This is a story about economics, politics, and conflict. While some of its prominent people are Jews, this is NOT a story about all Jews, or Judaism, or religion. Examples are given from several cultures and ethnic groups. Ultimately it is a story about an aspect of human nature that crosses all ethnic distinctions, that continues to create major conflicts, and that needs to be treated by law.
The "War on Terror" came into being as a war to protect Israel from "terrorists". Israel's supporters claim that Israel was established out of compassion, specifically, compassion for a victimized people. But if other innocent people were unjustly brutalized and slaughtered in the process, is it rational to conclude compassion was truly the motive? It is not.
The standard movie the mainstream media presents about Israel has a few key parts.
1. The U.N. partitioned Palestine, and the Jews accepted the U.N.'s decision. They were civilized and compromised.
2. The Arabs were not willing to share the land, and instead were anti-Semitic and uncivilized.
3. An overwhelming Arab military force attacked the infant country in its cradle, but the plucky little nation beat them all back, as if by a miracle.
4. And ever since, the Arabs have been threatening the very existence of God's favorite people, who are a beacon of morality to the planet.
But there is another movie. It differs by including many relevant historical facts that the standard movie leaves out.
It's key parts are these.
1. Jewish supremacists from Eastern Europe, mainly Russia and Poland, started a religious war in Palestine.
2. They were funded by war profiteering bankers from Western Europe and America, creating a point of continuing religious conflict.
3. Expensive, but affordable, control over key political institutions was obtained to start the war, and over key media to black out many facts, redacting them from public discussion.
When the British controlled Palestine they promised its residents that they would leave those residents with a NON-SECTARIAN (i.e. non-religious) democracy, with a clear separation between church and state, and NO state preference for any religion. A British White Paper was issued in 1922 to make this clear. "Further, it is contemplated that the status of all citizens of Palestine in the eyes of the law shall be Palestinian, and it has never been intended that they, or any section of them, should possess any other juridical status."
That promise was torpedoed by politically powerful bankers. They acted extensively behind the scenes to manipulate political decisions in Britain and then America. This included manipulating the reports and analyses that voters of Britain and America got from the news media. They also armed and imported staunchly segregationist Jews from Eastern Europe to drive unarmed Muslims out of their homes and lands in Palestine. These Jewish supremacist troops believed they were obeying their holy book.
At the beginning of the Zionist movement, most Jews in Western Europe and America strongly opposed the idea of setting up a Jewish state in Palestine, mainly for two reasons. First, they were assimilating into their various countries, and doing so quite successfully. They had no interest in abandoning their jobs, friends, cities, etc. to go live in the desert and re-create ancient Israel.
Second, there were people already living in Palestine, and they would resist having their homes and lands taken, and this would lead to serious, on-going conflict. And starting this conflict, and taking their lands, would put the Zionists on the wrong side of justice. These points were made clearly in 1917 by Lord Edwin Montagu, a Jewish member of the British cabinet, who considered himself a Jewish Englishman.
In 1896 Theodor Herzl proposed a Jewish state in his book "The Jewish State". There he wrote:
"Wherever we remain politically secure for any length of time, we assimilate. I think this is not praiseworthy..." Here he established his fundamental goal of maintaining the segregation of Jews from people of other ethnicities. And this segregation was being threatened by the political security that Jews were feeling in Western Europe and America.
He estimates, "The plan would seem mad enough if a single individual were to undertake it; but if many Jews simultaneously agree on it, it is entirely reasonable, and its achievement presents no difficulties worth mentioning."
In 1896 some Western European bankers sent Theodor Herzl as their emissary to buy Palestine from Turkey, but it was not for sale. "Herzl presented his proposal to the Grand Vizier: the Jews would pay the Turkish foreign debt and attempt to help regulate Turkish finances if they were given Palestine as a Jewish homeland under Turkish rule."
Herzl also connected with the segregationist Eastern European Jews in London. "In London's East End, a community of primarily Yiddish speaking recent Eastern European Jewish immigrants, Herzl addressed a mass rally of thousands on July 12, 1896 and was received with acclaim. They granted Herzl the mandate of leadership for Zionism."
In his more private diary Herzl wrote:
"When we occupy the land, we shall bring immediate benefits to the state that receives us. We must expropriate gently the private property on the estates assigned to us. We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it any employment in our country. The property owners will come over to our side. Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discretely and circumspectly ..." Here he describes the public relations aspects of how the land theft will be carried out.
Opposing Herzl's idea of a Jewish state was Ahad Ha'am, an advocate of "cultural Zionism", who thought a Jewish spiritual center in Palestine would be sufficient. He forsaw that war would come from Herzl's plan. In 1891 he wrote:
"We who live abroad are accustomed to believe that almost all Eretz Yisrael is now uninhabited desert and whoever wishes can buy land there as he pleases. But this is not true. It is very difficult to find in the land cultivated fields that are not used for planting. ... And not only peasants, but also rich landowners, are not selling good land so easily."
"But, if the time comes that our people's life in Eretz Yisrael will develop to a point where we are taking their place, either slightly or significantly, the natives are not going to just step aside so easily."
"We can't ignore the fact that ahead of us is a great war and this war is going to need significant preparation."
Certainly the bankers who funded the takeover of Palestine also saw that war would come from this plan. The bankers were well experienced with war, with financing war, arranging for the supplies of war, and profiting from both sides of a war. They had already been profiting from European wars for several centuries.
Did the Western European bankers share the Eastern European Jewish supremacists' belief that Jews were God's chosen people, destined to re-conquer the land of ancient Israel? They certainly did not share their strictly segregated lifestyle. This raises the question: Were they using these people's extreme religious beliefs for another end?
Whichever their reason, some bankers, including the powerful Rothschild bank, joined with a segregationist, Jewish supremacist sect from Eastern Europe in a plan that included attacking Muslims in Palestine, effectively starting a religious war. This sect was ready to carry guns and be shipped to Palestine. The bankers were experienced at supplying and moving troops, and had the political influence to smuggle them across Europe without being stopped. Here's an account by a reporter who was there at the time.
The bankers wanted (1) a legal toe-hold in Palestine. That led to long and detailed manipulations of the British government to obtain some statement in writing that could be interpreted as a legal basis for taking over Palestine. They also wanted (2) a preliminary British military takeover of Palestine (World War I was in process), after which Zionist armed forces would proceed to a Zionist takeover.
The written statement was in a letter from British Prime Minister Arthur Balfour to British financier James de Rothschild, often called the "Balfour Declaration". The Balfour letter was the result of prolonged, secret negotiations in Britain and America. It settled on the term "home", a carefully crafted ambiguity, to describe a Jewish community in Palestine. The British interpreted this as a cultural enclave, while the Zionists would ultimately interpret it to mean a Jewish state. Thus, it let some politicians get banker support for their ends, while not committing to a war in Palestine, and let the bankers claim a legal toe-hold from which they could take step (2) toward a Jewish state. The declaration in the Balfour letter says,
"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."
The entire letter and an account of the long campaign of secret political manpulations and money behind it in England and America is given here.
Further details of events behind the scenes are in the following pages.
Along with the Balfour declaration, step (1) of the plan included an initial British takeover of Palestine. This was accomplished with political influence despite the fact that it diverted military resources from the European front (WWI), against the advice of Britain's senior military men.
Divergent interpretations of the 1917 Balfour letter led to a British white paper in June of 1922 clarifying the meaning of the term "national home". The white paper said, "Further, it is contemplated that the status of all citizens of Palestine in the eyes of the law shall be Palestinian, and it has never been intended that they, or any section of them, should possess any other juridical status."
In August of 1922 the League of Nations issued a "Mandate for Palestine" that gave "Principal Allied Powers" a mandate to temporarily govern Palestine until an arrangement for a permanent government could be established. Wording from the Balfour letter about a "national home" for Jews was included in defining this Mandate. Also taken from the Balfour letter, the Preamble said "it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country". The Mandate also gave the British clear authority over the Zionist Organization, even allowing Britain to drop the Zionist Organization as the representive of the Jewish people. http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/0/2FCA2C68106F11AB05256BCF007BF3CB
But the Zionists were determined. William Yale was a Special Agent of the State Department in the Near East during the First World War. He talked with the bankers' emissary Chaim Weizmann in 1919, and "asked him what might happen if the British did not support a national home for the Jews in Palestine. Weizmann thumped his fist on the table and the teacups jumped, 'If they don't,' he said, 'we'll smash the British Empire as we smashed the Russian Empire.'"
As British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli had previously said, “the world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes”.
Since Britain had promised a non-sectarian democracy to the people living in Palestine, it required extensive activity behind the scenes to break that promise. It required buying control of major newspapers as well as politicians.
The capture of the London Times is described here.
At the end of World War I the Zionists had the Balfour Declaration in hand, and the British army controlled Palestine. The plan continued into World War II. Reporting during World War II was distorted to minimize the non-Jewish victims of Nazi persecution, although more numerous, and to highlight the Jewish victims.
The suppression of information in America is described here.
President Franklin Roosevelt met with King Ibn Saoud during February of 1945, shortly after the Yalta meeting. He later noted that he had learned more about Palestine from King Saoud in five minutes than he had previously learned in a lifetime. Initially he asked Saoud to admit more Jews into Palestine. Saoud refused, saying “there was a Palestine army of Jews all armed to the teeth and … they did not seem to be fighting the Germans but were aiming at the Arabs.”
On April 5 Roosevelt sent a letter to Saoud reaffirming a verbal pledge, which said, “I would take no action, in my capacity as Chief of the Executive Branch of this Government which might prove hostile to the Arab people.” On April 12 Roosevelt died.
Roosevelt was followed in the presidency by Harry Truman, who had a deep interest in the Bible since childhood. In the biography Plain Speaking by Merle Miller, Truman relates that on April 20, 1945, he was to meet with Rabbi Stephen Wise, chairman of the American Zionist Emergency Council, and he was "looking forward to it because I knew he wanted to talk about Palestine, and that is one part of the world that has always interested me, partly because of its Biblical background, of course." (p. 230)
Rabbi Wise wanted to talk about "the reasons underlying the wish of the Jewish people for a homeland." Truman assured Wise he knew all about it, and "the United States would do all that it could to help the Jewish people set up a homeland." (p. 232) Truman also assured Wise that he would ignore any objections from the "striped pants boys" in the State Department, and belittled their expertise. (p. 233)
All Truman's state department experts opposed the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine, including his Secretary of State George C. Marshall, after whom was named the Marshall Plan. "General Marshall told the American Cabinet that such a British withdrawal 'would be followed by a bloody struggle between the Arabs and Jews' (August 8, 1947), and his Under Secretary of State, Mr. Robert Lovett, pointed to the danger of 'solidifying sentiment among all the Arabian and Mohammedan peoples' against the United States (August 15, 1947)."
In March of 1948 the conflict over Palestine had not yet been settled, and was before the United Nations. Zionist pressure on the White House was intense. As Truman told Merle Miller, "Well, there's never been anything like it before, and there wasn't after. Not even when I fired MacArthur there wasn't." (p. 234)
On March 13, 1948 Truman received his friend and business partner from Missouri, Eddie Jacobson, after making him promise not to talk about the Middle East. But Jacobson broke his promise, and Truman recounts him saying, "Mr. President, I haven't said a word, but every time I think of the homeless Jews, homeless for thousands of years, and I think about Dr. Weizmann, I start crying. I can't help it. He's an old man, and he's spent his whole life working for a homeland for the Jews, and now he's sick, and he's in New York and wants to see you. And every time I think about it I can't help crying." (Plain Speaking, p. 235) On March 18 Weizmann visited Truman, entering through the east gate to avoid normal protocol and publicity.
The Zionists played the Republicans and Democrats against each other for "very large sums" of money and votes in the upcoming presidential election. Mr. James Forrestal, Secretary for Defense, was concerned about the potential negative consequences for America's national security. "It is doubtful if there is any segment of our foreign relations of greater importance or of greater danger … to the security of the United States than our relations in the Middle East." Forrestal tried to get the presidential candidates to take the Palestine issue out of politics. To the Republican candidate, Governor Dewey, "I said the Palestine matter was a matter of the deepest concern to me in terms of the security of the nation, and asked, once more, if the parties could not agree to take this question out of their electoral campaigning." Dewey replied that it would be "a difficult matter to get results because of the intemperate attitude of the Jewish people who had taken Palestine as their emotional symbol", and also "because the Democratic party would not be willing to relinquish the advantages of the Jewish vote."
On the Democratic side Secretary Forrestal talked with the Democratic party-manager, Mr. J. Howard McGrath, and was told, "There were two or three pivotal states [New York, Pennsylvania, and California] which could not be carried without the support of people who were deeply interested in the Palestine question." Forrestal's Diary notes that "a substantial part of the Democratic funds come from Zionist sources inclined to ask in return for a lien upon this part of our national policy." At that point both parties became financially locked into the bankers' plan.
The price for campaign money also kept rising. "At the start only United States support for the partition proposal had been 'expected.' Within a few weeks this 'expectation' had risen to the demand that the United States should 'solicit' the votes of other countries in support of partition and should use American troops to enforce partition, and the party-manager was quite accustomed to such notions (if American troops in the 1950's or 1960's find themselves in the Near East, any of them who have read Mr. Forrestal's Diaries should know how they came to be there)."
Forrestal also pointed out that many Jews "hold the view that the present zeal of the Zionists can have most dangerous consequences, not merely in their divisive effects in American life, but in the long run on the position of Jews throughout the the world." Forrestal was taken out by a campaign of character assassination.
The U.N. General Assembly voted to recommend partitioning Palestine into Arab and Jewish states on November 29, 1947, with Jerusalem to be an international city. The new status was recommended to begin when the British mandate expired on August l, 1948. This was not a final decision by the U.N. All the Arab countries voted against the recommendation, on the grounds that "it violated the principles of national self-determination in the UN charter which granted people the right to decide their own destiny".
Financial and political pressure behind the vote was intense. Truman later said, "The facts were that not only were there pressure movements around the United Nations unlike anything that had been seen there before, but that the White House, too, was subjected to a constant barrage. I do not think I ever had as much pressure and propaganda aimed at the White House as I had in this instance. The persistence of a few of the extreme Zionist leaders — actuated by political motives and engaging in political threats — disturbed and annoyed me."
"Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru spoke with anger and contempt for the way the UN vote had been lined up. He said the Zionists had tried to bribe India with millions and at the same time his sister, Vijaya Lakshmi Pandit, had received daily warnings that her life was in danger unless 'she voted right'. Liberia's Ambassador to the United States complained that the US delegation threatened aid cuts to several countries."
"Shortly before the vote, France's delegate to the United Nations was visited by Bernard Baruch, a long-term Jewish supporter of the Democratic Party who, during the recent world war, had been an economic adviser to President Roosevelt, and had latterly been appointed by President Truman as the United States' ambassador to the newly created UN Atomic Energy Commission. He was, privately, a supporter of the Irgun and its front organization, the American League for a Free Palestine. Baruch implied that a French failure to support the resolution might cause planned American aid to France, which was badly needed for reconstruction, French currency reserves being exhausted and its balance of payments heavily in deficit, not to materialise. Previously, in order to avoid antagonising its Arab colonies, France had not publicly supported the resolution. After considering the danger of American aid being withheld, France finally voted in favour of it. So, too, did France's neighbours, Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands."
Arab leaders echoed the warnings of U.S. Secretary of State Marshall and Secretary of Defense Forrestal. "In a speech at the General Assembly Hall at Flushing Meadow, New York, on Friday, 28 November 1947, Iraq’s Foreign Minister, Fadel Jamall, included the following statement: 'Partition imposed against the will of the majority of the people will jeopardize peace and harmony in the Middle East. Not only the uprising of the Arabs of Palestine is to be expected, but the masses in the Arab world cannot be restrained. The Arab-Jewish relationship in the Arab world will greatly deteriorate. There are more Jews in the Arab world outside of Palestine than there are in Palestine. In Iraq alone, we have about one hundred and fifty thousand Jews who share with Moslems and Christians all the advantages of political and economic rights. Harmony prevails among Moslems, Christians and Jews. But any injustice imposed upon the Arabs of Palestine will disturb the harmony among Jews and non-Jews in Iraq; it will breed inter-religious prejudice and hatred.'"
Britain didn't vote for the religious partition because it directly contradicted their promise of a non-sectarian democracy for the people of Palestine. But they didn't vote against it either. They abstained. They didn't want to oppose the powerful backers of the religious partition.
But the U.N. never took the final step to actually create the partition. "The General Assembly’s partition proposal never went to the Security Council for consideration. Why not? Because the U.S. knew that, if approved, it could only be implemented by force given the extent of Arab and other Muslim opposition to it; and President Truman was not prepared to use force to partition Palestine." Consequently, "[T]he partition plan was vitiated (became invalid) and the question of what to do about Palestine – after Britain had made a mess of it and walked away, effectively surrendering to Zionist terrorism – was taken back to the General Assembly for more discussion. The option favoured and proposed by the U.S. was temporary UN Trusteeship. It was while the General Assembly was debating what do that Israel unilaterally declared itself to be in existence."
The bankers decided the time to take over the land was now, or wait until the next big war. They acted unilaterally to make it a "fact on the ground". Their Jewish supremacist troops started clearing out the Muslims. A Palestinian town almost unknown in America, but famous in the Arab world, is Deir Yassin. In order to terrify the unarmed Muslim population into fleeing their homes and lands, on April 9, 1948 the Irgun attacked Deir Yassin, assisted by Haganah, and men, women, and children were slaughtered.
Precisely what happened at Deir Yassin is somewhat controversial, since both sides claim ulterior motives for the other's account. According to Mr. Menachem Begin, leader of the attack on Deir Yassin, "The other part of the Irgun's contribution was Deir Yassin, which has caused the Arabs to leave the country and make room for the newcomers." This is from an account that gathers information from many witnesses and reports, including that of Jacques de Reynier, head of the International Committee of the Red Cross delegation in Palestine, and his assistant Dr. Alfred Engel. Theirs is a chilling report.
The consequence was that the unarmed population from nearby towns, villages, and farms fled in terror. Begin's assessment was confirmed by writer Arthur Koestler. "Probably Deir Yasin remained an isolated incident only because its meaning was so clear that the Arabs left the country. Mr. Arthur Koestler is definite about this cause-and-effect. He was in Palestine and says the Arab civilian population, after Deir Yasin, at once fled from Haifa, Tiberia, Jaffa and all other cities and then from the entire country, so that 'by May 14 all had gone save for a few thousand.' All impartial authorities agree about the intention and effect of Deir Yasin."
Deir Yassin was followed by other operations, to which resistence was negligible, and the territory was essentially emptied. Here's a documentary of interviews with people from both sides of operations clearing out the Muslim residents.
And once people left their homes, they were never allowed back, despite possessing keys and deeds, and in clear violation of international law. The first Prime Minister of Israel, David Ben Gurion said, "If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been Anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?" Quoted by Nahum Goldmann in Le Paraddoxe Juif (The Jewish Paradox), pp121.
Ben Gurion stated that Israel's plan was to continue taking more land after the partition. "[I am] satisfied with part of the country, but on the basis of the assumption that after we build up a strong force following the establishment of the state - we will abolish the partition of the country and we will expand to the whole Land of Israel."
How could anyone think that importing armed, staunch segregationist Jewish supremacists into Palestine, and having them at gunpoint drive out massive numbers of unarmed Muslims, BECAUSE THEY'RE MUSLIMS rather than Jews, while being surrounded by a sea of Muslims, would create a safe haven for Jews? It would be more rational to expect exactly the conflict predicted by the majority of Jews in Western Europe and America, who initially opposed the establishment of Israel partly for exactly that reason. They were correct in those predictions, and that predicted conflict has existed continuously ever since.
Bankers are well-known for their rationality, especially about money. And wars have been very profitable for bankers over hundreds of years. They discovered they could make money from both sides of a war. War is also highly profitable for corporations in which the bankers own interests. By one rough estimate, more is consumed in a day of war than a year of peace. All the expensive ammunition and weapon stockpiles need to be replenished. And all the destroyed infrastructure needs to be rebuilt.
When the bankers made their move, they had finally garnered support for a Jewish state from most Jews in Western Europe and America due to the Nazi holocaust. This turn of events made more plausible the case for Israel as a "safe haven" for Jews, even though it was a war zone. Amira Hass, an Israeli writer and ha'aretz columnist, has said that if it were not for the Holocaust, Israel would never have been established.
Before World War II began the Zionist movement actively collaborated with the Nazis. This was because they were both promoting the idea that a Jew could never be a loyal citizen of any country other than a Jewish state. That idea was anathema to most Jews in Western Europe and America, because it threatened their ongoing, successful assimilation into those societies.
The bankers also cooperated with the Nazis by funding their military build-up. This enabled Germany to go from an economic basket case to having the most technologically advanced military in Europe in a few short years. In his book examining this period, Why England Slept, John F. Kennedy gives the comparative numbers of military forces and equipment, showing Germany racing ahead of England and France. Germany's equipment build-up was so massive and so costly that the British assumed Germany's credit would soon collapse.
"Englishmen, with their emphasis on balanced budgets and sound economy, had watched the German financial hocus-pocus with amazement. Accustomed to the automatic laws of capitalism, they yearly prophesied inflation of the mark and the ruin of Germany's credit system." (pp. 171,172)
But Hitler's credit did not collapse. How did the bankers who were loaning all that money to Hitler think they would see a return on their investment? Did they think all those Panzer tanks, Luftwaffe fighter planes, bombers, V2 rockets, and U-Boats would be converted to a booming civilian economy? Or perhaps that Hitler would win a war? Or that any war would inevitably be profitable?
Whatever the bankers' exact ROI plan, one outcome was that eventually the British had to borrow massive amounts of money for their own buildup of war weaponry. A second outcome was step (2) of the bankers' plan, in which they took military control of Palestine from the British. A third outcome was a continuing religious conflict, predicted decades in advance by many knowledgeable and thoughtful people. A fourth outcome was the establishment of a major arms industry in Israel, which sells arms around the world.
Today the Jewish supremacist mindset remains in a controlling position in Israel's government. This is the "settler" faction, which continues to have powerful patrons. Israeli director Dror Moreh has made a documentary, The Gatekeepers, that includes interviews with several former top Israeli security officials who confirm this. Interviewed on NPR about his documentary, Mr. Moreh said, "And then, you know, if there is a political movement inside Israel who has the most significant influence over the Israeli politics, it's the settlement movement. The settler leaders are living within the corridors of power of Israel on all levels, and they are the most influential one."
Thus the segregationist Jewish supremacists have been maintained in a position where they can kill any peace treaty that would stop them from taking over the rest of Palestine. There they can keep their religious supremacist goals alive, and the war profiteers' conflict, too. The constant threat of war is used to justify huge purchases of military weapons and other supplies. If a shooting war occurs, as in Iraq, and possibly Iran, huge profits can be quickly made.
This has led to Israel's pattern of re-starting the conflict when calm and peace has approached.
And the facts on the ground about Israel's ethnic cleansing continue to accumulate.
Another account of Israel's land goals and deceptions is here.
This reality is becoming harder and harder to ignore. Even an Israeli general's son has spoken publicly on these myths & realities of Israel.
President Jimmy Carter, who demonstrated with serious actions his commitment to an Israel living in peace with a Palestinian state, finally concluded that Israel is interested in further land conquests rather than peace.
Jewish-Israeli writer Uri Avnery discusses one of many instances in which Israeli leaders purposely blocked movement toward peace.
"To my mind, the assassination of Arafat was a crime against Israel.
"Arafat was the man who was ready to make peace and who was able to get the Palestinian people to accept it. He also laid down the terms: a Palestinian state with borders based on the Green Line, with its capital in East Jerusalem.
"This is exactly what his assassins aimed to prevent." Avnery is specific in his view that the assassins were Israeli government agents.
Jewish-American writer M.J. Rosenberg reports that the continued ethnic cleansing is financed by a few billionaires who can pay for "settlement" construction and American elections. "Tip O'Neill used to say that 'all politics is local.' He wasn't talking about foreign policy which, in theory, cannot be local. But it is now. Fewer than a thousand donors determine it."
Uri Avnery agrees, stating, "The Israeli right, which is financed by right-wing American billionaires, both Jews and Christian evangelicals, this week launched an all-out attack against the liberal New Israel Fund, which donates generously to all the struggles [for justice] mentioned above."
Despite a strong Jewish presence among the major bankers of Europe, and hence America, this issue is not fundamentally about Jewishness. It is about a human phenomenon that crosses all ethnic distinctions. It is about predatory business dealing, which always uses deception. It may hide behind a belief that some ethnic group is a master race or a chosen people, and hence entitled to dominate other people. A lot of profitable conflict can be generated among people with that kind of belief.
Some Jews happened to get in on the ground floor of banking in Europe. For traveling they carried their wealth in the compact forms of precious stones and metals. They dealt with the feudal nobles in Europe, eventually becoming managers overseeing estates. Eventually they were loaning money to kings, often spent on wars, and gaining political influence. And knowing a war was coming, it would also be natural to invest in war supplies.
Similarly, Indians in Kenya have been a minority in a controlling economic position, and stirred resentment among the Kenyans. Muslims in Myanmar have been in a similar situation. The resentment comes from being and feeling taken advantage of. President Andrew Jackson fought America's first central bank over this very issue - a financially priviledged group robbing the rest by deceptive, insider dealing. Presidents Jefferson and Lincoln both worried about this phenomenon. Lincoln worried specifically about the fortunes that were being made right then on the Civil War, from selling war supplies and lending money to the government. German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck is reputed to have said that European bankers contributed to the onset of the Civil War for its profits.
It was natural for the European bankers to be interested in investing in a developing continent. The rise of the JPMorgan bank owed much to the European Rothschild money behind it.
Today Wall Street is an acknowledged financial support center for Israel's policies. Martin Peretz, editor in chief of The New Republic, said, "I'll give you one sign of the times: Chuck Schumer [New York's senior Senator] waited a year and a half before he stood up for Israel, and he's been having trouble raising money on Wall Street."
This is NOT primarily an issue of religion. It is an issue of wealth. Throughout history some wealthy people have felt themselves to be like a superior species. Sometimes it is mixed with religion, sometimes it is not. Bernie Madoff, a top Wall Street financier and insider, who also happened to be a Jew, swindled the Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity, which is dedicated to reminding people of the Holocaust, and stole Weisel's family money as well. Madoff was clearly a completely non-spiritual, materialistic person who preyed upon other people's religious feelings. English King Henry VIII, nominally a Christian, was equally non-spiritual and materialistic. He ruled with a cruel hand, and had people executed for personal animosity. The Catholic church incurred the protestant revolt, spearheaded by Martin Luther, for swindling the German people by claiming to sell them forgiveness from sins.
Historically, predatory financiers in the Jewish community have brought resentment and trouble to the Jewish community.
These predators then rally the Jewish community to protect them by blaming this trouble on "anti-semitism".
This has the effect of segregating Jews, much like the Talmudic Jewish leaders of Eastern Europe.
One of the war profiteers' major swindles has been to dupe Western European and American Jews into financing and manning their perpetual war zone as a "safe haven". But not all Jews have been fooled. Here's a statement by a Jewish Holocaust survivor (the Holocaust also targeted non-Jews) who says "AIPAC doesn't speak for me."
A Jewish psychotherapist with a background in political studies, who grew up in Israel, has analyzed some of the psychological factors making it hard for many Jews to escape from this mindset.
Muslims who were forcibly dispossessed in the Zionist invasion, who still have the keys and deeds to their homes that were taken, today must go through security checkpoints, subject to searches and pat-downs, in order to even look at their former homes.
Further, all Americans who board a plane anywhere in the USA, even if their destination is also in the USA, must also go through security checkpoints, subjecting themselves to searches and pat-downs. This is to protect war-profiteering bankers and their ethnic supremacist troops. It also serves to fan ethnic fear and conflict.
In American politics, fanning a fear of Muslims is handled almost exclusively by people in the Republican party. It's seen in the Republican campaign to scare Christians with a bogus threat of Sharia law, as well as a general demonizing of Muslims.
The Republicans wouldn't focus on provoking this ethnic fear if their bankers didn't want it done, since the Republican party is almost completely controlled by the Wall Street banks. "Without Wall Street, Republicans risk their coffers emptying."
The strategy of stirring ethnic fears is further seen with the bogus "war on Christmas". It's also seen in GOP's long-running fanning of racial fear.
These intense campaigns of fear have created chaos in the public discussion, making it almost impossible to have a rational discussion of even the most important issues. Making democracy dysfunctional appears to be a central part of the strategy. While the war profiteering bankers themselves make extensive use of mathematics and science, they promote a religion-based, anti-science irrationality that hinders efforts to curb their power. They may well believe they will benefit from a major climate catastrophe, given the intensity of their science denial campaign on the issue. It wouldn't be that different from creating a war for profit.
Similarly, economic crashes, while harmful to most people, have historically been highly profitable for them, since they have the capacity to buy up resources when prices plummet.
In line with this pattern, the Great Recession of 2008 saw "record profits" on Wall Street.
Like Bernie Madoff, these financial predators will swindle anybody, regardless of religion or race. Their representatives brazenly lie to the public, disrupt the democratic process, and squelch the open discussion upon which democracy depends.
Their inhumane desire for perpetual cheap labor drives them to block family planning globally, and block any comprehensive immigration reform in America, just as their heartless desire for perpetual war drives them to block any peace agreement with the Palestinians.
A firsthand, insightful portrait of this mindset is given by Kay Griggs, an Army colonel's wife from a Navy family, a Christian, and an educated woman. Her husband turned out to be a highly placed servant of this mindset, including being an assassination instructor for the U.S. Army. As a sincere Christian, she found herself trying to save her husband. She had been a history major in college, and she researched her husband and the people with whom he worked. Among her researching, she found his diary.
She reports that this mindset is characterized by an absolute ruthlessness toward other human beings. She also learned that it was cultivated and maintained in her husband's world using sexual blackmail. As far as she was able to see, the top level control was coming from weapons dealers and banks. Kay Griggs' thoughtful analysis is filled with specific details and names, many of which resonate in today's politics.
The use of sexual blackmail would explain why some prominent members of society would publicly make blatantly false, or blatantly illogical, or blatantly bigoted statements. To them, the complete ruin of their career would be a far worse fate than merely being seen as devoid of reason or ethics by much of the public. Sex parties of the sort described by Mrs. Griggs, whether in the military or corporate retreats, would be ideal settings to tempt future "leaders" into apparently secret indiscretions. Later they find they have an iron collar around their neck, and are saying reprehensible things and casting reprehensible votes.
Conspiracies have existed through the entire history of humankind. The idea that there is no conspiracy among at least some of the ultra-wealthy is highly improbable, given human nature and history the way it is. Mocking the very idea of conspiracies is a key tactic to keep such discussions off the table.
A non-sectarian democracy in Palestine, as its residents were initially promised by the British, would have established a valuable precedent in the Middle East. Instead, a religious war was started. How could such a drastic reversal of direction have happened? How could America, the world's first avowed non-sectarian democracy, with the separation of church and state declared in its Constitution, precisely to avoid such conflicts, which had historically plagued Europe and the American colonies, how could it put its might behind the formation of a religious state, breaking a standing promise for an American-style democracy, and starting a well-predicted religious war to do so? How could the constitutionally protected guard dogs of the free press be so completely de-fanged? Money, in extremely large quantities, swamped the protections that had been built into America's democratic institutions.
And in dragging America into supporting the glaring injustice of this religious supremacist ethnic cleansing, the people behind this money have severely damaged America's moral credibility around the world, including with many Americans. This is a crippling effect, because American can only lead in world affairs, be that "indispensible nation", when its moral credibility is sound.
President Obama's main message on a visit to Israel, delivered to an audience of students, the future leaders of Israel, was that "Palestinians are just like you." This kind of talk scares Zionists because it contradicts a central tenet of Zionism, that Jews are different from everybody else, and because of that difference have God's permission, or even instruction, to drive Palestinians from their homes and lands. As Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann said in 1919, "The Bible is our mandate."
More recently former financier and current Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in a conversation on the Charlie Rose Show, also used the Bible to justify Zionism's longstanding assault on the Muslims in Palestine. "Why is this conflict here? ... The Palestinians were offered a Palestinian state in 1948. They opposed it because they didn't want a Jewish state. ... We were there for 2000 years before the Arab conquest. Now, I have a deep attachment to these places. They're in the Bible."
The belief in one's own ethnic superiority and privilege always seems to cause problems. When the Nazis had this attitude, it was also a catastrophe. That's two catastrophes in a row. It's a primitive, barbaric belief that, for the good of the planet as a whole, must be eliminated. Among its many problems, it leaves under-informed people easy prey for seriously disturbed, ultra-wealthy predators.