Many years before AZEC targeted Christians, an annotated version of the bible known as the Scofield Reference Bible had been published, which pushed what was a previously somewhat fringe “dispensationalist” theology calling for the Jewish “return” to Palestine.

Some analysts have raised questions about Scofield and how and why the Oxford University Press published his book. Scofield, who had been something of a shyster and criminal and had abandoned his first wife and children, mysteriously became a member of an exclusive New York men’s club in 1901. Biographer Joseph Canfield (The Incredible Scofield and His book) comments:

“The admission of Scofield to the Lotus Club, which could not have been sought by Scofield, strengthens the suspicion that has cropped up before, that someone was directing the career of C. I. Scofield.”

Canfield suggests that Wall Street lawyer Samuel Untermeyer, who was also a member of the Lotus Club, may have played a role in Scofield’s project, writing that “Scofield’s theology was most helpful in getting Fundamentalist Christians to back the international interest in one of Untermeyer’s pet projects – the Zionist Movement.”

Prof. David W. Lutz, in “Unjust War Theory: Christian Zionism and the Road to Jerusalem,” writes: “Untermeyer used Scofield, a Kansas city lawyer with no formal training in theology, to inject Zionist ideas into American Protestantism. Untermeyer and other wealthy and influential Zionists whom he introduced to Scofield promoted and funded the latter’s career, including travel in Europe.”

Irish journalist Maidhc O Cathail ("Zionism's Un-Christian Bible") suggests

“Absent such powerful connections, it is hard to imagine ‘this peer among scalawags’ ever getting a contract with Oxford University Press to publish his bible.”

[85] Baumel-Schwartz, Judith Tydor. The "Bergson Boys" and the Origins of Contemporary Zionist Militancy. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse UP, 2005. Print. 1. The speaker is Alexander Rafaeli.

Online at http://books.google.com/books?id=_8gNHXHBh-8C&pg=PA1&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=3#v=onepage&q&f=false [accessed July 2011]

[86] Baumel, 1.

[87] The group was close to Jabotinsky and included his nephew

Baumel, p.8.

Medoff, Rafael. "The Bergson Group vs. The Holocaust – and Jewish Leaders vs. Bergson." The Jewish Press June 6 (2007).

http://www.jewishpress.com/pageroute.do/21747 [accessed July 2011].

Among the groups they formed were “American League for a Free Palestine,” “Hebrew Committee for National Liberation,” and “the Emergency Committee for the Rescue of European Jewry", often with a dual message: demanding the rescue of European Jews and the opening up of Palestine to Jewish immigration. Most Zionist and anti-Zionist organizations opposed the Bergson group, but it managed to enlist a number of prominent Americans, from Ben Hecht to Eleanor Roosevelt.

http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-3819418/The-Bergson-Group-America-and.html [accessed July 23, 2011]

The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum states:

“Bergson's primary assignment in the United States was to mobilize support for the IZL and for the creation of Jewish military units, and, later to gather support for the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine. Bergson set out to accomplish these tasks by creating a series of interlocking organizations, including the Committee for a Jewish Army of Stateless and Palestinian Jews, the American League for a Free Palestine, the Emergency Committee to Save the Jewish People of Europe, and the Hebrew Committee for National Liberation. Supporters of these organizations included Harry Truman, Dorothy Parker, Herbert Hoover, Will Rogers, Jr., Labor leader William Green, U.S. Solicitor General Fowler Harper, and U.S. Interior Secretary Harold Ickes.”

-- United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. “Peter Bergson.” Holocaust Encyclopedia. Http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007041. Accessed July, 2011:

[88] Rubinstein, William D. The Myth of Rescue: Why the Democracies Could Not Have Saved More Jews from the Nazis. London: Routledge, 1997. Print. 97.

[89] Rubinstein, Myth, 98.

[90] Baumel, p. 261. See also Rubinstein, Myth, 98.

. Web. July 2011. <http://www.ravkooktorah.org/timeline.htm>.

Shahak, Israël, and Norton Mezvinsky. Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel. London: Pluto, 1999. Print. ix, xiii, 55-69.

Professors Shahak and Mezvinski emphasize the writings in English intentionally obscure many facts. “The role of Satan, whose earthly embodiment according to the Cabbala is every non-Jew, has been minimized or not mentioned by authors who have not written about the Cabbala in Hebrew.” (p. 58)

“According to the Lurianic Cabbala, the world was created solely for the sake of Jews; the existence of non-Jews was subsidiary.”

Dr. Israel Shahak, was a holocaust survivor and, until his death in 2001, a highly regarded Israeli professor of biochemistry; Dr. Norton Mezvinsky was a professor of history (now retired) who in 2002 was named by the Connecticut State University Board of Trustees an official "Connecticut State University Professor...a signal honor, reserved for faculty members who fulfill the highest ideals of outstanding teaching, scholarly achievement and public service."

Another book on this subject matter is Shahak, Israel. Jewish History, Jewish Religion: the Weight of Three Thousand Years. London [etc]: Pluto, 1997. Print., which can be read at:

http://ifamericansknew.org/cur_sit/shahak.html

[92] Shahak & Mezvinsky, ix.

Brownfeld, Allan. C. "Book Review: Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel." Washington Report on Middle East Affairs March (2000): 105-06. Print.

[93] Baumel, 258-259.

[94] Stevens, 192.

[95] Smith, Grant F. Declassified Deceptions: the Secret History of Isaiah L. Kenen and the Rise of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Washington, D.C.: Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy, 2007. Print. 34.

"The Israel Lobby Archive." Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy: http://irmep.org/ILA/default.asp

Ball, p. 24: “This weapons smuggling and other Zionist preparations for war were well-known to British and American analysts, who knew from the beginning that the Arabs would be certain losers in a war with Zionists, whose well-trained and armed combatants would outnumber the Arabs’ similar combatants by at least four to one. Analysts were also aware that the Zionists planned to expand beyond the partition allotment.”

[96] Slater, Leonard, The Pledge, New York: Simon and Schuster, 1970. P. 21-23.

[97] Slater, p. 94-123.

[98] Slater, p. 124.

Smith, Grant. Chapter 4.

[99] Smith, Grant, p. 63.

Also see the exhibit “Ties that Bind: Washington Area Jews and the Birth of the State of Israel,” the Jewish Historical Society of Greater Washington.An active supporter of the United Jewish Appeal in the 1940s describes raising money for weapons: “Any contributions that were made had to be made in cash…It was a sort of a hush-hush operation because it was not entirely legal.”

http://www.jhsgw.org/israel60/slideshow/secret-meetings.php

Its “Securing the Dream” exhibit states: “Local members of the clandestine Sonneborn Institute held secret meetings to raise money for a Jewish state and its underground army, the Haganah.”

http://www.jhsgw.org/exhibitions/online/jewishwashington/exhibition/securing-the-dream

The local Zionist youth group, Habonim, helped load weapons onto ships.

http://www.jhsgw.org/israel60/slideshow/habonim-march.php

Habonim camps are still active today, with seven summer camps across Canada and the US, an Israel summer program, and a year-long program based in Israel. Seehttps://www.habonimdror.org

[100] Smith, 37.

[101] Lilienthal, What Price Israel, 148-150.

[102] Grose, 207-210

[103] Grose,177

[104] Grose, 178-182.

[105] For details, see The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, by Israeli historian Ilan Pappe and Under the Cover of War: The Zionist Expulsion of the Palestinians, by Rosemarie M. Esber.

[106] Neff, Pillars, p. 68.

[107] Neff, Pillars, p. 69. Transjordan’s entire government budget at the time was only $5 million.

[108] Neff, Pillars, p. 69.

[109] Neff, Pillars, p. 72.

[110] Strindberg, Anders. "Forgotten Christians." American Conservative May 24 (2004). Print. Online at:

http://www.amconmag.com/article/2004/may/24/00013/

[111] Neff, Pillars, p. 75.

[112] Neff, Pillars, pp. 76-77. Citation: George McGhee, Envoy to the Middle World: Adventures in Diplomacy (New York: Harper & Row), 1983) p. 37.

[113] Oral History Interview by Richard D. McKinzie for the Harry S. Truman Library and Museum with Edwin M. Wright. General staff G-2 Middle East specialist, Washington, 1945-46; Bureau Near East-South Asian-African Affairs Department of State, since 1946, country specialist 1946-47, advisor U.N. affairs, 1947-50, advisor on intelligence 1950-55. The interview was conducted in Wooster, Ohio on July 26, 1974. On April 3, 1977 Wright added a letter and footnotes to the interview.

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/oralhist/wright.htm [Accessed July 21, 2011]

Wright, Edwin M. The Great Zionist Cover-up: a Study and Interpretation. Cleveland, OH: Northeast Ohio Committee on Middle East Understanding, 1975. Print.

[114] Stevens, p. 207.

[115] Christison, p. 40

[116] Neff, Pillars, 67.

[117] Neff, Pillars, 73.

[118] Lilienthal, Price, p. 94.

[119] Lilienthal, Price, 103.

[120] Lilienthal, Price, 94

[121] Christison, 81.

[122] Lilienthal, p. 97.

[123] Lilienthal, pp. 97-98

[124] Berger, pp. 35-38.

Dean Gildersleeve, a Protestant Christian, had been the only woman member of the U.S. UN delegation in San Francisco. For more information on her see:http://www.vgif.org/a_vg.shtml

[125] Gildersleeve, Virginia Crocheron. Many a Good Crusade: Memoirs of. New York: Macmillan, 1955. Print. p. 412.

. Encyclopædia Britannica Inc., 2011. Web. <http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/592960/Dorothy-Thompson>.

[127] The information from this section comes largely from American Cassandra: The Life of Dorothy Thompson, by Peter Kurth; Dorothy Thompson: A Legend in her Time, by Marion K Sanders; Personal History, by Vincent Sheean, and Dorothy & Red (Dorothy Thompson & Sinclair Lewis), by Vincent Sheean.

[128] “Sands of Sorrow” by Council for the Relief of Palestine Arab Refugees, 1950. View online at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQ6lIsl-pHU Also available at

http://www.archive.org/details/sands_of_sorrow

[129] Kurth, 384

[130] Kurth, 384.

“The Press: Free Speech for the Boss,” Time, Nov. 17, 1958. Online at: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,810661,00.html

[132] Kurth, 383.

[133] Nineten Eighty-Four, by George Orwell.

Interestingly, a biographer states: “In his last years, unlike several of his comrades around Tribune, Orwell had little sympathy with Zionism and opposed the creation of the state of Israel, as attested by his friend and Tribune colleague Tosco Fyvel in his book George Orwell: A Personal Memoir.”

http://www.netcharles.com/orwell/articles/george-orwell-biography.htm

This article was originally published at Council for the National Interest                    

Scott Creighton: The Overlooked Player in the Syrian Destabilization Campaign

Israel, NATO’s Little Helper: The Overlooked Player in the Syrian Destabilization Campaign

Posted on June 23, 2012 by willyloman

by Scott Creighton

All too often we find ourselves talking about the United States and Britain’s destabilization campaign in Syria and we forget to mention the other partner in crime working to break the country up into little pieces: NATO’s Little Helper, Israel.

Israel’s involvement in the terrorist centered destabilization campaign is extensive to say the least and their motives to assist in the NATO efforts are just as obvious.

Israel has more than a few prime motivations to see that the current regime in Syria is overthrown and replaced by a puppet regime friendly to the west and Israel in particular. The first and foremost, is the survival of Israel itself and this has nothing to do with some existential threat posed by Syria.

Israel has been occupying the Golan Heights since the end of the Six Day War back in 1967. It’s managed under Israeli military rule and is still quite disputed by the vast majority of the civilized world. In 1973 Syria won back part of the Golan Heights and Assad has never given up on taking back all of it from the Israeli occupiers. Fewer than 10% of the people living in the Heights have accepted Israel’s offer of citizenship thus the vast majority of the Druze living in the Heights are still Syrian.

In 1981, Israel began building settlements in the Heights which drew immediate international condemnation in the form of  UN Security Council Resolution 497 which stated “the Israeli decision to impose its laws, jurisdiction and administration in the occupied Syrian Golan Heights is null and void and without international legal effect“  The resolution was passed by the Security Council by a vote of 15-0. The United States uncharacteristic did not veto the resolution to protect Israel’s interests.

According to the CIA World Factbook, as of 2010, “there are 41 Israeli settlements and civilian land use sites in the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights“. Even the CIA admits the Heights are occupied Syrian territory.

What makes the Golan Heights so important to the state of Israel right now is the fact that Israel gets 1/3rd of it’s water from the Heights which makes it the main water source for all of Israel. With Golan, Israel would literally dry up and blow away.

A large percentage of the rest of their water comes from the occupied West Bank. So they literally bleed what they need from their neighbors. Nice, huh?

Now, you might think that would be reason enough for Israel to help push along a Libyan style imperialist overthrow of the Syrian government or a Balkanization of the country. That is the plan; to break up Syria into little pieces based on sectarian differences, just like the Clintons did to Yugoslavia. Who says so? Well, the Israelis say so for one…

A timely article in the Jerusalem Post last month brings to the forefront the unspoken objective of US foreign policy, namely the breaking up of Syria as a sovereign nation state –along ethnic and religious lines– into several separate and “independent” political entities. The article also confirms the role of Israel in the process of political destabilization of  Syria.  The JP article is titled:“Veteran Kurdish politician calls on Israel to support the break-up of Syria‘ (by Jonathan Spyer) (The Jerusalem Post (May 16, 2012)

The objective of the US sponsored armed insurgency is –with the help of Israel– to “Break Syria into Pieces“. Global Research

In the aftermath of whatever shakes out of the turmoil being caused by the CIA, NATO, and the rest of the low-intensity warfare players, Israel stands to take and keep the Golan Heights for real this time making it part and parcel of Israel for good.

I would say that is pretty good motivation, wouldn’t you?

Well, it gets better.

For being”Gods chosen people”, the Israeli’s got stuck with the short end of the stick when it comes to oil and LNG in the region. Seems like Israel is the only country in the entire Middle East with no real reserves to speak of on their property. There are some reserves off the coast of Gaza which explains Israel’s efforts there and their “slant drilling” operation they don’t want people to see. But, for the most part, Israel doesn’t have jack squat when it comes to oil riches. They depend on importing 99% of their oil needs.

That may change after the Heights becomes Israel East so Israel is getting busy looking for their missing black gold. Who says so? Well, again, the Israelis say so…

“The (Israeli) government has secretly green-lighted exploratory drilling for oil and gas in the Golan Heights, almost 20 years after diplomatic initiatives put operations on hold.

National Infrastructure Minister Uzi Landau (Yisrael Beytenu) approved exploratory drilling in the Golan Heights for petroleum and natural gas a few weeks ago despite the risk of Syrian indignation.

“His view is that the State of Israel must utilize all options for oil exploration across the country in order to break free from dependence on Arab oil,” sources close to the minister told the daily Yedioth Ahronoth on Sunday.” The Times of Israel, May 13 2012

Israel’s exploration for natural resources in an occupied territory is clearly a violation of various international laws. They say themselves that they wouldn’t be able to do it without risking a national incident were it not for the fact that the United States and her brothers in crime over at NATO were in the process of tearing Syria into little pieces like they are doing down in Libya.

Of course, the MSM says nothing about this.

Israel for their part, has been aiding and abetting the international crimes against humanity taking place in Syria. They have been caught providing weapons to the Free Syrian Terrorists as the Syrian government has confiscated numerous Israeli made weapons of all sorts from the captured terrorists.

“The discovery of caches of Israeli weapons in Syria’s Latakia Province, used as a hideout by armed groups, reinforces the notion that Israel is one of the forces inciting violence in Syria.

The weapons, which included machineguns, bombs, automatic rifles and explosive devices, were displayed on Syrian TV on June 15. The incident came two days after Israeli authorities took an official stance against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and endorsed armed gangs operating in Syria.”Press TV

A week or so ago, Israel felt the need to step up the rhetoric swirling around the efforts to justify an outright invasion of Syria by claiming they had stockpiles of chemical weapons and they would use them against Israel.If that sounds a bit like the justification for the invasion of Iraq that is probably because Israel was behind that propaganda as well. At least they had a part in it.

“On Monday Israeli Maj. Gen. Yair Naveh, the country’s deputy military chief, warned that Syria could pose a threat to Israel with its chemical weapons.”Russia Today

One can only speculate as to why the general would fear some retaliation from Syria against Israel after all of this is done. Perhaps because he knows that Syria knows that Israel is playing a bigger role than most understand in this effort to destabilize their sovereign state. Who knows. But the WMDs story is bogus at best. Israel, not Syria, is the aggressor here and they have been in the region for quite sometime.

Israel is a pariah nation which exists not by developing mutually beneficial and amicable trade agreements with their neighbors, but rather by seeing something they need and brutally invading and occupying areas which they can leech what they want. They’re doing it in the West Bank and off the coast of Gaza and they’re doing it in the Golan Heights as well.

This is Israel’s motivation for helping with the destruction of the state of Syria. Pure, unadulterated greed. What mandates their having to resort to tactics like this is the fact that for decades their leaders have behaved in this bullish and illegal manner and gotten away with it solely because they are friends with the biggest kid on the block, the United States. After a developed history such as this, few nations are willing to forgive and forget and deal with Israel on a neutral basis and thus, they are left with only the thuggish route to securing the interests of their nation. That and the fact that getting the United States to spend our money bombing them a new water source and some oil reserves is a hell of a lot cheaper.

At any rate, I figured it was high time I spend a little effort exposing NATO’s Little Helper for what they are and the role they are playing killing civilians in Syria for water and profits.

美国中情局在中国搞《潜伏》

【讨论】美国中情局在中国搞《潜伏》 [ 基一哲 ] 于:2012-06-02 09:14:45 主题帖 总阅:14649




中国国家安全部官员涉嫌为美国从事间谍活动被捕。港媒报道，350多人牵涉到整个间谍案中。这次事件不过再次说明，在中国这个人治国家，不是在法律面前人人平等，不是依法办事。安全部副部长助理不过是做了他的本职工作，也就是为美国作了点贡献，“中美国”嘛。路透社报道说，数月来中美两国对此都保持沉默，避免中美关系再出现危机。言外之意像是说，事情本身可能没什么，怕曝光让老百姓知道了，才会出现（公关）危机。



其实多年来不少中国党政高级官员都在孜孜不倦地为美国服务：金融经济官员在中国推动私有化和金融自由化，国家大学和研究机构的学者和专家在宣传和灌输私有化瓜分国企，政治上不停地挑战、腐蚀1949年以后新国家合法性基础。中共最高级官员都让下一代去美国，或投资或进入美国教育系统接受教育。最高级领导人这么做，无疑是从某种程度上表达了对美国的信心。



如果说各行各业的许多党政官员都在自己的职权范围和专业领域内或多或少地为美国作贡献，那么对于中国国家安全官员向美国输送情报也是顺理成章的事情，真不必大惊小怪。自称是崛起大国，却不敢放映抗美援朝的影视作品，怕妖魔化美国，怕激怒美国。当整个教育系统和舆论向国人灌输美国友善，放手让好莱坞在中国塑造美国的崇高，人人兼有“爱美”(国) 之心是必然的，包括安全部的官员。



按照“救美国就是救中国”的逻辑，按照美国是全人类民主自由捍卫者的普世观点，把为美国作力所能及的事情说成叛国投敌，不仅不普世，而且显得太狭隘，太排外了。有了亲美官员和公知多年的努力耕耘，亲美亲西方的舆论和文化氛围已经大大降低了叛国变节投靠美国的良心障碍。至于法律障碍，中国有多少人知法犯法，又有多少人受到应有惩罚？这种风险和收获比会让许多人跃跃欲试。



据中国的消息人士说，中国安全部副部长的这名助理今年初被捕。他被指多年来向美国提供中国在海外间谍活动的情报。消息人士说，这名副部长助理被美国中央情报局招募，向美国提供“政治、经济和战略情报”。目前还不清楚这位部长助理接触到的什么级别的情报，其变节多大程度上危害到中国在海外的间谍网。



路透社报道说这位副部长助理接受了中情局大量美金。当然他们不会指出中国官方的亲美路线已经对中国社会和其中所有人产生了不可估量的效果。连唱红打黑的前重庆公安局长在走投无路的时候，都表现出对美国的信仰和幻想，进了美国领事馆寻求帮助。山东盲人陈光诚进美国使馆之后中美协议以及对他在国内的学习安排，最后再帮助他去美国，也等于向世人宣示美国的人道和美国的安全。



据说这起间谍案是20多年来中国安全机构发生的最严重的间谍丑闻。上一次发生在1985年，当时国家安全部处长俞强声叛逃美国。俞强声叛逃后对美国揭发了中情局分析员金无怠为中国间谍的身份。金无怠在1986年被宣判长期监禁前夕在美国监狱中把塑料袋套自己头上自尽。据传，俞强声叛逃令中国在北美的情报网被一网打尽。



俞强声的兄弟俞正声现在做上海市委书记，台湾媒体一度传作为中共高干子弟的俞正声可能在十八大升任政治局常委。



国家安全部这种工作就是过去经常说的“看不见的战线”，秘密战士是要出生入死的，对国家的忠诚和坚定的信仰，恐怕是起码的要求。应该不像电视剧《潜伏》中余则成那种：睡女人、贪污受贿、敲诈勒索、还能杀人，还居然都是工作和党的需要！对男人来说，天底下哪里去找这样的美差？！即便是好莱坞电影里的英国特工007，大把花钱，到处睡美女，但有一点人家是毫不含糊的，那就是对西方根本制度的无比忠诚。

当初邓小平如何说六四

听听邓小平的声音2012-06-06 08:22:58阅读(191) 评论(3)


当前不少人士关注“六四”事件的平反，众说纷云，更有把平反寄希望于习近平、温家宝。我近日翻阅了历史，发现了伟人邓小平，在1989年10月31日与美国前总统尼克松的一席话，可能对诸位有所啟迪，特摘录转载如下：



“坦率地说，北京不久前发生的动乱和反革命暴乱，首先是由国际上反共反社会主义的思潮煽动起来的。很遗憾，美国在这个问题上卷入得太深了，并且不断地责骂中国。中国是真正的受害者。中国没有做任何一件对不起美国的事。可以各有各的看法，但不能要我们接受别人的错误指责。美国公众得到的情报来自“美国之音”和美国报刊，什么“天安门血流成河”，死了多少万人，连具体数字都有。“美国之音”太不像话，一批撒谎的人在干事，连起码的诚实都没有。如果美国领导人根据“美国之音”定调，制定国策，要吃亏的。

　我们对参加游行示威和签名的学生，包括在海外的学生，都采取原谅的态度，不追究他们的责任。只对少数有野心和企图颠覆中华人民共和国政府的人，进行必要的、程度不同的惩处。我们不能容忍动乱。以后遇到动乱的事，我们还要戒严。这不会损害别人，不会损害任何国家，这是中国的内政。目的就是要稳定，稳定才能搞建设。道理很简单：中国人这么多，底子这么薄，没有安定团结的政治环境，没有稳定的社会秩序，什么事也干不成。稳定压倒一切。

　　我不说西方国家的政府，但至少西方有一些人要推翻中国的社会主义制度，这只能激起中国人民的反感，使中国人奋发图强。人们支持人权，但不要忘记还有一个国权。谈到人格，但不要忘记还有一个国格。特别是像我们这样第三世界的发展中国家，没有民族自尊心，不珍惜自己民族的独立，国家是立不起来的。”



另1989年11月23日又讲过：“西方国家正在打一场没有硝烟的第三次世界大战。所谓没有硝烟，就是要社会主义国家和平演变。东欧的事情对我们说来并不感到意外，迟早要出现的。东欧的问题首先出在内部。西方国家对中国也是一样，他们不喜欢中国坚持社会主义道路。中国今年的动乱也是迟早要出现的。其中也有我们内部的问题。你知道我们两个总书记都在资产阶级自由化问题上栽了跟头。如果中国搞资产阶级自由化，那末肯定会有动乱，使我们什么事情也干不成，我们制定的方针、政策、路线、三个阶段发展战略的目标统统告吹。所以，必须坚决地制止动乱。以后遇到动乱时，还要坚决制止，以保持稳定。西方国家说我们侵犯了人权，其实他们才是真正的侵犯人权。美国帮助蒋介石打内战，中国人伤亡了多少？美国支持南朝鲜进行战争，中国人民志愿军伤亡了多少？还不说一个多世纪以来殖民主义、帝国主义（包括美国在内）的侵略使中国人民遭受的损失有多大！所以，他们谈人权是没有资格的。”

“中国坚持社会主义，不会改变。十三大确定了“一个中心、两个基本点”的战略布局。我们十年前就是这样提出的，十三大用这个语言把它概括起来。这个战略布局我们一定要坚持下去，永远不改变。什么威胁也吓不倒我们。我们这个党就是在威胁中诞生的，在威胁中奋斗出来的，奋斗了二十八年才真正建立了人民共和国。现在我们总比过去好得多。只要中国社会主义不倒，社会主义在世界将始终站得住。”



邓小平的声音，明确地告诉我们，“六四”能否平反，将取决于亊件的本身是什么性质的问题，而不是取决于谁在掌权。邓对事件的性质講透了，也表明被严惩的是极少数違害国权者，之所以镇压是为了国家安全和稳定。而公开评述这事件，却在当时己卷入很深的美国领导人面前，可见，邓小平是何等地坦率、自信、大度。他的出发点只有一个：中国不能乱。

我相信，有人会接着论述，邓小平对“六四”的定性，难道没有人可改变，现不是己不提反革命暴乱了。（中央没有正式决议）我的回答：历史事实无法沫煞，对于事件性质，不同立场者会有不同啥取，有朝一日“六四”真的改变性质被平反了，那末中共的四项基夲原则也随之而废拙，到时又会进入另一个新时代，那就是邓小平所担心的和平演变时代。





【多维新闻】本文网址：http://blog.dwnews.com/post-207984.html

Jubilee, what a propoganda: Guardian Readers Comments

IndieScot

5 June 2012 3:55PM

I've travelled the world and London is one of my favourite cities but sadly watching all the jubilee events reinforced how foreign it seems to me. The Queen isn't my queen.

inglisa

5 June 2012 3:50PM

Yes monarchy is as dead as a doornail . Those celebrating it were mindless reactionaries who seem quite happy with imposed , undemocratic institutions . And the flag-wavers : how many are secret racists ? The jubilee celebrations underline yet again how divided people in the British Isles are . Time for Reublics in each British Isles country and a gentle but determined abolition of out-of-date monarchy .

nickthetrot

5 June 2012 3:26PM

Just had a nightmare where I'm at a street party sitting next to Jessie J and Gary Barlow who ask me to sing the Royal Anthem with them. Cheryl Cole is beating up a young woman at a cloakroom nearby, and Robbie Williams is there with his sycophantic grin. Help.........!!!

jfngw

5 June 2012 3:29PM

Pravda would have been proud of the BBC coverage this weekend, wall to wall sycophantic dross. At some points it was hard not to throw up at the commentary.

figbat

5 June 2012 3:22PM

These are the only conditions in which I can see "celebrating" the Jubilee as even remotely acceptable:

- As an excuse to bring the community together i.e socialising with neighbours you don't normally speak to.
- As an excuse to get pissed (for the alcoholics and people who need alcohol to socialise)

Under any other circumstances e.g actually celebrating some wee old woman's 60 years doing absolutely nothing, then you are verging on insanity and need a good kick up the arse.

RupertBH

5 June 2012 8:34PM

Why didnt they just have roman galleys on the Thames with the unemployed, sick and disabled lashed to the oars. This story says all you need to know about the jubilee and "modern" Britian. Good on the Guardian for running with it. And great cartoon Mr Bell.

Time for a peaceful democratic revolution I think. 17 June in Greece and 2015 in the UK. But starting now.

PS apols if this is a bit like my earlier post. They are related!

Bigwigandfiver

5 June 2012 8:35PM

You can't privatise duty, esprit de corps and loyalty.
You can't get good staff for free.

This is madness. This is insecure.

Do VIPs realise they are being protected by people press ganged in for free sleeping under bridges?

Billions of pounds worth of cameras drones anti aircraft missiles. All to no avail as geezer in orange jacket working for free grabs a few winks in the 16th hour of his shift letting the funny looking guy with the body belt into the stadium.

Being tight with money can be its own punishment for those that live like that.

climatecaz

5 June 2012 9:00PM

Response to navellint, 5 June 2012 8:38PM

This is the start of right wing populism,the tories love it,making people into unpaid slaves...keep them where they belong.Make a example of them... why don't you.

BadDog

5 June 2012 10:03PM

Response to R0nin67, 5 June 2012 9:21PM

What an absolutely fantastic weekend... It really has put the whole republic argument to bed finally...

Seeing the millions of people drown out the anti-royalists was a joy to see...

Proud to British.. Let's do the same again next year!

Have you bothered to look at the cartoon? Have you tried to work out what it is about?

It certainly wasn't a fantastic weekend for the unemployed who were bussed in from Bristol, Bath and Plymouth and told were told to work as unpaid stewards or have their benefit stopped.

They were told to sleep on the freezing cold ground under London Bridge. The women had to change into their uniforms outside, in the rain.

A 30-year-old steward told the Guardian that the conditions under the bridge were "cold and wet and we were told to get our head down [to sleep]". He said that it was impossible to pitch a tent because of the concrete floor.

The woman said they were woken at 5.30am and supplied with boots, combat trousers and polo shirts. She said: "They had told the ladies we were getting ready in a minibus around the corner and I went to the minibus and they had failed to open it so it was locked. I waited around to find someone to unlock it, and all of the other girls were coming down trying to get ready and no one was bothering to come down to unlock [it], so some of us, including me, were getting undressed in public in the freezing cold and rain." The men are understood to have changed under the bridge.

Coachloads of jobless people brought in to work unpaid on river pageant as part of Work Programme

Two jobseekers, who did not want to be identified in case they lost their benefits, later told the Guardian that they had to camp under London Bridge overnight, to change into security gear in public, had no access to toilets for 24 hours, and were taken to a swampy campsite outside London after working a 14-hour shift in the pouring rain on the banks of the Thames on Sunday.

Call for inquiry into use of unpaid jobseekers as jubilee stewards

We put on a multi-million pound extravaganza to celebrate a feudal class system, and use the unemployed as slaves to do so.

This makes you proud to be British?

It makes me deeply ashamed of my country, at what my country has become.

What sort of society have we become where people can even think that this is an acceptable way to behave?

吕不韦：历史上一个怪案子

http://bbs.ltxjob.com/?14052

作者: 吕不韦



这个案子一直困扰着我有好些年头了。大概有二十多年吧。自从那疑云索绕我心头后，我一直在注意这方面的点点滴滴能读到的公开信息。这里我特意强调是公开的信息。因为一开始我得要给读者一个交代。免得以为我有什么秘密的信息来源。我是学理工的。写这类东西不是我的专长。况且，我还得养家糊口，不可能全职进行采访调查。没那资源。而且，对这个案子，如果调查它陷得太深，还有那么一点对自身的安全但心。我不想成为江南第二。所以首先要声明一下。我在这里谈到的。都是从公开渠道得到的信息。加上合理的推理。胡适说过，大胆假设，小心求证。我要改为：合理假设，严密推理，仔细求证。虽然我在这里，匆匆忙忙粗糙地写下以下这些事实与看法，但我相信我的判断。仔细求证还应该更严密细致，出于显然的原因，只能到此为止。希望大家补充。有内幕的，爆料上来。





事情得从一个电视节目说起，美国有一个电视频道是我最喜欢的，那是《历史》频道。刚来美国时，历史频道正好在播送一个有关越南战争的系列。其中有个细节特别引起了我的兴趣。那是有关中国小三线大三线建设的细节。读者可能会问。三线建设怎么和越南战争联系起来了？别急，听我慢慢说。





我们这一代人，在老邓上台后，都相信一个老邓的说法，那就是毛泽东对经济一窍不通，乱来，三线建设就是个典型。好端端的在沿海几个经济效益很高的工厂，特别是上海的。硬生生地给一拆为三。搬到深山老林，效益极差，劳民伤财。老邓上台后做的一件事就是，让当年从沿海城市跟着去三线的熟练工人，技术人员可以回老家去，回原来大城市的本单位。乌拉。那些从大城市支援三线的老百姓们很高兴。可以回家了。但是三线的工厂，却是顿时陷入困.境，因为技术骨干都走了。好多工厂因为没人保养，机器都生锈了。这些都是后话。





现在回到三线和越南的关系。有些人现在常常津津乐道的是，因为朝鲜战争，美国再也不愿意和中国交战。这个看法实际上很幼稚。狮子在攻击野牛时，有时会被野牛踢死踢伤。但这些并不会让狮子停止攻击和吃野牛。关键是成本有多高。《历史》频道在谈到越战时，谈到当时越战最紧张的时候，美国有个轰炸中国沿海工业城市的详细计划。美国当初觉得，这样做，才能压抑中国全力支援北越。才能最后迫使北越退却。因为当初中国已经和苏联翻脸。美国已无必要担心中苏联手。中国支援北越主要是物资上的。那就催毁中国的工业。苏联也不会再支援中国。轰炸中国有一定的胜算，而且成本也低，因为中国拿不出好的反击手段。但后来却最后被迫取消了这个计划。



原因是什么呢？就是那三线。《历史》说，美国当年的飞机侦查发现，中国把沿海重要工业，特别是和军工有关的，一分为三，并且在这些工业基地周围，布置了大量防空力量。到不是因为有了三线，才促使美国放弃了原定计划。《历史》说，美国高层通过分析得到的结伦是，通过这个布局，美国决策层看到了中国的决心，但心一旦计划实施，中国会决心不计成本和美国较量，会全面出兵在北越和美国打。美国不愿被拖入更深的越战泥潭而让苏联渔利。





顺便提一下，当年三线的实际执行者中，彭德怀是最主要的一个。毛泽东在这种场合，重新启用彭德怀，给人，特别是给美国浮想联翩。这种不声不响的过招，也只有高人才看得懂。刘怕彭东山再起，便以彭是中国的朱可夫，彭里通外国（苏联），刘邓称怕彭，没人能阻止得了彭，彭是高饶的头，而进言毛。因为历史的原因，中共党内苏联派和后来的朱可夫政变，是毛的心病。受刘指使，彭总在四川受了刘少奇亲信李井泉的不少气（李井泉自称他只听刘邓彭（真））。毛听别的正直的人说起这个情况后。大发雷霆责成刘少奇的重要人马彭真亲自去四川打招呼。这里牵涉到另一桩公案。就是高岗饶漱石彭德怀林彪和刘少奇的历史恩怨。但这不是本文要谈到的。按下不表。





还有一个情况是，美国对对手的心理，是要仔细研究的。当年尼克松访问中国，仔细地研究了毛周的性格，心理。包括毛周的整个历史。当年卡特和邓谈，情报机关为卡特详细地分析了邓的背景和心理（personali- typrofiling）。（参考尼克松的《伟人们》，卡特《白宫日记》。）邓江胡习访美，情报机关也一定对他们进行心理观察。那个小布什拉胡锦涛衣服的动作，我想很可能是事先设计好的。用以判断胡在紧急关头的反应。就是不是事先设计的，那也已确实让美国对胡的个性摸了个底。我想，毛泽东的藐视一切的气魄，很可能使得中国免去了不少战争。当然，当年他的一句原子弹没什么了不起，无非是死几亿人的话，虽然让他的对手不敢随便启动核按钮，但却在他死后被他的政治对手们利用来大肆抹黑他。大概只有毛泽东宣布我韬光养晦才好。我称那些抹黑的人是毛泽东的政治对手，大概实在是太高抬那些人了。也太小看老百姓的智力了。这些都是打岔的话。按下不表。



因此，三线建设并且加强的防空布置，让美国决策者心理压力聚增，不得不慎重其事。防空火力能不能起作用是一回事，拼命三郎可能给美国带来的高战争成本就是另一回事了。毕竟，陆地上，南北是有两个方向可供毛泽东选择的。而向北的话，苏联也很可能被不情愿地拖进战火来。因为那里离苏联边境太近。一个掐住中苏战略要地的美国前进桥头堡，是中国和苏联都不愿意看到的。





现在问题来了。三线的计划和实施，不是一朝一日决定和实施的。有个过程。美国的计划也不是脑袋一拍就定的。有一个运筹规划和得失评估的过程。也不是短时间能定下的。但两者在时间上的巧合却是令人深思。毛泽东的哲学一直是打得一拳开，免得百拳来，以战促和，做最坏的打算，争取最好的结果。“备战备荒”，深挖洞，广积粮，不称霸。人不犯我我不犯人，人若犯我我必犯人。明确告诉你，我不怕打，你别惹我。三线的决定，符合毛泽东的

历来做法。但时间上和美国启动轰炸计划的运筹和规划这么巧合还是让我心存疑惑。毛泽东从来把知己知彼看得很重。他战略上从来是藐视对手，战术上却是非常重视对手。因此我一直怀疑毛得到了早期战略预警情报。





我猜测从美国决策机构一开始有这个想法时，毛泽东就获知了这个意图。我这个猜测不是空穴来风。这就是我下面想讨伦的那个案子。





这就是要进行的“合理假设”。这个案子是很令人感到迷惑的。这个案子就是俞强生的案子。俞正声和他哥哥俞强生从小就在太子党内有非常机灵的名声。当时，俞强生是国安部北美情报司司长。北美情报司是国安部最大的一个司，俞强生这个司长就相当副部长级别。年轻，又抱上了邓家的粗腿，仕途看好。俞正声当时是邓朴方康华的主管。康华当初已是副部级的企业，在邓朴方的掌舵下，在俞正声的实际领导下，正在长袖善舞，黑白通吃，走私舞弊，能量比几个部还大。俞家兄弟两人，一个在官场混，一个在商场混。还且，这个官场和商场都不是一般的。





一个是有特殊权力官场，一个是有特殊地位的半官方半民间的企业。哪个有利时就以哪个身份行事。很是风光。可是有一天突然间，俞强生跑了。叛逃美国了，而且给美国带来了一份重要情报，使得美国把隐藏得极深的一个战略间谍金无怠给挖了出来。美国方面对这个案子一直遮遮掩掩。使人感到云里雾里。而且美国方面还故作深沉地声称金无怠早在掌握之中，俞强生只不过提供了最后的一个直接证据。更为使人迷惑的是，金无怠居然在在美国最神秘，最严密，对囚犯二十四小时监视的情报系统的联邦监狱里“自杀”了。而且自杀的方式还很奇特。





是用塑料袋把自己脸蒙上窒息而死。我想，一个人窒息而死起码要几分钟的时间。监狱的监控系统当时发生了什么情况？事后还没人受处分。国会也好像对此不感兴趣不问不闻。不像后来的李文和案，屁大的一点事，手铐脚镣的兴师动众闹出很大动静。对比之下的金无怠案，使人不得不生疑。



历史上的一个怪案子（2）



大凡间谍，可分几类。一是战术间谍，这些都是抵挡的。也多是钱财，美色可以招募的间谍。当然，战术间谍也有素质高的。另一类是战略间谍。最高档的战略间谍是基于理想信念的间谍。这种间谍是不会为金钱美女动心的。而且意志坚定，不会为名利所动摇。生死度外。共产党早期的战略间谍大多是属于此类。故他们的成功率极高。前三后三及佐尔格是几个典型的例子。我特意提佐尔格是有原因的。佐尔格当年冒着被历史和被他为之献生的那个国家定为叛徒的冤屈，以全面招供，从自己年轻时谈起。回顾自己整个人生经历和思想发展的过程来实施拖延战术。佐尔格这样做为自己小组的同志争取到宝贵的几个月时间。使得他的同志在被捕前的最后关头搞清了日本是北上还是南下。因为日本间谍机关要核实他招供的每一个细节，甚至到德国去核实，这就耽误了宝贵的时间。佐尔格很清楚当时他的小组还未暴露的成员正在收集日本在满洲的动向。而且当时日本间谍机关只要注意力朝向这方面深究，已经可以沿着已有的线索查出他们。（请参阅老萨在西西河发表的文章。）他这样做已置自己的生死和名誉于度外。





日本谍报机关直到把佐尔格和他的小组成员枪毙后，还没搞懂佐尔格这么做的真正原因。斯大林根据佐尔格小组的情报得以把他的西伯利亚精锐军团调到莫斯科城下。从而扭转了整个苏德战场的进程。佐尔格的这个做法，甚至连苏联的情报机构都被骗进。而在当年把佐尔格定为变节者。直到四十年后，苏联在全面评估整个苏德战争时期的情报工作时，才幡然明白佐尔格当初的苦心而在四十年后授于他苏联英雄称号。我想佐尔格应是间谍中的不可多得

的稀罕精品。金无怠呢？据透露出来有限消息，金无怠是周恩来布下的棋子。周恩来看人是不太会走眼的。我想金无怠是属于意识形态原因而成为战略间谍的。他的谍报工作不计报酬。仅仅拿一些为开展谍报工作必须的旅行经费。





这就是为什么金无怠一直没被反间机构发觉的原因之一。因为按照美国人的传统思维，跟着钱走，而钱的线索联系却是连不上他。应该讲，他是属于战略间谍中的高级精品。而且，金无怠还能接触到白宫的绝密情报。他能把尼克松和幕僚谈话时，露出有意和中国改善关系的情报送到毛泽东手里。而且金无怠在被捕后自己不承认是间谍，他争辩讲我是为美国的利益而做了一点工作。（他自辩由于向中国提供了尼克松愿意和中国改善关系的意图，才促使毛泽东下决心让和美国接触。）这就产生了一个两难境地。美国要给金无怠定罪，就得走司法，尽管法院可以闭门审判。





但这难保走漏审判中的许多内部消息。特别是情报来源和情报性质和内容以及美国的一些针对中国的政策。方可量刑定罪。美国情报机构以前就有因为但心通过司法审判会走漏重要的消息来源和情报而将有些间谍案中的某些指控撤掉。一般来讲，象金无怠这种战略间谍，一旦被抓，美国情报机关首先要全面评估金无怠到底将哪些情报传给了对方。到底给美国造成了哪些损失。以及金无怠使用了那些间谍活动的技巧联络方法等等。上面所讲的三线的情报，便是一例。还有尼克松中美恢复关系的情报战。还必须搞清楚金无怠有没有间谍网，有哪些关系人等等。都是要理清楚的。这是很费时的。特别是金无怠并不配合。但美国好像没怎么下功夫。便让金无怠被“自杀”了。这就要问为什么了。





我猜，金无怠的死，有两个方面的人马上感到长出了一口气而放宽了心。一是美国的情报机关。不必再但心消息走漏，因为有更重要的目标被保护下来了。中国有关方面也出了一口气。你没搞错？中国有关方面也长出一口气？这个有关方面，便是俞正声和邓朴方，可能还有邓小平和赵紫阳。





先讲一件看来无关，却是和这件事很有关系的事。这就是陈香梅评论邓小平。陈香梅在美国政界，军界，情报界，人脉深厚。可以说是信息多多。她有一次在和友聚会时，不小心说了一句话，大意是中国最大的贪官是邓小平。我相信她是有内部消息，不是信口开河。但有意思的是当这句话一传出来后，陈香梅既不否认，也不承认。她不否认，因为亲耳听到这说法的，不止一人，陈香梅否认不了，信誉人格不允她否认，她也不愿意否认。但她又不承认。我相信是因为有人警告她了，不让她再出来说话。因为这可是要坏了别人的战略大事的。为什么？因为要好好保护这个金矿。这个可供讹诈的把柄，还可以好好利用，一旦曝光，就会失去了原来效用。这就是邓家子女们的贪天腐败。



自从毛泽东为中国打造金刚之身后，类似中国苏联这种有核大国，从外部用军事手段打击的话成本已不可忍受，往往是同归于尽的结果。那么从内部瓦解对方就是一个最好的买卖。因此可以讲西方和共产党国家的冷战的主战场实际上在经济和思想及道德领域。而且，其中统治集团道义上的信用更重要。统治集团道义破产了，老百姓就不和你玩了。只要老百姓不跟那个政府玩，那个政府也就基本是玩完了。剩下的只是时间问题了。





先看看康华当年是怎么发财的。一是利用价钱双轨制间倒卖，和大规模走私。（这和远华案联系上了。参考邓朴方的厦门打牌。）二是倒卖批文。这些都是大家知道的，这些也是引发了六四的导火索。（补一下，老赵当年就公开讲，拿回扣是搞活经济。他把美国也定为犯罪的行为赞成为搞活经济，可见老赵是个什么东西。他和邓斗只不过是为争权夺利。六四刚开始时是冲着老赵和老邓的。老赵只是后来觉得学生可利用来和老邓斗，才漂亮转身。将了老邓一军。加上他和戈尔巴乔夫那个著名的谈话。将老邓逼向死角。以后便是老邓为保自身权力和家族的利益决不退让，国外情报机关对学生运动的渗透，以及学生们的幼稚和狂热，使得本来可以和平解决的事件变成近代中国史上少见的流血事件，也使得土共彻底失去了一次可以正本清源，成为廉洁政党的机会而滑向腐败的深渊。老邓要是当初一开始便宣布邓朴方退出康华，成立工作组理清官员的腐败。中国社会会以极其健康面目发展。从这个意义上讲，老赵将自己的权力利益放在首位，间接地导致流血。是共犯。）



还有一条是卖介绍信。当年八十到九十年代有一段时间，政府规定，大学毕业要工作两年，硕士毕业要工作五年才能自费出去留学。没工作单位开的介绍信公安局不给开护照。除非你有工作单位开的证明有海外近亲关系才可免去年限规定。康华的做法是，你交五千块人民币给康华作为挂名职工。康华给开一封盖了康华红图章的介绍信。当时五千块人民币是什么概念？当时硕士毕业生还很吃香。文革后国家才刚有两三届硕士毕业生。抢手的很。当年硕士的含金量，不必现在的博士低。国家统一分配工作。硕士的待遇是月薪上海是八十二元。那时人民币比现在值钱的多。也就是说，硕士毕业（当时硕士一毕业是助教/技术员，一年后便可升讲师/工程师。）五年的工资白交给康华换去一张康华的介绍信。无本万利。



康华还有一招发财的绝路一般人是想不到的。康华由于是邓朴方的背景，可以自由自在地组成商务团出国。只要是康华送到美领馆的商务团名单，美国领事馆大使馆照批，一概放行。康华就收钱为那些想出国的人组成各种各样的出国访问团。那些人一下飞机，康华的领队便把这些人的护照统统收掉。那些人便消失到茫茫人海中成为黑户口。





因为他们本来的打算就是单程来美的。收掉护照是免得以后被联系到康华上。或者，宣布叛逃。这就是人口走私了，而且被走私的还感很安全。加州有不少中国人就碰上过这样出来的同胞。我们不要用今天的眼光来看这些腐败的严重性质。





当年的共产党还没今天这样全面溃疡。这些在当年，是大案要案了。那么美国情报机关和国务院不清楚康华这种勾当吗？康华是不是太小看美国情报机关的能量了？中国政府也不能让康华这么长期的干啊？这里的幕后的勾当就很有讲究了。可以说，这是周瑜打黄盖的事。美国政府对康华的腐败勾当清清楚楚。美国的做法就是鼓励你太子党们腐败。还为你提供

方便。那么，中国政府为什么睁一只眼闭睁一只眼呢？一是那是老邓的太子，谁敢过问？后来老邓的二太子在浦东土地委员会主任任上，公开收贿倒卖土地批文的规模天文数字，罪证凿凿，报到老邓那里，也没什么下文。我想“商务团”应该是俞强生也有干系的（我没有这方面的确实证据。因为通过这种走私，俞强生可堂而皇之地向上报告，这是情报工作的需要）。

康华的宗旨是，有钱就好，他们要的是钱。俞强生的好处是多少，我不清楚。但姬胜德刘华清们是很眼红的。也纷纷借赖昌星捞好处。随便提一句，我的一个熟人，还和陈希同的情妇在加州做过邻居，她也是高层放水出来的，由香港的一个巨富代为每月发钱养着。前几年，香港的老板，为邓做了一个几公斤重的钻石金像，邓家堂而皇之地公开笑纳，贪财之如此，中国共产党的领导人中，也是出奇。



但是，美国情报机构鼓励怂恿邓家子女腐败贪污的方针，和康华的这种做法带来的危害，以及美国掌握大量腐败的证据而可以作为要挟和收买的手段，这些情报，被金无怠传到中国来。这就使俞强生俞正声邓朴方很是担心了。



历史上一个怪案子（3）



但是到底是什么原因竟使得俞强生要放弃大好官途而要走一条要东躲西藏孤独度其余生的苦路呢？正因为当年的共产党还没今天的这样的腐败，当海外情报传回来康华的这些腐败后，俞正声俞强生邓邓朴方就紧张了，我想，案子一定是非常非常严重的。他们最终的措施是丢卒保车，由于俞强生的工作性质，罪行更严重。否则，像俞强生当年的大司局主管的地位，（请比较习近平当年的官职，俞强生和习近平是同代的），官运亨通，前途看好，又膀上了当今正宗太子皇上家，很可能是第四梯队的头，为什么走那条叛国道？一般小罗嗦去透露情报，美国还不会信。评估的结果，俞强生是最好人选，一可逃避“即将到来的”惩罚，二可救主，三是有些衷曲，只能由俞强生来传递。得想办法把金无怠这个情报源掐断。这就是邓家子女和俞家弟兄丢车保帅的一博。





俞强生他的级别，是不能够知道金无怠的真正身份的。但他利用了他和邓家关系的背景，使得当年的部长凌云被俞家和邓家的关系震慑，让俞强生钻了孔子，从非直接信息中而猜出了金无怠的真正身份。据说俞强生是偷看了凌云的文件才猜出的金无怠。凌云因此被迫退休。凌云手里一定有金无怠情报的细节，也明白为什么俞强生要叛逃。清楚金无怠和俞强生案的某种关系。希望凌云在死之前，把这段历史写下来对历史有个交代。不过，历史不会放过小人。美国这里的档案，五十年，一百年后也会解密。其实，没有任何一个国家的正人君子会看得起为私利而出卖自己国家的人。清廷定洪承授为二臣。南宋的秦桧。都是先例。





有人讲，金无怠“自杀”是因为胡耀邦说了一句不承认金无怠是中国的间谍的话。这也太小看一个战略间谍的心理素质了。这就是我前面提到佐尔格的原因。金无怠不承认自己是间谍，逼美国政府启动司法程序，我想有个目的是把出卖他的背后真正原因揭露出来。使得那些人的真面目大白于天下。将自己最后的价值使用完。 唯一能让金无怠“自杀”的，是让他感到理想破灭。





让他知道出卖他的是他为之工作的国家的最高领导，并且是为了自私腐败的原因把他给出卖了。因之而感到被无耻地出卖而精神崩溃而自杀。不过我相信，这可能性不大。金无怠倒是可能会愤起利用他的最后机会作最后的一博。因为他早先传递到中国的情报，有关高层因腐败而被西方情报机关掌握可讹诈把柄的情报，肯定知道是谁被牵涉。心里应该有所准备。





俞强生的叛逃邓小平是不是幕后的主使和暗示？本人不敢做这个猜想，不然的话，那可是太出格了。但他在事后，凭他的政治智慧，和对自己子女的了解，是能够猜出一些端倪的。比方，邓质方在浦东土地委员会主任任上，贪污的规模，和那陈水扁贪污的钱比，那啊扁的只能算是给邻家小孩的糖果了。因为太不象话，中央把调查报告送邓小平，得到的却是邓的轻描淡写回复：邓质方不宜再担任公职。贪污的钱照拿，等于没事。这要发生在其它人身上，十五个脑袋也要搬家了。邓本人对他儿子和俞家兄弟的事，不会是一点都不耳闻。



老邓曾经故作姿态地表示，“我不管子女的事”。明里好像的意思是我不为他们捞好处。潜台词是，你们尽可贿赂我的子女，我是不闻不问的。而且，贿赂的人也都知道邓家子女对老邓的影响有多大。但是，对于金无怠这事，把一个埋藏很深，还且还有价值，历史上又作出过重要贡献的战略间谍出卖，是不可想象的重大事件。如果邓的政敌知道真正的真相，邓的地位是会大受影响的。毕竟邓的权威，不足以能盖住这样的出卖。这从他把俞正声从康华撤下来可作为一个旁证。





他要撇清。当年邓朴方和俞正声的手下亲信，曾写文章吹捧俞正声被迫离开康华时，心情低落，但他又忍辱负重云云，是邓朴方安慰他，等老爷子气消了后，会让他去烟台当官。其实老邓自己，也是以钱换权的老手。当年他要军队支持他，便以放手让军队经商发财换。王震六四支持他，事后讨赏，邓便把台面上的香港中资领导人荣毅仁升为国家副主席。把背后的实际真正领导人熊向晖调走。而让王震的儿子独揽大权。从此以后，香港和那里的中资机构就变成太子党洗钱的大本营了。香港的回归，中国老百姓没得什么好处，还要替香港背经济政治包袱。同一个国度的公民，去香港还要变相的签证。太子党们到是变成了香港真正的太上王子们了。





还有一桩怪事引起我的注意。几年前，网上忽然有人发了个贴，号称中国神勇特工在南美海滩上将俞强生溺毙。绘声绘色。如同特技电影。一时沸沸扬扬。还称立功的特工回来后升官了。网上到处转载。其实，这种特工活，一般是能做的不能说的。如真有此事，更是要掩盖，那会到处宣扬？而且如果有，案发所在国一定要立案查的。美国也不会轻易放任不管。否则反水人士如得不到生命保障，以后谁还会叛逃？那么，谁会放这个贴子呢？我的判断是，一可能是文学青年的吹牛，但是，如果是文学青年的杰作，国内各大网站却是大放其行有点不可理解。如果案发所在国用这个来作为理由来中国查证，可能引起外交风波。二可能是俞正

声和邓系手下的公关操作。毕竟，一个在敌国活着为敌国情报机关效劳的亲哥哥对其本人仕途不利。最好是名义上，这个哥哥已经死亡。淡出人们的视线。不要老是被人提起。这就解释了为什么各大网站转载畅通无阻。我为什么说这畅通无阻？因为我发觉，就连国外的中文网站，邓家的资金也大举渗透。不少国外中文网站，你提起俞正声和邓朴方的劣迹，被删贴的可能性大大的高。听说，那《多维》网站，现在的总部就在北京。这是一个资金渗透的绝好例子。



邓家为了确保能不被清算和能继续贪污，最高层一直得有自己的代理人。习近平如果不是邓家的人，起码不为难邓家。因为习近平当年主政厦门时，正是远华案的关键时期。当时邓朴方坐着轮椅，千里迢迢到厦门。关起门来和习近平打了好几天“牌”。邓家远华后事处理得滴水不漏，习近平功不可没。习近平算是投入了一个绝佳赌注。（当年江，朱也有个赌注，就是让邓质方当浦东开发土地委员会主任而大事贪污天文数字。江，朱后来都高升了。）联系风传的习仲勋在胡耀邦倒台时的生活会上的表现。





习近平也能为胡系等所接受。但习仲勋的仗义执言之风传，也许正是邓系有意放的风，或顺水推舟放出来的，使得习近平上位更少阻力。象习近平这样没什么政绩的太子党，短时间连着跳，从厦门开始，到福建副省长，到福建第一书记，到浙江第一书记，到上海第一书记。非常少见。而习近平时的福建的走私，假药，海关，却是连出大案。邓家要不被清算，中央得有他们的代理人。俞正声丑闻缠身，从烟台到湖北，一路贪污，顺带给邓家捞取天文数字的油水。网友们可去查查上海，北京，天津，深圳，广州武汉等大城市的许多开发商们的背后，谁是真正的老板。特别是几块最好的地皮的开发商的背后真正主人是谁就可知。





俞正声上大位是不可能了。但找习近平这样一个不为难邓家的，倒是好主意。习近平上中央后，邓系马上让俞正声填上海的空缺，为进常作好准备。而且上海世博会又是个巨大的肥肉。请大家查查世博会那块土地最后会落入谁的手里，不要看台面上的主人，查背后的真正的主人。上海改建的重点黄埔区，卢湾区，两个区的主管后来都升到上海市的一二把手，和他们向邓家输送巨利分不开的。中国的房价下不来，中国的反腐败形同笑话，就是因为邓系家族在那儿镇着呢。



远华案的另一个蠢头姬胜德，就没有这么好的运气。一是太子党的级别还不够高，二是当案发后想用手里的情报要挟中央和邓家。姬胜德搞情报的，看到邓家，还有邓家的刘华清等如此捞，也手痒起来很正常。我估计他肆无忌惮的另一个原因，大概就是嗅出了当年金无怠案的底细。我拿着你的材料，你上面不能拿我怎么样！姬胜德案子大罪能逃过死刑。和陈良宇牢里那里天天能喝到红酒，都是一回事，一个原因。材料在手里，逼急了给你海外抖出来。



历史上一个怪案子（4）





邓心里明白，如果中国共产党以后要清廉，第一笔帐要说清楚的，一定是邓家的腐败帐。六四后，邓的道德威信一落千丈。陈云直指：六四过左了。并且要李先念做证，逼老邓真正下来，老邓无奈，放弃了军委主席，无冕垂帘听政。老邓为保自己的威权，六四后，让高官们看罗马尼亚老百姓处决前共产党领导者的录像，警告那帮官僚，呵呵，你们不跟我走，这就是下场。这是老邓的大棒。分国企，那是老邓的胡萝卜。还有一个更深的原因，老邓要让整个共产党腐败，让它慢慢死亡。只有这样，他才能救他的子女不被清算，法不责众嘛，这是老邓的救犊绝招。现在共产党的腐败的规模，就是邓家要的。当然，老邓还常常分一些残羹剩饭给他的精英们，让他们为他唱赞歌。邓家还要在各届常委中拼命安插自己的代理。就有这层意思。所以，中国共产党的反腐败，就是个大笑话。比当年蒋经国的打老虎都不如，小蒋打老虎还是真心的，只不过老子蒋光头和后娘宋家，让他载了跟头。直到小蒋真正掌权后，才能做一些他当年不能做到的事情。





其实用左右来界定老邓的政治路线，实在是可笑的很。老邓那管你左右？他的哲学只有一个：为己，实用的很。老邓从来没有过信仰。不是理想主义者。老邓是因为对他在家里的长子地位因生母过世下降不满才出走，阴差阳错地参加革命。百色当逃兵，回上海后被那帮莫斯科派甚至旅欧派都瞧不起，才灰溜溜的去了苏区。当时的江西，毛泽东是实权派，邓便向实权派靠拢。没想到，不久上海的那帮子人去了江西，毛泽东靠边了，邓又倒了一下霉。不过，这只是塞翁失马，并且成为以后进阶的筹码。此是后话。





他是个自私的实用主义者。哪个方案政策结果对我有利，就是哪个。很轻松地作判断。举重若轻嘛。不用太多关心其他可能的后果。举重若轻另一个意思，就是拿国家大事当儿戏。一国生死存亡的大政方针，可以摸石头过河，不进行彻底的讨论和科学论证，估量所有可能出现的不利因素，至少是纸面上的沙盘预演要过一过吧。摸石头过河的第一个可能就是只有政策制定者，权贵们知道石头在哪。从而可先过河。过了河的，还可能私心一下把石头带走，不让后面的人过，好处通吃。价钱双轨和国企私有过程就是这么回事。从程序上讲，前苏联的国企私有化，比中国来的表面上的更合法，它至少让每个苏联公民都有一份股。



后来权贵利用权力和外资“合法”将散股稀释和收购，那是后续政策的漏洞和老百姓的无知和无奈，私有就是大鱼吃小鱼的游戏。中国国企私有就直接把和本企业直接有关的老百姓的那一份低价收购了（买断工龄，而且是政府掏钱为贪官买），全民的那一份，呵呵，我贪官们就直接揣腰包里了。省了费力的那道工序。老邓老朱的这个做法，还有一个不上台面的原因，就是老邓要用这个，买到整个官僚阶层对他的效忠。什么国企效益低因而要私有化。那是堂而皇之的表面理由。效益高的关键不是私有和公有，关键是管理人员和管理。由于管理的不严，奖惩的不公正，规则的不合理，导致管理层贪污肥己，企业员工人心涣散，效益当然不高。古人讲，治国就是治吏。治企也是治吏，就是这个意思。





苏东波后，世上流行一个说法，就是苏联的解体是经济没搞好，是因为和美国的冷战，特别是所谓的星球大战，因军备竞争把经济拖垮了。里根因此堂而皇之把冷战的结束归功于他的星球大战和军备竞争。这实在是扯蛋的很。先不说经济下降能导致一个巨大的政治体系的垮塌不是短短八到九年能出现结果的。最起码从星球大战竞争启动带来的效果应有一个时间上的滞后效应。更不说苏联历史上曾有过比当时的苏联经济困难的多得多的局面，那时苏联政府均未倒台。十月革命后的几年和苏德战争时期的困难，哪是一九八九年当时的苏联所遇到的困难可比！



其实，真正导致苏联的倒台，是苏联的执政集团的道德破产，是苏联执政集团的贪污腐败，老百姓不跟你玩了。而压垮骆驼的最后一根稻草，却是来自东方。那就是六四事件。当西方情报机关和舆论将天安门广场上发生的事情实况展现在全世界面前时，这个思想和道德上的冷战让西方收进了巨大的红利。由于全世界的共产党都是一根线上的。虽然邓共已经不是原来的共产党，但世人不管这些。邓共在自己的首都当街杀自己的老百姓，便让整个世界的共产党背上了沉重的道德包袱。苏联和东欧的老百姓就认为共产党原来是这么的呀，我们不玩了。加上渗透和上层的腐败及反水以及外部的接应。苏东波做成海啸。老邓心里明白的很。故当里根揽功时，老邓也就顺水推舟。乐得让你抢去。还把这个作为他把中国拖向官僚封建资本主义（美其名曰，中国特色的社会主义）的合法理由来惑悠百姓。



这就是为啥西方的思想库精英和情报机关动用了大量人力物力，对中国老百姓的思想和精神领袖如毛泽东周恩来进行了深思熟虑的妖魔化。这还使我想起另一桩事。小布什打伊拉克时，兰姆斯费尔德成立了一个战略思想影响局。想用它来发布一些消息来左右舆论。这在美国新闻界引起悍然大波。这在标榜新闻独立公正的美国可太难看了，而且抢了人家的生意。最后在美国新闻界的一致压力下，郎氏不得不撤销了这个局。美国新闻界只要面子上过的去，也就不深究了。不过，牌子不挂，事情可以照样做。还可以承包出去让美国的思想库做得更名正言顺。思想库的精英们一直在做对对手国的政治领袖们的人格抹黑和民众思想影响的宣传战。还且用的很多听起来很有权威的对方内部人士以增强所谓的轰动效应。





比方私人医生，可接触内部机密的前秘书之类的来写，用打击对方民众的凝聚力。瓦解对手民众的信心。但是有一个例外。象邓小平这样一个有过很多黑幕的领导人，又在自己首都下令开枪杀人的。家属又是天字号巨贪，西方从来没有组织过一个强大的写作班子或枪手来揭露他，而宁愿放过这个宣传战的极好素材不去收获那个红利。倒是有不少文章，吹捧他。而且，还要封陈香梅的嘴和金无怠的嘴。这从反面，印证了目前邓在西方的暂时价值。这就是金无怠必须“被自杀”的原因。



历史车轮滚滚，老百姓心里也有一本帐。共产党这样腐败下去，垮台只是时间问题。到时，老百姓和历史都会和邓家结帐的。海外的档案以后也会见阳光。是真是假逃不了。如果中国共产党将来清明了，邓家的帐也是会算的。退一万步就是将来国民党回大陆掌权，那大概新老帐都会算。总之，邓家的结局，我不看好。历史，会把邓小平钉上耻辱柱。





说句题外话，天主教规定教士不能结婚生子，大概就怕出老邓这样的人为子女而毁掉教会。我写这篇文章时最近中国的政局起了大变化。网上很多人分析了不厚下台的原因，都没说到点子上。真正的原因是不厚要公布官员的财产，这是要了邓家，江家，朱家，温家，胡家，李家，王家，死人了的黄家等等全部贪官的命根子。不下台能行吗？而这，正是邓小平希望的局面，大家都贪，我子女就安全了。

一者：美国中情局在中国搞《潜伏》

作者：一者



中国国家安全部官员涉嫌为美国从事间谍活动被捕。港媒报道，350多人牵涉到整个间谍案中。这次事件不过再次说明，在中国这个人治国家，并非在法律面前人人平等，也不依法​办事。安全部副部长助理不过是做了他的本职工作，也就是为美国作了点贡献，“中美国”嘛。路透社报道说，数月来中美两国对此都保持沉默，避免中美关系再出现危机。言外之意​像是说，事情本身可能没什么，怕曝光让老百姓知道了，才会出现（公关）危机。



其实多年来不少中国党政高级官员都在孜孜不倦地为美国服务：金融经济官员在中国推动私有化和金融自由化，国家大学和研究机构的学者和专家在宣传和灌输私有化瓜分国企，政治​上不停地挑战、腐蚀1949年以后新国家合法性基础。中共最高级官员都让下一代去美国，或投资或进入美国教育系统接受教育。最高级领导人这么做，无疑是从某种程度上表达了​对美国的信心。



如果说各行各业的许多党政官员都在自己的职权范围和专业领域内或多或少地为美国作贡献，那么对于中国国家安全官员向美国输送情报也是顺理成章的事情，真不必大惊小怪。自称​是崛起大国，却不敢放映抗美援朝的影视作品，怕妖魔化美国，怕激怒美国。当整个教育系统和舆论向国人灌输美国友善，放手让好莱坞在中国塑造美国的崇高，人人兼有“爱美”(​国) 之心是必然的，包括安全部的官员。



按照“救美国就是救中国”的逻辑，按照美国是全人类民主自由捍卫者的普世观点，把为美国作力所能及的事情说成叛国投敌，不仅不普世，而且显得太狭隘，太排外了。有了亲美官​员和公知多年的努力耕耘，亲美亲西方的舆论和文化氛围已经大大降低了叛国变节投靠美国的良心障碍。至于法律障碍，中国有多少人执法犯法，又有多少人受到应有惩罚？这种风险​和收获比会让许多人跃跃欲试。



据中国的消息人士说，中国安全部副部长的这名助理今年初被捕。他被指多年来向美国提供中国在海外间谍活动的情报。消息人士说，这名副部长助理被美国中央情报局招募，向美国​提供“政治、经济和战略情报”。目前还不清楚这位部长助理接触到的什么级别的情报，其变节多大程度上危害到中国在海外的间谍网。



路透社报道说这位副部长助理接受了中情局大量美金。当然他们不会指出中国官方的亲美路线已经对中国社会和其中所有人产生了不可估量的效果。连唱红打黑的前重庆公安局长在走​投无路的时候，都表现出对美国的信仰和幻想，进了美国领事馆寻求帮助。山东盲人陈光诚进美国使馆之后中美协议以及对他在国内的学习安排，最后再帮助他去美国，也等于向世人​宣示美国的人道和美国的安全。



据说这起间谍案是20多年来中国安全机构发生的最严重的间谍丑闻。上一次发生在1985年，当时国家安全部处长俞强声叛逃美国。俞强声叛逃后对美国揭发了中情局分析员金无​怠为中国间谍的身份。金无怠在1986年被宣判长期监禁前夕在美国监狱中把塑料袋套自己头上自尽。据传，俞强声叛逃令中国在北美的情报网被一网打尽。



俞强声的兄弟俞正声现在做上海市委书记，台湾媒体一度传作为中共高干子弟的俞正声可能在十八大升任政治局常委。



国家安全部这种工作就是过去经常说的“看不见的战线”，秘密战士是要出生入死的，对国家的忠诚和坚定的信仰，恐怕是起码的要求。应该不像电视剧《潜伏》中余则成那种：睡女​人、贪污受贿、敲诈勒索、还能杀人，还居然都是工作和党的需要！对男人来说，天底下哪里去找这样的美差？！即便是好莱坞电影里的英国特工007，大把花钱，到处睡美女，但​有一点人家是毫不含糊的，那就是对西方根本制度的无比忠诚。