Will the British royal family celebrate 100 years of shame by endorsing israel?

Will the British royal family celebrate 100 years of shame by endorsing Israel?

 

Prince Charles wearing a Jewish kippah

An official visit during the centenary year of the Balfour Declaration could be another nail in the coffin of the British Monarchy

By Stuart Littlewood

You know that awful feeling of doom when bad news makes your blood run cold? It’s happened to me at least four times already this year:

  • when Theresa May invited Trump on a state visit to the UK when he’d been in office only five minutes and clearly ought to be on probation for at least two years;
  • when the British government announced it was going to whoop it up for the centenary of the Balfour Declaration;
  • when the British government announced it had invited Israel’s chief criminal, Binyamin Netanyahu, to those Balfour celebrations; and
  • when news came the other day that a member of the British royal family might break precedent and formally visit Israel later this year.

That fourth one had the Times of Israel crowing with delight. Its report succeeds in portraying Prince Charles as the perfect stooge while Boris Johnson is having a bad hair day as usual. Such a visit would, of course, legitimise Israel as an illegal occupying power and destroy the last shred of British credibility in the Middle East and indeed the rest of the civilised world. But that counts for nothing among the bird-brains that run our country.

Let’s remember how this Balfour lunacy began, Arthur Balfour (later Lord Balfour) being British foreign secretary at the time and a Zionist convert.

His Declaration of 1917 – actually a letter to the most senior Jew in England, Lord Rothschild – pledged assistance for the Zionist cause with total disregard for the consequences to the native majority in the land the Zionists had targeted: Palestine.

Calling itself a declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations, it said:

His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing and non-Jewish communities…

Balfour also wrote:

In Palestine we do not propose even to go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country. The four powers are committed to Zionism and Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long tradition, in present needs, in future hopes, of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now occupy that land.

The “running sore in the East” and how it turned septic

Obviously, there was opposition. Lord Sydenham warned:

The harm done by dumping down an alien population upon an Arab country may never be remedied. What we have done, by concessions not to the Jewish people but to a Zionist extreme section, is to start a running sore in the East, and no-one can tell how far that sore will extend.

Well, we know now, a hundred years on.

So what was behind it? I like the account of Jewish businessman Benjamin Freedman who gave a speech at the Willard Hotel, Washington, in 1961. He told his audience that Britain, in World War I, was in dire straits thanks to the success of the German U-boats. It was alone, almost out of ammunition and on the edge of starvation. Germany offered peace terms, and while Britain chewed it over the Zionists of Germany (representing the Zionists of Eastern Europe who wanted an end to the Czar) came to London and said: “We will guarantee to bring the United States into the war as your ally, to fight with you on your side, if you will promise us Palestine after you win the war.” And that was the bargain Britain struck, in October 1916, overturning earlier pledges to the Arabs for their help.

And having done their bit, the Zionists wanted a “receipt” – written confirmation of Britain’s pledge. Hence Balfour’s infamous “Declaration” in November the following year, a grubby note addressed to Lord Rothschild promising to pay off the Zionists with land that wasn’t Britain’s to give.

When the war was over a large delegation of Jews attended the Paris Peace Conference in 1919. According to Freedman, who was there, when the Great Powers carved up the losers’ territories – German and Ottoman – the Jewish delegation claimed Palestine, producing Balfour’s promissory note.

In August 1917, while the Palestine deal was still being discussed but before Balfour issued his Declaration, Lord Montague penned an important memorandum to the British cabinet. Montague, only the second Jew to serve in a British cabinet, was minister of munitions in 1916 when, said Freedman, Britain was running out of ammunition. He wanted to place on record that in his opinion the policy of the British government was anti-Semitic because it would provide a rallying ground for anti-Semites in every country in the world. “Zionism has always seemed to me to be a mischievous political creed, untenable by any patriotic citizen of the United Kingdom,” he said. He assumed that Zionism meant that Muslims and Christians were to make way for the Jews and that Jews would be put in all positions of preference.

No such a thing as a Jewish nation

Montague argued that there was no such thing as a Jewish nation, and he was well aware of the unpopularity of the Jewish community. “We have obtained a far greater share of this country’s goods and opportunities than we are numerically entitled to… Many of us have been exclusive in our friendships and intolerant in our attitude…”

As for the Balfour Declaration itself, he felt the government was carrying out the wishes of a Zionist organisation “largely run by men of enemy descent or birth”. Furthermore, he said, “I would be almost tempted to proscribe the Zionist organisation as illegal and against the national interest.” His message to Lord Rothschild was that the government should help Jews in Palestine enjoy liberty of settlement and life on equal terms with inhabitants who hold other religious beliefs, but go no further.

The insane Declaration was followed 30 years later by another monstrous betrayal when the Great Powers pushed the United Nations into cruelly partitioning Palestine, again without consulting those who lived there. Worse still, the UN did nothing to halt the Jewish terror spree and land grab that followed.

Celebrating Balfour amounts to praising the thieves for keeping what they stole

Justice groups are now saying it’s time the British government, which accepted the mandated responsibility for the Holy Land up to 1948, had the good manners to admit its part in the catastrophe and say sorry for the needless damage and suffering caused to Palestinian Arabs who once considered themselves Britain’s allies. That would be a reasonable starting point for dealing with the horrendous situation today.

Celebrating Balfour amounts to praising the thieves for keeping what they stole. Those who cannot stomach such a cowardly betrayal of Christian and Muslim communities in the Holy Land may consider signing a petition addressed the the Queen’s private secretary asking that she does not travel to Israel at this time. It points out that the situation vis-à-vis Palestine is regarded by the Foreign Office as “unfinished business” and a royal visit would not only add insult to injury to the Palestinians but embroil Her Majesty in a controversy that could damage the international standing of the British monarchy.

The time for the royal family to start being nice to Israel is when Israel starts being nice to its Palestinian neighbours, honours its obligations under the UN Charter, ends its illegal occupation and shows proper regard for international and humanitarian law.

And not before.

The Real Zionist Colonial Project how this led to the murder of baby Ali

 

ISRAEL – Colonization 101 :

It began in the 1920’s long before the holocaust long before Israel was created. It was the ultimate colonization project to create the Jewish Homeland. The men that met during these first Zionist Congresses knew that there were already people living in Palestine which was owned by the Ottomans. Their plan was simple it was to get enough rich Jews to donate money and buy the land from the Arab owners. To their dismay this didn’t work. Even though they offered exorbitant prices for the land most of the owners wouldn’t sell. They needed another way to get more land and WW2 gave them the opportunity. By making the rest of the world feel guilty for not stopping the Nazis before millions of people were killed, they got Britain to partition Palestine. Of course that meant they still didn’t have enough land, but believing in the power of money they figured they could get the poorer Arabs to leave by removing from them all ways of making a living and paying off the rich landowners who really didn’t care to stay in Palestine but were using its land for investment purposes. All this was done including the first Boycott in the holy land used by the Jews against the Arabs by refusing to hire them to work the land they made their living from and stopping others from buying from Arab stores. It was a planned and well calculated campaign to try to get the Palestinians that were trying to survive packing. Although in their marketing campaign to get more Jews to come to Palestine they told the world that it was a land without a people for a people without a land ,they knew that was a lie. It was very effective though and fooled people all across the world.

In 1895, Herzl, the founder of Zionism, wrote in his diary:

“We must expropriate gently the private property on the state assigned to us. We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it employment in our country. The property owners will come over to our side. Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discretely and circumspectly. Let the owners of the immoveable property believe that they are cheating us, selling us things for more than they are worth. But we are not going to sell them anything back.” (America And The Founding Of Israel, p. 49, Righteous Victims, p. 21-22)

Sad to say the original Jewish inhabitants of Palestine did try to stop these European usurpers warning them when they realized what they were planning that it would start a war, but the Palestinian Jews that had gotten along with their Arab neighbors for hundreds of years had no power over the Europeans. They watched in horror as the coexistence they had treasured was destroyed and made the Arab was redefined as “the Enemy and the Other” that had to be expelled to fulfill the dream of taking over the holy land. For the Europeans this was no problem because ignoring the fabulous civilization and technology the Arabs had, they saw them as primitives which would make easy pickings to get rid of.

Next step was to get the poor Jewish emigrants to be their army. They took these scared tired people who had just run from the Nazis and put uniforms on them and told them that the evil Arabs were trying to steal the land from them and unless they attacked and killed them the Arab civilians would finish the job the Nazis hadn’t been able to do. These people who didn’t speak Hebrew understood very little, Most were about 18 – 21 years of age and just followed orders. They didn’t even know what they were doing.

It was a gift to them that the Arabs didn’t accept the partition plan (coordinating with the British occupiers, the zionists knew that the Arabs wound agree to split Palestine). It just made it easier to find an excuse to steal more land to create a larger Jewish Homeland. It was obvious from the first the Arabs were disorganized and had no real army to fight and the Jews in comparison had been well trained in Military techniques from the British before they bombed the King David Hotel and got the British to leave.

From then on it was easy. The Arabs had no organization. Scaring them off with an assassination in the center squares of village here and there. Burning the roofs of houses and if they didn’t move fast enough shooting at their feet as they ran as fast as they could. Then to make sure they would have no place to come back to the militants bulldozed the homes and other buildings so all that was left behind was rubble. They saved the nicest homes and moved Jewish immigrants in without even taking out the personal belongings and furniture of the owners.

https://youtu.be/yhfEWqBvav0 as illustrated here in a interview about the Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine .

Although this was the intent from the start by manipulating the historic records they were able to keep this a secret for years. Instead these people who eventually called themselves Israelis told the world that they were a quiet and peaceful people and the big bad Arabs wouldn’t stop attacking them. To the worlds sorrow they fooled us completely and we all believed this until social media revealed all.

http://www.palestineremembered.com/Articles/General/Story2321.html  original article from the San Francisco Chronicle in 2007

Instead of the Arabs attacking them, reality was that in the goal of continued colonization the Israelis never left their Palestinian neighbors alone. It wasn’t good enough chasing them from their own homes in Israel proper, the Zionists wanted more. They chased thousands of people to Gaza and then decided that was a mistake they wanted Gaza for their own. Same happened inthe West Bank.

The war of 67 allowed them to take much of the land there also. Still not enough they bullied taunted and wouldn’t stop until the Palestinians rose up. This might have worked but America had done too good a job making sure the Israelis never had to deal with the consequences of their own actions. Like the children they were America spoiled them. Not only gave them weapons to protect them and use to attack but they let these uncontrollable colonists steal secrets and even create their own nuclear bomb program.

After that these spoiled brats started to think they were made of Teflon and everything they wanted to do they could because no one could stop them. They started to believe they really were the “Chosen” which up until that time was not part of the “Jewish People” but something Christian Zionists had called them. It seemed they thought they were the new royalty and the rest of the world should bow down to them and sacrifice to protect them. The closest way to describe them is they truly believe like the Roman gods and goddesses of the past Jewish Israelis are protected by some sort of Magical powers.

This has led to the Israeli present belief that the expansion of Israeli borders is the ultimate goal. Some even believing every Jew in the world needs to move to Israel so the state has to be big enough to hold them all. The end all of this colonization project is to get as many Arabs out of the holy land and get them to move to Jordan or Egypt. Unfortunately this plan has never worked and instead has made the Palestinians want to resist more. Despite Abbas attempt to mollify the Israelis by working as their puppet, the majority of the Palestinians wont and can’t just give up and let the Israelis have their way.

“Occupation by definition is a criminal and degenerate status that contradicts the principles of human rights, the UN Charter, international law and international morals and ethics. The Israeli occupation is hateful and despicable by nature and it works against the people. It subjects the lives, interests and property of the Palestinians to constant danger. The occupation is oppressive and brutal and innovative in finding new ways to control people and keep them fearful. It always works to spread terror in the hearts of those living under it. In the circumstances, holding the occupation responsible for killing people and confiscating their property is considered to be an attempt to avoid the problem.

“While some supporters of Israel may criticize Israeli security forces for what they perceive as a failure to perform their duties, the bitter truth is that these security forces are part and parcel of the same colonial project that has been expelling, ghettoizing, and killing Palestinians since the inception of the state.

This explains why Israel’s vaunted security apparatus and networks of collaborators have been unable – or perhaps unwilling – to apprehend the suspects in the firebombing. Given the Israeli government’s complicity with the movement that burned baby Ali, any investigation will ring hollow without prosecution of responsible officials at the highest levels.”apprehend the suspects in the firebombing. Given the Israeli government’s complicity with the movement that burned baby Ali, any investigation will ring hollow without prosecution of responsible officials at the highest levels.” https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/articles/middle-east/20212-who-burnt-ali-dawabsheh-to-death#st_refDomain=m.facebook.com&st_refQuery=/

Theresa May wants British people to feel ‘pride’ in the Balfour Declaration

Source

By Robert Fisk

Balfour initiated a policy of British support for Israel which continues to this very day, to the detriment of the occupied Palestinians of the West Bank and the five million Palestinian refugees living largely in warrens of poverty around the Middle East, including Israeli-besieged Gaza. Surely we should apologise

Theresa May told us that Britain will celebrate the centenary of the Balfour Declaration this summer with “pride”. This was predictable. A British prime minister who would fawn to the head-chopping Arab autocrats of the Gulf in the hope of selling them more missiles – and then hold the hand of the insane new anti-Muslim president of the United States – was bound, I suppose, to feel “pride” in the most mendacious, deceitful and hypocritical document in modern British history.

As a woman who has set her heart against immigrants, it was also inevitable that May would display her most venal characteristics to foreigners – to wealthy Arab potentates, and to an American president whose momentary love of Britain might produce a life-saving post-Brexit trade agreement. It was to an audience of British lobbyists for Israel a couple of months ago that she expressed her “pride” in a century-old declaration which created millions of refugees. But to burnish the 1917 document which promised Britain’s support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine but which would ultimately create that very refugee population – refugees being the target of her own anti-immigration policies – is little short of iniquitous.

The Balfour Declaration’s intrinsic lie – that while Britain supported a Jewish homeland, nothing would be done “which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine” – is matched today by the equally dishonest response of Balfour’s lamentable successor at the Foreign Office. Boris Johnson wrote quite accurately two years ago that the Balfour Declaration was “bizarre”, a “tragicomically incoherent” document, “an exquisite piece of Foreign Office fudgerama”. But in a subsequent visit to Israel, the profit-hunting Mayor of London suddenly discovered that the Balfour Declaration was “a great thing” that “reflected a great tide of history”. No doubt we shall hear more of this same nonsense from Boris Johnson later this year.

Although the Declaration itself has been parsed, de-semanticised, romanticised, decrypted, decried, cursed and adored for 100 years, its fraud is easy to detect: it made two promises which were fundamentally opposed to each other – and thus one of them, to the Arabs (aka “the existing non-Jewish communities”), would be broken. The descendants of these victims, the Palestinian Arabs, are now threatening to sue the British government over this pernicious piece of paper, a hopeless and childish response to history. The Czechs might equally sue the British for Chamberlain’s Munich agreement, which allowed Hitler to destroy their country. The Palestinians would also like an apology – since the British have always found apologies cheaper than law courts. The British have grown used to apologising – for the British empire, for the slave trade, for the Irish famine. So why not for Balfour? Yes, but…. Theresa May needs the Israelis far more than she needs the Palestinians.

 

Balfour’s 1917 declaration, of course, was an attempt to avoid disaster in the First World War by encouraging the Jews of Russia and America to support the Allies against Germany. Balfour wanted to avoid defeat just as Chamberlain later wanted to avoid war. But – and this is the point – Munich was resolved by the destruction of Hitler. Balfour initiated a policy of British support for Israel which continues to this very day, to the detriment of the occupied Palestinians of the West Bank and the five million Palestinian refugees living largely in warrens of poverty around the Middle East, including Israeli-besieged Gaza.

This is the theme of perhaps the most dramatic centenary account of the Balfour Declaration, to be published this summer by David Cronin (in his book Balfour’s Shadow: A Century of British Support for Zionism and Israel), an Irish journalist and author living in Brussels whose previous investigation of the European Union’s craven support for Israel’s military distinguished him from the work of more emotional (and thus more inaccurate) writers. Cronin has no time for Holocaust deniers or anti-Semites. While rightly dismissing the silly idea that the Palestinian Grand Mufti, Haj Amin al Husseini, inspired the Holocaust of the Jews of Europe, he does not duck Haj Amin’s poisonous alliance with Hitler. Israel’s post-war creation as a nation state, as one Israeli historian observed, may not have been just – but it was legal. And Israel does legally exist within the borders acknowledged by the rest of the world.

There lies the present crisis for us all: for the outrageous right-wing government of Benjamin Netanyahu is speeding on with the mass colonisation of Arab land in territory which is not part of Israel, and on property which has been stolen from its Arab owners. These owners are the descendants of the “non-Jewish communities” whose rights, according to Balfour, should not be “prejudiced” by “the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine. But Balfour’s own prejudice was perfectly clear. The Jewish people would have a “national home” – ie, a nation – in Palestine, while the Arabs, according to his declaration, were mere “communities”. And as Balfour wrote to his successor Curzon two years later, “Zionism … is … of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices [sic] of 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land”.

Cronin’s short book, however, shows just how we have connived in this racism ever since. He outlines the mass British repression of Arabs in the 1930s – including extrajudicial executions and torture by the British army – when the Arabs feared, with good reason, that they would ultimately be dispossessed of their lands by Jewish immigrants. As Arthur Wauchope, the Palestine High Commissioner, would write, “the subject that fills the minds of all Arabs today is … the dread that in time to come they will be a subject race living on sufferance in Palestine, with the Jews dominant in every sphere, land, trade and political life”. How right they were.

Even before Britain’s retreat from Palestine, Attlee and his Cabinet colleagues were discussing a plan which would mean the “ethnic cleansing” of tens of thousands of Palestinians from their land. In 1944, a Labour Party statement had talked thus of Jewish immigration: “Let the Arabs be encouraged to move out as the Jews move in.” By 1948, Labour, now in government, was announcing it had no power to prevent money being channelled from London to Jewish groups who would, within a year, accomplish their own “ethnic cleansing”, a phrase in common usage for this period since Israeli historian Illan Pappe (now, predictably, an exile from his own land) included it in the title of his best-known work.

The massacre of hundreds of Palestinian civilians at Deir Yassin was committed while thousands of British troops were still in the country. Cronin’s investigation of Colonial Office files show that the British military lied about the “cleansing” of Haifa, offering no protection to the Arabs, a policy largely followed across Palestine save for the courage of Major Derek Cooper and his soldiers, whose defence of Arab civilians in Jaffa won him the Military Cross (although David Cronin does not mention this). Cooper, whom I got to know when he was caring for wounded Palestinians in Beirut in 1982, never forgave his own government for its dishonesty at the end of the Palestine Mandate.

Cronin’s value, however, lies in his further research into British support for Israel, its constant arms re-supplies to Israel, its 1956 connivance with the Israelis over Suez – during which Israeli troops massacred in the Gaza camp of Khan Younis, according to a UN report, 275 Palestinian civilians, of whom 140 were refugees from the 1948 catastrophe. Many UN-employed Palestinians, an American military officer noted at the time, “are believed to have been executed by the Israelis”. Britain’s subsequent export of submarines and hundreds of Centurion tanks to Israel was shrugged off with the same weasel-like excuses that British governments have ever since used to sell trillions of dollars of weapons to Israelis and Arabs alike: that if Britain didn’t arm them, others would.

In opposition in 1972, Harold Wilson claimed it was “utterly unreal” to call for an Israeli withdrawal from land occupied in the 1967 war, adding that “Israel’s reaction is natural and proper in refusing to accept the Palestinians as a nation”. When the Palestinians first demanded a secular one-state solution to Palestine, they were denounced by a British diplomat (Anthony Parsons) who said that “a multinational, secular state” would be “wholly incompatible with our attitude toward Israel”. Indeed it would. When the PLO opposed Britain’s Falklands conflict, the Foreign Office haughtily admonished the Palestinians – it was “far removed” from their “legitimate concerns”, it noted – although it chose not to reveal that Argentine air force Skyhawk jets supplied by Israel were used to attack UK forces, and that Israel’s military supplies to Argentina continued during the war.

A year later, Margaret Thatcher, according to a note by Douglas Hurd, included “armed action against military targets of the occupying power” as a definition of “terrorism”. So the Palestinians could not even resist their direct occupiers without being criminals.

On an official visit to Israel in 1986, Thatcher said that she regarded discussion of Jerusalem as “internal politics”. In 2001, Tony Blair’s government granted 90 arms exports licences to Israel for “defensive” weapons – including torpedoes, armoured vehicles, bombs and missiles. There is much, much more of this in Cronin’s book, including Blair’s useless and disgraceful period as “peace” envoy to the Middle East and the growing business contracts between British companies and Israeli arms providers – to the extent that the British army ended up deploying Israeli-made drones in the skies of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Outside the EU, Theresa May’s Britain will maintain its close relations with Israel as a priority; hence May’s stated desire less than a month ago to sign a bilateral free trade agreement with Israel. This coincided with an Israeli attack on Gaza and a Knesset vote to confiscate – ie, steal – yet more lands from Palestinians in the West Bank.

From the day that Herbert Samuel, deputy leader of the Liberal Party and former (Jewish) High Commissioner for Palestine, said in the House of Commons in 1930 that Arabs “do migrate easily”, it seems that Britain has faithfully followed Balfour’s policies. More than 750,000 Palestinians were uprooted in their catastrophe, Cronin writes. Generations of dispossessed would grow up in the camps. Today, there are around five million registered Palestinian refugees. Britain was the midwife of that expulsion.

And this summer, we shall again be exhorted by Theresa May to remember the Balfour Declaration with “pride”.

Rothschild reveals crucial role his ancestors played in the Balfour Declaration and creation of Israel [VIDEO]

February 9, 2017

Rothschild reveals crucial role his ancestors played in the Balfour Declaration and creation of Israel [VIDEO]

The Times of Israel reports that Lord Jacob Rothschild recently revealed new details about the crucial role his ancestors played in obtaining the Balfour Declaration, which “helped pave the way for the creation of Israel.”

The 80-year-old Rothschild is the current head of the banking family and a strong supporter of Israel.

The Balfour Declaration (text below) was an official 1917 letter from the British Foreign Minister, Lord Balfour, addressed to Lord Rothschild, a Zionist leader in Britain at the time and the current Lord Rothschild’s uncle.

During a television interview, the Times of Israel reports that Balfour revealed for the first time the  role of his cousin Dorothy de Rothschild.

Rothschild described Dorothy, who was in her teens at the time, as “devoted to Israel,” and said: ‘What she did, which was crucially important.’”

Rothschild said that Dorothy connected Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann to the British establishment. Dorothy “told Weizmann how to integrate, how to insert himself into British establishment life, which he learned very quickly.”

Rothschild said that the way the declaration was procured was extraordinary. “It was the most incredible piece of opportunism.”

“[Weizmann] gets to Balfour,” Rothschild described, “and unbelievably, he persuades Lord Balfour, and Lloyd George, the prime minister, and most of the ministers, that this idea of a national home for Jews should be allowed to take place. I mean it’s so, so unlikely.”

 

The interview was was conducted by former Israeli ambassador Daniel Taub as part of the Balfour 100 project. Taub interviewed Rothschild at Waddeston Manor in Buckinghamshire, a manor bequeathed to the nation by the Rothschild family in 1957, where the Declaration is kept.

According to Ambassador Taub, the declaration “changed the course of history for the Middle East.”

The Times reports that Rothschild said his family at the time was divided on the idea of Israel, noting that some members “didn’t think it was a good thing that this national home be established there”.

Dorothy’s letters are also stored at Waddeston. They describe her later dealings with diverse Zionist leaders and her advice on the organization of the Zionist Conference, according to the Times.

Rothschild said that the Declaration went through five drafts before finally being issued on November 2, 1917.

Alison Weir reports in her book, Against Our Better Judgment: The Hidden History of How the U.S. Was Used to Create Israel, that drafts of the declaration went back and forth to Zionists in the United States before the document was finalized. The main writer was secret Zionist Leopold Amery.

Weir’s book documents that one of the main inducements given to British leaders to issue the Balfour Declaration was the Zionist claim that they would bring the U.S. into world war I on Britain’s side if the British would promise to enable the Zionist colonization of Palestine.

Balfour Declaration Text:

Foreign Office
November 2nd, 1917

Dear Lord Rothschild,

I have much pleasure in conveying to you. on behalf of His Majesty’s Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet

His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.

Yours,

Arthur James Balfour

Below is the Interview:

 

Britain’s sickening infatuation with israel continues

Britain’s sickening infatuation with Israel continues

 

Iran still the victim of unshakable Israeli influence over the UK’s political establishment

By Stuart Littlewood

Here in the UK the Campaign Against the Arms Trade (CAAT) has initiated a judicial review in a bid to halt UK arms sales to Saudi Arabia on suspicion that they are being used against civilians in Yemen. The indiscriminate nature of Saudi air-strikes makes it highly likely that British weaponry is being deployed in breach of international humanitarian law.

The slaughter has been going on for nearly two years, leading to a humanitarian crisis of appalling magnitude and great cruelty. Since the Yemen campaign began the British government has granted export licences for more than £3.3 billions worth of war equipment when there was a “clear risk” that some of it would be used in violation of all norms of human conduct.

It is claimed that the government has ignored warnings by senior civil servants and its own arms control experts, and some records of expressed concern have gone missing. This is no great surprise when we discover that export licensing is overseen by none other than the secretary of state for international trade, Liam Fox. For Fox has “form” as a crazed stooge of Israel and a sworn enemy of Iran.

Fox, while secretary of state for defence, was quoted on the Conservative Friends of Israel website as saying:

… We must remember that in the battle for the values that we stand for, for democracy against theocracy, for democratic liberal values against repression – Israel’s enemies are our enemies and this is a battle in which we all stand together or we will all fall divided.

And in June 2015 Fox declared:

It is logical to assume that Iran’s intentions are to develop a nuclear weapons capability and any claims that its intentions are exclusively peaceful should not be regarded as credible… Iran’s nuclear intentions cannot be seen outside the context of its support for terror proxies, arguably the defining feature of its foreign policy. The risks are clear.

Fox was forced to resign as defence secretary in 2011 following scandalous goings-on between him, his “close friend” Adam Werritty, the UK ambassador to Israel and Israeli intelligence figures allegedly involved in plotting sanctions against Iran.

Liam Fox and his friend Adam Werritty

Liam Fox (left) and his friend Adam Werritty

Just lately, Prime Minister Theresa May has accused Iran of working with Hezbollah, interfering in Iraq, sending fighters to Syria to help Assad, and supporting the Houthis in the conflict in Yemen. The British government, of course, can meddle where it pleases and recently concluded another huge arms deal with the Saudis which, says Mrs May, is for the sake of long-term security in the Gulf. She argues that the same extremists who plot terror in the Gulf states are also targeting the streets of Europe: “Gulf security is our security.”

However, public pressure to end arms sales to Saudi Arabia is now so great that the government has adopted a new export licensing scheme that hides the value and scale of weaponry being supplied.

The reason for the British government’s current hostility towards Iran was plain from what David Cameron told the Knesset in 2014:

A nuclear armed Iran is a threat to the whole world not just Israel. And with Israel and all our allies, Britain will ensure that it is never allowed to happen.

That position carries forward into the present day and beyond, and serves as an excuse for the rednecks who rule our political swamp to carry on being unpleasant to the Muslim world.

After sucking up to Trump Britain rolls out red carpet to another of the world’s undesirables

Theresa May lost no time in welcoming the Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, to London. The two leaders this week agreed to establish a new UK-Israel Trade Working Group to strengthen their existing trade and investment relationship and “to prepare the ground for a post-Brexit trade agreement”. What good that will do in the face of rising popularity among the public of boycotting everything Israeli remains to be seen.

Regional issues, including Syria and Iran, are to be on the agenda for discussion. And regarding Palestine May repeated the mantra that – “We remain committed to a two-state solution as the best way of building stability and peace for the future” – though she doesn’t say what that will look like.

Netanyahu also met Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson and they sat alongside the desk on which the Balfour Declaration was composed in 1917. As for the forthcoming Balfour Declaration centenary celebrations, a statement said that May invited Netanyahu to attend events taking place in the UK “as a guest of government” and that Netanyahu “also invited her to visit him in Israel”.

Netanyahu didn’t miss the opportunity to warn that Iran “seeks to annihilate Israel” and called on nations to back renewed sanctions against the Iranian regime.

Israel’s ‘nest of spies’ in London

I looked up one of my old reports about how Craig Murray, a former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, argued five years ago that British policy was being driven in an underhand fashion by the Israel lobby. He linked Matthew Gould, the then British ambassador to Israel, with the Fox-Werritty scandal and raised questions about meetings between Gould, Liam Fox and Fox’s strange friend Adam Werritty. Werritty was referred to as Fox’s adviser but according to reports he was backed financially by Israel lobbyists and had no security clearance and therefore no authorised role.

Matthew Gould

Matthew Gould’s relationship with Liam Fox, his friend Adam Werritty and the Israeli intelligence service Mossad leaves many questions to be answered

Murray, with many useful contacts from his days as an ambassador, claimed to have serious evidence connecting Gould with a secret plan to attack Iran, but the Foreign Office and the Cabinet Secretary blocked questions. (To read Craig Murray’s story, “Matthew Gould and the plot to attack Iran”, click here.)

In it he pointed out that

Matthew Gould does not see his race or religion as irrelevant. He has chosen to give numerous interviews to both British and Israeli media on the subject of being a Jewish ambassador, and has been at pains to be photographed by the Israeli media participating in Jewish religious festivals. Israeli newspaper Haaretz described him as “not just an ambassador who is Jewish, but a Jewish ambassador”. That rather peculiar phrase appears directly to indicate that the potential conflict of interest for a British ambassador in Israel has indeed arisen.

He went on to say that Gould stood suspected of participating with Fox and Werritty “in a scheme to forward war with Iran, in cooperation with Israel”. The stonewalling by the Cabinet Office and Foreign Office led Murray to conclude that “something very important is being hidden right at the heart of government”.

Labour MP Paul Flynn remarked that no previous ambassadors to Israel had been Jewish so that a conflict of interest and accusations of going native would be avoided. He was immediately rebuked. Flynn also asked about meetings between Werritty and Gould, as some reports suggested that Gould, Werritty and Fox discussed a potential military strike on Iran with Mossad. “I do not normally fall for conspiracy theories,” said Flynn, “but the ambassador has proclaimed himself to be a Zionist and he has previously served in Iran.”

Fox had earlier made the idiotic claim: “Israel’s enemies are our enemies”, and the Jewish Chronicle hailed him as “a champion of Israel within the government”. Furthermore, Fox continually rattled the sabre against Iran which, of course, is no threat to Britain but regarded by Israel as a bitter enemy. Iraq too was Israel’s enemy, not ours. Yet Fox, according to the website TheyWorkForYou, voted “very strongly” for the Iraq war. He was also an enthusiastic supporter of the war in Afghanistan.

Given that Fox so eagerly waved the flag of a foreign military power and was a man with dangerous beliefs and demonstrably weak judgement, how could those who appointed him not see that he was unfit to serve as a Minister of the British Crown – unless they were similarly tainted?

When the Werritty relationship came to light Fox jumped before being flung from the battlements. But instead of melting into obscurity he has now been rehabilitated into the senior ranks of government and is once again a Minister of the Crown. And after watching the trail blazed by our former Jewish ambassador to the Jewish State, we now gawp with fascination at the inevitably messy conflicts of interest arising from Donald Trump’s pick for US ambassador to Israel – David Friedman, a Jewish lawyer with scant respect for international law or Middle East sensitivities.

Despite the strong whiff of misconduct, David Cameron rewarded Gould by making him head of the Office of Cyber Security and Information Assurance (OCSIA), which includes e-crime, working with private sector partners on exchanging information, and engaging with international partners in improving the security of cyberspace and information security. Did it seem right for such a person to be in charge of crucial security matters at the heart of our government? What was in fellow Zionist David Cameron’s mind when he appointed him?

Could it have had anything to do with the UK-Israel academic collaboration ventures with cyber research funding, which involve partnerships between British and Israeli universities and cover research areas such identity management, regulating cyber security, privacy assurance, mobile and cloud security, human aspects of security, and cryptography?

Both countries signed a Memorandum of Understanding on digital cooperation in March 2014. And Gould’s new appointment came at a time when the Cameron government was lecturing us on threats to national security and announcing plans to trawl through our personal emails and web browsers in order to “keep us safe”. Question was, who would trawl Gould’s private emails?

The vipers in our bosom

CAAT expects a decision on the judicial review on arms to Saudi Arabia in four to six weeks. In the meantime, an undercover Aljazeera investigation has revealed that a senior political officer at the Israeli embassy in London, Shai Masot, was plotting with stooges among British MPs and other vipers in the political snake-pit to “take down” senior government figures, including Boris Johnson’s deputy at the Foreign Office, Sir Alan Duncan, a noted sympathiser of the Palestinian’s struggle. This should have resulted in the expulsion of the ambassador himself, the Israeli propaganda maestro and Netanyahu’s pet, Mark Regev, who took up the post last year. Regev is the sort of person no sensible government would let into their country. But he was let off the hook and the affair hurriedly smoothed over with an announcement from the Foreign Office that the matter was closed.

Israel's UK embassy spy Shai Masot

Shai Masot plotted with stooges among British MPs and other vipers in the political snake-pit to “take down” senior government figures

Craig Murray, however, has been digging again. The Foreign Office deflected his many questions and dismissed the idea that Masot was anything more than a member of the technical and administrative staff at the embassy. “This is plainly a nonsense,” says Murray. “Masot, as an ex-major in the Israeli navy and senior officer in the Ministry of Strategic Affairs, is plainly senior to many who are on the Diplomatic List.” He concludes that the Foreign Office is complicit in

a large nest of Israeli spies seeking to influence policy and opinion in the UK in a pro-Israeli direction. That is why the government reaction to one of those spies being caught on camera plotting a scandal against an FCO [Foreign and Commonwealth Office] minister, and giving £1 million to anti-Corbyn MPs, was so astonishingly muted.

All this and the recent UN resolution 2334, which condemned Israel’s continuing squats on Palestinian land as illegal and an obstacle to peace, has done nothing to disturb the cosy relationship between Her Majesty’s Government and the obnoxious Israelis.

On the contrary, after May’s meeting with Netanyahu a Downing Street spokesperson said they focused on, yes, cyber security:

In their discussions, the prime ministers committed to working together to build on our longstanding relationship and the strong ties that already exist between our two countries in a wide range of areas, from trade and investment, to innovation and technology, and defence and security. They talked about the important work we do together on intelligence-sharing and cyber security, and committed to talk further about how we can deepen this cooperation, to help keep our people safe.

Sitting comfortably?

Rothschild behind the creation of the Zionist terrorist state

Rothschild reveals crucial role his ancestors played in the Balfour Declaration and creation of Israel

rothschild-taub_-2017
If Americans Knew | February 9, 2017

The Times of Israel reports that Lord Jacob Rothschild recently revealed new details about the crucial role his ancestors played in obtaining the Balfour Declaration, which “helped pave the way for the creation of Israel.”

The 80-year-old Rothschild is the current head of the banking family and a strong supporter of Israel.

The Balfour Declaration (text below) was an official 1917 letter from the British Foreign Minister, Lord Balfour, addressed to Lord Rothschild, a Zionist leader in Britain at the time and the current Lord Rothschild’s uncle.

During a television interview, the Times of Israel reports that Balfour revealed for the first time the  role of his cousin Dorothy de Rothschild.

Rothschild described Dorothy, who was in her teens at the time, as “devoted to Israel,” and said: ‘What she did, which was crucially important.’”

Rothschild said that Dorothy connected Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann to the British establishment. Dorothy “told Weizmann how to integrate, how to insert himself into British establishment life, which he learned very quickly.”

Rothschild said that the way the declaration was procured was extraordinary. “It was the most incredible piece of opportunism.”

“[Weizmann] gets to Balfour,” Rothschild described, “and unbelievably, he persuades Lord Balfour, and Lloyd George, the prime minister, and most of the ministers, that this idea of a national home for Jews should be allowed to take place. I mean it’s so, so unlikely.”

The interview was was conducted by former Israeli ambassador Daniel Taub as part of the Balfour 100 project. Taub interviewed Rothschild at Waddeston Manor in Buckinghamshire, a manor bequeathed to the nation by the Rothschild family in 1957, where the Declaration is kept.

According to Ambassador Taub, the declaration “changed the course of history for the Middle East.”

The Times reports that Rothschild said his family at the time was divided on the idea of Israel, noting that some members “didn’t think it was a good thing that this national home be established there”.

Dorothy’s letters are also stored at Waddeston. They describe her later dealings with diverse Zionist leaders and her advice on the organization of the Zionist Conference, according to the Times.

Rothschild said that the Declaration went through five drafts before finally being issued on November 2, 1917.

Alison Weir reports in her book, Against Our Better Judgment: The Hidden History of How the U.S. Was Used to Create Israel, that drafts of the declaration went back and forth to Zionists in the United States before the document was finalized. The main writer was secret Zionist Leopold Amery.

Balfour Declaration Text:

Foreign Office
November 2nd, 1917

Dear Lord Rothschild,

I have much pleasure in conveying to you. on behalf of His Majesty’s Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet

His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.

Yours,

Arthur James Balfour

israel’s manipulation of UK politics: time for zero-tolerance

Israel’s manipulation of UK politics: time for zero-tolerance

Israel’s manipulation of UK politics: time for zero-tolerance

But don’t rely on the Foreign Secretary… or the Prime Minister… or the Speaker to take action. And especially not the Standards Committee.

 

by Stuart Littlewood

 

Both the Foreign Office and Boris Johnson, the UK’s Foreign Secretary, have declared the Shai Masot affair “closed” after Masot, an employee of the Israeli embassy and probably a Mossad asset, plotted with gullible British MPs and political hangers-on to “take down” senior government figures including Johnson’s deputy, Sir Alan Duncan. “The UK has a strong relationship with Israel and we consider the matter closed,” they announced. The Speaker of the House of Commons John Bercow, who is Jewish, has also declined to investigate.

Sorry, Boris. It isn’t closed – hell no. It’s just opening and it’ll run and run. You and your fellow stooges can be sure of it.

According to some reports Masot served in the Israeli navy in Palestinian waters off Gaza. Given the many atrocities committed by Israel’s gunboats against Gaza’s fishermen, and children playing on Gaza’s beach, and even peaceful unarmed humanitarian vessels bringing relief to the sick and starving there, he may well be on a wanted list for questioning about war crimes. Masot’s damning comments were captured and revealed in an undercover investigation by Al Jazeera and not, as one might have hoped, by Britain’s own beloved press barons.

Masot’s hostile connivings were going on under the eye of a recently arrived ambassador, the loathsome Mark Regev, ace propagandist, mastermind of the Israeli Lie Machine and personal spokesman for the Zionist regime’s chief thug, Netanyahu.

Emily Thornberry, the Labour Party’s shadow foreign secretary, called Masot’s activities “extremely disturbing” and has demanded a probe into the potential extent of political “interference” in the United Kingdom. There are calls for Regev to be packed off back to Tel Aviv.

A petition demanding a public inquiry can be found here.

Are British parliamentarians at last waking up? Are those who wave the flag of a nasty, murderous foreign military power about to feel the heat from an increasingly furious public? They should be very afraid.

Watch George Galloway’s devastating summing-up.

Nothing new

The realisation that we are in the grip of great evil has been slow in coming. Nine years ago twenty senior professionals wrote to the Committee on Standards in Public Life about the undue influence of the Israel lobby at the heart of British government and their deep concern about the appalling conditions forced on the civilian population in the Occupied Territories and particularly Gaza by the Israeli blockade and uncalled-for sanctions imposed by Britain and the EU.

A letter had earlier been delivered to the Foreign Office minister then responsible for the Middle East, Kim Howells, suggesting that Britain consider suspending the EU-Israel Association Agreement. The rules provide for this sanction if Israel’s conduct towards its neighbours falls short of what is required under the UN Charter and other obligations.

Howells replied: “We consider that the Association Agreement is a key tool for the EU to both enhance co-operation with Israel but also to raise any concerns. We do not support suspension of that Agreement, which would limit how we could put our viewpoint across to the Israeli government.”

When the EU demanded an end to the emergency in Gaza and the military occupation of the West Bank, Israel responded with an even tighter lockdown so another letter was sent to Mr Howells. He replied: “The UK… has strong relationships with Israel on a number of fronts… We do not consider it would be in the best interests of the UK, or the European Union, to end this relationship.”

Howells was a former chairman of Labour Friends of Israel. His opposition shadow at the time was a member of Conservative Friends of Israel.

The minister was then asked to explain what “viewpoint” Her Majesty’s Government had put to the Israeli government regarding the medieval-style siege of Gaza and the collective punishment inflicted on its already impoverished civilians in flagrant breach of the UN Charter and every conceivable code of conduct. What action had he and his Department taken to alleviate the suffering in this former British mandate? What was the status of the coastal waters off Gaza? How could Israel maintain a sea blockade lawfully and deny Gazan fishermen their livelihood?

And how did continuing the Association Agreement in these cruel circumstances “enhance co-operation” with Israel?

No answers to these questions were ever received.

So the twenty signatories reminded the Standards Committee how the lobby group, Friends of Israel, had embedded itself in the British political establishment with the stated purpose of promoting Israel’s interests in our Parliament and bend British policy.

British MPs eating out of the Israeli government’s hand

It was put to the Committee that MPs are surely not at liberty to act for a foreign military power at the expense of our own national interests, or to let foreign influence cloud their judgement.  Such conduct breached the second of the Seven Principles of Public Life, namely Integrity – “Holders of public office should not place themselves under any financial or other obligation to outside individuals or organisations that might seek to influence them in the performance of their official duties.”

The various Friends of Israel organisations had gone to great lengths to influence those in power. A good many of them, it seemed, reached their high positions with FoI help. The network acted as a sort of parliamentary freemasonry. The political director of Conservative Friends of Israel claimed that with over 2,000 members and registered supporters alongside 80 percent of the Conservative MPs, CFI was the largest affiliated group in the party. Its website stated that the CFI “strives to support the Conservative Party at all available opportunities. In the run up to the 2005 General Election… CFI supported candidates up and down the country. As candidates are now being continuously selected for target seats, CFI has developed a special programme of weekly briefings, events with speakers and a chance to participate in delegations to Israel. CFI encourages all members to help campaign for parliamentary candidates and also for local council, London and European elections.” It also had a ‘Fast Track’ group for Conservative parliamentary candidates fighting target marginal seats at the next election. The political director himself was seeking election to Parliament. If successful where would his loyalty lie? Senior Conservatives tried to justify these activities by insisting that Israel was “a force for good in the world” and “in the battle for the values that we stand for, for democracy against theocracy, for democratic liberal values against repression – Israel’s enemies are our enemies and this is a battle in which we all stand together”.

The danger of inappropriate ‘friendships’ with foreign regimes had become blazingly obvious a few days earlier when Tzipi Livni, Israel’s foreign minister, was reported to have twice asked David Miliband, our Foreign Secretary, to scrap the law that authorised magistrates to issue arrest warrants for suspected war criminals who set foot in the UK, she being a particularly bloodsoaked example. Avi Dichter, a former director of the Shin Bet spy service and involved in the Shehadeh assassination in which 14 Palestianian civilians (including children) were killed by an Israeli air strike, had to cancel a trip to London for fear of being arrested. Doron Almog, an Israeli ex-general also involved in the Shehadeh affair, narrowly avoided arrest when he landed at Heathrow in 2005. Israel wished the UK to change its laws to protect alleged war criminals. So we did so just to oblige them, in the name of “enhanced co-operation” as Mr Howells might have put it.

The Standards Committee was also told bluntly: “It is especially disconcerting to discover that at least two members of your Committee, which is pledged to uphold the Principles of Public Life, are Friends of Israel [one the president of Conservative Friends of Israel and the other a member of Labour Friends of Israel]…. Given that Israel’s deep penetration of our political system apparently prevents Britain from taking a principled stand on Middle East matters, including the violations of Palestinian human rights, we invite your Committee – minus those with an interest – to uphold the Principles of Public Life and consider the activities of the Friends of Israel as a matter for urgent investigation.”

But the Standards Committee refused to look into it. The chairman’s reply, sent in a note from a member of his office staff, said: “I regret that the Committee on Standards in Public Life has no remit to help you in this matter.”

So the public’s watchdog – the Standards Committee – which was formed specifically to uphold those Seven Principles, wasn’t playing ball. Its published remit called on it “to examine current concerns about standards of conduct of all holders of public office, including arrangements relating to financial and commercial activities and make recommendations as to any changes in present arrangements which might be required to ensure the highest standards of propriety in public life.” Wasn’t this the kind of plain English even dyed-in-the-wool bureaucrats like the Committee’s chairman could understand?

Apparently not. He added: “This Committee commented on lobbying in their first report in 1995 and re-addressed the issue, including the changes instigated by their first report, in a review in 2001. The Committee has no plans to review this area again in the near future.”

The angry twenty pointed out there was nothing in the 1995 report relating to MPs and legislators representing the interests of foreign countries within Parliament or placing themselves under the influence of a foreign country’s political lobby. Nor could they find any mention of it in the 2001 report. They asked for chapter and verse. No reply.

And there the matter has rested for nine years.

 

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Fast-forward to the present day and we find it’s now the Anglo-Israel Association (AIA) casting a shadow over the Standards Committee. “The Association’s primary purpose is to promote wider and better understanding of Israel in the UK; to encourage exchanges between both countries at every level and generally to support activities which foster good will between British and Israeli citizens,” says the website. But its programme is skewed mainly towards ‘educating’ Brits (including our clergy) about Israel.

The Honorary president of the AIA is the Ambassador of Israel himself. Chairman of the AIA’s Executive Committee is none other than Lord Bew, also chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. And its Council includes the Earl of Balfour – the 5th earl, that is – related of course to the first earl, that nincompoop Arthur Balfour whose infamous Declaration in  1917 paved the way for the shameful handover of the Palestinians’ homeland – and Christianity’s homeland – to Zionist Jews. “What we have done, by concessions not to the Jewish people but to a Zionist extreme section,” warned Lord Sydenham at the time, “is to start a running sore in the East, and no-one can tell how far that sore will extend.”

The centenary of Balfour’s Declaration will be joyously celebrated this year by Israel’s many Westminster stooges including Theresa May if her sucking-up speech to the Israel lobby last month is anything to go by.

So there’s a lot of weeding-out to do.

Those disgruntled twenty could easily become 2 million if the BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) movement, the PSC (Palestine Solidarity Campaign), the unions and other activist groups got together. The sinister machinations of Masot and Regev have presented them an open goal. And we have Al Jazeera to thank for the brilliant exposée where our own security services failed.

 

Stuart Littlewood

%d bloggers like this: