The Balfour Declaration

A history of perfidy and betrayal in the Mideast gives insight into the motivations behind the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

By Dr. Robert John

  Presidents Bush and Clinton said that "we are a target because we stand for democracy, freedom, and human rights in the world. Nonsense! People in Canada enjoy democracy, freedom, and human rights. So do the people of Norway and Sweden. Have you heard of Canadian embassies being bombed? Or Norwegian, or Swedish?" Robert Bowman, bishop of the United Catholic Church in Melbourne Beach FL, who marched in protest of Israeli attacks in Bethlehem and other Palestinian towns. He flew 101 combat missions in Vietnam.

   Essentially, from the end of World War I to World War II, the empires of Britain, France, and Italy, controlled Arab territories. Since then, the United States has been the controlling imperial power in the Middle East.


    Prior to World War I, Arab territories were part of the Ottoman Empire. The Sultan had taken the title of Khalif-al-Islam, or supreme religious leader of Moslems everywhere. When Turkey joined Germany in the war, the Sultan sent a summons to Sherif Hussein of Mecca, great-grandfather of the present King of Jordan, to declare a Jihad, or holy war, against the Allies. The British promised to support Arab independence, if Hussein revolted instead.

    There is a moment in the film Lawrence of Arabia when Peter O'Toole, clad in an Arab clothes not unlike Osama bin Laden, asks General Allenby (Jack Hawkins) to confirm that he can promise Sherif Hussein independence in return for Arab support in destroying the Turkish army. For just a brief, devastating moment, Hawkins hesitates; then his face becomes all smiling benevolence: "Of course!" he says. Eventually shamed by what happened to British honor, Lawrence returned his medals to the British government.

    I have held in my hand the long-secret document for the inner group (USA, Britain, France, Italy) at the Paris Peace Conference that clearly recognizes that the Arabs had been promised their independence in 1915, including Palestine! It is marked "SECRET This Document is the property of His Britannic Majesty's Government."

    Kept secret, because in 1917 the British government-through international bankers-offered a national home for Jews in Palestine, at the expense of the land and future of the Palestinians.
    This promissory note to Lord Rothschild for the Zionist Federation, the Balfour Declaration, partly drafted by Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Louis Brandeis, and underwritten by the Congress of the United States of America, has cost and continues to cost American taxpayers billions of dollars a year. The intervention has caused suffering to millions of people, and death to many, and its consequences are major influences on domestic and international affairs.

    Brandeis, who joined the Court in 1916, was actually nominated by trial attorney Louis Untermeyer, in return for his pre-election purchase and suppression of Wilson's passionate letters to Mary Allen Peck, with whom Wilson had committed adultery.

    Similarly, Lloyd George was beholden to a barrister, Rufus Isaacs, by whom he was implicated in insider trading in Marconi shares. When Isaacs was offered and accepted the post of Lord Chief Justice less than six months later, Rudyard Kipling wrote Gehazi, since described as 'one of the greatest hate poems ever written.' Instead of jail, within the shortest time ever, Isaacs was made a baron, a viscount, an earl, and Marquess-of Reading.

    The noted Jewish author Arthur Koestler wrote that in the perfidious correspondence "one nation solemnly promised to a second nation the country of a third." More than that, the land was still part of the empire of a fourth, namely Turkey.

    Lloyd George had only headed the Government since December 1916, when his predecessor Asquith was ousted by a coup de main. George had been legal counsel for the Zionists, and while Minister of Munitions, had assured Chaim Weizmann, future president of Israel, that "he was very keen to see a Jewish state established in Palestine." George's choice as his Foreign Secretary was Arthur Balfour, already known for his Zionist sympathies.

    After World War I, Prime Minister Lloyd George wrote in his Memoirs of the Peace Conference, where, as planned years before, the Zionists were strongly represented, that there was competition with Germany for Jewish support::

    "There is no better proof of the value of the Balfour Declaration as a military move than the fact that Germany entered into negotiations with Turkey in an endeavor to provide an alternative scheme which would appeal to Zionists. A German-Jewish Society, the V. J. O. D., was formed, and in January 1918, Talaat, the Turkish Grand Vizier, at the instigation of the Germans, gave vague promises of legislation by means of which "all justifiable wishes of the Jews in Palestine would be able to meet their fulfillment."

    "Another most cogent reason for the adoption by the Allies of the policy of the Declaration lay in the state of Russia herself. Russian Jews had been secretly active on behalf of the Central Powers from the first; they had become the chief agents of German pacifist propaganda in Russia; by 1917 they had done much in preparing for that general disintegration of Russian society, later recognized as the Revolution. It was believed that if Great Britain declared for the fulfillment of Zionist aspirations in Palestine under her own pledge, one effect would be to bring Russian Jewry to the cause of the Entente.

    "It was believed, also, that such a declaration would have a potent influence upon world Jewry outside Russia, and secure for the Entente the aid of Jewish financial interests. In America, their aid in this respect would have a special value when the Allies had almost exhausted the gold and marketable securities available for American purchases. Such were the chief considerations which, in 1917, impelled the British Government towards making a contract with Jewry" (p. 726).

   Winston Churchill said:

    "The Balfour Declaration must, therefore, not be regarded as a promise given from sentimental motives; it was a practical measure taken in the interests of a common cause at a moment when that cause could afford to neglect no factor of moral or material assistance." Speaking in the House of Commons on 4 July 1922, Winston Churchill asked rhetorically, "Are we to keep our pledge to the Zionists made in 1917? Pledges and promises were made during the war, and they were made, not only on the merits, though I think the merits are considerable. They were made because it was considered they would be of value to us in our struggle to win the war. It was considered that the support which the Jews could give us all over the world, and particularly in the United States, and also in Russia, would be a definite palpable advantage.

    I was not responsible at that time for the giving of those pledges, nor for the conduct of the war of which they were, when given, an integral part. But like other members I supported the policy of the War Cabinet. Like other members, I accepted and was proud to accept a share in those great transactions, which left us with terrible losses, with formidable obligations, but nevertheless with unchallengeable victory."

    As for Britain, Oxford historian Elizabeth Monroe's study, Britain's Moment in the Middle East (Chatto & Windus, 1963, p. 43) concludes, "Measured by British interests alone, the Balfour Declaration was one of the greatest mistakes in our imperial history."

    Sir Arnold Toynbee, historian and a delegate to the (1919) Paris Peace Conference, wrote in his foreword to The Palestine Diary (New World Press) that there are Palestinian refugees because "Jewish immigration was imposed on the Palestinian Arabs by British military power…The tragedy in Palestine is not just a local one; it is a tragedy for the World, because it is an injustice that is a menace to the World's peace. Britain's guilt is not diminished by the humiliating fact that she is now impotent to redress the wrong that has been done."


    William Yale, who was special agent of the State Dept. in the Near East in World War I, told me on 12th May 1970 that Woodrow Wilson had asked him in 1919 to interview persons who might be influential to the future of the area. He interviewed General Allenby, Chaim Weizmann and others. Yale asked Weizmann what he would do if the British did not support the Balfour Declaration for the establishment of a national home for the Jews in Palestine. Yale said, "Weizmann pounded his fist on the table and the teacups jumped. 'If they don't,' he said, 'we'll smash the British Empire like we smashed the Russian Empire."

    For some Germans and others following World War I, the weight given the Balfour Declaration by British Prime Minister Lloyd George, Winston Churchill, and other powerful figures, in securing allegedly critical Jewish support resulting in the Allied victory, lent credence from the highest authorities to anti-Jewish feeling. Is this a way of understanding subsequent German susceptibility to discrimination against Jews following the Great War? The integrating relationship between German Jews and non-Jews was disrupted, a relationship that had been so firm that many German Jews could hardly accept that it had been jeopardized.

    President Wilson was no better than the British imperialists, for all the advertising of self-determination of peoples as an American value. A commission, headed by his appointees, King and Crane, was sent to elucidate the state of opinion in the area. They sent a telegram to the President on 20 June 1919, warning "There was a deep belief in American peace declarations 'as in those of the British and French Governments of 9 November 1918 on right of people to self-determination." The Commission's Report stated "There was hostility to French control of Syria, and "The feeling against the Zionist program was not confined to Palestine but was shared very generally throughout the area." Wilson was - in the words of his Secretary of War Lindley Garrison - a man of high ideals and no principles.


    Permission was not given for the printing of extracts of the Report until after the U. S. Congress had confirmed the Balfour Declaration, where the Resolution was introduced by Mr. Hamilton Fish of New York, and the League of Nations had approved a proposed British Mandate for Palestine. Thus, in the one area of the Near/Middle East where the wishes for self-determination of the inhabitants had been determined, Wilson suppressed the information.

    The resolution adopted by the United States Congress: on June 30, 1922 was the following
Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled. That the United States of America favours the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which should prejudice the civil and religious rights of Christians and all other non-Jewish communities in Palestine, and the holy places and religious buildings and sites in Palestine shall be adequately protected.


    Why have American presidents and the United States Congress dishonored the American people by not keeping that pledge to the "Christians and all other non-Jewish communities in Palestine"?

    In area wars resulting from the British pledge and its implementation, and American support, millions of the Palestinians' neighbors in Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, and Syria, even Saudi Arabia, have been involved. Can one deny righteous anger -- even hatred -- of descendants who learn the truth? Did the men who piloted those planes on September 11, 2001 know? (most likely, the planes were UAVs, so there were no pilots)

    Public ignorance in Europe and America of these facts, and many more supporting them, allows Britons and Americans to be free from guilt for the enormity of crimes resulting from the perfidy--the breach of faith of their representatives Lloyd George and Woodrow Wilson, and those who followed them. The German people have been required to acknowledge, atone and pay for the sins of some of their fathers "unto the third and fourth generation." Should the British, American and Jewish people acknowledge, atone and pay for the deaths, dispossession and exile of millions of Palestinians? (See footnote)

    When Britain withdrew its forces from Palestine in response to Jewish terrorism, Field Marshall Montgomery, Chief of the Imperial General Staff, wrote, "The result of being driven out of Palestine was to weaken our overall strategic position in the Middle East, and that of the Western world generally in the struggle between East and West."


    At the beginning of the 20th century millions of people in the Near and Middle East from Lebanon to Afghanistan believed that an Englishman's word was his bond and that the States of America were neutral in Near and Middle Eastern matters. A century later, millions there who know the facts believe the USA is their enemy - even a Great Satan - and Britain has become its running dog with Blair barking "bin Laden!"

    Too much history? The peoples of the Middle East live it. The Economist Oct. 15, 2001 edition about the attack on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, noting "the day a British mandate came into force in Palestine, over the heads of unyielding Arab opposition," quoted from a dispatch from Jerusalem to London's The Times of 1922. "The Arabs declared a day of mourning throughout the city and the shops were closed as a protest against today's formal proclamation of the Mandate, but no Jews were molested." -- The day was September 11.

  

    (Footnote. "Let us not forget that the founders of modern, international terrorism were the Zionist revisionists led by Jabotinsky, who inspired Menchem Begin, leader of the Irgun Zwei Leumi, and Yitzhak Shamir's leader of the Stern Gang (Lehi). Have we forgotten the huge bomb these people left in the basement of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem?
    "Have we forgotten the massacre at Deir Yassein and numerous other similar act of extermination which were designed to terrorize the Palestinian people and send them fleeing for their lives away from their land? Have we forgotten the slow hanging with piano wire of the kidnapped British Army sergeants Mervyn Paice and Clifford Martin in the eucalyptus groves of Netanya? (Their bodies were also booby-trapped with explosives."
Bamford, James. Excerpts from Body of Secrets, in The Guardian, Sept 8, 2001.)




    Dr. John is a leading foreign affairs expert, and diplomatic historian. He is the author of The Palestine Diary: British, American and United Nations Intervention 1914-1948. In his foreword, Arnold Toynbee, the outstanding historian of the 20th century, wrote, "I hope this book will be widely read in the United States, and this by Jewish and non-Jewish Americans. If the American Government were constrained by American public opinion to take a non-partisan line in Palestine, the situation in Palestine might quickly change for the better."

NE OUBLIE.

Salient Features

Some features of Obama’s new peace deal are:

• A declaration by Israel “an additional suspension of construction in the West Bank for a mere 90 day period that does not include East Jerusalem occupied by Israel in 1967 war but not accepted by the international community
• A pledge not to seek any extension to the settlement freeze after the expiry of 90 days even the talks are not concluded
• A guarantee to veto any resolutions deemed to be anti-Israel, brought to the United Nations Security Council and other international organizations that seek to impose a political settlement on Israel
• A supply of $3 billion worth war planes to Israel to maintain its qualitative edge in the region
• Signing of a more comprehensive deal by the US to enhance its substantial security aid to Israel as part of any future agreement with Palestinians

It can be seen that this is completely one sided deal prepared for the advantage of Israelis. A peace deal should not be advantageous to either parties, but should confirm the genuine aspirations on both sides.   (End of quote).

Believe it or not this is portrayed as the BEST that the all powerful United States of America can up with in answer to the Zionist fascist dictates - a copy of Neville Chamberlain's "peace in our time" with another well known fascist, Adolf Hitler.  He too invaded and occupied other nations and committed heinous crimes against those he called the "untermenschen".

The crimes against the Palestinians - although they had no involvement in the “untermenschen” holocaust in Europe – and had welcomed the “stateless” Jewish refugees into their country – were rewarded by an even more evil and criminal people in the Zionists Jews who have surpassed the cruelty of the Nazi regime.

Last week, a friend of ours from four doors up, named Elfriede Kallweit passed away – she was a Jewish child who survived in the infirmary of Auschwitz . R.I.P.

NE OUBLIE.

That nobody can deny. Why?

NE OUBLIE.

The Hon Dr Mike Kelly AM MP,                                 

Member for Eden Monaro,                                         

Parliament House,

CANBERRA.  ACT.  2600.                                                     November 23rd, 2010.

By Email: M.Kelly.MP@aph.gov.au

Dear Dr Kelly,

We are writing to you re your prospective trip to Israel in December organised by the Australia Israel Leadership Forum. We believe that there are a number of concerns that should give you pause to reconsider your participation.

As the peace talks certainly look set to fail because of Israeli intransigence on illegal settlement construction, Australia should be particularly circumspect in showing support for Israel. Already Australia has enough reasons to keep its distance after Israel's abuse of Australian passports for which there was no apology and for its shabby treatment of Australian citizens when Israeli commandos violently took control of the humanitarian flotilla to Gaza in May this year.

From a legal perspective, Israel is in blatant defiance of international law and UN resolutions. Thus, for Australia to conduct bilateral relations with Israel compromises its commitment as a signatory to upholding international law and Geneva conventions and certainly its objectivity in the Israel/Palestine situation.

There are, as you would be aware, long-standing Cabinet decisions that acknowledge the "occupied" status of the Palestinian territories, which should require the delegation to spend equal time with Palestinian contacts in Ramallah, Gaza or East Jerusalem. We believe there is no such arrangement and gives the strong impression that Australia has abandoned any attempt at a "balanced" policy on Israel/Palestine.

Further, this trip - organised and partly funded by a private lobby group - seriously infringes Westminster principles that do not allow the mixing of Government and private interests.

If you still believe that your participation is warranted, we propose that you at least insist on speaking with Palestinian representatives and visiting the occupied Palestinian territories.

We understand that Dr Hanan Ashrawi, Palestinian negotiator and PLO Executive Committee member in the occupied West Bank, has made herself available to speak with you about the current situation for Palestinians under occupation and it would be an opportunity to salvage Australia's standing in what will otherwise be a very one-sided political exercise.

We also understand that Palestinian Knesset Members Haneen Zoabi and Dr Jamal Zahalka, who is also the head of the National Democratic Assembly, are available for talks in Israel. The denial of equal rights to Palestinians in Israel itself is being increasingly exacerbated with new egregious laws that demand that Palestinian citizens accept Israel as a Jewish state. This is tantamount to them agreeing to their own discrimination inside Israel.

Unless members of this delegation are prepared to see and hear both sides, we can only conclude that those participating have already made up their minds and thrown in their lot with Israel and its current policies that continue to violate Palestinian human rights. That would then take Australia outside international norms while ignoring its own scrupulous insistence on "balance" in matters concerning Israel/Palestine. We sincerely hope this is not the case.

The already intolerable situation facing all Palestinians in the occupied Palestinian territories becomes bleaker by the day and the failure of western governments, such as Australia and the United States, to demand that Israel cease its illegal activities, including crimes against humanity, and comply with UN Resolutions, is both shameful and unacceptable.

We ask that you insist your itinerary include time for visits with Dr Ashrawi, MK Haneen Zoabi and MK Dr Zahalka and that you make public and vocal representations to the Israeli government, calling for an end to its illegal occupation of Gaza and the West Bank and a return to the internationally recognized borders in place prior to 1967.

Thank you for considering our representations.

Yours sincerely,

Anne and John Richardson.

G'day Anne and John Richardson,

IMHO, your joint email to the Labor representative in my electorate of Eden Monaro regarding the farcical “homage” visit of Australian parliamentarians”, to the mythical state of “Israel” - is obviously from the hearts of true Statespersons.

A case firmly put and undeniable in its sincerity.

To me, as an anti-Zionist and all they stand for, I find it hard to come to terms with the Government of my country following the degrading obedience for some vague reason, of the most heinous criminal group since the Nazi era.

The reasons trying to justify the Zionist invasion and occupation of Palestine are, without exception, blatant lies and deceptions and can’t even agree with a real name for their bastard state.

There is no such state as “Israel” legally or morally.  There is no such place as a “State for Jewish people and Jewish people alone”.

The biggest mistake in this resultant mess is that made by the world body in trusting the word of the Zionists and accepting their undertaking that the “borders of 1987” would be honoured by them.  Since then, these multi-national, stateless persons have abused every attempt to satisfy their illegal demands - and their crimes against humanity remain unjust and unjustifiable.

Surely the unprovoked murderous attacks committed by the Zionists must be stopped, either by force which is their choice - or with world imposed sanctions.  The latter has been used by the US/UK so often against genuine States who do not have sufficient military clout to defend themselves.

So the western powers simply sell them weapons to kill each other.  And the "wars of choice"? Who cares who wins, the money lenders always make a profit.

Cheers and well wishes Anne and John.  NE OUBLIE.

Pertaining to insider trading, there are some cases being discussed today. Several companies have involved in such illegal practice. After 3 years of investigations the Securities and Exchange Commission took action in a huge insider trading case Monday. In an action related to the insider trading probe, 2 hedge funds in Greenwich, Conn., were raided by the FBI. Last fall the SEC issued subpoenas to more than thirty hedge funds and other investment firms in an investigation of deals that led up to the economic crisis, and charges might be filed by the end of the year.

Hi Ernest,

Kelly is our alleged 'representative' as well.

I don't know what you think of him ..... we think he seems like a nice bloke but is not his 'own man'

Like ALL politicans of ALL persuasions, at ALL levels of government (perhaps with the exception of Andrew Wilkie), Kelly's fielty is with his party & the people of his electorate run a long last.

The proof of this particular pudding is evident through the bipartisan support for Israel evidenced by all our politicians, on the one hand, versus the overwhelming support voiced for the Palestinians by the Awstraylen public on the other.

So much for representation .....

Good to hear from you Ernest.

Cheers,

John. 

Secretary of State Hilary Clinton reportedly spent eight hours with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu only to persuade him to accept one of the most generous bribes ever bestowed by the United States on any foreign power.

The agreement includes the sale of $3 billion worth of US military aircrafts (in addition to the billions in annual aid packages), a blanket veto of any UN Security Council resolution deemed unfavorable to Israel, and the removal of East Jerusalem from any settlement freeze equation (thus condoning the illegal occupation of the city and the undergoing ethnic cleansing).

But even more dangerous than all of these is "a written American promise that this will be the last time President Obama asks the Israelis to halt settlement construction through official channels."

Significant. Achievement. Success. Are these really the right terms to describe the latest harrowing scandal? Even the term 'bribe', which is abundantly used to describe American generosity, isn't quite adequate here. Bribes have defined the relationship between the ever-generous White House and the quisling Congress to win favor with the ever-demanding Israel and its growingly belligerent Washington lobby.

It is not the concept of bribery that should shock us, but the magnitude of the bribe, and the fact that it is presented by a man who positioned himself as a peacemaker (and actually became certified as one, courtesy of the Nobel Peace Prize Committee).

Equally shocking is the meager return that Obama is expected to receive for hard-earned US taxpayers' dollars. According to the Atlantic Sentential, this will be "a measly three month extension of the settlement moratorium that originally expired in late September."

Mind-boggling. US generously hands Palestinian rights to Israel on a silver platter, and the far-right mentality, which now governs Israeli mainstream politics and society, still finds it unacceptable.

But aside from this arrogant Israeli response, and the US media's attempts to find the positive in Obama's latest scandal, one question must be raised. What happens now that Obama has finally shown he really is no different from his predecessors? That the United States has lost control of its own foreign policy in the Middle East? That, frankly, Netanyahu has proved more resilient, more steadfast, and more resourceful than the American president?

Shall we go on making the same argument, over and over again, or has the time finally arrived for Palestinians to think outside the American box? Can Arabs finally venture off to seek other partners and allies in the region and around the world who understand the link between peace, political stability, and economic prosperity? It may perhaps be time for them to further their relationship with Turkey, to reach out to Latin America, to demand accountability from Europe and to try to understand and engage China.

The latest US elections have showed that the Obama hype has run its course in the US itself. One can only hope that Palestinians, Arabs and their friends will realize that it was all indeed a hype -before it's too late.

More Than A Bribe: Obama Surrenders Palestinian Rights

After failing to take an incentive package from the United States in exchange for a freeze on settlement activity, Israel is asking for the incentive package anyway. Israel was reportedly offered 20 advanced war planes from the United States in exchange for a settlement freeze which would lead the way to renewed peace talks. However, Israel refused the idea of freezing settlement construction and Bloomberg is reporting today that Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren, is still expecting to receive the war planes.

Israel redefines the definition of Chutzpah

no wonder the US wants to keep everything so secret .... if I was out-manouvered & out-negotiated as regularly as the Americans are by the Zionist war criminals, I wouldn't want anyone to know either. These folks are simply incompetent .... criminally negligent, & if the repercussions weren't so tragic, it would be laughable ... talk about a credibility gap!!!