An Archetypical Anglo-American Colonial Crime Against Humanity!

In order to militarily penetrate the oil rich Middle East, a courageous and noble socialist Zionism and despised Holocaust survivors, denied refugee status, were used by an Anglo-American colonial business elite that was anti-Semitic in outlook, coldly indifferent and even complicit, during the Holocaust its investments in rearming Germany made possible.

Until the United Nations plan for the partition of Palestine is recognised as having been intended to torch British Palestine while British forces were withdrawing as a prearranged stratagem of an Archetypal Colonial Powers crime against humanity, the same genocide and misery that was calculated and expected will continue and spread. The Wall Street led economic and military facilitation of the Second World War and the multinational Holocaust is the immediate history of the murderous founding of the modern and as yet incomplete state of Israel at the cost of Arab and Jewish lives and what could have been a Jewish and Arab led vibrant and dynamic mixed society in Palestine. The British Empire colonization of Palestine for the Empire’s own benefit is its ugly pre-history.


Regarding The Continued Post War Persecution of the Jews of Europe, Survivors of the Holocaust


If no rearming of a weak economically prostate totally disarmed Nazi Germany by USA’s largest corporations breeching the Versailles Treaty’s prohibitions of German rearmament in collusion with Colonial Powers Britain and France … then no Second World War.If no Second World War, then no multi nation Holocaust of nearly six million Jews. If no multi nation genocide of Jews, then no 250,000 displaced Jewish survivors refused refuge even in the spacious United States of America (where, by the way, most survivors wished to go). 

What uncomfortable realisation of the enormity of American and European society’s complicity in the Holocaust there was, formed a backdrop for additional basic business considerations entertained by many of the same influential U.S. politicians beholden to Wall Street’s avarice and economic crime in rearming Germany. Highly placed villainous capitalist gangsters saw an imperialist opportunity to make racist use of the plight of a quarter million ‘undesirable’ Jewish Holocaust survivors to create a client colony of armed Europeans in the midst of oil rich Muslim countries. 

Anglo American power over an incipient United Nations of only 57 nations, produced a genocidal stratagem of torching the Holy Land with a phoney, never expected nor intended to be implemented resolution for a crazy quilt partition of Palestine into seven noncontiguous areas; the Arab areas entirely noncontiguous; the Jewish areas contiguous by a thread, its major area containing more Arabs than Jews [see UN provided map of recommended partition.] meant to provoke a civil war prepared for and expected by the Colonial Powers supported revisionist Zionists leadership. From Wikipedia, Map of the UN resolution for partition:

The above United Nations Recommended Partition Plan for Palestine Resolution was approved by the UN General Assembly on November 29, 1947 after voting down the recommendation for independence. 

More than a year before this civil war producing vote, Albert Einstein made headlines in the New York Times of February 15, 1946, EINSTEIN URGES UNITED NATIONS RUN PALESTINE.  

A government in Palestine under the UN’s direct control and a constitution assuring Jews’ and Arab’ security against being outvoted by each other would solve the Jewish-Arab difficulties.” 

During the debate within the UN Ad Hoc Committee on Palestine, before the voting in the UN General Assembly, Dr. Mohamed Hussein Heykal Pasha of Egypt warned members of the seriousness of the decision to be taken by the Committee, and asked them not to overlook the fact that one of the plans, partition, “would, to say the least, result in bloodshed.” “If the United Nations decides to amputate a part of Palestine in order to establish a Jewish state, no force on earth could prevent blood from flowing there…Moreover…once such bloodshed has commenced, no force on earth can confine it to the borders of Palestine itself.” Mahmoud Bey Fawzi, (also Egypt) then took the floor to comment on the proposals now before the Committee. said his delegation and several others considered the legal issues to be “at the heart of” this entire matter, yet, in his view, they had been largely ignored and by-passed. This hasty procedure now being urged, he said, threatened to undermine the very foundations of the United Nations.

The Representative of Egypt asked for an advisory opinion on the legal issues from the International Court of Justice.  His delegation denied that the General Assembly had any power to decree the partition of Palestine, and described the partition plan as “shameless illegality,” contrary to the principle of self-determination for the overwhelming majority of the people of Palestine.  The establishment of a unitary, independent state, said Mr. Fawzi, was much more practicable, and would not require the machinery of the United Nations Security Council.  

If the alternate UN plan for an independent and democratic Palestine would have not been suffocated by colonial power politicking, Jews would have had the access to the entire Mandate of Palestine. In this kind of imagined format, how easy it might have been for Yehudi Menuhin’s “only possible solution” to have developed, namely, the kind of federated republic that is French-German Switzerland (the Italian part could be thought of as comparable to autonomous areas for the Druze and Bedouin population).

‘Have your cake and eat it ‘two.’ ‘One state solution and two state solution at the same time.’ With all the intellectual prowess that immigrating Jews were bringing as engineers, doctors, scientists and workers knowledgeable in advanced technology, and the international financial connections available to their leaders, both sides might have opted to stay mixed, legislating  a great degree of regard for cultural, religious and distinctions that would see Jews sharing economic social benefits with Arabs in a Israel-Palestine smack in a sea of Arab nations accepting a Jewish lead in the affairs of a prospering single unique mixed Jewish-Arab state.

During the debate of two UN plans for Palestine, Mr. Fawzi noted an aim “to establish military bases for the benefit of Powers that wanted to gain a strong hold in the Middle East.”

In the name of humanity, the reader might want to spend the minute or two needed to read this short and to the point uncomplicated entirely and obviously just appeal for the International Courts intervention to prevent a genocidal civil war. The reader will recognize no logic, no legality, no responsibility, no humanity and no justice in the General Assembly rejection of the Draft Resolution Referring Certain Legal Questions to the International Court of Justice just prior to the voting on the resolutions concerning single state or partition. Below are reprinted the resolution and the eight questions to be put to the International Court. 

The General Assembly of the United Nations resolves to request the International Court of Justice to give an advisory opinion under Article 96 of the Charter and Chapter IV of the Statute of the Court on the following questions:

(i) Whether the indigenous population of Palestine has not an inherent right to Palestine and to determine its future constitution and government; 

(ii) Whether the pledges and assurances given by Great Britain to the Arabs during the first World War (including the Anglo-French Declaration of 1918) concerning the independence and future of Arab countries at the end of the war did not include Palestine;

(iii)Whether the Balfour Declaration, which was made without the knowledge or consent of the indigenous population of Palestine, was valid and binding on the people of Palestine, or consistent with the earlier and subsequent pledges and assurances given to the Arabs;

(iv) Whether the provisions of the Mandate for Palestine regarding the establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine are in conformity or consistent with the objectives and provisions of the Covenant of the League of Nations (in particular Article 22), or are compatible with the provisions of the Mandate relating to the development of self-government and the preservation of the rights and position of the Arabs of Palestine;

(v) Whether the legal basis for the Mandate for Palestine has not disappeared with the dissolution of the League of Nations, and whether it is not the duty of the Mandatory Power to hand over power and administration to a Government of Palestine representing the rightful people of Palestine;

(vi) Whether a plan to partition Palestine without the consent of the majority of its people is consistent with the objectives of the Covenant of the League of Nations, and with the provisions of the Mandate for Palestine;

(vii) Whether the United Nations is competent to recommend either of the two plans and recommendations of the majority or minority of the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine, or any other solution involving partition of the territory of Palestine, or a permanent trusteeship over any city or part of Palestine, without the consent of the majority of the people of Palestine; 

(viii) Whether the United Nations, or any of its Member States, is competent to enforce or recommend the enforcement of any proposal concerning the Constitution and future Government of Palestine, in particular, any plan of partition which is contrary to the wishes, or adopted without the consent of, the inhabitants of Palestine.

Reprinted in Yearbook of the United Nations 1947–1948. UN Doc. 1949.I.13 (31 December, 1948). 

Your author has not been able to retrieve how the individual nations voted

In rejecting providing for reference to the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion on eight legal questions connected wither arising from the Palestine problem.

United Nations General Assembly, November 25, 1947


Rapporteur: Mr. Thor THORS (Iceland)

At the beginning of the thirty-second meeting, the Chairman put to the vote the first draft resolution proposed by Sub-Committee 2, providing for the reference to the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion of eight legal questions connected with or arising from the Palestine problem. At the request of the representative of France, two votes were taken, one on the first seven questions, the other on the eighth question which read as follows:

“Whether the United Nations, or any of its Member States, is competent to enforce, or recommend the enforcement of, any proposal concerning the constitution and future government of Palestine, in particular, any plan of partition which is contrary to the wishes, or adopted without the consent, of the inhabitants of Palestine”.

The proposal to refer to the International Court of Justice the first seven questions was rejected by a vote of eighteen in favour, twenty-five against, with eleven abstentions. The proposal to refer to the Court the eighth question was rejected by a vote of twenty in favour, twenty-one against, with thirteen abstentions. By one vote was rejected “Whether the United Nations, or any of its Member States, is competent to enforce or recommend the enforcement of any proposal concerning the Constitution and future Government of Palestine, in particular, any plan of partition which is contrary to the wishes, or adopted without the consent of, the inhabitants of Palestine.”

The amended draft resolution embodying the Plan of Partition (as shown on the map provided above) with Economic Union was adopted by a vote of twenty-five in favour, thirteen against, with seventeen abstentions, (25 in favour versus 32 against, abstaining or absent) as follows:

In favour: Australia, Bolivia, Brazil, Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guatemala, Iceland, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Peru, Poland, Sweden, Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, Union of South Africa, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, United States of America, Uruguay and Venezuela.

Against: Afghanistan, Cuba, Egypt, India, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Siam, Syria, Turkey and Yemen.

Abstentions: Argentina, Belgium, China, Colombia, El Salvador, Ethiopia, France, Greece, Haiti, Honduras, Liberia, Luxembourg, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, United Kingdom and Yugoslavia.

Absent: Paraguay and Philippines.


Turning a page back in the history of Palestine, during the end of the nineteenth century, when the terrible pogroms in the newly absorbed Polish and Lithuanian areas of Russia had begun to bring heavy Jewish immigration into Palestine. The heavy immigration had occasioned problems and some good deal of strife and violence before Albert Einstein visited the British Mandate in 1923. However, in 1927, in “The Jews and Palestine, in “About Zionism,” Einstein had written referring to his experience during his visit, “At no time did I get the impression that the Arab problem might threaten the development of the Palestine project. I believe rather that, among the working classes especially, Jew and Arab on the whole get on excellently together.” 

The tiny size of the total Jewish population in Palestine in 1923 is well elucidated by Albert Einstein writing in regard to his joy in participating in fund raising for a Hebrew University there. “I firmly believe that the Jews, given the smallness and  dependence of their colony in Palestine, will be immune from the folly of power.”[Letter of Maurice Solovine, March 8, 1921]

Four months later Einstein tempered his joy with his first apprehension about Zionist organizing. “I am very glad to have followed Weizmann’s invitation. In several places, however, a high-tensioned Jewish nationalism shows itself that threatens to degenerate into intolerance and bigotry, but hopefully this is only an infantile disorder.”[Letter to Paul Ehrenfest, June18, 1921]

After Einstein’s stay in Palestine in 1923, he wrote in his ‘My Impressions of Palestine’ article in New Palestine Magazine, “A remarkable tribute to the real power of Palestine is the fact that the Jewish elements which have been resident in the country for decades stand distinctly higher, both in the matter of culture and in their display of energy, than those elements which have only recently arrived.”

(An observation that would reflect itself as a Revisionist conquering attitude  eventually replaced the original Labor Zionists international socialist philosophy, which was shared by Einstein.) 

“Among the Jewish ‘sights’ none struck me more pleasantly than did the school of arts and crafts, Bezalel, and the Jewish workingmen’s groups….To me their was something wonderful in the spirit of self-sacrifice displayed by our workers on the land. … in the face of their difficulties from debts to malaria. In comparison with these two evils, the Arab question becomes as nothing. And in regard to the last, I must remark that I have myself seen more than once insurance of friendly relations between Jewish and Arab workers. I believe that most of the difficulty comes from the intellectuals and, at that, not from the Arab intellectual alone.”[“My Impression of Palestine,” in New Palestine

Two years later,  Einstein said he would not remain associated with the Zionist movement unless it tried to make peace with the Arabs, in deed as well as in word. “The Jews should form committees with the Arab peasants and workers, and not try to negotiate only with the leaders.” [Clark, Einstein, p.482, citing Bentwich, My 77 years, p.99]

On November 25, 1929, Einstein wrote to Chaim Weizmann – the future first President of Israel – stating:

“If we do not succeed in finding the path of honest cooperation and coming to terms with the Arabs, we will not have learned anything from our two thousand year old ordeal and will deserve the fate which will beset us.”

Since our study of the history of the Second World War encompasses the clashes  between differing economic systems, namely racist colonial capitalism, fascism and communist party run socialism, it seems appropriate to point out the international socialist origins of Zionism, for it continued to be the philosophy of the great majority of the refugees of the Holocaust entering Palestine, even after the founding of the state of Israel. Even today, the Kibbutzim, which began as utopian collective agricultural communities combining socialism and Zionism, remain a proud symbol of a young Israel.

Moses (Moshe) Hess, born in 1812, was a socialist German-French-Jewish philosopher, a friend and collaborator of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels (all three wrote for the now famous German revolutionary Rheinische Zeitung), was both one of the earliest proponents of socialism and a precursor to what would later be called Zionism.  In his seminal, Rome and Jerusalem: The Last National Question (1862)  Hess argued for the Jews to return to Palestine, and proposed a socialist country in which the Jews would become agrarianised through a process of “redemption of the soil” in the modern world.  Hess’s contribution became important in retrospect, as the Zionist movement began to crystallize and to generate an audience in the late nineteenth century as a movement within international socialist ideals. 

When Theodor Herzl, who is referred to as the spiritual father of the Jewish State in the Israeli declaration of independence,  first read Rome and Jerusalem, a generation in time after it was written, Herzl wrote, “Since Spinosa, Jewry had no bigger thinker than this forgotten Moses Hess”[Moses Hess. By Lawrencebush, Jewdayo Grid, 1/20/2011][Exhibit Highlights Zionism’s German Roots, January 29, 2016 BY ANNA ISAACS, Jewish Political Voices Zoomars] and that he would not have written Der Judenstaat (The Jewish State) if he had known Hess’s ‘Rome and Jerusalem’ beforehand.

Einstein, a strong and outspoken socialist, see his ‘Why Socialism,’ [] followed the progress of Jewish settlement in the British Mandate, and when, in the 1930s, international socialist Zionism came under pressure from the political right, he wrote, “Under the guise of nationalist propaganda Revisionism seeks to support the destructive speculation in land; it seeks to exploit the people and derive them of their rights,” [in JEWISH-ARAB AMITY URGED BY EINSTEIN, New York Times. April 20, 1935]

In an Address by Einstein at the Manhattan Opera House to the National Labor Committee for Palestine, on January 11, 1946, Einstein spoke of what he saw as the basic human problem in Palestine, namely, colonialism, British Empire colonialism.  

“I wish to explain why I believe the difficulties in Palestine exist.  First, the difficulties between the Jews and Arabs are artificially created, and are created by the English…Of course the English had two interests. First was to have raw materials for their industry. Also the oil in those countries. I find everywhere there are big landowners who are exploiters of that race of people. …The British are always in a passive alliance with those land possessing owners which suppress the work of the people in the different trades. It is my impression that Palestine is a kind of small model of India… Now how can I explain otherwise that national troublemaking is a British enterprise? I believe that the Palestinian people, under severe influence of the United Nations, will be able to create a better state of affairs. But with the British rule as it is, I believe it is impossible to find a real remedy. … The Irishmen have for a long time suffered under their rule. … The state idea is not according to my heart. I cannot understand why it is needed. It is connected to many difficulties and a narrow-mindedness. I believe it is bad… If people are united with each other and they come to the idea that they do not need the foreign rule, then they want to make themselves independent.”

Einstein Hits British Rule Testifying before the AngloAmerican inquiry commission on Palestine 

Jewish Telegraphic Agency WASHINGTON January 18, 1946 Prof. Albert Einstein charges that British colonial rule was responsible for the trouble between the Arabs and Jews. Accuses Great Britain Of Double Dealing Prof. Albert Einstein, testifying before the Anglo-American Inquiry Commission, said he was against a Jewish State…He urged, however, that the bulk of the Jewish refugees in Europe be brought to Palestine. Emphasising that he believes there will be no peace between Jews and Arabs as long as the British rule Palestine, Prof. Einstein charged Britain with violating the basic responsibilities undertaken in the Balfour Declaration. Asked by British members of the committee whether the Americans should take over Palestine from the British, Prof. Einstein replied that the administration of Palestine should be international. He emphasised that he holds Americans responsible for what the British are doing in Palestine. Artificial Difficulties Difficulties between Jews and Arabs were largely artificially created by the British, he declared. He criticised the British colonial policy as based on the principle of “divide and rule,” and charged the British administration with using the ex-Mufti of Jerusalem to foment trouble. Queried by Dr. Frank Aydelotte, one of the American members of the committee, as to what he would do if Arabs resisted the immigration of Jews from Europe into Palestine, Prof. Einstein replied that »”this will not be the case if they are not incited.” Questioned by Dr. Aydelotte concerning political versus cultural Zionism, he stated: “I was never for a political state.”

A few days later, Einstein again made his position clear, “I am in favor of Palestine being developed as a Jewish Homeland but not as a separate state. It seems to me a matter of simple common sense that we cannot ask to be given political rule over Palestine where two thirds of the population are not Jewish.” [January 19, 1946  Letter to Maurice Dunay]

In August 1945, Einstein was publicly sharply critical of the Jewish underground paramilitary groups, such as the Irgun and the Stern Group. In his words, “I regard it [the Irgun] as a disaster”( Interview with I. Z. David). Also “I am not willing to see anyone associated with those misled and criminal people.” [letter to Shepard Rifkin).


By Peter Grose

Nov. 21, 1982 New York Times

Peter Grose, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, adapted this article from his forthcoming book on American attitudes toward Israel, to be published next autumn by Alfred A. Knopf.

Some 30 Jewish military commanders huddled around a wireless set in their clandestine Jerusalem hideout, straining to hear through the static the votes of diplomats gathered half a world away at a gray old skating rink in Flushing Meadows, across the river from Manhattan.

It was the week of Thanksgiving 1947, and at its tempo-rary home in the New York World’s Fair grounds, the new United Nations General Assembly was deciding whether to offer Jews and Arabs sovereign states of their own in Palestine.

Whatever the outcome, the soldiers in Jerusalem were prepared for trouble. ”If the vote is positive, the Arabs will make war on us,” said Yitzhak Sadeh, a leader of the Jewish defense forces. ”And if the vote is negative, then it is we who will make war on the Arabs.”

On Nov. 29, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly passed the resolution calling for Mandatory Palestine to be partitioned between Arabs and Jews in seven parts with Jerusalem being transferred to UN trusteeship. Part I of the Plan stipulated that the Mandate would be terminated as soon as possible and the United Kingdom would withdraw no later than 1 August 1948. The divisions were to take effect on the date of British withdrawal not later than August 1948. (In May of 1947 after Acre prison break and British soldiers hanged in retaliation for Irgun fighters hanged, the British had notified the U.N. of their intent to terminate the mandate not later than 1 August 1948)[Herzog, Chaim and Gazit, Shlomo: The Arab-Israeli Wars: War and Peace in the Middle East from the 1948 War of Independence to the Present, p. 46]) Mandates were intended to end with the independence of the Mandated territory. The British government had taken the position that there was nothing in law to prevent termination due to frustration of purpose.[“Termination of the British Mandate for Palestine”. The International Law Quarterly2 (1): 57–60. 1948.]

Britain announced that it would accept the partition plan, but refused to enforce it, arguing it was not accepted by the Arabs. Britain also refused to share the administration of Palestine with the UN Palestine Commission during the transitional period, and requested the UN Palestine Commission not to enter Palestine until two weeks before the British withdrawal. 

The United Nations Palestine Commission was created by United Nations Resolution 181 which recommended partition.[1] It was to be responsible for implementing the UN Partition Plan of Palestine and act  as the Provisional Government of Palestine.[2] The 1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine and a refusal by the British government to impose a scheme which was not acceptable to both Arabs and Jews in Palestine prevented the Commission from fulfilling its responsibilities…. The Commission’s five members were:

  • Mr. Karel Lisicky (Chairman) from Czechoslovakia
  • Mr. Raul Diez de Medina (Vice-Chairman) from Bolivia
  • Mr. Per Federspiel from Denmark
  • Dr. Eduardo Morgan from Panama
  • Senator Vicente J. Francisco from the Philippines [

How quaint this establishing a commission of five individuals with no army. It received no recognition, nor was it taken seriously by all the factions which were precipitated into a brutal and deadly civil war.

With the announcement of the partition resolution, the Jewish and Arab communities of British Mandate Palestine immediately began to clash in violence.  After the partition resolution, the British, again unilaterally, brought the date of the end of its mandate forward to May 14.The violence became more and more deadly, while the British organised their withdrawal and intervened only on an occasional basis. In the first two months of the Civil War, around 1,000 people were killed and 2,000 people injured,[44] and by the end of March, the figure had risen to 2,000 dead and 4,000 wounded [Yoav Gelber, Palestine 1948, Sussex Academic Press, Brighton, 2006, ISBN 978-1-84519-075-0] Yoav Gelber is a professor of history at the University of Haifa, and was formerly a visiting professor at The University of Texas at Austin.]

The UN General Assembly by its charter was and still is only granted the power to make recommendations, therefore, UN General Assembly Resolution 181 was actually not legally binding, but there was no significant expression of doubt about the de facto power of the UN resolution and its having torched Palestine.

Supposedly in response to the civil war already raging, or making it look like in response, President Harry S. Truman made a statement on 25 March proposing UN trusteeship rather than partition. This dissimulating statement, clearly so woefully belated, to have any effect, by a US president who had overseen all his administration’s threats and arm twisting machinations to accrue the votes needed for the passing of the partition resolution which brought the deadly violence about, must be seen as pure window dressing – a pretending that a civil war had not been contemplated by the plainly absurd UN resolution, plan, announcement or whatever anyone wants to call it, was not intended, was not expected to explode the Holy Land into an already planned and prepared for civil war. It was the kind of preposterous ‘statement of concern’ America’s close ally and parent colonial power, pompous Great Britain, was famous for. In this case to make the US look innocent of the carnage already underway, and fully expected to continue. No further action was taken nor even discussed by anyone anywhere. So much for ‘looking good’ aimed consumption by a monopolized Wall Street investor controlled and cooperating press. 

As the last British were leaving on May 14 ending the Mandate, in Tel Aviv, Jewish Agency Chairman David Ben-Gurion proclaimed the State of Israel. 

At this point, it seems appropriate to quote Albert Einstein and others deploring fascism’s rise among at least some important militants, who immigrated to Palestine some time before the multitude of survivors of the Holocaust.

Letter to the New York Times, December 4, 1948, from Albert Einstein and other prominent Jews, denouncing Menachem Begin, a future prime minister of Israel.

Among the most disturbing political phenomena of our times is the emergence in the newly created state of Israel of the “”Freedom Party“” (Tnuat Haherut), a political party closely akin in its organisation, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties. It was formed out of the membership and following of the former Irgun Zvai Leumi, a terrorist, right-wing, chauvinist organisation in Palestine. 

The current visit of Menachem Begin, leader of this party, to the United States is obviously calculated to give the impression of American support for his party in the coming Israeli elections, and to cement political ties with conservative Zionist elements in the United States. Several Americans of national repute have lent their names to welcome his visit. It is inconceivable that those who oppose fascism throughout the world, if correctly informed as to Mr. Begin’s political record and perspectives, could add their names and support to the movement he represents. 

Before irreparable damage is done by way of financial contributions, public manifestations in Begin”s behalf, and the creation in Palestine of the impression that a large segment of America supports Fascist elements in Israel, the American public must be informed as to the record and objectives of Mr. Begin and his movement. 

The public avowals of Begin”s party are no guide whatever to its actual character. Today they speak of freedom, democracy and anti-imperialism, whereas until recently they openly preached the doctrine of the Fascist state. It is in its actions that the terrorist party betrays its real character; from its past actions we can judge what it may be expected to do in the future. 

Attack on Arab Village 

A shocking example was their behavior in the Arab village of Deir Yassin. This village, off the main roads and surrounded by Jewish lands, had taken no part in the war, and had even fought off Arab bands who wanted to use the village as their base. On April 9 (THE NEW YORK TIMES), terrorist bands attacked this peaceful village, which was not a military objective in the fighting, killed most of its inhabitants —— 240 men, women, and children —— and kept a few of them alive to parade as captives through the streets of Jerusalem. Most of the Jewish community was horrified at the deed, and the Jewish Agency sent a telegram of apology to King Abdullah of Trans-Jordan. But the terrorists, far from being ashamed of their act, were proud of this massacre, publicized it widely, and invited all the foreign correspondents present in the country to view the heaped corpses and the general havoc at Deir Yassin. 

The Deir Yassin incident exemplifies the character and actions of the Freedom Party. 

Within the Jewish community they have preached an admixture of ultranationalism, religious mysticism, and racial superiority. Like other Fascist parties they have been used to break strikes, and have themselves pressed for the destruction of free trade unions. In their stead they have proposed corporate unions on the Italian Fascist model. 

During the last years of sporadic anti-British violence, the IZL and Stern groups inaugurated a reign of terror in the Palestine Jewish community. Teachers were beaten up for speaking against them, adults were shot for not letting their children join them. By gangster methods, beatings, window-smashing, and wide-spread robberies, the terrorists intimidated the population and exacted a heavy tribute. 

The people of the Freedom Party have had no part in the constructive achievements in Palestine. They have reclaimed no land, built no settlements, and only detracted from the Jewish defense activity. Their much-publicized immigration endeavors were minute, and devoted mainly to bringing in Fascist compatriots. 

Discrepancies Seen 

The discrepancies between the bold claims now being made by Begin and his party, and their record of past performance in Palestine bear the imprint of no ordinary political party. This is the unmistakable stamp of a Fascist party for whom terrorism (against Jews, Arabs, and British alike), and misrepresentation are means, and a “”Leader State”” is the goal. 

In the light of the foregoing considerations, it is imperative that the truth about Mr. Begin and his movement be made known in this country. It is all the more tragic that the top leadership of American Zionism has refused to campaign against Begin”s efforts, or even to expose to its own constituents the dangers to Israel from support to Begin.” 

The undersigned therefore take this means of publicly presenting a few salient facts concerning Begin and his party; and of urging all concerned not to support this latest manifestation of fascism.” 

(signed) Albert Einstein and twenty-seven other prominent Jews in New York, Dec. 2, 1948 

 (After the death of the first president of Israel in 1952, the Israeli government offered the post of president to Einstein. He declined the offer.)

In spite of Einstein’s efforts, the Palestinians Arabs, while still suffering British military occupation as a colony since the end of the First World War in spite of having been promised independence, became re-colonized after the Second World War by another group of Europeans through a genocidal civil war openly planned and provoked by Anglo-American machinations. 

Ever since then, Israel has been in bed with a US business elite that once heavily invested in Hitler, was itself anti-Semitic in outlook, coldly indifferent and even complicit during the Holocaust its investments had made possible.

 A popular quip in Yiddish goes, ‘with such friends, who needs enemies?’ Arabs saved Jews from Christian mortal persecutions in 637, 1187, and 1492. Since the end of the First World War, Christians have been militarily persecuting Arabs. One could imagine that Jewish-Arab Semitic solidarity is sorely needed and would be mercifully appropriate, the current Israeli-Christian alliance notwithstanding.

See author’s US Economic Facilitation of Holocaust and Middle East Destabilizing Partition, 1. History 2. Deception 3. Imagining, Minority Perspective, Birmingham, UK, 12/6/2012.] [ ]

In 1991, Yehudi Menuhin, the world renowned virtuoso violinist, upon being awarded the prestigious Wolf Prize by the Israeli Government, addressed the Israeli Knesset in his acceptance speech:

This wasteful governing by fear, by contempt for the basic dignities of life, this steady asphyxiation of a dependent people, should be the very last means to be adopted by those who themselves know too well the awful significance, the unforgettable suffering, of such an existence. It is unworthy of my great people, the Jews, who have striven to abide by a code of moral rectitude for some 5,000 years, who can create and achieve a society for themselves such as we see around us but can yet deny the sharing of its great qualities and benefits to those dwelling amongst them.”

We as Jews gathered together in Israel should recognize our supreme destiny to heal and help.”

In the 2006 released EMI Classics music documentary film The Violin of the Century, Menuhin, looking into the camera, reminisces, 

“Of the Israelis. I admired them for their courage. I realised what they were trying to build against thousands of years of persecution. I didn’t, I wasn’t one with their attitude towards the native Arabs – they should have shared everything, everything! – and um so, but they weren’t in that mood at that time – it was too early, very very tragic.

It was the Jewish Holocaust; they never spoke of the Slav Holocaust, the Gypsy Holocaust; Gypsies lost five hundred thousand people in the gas chambers.

If the Jews had acted together with all those others on a human basis and tried to find out why it is that a civilized people like the Germans could indulge in genocide – which is happening today all over the place. It’s a human phenomenon. It happens – might happen to you and me – but instead of joining with the others in steadiness, they kept it on a Jewish basis and tried to make the most of it. Well, at the end of thirty years they had used up the world’s sympathy.

The only solution is keep intact the territory and create a federated union, allow people to live where they were, together, apart, schools apart or together – what ever they want – with Jerusalem capital of both like Bern is the capital of German Switzerland and French Switzerland and each president is there for a year and no one knows his name – that is the only solution, otherwise there’ll always be war.”

These are not the words and sentiments of an accusing President Ahmadinejad, or of a defiant Hezbollah, Hamas or other Palestinian spokesperson, but the words of a sensitive, soft spoken, understanding, internationally beloved and Israeli prize awarded musician whose very given name, Yehudi, means “the Jew” in Hebrew, his first language.

Menuhin, who died in 1999, had insisted that a single federated state “is the the only solution possible,” echoed the statements of Albert Einstein, Martin Buber, Eric Fromm and so many other Jewish intellectuals and a good many orthodox rabbis who had warned against partition before it became a fact more than sixty years ago.

If Menuhin was right that a single federated state is the only possible solution, then it would seem to be just a matter of time before those who presently wield power, or those who follow them, come around to effecting its realization – strict interpretations of Zionism and U.S. foreign policy goals notwithstanding.

Israel’s mission is no longer that of a Promised Land for a persecuted people. That’s over,” the celebrated Jewish violinist told the French daily Le Figaro during a brief visit to Paris in January of 1998.

For seventy-three years, the same colonial powers, who forced through passage of the criminal United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine with intention to bring about civil war in British ruled and occupied Holy Land, have kept up  a murderously deceitful pretence of trying to bring peace to Palestine and the oil rich Middle East.  A quick glance at the provisions of the proposed partition that were fully expected and obviously intended to incite violence and create deadly conflict, permanent hostilities, destabilization and facilitate Western imperialist penetration, exposes this pretending to search for a peace which that financial element that rules the United States and Wall St has never wanted.

Given the seventy years of criminal media falsification, deception and public opinion manipulation, to be sure, not a few readers will be thinking, that what happened in Palestine to Palestinians and incoming European Jewish refugees was because of the Holocaust, and no fault of the British and Americans. This argument is put to rest firstly, by proving through irrefutable documentation that traces the long history of how the Holocaust was not only allowed to happen, but how much of the Holocaust was facilitated by the colonial powers, which benefitted to some degree from the Holocaust financially. Secondly, that when the Holocaust reached mega horrific proportions with massacres of tens of thousands, these genocidal events went unreported or reported in the back pages of only a few newspapers in the United States and England and basically ignored by the press and radio in most of Europe and the rest of the Western dominated world. Thirdly, that after the war ended, the poor and desperate Holocaust survivors were treated inhumanely and as undesirables refused refuge in the United States and then were most cruelly used by the elite of the Anglo-American world ruling financial cabal in a devilishly and merciless typical colonial crime against humanity in which they were forced to fight for their lives in what had been British occupied and ruled Palestine as British troops withdrew.

The UN genocide provoking partition plan, which never by any stretch of imagination could have ever been expected or intended to be implemented, was nefariously forced through the UN General Assembly. See delegates testimony regarding US pressure and threats following a calculated vote postponement:


Statement of 6 February 1948 Communicated to the
Secretary-General by Mr. Isa Nakhleh, Representative
of the Arab Higher Committee

The following communication has been addressed to the Secretary-General by Mr. Isa Nakhleh, Representative of the Arab Higher Committee.

The Delegation of the

Arab Higher Committee for Palestine

4512 Empire State Building

New York 1, New York

Subject: Palestine Your Excellency:

With reference to Your Excellency’s telegram dated the 9th of January inviting the Arab Higher Committee to appoint a representative “to be available to the Palestine Commission for such authoritative information and other assistance as the commission may require,” and with reference to my telegram dated the 18th of January in which I communicated to Your Excellency the decision of the Arab Higher Committee, I have the honor to submit the following reasons for such decision:

1. The Arab Higher Committee maintains that the partition recommendation does not represent the sentiments of the United Nations. We cannot forget that the resolution of partition in the Ad Hoc Committee secured 25 votes only. When the matter was referred to the General Assembly on the 26th of November, there were 17 nations opposing partition. Had voting taken place on that date the partition proposal would not have obtained the required two-third majority. The Arab Higher Committee cannot forget the maneuvers made by the President of the Assembly and some delegates supporting partition in order to postpone taking votes on that day when they realized that their proposal might be defeated.

2. The pressure put by the United States Delegation and Government on certain nations, whether at Lake Success or in these nations’ capitals, is nothing short of political blackmail. The following represent only a few instances:

(a) The delegate of Siam was accepted in the Ad Hoc Committee as a vice chairman until he showed his intention to vote against partition. Then he was threatened that his credentials would be refused. As a consequence he was forced not to attend.(b) The delegate of Haiti on Wednesday made a very strong speech against partition, on instructions from his Government. On Saturday he circulated a note to Delegations explaining that he is voting for partition in accordance with fresh instructions from his Government. The Haitian Delegate did not find words to describe his shame and he was seen in tears in the lobby and Delegates’ lounge. Being a sincere and noble man, he could not hide the fact that his Government surrendered to pressure and was forced into changing its instructions to him.
(c) General Carlos P. Romulo, Head of the Philippines delegation, on Wednesday made a very strong and courageous speech denouncing partition declaring: “At the behest of my Government, the Philippine Republic regrets its inability to approve of or participate in a solution of the Palestine problem that would involve the encouragement of political disunion and the enforcement of measures that would amount to the territorial mutilation of the Holy Land.’
But on Saturday and in the absence of General Romulo there were two Philippines Delegates, each claiming different instructions — one to vote against partition as instructed by the head of his delegation, the other supporting partition according to fresh instructions from his Government. It is an established fact that strong pressure was put on the Philippines Government by the United States Government and, according to reliable information, the United States Government threatened the Philippines Government that it will not grant it the loan it is asking for if its delegation fails to support partition. In this way the Arabs lost the Philippines vote.
(d) The Liberian delegate on the Ad Hoc Committee, Mrs. Ellen Scarborough, on the 25th of November abstained from voting although it was known that the Liberian Delegates intended to vote against partition in the Assembly. Thereupon the Jewish Agency and its pressure squads threatened her with actual physical violence which caused her to ask for police protection. On Saturday, the 29th of November, due to heavy pressure on the said Government, the Liberian Delegation voted for partition.

3. This undue pressure was not limited to the aforementioned delegations, but to every other delegation and its Government abroad. The following quotations from speeches of delegates prove this point:

(a) Dr. Ernesto Dihigo of Cuba, in his speech in the Assembly on November 28th said: “Having formed and given our view, we feel that we have to express our view through our vote, in the maintenance of consistency, in spite of pressure which has been brought to bear upon us.”(b) Dr. Alfredo Lopez, Head of the Colombia Delegation, in his speech in the Assembly on the 28th of November, said: “Partition here may eventually be adopted, but we submit that reluctant votes, recruited with irrelevant eleventh hour appeals, will not improve its position in the opinion of the outside world.”

November 29 is the infamous anniversary date for the intentional  torching of Palestine by a United Nations vote.

This heinous war and death intended incendiary stratagem would bring about a common British colonial crime against humanity, towards the end become Anglo-American planned, prepared and committed most obviously with future profits from hegemony over the region’s mega massive petroleum reserves in mind. 

Until the United Nations plan for the partition of Palestine is recognised as having been intended to torch British Palestine while British forces were withdrawing as a prearranged stratagem of an Archetypal Colonial Powers crime against humanity, the same genocide and misery that was calculated and expected will continue and spread. 

Jay Janson is an archival research peoples historian activist, musician and writer; has lived and worked on all continents; articles on media published in China, Italy, UK, India and in the US by Greanville Post, Dissident Voice, Global Research; Information Clearing House; Counter Currents, Minority Perspective, UK and others; now resides in NYC; First effort was a series of articles on deadly cultural pollution endangering seven areas of life emanating from Western corporate owned commercial media published in Hong Kong’s Window Magazine 1993; Howard Zinn lent his name to various projects of his; Weekly column, South China Morning Post, 1986-87; reviews for Ta Kung Bao; article China Daily, 1989. Is coordinator of the Howard Zinn co-founded King Condemned US Wars International Awareness Campaign, and website historian of the Ramsey Clark co-founded Prosecute US Crimes Against Humanity Now Campaign, which Dissident Voice supports with link at the end of each issue of its newsletter.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *