« 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 D[isplaced] P[ersons] 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. »
(Harry Truman Diary, p.21)
« The Jews have no sense of proportion nor do they have any judgement (sic) on world affairs. Henry [Morgenthau] brought a thousand Jews to New York on a supposedly temporary basis and they stayed. »
(Harry Truman Diary, p.21)
But Truman’s comments were, Bloomfield says, « typical of a sort of cultural anti-Semitism that was common at that time in all parts of American society. This was an acceptable way to talk. »
For many in the Jewish community, Bush’s presidency could be encapsulated in his offhand quip to reporters in September1991during an AIPAC lobbying effort on Capitol Hill in support of the proposed $10 billion loan guarantee to Israel: « I’m one lonely little guy » up against « some powerful political forces » made up of « a thousand lobbyists on the Hill. » The comment triggered a spate of antisemitic letters and comments for which the president later apologized.
by Michael Collins Piper (Amazon)
Chapter Two (p.14-18)
Off With His Head:
A Mossad Plot to Kill an American President
Would Israel’s Mossad actually consider assassinating an American president perceived hostile to Israel? A former Mossad agent says « yes. » According to ex-Mossad man Victor Ostrovsky, the Israeli spy agency hatched a plan to kill President George Bush.
If President John F. Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy orchestrated—at least in part—by Israel’s spy agency, the Mossad, this evidently not be the last time that the Mossad planned the assassination of an American president. According to former Mossad agent, Victor Ostrovsky, elements of the Mossad were plotting an attempt on the life of President George Bush. The reason: according to Ostrovsky, Bush was hated by the Mossad and considered an enemy of Israel.
This amazing revelation was published in the February 1992 edition of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. The author of the report was former Congressman Paul Findley (R-Ill.), himself a prominent critic of Israel. (Findley’s best-selling book, They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel’s Lobby, is a classic exposition of the way Israel’s lobby has worked to silence American critics of the foreign nation.)
Findley reported that Ostrovsky had learned through his sources in the intelligence community that because of President Bush’s seeming intransigence toward Israel’s demands, the Mossad had begun coordinating plans for the assassination of the American president.
Ostrovsky relayed this information to several members of the Canadian parliament, indicating that the Mossad and not Israel’s elected leadership, is « the real engine of policy in Israel. » (8) One of those attending the meeting with Ostrovsky passed the information on to another former U.S. Representative, Paul N. (Pete) McCloskey (R-Calif.).
Upon learning of the potential threat to President Bush, ex-Congressman McCloskey himself flew to Canada where he met with Ostrovsky. According to Findley: « Ostrovsky impressed McCloskey as a patriotic Zionist who believes the Mossad is out of control. Ostrovsky told him the present leadership of the Mossad wants ‘to do everything possible to preserve a state of war between Israel and its neighbors, assassinating President Bush, if necessary. » (9)
« He said a public relations campaign is already underway in both Israel and the United States to ‘prepare public acceptance of [vice president] Dan Quayle as president.’ After lengthy discussion during which he became convinced that Ostrovsky was ‘real’ and telling the truth, McCloskey took the next flight to Washington.
« There he relayed the information to the Secret Service and State Department, receiving mixed reactions to Ostrovsky’s reliability. An officer of the Navy Department dismissed him simply as a « traitor to Israel. »(10)
AMERICANS KILLED BY ISRAELI INTRIGUE
Findley points out that in his controversial book, By Way of Deception, the aforementioned Ostrovsky documented a Mossad action which was « especially shocking to American readers. »(11) In that instance, 241 U.S. Marines were murdered by a terrorist truck bomb that plowed into the Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983.
Although Israeli agents learned that the attack was impending, the Mossad headquarters in Tel Aviv ordered its agents to ignore the threat and to not alert the American servicemen to the danger. « We are not there [in Beirut] to protect Americans, » the Mossad leaders explained. « They’re a big country. Send only the regular information. » According to Ostrovsky, the « regular information » was « like sending a weather report, unlikely to raise any particular alarm. »(12)
« Is it conceivable, » asks Findley, « that Israel’s Mossad might assassinate George Bush in order to put a more sympathetic man in the White House? It is well to remember two earlier occasions when Israeli authorities were willing to sacrifice American lives to serve their own national interests. » (13) Congressman Findley points out two other occasions where Americans died or otherwise faced extinction at the hands of Israel:
- On June 8, 1967, naval and air forces of Israel deliberately—and without provocation—attacked the American spy ship, the U.S.S. Liberty killing 34 American sailors and wounding 171 others. It was an attempt to destroy the ship and its entire crew.
- During the October 1973 war, Israeli pilots were ordered to shoot down an unarmed U.S. reconnaissance plane that was overflying Israel’s secret nuclear bomb development site at Dimona. The plane, however, flew too high for Israel’s would-be assassins to reach.
Assessing the potential threat to President George Bush, Congressman Findley concludes, « The U.S. Secret Service will be wise to assume the worst. »(14)
Incredibly enough, at almost the same time Findley’s provocative report first appeared, several unusual events occurred that seemed to give credence to the allegation that there might indeed be a plot afoot to eliminate George Bush—if not physically, at least politically. Each of these threatening incidents took place during President George Bush’s January 1992 trip to the Far East.
The most notable incident, of course, was the President’s bizarre public seizure while dining in the company of the Japanese premier. More than a few people speculated—privately—that the president might indeed have been poisoned. This, of course, is speculation, but it is based in reality.
Interestingly, it was while the president was on his Far Eastern junket that The Washington Post—the daily newspaper of record in the nation’s capitol—inexplicably reversed itself and began publishing a lengthy and glowing seven-part series hailing Vice President Dan Quayle. Obviously this seems to be a confirmation of Victor Ostrovsky’s claim that preparations were being made in the United States to make a Dan Quayle presidency palatable.
The Post‘s unusual flip-flop was made all the more potent when the news arrived that the president had been stricken. Quayle, evidently, already had the Establishment’s support if he had been unexpectedly thrust into the presidency. Oddly, prior to the Post’s turn-about, the Washington daily had been one of Quayle’s most persistent critics. However, something quite alarming also took place during that eventful week.
A SECURITY BREACH
For two days, during President George Bush’s visit in Seoul, South Korea, top-secret information regarding the president’s personal arrangements was inexplicably made available to the public. Incredibly enough, this was during a period when terrorist alert status was already high.
Security experts believed that if potential presidential assassins had such action in mind, the security breach would have assisted them tremendously.
According to Robert Snow, a spokesman for the Secret Service, « It wouldn’t be stretching it »(15) to suggest that the security lapse could have put Bush in danger. Blame for the lapse in security was laid at the hands of the U.S. Information Service (USIS), a branch of the State Department. For their own part, officials at the State Department were unable to provide an explanation of the bizarre security breach. The White House refused to comment.
The USIS published a list of the names and hotel room numbers of the president’s traveling party, which numbered 471 people. (The fact that the president was staying at the U.S. Ambassador’s residence was part of the information revealed.)
Included on the list were the names and room numbers of 122 Secret Service agents, eight Marine guards, four presidential stewards and six military aides. Also revealed were security control room locations in the hotel where the president was staying as well as the names of the 10 Secret Service agents heading security at the various locations that the president visited while in Korea. The room assignments of top administration officials accompanying the president, as well as those of the thirteen corporate executives along for the trip were also published. (16)
This incredible revelation caused suspicion that perhaps there were those in positions of power who may not necessarily have been concerned for the president’s safety. The tentacles of Israel’s Mossad do reach far and wide—even into the depths of the U.S. State Department. Was this breach of security a first step in an assassination attempt—perhaps one to be carried out by some obscure Korean terrorist group acting as a « false flag » for the Mossad?
Retired Air Force Col. L. Fletcher Prouty, himself an acknowledged authority on covert operations—including assassination planning—says that one of the primary necessary measures in any assassination plot is the process of removing or otherwise breaching the intended victim’s blanket of security. Prouty, who worked in presidential security with the military, knows whereof he speaks. According to Prouty, « No one has to direct an assassination—it happens. The active role is played secretly by permitting it to happen . . . This is the greatest single clue . . . Who has the power to call off or reduce the usual security precautions that are always in effect whenever a president travels? » (17)
IF IN 1991, WHY NOT IN 1963?
In his 1994 book, The Other Side of Deception, Mossad man Victor Ostrovsky finally revealed the specifics of what he had learned of the 1991 Mossad plot against Bush: the Mossad planned to assassinate Bush during an international conference in Madrid. The Mossad had captured three Palestinian « extremists » and leaked word to the Spanish police that the terrorists were on their way to Madrid. The plan was to kill Bush, release the « assassins » in the midst of the confusion—and kill the Palestinians on the spot. The crime would be blamed on the Palestinians—another Mossad « false flag, » more about which we will learn in Chapter Three. (18)
SOME HISTORICAL SPECULATION
Frankly, there have been those who have suggested, in the wake of the publication of the first edition of Final Judgment, that President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, in fact, may himself have been the first American president to die at the hands of the intelligence network that ultimately evolved into Israel’s Mossad. They point out, based on well-documented historical evidence, that FDR may have been a genuine roadblock in the way of the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine.
It is known that Saudi King Abd al-Aziz Ibn Saud met with FDR on board a U.S. Navy ship on February 14, 1945 when the American president was returning from the famous Yalta Conference. There, according to former American diplomat Richard Curtiss, the Saudi king « exacted assurances from the President that he would ‘do nothing to assist the Jews against the Arabs and would make no move hostile to the Arab people.' » (19)
After that meeting, according to Curtiss, FDR « told friends that in a few minutes of conversation with the Saudi monarch he learned more about the Palestine situation than he had learned in all of his previous life. His new knowledge did not prevent him, however, from authorizing a U.S. Zionist leader to state that the President still favored a Jewish state and unrestricted Jewish immigration into Palestine.
« Then, as the Arabs reacted with angry questions, he authorized the Department of State to reaffirm his pledge to Ibn Saud and other Arab leaders that there would be prior consultation with the Arabs as well as the Jews before the U.S. took any action related to Palestine. » (20) One week later FDR was dead.
In fact, two authors known for their devotion to the Zionist cause—John Loftus and Mark Aarons—have stated candidly that many friends of Israel do believe that FDR’s death was quite fortuitous: « Although American public opinion was favorable toward Jews, few Zionists trusted Roosevelt entirely . . . As several leading Zionists admitted, if Roosevelt had lived, it is unlikely that Israel would ever have been born. They knew what they were talking about.” (21)
AN INTERESTING FOOTNOTE IN HISTORY . . .
We could speculate forever about how FDR really died. However, we do know—based on a very reliable source—that FDR’s successor, Harry Truman, was in fact the target for assassination because he was perceived hostile to Zionist interests. According to Margaret Truman, daughter of the late president, the Jewish underground terrorist movement in Palestine known as the Stern Gang once tried to murder her father.
In a biography of her father Miss Truman discussed the attempt on her father’s life by Puerto Rican nationalists. Then, in a little-noticed, but highly significant aside she commented: « I learned in the course of my research for this book that there had been other attempts on Dad’s life, which he never mentioned . . . In the summer of 1947, the so-called Stern gang of Palestine terrorists tried to assassinate Dad by mail . . .” (22)
The Jewish terrorists, it seems, had sent the president letters that had been tainted with toxic chemicals. Fortunately, the mail was intercepted and no harm was done. Harry Truman, of course, got the message, though, and rushed to recognize the state of Israel upon its founding in 1948, despite his own reservations and those on the part of his diplomatic advisors.
This clumsy attempt to kill Truman is interesting, to say the very east, and points to a proclivity for political violence on the part of the Israeli leaders in the Stern Gang whom, it should be pointed out, were the very individuals who emerged as the leaders of the Mossad following the establishment of the state of Israel.
A PATTERN OF EVIDENCE . . .
Very clearly, there is strong evidence—indeed a pattern—to suggest that Israel would indeed consider the assassination of an American president. With this in mind, let us move forward and examine the evidence which will lead us toward a final judgment.
‘CREATIVE DESTRUCTION’ OF THE ARAB WORLD
Ledeen goes on to suggest that anyone who stands in opposition to all-out war against the Arab world needs to be removed from positions of authority. He writes:
The president has to rid himself of those officials who failed to lead their agencies effectively, along with those who lack the political will to wage war against the terror masters. The top people in the intelligence community need to be replaced, and those military leaders who tell the president that it can’ t be done, or they just aren’ t ready, or we need to do something else first, should be replaced as well, along with the people in the national security community who insisted that we must solve the Arab-Israeli question before the war can resume and the top people in agencies like the FAA, the INS, and so forth. (95)
In fact, aside from other political considerations, President George W. Bush had good personal reason to do the bidding of the hard-line hawks in promoting their imperial schemes on behalf of Israel.
In the Feb. 1992 edition of The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, former Rep. Paul Findley (R-Ill.) revealed that in 1991 former Israeli intelligence officer Victor Ostrovsky had blown the whistle on a plot by a right-wing faction within Israel’s Mossad to kill then-President George H. W. Bush who was perceived as a threat to Israel.
After Ostrovsky provided the details to another former member of Congress, Pete McCloskey (R-Calif.), McCloskey conveyed a warning to the U.S. Secret Service. In his 1994 book, The Other Side of Deception, Ostrovsky revealed the specifics of what he had learned of the plot: the Mossad planned to assassinate Bush during an international conference in Madrid.
The Mossad had captured three Palestinian “extremists” and leaked word to the Spanish police that the terrorists were on their way to Madrid. The plan was to kill Bush, release the “ assassins ” in the midst of the con- fusion — and kill the Palestinians on the spot. The crime would be blamed on the Palestinians — another Mossad “false flag.”
So it is that the George W. Bush administration is now fostering and nurturing the ancient dream of a Greater Israel. But to achieve that aim, the neo-conservative Zionist elements that achieved power in the Bush administration began laying the groundwork many years before.
The date is December 3, 1972, and it’s right there in a headline of the Tri-City Herald, the newspaper that serves Pasco-Kennewick-Richland in the state of Washington: “Jews sent President Truman letter bombs, book tells.” The newspaper picked up the article, we see, from the Associated Press (AP).
Not only does the article carry the authority of the AP, but the book in question bears the authority of none other than President Harry Truman’s own daughter, Margaret. It is her biography of her father, entitled simply Harry S. Truman, and at the time the article was written, the book had just been published. The passage in question—a long paragraph that begins on page 489 and ends on page 490 (pp. 533-534 of the paperback edition)—is in a section on threats and attempts on President Truman’s life. Note that she misidentifies Anthony Eden as Foreign Secretary, which he had not been since 1938. Later, of course, he would become Prime Minister. Ernest Bevin was Foreign Secretary in 1947, and he was the primary target to the assassination attempts:
In the summer of 1947, the so-called Stern Gang of Palestine terrorists tried to assassinate Dad by mail. A number of cream-colored envelopes about eight by six inches, arrived in the White House, addressed to the President and various members of the staff. Inside them was a smaller envelope marked “Private and Confidential.” Inside that second envelope was powdered gelignite, a pencil battery and a detonator rigged to explode the gelignite when the envelope was opened. Fortunately, the White House mail room was alert to the possibility that such letters might arrive. The previous June at least eight were sent to British government officials, including Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden. The British police exploded one of these experimentally and said it could kill, or at the very least maim, anyone unlucky enough to open it. The mail room turned the letters over to the Secret Service and they were defused by their bomb experts. The Secret Service still screens all our mail.
The AP article also reminds us that the news of the aborted attack on Truman did not originate with Margaret Truman, some quarter century after the fact. It had been reported in far greater and more accurate detail by White House staff mail reader Ira R. T. Smith (with Joe Alex Morris) in his 1949 book, Dear Mr. President … The Story of Fifty Years in the White House Mail Room. Fortunately, that entire book is now online here. This is from pp. 229-230:
On another occasion, in the summer of 1947 I was summoned back to Washington from my vacation because controversy over important issues, including the Palestine question, had greatly increased the volume of mail to the President. I was rather surprised that the volume should be more than could be handled routinely by the office but when I got back I found that not all the difficulty was due to volume. Some of the letters received had obviously been intended to kill.
There had been a flurry in England in June of that summer because eight or more government officials and political personages had received terrorist letters in which explosives were cleverly concealed. Among those who got such letters were Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin, Colonial Secretary Arthur Creech Jones, President of the Board of Trade Sir Stafford Cripps, and former Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden. Cripps’s secretary noticed that the letter he received was hot (police said later it was apparently about ready to explode) and he stuck it in water. Eden carried his letter unopened in his briefcase for twenty-four hours before a secretary, tipped off by police, found it. There were two envelopes, the outer one about eight by six inches and cream-colored. The inner envelope was marked “Private and Confidential,” presumably in an effort to see that it was opened by the man to whom it was addressed. Inside the second envelope was powdered gelignite, a pencil battery, and a detonator arranged to explode when the envelope was opened. Police exploded one experimentally and said that it was powerful enough to kill a man. The so-called Stern gang of Palestine terrorists later claimed responsibility for having sent the letters from its “branch in Europe.” The letters were postmarked from Italy.
The same kind of terrorist letters had been found in the White House mail, and as a result the staff had been handling all letters with great care, thus slowing up the routine. So far as I know none of those received in this country resulted in an explosion, which may have been due to the excellent system introduced for handling the White House mail during the war.
Why Kill Truman?
Addressing the second question first, the reader can’t help but note that the books use the identical vague term “Stern Gang of Palestine terrorists” to refer to the perpetrators. One might get the impression that they were Palestinian terrorists, except for the fact that the Stern Gang is well known as a Jewish extremist group with a long string of murderous outrages to its credit (or discredit, if you prefer). Both accounts at least tell us that the White House bombs were part of a pattern, that similar attempts had previously been made by the Stern Gang upon various British officials. But their common purpose in telling us this is to explain why the White House was on alert for such bombs and was successful in interdicting them. They don’t give us the slightest clue as to why the bombs might have been sent in the first place.
In 1946 the British were still in political control of Palestine, formerly ruled by the Ottomans, under an arrangement created in the wake of World War I and approved by the League of Nations in 1923. Prior to WW I, it should be pointed out, Palestine had been part of the Muslim Ottoman Syria since 1516, more than a century before the Pilgrims landed on Plymouth Rock, and before that it had been part of the Muslim Mamluk Empire centered in Egypt. The Zionist movement, led primarily by Jews from Eastern Europe, was determined to drive the British out and terrorism of all sorts—assassinations, kidnappings, bombings, extortion, etc.—was at the very core of the effort.
The problem with the British was that they were carrying out their commitment under the Balfour Declaration far too conscientiously. As a means of gaining support from world Jewry, especially in the United States and Russia, against their enemies in World War I, which included the Ottomon Empire, the Balfour Declaration endorsed the idea of a Jewish home (not the Zionist objective of a “homeland” or “state”) in Palestine (still at that time under Ottomon control), “it being clearly understood that nothing [would be] done which [would] prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine….”
The Zionists wanted massive Jewish immigration from Europe and total political control of Palestine, with the apparent eventual goal of supplanting the entire non-Jewish population from the area. Such policies would certainly have been—and have been—prejudicial in the extreme toward the rights of the locals, and the British refused to institute them, incurring the murderous wrath of the terrorist Stern Gang, which counted future Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir (born Icchak Jeziernicky) among its leaders and its brother in terror, Irgun, one of whose leaders was future Prime Minister Menachem Begin (born Mieczysław Biegun). Why British government officials, and Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin in particular, would have been targeted for killing by the Zionist terrorists can be well appreciated by reference to Bevin’s Wikipedia page. Although the attempted assassinations in Britain were unsuccessful, the terror campaign against the British worked. The British gave up their mandate and turned the whole question of Palestine’s future over to the United Nations to decide. Under heavy pressure from the United States, the majority of the UN General Assembly voted to partition Palestine into Jewish and non-Jewish sectors. This final arrangement, according to Bevin, was “…so manifestly unjust to the Arabs that it is difficult to see how we could reconcile it with our conscience.”
Terror had worked on the British, but why would anyone have thought it necessary against President Truman, of all people? With a village and an institute named for him there, he is regarded today as a hero in Israel for defying almost all his foreign policy advisers and recognizing the new Jewish state of Israel as soon as David Ben Gurion declared its existence in May of 1948. But in the summer of 1947 it was far from a foregone conclusion that Truman would come through for the Zionists. Some idea of his thinking on Palestine at the time can be gleaned from a letter he wrote to a friend, Edward W. Pauley, on October 22, 1946:
That situation is insoluble in my opinion. I have spent a year and a month trying to get some concrete action on it. Not only are the British highly successful in muddling the situation as completely as it could possibly be muddled, but the Jews themselves are making it almost impossible to do anything for them. They seem to have the same attitude toward the “underdog” when they are on top as they have been treated as “underdogs” themselves. I suppose that is human frailty. –Robert H. Ferrell, Harry S. Truman, A Life (1994), p. 307.
Some more evidence of his thinking in 1946 can be had from Truman’s memoirs:
My efforts to persuade the British to relax immigration restrictions in Palestine might have fallen on more receptive ears if it had not been for the increasing acts of terrorism that were being committed in Palestine. There were armed groups of extremists who were guilty of numerous outrages. On June 16 eight bridges were blown up near the Trans-Jordan border, and two other explosions were set off in Haifa. The following day there was a pitched battle between Jews and British troops in Haifa, other explosions had started a fire and caused great damage in the rail yards there. British officers were kidnapped. Others were shot at from passing automobiles. Explosions took place in ever-increasing numbers, and the British uncovered a plot by one extremist group to kidnap the British commander in chief in Palestine. –Memoirs of Harry S. Truman, Vol. 2, Years of Hope (1956). pp. 150-151
Many of the signals being picked up by the Jewish leadership in the United States, as Truman expressed his exasperation over their heavy pressure campaign, could easily have made their way to the Stern Gang, persuading them that in this Missouri Baptist from a relatively humble background they had an American Bevin on their hands:
In June of 1946 he at first refused to see a delegation of all the New York Congressmen, and finally received them only with obvious impatience. He was no better when the two Senators from the state, [Robert] Wagner and [James] Mead, brought a former member of the Anglo-American Committee of Enquiry (into Palestine) to see him. “I am not a New Yorker,” Truman is alleged to have told them. “All these people are pleading for a special interest. I am an American.” – Roy Jenkins, Truman (1986), p. 117
Particularly offensive to Truman was the attitude of Rabbi Abba Hillel Silver of Cleveland, who, with Stephen Wise, was co-chairman of the American Zionist Emergency Council. A Republican and close ally of Senator Taft, Rabbi Silver had helped write a pro-Zionist plank in the 1944 Republican platform. At one point during a meeting in Truman’s office, Silver had hammered on Truman’s desk and shouted at him. “Terror and Silver are the causes of some, if not all, of our troubles,” Truman later said, and at one Cabinet meeting he reportedly grew so furious over the subject of the Jews that he snapped, “Jesus Christ couldn’t please them when he was on earth, so how could anyone expect that I would have any luck.” –David McCullough, Truman (1992), p. 599
Why Don’t We Know?
In 2006 The Times of London had what appeared to be a blockbuster revelation: “Jewish terrorists plotted to assassinate Ernest Bevin, the foreign secretary, in 1946, as part of their campaign to establish the state of Israel, newly declassified intelligence files have shown.” Five terrorist cells from the Stern Gang and Irgun were planning to descend upon London with bombings and assassinations, the MI5 files are said to have shown, but, in the end, only some 20 letter bombs were sent, with Bevin and his Tory predecessor Anthony Eden mentioned as among the recipients.
The interesting thing here is that these are treated as brand new revelations, available only because some secret files have finally been declassified. But as we have seen, the essential facts about the letter bombs in Britain had been published—with even more detail given—in a book in the United States in 1949 and then repeated in outline form in a book by none other than the daughter of the American president. Another interesting fact is that the 2006 story in The Times was not picked up by a single mainstream news organ in the United States and was even taken down from The Times’ web site within a couple of weeks. The only reason we still have the full story up on the Internet is that it was picked up by the alternative news organ Information Clearing House (“news you won’t find on CNN,” indeed).
The Wikipedia page on the letter bomb is doubly revealing. First, for anyone entertaining the fantasy that a mere bomb small enough to be contained in a mail envelope is too trivial a thing to be treated as an assassination attempt, the list of historical examples given is instructive. The Unabomber, Theodore Kaczynski, killed three people and wounded 27 others with his mailed bombs, and the list is full of other instances of people killed or seriously maimed by them.
Perhaps even more interesting is that as of the date of the publication of this article, eighteen examples of the use of letter bombs are given, but the attacks on such important figures as Truman, Bevin and Eden are not mentioned. The list even includes an attack on a U.S. vice president in 1915. Since anyone can put information on Wikipedia as long as it meets that page’s requirements for credibility—which the foregoing revelations certainly do—what we must conclude is that even with the 2006 report by The Times and the 1972 book by Margaret Truman, the fact of Zionist terrorist letter-bomb attacks on major political leaders in Great Britain and the United States is still hardly known by anyone.
We have noted how the U.S. press suppressed the relatively recent news of the attempts on Bevin and Eden. Writers of history (or is it their publishers?), at least in the United States, are at least as guilty of withholding this information. Perhaps I did not search diligently enough, but the only Truman biography that I could find that mentioned the letter bomb attack on Truman was that of his daughter. All those biographies that I consulted were written after hers, and, for some reason, they apparently found this attempted assassination unworthy of mention.*
Even someone as generally well informed about high level skulduggery as this writer had his scholarship diminished by his ignorance of the revelations in the Margaret Truman and Ira R. T. Smith books. When I learned of the Zionist attacks on Bevin et al., I wrote Part 4 of “Who Killed James Forrestal?” subtitled “Britain’s Forrestal,” and included a section that reflected my ignorance entitled “Who Knew?” It is worth repeating in its entirety here:
Although it is apparent that those signers of the warning letter to The New York Times had no knowledge of the previous attempt on the life of Ernest Bevin, one must wonder who, outside the ranks of British intelligence, did know about it. In particular, we have to wonder if one so connected to the higher reaches of power in the world as Bernard Baruch, when he warned his friend Forrestal in February of 1949 that he had already become too identified with opposition to Israel for his own good, knew more than he was telling about the danger that Forrestal faced. And when Forrestal complained about being followed and bugged, did he know that the Irgun crowd had come pretty close to snuffing out the life of his British counterpart? Could such knowledge have been behind his resistance to commitment to Bethesda Naval Hospital and his reported claim that he would never leave the hospital alive when he attempted to get out of the car taking him there? Might that have been the revelation from Secretary of the Air Force Symington on the day of Forrestal’s departure from office that drove him into his sudden funk?
And after Forrestal’s death, could there have been any doubt in the minds of those aware of the attempt on Bevin who had ultimately been behind the later crime? Might these have included those powerful friends such as Ferdinand Eberstadt and Robert Lovett, who had failed to visit him in the hospital and then, when the results of the investigation of his death were never made public, failed to register any public complaint? At the very least, those in the know included the contemporary and future leaders of Great Britain, and the knowledge that the leaders of the United States government had conspired with Zionist thugs in the assassination of the one courageous voice of reason in their midst would very likely have animated their own future Middle East policy.
Now we can see that those questions almost certainly answer themselves. Not only would such connected, well-informed people as Baruch, Forrestal, Eberstadt, and Lovett, have known about the Zionists’ attempts to kill Bevin, they would in all likelihood have known about the attempts on Eden and Truman as well. But thanks to the controllers of information and molders of opinion in our society, most of the rest of us did not know. Not only was my scholarship undermined by the general blackout of the news of the attempted Truman hit, but so, too, was that of Alison Weir, as reflected in her January article, “Bush & Obama? Assassination and U.S. Presidents.” Her article is about the public suggestion of a Jewish leader in Atlanta that Israel might consider assassinating a U.S. president deemed “unfriendly to Israel.” She observes that such a thing might not be all that farfetched by citing a 1992 article by former Representative Paul Findley of Illinois in which he alleges that Israel, in fact, had pretty advanced plans in 1991 to assassinate President George H.W. Bush and blame it on Saddam Hussein. She notes, as well, that former Stern Gang leader Yitzhak Shamir was prime minister of Israel at the time. How much stronger would her case have been had she known about the attempt on Truman!
Even David Duke, in his video, “Israeli Deception against America,” as he details Israel’s terrorist attacks against the United States, seems to be unaware of the attempt on the life of our president, unless his failure to mention it rests on the technicality that in 1947 the state of Israel was still a year away from its creation.
Reflecting on these matters, we are more and more convinced of the truth of the quote by Abraham Lincoln, with which we lead off “America’s Dreyfus Affair, the Case of the Death of Vincent Foster,” “In this and like communities, public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it, nothing can succeed. Consequently, he who moulds public sentiment goes deeper than he who enacts statutes or pronounces decisions.” And molding public sentiment begins with controlling public information. On no subject is information more controlled and public sentiment more manipulated than the subject of Israel and Palestine. Why don’t we know about the attempt by the Stern Gang on the life of Harry Truman? That’s why.
Coercion and Bribery
Information control might take care of the general public, but that is hardly sufficient for our elected representatives. On Palestine, as we learn from his memoirs, Truman was amply informed by his foreign policy advisers and by Arab leaders. For our politicians, Anthony Lawson has charged, the Zionists mainly use coercion and bribery. Few things are more coercive than assassination, or even an assassination attempt, and if Gore Vidal and John F. Kennedy are to be believed, Truman was strongly influenced by that other measure as well. *
The situation is just as bad when it comes to Bevin. The most balanced book we were able to find at our local library on the Israel-Palestine question has this slanderous speculation about Bevin’s motives, “…he may have shared many of the vulgar anti-Jewish prejudices of his working-class background, a background he had not forgotten.” — Ian J. Bickerton and Carla L. Klausner, A Concise History of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 4th ed. (2002), p. 79.
But on the subject of attempts on his life, which are not matters of speculation, the book is silent.
May 10, 2012, with reader-prompted change on May 12 of “homeland” to “home” in British Balfour Declaration promise.
We have discovered further evidence of how little known is this 1947 assassination attempt on President Truman. There is a Wikipedia page entitled “List of United States presidential assassination attempts and plots.” Many, if not most of those listed could hardly be regarded as serious assassination attempts. Nevertheless, as of the date of this writing, it has no mention of the Stern Gang’s attempt on Truman.
The Stern Gang was also treated with unusual deference within certain quarters in the U.S. body politic for a group that had attempted to kill the national leader. The following passage is from an undated article in the Jewish Post entitled “The Last Campaign How Truman Won in 1948”:
[Henry] Wallace attracted many Jews: around 30% of his followers were Jews. Among them his fund-raiser, William Gailmore, was an ex-rabbi. He controlled the Bronx thanks to Leo Isaacson who was elected to the congress as a member of the progressive party. Many communists and Jewish communists supported Wallace who always was blamed as a front for Moscow. But Wallace did something else, he never forgot to declare his support of Zionism and a Jewish state. On Dec. 1947, he visited Palestine as a guest of the Labor movement. Wallace also believed in the Judeo-Christian idea and a project to develop the Middle-East for Jews and Arabs alike. Furthermore, he helped the ‘Friends of Lehi in the U.S. » (the so-called ‘Stern Gang.’) And Karabell wrote that on July 23, 1948 the Progressive Party’s convention hosted « the Stern Gang, the Israeli underground paramilitary organization that had blown up buildings and assassinated British officials in Palestine… » He wrote that the Lehi (Freedom Fighters of Israel) were close to the Irgun’s Menachem Begin, but Yitzhak Shamir was the Lehi’s commander together with Natan Yellin-Mor and Israel Eldad. Truman was pushed by his pro-Zionist advisors (Mark Cliford) [sic] to support Israel in 1948 in order to attract the Jewish vote away from Wallace’s camp. Also, Dewey was pro-Zionist.
It is certainly outrageous that there should even have been an open organization in the United States that would call itself “Friends of Lehi,” a gang that openly admitted to such crimes as the assassinations of lead UN mediator for Palestine, Count Folke Bernadotte of Sweden, and British Minister of state in the Middle East, Lord Moyne. That they would be “helped” and their support would be openly welcomed by a candidate for president of the United States is even more outrageous, though from what we know of Wallace, it is quite believable. However, it is not believable that he would have been so close to them had their 1947 letter bomb attempt upon the life of the president been reported.
May 17, 2012
C’est presque chaque jour qu’on en apprend un peu plus sur les agissements des sionistes dont l’Etat voyou est le « combat de sa vie » pour Nicolas Sarkozy et dont François Hollande est follement amouraché.
On savait que ces bandes criminelles avaient tué, outre de nombreux anonymes, Lord Moyne, le représentant de la reine d’Angleterre au Caire en pleine guerre contre le nazisme, qu’ils avaient assassiné en 1947 le Comte Folke Bernadotte, un diplomate suédois chargé d’une mission de paix en Palestine, qu’ils avaient tenté une attaque aérienne sur Londres au départ de Paris …
On apprend maintenant qu’ils avaient aussi essayé en 1947 de tuer Harry Truman qui était rien moins que le président des Etats Unis.
Ce qui n’empêche pas les responsables politiques de multiplier les déclarations sur les liens « unbreakable » et « unshakable » entre l’entité sioniste et les Etats Unis.
Peut-être par peur de se faire liquider ?
L’auteur de l’article, Richard Silverstein, est un Juif très critique du sionisme mais pas nécessairement antisioniste ainsi qu’on le comprend en faisant attention à son vocabulaire. Il est par contre très bien informé sur le sionisme, son histoire, son actualité et son unité en dépit de ses apparentes tendances divergentes.
Les Israéliens du Groupe Stern avaient envoyé une lettre piégée au Président Truman à la Maison Blanche
par Richard Silverstein | Tikun Olam (USA) 11 octobre 2016 traduit de l’anglais par Djazaïri
J’ai interviewé un militant à Kansas City, Jeremy Rothe-Kushel en prévision d’un article sur son arrestation à la demande de la fédération juive locale pendant un discours de Dennis Ross. Jeremy est un chercheur enthousiaste et j’aime parler avec des gens comme lui parce qu’inévitablement j’apprends des choses sur l’histoire du sionisme que je ne savais pas. Comme ce qui suit…
En 1947, le Yishouv [la population sioniste avant la création de l’Etat juif] était dans la tourmente. David Ben Gourion poursuivait son plan de proclamation d’un Etat juif. Il était en compétition avec des extrémistes juifs qui avaient leurs propres plans pour libérer la Palestine du joug de l’Empire Britannique. Si Ben Gourion les considérait comme des rivaux dangereux, il savait aussi qu’ils étaient le méchant flic sui faisait pendant à son bon flic. Leur existence même et les ravages qu’ils provoquaient dans l’appareil colonial britannique donnaient à Ben Gourion l’allure d’un modéré par comparaison. A ce titre, ils étaient extrêmement utiles. Le fait que Ben Gourion pardonna beaucoup de ces terroristes pour les crimes qu’ils perpétrèrent après la création de l’Etat d’Israël et n’en poursuivit aucun en justice est le signe qu’ il était en collusion directe avec eux ou bien qu’ils servaient si bien ses buts qu’il se sentit obligé de leur accorder le pardon.
Au moment même où tout cela se passait, l’ONU essayait d’appliquer son propre plan de partition de la région entre des enclaves juives et arabes. Les extrémistes juifs de l’Irgoun et tout particulièrement de l’organisation dissidente, le Lehi (ou Groupe Stern), trouvaient Ben Gourion par trop accommodant. Ils avaient la conviction qu’il n’y avait pas grand-chose à gagner à négocier avec la puissance coloniale. Ils cherchaient au contraire à mettre les Britanniques à genoux et les forcer ainsi à abandonner le Mandat et libérer la Palestine.
Le Lehi en particulier s’était lancé, tout comme l’OLP dans les années 1970, dans des actions terroristes spectaculaires. La spécialité du Lehi était l’assassinat. Leur attaque la plus choquante fut l’assassinat au Caire de Lord Moyne. Ils assassinèrent aussi le Comte Folke von Bernadotte, le membre de la famille royale de Suède qui avait sauvé des Juifs pendant l’holocauste et avait été désigné par l’ONU pour faire avancer les négociations entre les protagonistes pour qu’ils acceptent la partition. Il y eut aussi des échecs retentissants comme les séries de lettres piégées envoyées aux domiciles et aux bureaux de ministres, anciens ou en fonction, des affaires étrangères britanniques, et à d’autres hauts responsables britanniques. Plusieurs d’entre elles explosèrent blessant des employés des services postaux ou des fonctionnaires du gouvernement. Aucune, fort heureusement, ne blessa une des cibles visées.
Nous savons, comme un fait historique, que les terroristes juifs visèrent les Britanniques. Mais on sait rarement qu’ils avaient aussi élargi leurs objectifs pour inclure des officiels américains. Margaret Truman et le chef du service du courrier de la maison Blanche ont écrit chacun un livre (celui de Mme Truman est une biographie de son père, et celui du chef du service du courrier est un livre de souvenirs sur ses dizaines d’années au service de plusieurs présidents). Tous deux ont noté qu’en 1947, une série de lettres piégées avait été découverte et que les services secrets les avaient faites exploser avant qu’elles parviennent à leur victime désignée.
Pendant l’été 1947, ce qu’on appelait le Groupe Stern de terroristes en Palestine avait essayé d’assassiner papa avec du courrier. Un certain nombre d’enveloppes couleur crème d’environ 20 cm sur 15 arrivèrent à la maison Blanche, adressées au Président et à plusieurs de ses collaborateurs. A l’intérieur de chacune d’entre elles, se trouvait une enveloppe plus petite avec l’inscription « Personnel et confidentiel ». A l’intérieur de cette seconde enveloppe se trouvait de la gélignite [plastic] en poudre, une pile crayon et un détonateur qui devait faire exploser la gélignite à l’ouverture de l’enveloppe. Heureusement, la salle du courrier à la Maison Blanche était alertée sur la possibilité qu’arrivent des lettres de ce genre. Au mois de juin, au moins huit d’entre elles avaient été adressées à des membres du gouvernement britannique, dont le ministre des affaires étrangères Ernest Bevin et l’ancien ministre des affaires étrangères Anthony Eden. La police britannique en avait fait exploser une de manière contrôlée et avait conclu qu’elle pouvait ruer, au à tout le moins mutiler quiconque aurait eu la malchance de l’ouvrir. Le service du courrier avait remis les lettres aux services secrets et elles furent désamorcées par leurs experts en explosifs.
Après la publication du livre de Mme Truman, Nathan Yelin-Mor, le dernier chef du Lehi, dénonça Truman et son récit. Il qualifiait de mensongères ses assertions et la mit au défi de le poursuivre en justice. Yelin-Mor était soit un imbécile, soit un avocat finaud. Parce qu’il n’est pas possible à un auteur de vous poursuivre si vous affirmez qu’une histoire relatée dans son livre est inexacte. Sur quelles bases ? Vous exprimez votre opinion, une liberté garantie par la loi. A contrario, Yelin-Mor aurait pu poursuivre en justice Margaret Truman pour diffamation et essayer de prouver que son histoire était fausse et qu’elle savait qu’elle était fausse. C’est ce qu’on appelle diffamation. Mais bien sûr, Yelin-Mor savait qu’il aurait perdu cette bataille. Il n’alla donc pas en justice.
Le chef du Lehi soutenait que son organisation n’avait aucune raison d’attaquer les Etats Unis parce qu’Israël avait besoin d’autant d’alliés que possible dans sa lutte pour devenir un Etat indépendant. Cette affirmation était hypocrite parce que Truman n’a jamais été un chaud partisan de l’Etat d’Israël. En réalité, il avait fait de nombreuses déclarations qui témoignaient de son profond scepticisme devant la thèse selon laquelle le nouvel Etat permettrait d’aboutir à une quelconque résolution pacifique du conflit. S’il est vrai qu’il finit par acquiescer et permit à ses représentants de voter en faveur de la résolution onusienne de partition et que les Etats Unis reconnurent le nouvel Etat, le Lehi n’avait aucune possibilité de le savoir en 1947.
Si le Lehi avait sombré dans le néant après 1948, alors rien de tout ça n’aurait plus eu d’importance particulière. Mais Yitzhak Shamir, le chef du Lehi, et Menahem Begin, le chef de l’Irgoun, devinrent premiers ministres. Leurs successeurs ont assumé les rênes du pouvoir et dirigé Israël pendant une bonne partie de ces quarante dernières années. Israël est devenu un Etat qui incarne la vision de ces anciens terroristes israéliens.
L’assassinat a fini par devenir la signature des méthodes d’Israël pour débarrasser la Terre de ses ennemis politiques parmi les Arabes. A ce jour, le Mossad et le Shabak [sécurité intérieure] pratiquent le meurtre comme politique d’Etat (lisez mon article sur Mint Press qui relate l’assassinat d’Omar Zayed par Yossi Cohen du Mossad).
En outre, les héritiers d’extrême droite du Lehi et de l’Irgoun rejettent aussi le pragmatisme de la vieille gauche travailliste qui voulait faire avancer son projet de façon graduelle. Si le Parti Travailliste était une main de fer dans un gant de velours, le Likoud est la main de fer sans gant d’aucune sorte prête à frapper durement pour la suprématie juive, le nettoyage ethnique et le maximalisme dans tous les domaines. Bibi Netanyahou, c’est Avraham Stern en costume.
Ce que Begin a accompli à une relativement petite échelle à Deir Yacine, Ben Gourion l’a fait à grande échelle avec la Nakba. Les guerres israéliennes de conquête qui suivirent en 1956 et 1967 et l’aventurisme militaire d’Israël à Gaza et au Liban depuis le tournant du siècle sont dans la même veine que la vision terroriste des débuts avec Israël comme Etat garnison qui domine la région et impose sa volonté à quiconque ose être en désaccord.
When Pappy Bush Humiliated the Lobby
“We prefer to stay out of the public eye. We don’t want AIPAC to become the issue.”
– ROBERT ASHER, Former president and chair of AIPAC board, Oct. 1, 1988, Jerusalem Post. Int. Ed.
“A lobby is like a night flower: it thrives in the dark and dies in the sun.”
– STEVEN ROSEN, former foreign policy director, AIPAC, The New Yorker, July 4, 2005; indicted August, 2005 for alleged violations of the Espionage Act but charges were later dropped.
By a curious coincidence, as Russian president Vladimir Putin was rescuing President Obama from public humiliation last week, leaving the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) to take a rare public drubbing over its failure to reverse Congressional opposition to a US attack on Syria, the 22nd anniversary of AIPAC’s last defeat went unnoticed.
On the morning of September 12, 1991, Pres. George Herbert Walker Bush awoke in frustration. Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir was refusing Bush’s request to delay for 120 days his country’s demand for $10 billion in US loan guarantees, ostensibly for the resettlement of Soviet Jews, and to freeze Jewish settlement construction as a condition for receiving the guarantees.
To make matters worse, the former Polish-Jewish terrorist and now Israeli prime minister, not the American president, had the backing of both houses of the US Congress.
Although the subject of the guarantees had been discussed with Israel that March, Bush feared that approving them a month before regional Middle East peace talks were scheduled to begin in Madrid would drive the Arab invitees away from the table and kill the “peace process” before it had even begun.
Aware that Congress was ready to override his threatened veto of the authorizing legislation, Bush took the unprecedented step of putting the issue before the American public, the same sleeping giant that vanquished AIPAC last week.
Congress, as usual, was ready to jump through Israel’s hoops whatever position the president took. That’s the way it was then in Washington and the way it is now when the American people have been excluded from the discussion.
On September 6th, Bush issued a statement explaining his reason for the postponement, adding, presciently, his belief that “the American people will support me in this” and that he was “going to make the position clear to every single member of Congress and to the American people.”
Ignoring the president’s appeal, Senators Robert Kasten, (R-WI) and Daniel Inouye (D-HI) introduced legislation to provide the full $10 billion without conditions.
When Bush announced he was asking for the delay, “”Inouye was not equivocal at all,” recalled Israeli Defense Minister, Moshe Arens, who was in Washington at the time. He said, ‘I am putting on my yarmulke; we’re going to war.” 
(Inouye’s first job after leaving the Army in 1947 was as a salesman for State of Israel Bonds. As chair of the Senate Select Committee investigating the Iran-Contra scandal in 1987, he was responsible for Israel’s name not being mentioned. At the time of the arrest of Israeli spy, Jonathan Pollard, he was about to propose that what remained of Israel’s debt to the US be forgiven.)
By Sept. 12, Bush knew he had to act quickly as AIPAC had mobilized more than a thousand Jewish lobbyists in Washington intending for them to visit every congressional office. His solution: to hold a nationally televised press conference, and ask the public to back him up.
The impact on the Hill was immediate, as was graphically described in the Washington Jewish Week. (Sept. 19, ’91)
Maryland Senator Barbara Mikulski, a long time darling of the liberal Democrats, (and who last week was ready to support an attack on Syria), had just promised a group of the Jewish lobbyists her support for the guarantees when she was interrupted by an aide who handed her a note.
Mikulski’s face “went ashen,” wrote the WJW reporter, “I’ve just learned,” she told the lobbyists, “the president said he’s taking his case for a 120-day loan guarantee to the American people.” The American people? The very last folks that AIPAC and Congress wanted included in their deliberations.
Here is how Arens described the historic event:
“Bush hastily called a press conference and made an extraordinary televised appeal to the American people. Visibly angry, pounding his fist on the lectern, he made it appear that Israel’s insistence on the guarantees was a threat not only to the forthcoming conference but to peace itself.
“’A debate now could well destroy our ability to bring one or more of the parties to the peace table… If necessary I will use my veto power to keep that from happening.’
“Then the president took direct aim at the pro-Israel lobby. ‘We are up against some powerful political forces… very strong and effective groups that go up to the Hill.’
“‘We’ve only got one lonely little guy down here doing it… [but] I am going to fight for what I believe. It may be popular politically but probably not… the question isn’t whether it’s good for 1992 politics. What’s important here is that we give the [peace] process a chance. And I don’t care if I only get one vote… I believe the American people will be with me.’
“Then, his voice rising, the president said ‘ Just months ago, American men and women in uniform, risked their lives to defend Israelis in the face of Iraqi Scud missiles, and indeed Desert Storm, while winning a war against aggression, also achieved the defeat of Israel’s most dangerous adversary.’
“He also added that, during the current fiscal year, ‘despite our own economic worries,’ the United States had provided Israel with more than $4 billion worth of aid, “nearly one thousand dollars for each Israeli man, woman, and child.” 
Never before had an American president addressed the public with such frankness and none has since. Polls taken afterward indicated that Americans supported Bush by a 3-1 margin and half of those responding opposed providing any economic aid to Israel.
Two weeks later, a NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey showed that while by 58 to 32% voters favored aid to the new, friendlier Russia and by a margin of 55% to 29%, aid to Poland, voters opposed economic support to Israel by 46% to 44%. Moreover, 34% saw Israel as the greatest impediment to peace in the region while only 33% saw the Arab nations in that role. (Emphasis in original)
On the day after Bush’s press conference, Tom Dine, AIPAC’s executive director, declared “September 12 a day that will live in infamy,” but the lobbying organization had gotten the word as had Tel Aviv. It was not that AIPAC was afraid to challenge the president but, given the poll numbers, it knew it was no match for Bush when the American people stood behind him.
Fast forward to last week. In poll after poll, Americans across the political spectrum were rejecting Pres. Obama’s call for war, and if that did not concern AIPAC it did worry the members of Congress, particularly those facing re-election in 2014.
By Tuesday, before Obama’s speech, only a minority of both parties was ready to vote for war, a situation that would have obliged Obama to ask for a postponement of the House vote even if the Russians had not provided him with an escape hatch. In the Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid, (D-NV) who a week earlier had scheduled a vote for Sept. 11, had already done that after taking a head count.
With a war-generated multi-trillion dollar deficit, a stagnant economy with understated unemployment figures, and nothing to show from 12 years of war but tens of thousands of American soldiers dead, permanently disabled or suffering from PTSD, and both the Middle East and Southeast Asia totally destabilized, the American people, across the entire political spectrum, have had quite enough of America’s military misadventures.
Members of Congress were made aware of that by their constituents and the polls and AIPAC could offer no counter arguments except to warn about America’s loss of “credibility” and the message of weakness it would send to Iran.
AIPAC’s humiliation was described by MJ Rosenberg, a former AIPAC staff member and now one of its sharpest critics.
“The lobby is reeling,” he wrote. “Reports from Capitol Hill reveal that AIPAC’s big lobbying day for war with Syria changed no votes. Not one. Meanwhile two of its closest allies, Sen. Ben Cardin and Rep. Henry Waxman changed their position on bombing from “yes” to undecided.”
AIPAC is not, of course, about to fold it tent and depart the field following this setback nor did it following its defeat in 1991 when it launched a war of attrition on President Bush, determined to undermine his popularity with the public which, like today, was experiencing hard economic times.
Rather than pressing the fight for the loan guarantees in the face of the public opposition, both Israel and AIPAC agreed to wait 120 days before again addressing the issue but Tel Aviv would make no concession on Bush’s demand for a settlement freeze. In the interim one could detect a steady increase in the media of articles critical of Bush’s handling of the presidency and, particularly, the economy, which was clearly in bad shape, but not wholly his fault.
Six months later, Bush was still unwilling to approve the loan guarantees if Israel did not agree to a settlement freeze, a position that alarmed the New York Times’ Tom Friedman. (March 22, ’92)
“The fact that an American president would reject loan guarantees for Israel—in an election year—and find overwhelming support for his position in all national polls, suggests that Israel is badly out of step with the public mood.”
Affirming Friedman’s opinion, a Wall Street Journal poll the same month found that while 73% of those responding said the loan guarantees should be linked to the ending of the settlements, approximately half said the loan guarantees should be denied under any circumstances.
Nevertheless, Israel’s supporters in Congress, some heavily dependent on pro-Israel money, began champing at the bit and in the Senate, on April 1, 1992, in order to allow senators to “get on the record for Israel,” four and a half hours were devoted to a “sense of the Senate” resolution (S. Res. 277) calling for approval of the loan guarantees.
The resolution was brought to the floor by the late Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) whose lengthy speech laid out the arguments that would be repeated by his colleagues throughout the session.
“For years, the United States fought for the right for Soviet Jews to emigrate. We put our prestige and our trade benefits on the line for that policy. For years, there was not a high-level meeting between an America and Soviet Union official that took place in which unfettered emigration was not raised…..I believe we have a moral obligation to help resettle these people from the former Soviet Union; these refugees who seek freedom….
“Mr. President, by insisting on linkage with the settlements, the administration has injected the United States into the peace negotiations….now he continues to cling to this policy.
“Now the administration reportedly is putting pressure on European allies to deny credit guarantees to Israel as long as she does not accept a settlement freeze. That is a new wrinkle that does not deserve to be there.”
It was a con job from beginning to end and Lautenberg and his fellow senators knew it. The packaging of the loan guarantees as “humanitarian assistance” was a political spin that been invented by the Jewish establishment the previous year to deflect attention and criticism from Israel’s settlement activity.
An internal memo from the Council of Presidents of the Major Jewish Organizations obtained by the Washington Jewish Week (June 6, ’91) emphasized that “stories of Soviet Jews” would be used to “help put the issue in a humanitarian rather than a political context to prevent President Bush from linking the guarantees to Israel’s settlement policy,” an effort that clearly failed.
As Lautenberg’s position was repeated throughout the day on the Senate floor, it became evident that it was the only arrow in the Lobby’s quiver.
Since Al Gore came a hanging chad or two from becoming president just eight years later and went on to win the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007, it is worth examining excerpts from his remarks:
“The stakes here are immense,” said Gore. “For Israel, this is nothing less than a defining moment. With the access to credit that the United States can provide, Israel can not only house its new citizens but eventually harness their skills….failure to meet this challenge means that the dream of Israel as the homeland for oppressed Jews cannot be met.
“Failure will create tens of thousands of Israeli citizens disaffected from the Israeli state; not just the immigrants,” he wailed, “but Israelis who are already in place whose lives are going to be powerfully influenced by this flood of new people.”
At the time, with the US suffering from 7.3 % unemployment, Gore seemed unconcerned with Americans who might have grown disaffected from the American state.
He went on to speak of the “bitter deadlock” between Bush and Shamir, noting that “the US Government’s position is very stark. It can be paraphrased as follows: First, if Israel agrees to completely stop any settlement activity, the administration would support loan guarantees of up to $2 billion a year for five years; however, if Israel only halts new construction, but continues to develop old construction, then the administration will support no more than $1 billion a year, with provision to deduct money spent on old construction from the $1 billion. That, in my view, is a drastic position and the administration has insisted upon it…
“I do not think the Congress supports the administration,” said Gore. “But neither does the Congress have any means to break this stalemate on its own,” a tacit acknowledgement that Bush had the American public behind him and that he and his fellow senators did not.
On the other side, in support of the president’s position, the late Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) stood alone.
In what may have been the most well-informed speech ever made on the floor of Congress on the subject of Israel-US relations, one that, predictably, went unreported in the national media, Byrd noted that “this proposed program would ask the American taxpayer to cosign a total of $10 billion in investment guarantees intended to prop up this unstable foreign economy at a time when we are telling the American people that we cannot afford to invest at home.
“Last week,” he continued, “the Senate failed to pass S.2399, a measure that would have allowed us to move savings from the defense budget into the domestic discretionary accounts in order to fund desperately needed investment infrastructure, housing, and job training, among other areas. These are exactly the kinds of programs that Israel will fund with this $10 billion loan that we are being asked to guarantee.”
Despite the moralizing about what Americans owed Russian Jews by supporters of the loan guarantees, Byrd saw gaping flaws in the proposal.
“The American people are apparently being asked to underwrite major new economic growth programs for Israel when we cannot develop them for our own desperate-in-need economy. We are being asked to guarantee funding for wide-ranging infrastructure projects, running far afield from anything directly connected to Soviet immigration, at a time when United States spending on its own infrastructure is far lower than that being infused by our European allies into their economies. It is no wonder that foreign aid is held in such disrepute by the American people.”
Byrd warned his fellow Senators that, according to a document provided by the Israeli Embassy, “Absorption of Soviet Jewry Immigration,” at least half of the money would not have anything to do with the immigrants “but would go to the private sector for investments and the rest would be divided equally between housing and infrastructure.” The rest of his colleagues, in thrall to AIPAC, weren’t listening.
The Senate vote on the non-binding resolution was 99 to 1. Since Byrd passed away in June, 2010, there has yet to be another senator with the guts to vote against an AIPAC supported resolution.
In Israel, it had become apparent that Shamir’s stubborn refusal to place a freeze on settlement construction had damaged its relations with Washington which the Israelis, at that time, held in higher regard than they apparently do today. In the parliamentary elections that June, Likud was swept from power and a less confrontational Yitzhak Rabin took Shamir’s place as prime minister.
In August, 1992, with his re-election chances slipping and the vote three months away, and accused in the media by fellow Republicans of taking the side of the Palestinians, Bush agreed to the loan guarantees with the proviso that the amount of money that Israel was spending in the Occupied Territories be deducted from the total.
Arens, the America-educated Likudnik, summed up Bush’s defeat by Bill Clinton from an Israeli perspective not essentially different from his American Jewish counterparts:
“His administration’s repeated attempts to interfere in Israel’s internal politics had been without precedent in the history of relations between the United States and Israel… Although in the months after the Likud defeat Bush gave Rabin everything he had withheld from Shamir, including the loan guarantees, he could not dispel the impression that his administration had been hostile to Israel.
“Bill Clinton had narrowly defeated Bush for the presidency of the United States. The vast majority of the Jewish community of America, as well as many non-Jews who were dedicated to the US-Israel alliance, could not bring themselves to vote for George Bush.
“The Bush administration’s confrontational style with Israel, especially the withholding of the loan guarantees, had contributed to the Likud’s defeat and, considering Rabin’s slim margin of victory, might well have been decisive. Now, it seemed as if the same policy had also contributed to the Bush defeat.”
“By January, 1993, Clinton was in the White House and US-Israel relations resumed their normal course. The new president was clearly well disposed towards Israel. Rabin now had a free hand and could feel sure of Washington’s support for virtually whatever policies he chose to follow.
Arens may have been correct. In 1988, Bush Sr. had received an estimated 35% of the Jewish vote. That percentage dropped to 12% in 1992 and may have spelled the difference between victory and defeat.
When Congress has had to choose between providing funds for Israel and for America’s cities, it has strictly been no contest. Whereas, by the summer of 1992, 240 members of the House had signed a letter urging Pres. Bush to quickly submit legislation authorizing the $10 billion in loan guarantees to Congress, only 35 of her House colleagues joined Los Angeles’s Maxine Waters in co-sponsoring a bill, H.R. 5747, on July 31, 1992, which would have authorized the granting of $10 billion in development loan guarantees to American cities.
Waters’ had attempted to add the domestic loan guarantees to the “Freedom Support Act,” authorizing assistance to the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, but was stymied when the House adopted a closure rule by a voice vote which prevented amendments from being added to the bill.
In defense of her proposal, Waters stated: “We are on the brink of funding aid to Russia and a $10 billion loan guarantee for Israel. I certainly understand the difficulties faced by Russia — their economy has collapsed — and Israel — they must absorb tens of thousands of new immigrants. However, our cities deserve preference… I would hope to see this plan adopted before we aid any foreign government.” Only AIPAC’s Near East Report, on Aug. 17, 1992, carried the story. One can imagine what might have happened had it been reported by the mainstream media.
In 1991, when Waters circulated her letter, the US economy was much like it is today. Six out of ten US cities were unable to meet their budgets and several states their payrolls. In March of that year, over the objections of President Bush, the House voted by a 397-24 margin to give Israel $650 million in cash as part of the Gulf War emergency spending bill. Bush had publicly threatened to veto the bill but backed down when he realized it would be overridden.
Another glaring example occurred in 2002 when the Senate, after defeating a bill that would have provided $150 million for inner-city schools that had been impacted by the attack on 9-11, turned around and tucked an additional $200 million for Israel into the Homeland Security Bill as if Israel had been targeted that day and not New York and Washington.
Four years later, writing in the Jerusalem Post, (2/4/96), under the headline, “So Much for Promises,” David Bedein asked, “Remember those loan guarantees to help immigrants? They have been used to further conspicuous consumption instead.”
“[N]one of the $5 billion which has already been provided to Israel under the loan guarantees packages” he wrote, “has been used by the Israeli government for direct immigrant economic development.
According to Bedein, the loan guarantees gave Israel’s banking system greater liquidity and willingness to extend credit to corporations, small businesses and private individuals.
“Thanks to the guarantees,” he pointed out, the banks have been able to provide generous loan terms, so that Israeli consumers can more easily purchase automobiles, foreign travel packages, or speculate on the stock market.
Some $800 million of the loan guarantees was used for the expansion of the Israel Electric Corporation which had been privatized, some went to the expansion of Israel’s road system and another $200 million was allocated for planning a Tel Aviv subway.
Bedein noted that in May, 1994, Natan Sharansky, the Russian Jewish émigré, who was heading a coalition of immigrant organizations, accused the Israeli government of misusing the loan guarantees, saying it would have been difficult to campaign for the loans under the slogan, “Let them build highways.”
For members of the US Congress, of course, who approved the loan guarantees, it wouldn’t have made any difference. Unless there is an aroused public that says a loud, “No!,” and is ready to hold Congress accountable, as we have seen with the opposition to launching an attack on Syria, what the Israelis want from the US, the Israelis will get. AIPAC’s existence is based on helping them get it. Ours may be determined on our willingness to expose the ways it does it.
If we want to prevent Congress from approving a US attack on Iran, which is uppermost on Israel’s agenda, last week’s victory tells us where to start. Given America’s penchant for war, it may be short lived, but its importance should not be minimized.
At the very least, it should breathe new life and hopefully stimulate a new, creative leadership in the long moribund anti-war movement.
Jeffrey Blankfort is a journalist and radio host currently living in Northern California. He can be contacted at firstname.lastname@example.org
1 Broken Covenant: American Foreign Policy and the Crisis Between the US and Israel, Simon & Shuster, NY, 1995, p. 246
3 Ibid. 246-247
4 Benjamin Ginsberg, Fatal Embrace: Jews and the State, Univ. of Chicago, 1993, p.220
5 Arens, op. cit. pp. 301-302
« The attacks on New York and Washington were an Israeli-engineered attempt at a coup against the government of the United States »
General Hamid Gul
RAWALPINDI, Pakistan — The retired Pakistani general who is closest to the Taliban and Osama bin Laden contends the September 11 terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington were the work of renegade U.S. Air Force elements working with the Israelis. Gen. Hameed Gul led Pakistan’s Inter Services Intelligence during the war against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Gul serves as an adviser to Pakistan’s extremist religious political parties, which oppose their government’s decision to support the United States in any action against Afghanistan’s Taliban regime. Gul contends bin Laden had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, saying instead that they were the work of the Mossad, the Israeli intelligence service — a version of events that has been endorsed by Islamic fundamentalist clerics and is widely accepted by Muslims throughout the Arab world.
Here is the transcript of the exclusive interview Gul gave to Arnaud de Borchgrave, United Press International editor at large: NEWSWEEK WEB EXCLUSIVE, Sep. 14, 2001
Transcript: UPI United Press International, Sep. 26, 2001 interviews General Gul
De Borchgrave: So who did Black September 11?
Gul: Mossad and its accomplices. The U.S. spends $40 billion a year on its 11 intelligence agencies. That’s $400 billion in 10 years. Yet the Bush Administration says it was taken by surprise. I don’t believe it. Within 10 minutes of the second twin tower being hit in the World Trade Center CNN said Osama bin Laden had done it. That was a planned piece of disinformation by the real perpetrators. It created an instant mindset and put public opinion into a trance, which prevented even intelligent people from thinking for themselves.
Q: So you’re already convinced bin Laden didn’t do it?
A: I know bin Laden and his associates. I’ve been with them here, in Europe and the Middle East. They are graduates of the best universities and are highly intelligent with impressive degrees and speak impeccable English. These are people who have rediscovered fundamental Islamic values. Many come from the Gulf countries where ruling royal families have generated hatred by the way they flout divine law, wasting billions on gratifying their whims, jetting around in large private jets by themselves, and sailing the Mediterranean in big private boats for weeks on end. Osama’s best recruits come from feudal areas that are U.S. protectorates and where millions of poor people are seeking human dignity. I have even visited a Christian convent school in Murree, 60 miles from here, where my 13-year-old daughter is studying. The young girls there have told me Osama is their hero. Osama’s followers identify with Mujahideen freedom fighters wherever they are defending Islam and its values.
Q: So what makes you think Osama wasn’t behind Sept. 11?
A: From a cave inside a mountain or a peasant’s hovel? Let’s be serious. Osama inspires countless millions by standing up for Islam against American and Israeli imperialism. He doesn’t have the means for such a sophisticated operation.
Q: Why Mossad?
A: Mossad and its American associates are the obvious culprits. Who benefits from the crime? The attacks against the twin towers started at 8:45 a.m. and four flights are diverted from their assigned air space and no air traffic controller sounds the alarm. And no Air Force jets scramble until 10 a.m. That also smacks of a small scale Air Force rebellion, a coup against the Pentagon perhaps? Radars are jammed, transponders fail. No IFF — friend or foe identification — challenge. In Pakistan, if there is no response to IFF, jets are instantly scrambled and the aircraft is shot down with no further questions asked. This was clearly an inside job. Bush was afraid and rushed to the shelter of a nuclear bunker. He clearly feared a nuclear situation. Who could that have been? Will that also be hushed up in the investigation, like the Warren report after the Kennedy assassination?
Q: At this point, someone might be asking what you’ve been smoking. What is Israel’s interest in such a monstrous plot, which, of course, no one believes except Islamist extremists who concocted this piece of disinformation in the first place, presumably to detract from the real culprits?
A: Jews never agreed to Bush 41 (George H.W. Bush, the 41st president) or 43 (his son George W. Bush, the 43rd president). They made sure Bush senior didn’t get a second term. His land-for-peace pressure in Palestine didn’t suit Israel. They were also against the young Bush because he was considered too close to oil interests and the Gulf countries. Bush senior and Jim Baker had raised $150 million for Bush junior, much of it from Mideast sources or their American go-betweens. Bush 41 and Baker, as private citizens, had also facilitated the new strategic relationship between Saudi Arabia and Iran. I have this from sources in both countries. So clearly the prospect of a Bush 43 was a potential danger to Israel.
Jews were stunned by the way Bush stole the election in Florida. They had put big money on Al Gore. Israel has given its imperialist guardian parent opportunities to turn disaster into a pretext for imposing an all-encompassing military, political and economic agenda to further the cause of global capitalism. While Colin Powell is cautious and others are reckless and want to make up for their failure to defeat Saddam Hussein in the Gulf War 10 years ago, the global agenda is the same.
Israel knows it has a short shelf-life before it is overwhelmed by demographics. It is a state that was born in terrorism that terrorized Palestinians into the exile of refugee camps, where they have now subsisted in squalid refugee camps, and is now very much afraid of Pakistan’s nuclear capability.
Israel has now handed the Bush family the opportunity it has been waiting for to consolidate America’s imperial grip on the Gulf and acquire control of the Caspian basin by extending its military presence in Central Asia. Bush conveniently overlooks — or is not told — the fact that Islamic fundamentalists got their big boost in the modern age as CIA assets in the covert campaign I was also involved with to force the Soviets out of Afghanistan. Bush senior was vice president during that entire campaign. And no sooner did he become president on Jan. 20, 1989, than he summoned an inter-agency intelligence meeting and issued an order, among several others, to clip the wings of ISI (Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence) that had been coordinating the entire operation in Afghanistan. I know this firsthand as I was DGISI at the time (director general, ISI).
Q: So how do you read U.S. strategy in Pakistan?
A: The destabilization of Pakistan is part of the U.S. plan because it is a Muslim nuclear state. The U.S. wants to isolate Pakistan from China as part of its containment policy. President Nixon’s book « The Real War » said China would be the superpower of the 21st Century. The U.S. is also creating hostility between Pakistan and Afghanistan, two Muslim states to reverse the perception that the Islamic world now has its own nuclear weapons. Bush 43 doesn’t realize he is being manipulated by people who understand geopolitics. He is not leading but being led. All he can do is think in terms of the wanted-dead-or-alive culture, which is how Hollywood conditions the masses to think and act.
All summer long we heard about America’s shrinking surplus and that the Pentagon would not have sufficient funds to modernize for the 21st century. And now, all of a sudden, the Pentagon can get what it wants without any Democratic Party opposition. How very convenient! Even your cherished civil liberties can now be abridged with impunity to protect the expansion of the hegemony of transnational capitalism. There is now a new excuse to crush anti-globalization protests.
Bush 43 follows Bush 41. Iraq was baited into the Kuwaiti trap when the U.S. told Saddam it was not interested in his inter-Arab squabbles. Two days later, he moved into Kuwait, which was an Iraqi province anyway before the British Empire decreed otherwise. Roosevelt baited the Pearl Harbor trap for the Japanese empire, which provided the pretext for entering World War II.
And now the Israelis have given the U.S. the pretext for further expansion into an area that will be critical in the next 25 years – the Caspian basin.
Q: Were you a fundamentalist in the days of the war against the Soviets in Afghanistan when you worked closely with the CIA?
A: Not as much as I am today.
Q: What turned you against America?
A: Betrayals and broken promises and what was done to my army career.
Q: And what was that?
A: President Ishaq Khan, who succeeded Zia ul-Haq after his plane was blown out of the sky, wanted to appoint me chief of staff, the highest position in the Pakistani army. The U.S., which by then had clipped ISI’s wings, also blocked my promotion by informing the president I was unacceptable. So I was moved to a corps commander position. As ISI director, I held the whole Mujahideen movement in the palm of my hands. We were all pro-American. But then America left us in the lurch and everything went to pieces, including Afghanistan.
The U.S. pushed for a broad-based Afghan government of seven factions and then waved goodbye. Even in the best of democracies, a broad-based coalition does not work. So we quickly had seven jokers in Kabul interested in only one thing, jockeying for power. The gunplay quickly followed, which led to the creation of Taliban, the students of the original Mujahideen, who decided to put an end to it.
Q: What happened to the 1,000 shoulder-fired Stinger anti-aircraft missiles that were supplied by president Reagan in 1986 and 87 to the Mujahideen, and that literally grounded the Soviet air force?
A: After the Soviets pulled out, the CIA allocated $60 million to try to buy them back. This just drove the black market price up for one Stinger from $100,000 to $300,000. The Taliban still have about 250 of them for the kind of situation they face today against U.S. aircraft.
Q: Is the U.S. now your enemy?
A: Is the U.S. national interest in contradiction with the Muslim world? The U.S. needs oil, as do its European allies. You have between 6 and 8 million American Muslims and their ranks are growing. About the same number in Europe. Israel aside, we are America’s natural allies. Prof. Sam Huntington in his « Clash of Civilizations » puts Confucius and Judeo-Christians in one corner, and us in the other. His prescription is wrong but is being adopted by Bush 43 who has now put 60 countries on his hit list. This is the diabolical school that wants to launch an anti-Muslim « crusade. » Muslims understood what Bush meant when he used that word.
We need a meeting, not a clash, of civilizations. We are on the brink of disaster. It is time to pull back from the brink and reassess before we blow ourselves up. The purpose of Islam is service to humanity. The time for like-minded people to have a meeting of the minds is now.
Q: But you are against democracy, so how can there be a meeting of the minds?
A: Democracy does not work. Politicians are constantly thinking of their next election, not the public good, which means, at best, constantly shading the truth to hide it from their constituents. Their pronouncements are laced with lies and the voters are lulled or gulled into believing utter nonsense. (…) UPI United Press International, September 26, 2001, Interview with General Gul
KILL JFK = ‘OPERATION HAMAN’
Voir: Haman et les assassinats politiques (HUSSEIN, STALINE, HITLER, LE TSAR, etc.)
Haman associé à la Croix du Christ (symbole de la croix: une « abomination » associée au Christ et à Haman pendu à un gibet en croix.)
Voyez ce que le livre de Michael Collins Piper sur l’assassinat de JFK intitulé « FINAL JUDGMENT » révèle concernant cette habitude juive consistant à identifier ses ennemis à Haman pour les faire assassiner. Piper intitule même sa conclusion « Operation Haman? The Theory That Works« :
(…)However, the primary reason behind Ben-Gurion’s departure was the Israeli leader’s inability to pressure JFK into accepting Israel’s demands. According to Hersh: « There was no way for the Israeli public . . . to suspect that there was yet another factor in Ben-Gurion’s demise: his increasingly bitter impasse with Kennedy over a nuclear-armed Israel. » (143) Ben-Gurion had failed. The battle had been lost, but the war between the two men was still to be won.
A MODERN-DAY HAMAN?
What was on Ben-Gurion’s mind as he turned over the reins of government to his successor? What was David Ben-Gurion’s final act as Prime Minister of the Jewish State? In light of Ben-Gurion’s explicit comment to John F. Kennedy that « my people have the right to exist . . and this existence is in danger, » we can certainly make a good presumption.
In Ben-Gurion’s eyes, John F. Kennedy was clearly a modern-day Haman—an enemy of the Jewish people. In Jewish folklore, Haman was a descendant of the Amalekites who served as prime minister to King Ahasueros of Persia. It was Haman who sought to convince the king that all of the Jews of his empire should be exterminated forever.
However, according to legend, a beautiful Jewish temptress named Esther used her feminine wiles on Ahasueros and, in the end, it was Haman who was instead put to death. The important Jewish holiday of Purim celebrates the deliverance of the Jews from Haman’s intended holocaust.
In the Bible—Deut 25:19, I Sam. 15:8—the ancient Hebrews were urged to « blot out the memory of the Amalekites » from whom Haman descended.
In Israel—in 1963—David Ben-Gurion certainly looked upon John F. Kennedy as a modern-day Haman, a son of the Amalekites. As he pondered the brutal conflict with JFK, Ben-Gurion no doubt remembered the meditation that is read on Purim:
« A wicked man, an arrogant offshoot of the seed of Amalek, rose up against us. Insolent in his riches, he digged himself a pit, and his own greatness laid him a snare. In his mind he thought to entrap, but was himself entrapped; he sought to destroy, but was himself speedily destroyed . . . he made him a gallows, and was himself hanged thereon. »
THE COMING OF THE MESSIAH
With John F. Kennedy lying in a grave in Arlington National Cemetery, Israel was safe—for the time being at least. The modern-day heir of Haman’s legacy had been destroyed. That Lyndon Johnson—a man with a steadfast history of loyalty to Israel and its American lobby—was in line to assume the American presidency was a fact not gone unnoticed. Israel’s messiah had come.
(…) »CONCLUSION: Operation Haman? The Theory That Works« (…)
Was there a code name for the conspiracy against President Kennedy? More than likely. But we, of course, will surely never know its name. Did the Mossad, perhaps, call it « Operation Haman »—naming the conspiracy to kill the American president after Haman, the ancient Amalekite conspirator who desired the destruction of the Jewish people? That code name would be as reasonable as any, considering Ben-Gurion’s hatred for Kennedy—a modern-day Haman in his eyes.
In 1979 when Connally launched a well-financed bid for the 1980 Republican presidential nomination, he publicly challenged the power of the Israeli lobby in a highly controversial speech that, by all accounts, led to the end of Connally’s presidential ambitions once and for all.
But what is interesting is that Connally’ s speech was considered so inflammatory by the Israelis and their Americans supporters that a prominent Israeli educator and philosopher, Emmanuel Rackman, president of Bal Ilan University, actually called for Connally’s assassination.
Comparing Connally to Haman, the ancient enemy of the Jewish people, Rackman—a rabbi—issued his call for Connally’s assassination in the November 18, 1979 issue of The Jewish Week-American Examiner, the publication of the Israeli-government owned Jewish Telegraph Agency, a subdivision of the worldwide Jewish Agency.
Rackman’s vicious attack on Connally was headlined: « John Connally Campaign Seen as Dire Threat to Israel and U.S. Jewry. » Rackman quoted New York Times columnist William Safire as having said that for « the first time, a candidate for President has delivered a major address which he knew would disturb and dismay every American supporter of Israel. »(986)
Rackman commented: « This is true. But does not this observation signify more than it says? Does it not mean that in Connally we have, for the first time, a candidate who in no uncertain terms is telling the American people that he does not want the support of Jews and that he wants to prove that one can be elected president without Jewish support.
« Furthermore, does it not mean that at long last we have a candidate who hopes to get elected by mobilizing support from all who share his total disregard of how Jews feel about him and is this not an invitation to all anti-Semites to rally behind him? I am generally not an alarmist but nothing in American politics in recent years so disturbed me as Connally’s subtle communication to Jews that they can `go to the devil.’ Even the Nixon tapes were not so upsetting.
« The American Jewish community must be alerted. If only we had stopped Hitler early enough, millions of Jews would still be alive. And Connally must be stopped at all costs. He must not even get near the nomination! He must be destroyed, at least politically, as soon as possible.
It is sufficiently early to make Connally look ridiculous and destroy him politically without bloodshed.
« Perhaps I am overreacting, » said Rackman. « But if I have learned anything especially from the rabbinic view of Biblical history it is that we are less fearful and more forgiving of enemies who at least accord us a modicum of respect than we are of enemies who treat us with disdain, with contempt. That makes Arafat more acceptable than Connally. » (987)
Rackman compared Connally with Amalek, another foe of the Jewish people: « ‘Remember Amalek,’ we are told. ‘Don’t forget.’ Eradicate him from the face of the earth. Simply because Amalek had no respect for us. He encountered us in his path and casually sought to exterminate us as vermin.
It is my fervent prayer, » said this Jewish religious leader, « that American Jewry will not minimize the importance of the challenge they have been given and will act speedily and with devastating effectiveness. »(988)
John Connally was not eradicated as Rackman urged. But his political career came to a halt after the major media began a campaign against him.
However, when John Connally died in 1993, the doctors said that Connally’s fatal lung condition was a direct outgrowth of the chest wounds that he had received in the shooting in Dallas on November 22, 1963. So ultimately, in the end, John Connally did prove to be yet another victim of Israel—as much as if he had died on the same day as John F. Kennedy.
« Je vais vous dire une chose: j’ai trouvé des articles–pas dans des publications disjonctées mais dans des publications très sophistiquées–qui disaient: « Oubliez Lyndon Johnson, oubliez la CIA, oubliez Fidel Castro–le Mossad a tué JFK parce qu’ils étaient bouleversés par ce qu’il avait fait à Ben-Gurion. » Alors, vous voyez, on lâche quelques petites bombes comme celle-ci dans le livre–non prouvées… » (Historian Martin W. Sandler, Author of The Letters of John F. Kennedy, lecture at the JFK Museum; Nov 16, 2013, CSPAN2 | BookTV @51 min : 21 sec)
Educated Anti-Semitism The Council of Jews in Germany receives a river of hate mail. Disturbingly, 60% of the letters come from well-educated Germans, including university professors.
Sur ce blog:
Médias juifs antijuifs? « Une affaire profondément juive », commente un journal juif au sujet de l’arrestation du milliardaire juif et « roi du fond spéculatif » Steven A. Cohen, fondateur d’un des plus importants fonds spéculatif au monde
Comment le B’nai Brith peut-il parler d’une montée sans précédent des sentiments « antisémites » alors que personne ne semble avoir remarqué que la nouvelle présidente de la Fed est juive comme ses prédécesseurs?
Les massmédias juifs antijuifs? Le directeur des organisations internationales pour le congrès juif mondial et l’ex directeur de la branche états-unienne du WJC, Shai Franklin: « oui il existe un lobby juif »
Police anti-corruption ou anti-juive? Le grand rabbin ashkénaze d’Israël, qui remerciait Bush pour la guerre en Irak, arrêté pour fraude et blanchiment d’argent
NYTimes: 16 agences US de renseignement confirment que l’Iran n’a pas la bombe // Le général Dempsey refuse d’être complice d’une attaque israélienne
La piste israélienne n’est plus ignorée dans les ouvrages de référence sur JFK, panique des néocons dans les médias (National Review, Washington Free Beacon) – Extrait de la fin du livre « The Letters of John F. Kennedy »
Un rabbin sioniste [Dov Lior, un zélé de « La Torah des Rois » selon qui « le sperme des Goyim engendre une progéniture barbare et cruelle »], appelle ses compatriotes à se préparer à reconstruire le prétendu temple sur les ruines du Dôme du Rocher!