‘Foreign Policy’ runs piece on Zionist terrorism in ’40s, noting US and British support networks

Israel/Palestine
on 65 Comments
Calder Walton's book cover

Calder Walton’s book cover

I’m a tea-leaf reader from way back, but this piece at Foreign Policy seems significant: “How Zionist Extremism Became British Spies’ Greatest Enemy”, by Calder Walton, from a forthcoming book. Walton’s book is about British intelligence’s retreat from the cold war, everywhere from Kenya to Saudi Arabia to Malaya. You’d think there were Soviet Union chapters to excerpt? Nope; FP went with the Zionist terrorists who had support in the U.S. and Britain, and who were threatening the British isles. Evidently, it wants readers to know about Zionism’s dark side, and maybe too the issue of dual loyalty.

As World War II came to a close, MI5 received a stream of intelligence reports warning that the Irgun and the Stern Gang were not just planning violence in the Mandate of Palestine, but were also plotting to launch attacks inside Britain. In… the spring and summer of 1946, coinciding with a sharp escalation of anti-British violence in Palestine, MI5 received apparently reliable reports from SIME that the Irgun and the Stern Gang were planning to send five terrorist “cells” to London, “to work on IRA lines.” To use their own words, the terrorists intended to “beat the dog in his own kennel.” The SIME reports were derived from the interrogation of captured Irgun and Stern Gang fighters, from local police agents in Palestine, and from liaisons with official Zionist political groups like the Jewish Agency. They stated that among the targets for assassination were Britain’s foreign secretary, Ernest Bevin, who was regarded as the main obstacle to the establishment of a Jewish state in the Middle East, and the prime minister himself. MI5’s new director-general, Sir Percy Sillitoe, was so alarmed that in August 1946 he personally briefed the prime minister on the situation, warning him that an assassination campaign in Britain had to be considered a real possibility, and that his own name was known to be on a Stern Gang hit list. …

Notice the scrutiny of British Jews for potential dual loyalty, just what Brits had warned Theodor Herzl about 50 years before when they asked for the Zionist cup to pass.

MI5 also conducted a series of background vetting checks against its records on approximately 7,000 Jewish servicemen known to be in the British armed forces. This led to the identification of 40 individuals with suspected extremist sympathies, 25 of whom were discharged from the armed forces….

At the same time as these “personnel security” measures, which were designed to frustrate the entry of terrorists or terrorist sympathizers into Britain, MI5 embarked on the intensive surveillance of extremist Zionist political groups and individuals who were already there. Its assumption in doing this was that Irgun or Stern Gang operatives who succeeded in gaining entry to Britain would at some point make contact with these organizations or individuals, and therefore scrutinizing their activities could provide crucial leads to tracking them down. MI5 also assumed that agents would make contact with elements of the diaspora Jewish community in Britain. These assumptions would prove correct….

The piece says that terrorists worked inside the Jewish Agency, a transnational Zionist group that has long supported Jewish emigration to Palestine/Israel.

MI5’s policy toward the Jewish Agency was duplicitous: it cooperated with it, but at the same time kept it under close surveillance, running telephone and letter checks on its London headquarters even while it was liaising with its officers. The reason for this was that although MI5 trusted the agency’s security officials, it suspected that its broader staff and membership might contain Irgun and Stern Gang supporters.

Lest anyone think that Islamist militants have a historical/political context, Walton offers this major disclaimer.

The willingness of the agency to provide the British with intelligence on the Irgun and the Stern Gang reveals the extent to which those groups’ activities were not supported by the majority of the Jewish population in Palestine — and this, it should be noted, has no parallel in contemporary Arab and Islamist terrorism….

And the piece emphasizes the support for Zionist terrorism inside the U.S.

MI5 knew that some extremist Zionist groups operating in the United States, such as the “Bergson Group” and the “Hebrew Committee for the Liberation of Palestine,” were raising funds and logistical support for the Irgun and the Stern Gang, with explosives and ammunition sometimes being sent in food packages to Britain. –

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

65 Responses

  1. Scott
    January 2, 2014, 12:52 pm

    It’s a fascinating read. Tend to agree about the choice of this excerpt over others, except maybe it’s one of those “top people are on vacation” things. Will be curious to see the mail it gets.

    • thetruthhurts
      January 2, 2014, 11:01 pm

      palestine;retreat from the mandate by cohen
      phil, you are entering a field of study which is of the most interesting in the whole disgusting despicable story of the jews effort to establish their own nationalistic state also called zionism.
      i’m firmly convinced that if obama doesn’t take orders from his israeli zionazi masters, like the members of the knesset west in washington,dc(or more appropriately ben-gurionton,dc),there will be attacks in america by the psychotic jewish israeli terrorists just like the brits were so worried about here in 1947.
      i strongly urge you to examine a fabulous book i’ve just become aware of called
      “palestine:retreat from the mandate” by cohen, and hopefully one day you can give us all one of your masterful critical analyses on it.
      it costs on amazon around $250.00 but i’ve been lucky to find on google 30 free pages. it’s amazing.
      churchill eventually backs away from the gov’s apparent commitment to the jewish state(balfour dec) in the white paper. he says 90% of the british officials on the ground in palestine are against zionism!
      by the way, balfour did not write the balfour declaration, a secret jew called leopold amery did, and just passed it on to balfour. just another deception in the whole disgusting long neverending line of jewish zionist lies and deception.
      one very interesting thing is churchill blames strong zionist lobbying in america from stalling passing the mandate resolutions which would’ve been much more honest and fairer to the arabs.
      and he dwells repeatedly on the incredible waste of his british taxpayers money on this quagmire in palestine.
      sound familiar?
      also, there were many top ranking brit officials who were also against the jewish zionist aspirations in palestine.
      churchill also blames jewish/bolsheviks on causing the russian revolution. interestingly, david ben-gurion started in russia as a member of a jewish-marksist workers union which litterally morphed itself into israel which greatly concerned churchill and the rest of the british high command.
      another note. zeev jobotinsky was in a jewish british regiment in ww1, (as hinted at above) and used his military experience in backstabbing his british teachers in all his terroristic accomplishments which led to britain leaving palestine to the UN and america to eventually languish in.

  2. Obsidian
    January 2, 2014, 1:02 pm

    Yeah. And the former Black and Tan misfits and drunks that H.M.G. sent to police Palestine were angels too.

    http://www.theguardian.com/books/2009/may/30/david-ceserani-major-farrans-hat

    • Shmuel
      January 3, 2014, 4:36 am

      Yeah. And the former Black and Tan misfits and drunks that H.M.G. sent to police Palestine were angels too.

      As Avi Shlaim writes in the article you link to, British policy and behaviour in Palestine were thoroughly despicable from the get go — first and foremost, against the indigenous Palestinian population:

      For the real roots of Britain’s failure in Palestine one has to go back to the Balfour declaration of 1917, which promised a “national home” to the Jewish people on land that belonged to another people. This promise was plainly immoral given that the Jews constituted less than 10% of the population of Palestine at that time. It was also one of the most colossal blunders of British imperial history: the conflict it provoked between the Jewish and Palestinian national movements remains unresolved to this day.

      It is true, as Cesarani argues, that Britain surrendered its mandate over Palestine without grace or dignity. It is also true that the British forces were pretty brutal in their fight against Jewish terror. But they were not half as brutal as they had been in suppressing the indigenous Arab revolt against the Zionist intruders in 1936-39.

      Moreover, by crushing so comprehensively Palestinian resistance in the late 1930s, Britain enabled the Jewish minority to win the struggle for Palestine when it entered its critical phase in the late 1940s. So there is a case to be made against Britain’s handling of the mandate over Palestine, but it is a case that can be made much more convincingly by the Palestinian victims than by the Jewish victors and their sympathisers.

    • amigo
      January 3, 2014, 6:42 am

      “Yeah. And the former Black and Tan misfits and drunks that H.M.G. sent to police Palestine were angels too.”obsidious

      Hell zio, I would put your criminal thugs up against the Black and tans any day of the week.

      In fact , I believe the Black and tans were angels compared to the so called most moral Army.

      And I am Irish and know a thing or two about the Black and tans.

      Talk about pot calling kettle black.

      • Obsidian
        January 3, 2014, 10:33 am

        Actually Amigo, the early Zionists were great admirers of Michael Collins.

        That said, here’s a reminder who the Black and Tans were, and which might explain why H.M.G. sent them to Palestine.

        “Not surprisingly, the “Black and Tans” used a wide variety of techniques and strategies in their attempts to squelch the Irish Rebellion. These included the following: the demolition of homes of suspected rebels or in some cases, entire villages; arrests and
        imprisonments without warrants, charges or trials; beatings; torture; and rape.”

        http://www.palestine-studies.org/files/pdf/jq/10453.pdf

      • Woody Tanaka
        January 3, 2014, 11:19 am

        “Actually Amigo, the early Zionists were great admirers of Michael Collins.”

        Too bad they sullied his reputation in the process: He was fighting to free a people. The zio scum were fighting to oppress a people.

        “Not surprisingly, the “Black and Tans” used a wide variety of techniques and strategies in their attempts to squelch the Irish Rebellion. These included the following: the demolition of homes of suspected rebels or in some cases, entire villages; arrests and imprisonments without warrants, charges or trials; beatings; torture; and rape.”

        Well, at least we now where the Jews in Palestine learned it… Nah, they’d no need to learn, did they?

      • Citizen
        January 3, 2014, 2:20 pm

        @ Woody
        Yep, and then some. The Irish freedom fighters never had to go back thousands of years to justify their activity on the land because the Irish were defending Ireland, not a biblical fantasy. They still are, in case you haven’t read the news recently.

      • Hostage
        January 3, 2014, 8:16 pm

        That said, here’s a reminder who the Black and Tans were, and which might explain why H.M.G. sent them to Palestine.

        They were simply acting in line with the policy of foreign domination they had established by sending a Zionist to serve as the first High Commissioner of Palestine. Herbert Samuel’s first acts in office were to deny petitions from Palestinians who had fled the region during the first world war to return to their country of origin and to request permission from the Cabinet to adopt a Collective Punishment Ordinance for use against Palestine’s “tribal areas”.
        See:
        *Former Reference: CP 152 (24)
        Title: Palestine. Proposed Special Legislation for Tribal Areas.
        Author: James H Thomas
        Date 03 March 1924
        Catalogue reference CAB 24/165
        link to nationalarchives.gov.uk

        By the era of Montgomery and Wingate the RAF or Haganah leveled entire villages in reprisal raids and imprisoned the inhabitants in concentration camps that were infamous for torture and other crimes against humanity. See:
        * Matthew Hughes, The Banality of Brutality: British Armed Forces and the Repression of the Arab Revolt in Palestine, 1936 – 39, English Historical Review Vol. CXXIV No. 507, Oxford University Press, 2009, link to ehr.oxfordjournals.org
        *Prof. Susan Pedersen, The Meaning of the Mandates System: An Argument link to aiscibhistory.wikispaces.com
        *Segev, Shlaim, and other historians document the fact that when Major General Bernard Montgomery was given command in Palestine to put down the Arab revolt, the British forces were given standing orders on how to handle rebels: kill them.

  3. bilal a
    January 2, 2014, 2:16 pm

    Attention: Foreign Policy mag, Israeli Intell Ops and their foreign networks did not die in the 1940s.

    Jan. 2014: Former CIA Official calls for Declassification of massive Israeli espionage in the USA prior to 9/11 attacks.

    The details of Saudi involvement, which reportedly include Royal Family funding of some of the men who carried out 9/11, is still secret more than twelve years after the airline hijackings. ..A true accounting of what took place is long overdue and, one might add, it should not stop with the Saudis… the Israelis, who were running a massive intelligence operation inside the United States, appear to have had at least some prior knowledge of what was going to occur. The account of the “Five Dancing Shlomos” celebrating in Liberty Park as the twin towers burned suggests at a minimum prior knowledge and possibly even more than that as Israel had a strong motive to encourage a major terrorist attack in the US which would tie Washington to Tel Aviv in a tight anti-Muslim terrorism embrace. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu subsequently described the 9/11 attack as good news…the Israelis implicated in several Mossad cover companies were questioned but eventually released under pressure from their Embassy. .. Public records relating to all the arrests and investigations of possible foreign agents have either disappeared or been classified…If there were foreign governments involved in 9/11 a..the American people now have a right to know.
    Secret Reports Reveal All,by Philip Giraldi, January 02, 2014
    http://original.antiwar.com/giraldi/2014/01/01/secret-reports-reveal-all-2/

  4. JeffB
    January 2, 2014, 2:42 pm

    That was a great read. The 100k figure for British troops in the Mandate is insane. I’m shocked the Britain was ever willing to throw in that many resources. That number is definitely instructive and goes to show how impossible a UN mission today would be even if the IDF magically disappeared.

    As for support of Zionist “terrorism” that’s a point of pride today for USA Jews! They had been too weak in the 1930s to do much about the holocaust. By the 1940s they were able to break the sanctions and get illegal weapons to Israel. I can remember friends of my grandmother bragging about helping out in that. Jews were moving away from the ghettos, the same techniques they’d used for smuggling (mostly boring smuggling like tires and cloth) were turned around for the good of their people. There is a terrific scene in the Chosen where all the Jewish kids get together to help load up a ship full of illegal guns in prep for the ’47 war. Those people are probably almost all dead now. But I hope those stories are being passed on en mass. I know I passed them on to my kid. A theme of, “we couldn’t stopped what happened in Germany but we did stop what Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Jordan, and the assorted volunteers were planning in ’47… your great great uncle used his contacts with Army logistics…. ”

    As for the “and this, it should be noted, has no parallel in contemporary Arab and Islamist terrorism….” I agree that’s obvious BS. Of course it has a clear parallel we were just on the opposite side in that round.

    • Talkback
      January 3, 2014, 9:21 am

      JeffB: As for support of Zionist “terrorism” that’s a point of pride today for USA Jews!

      Yeah, nothing makes USA Jews more pride than to support crimes against humanity – sorry, not against humanity, but only against Gentiles – if perpetrated by Jews, right? I know the same attititude from NAZI Gentiles, but in that case Jews were the victims. But I’m sure that these NAZI Gentiles would understand your pride somehow, especially when it comes to territorial conquest expulsion, denationalization or colonialing occupied territories.

      But I hope those stories are being passed on en mass. I know I passed them on to my kid.

      Yeah, hopefully one day, they will also be proud of supporting crimes against humanity, too – sorry, not against humanity, but only against Gentiles. Wouldn’t that be even more more important than Bar Mitzva?

      • JeffB
        January 3, 2014, 10:20 am

        @Talkback

        Almost nothing of mine is getting through anymore so this may be a short conversation.

        Yeah, nothing makes USA Jews more pride than to support crimes against humanity

        Yes it is called building a country. A damn right they are proud of it. The fact you don’t like it not-withstanding.

        I know the same attititude from NAZI Gentiles

        I doubt you know any Nazis or Neo-Nazis either. Or for that matter anyone of substantially different opinions than yourself. You’d learn something talking to people who don’t share your assumptions about differentiating your opinion from fact. And trying to look at things from multiple points of view.

        Regardless Neo-Nazis are about race not merely nationalism. They don’t dislike Jews because they are disloyal to America, they dislike Jews because they suffer from an incurable hereditary disease which makes it impossible for them to ever be loyal Americans. Israelis have no such notions about Palestinians. The Mizrahim are perfect Israelis.

        Wouldn’t that be even more more important than Bar Mitzva?

        Yes. Zionism is vastly more important than traditional Judaism. And I know you meant that sarcastically. Bar Mitzva is just one Jewish ritual. Just one part of the religion of the Israeli Nation. The Israeli state is the protector and arm of the nation. If the cost of the Israeli army were to win another 1967 (much less 1947) type war and were there would never be another Bar Mitzvah again I’d gladly pay. Israel comes first. And that means Zionism comes before Judaism.

      • amigo
        January 3, 2014, 12:20 pm

        “Almost nothing of mine is getting through anymore so this may be a short conversation.”Jeffb.

        Gee, I wonder why???.

        “Yeah, nothing makes USA Jews more pride than to support crimes against humanity “Talkback. to which you respond!!!

        “Yes it is called building a country. A damn right they are proud of it. The fact you don’t like it not-withstanding. “JB

        You should be banned period for inciting hatred and war crimes.

        Have a lousy 2014.

      • Talkback
        January 4, 2014, 6:57 am

        amigo to JeffB: You should be banned period for inciting hatred and war crimes.

        I disagree. Let them talk and show what Zionism is really made of. Sooner or later they will indirectly justify similar crimes against Jews.

      • puppies
        January 3, 2014, 12:51 pm

        “Regardless Neo-Nazis are about race not merely nationalism”
        Correct; just as you are. Again, your Herrenrasse is defined by being born to a Jewish woman.

        “They don’t dislike Jews because they are disloyal to America” but it doesn’t have to be Jews; the exact identity of the people persecuted because of their accident of birth varies. It is not a necessary datum for defining Nazism. As in your case, it may be directed at, say, Arabs, or non-Jews.

      • JeffB
        January 4, 2014, 11:51 am

        @Puppies

        I have no problem with Palestinians based on their race, their parentage, what family they live in…. You all keep claiming it and it is simply false. I oppose the Palestinians because they are enemies of Israel not because of their race. Jews in Germany were loyal Germans. That’s the difference. The difference you keep wanting to gloss over.

      • Hostage
        January 6, 2014, 9:14 am

        I oppose the Palestinians because they are enemies of Israel not because of their race. . . . Jews in Germany were loyal Germans.

        One out of every five Israelis is a Palestinian, and some of them, like the Bedouin and Druze, even serve in the IDF. FYI, Jewish Zionists in Germany were writing pamphlets that said all Gentiles were their natural enemies and they were agitating for complete separation from Gentiles in exactly the same way Israelis are demanding a physical separation from the Palestinians today. Why am I not surprised that you consider all Palestinians to be enemies of Israel, yet deny that it’s because of their race?

      • puppies
        January 6, 2014, 11:27 pm

        @JeffB: You are so transparent. The reason Zionists packed the place with illegal squatters on a land cleansed from the owners of the whole damn place was that the criminal squatters were born to Jewish women, period. Many Jews in Germany were loyal Germans, as you say, but any Palestinian anywhere in Palestine loyal to a Zionist state would be a traitor. Let’s call it “collaborator” to sound diplomatic.

      • Hostage
        January 7, 2014, 3:59 am

        but any Palestinian anywhere in Palestine loyal to a Zionist state would be a traitor. Let’s call it “collaborator” to sound diplomatic.

        Clarification: Complaining about illegal discrimination does not make a citizen or elected official “disloyal” to the state. Changes in international law
        over the last 50 years now limit a State’s rights over matters of citizenship. The simply don’t have unfettered discretion anymore.

      • talknic
        January 7, 2014, 6:32 am

        @ JeffB “I oppose the Palestinians because they are enemies of Israel not because of their race”

        Palestinian Israelis? Or Palestinians dispossessed by and/or under the occupation of Israel?

        If the former….evidence please

        If the latter … of course they’re enemies of their enemies. They didn’t ask nor were they asked to be dispossessed, occupied, partitioned. You want flowers for being a murderous thief?

      • Citizen
        January 3, 2014, 2:39 pm

        Further, in America, David Duke’s thought process is reviled by the culture, while in Israel Duke is copied, replacing white christian “heroes” with Zionist “heroes,”

      • Talkback
        January 6, 2014, 8:17 am

        JeffB: I oppose the Palestinians because they are enemies of Israel not because of their race.

        To suggest that Palestinians AS SUCH are “enemies of Israel” is IS racist. And you would oppose Palestinians, even they were angels, simply because they are Gentiles which is a fundamental problem for your antigentile Apartheid Junta, which can only survive, if it keeps Gentiles expelled and denationalized. It doesn’t even come to your mind, that Palestinans who are really enemies of Israel are the products of what Jews did to them.

      • eljay
        January 6, 2014, 9:38 am

        >> I oppose the Palestinians because they are enemies of Israel not because of their race.

        Don’t forget to oppose Zio-supremacist Jews and the supremacist “Jewish State” of Israel, which are enemies of the Palestinians.

      • puppies
        January 7, 2014, 4:33 am

        @Hostage (no response button): I’m happy to hear the legal situation and its improvements confirmed.
        The opinion I expressed was not, however, concerned with either the legal status of it or just “complaining”. Loyalty to an invader state is seen as treason by many no matter citizenship status. You’ll certainly know better than me the legal status of the duty to resist. The general feeling about that shouldn’t have changed since 1940 among the general population.

      • Talkback
        January 4, 2014, 5:42 am

        JeffB: Almost nothing of mine is getting through anymore so this may be a short conversation.

        To the contrary, everything is getting through very well: For example:

        Me: Yeah, nothing makes USA Jews more pride than to support crimes against humanity.
        JeffB: Yes it is called building a country. A damn right they are proud of it.

        So Nazis from the point of view of a Zionist like JeffB were only “building” their Aryan country, when they commited crimes against Jews and should have been very proud of it.

        I doubt you know any Nazis or Neo-Nazis either.

        There were many books written about the former and many news articles about the latter.

        Or for that matter anyone of substantially different opinions than yourself. You’d learn something talking to people who don’t share your assumptions about differentiating your opinion from fact. And trying to look at things from multiple points of view.

        But I just did. I learned from you that Nazis propaganda was quite infantile. Not even Goebbels came up with the idea to call their crimes against humanity “country building”, or did he?

        Regardless Neo-Nazis are about race not merely nationalism. They don’t dislike Jews because they are disloyal to America, they dislike Jews because they suffer from an incurable hereditary disease which makes it impossible for them to ever be loyal Americans. Israelis have no such notions about Palestinians.

        Gentiles are seen as a “cancer” in Israel, simply because they are Gentiles.

        Just one part of the religion of the Israeli Nation.

        You mean a “Jewish nation”, because there is no such thing as an “Israeli nation”. Jews are seen as “nationals” (and citizens) while Gentiles are only seen as “citizens” in the antigentile Apartheid Junta. Remember when Jews were not seen as “Reichtsbueger” (nationals), but only “Staatsbuerger” (citizens) after the Nuremberg Laws? Country building, right?

        Israel comes first. And that means Zionism comes before Judaism.

        Jewish Holocaust survivers know this too well. Zionism was never about saving Jews, if they didn’t go to Palestine. Google Haavara agreement and some famous quotes by Zionists about the differnt value of Jews in Europe and cows in Palestine. Zionism will achieve one day what Nazis never could – annihilate the Jewish people from within. What are you actually trying to save, JeffB? It’s obvious, that it’s not even Bar Mitzw or – I assume – Jewish rituals in general.

      • Cliff
        January 4, 2014, 8:18 am

        Zionist Jews – as evidence by JeffB and co. – are no different from White Nationalists.

        In fact, Zionist Jews are White Nationalists.

      • Sumud
        January 4, 2014, 10:09 am

        And that means Zionism comes before Judaism.

        Absurd.

      • Talkback
        January 4, 2014, 6:47 pm

        @ Sumud.

        Even worse: Fascism.

    • ritzl
      January 3, 2014, 10:26 am

      Classic. One of the glaring double standards in this debate is the ability of Zionists to praise violence, terrorism, and killing innocent people as somehow normal and virtuous, while people who are sick up to here by Israeli violent subjugation stick to universal principles of it being wrong in every situation.

      Even when someone arguing for the Palestinian “side” comes close to being fed up by the ongoing killing, etc. by Israel, as any normal human being would if subjected to it, and say violent resistance is a right and a method (incl. weapons smuggling), they always add the disclaimer that killing is wrong.

      In the end universally applied morality will win, but it’s sickening to see the shameless-double-standard-as-debate-rule applied in the interim.

  5. DICKERSON3870
    January 2, 2014, 2:46 pm

    RE: “In… the spring and summer of 1946, coinciding with a sharp escalation of anti-British violence in Palestine, MI5 received apparently reliable reports from SIME that the Irgun and the Stern Gang were planning to send five terrorist ‘cells’ to London, ‘to work on IRA lines’. To use their own words, the terrorists intended to ‘beat the dog in his own kennel’.”

    MY COMMENT: Obviously the British had good reason to fear terrorism that might have been perpetrated in England by “infiltrators” from the Irgun and the Stern Gang.

    FROM WIKIPEDIA [Folke Bernadotte]:

    Folke Bernadotte, Count of Wisborg (in Swedish: Greve af Wisborg; 2 January 1895 – 17 September 1948) was a Swedish diplomat and nobleman noted for his negotiation of the release of about 31,000 prisoners from German concentration camps during World War II, including 450 Danish Jews from Theresienstadt released on 14 April 1945.[1][2][3] In 1945, he received a German surrender offer from Heinrich Himmler, though the offer was ultimately rejected.
    After the war, Bernadotte was unanimously chosen to be the United Nations Security Council mediator in the Arab-Israeli conflict of 1947-1948. He was assassinated in Jerusalem in 1948 by the militant Zionist group Lehi while pursuing his official duties. The Lehi was led at the time by Yitzhak Shamir, who was later to become Prime Minister of Israel. . .
    . . . On 28 June 1948, Bernadotte submitted his first formal proposal in secret to the various parties. He presented the following suggestions to discuss:[20]
    • Palestine and Transjordan be reformed as “a Union, comprising two Members, one Arab and one Jewish”, each member with full control over its own affairs, including its foreign relations.
    • Economic Union
    • Fix boundaries by negotiation
    • Immigration within its own borders should be within the competence of each member
    • Full protection of religious and minority rights
    • Guarantees for Holy Places, religious buildings and sites
    • Return of residents, displaced by the conflict
    As far as the boundaries of the two Members were concerned, Bernadotte suggested to consider:
    1. Inclusion of the whole or part of the Negev in Arab territory.
    2. Inclusion of the whole or part of Western Galilee in the Jewish territory.
    3. Inclusion of the City of Jerusalem in Arab territory, with municipal autonomy for the Jewish community and special arrangements for the protection of the Holy Places.
    4. Consideration of the status of Jaffa.
    5. Establishment of a free port at Haifa, the area of the free port to include the refineries and terminals.
    6. Establishment of a free airport at Lydda.
    [SNIP]
    . . . Bernadotte was assassinated on Friday 17 September 1948 by members of the armed Jewish Zionist group Lehi (commonly known as the Stern Gang or Stern Group).
    A three man ‘center’ of this extreme Jewish group had approved the killing: Yitzhak Yezernitsky (the future Prime Minister of Israel Yitzhak Shamir), Nathan Friedmann (also called Natan Yellin-Mor) and Yisrael Eldad (also known as Scheib)[citation needed]. A fourth leader, Emmanuel Strassberg (Hanegbi) was also suspected by the Israeli prime minister David Ben-Gurion of being part of the group that had decided on the assassination.[30][31][32][33] The assassination was planned by the Lehi operations chief in Jerusalem, Yehoshua Zettler. A four-man team ambushed Bernadotte’s motorcade in Jerusalem’s Katamon neighborhood. Two of them, Yitzhak Ben Moshe (Markovitz) and Avraham Steinberg, shot at the tires of the UN vehicles. A third, Yehoshua Cohen, opened the door of Bernadotte’s car and shot him at close range. The bullets also hit a French officer who was sitting beside him, U.N. Observer Colonel André Serot. Both were killed. In the immediate confusion, Col. Serot was mistaken for Dr. Ralph Bunche, the American aide to Bernadotte. Meshulam Makover, the fourth accomplice, was the driver of the getaway car.[34][35] General Åge Lundström, who was in the UN vehicle, described the incident as follows:

    “In the Katamon quarter, we were held up by a Jewish Army type jeep placed in a road block and filled with men in Jewish Army uniforms. At the same moment, I saw an armed man coming from this jeep. I took little notice of this because I merely thought it was another checkpoint. However, he put a Tommy gun through the open window on my side of the car, and fired point blank at Count Bernadotte and Colonel Serot. I also heard shots fired from other points, and there was considerable confusion… Colonel Serot fell in the seat in back of me, and I saw at once that he was dead. Count Bernadotte bent forward, and I thought at the time he was trying to get cover. I asked him: ‘Are you wounded?’ He nodded, and fell back… When we arrived [at the Hadassah hospital], … I carried the Count inside and laid him on the bed…I took off the Count’s jacket and tore away his shirt and undervest. I saw that he was wounded around the heart and that there was also a considerable quantity of blood on his clothes about it. When the doctor arrived, I asked if anything could be done, but he replied that it was too late.”[36]

    The murders took place at Ben Zion Guini Square, off Hapalmah Street.[37]
    The following day the United Nations Security Council condemned the killing of Bernadotte as “a cowardly act which appears to have been committed by a criminal group of terrorists in Jerusalem while the United Nations representative was fulfilling his peace-seeking mission in the Holy Land.”[38] After his death, Bernadotte’s body was returned to Sweden, where the state funeral was attended by Abba Eban on behalf of Israel. Folke was survived by a widow and two sons, a 12-year-old and a 17-year-old. He was buried at the Northern Cemetery in Stockholm.[39]
    Lehi leaders initially denied responsibility for the attack.[40] Later Lehi took responsibility for the killings in the name of Hazit Hamoledet (The National Front), a name they copied from a war-time Bulgarian resistance group.[41] The group regarded Bernadotte as a stooge of the British and their Arab allies, and therefore as a serious threat to the emerging state of Israel.[42] Most immediately, a truce was currently in force and Lehi feared that the Israeli leadership would agree to Bernadotte’s peace proposals, which they considered disastrous.[43][44] They did not know that the Israeli leaders had already decided to reject Bernadotte’s plans and take the military option.[45][46]
    Lehi was forcibly disarmed and many members were arrested, but nobody was charged with the killings. Yellin-Mor and another Lehi member, Schmuelevich, were charged with belonging to a terrorist organization. They were found guilty but immediately released and pardoned. Yellin-Mor had meanwhile been elected to the first Knesset.[47] Years later, Cohen’s role was uncovered by David Ben-Gurion’s biographer Michael Bar Zohar, while Cohen was working as Ben-Gurion’s personal bodyguard. The first public admission of Lehi’s role in the killing was made on the anniversary of the assassination in 1977.[48] The statute of limitations for murder had expired in 1971.[32][49]
    The Swedish government believed that Bernadotte had been assassinated by Israeli government agents.[50] They publicly attacked the inadequacy of the Israel investigation
    and campaigned unsuccessfully to delay Israel’s admission to the United Nations.[51] In 1950, Sweden recognized Israel but relations remained frosty despite Israeli attempts to console Sweden . . .

    SOURCE –  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folke_Bernadotte

    • chet
      January 2, 2014, 3:04 pm

      Thx Dickerson — very informative.

    • DICKERSON3870
      January 2, 2014, 3:16 pm

      P.S. Here is a nice photograph of the man who authorized the assassination of Folke Bernadotte, namely Yitzak Shamir. In the photo, Shamir is shown mentoring his protégé, Benjamin Netanyahu.

    • RoHa
      January 2, 2014, 9:10 pm

      While we remember Count Bernadotte, let us also remember Lord Moyne, another victim of Lehi. Killed in Cairo on 6 November 1944.

      “If a comparison is to be made with the Nazis it is surely those who wish to force an imported régime upon the Arab population who are guilty of the spirit of aggression and domination. Lord Wedgwood’s proposal that Arabs should be subjugated by force to a Jewish régime is inconsistent with the Atlantic Charter, and that ought to be told to America.”

      (Speech in the House of Lords, 9 June 1942 )

      • DICKERSON3870
        January 3, 2014, 2:58 pm

        FROM WIKIPEDIA [Walter Guinness, 1st Baron Moyne]:

        [EXCERPTS] Walter Edward Guinness, 1st Baron Moyne DSO & Bar PC (29 March 1880 – 6 November 1944) was an Anglo-Irish politician and businessman. He served as the British minister of state in the Middle East until November 1944, when he was assassinated by the Jewish terrorist group Lehi. The assassination of Lord Moyne sent shock waves through Palestine and the rest of the world.[1] . . .
        . . . From September 1939, given Hitler’s Invasion of Poland (1939), Moyne chaired the Polish Relief Fund in London and gave over his London house at 11 Grosvenor Place, in Belgravia near Buckingham Palace, for the use of Polish officers.[37] From the elevation of Churchill in May 1940, Moyne held several positions in the Churchill war ministry, starting with a Joint Secretaryship in the Ministry of Agriculture. In a cabinet reshuffle in February 1941, he took on his post in the Colonial Office and led the Churchill government’s business in the House of Lords, with the honorific title of Leader of the House of Lords.[37]
        Moyne was next appointed Deputy Resident Minister of state in Cairo from August 1942 to January 1944 and Resident Minister from then until his death. Within the British system at that time, this meant control over Persia, the Middle East and Africa. The main task was to ensure the defeat of the Axis forces in North Africa, principally the Afrika Korps, led by General Rommel. Another concern was the influence on Arab opinion of the Grand Mufti, a leader of a revolt in 1936–39, who had moved on to Berlin in 1941. . .
        . . . In the early afternoon of 6 November 1944, Eliyahu Bet-Zuri and Eliyahu Hakim of the Jewish terrorist group Lehi waited for Moyne near his home in Cairo following a well-planned and much practised plan of action to assassinate Moyne.[49] They were hanged for the assassination in March 1945.[50]
        Moyne arrived in his car with his driver, Corporal Fuller, his secretary, Dorothy Osmond, and his ADC, Major Andrew Hughes-Onslow. The ADC went to open the front door of the residence and the driver got out to open the door for Moyne. Hakim then pulled the car door open and shot Moyne three times, while Bet-Zuri killed the driver. The two assassins fled on their bicycles, pursued by an Egyptian motorcycle policeman who had been alerted by Major Hughes-Onslow. Hakim tried to shoot the policeman but he fired back and Hakim fell, wounded. The two were surrounded by an angry mob until they were extracted by the police. Moyne was rushed to hospital but died of his wounds that evening. As the principal witness at the trial, Major Hughes Onslow became a marked man and was sent to Aden and then to Khartoum for his safety. He subsequently said: “No doubt Lord Moyne could have been regarded as a target for political assassination, but the shooting of the chauffeur was pure murder.”[51][52]
        According to Lehi leader Natan Yellin-Mor, the group’s founder Ya’ir Stern had considered the possibility of assassinating the British Minister Resident in the Middle East as early as 1941 (before Moyne held the position).[53] Moyne’s predecessor Richard Casey was deemed unsuitable because he was Australian.[54] When Moyne replaced Casey in 1944, planning for the operation began.
        As well as being the highest British official within Lehi’s reach, Moyne was regarded as personally responsible for Britain’s Palestine policy. In particular, he was regarded as one of the architects of Britain’s strict immigration policy . . .
        . . . After the assassination, Lehi announced:

        “We accuse Lord Moyne and the government he represents, with murdering hundreds and thousands of our brethren; we accuse him of seizing our country and looting our possessions. We were forced to do justice and to fight”.[62]

        Bet-Zuri and Hakim initially gave false names, but their true identities were soon discovered. They were tried in an Egyptian court.
        Eventually, the Lehi members were found guilty and on 11 January 1945, they were sentenced to death. Their appeals for clemency were dismissed, probably partly in response to pressure from Winston Churchill, who had been Moyne’s ally and close personal friend.[63] They were hanged on 23 March 1945.
        Although the group had been targeting British Mandate personnel since 1940, Moyne was the first high-profile British official to be killed by them (several failed attempts had been made to assassinate the British High Commissioner in Palestine, Sir Harold MacMichael). This was therefore the opening shot in the new Lehi campaign.
        Jewish authorities in Palestine, fearful of British retribution, were quick to distance themselves from Lehi actions. On the news of Moyne’s death, Chaim Weizmann, who later became the first President of Israel, is reported to have said that the death was more painful to him than that of his own son.[63]
        British prime minister Winston Churchill, who once described himself as a “Zionist”,[64] for the time being tempered his support for Zionism.[65][66] Moyne had been sent to Cairo because of their long personal and political friendship, and Churchill told the House of Commons:

        “If our dreams for Zionism are to end in the smoke of an assassin’s pistol, and the labours for its future produce a new set of gangsters worthy of Nazi Germany, then many like myself will have to reconsider the position we have maintained so consistently and so long in the past”.[67] He also added “I can assure the House that the Jews in Palestine have rarely lost a better or more well-informed friend” [68]

        In November 1943, a committee of the British Cabinet had proposed a partition of Palestine after the war, based loosely on the 1937 Peel Commission proposal. The plan included a Jewish state, a small residual mandatory area under British control, and an Arab state to be joined in a large Arab federation of Greater Syria. The Cabinet approved the plan in principle in January 1944, but it faced severe opposition from the Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden among others. “Moyne’s position differed from that of nearly all the British civil and military officials in the Middle East: the consensus of British official opinion in the area opposed partition and opposed a Jewish state; Moyne supported both.”[71] The partition plan was before the Cabinet for final approval in the same week that Moyne was assassinated, but the assassination caused it to be immediately shelved and never resurrected. Moyne’s successor in Cairo, Sir Edward Grigg, was opposed to partition.[72] Some historians, such as Wasserstein and Porath, have speculated that a Jewish state soon after the war had been a real possibility.[71][73] . . .

        SOURCE – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Guinness,_1st_Baron_Moyne

  6. ToivoS
    January 2, 2014, 3:31 pm

    Good call Phil this is an interesting article. Very interesting that FP would publish it. It seems like there might be some changes going on inside the US foreign policy establishment. Perhaps a reaction against the influence of extreme right wing Zionism inside the lobby?

    What struck me was how deeply integrated these rightist Zionists had become embedded inside the American pro-Israeli movement so early in the game. It is obvious that today AIPAC is actively opposed to any practical 2-state solution. After Oslo, I naively believed that Israel was sincere in its promise that it desired to trade land for peace. I actually believed the many Zionists voices that said they supported that goal. It is now clear that annexation of the WB was their goal all along — all this 2-state talk was just diversions for us goyim to give them breathing room to expand their settlements. In any case the goal of the lobby is now more clear than ever. Their true rightists nature is in the open — total control over all of Palestine from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean.

    I guess once the lobby conquered Congress and can count on 98% of their votes, there is no longer need for deception. It feels a little weird seeing the game played out in the open like this. They feel so powerful they no longer have to lie openly. All they have to do is scream antisemitism at anyone who tries to stop them now. It is a new game. Somehow the lobby thinks they are going to win. I don’t know.

    • TheWatcherWatching
      January 2, 2014, 9:35 pm

      Pollard tried to sell nuclear nuclear secrets to the soviets during the Cold War. Just like how the Israelis sold us tech to the Chinese. Tit for tat, Obama should give Iran access to the iron dome missile shield

      • Citizen
        January 3, 2014, 2:58 pm

        @ TheWatcherWatching

        Pollard sold USA’s NATO defense map to Israel so Israel could trade that map to Russia in exchange for Russia giving their Jews easy immigration to Israel which is why Israel got to exploit the expertise of Russian taxpayer R & D in behalf Israel.

  7. biorabbi
    January 2, 2014, 4:42 pm

    Right wing zionists… like Frank Sinatra? Many of these “right wing zionists” were communist in political orientation. 6 million dead Jews tends to focus the mind on self preservation. It’s easy to give critique from 2014’s rosy outlook concerning Jewish safety, but quite another from the vantage point of 1945. Dual Loyalty my ass.

    • Hostage
      January 3, 2014, 11:22 am

      6 million dead Jews tends to focus the mind on self preservation.

      LoL! It isn’t self preservation that compels these dipshit settlers to cross armistice lines in order to live right in enemy territory with their spouses and children, It’s more like a death wish.

  8. biorabbi
    January 2, 2014, 5:34 pm

    I hope we release Jonathan Pollard soon for three important reasons.

    1. He’s served longer than spies from other countries against the US.
    2. It will raise the systolic blood pressure of each and every anti-semite in the US.
    3. It will raise the blood pressure of every progressive, anti-Israel, Jew who gains succor and praise from Professor Walt and company.

  9. Bumblebye
    January 2, 2014, 6:20 pm

    Re the last two paras you’ve excerpted. Something in the culture of the intelligence services seems to have changed, perhaps in the last 40 plus years. We’ve heard too many tales of people who did try to do the ‘right’ thing – especially in regard to family members they would have preferred to be warned off in some way, or to have those attempting to use them caught – only to be betrayed in a sense when the person they probably cared about was led further in to the dark side and set up for prosecution. Whether it was terrorism related to Northern Ireland, to the miners, to animal rights groups, or to climate campaigners, and lately Islamism. There’s no trust.
    As to the last para, well, the IRA got considerable funding and support from the USA and people like Rep (Peter?) King were among their greatest supporters! Now he’s an uber zionist. Where’s the logic in his position?

  10. traintosiberia
    January 2, 2014, 9:20 pm

    “.
    reveals the extent to which those groups’ activities were not supported by the majority of the Jewish population in Palestine — and this, it should be noted, has no parallel in contemporary Arab and Islamist terrorism….

    Fringe elements in the political map of Israel since before in birth has been most effective and instrumental in establishing the state and shaping to the current forms ,geographically,militarily,politically,and in securing the clout in the governments of the foreign countries. Stern and Irgun might have been blamed as had been Dayan,Begin,Shamir,A Liberman in the past and Barak and Netanyahu in more recent times. But these fringe voices of yesterday become mainstream today advancing more extremist views and normalizing the abnormal .

    • Citizen
      January 3, 2014, 3:43 pm

      @ traintosiberia
      I agree that the political norm in USA is to make extremist Israel the norm, flying in the face effectively of American highest values, but you need to express yourself in better English on this blog or lots of people will just ignore you. Where do you write from?

  11. traintosiberia
    January 2, 2014, 9:50 pm

    “Dear Mr. President …”
    The story of fifty years in the White House mail room
    by Ira R. T. Smith with Joe Alex Morris.
    1949
    Documents the fear and the responses experienced and mounted respectively to keep American President safe from assassination through letter bombs after similar devices managed to create terror and kill British officials in 1940s. Author of this book was summoned back from vacation . Author found similar letter bombs in 1947 . There were increased volume of mails and newer form of deceptive delivery with intention to create terror in Washington. He managed to insert the question of Palestine as the issue that was influencing the origin of this terrorism and also the quick identification of the origin of these bombs by US intelligence.
    Page 230

    I have read that Margaret Truman wrote of the threat to her dad’s life from Zionist terrorism as well.

  12. Hostage
    January 2, 2014, 10:35 pm

    And the piece emphasizes the support for Zionist terrorism inside the U.S.

    Despite Herzl’s use of the Dreyfus Affair to bolster his political theories, France had a Jewish Prime Minister, Léon Blum, a decade before Israel had one.

    Here’s another fact that isn’t widely known:

    Today, it is worth turning our attention to a previously overlooked aspect of the incident: the source of the weapons that were onboard the ship. The Altalena carried thousands of rifles, several hundred machine guns and millions of rounds of ammunition, as well as explosives, mortars, shells and body armor. The arms shipment, worth millions of dollars, was donated to the Irgun by the French government.

    link to israelhayom.com

    France was violating the Security Council arms embargo on behalf of a Jewish terrorist organization.

    • Obsidian
      January 3, 2014, 2:08 pm

      Yup.

      French Intelligence had penetrated the British Embassy in Lebanon and the Syrian Government and knew about Britain’s plans to aid the Arab States invade Israel.

      This information was passed to the Zionist leadership who used it to help win the Israel’s War of Independence.

      See the works of Professor Meir Zamir, and the book by James Barr.

      http://www.amazon.com/Line-Sand-Anglo-French-Struggle-1914-1948/dp/0393344258/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1388776005&sr=1-2&keywords=lines+in+the+sand

      • Hostage
        January 4, 2014, 10:23 am

        Yup. French Intelligence had penetrated the British Embassy in Lebanon and the Syrian Government and knew about Britain’s plans to aid the Arab States invade Israel.

        Every time one of you Zionists retell that whopper it just gets better and better. Meir Zamir wrote some interesting articles about the secret war between Britain and France in Syria and Lebanon from 1942-45, but there was no account about British backing for any invasion of Israel. In fact, one of the documents he turned-up was an agreement between Great Britain and Syria on the Question of Palestine that stipulated “the English White Paper would be regarded as the limit to Arab claims”.
        http://www.joshualandis.com/blog/the-%E2%80%98missing-dimension%E2%80%99-britains-secret-war-against-france-in-syria-and-lebanon-1942%E2%80%9345-by-meir-zamir/

        The lone reference to anything like an invasion was a Haganah report cited in “Britain’s treachery, France’s revenge” that said some armed bands might slip across the Lebanese border and attack Jewish settlements in the Galilee, but it didn’t say there was any British backing for the operation. Zamir simply hinted that the information may have come from the French. http://www.joshualandis.com/blog/britains-treachery-frances-revenge-by-meir-zamir/

        Most of the action in Zamir’s account occurred during WWII, when Great Britain was still the legitimate government of Palestine. Zamir’s stories are really only of interest for those history buffs who focused on the Greater Syria initiatives and British attempts to play the various Arab states against one another by employing that idea as a carrot or stick.

        I don’t believe James Barr’s, “Line in the Sand” had anything to say on the subject of a British-backed invasion either. Why don’t you provide us with some page cites about that?

        Zamir’s articles are focused on De Gaulle’s efforts during WWII to overturn his own decision to grant Syrians their independence and exact revenge on the British for intervening when he subsequently tried to overthrow the government in Damascus and takeover the country by force. I have a hard time feeling sorry about the fact that France was ejected from the region under those circumstances.

        Zamir’s articles don’t contain any real surprises about Palestine. Zionists certainly didn’t need French intelligence to tell them that Great Britain and the Arabs were publicly opposed to the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine. They could have learned just about anything he mentions by reading the 1939 White Paper and the Palestine Post.

        On the other hand, De Gaulle certainly did intervene in Palestine by arming Jewish terrorist groups in the Summer of 1948. Zamir simply gets his facts wrong when he states that Great Britain was violating a UN arms embargo on 18 February 1948 by trying to conclude a secret Swiss arms deal. On that very same day Ben Gurion advised Shertok about the fact that the UN Commission was still promising to deliver arms to the state militias:

        If we will receive in time the arms we have already purchased, and maybe even receive some of that promised to us by the UN, we will be able not only to defend, but also to inflict death blows on the Syrians in their own country – and take over Palestine as a whole.

        Compare that discussion from Ben Gurion Archives, Correspondence Section 23.02-1.03.48 Document 59, 26 February 1948 to ESPIONAGE AND THE ZIONIST ENDEAVOR http://www.think-israel.org/zamir.espionage1948.html

        The UN was aware of the fact the British were supplying arms to the Arab states under its own long term contracts and defense treaties and stalling on new orders. After the UN finally adopted a voluntary embargo, it quickly became apparent that the Zionist intended to violate it with impunity, and Great Britain advised both the UN and US that it would have to honor its contracts and defense treaties to keep the Arabs from being exposed to annihilation. There still wasn’t a Chapter 7 resolution on the embargo even at that late date. http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=goto&id=FRUS.FRUS1948v05p2&isize=M&submit=Go+to+page&page=1521

      • Obsidian
        January 4, 2014, 2:41 pm

        @Hostage

        ‘ Zamir simply gets his facts wrong when he states that Great Britain was violating a UN arms embargo on 18 February 1948 by trying to conclude a secret Swiss arms deal’

        “On February 18, 1948, representatives of a Swiss company met secretly with Egyptian and Jordanian envoys in the office of Hector McNeill, the British minister of state for foreign affairs, to finalize the details of a $140 million arms deal. Considering the price of arms at the time, this was a major deal which, had it gone through, would have completely changed the military balance between the Arab states and the yet-to-be-established State of Israel. It was presented as a contract between the Swiss company Friedli and Kauffmann (Oerlikon) and the government of Ethiopia, but the true destinations of the arms were Egypt, Jordan and other Arab states.
        The British Foreign Office, which mediated the deal, maintained the utmost secrecy, as its involvement contravened the UN resolution on partition and flouted the appeal by the UN Security Council for an embargo on arms sales to either Arabs or Jews. The United States, which was one of the first to comply with the UN embargo, would have undoubtedly reacted strongly if it had learned of Britain’s double game.

        http://zionism-israel.com/israel_news/2008/11/what-happened-in-1948.html

        How does Zamir get the facts wrong?

      • Hostage
        January 5, 2014, 2:16 am

        How does Zamir get the facts wrong?

        Let’s get this out of the way first. You did not supply any cites from either author to support your claim that there was British backing for an invasion of Israel by the Arab states.

        Zamir is either being dishonest or mistaken when he claims the UK was contravening the UN resolution on partition or flouting a request from the Security Council for an arms embargo. The UN resolution on partition had no bearing at all on the Anglo-Egyptian Treaty of 1936, the Treaty of London 1946 (with Transjordan) or its own arms contracts with those countries. The text of 181(II) is completely silent on the subject. Since it’s available online, why don’t you quote the applicable portion that the UK violated by purchasing arms for either Egypt or Transjordan?

        I’ve already pointed out that the General Assembly resolution called for the establishment of armed state militias and that the UN itself was still promising to supply arms to both sides on the day of the 18 February 1948 meeting cited by Zamir:

        The Provisional Council of Government of each State shall, within the shortest time possible, recruit an armed militia from the residents of that State, sufficient in number to maintain internal order and to prevent frontier clashes.

        This armed militia in each State shall, for operational purposes, be under the command of Jewish or Arab officers resident in that State, but general political and military control, including the choice of the militia’s High Command, shall be exercised by the Commission.

        http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/res181.asp

        The UN Charter entered into force in October of 1945. The Security Council didn’t adopt a single resolution on the subject of Palestine until March of 1948, after the meeting between the governments and the Swiss company. That resolution did not mention any arms embargo against the proposed state militias. It simply stated the Council’s intention to meet and discuss the General Assembly’s plan in order to givie guidance and instruction to the Palestine Commission with a view to implementing the GA resolution. http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/42%281948%29

        The first time the Security Council called for an arms embargo was in paragraph 4 of its resolution of 29 May 1948. http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/50%20%281948%29

      • talknic
        January 5, 2014, 7:05 pm

        @Obsidian This information was passed to the Zionist leadership who used it to help win the Israel’s War of Independence

        Israel didn’t have a war of independence. Israel didn’t exist before its independence and was independent the moment it came into existence.

        The 1948 war wasn’t in Israel, it was in territories “outside the State of Israel”

        Israel’s so called war of independence was a war in non-Israeli territories over non-Israeli territories.

  13. American
    January 2, 2014, 11:23 pm

    We will probably see more of this.
    British Intelligence declassified and released a raft of documents that were previously thought to be ‘lost’ on the mandate period and zionism in the UK and Palestine.
    they were released in April of 2013 but are not yet available to view on line at the British National Achives—probably wont be for some time.
    But anyone can have access to them if they want to go read the originals at the BNA…..so I am sure some reporters and others interested in this are doing that.

    • Hostage
      January 3, 2014, 10:49 am

      But anyone can have access to them if they want to go read the originals at the BNA…..so I am sure some reporters and others interested in this are doing that.

      You can order hard copies or pdf’s of documents online. I’ve done that in the past. I got fed up with seeing the same Eastern Committee War Cabinet meeting for 5 December 1918 (E.C. 41st minutes) listed in the footnotes of historical accounts from different authors who provided contradictory details and analysis. So I ordered a hard copy and paid $38.00 to satisfy my curiosity. It turned out to be a goldmine of useful information.

      • American
        January 3, 2014, 1:03 pm

        Hostage says:
        January 3, 2014 at 10:49 am

        You can order hard copies or pdf’s of documents online.
        >>>>>

        Yep, have done that before—- but yesterday I spent an hour almost trying to find the file with these latest documents and couldnt find it.
        Maybe because I was searching for the Palestine portion –which is only a part of the files. I havent been able to find the actual title of the new releases or determine if the documents are entered as a whole selection or broken up under the numbers code for periods, countries, etc….

        If you find it could you post it here?…thanks.

      • Michael S
        January 3, 2014, 8:58 pm

        It’s here: http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/SearchUI/details?uri=C13399072

        Not had a chance to look at it for myself yet. I have read Walton’s book though. The ‘Jewish underground’ events get a chapter of their own (‘The Red Light is Definitely Showing’: MI5, the British Mandate of Palestine and Zionist Terrorism”.)

  14. Nevada Ned
    January 3, 2014, 9:14 pm

    There is a close connection between Israeli terrorism and southern Nevada.

    Longtime newspaper publisher Hank Greenspun, owner/publisher of the Las Vegas Sun newspaper, was a longtime Zionist. Greenspun and his friend Al Schwimmer spent a couple of years in the late 1940’s running guns to the Haganah. Greenspun and Schwimmer procured a lot of the weapons that were used to expel the Palestinians during the nakba.

    Greenspun subsequently pleaded guilty of violating the Neutrality Act, and was given a suspended sentence and a fine. (Some Israeli “asset” paid the fine for Greenspun.) Greenspun went on to be one of the biggest businessmen in Las Vegas.

    Bringing the story up to date, Hank Greenspun is now dead, but his son Brian runs the Las Vegas Sun (or what’s left of it. It’s almost bankrupt.) For Democrats, endorsement by the Las Vegas Sun is one of the ABC’s of running for office, just like groveling to Sheldon Adelson is for Republicans.

    Another lesson: a few years ago, AIPAC was in trouble during the Larry Franklin case. Many media pundits scoffed at the possibility of prosecuting top AIPAC officials for violating the Neutrality Act. Some pundits actually claimed that nobody was ever convicted under the Neutrality Act. I guess they never heard of Hank Greenspun.

    For anyone interested in following up on Hank Greenspun: see the useful 2001 book The Money and the Power: The making of Las Vegas and its hold on America, 1947-2000, by Sally Denton and Roger Morris. The book is based on secondary sources and many interviews. There is a chapter on Hank Greenspun.

  15. Obsidian
    January 5, 2014, 12:56 pm

    @Hostage

    ” The UN resolution on partition had no bearing at all on the Anglo-Egyptian Treaty of 1936, the Treaty of London 1946 (with Transjordan) or its own arms contracts with those countries”.

    So why the secret Swiss arms deal brokered by H.M.G. and which used an Ethiopian ‘cutout’? Why all the secrecy if all H.M.G.’s arms trade with Egypt an Jordan were legal and aboveboard?

    • Hostage
      January 5, 2014, 6:23 pm

      So why the secret Swiss arms deal brokered by H.M.G. and which used an Ethiopian ‘cutout’? Why all the secrecy if all H.M.G.’s arms trade with Egypt an Jordan were legal and aboveboard?

      Simple deception for the purposes of operational security may have been in order, since there were highly organized, and illegal Jewish militias that were known for large scale thefts of British arms and the use of agents working inside the British military. There were a few thousand of them running around the Middle East blowing up trains and police stations, robbing banks, and murdering British officials as part of their program of terror and open warfare against the British government:

      A further incident which might set a match to the flames is the recent discovery of large-scale thefts of arms by Jews in Palestine. Investigations have disclosed the existence of a highly-organised racket, and these investigations may well lead direct to the Jewish Agency. Courts-martial have been held on some British soldiers, who have been condemned to terms of penal servitude, and the trial is now proceeding of two Jews. The High Ccrnmisioner reports that if these Jews are convicted, a violent outbreak is possible.

      — Issuance Of An Anglo-American Statement On Palestine
      http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=goto&id=FRUS.FRUS1943&isize=M&submit=Go+to+page&page=1116

      The only thing Zamir got right was the fact that the US had its own arms embargo in place after the Anglo-American Commission Inquiry to prevent arms from ending up in Palestine. But it had nothing to do with the UN. A better question to ask is: Why the government of Czechoslovakia was supplying arms to Ben Gurion that it told the US government it needed for its own self defense and to equip its own armed forces?

      Again, as prior to the war, the Czechoslovak Government and people have begun the organization of their armed forces in order to safeguard the victory, strengthen the peace in their part of Europe, and eventually contribute to the defensive and peace-maintaining potential of the United Nations. Facing the task, Czechoslovakia is in urgent need of certain combatant materials, such as small arms and equipment to organize her armed forces in the initial period, and to train her new army.
      As the result of their victorious struggle in Europe, the United States Armed Forces captured a considerable quantity of German war material as war booty. Much of this material has no military and very limited civilian value for the Allies, and as such is being largely destroyed or earmarked for ultimate destruction. The Czechoslovak Government is convinced that it would be of no special cost to the Allies and to the United States Armed Forces if a part of this material and equipment was transferred to Czechoslovakia for the above mentioned purpose.
      Due to the definition of the term of restitution, as accepted by the Paris Conference on German reparations, Czechoslovakia was prevented from basing her claim of a share of the captured military material on the title of restitution, as she had not had the possibility to identify the material which Germany seized from her in 1939 and subsequently consumed.
      Under such circumstances the Czechoslovak Government believes that it is appropriate to approach the Government of the United States with a request to kindly intercede on their behalf by instructing the proper authorities in the occupation zone of Germany to make arrangements with the proper Czechoslovak authorities for the transfer to Czechoslovakia of such combat material (small arms) and equipment as is not needed by the United States Army of Occupation.

      http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=goto&id=FRUS.FRUS1946v06&isize=M&submit=Go+to+page&page=198

      The US arms embargo had been requested by the British government after their joint Inquiry to curtail Jewish Agency aggression:

      2. Palestine Mr. Bevin spoke at some length on the subject of Palestine and urged delay in the publication of the report of the Anglo-American Commission of Inquiry. He said that while Britain was prepared to go ahead and permit the immigration of 100,000 Jews, they could not all go to Palestine immediately. What worried him most, he said, was the fact that the Jews are acquiring large supplies of arms, most of them with money furnished by American Jews, and are in a very aggressive frame of mind. He said that most of the immigrants were carefully selected for their military qualities by the Jewish Agency and he urged that we join the British in forcing the Jewish Agency to cease its aggressive tactics. He said that the point has about been reached where he must consider the possibility of a complete British withdrawal from Palestine. At present he is forced to retain four Divisions there and this cannot go on indefinitely.

      http://digicoll.library.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/FRUS/FRUS-idx?type=goto&id=FRUS.FRUS1946v07&isize=M&submit=Go+to+page&page=587

Leave a Reply