Returning To Sanity And Extricating Washington And Tehran From The Holy Land

“I am not worried about the Communist Party taking over the Government of the United States, but I am against a person, whose loyalty is not to the Government of the United States, holding a Government job. They are entirely different things. I am not worried about this country ever going Communist. We have too much sense for that.” – President Harry S. Truman.

“The Jews, I find are very, very selfish. They care not how many Estonians, Latvians, Finns, Poles, Yugoslavs or Greeks get murdered or mistreated as DP as long as the Jews get special treatment. Yet when they have power, physical, financial or political neither Hitler nor Stalin has anything on them for cruelty or mistreatment to the under dog. Put an underdog on top and it makes no difference whether his name is Russian, Jewish, Negro, Management, Labor, Mormon, Baptist he goes haywire. I’ve found very, very few who remember their past condition when prosperity comes. Look at the Congress[ional] attitude on DP — and they all come from DPs.” – President Harry S. Truman.

“In shaping his policy toward Palestine Truman experienced continuous pressures, especially from the Jewish community, virtually from the very moment he took office as president. These pressures were not limited to solicitation of his political and diplomatic support. “Top Jewish leaders in the United States were putting all sorts of pressure on me to commit American power and forces on behalf of the Jewish aspirations in Palestine.”

When the Palestine question reached the forum of the United Nations, Zionist efforts to ensure partition gained in intensity. They also bifurcated: some were directed toward securing a favorable vote of lesser Latin American countries and some were aiming straight at the U.S. president. According to Truman,

The facts were that not only were there pressure movements around the United Nations unlike anything that had been seen there before but that the White House, too, was subjected to a constant barrage. I do not think I ever had as much pressure and propaganda aimed at the White House as I had in this instance. The persistence of a few of the extreme Zionist leaders — actuated by political motives and engaging in political threats — disturbed and annoyed me.”

The president’s daughter, Margaret, also testifies to the relentlessness and intensity of the Zionist campaign that “irritated” the president. Zionist leaders, she recalls, urged her father to “browbeat” South American and other countries into supporting partition. She acknowledges that “It was one of the worst messes of my father’s career. … To tell the truth about what had happened would have made him and the entire American government look ridiculous. Not even in his memoirs did he feel free to tell the whole story, although he hinted at it. Now I think it is time for it to be told.” Thus she reveals that on August 23, 1947, some three months before the UN partition vote, the president expressed his disapproval of Zionist pressures in a letter to Eleanor Roosevelt: “The action of some of our United States Zionists will prejudice everyone against what they are trying to get done. I fear very much that the Jews are like all underdogs. When they get on the top, they are just as intolerant and as cruel as the people were to them when they were underneath. I regret this situation very much because my sympathy has always been on their side.”

But the president’s resentment at the pressures intensified when they were accompanied by threats. Margaret Truman recalls an episode when, in October 1948, a New York Democratic Party delegation called on her father to urge him to offer Israel de jure recognition, lift the arms embargo, and endorse the widest possible boundaries for the Jewish state. Failure to do this, they warned, would result in certain loss of New York State. On this occasion Truman did not conceal his irritation. “Dad looked them in the eye and said: ‘You have come to me as a pressure group. If you believe for one second that I will bargain my convictions for the votes you imply would be mine, you are pathetically mistaken. Good morning.’ “

It should be noted that pressures were not restricted to recognized Zionist leaders. They also emanated from highly placed White House officials, both Jewish and non-Jewish, such as David K. Niles, adviser on national minorities, Samuel I. Rosenman, a counselor, and Clark Clifford, an assistant to the president (and later a cabinet member). A rather special role was played by Truman’s former partner in the haberdashery business, Eddie Jacobson, who in March 1948 urged and convinced the president to overcome his reluctance and receive Dr. Chaim Weizmann, at that time head of the Jewish Agency for Palestine.

Furthermore, one should not underestimate the influence exerted on behalf of the Zionist cause by non-Jewish leaders. These included a variety of individuals and groups ranging from religious fundamentalists to politicians. Mobilization of these elements in favor of the Zionist program constituted a major strategic objective of the Zionist leadership. On the other hand, while some of these Christian leaders gave wholehearted support to Zionist efforts, certain well-established and affluent Jewish notables opposed, or were indifferent to, the idea of establishing a Jewish homeland, inasmuch as they considered it harmful and likely to expose them to charges of dual loyalty and unpatriotic behavior. Prominent Jewish Americans such as Jacob H. Schiff, Felix M. Warburg, Adolph S. Ochs, Julius Rosenwald, and Monroe Deutsch could be listed as belonging to this category.

Whatever misgivings Truman might have had about the Zionist program, he eventually not only embraced it but added impetus to it by ordering the U.S. delegation at the United Nations to vote for partition. It is not easy to give an evaluation of his motives in choosing this option. Initially, as we have seen, he was merely interested in relieving human misery by urging admission of displaced Jews to British-ruled Palestine. In that early stage he appeared to be quite firm in rejecting “a political structure imposed on the Near East that would result in conflict.” He was also aware, as we have seen, of the gains likely to accrue to the Soviets if Arabs were to be antagonized. Yet he ultimately chose a policy that did lead to conflict and opened the gates to Soviet penetration of the Arab world, as the examples of Nasser’s Egypt, Syria, Iraq, and other states showed. Was this policy based on his genuine conversion to the idea that the thus generated conflict in the Middle East was of secondary importance and that the Soviet factor could be safely disregarded? This alternative does not quite square with his determination to stop Soviet advances in the northern tier of Iran, Turkey, and Greece. Furthermore, as his arms embargo indicated, he did not identify U.S. interests with Israel’s victory and never went on record claiming that Israel was America’s ally or strategic asset. This leaves us with the other possible alternative — that despite his resentment of the political pressures at home he chose to give them priority over other considerations. Certain observers who stood close to the decision-making process of that era were convinced that domestic politics constituted a major motivation in Truman’s behavior. In the often quoted statement addressed to four American envoys from the Middle East who, at a meeting in the White House on November 10, 1945, warned him of adverse effects of a pro-Zionist policy, he declared: “I am sorry, gentlemen, but I have to answer to hundreds of thousands who are anxious for the success of Zionism: I do not have hundreds of thousands of Arabs among my constituents.” - George Lenczowski, “American Presidents and the Middle East” 1990, Duke University Press, Pg. 21 – 30 (more here.)

What we have in Washington is a classic case of the tail wagging the dog. 

The state of Israel, which came into being thanks to Western efforts, including Nazi Germany in its early, more romantic phase, is punching way above its weight class because of its stranglehold on American politics.

And the reality of the pressure that Zionist organizations in the United States put on presidents and elected leaders is nothing new. 

From Truman to Trump, they have not stopped one minute or skipped one administration. Like the mafia they threaten, bully, blackmail, and if all else fails, kill. 

In 1948 they threatened Truman’s political career and probably his life too to get him to acquiesce and recognize their excessive territorial demands at the U.N. I can’t imagine what they have on Trump to get him to behave like an obedient dog.

When Israel became a full fledged member of the family of nations in 1948 it was expected to act civilized. But from its inception it has savagely discarded all the rules, norms, laws, and regulations that were enshrined in international law after two devastating world wars. 

Tel Aviv doesn’t give a damn about international etiquette or the laws of war. Its theological, territorial, and eschatological ambitious supersede all else.

But the question remains—is the state of Israel acting alone in this historical drama, or do the Freemasons behind the scenes hold even greater power over the course of events? 

Who is the master  – the Mason, or the Zionist? The Christian or the Jew? The Priest or the Rabbi? The President of America or the Prime Minister of Israel? The fat pedophile or the genocidal maniac?

And how did the world get here?

Isn’t it curious that the Arab-Jewish war grew into a dialectical struggle between Islam and the West over the span of a few generations? 

How did the establishment of Israel in 1948, supposedly done to help ordinary Jews escape European persecution and genocide, serve as a catalyst for a mighty religious struggle that threatens to engulf much of the West Asia region in a gigantic war? 

With the power disparity that Israel possesses over the Palestinians, which has been true since its founding, you would think this war would have been over in 1950. Or at least 1960. 

Why has it taken so long to solve this conflict?

Because modern Israel’s identity is tied to its ancient past and its religious dimensions it cannot settle for peace with terms. Even the thought of sharing Jerusalem with any other faith is anathema to it. It believes it has a divine mission to conquer all of the land. It believes it is God. 

This massive ego inflation lies at the heart of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The state of Israel does not exist in current times or modern political reality. It is not killing Palestinians but the ghosts and villains of its past traumas. They have lost touch with reality. If the prisoners of Arkham Asylum were given a state they would act much in the vein of the Israelis.

But they are not the only crazy ones. The injection of Tehran into this drama in 1979 transformed a small land struggle into a wider religious war. And, as it’s been documented, the Islamic Republic was not an organic creation. It was not produced by a popular revolt. Like all modern political revolutions there were probably masonic fingerprints over that transition in Iran. 

So when we step back from this long Israeli-Palestinian conflict we have to ask ourselves—-what is in it for Washington and Tehran? 

Why be so deeply wedded to the destiny of the land of Israel? What do average Americans and Iranians get out of it? 

Who cares if a Jew or an Arab sits on the throne in Jerusalem? Why commit precious and limited national resources to secure either outcome? Will that lower food prices, reduce rents, strengthen the economy? 

And what’s in it for Europe? South America? As well as other nations far removed from the region. 

Why should we care who rules in Jerusalem when the political leaders in our own countries have failed us?