Israel – the world’s worst terrorist organization

The Lebanon crisis demonstrates the hypocrisy of the European Jewish settlers in Palestine—referred to as Israel by the West—who murder Lebanese children with psychopathic glee, then claim these children were used as human shields by so-called terrorists (Hezbollah).

Let me be completely frank. The Jewish leadership of Israel is not only comprised of loathsome pathological liars, they are the most dangerous terrorists on the planet. The so-called nation of Israel was founded by terrorists, and at least two of those terrorists were rewarded years later by being made prime ministers. I am speaking specifically of Menachem Begin and Yitzchak Shamir. Shamir was a leader of the notorious Stern Gang, a group of Jewish terrorists who shot and killed United Nations peace mediator Count Folke Bernadotte in 1948. Call me old fashion, but I consider that terrorism. Begin was commander of Irgun, another Jewish terrorist group that, on July 22, 1946, blew up the King David Hotel and killed approximately one-hundred people. Begin and his fellow terrorists were angry at the British for arresting many Jewish leaders as a means of containing Jewish terrorism directed against the British. In the 1940s, Jewish terrorism was a commonplace as Arab terrorism is today. Jewish terrorists like Begin and Shamir hated the British for limiting Jewish immigration to Palestine in the late 1930s and 1940s as an effort to appease the Arabs who felt they were being pushed from their land by European settlers. Only one year after the British helped defeat Adolf Hitler in World War II, Begin’s terrorist group showed their gratitude by blowing up the King David Hotel, a symbol of British rule over Palestine (British Mandate). Figures 1 through 5 show some of Begin’s handywork:
-

It seems sub-human to blow up British buildings shortly after the British had fought and helped defeat the Jewish nemesis, Adolf Hitler, a man cursed for all time by most Jews. There’s something very fishy about Jewish hatred of the British after, according to Western historians, the British had done so much to help Jews during World War II. But that is the topic of another article, so I won’t go there in this one.

My point is Menachem Begin and Yitzchak Shamir were bona fide terrorists in the 1940s. The world knows it, the Israelis know it, the Arabs and Muslims in the Middle East certainly know it. Despite their known terrorist activities, Begin and Shamir later formed the Likud political party and became prime ministers of Israel. When former President Jimmy Carter publicly embraced Begin in the late 70’s, it inflamed the Arab/Islamic world and led to an Islamic revolution in Iran where scores of American workers were held hostage for months. Israel today claims to want to fight terrorism, which is the basis of their recent attack of Lebanon. Such claims are viewed with skepticism in the Arab/Islamic world, given Israel’s history of terrorism.

Israel's History of Land Grabs - Suez Crisis (1956-57)

In 1955, the stage was set to start fulfilling "Eretz Yisrael" with the Suez Crisis when the Eisenhower administration began pressuring Israel to demonstrate its commitment to peace in the Middle East.

On February 28, 1955, Egyptian President Gamal Adbel Nasser made a speech full of warnings against Israeli atrocities. He emphasized a bloody raid on the Gaza Strip by the Israelis, allegedly a retaliation for raids made from Gaza. Nasser was also upset with the United States for denying his request for arms a few months earlier. In his speech he repeated the request for Egypt to buy arms but was ignored.

On September 4, 1955, Egypt announced that it had received a proposal from the Soviet Union for an arms sale. The Eisenhower administration treated this as an idle threat which angered Nasser. As a result, he brokered a cotton-for-arms barter agreement with Czechoslovakia on September 27 in which Egypt received $200 million worth of arms—tanks, MiG planes, artillery, submarines, and small arms.

Israel immediately renewed its joint arms agreement with the United States, France, and Britain. In addition, Israel requested a treaty guaranteeing its security, but it was denied by the Western powers because they knew that Israel’s military strength was vastly superior to the neighboring Arab nations.

On August 26, 1955, Secretary of State John Foster Dulles made a speech before the Council of Foreign Relations in New York in which he outlined terms for peace in the Middle East. He stated that the problem of Palestinian refugees could be solved, but Israel should not be expected to assume the full cost. He proposed that Congress approve an international loan to finance the resettlement or repatriating of Palestinian refugees. The loan would also help develop irrigation projects to assist refugees in cultivating their land for growing crops.

The Israelis were somewhat agitated by Dulles’s speech because he mentioned a possible boundary revision. Dulles promptly responded to clarify the American position. He stated in no uncertain terms that if Sharett and Ben-Gurion (Israeli leaders) wanted American diplomatic, political, and military aid, they would have to demonstrate their peaceful intentions by helping resolve the sensitive problems of Palestinian refugees and boundary disputes. On November 9, President Eisenhower—who was in a Denver hospital convalescing from a heart attack—confirmed Dulles’s position in a formal statement made from his hospital bed.⁴

At that point, it became clear that the United States could no longer be counted on to support Israel’s continuing efforts to expand its borders. Consequently, Israel turned to the European powers for support. Over the next year, trouble began to arise over the Suez Canal.

The Suez Canal is a sea-level waterway running north-south across the Isthmus of Suez in Egypt to connect the Mediterranean and the Red seas. The canal separates the African continent from Asia, and it provides the shortest seagoing route between Europe and the lands lying around the Indian and western Pacific oceans. It is one of the world's most heavily used shipping lanes.⁵

On July 26, 1956, Egyptian President Nasser angered Israel and the European powers when he nationalized the Suez Canal. He took this bold action because he felt that friends of Israel in America had cheated him out of US aide for the Aswan Dam that Egypt needed for irrigation and power. The dam cost $1.3 billion and Nasser had been given the impression by the Eisenhower administration that US aide would be forthcoming; however, friends of Israel in America pressured the Senate Appropriations Committee into blocking funding for the dam. On July 16, 1956, funding was officially denied—much to the chagrin of President Eisenhower and Secretary of State John Foster Dulles. To make matters worse, the State Department issued a statement, on July 19, critically appraising Egypt’s international credit. Nasser felt that this was a ruse created by friends of Israel in America, and he responded by seizing control of the canal and nationalizing the Suez Canal Company in order to obtain funds for the dam.⁶

On October 29, 1956, Israel attacked Egypt and advanced toward the Suez Canal. On November 1, British and French forces also invaded Egypt and began occupation of the canal zone, but growing opposition from President Eisenhower, Secretary of State Dulles, UN Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjöld, and Soviet threats of intervention put an immediate stop to British and French support, but Israeli troops still occupied the Gulf of Aqaba and the Gaza Strip in defiance of a UN resolution.⁷ Eisenhower was so angered by European involvement in the attack that he telephoned British Prime Minister Anthony Eden and gave him such a tongue-lashing that the Prime Minister was reduced to tears.⁸

Eisenhower told Dulles: "Foster, you tell’em, goddamn it, we’re going to apply sanctions, we’re going to the United Nations, we’re going to do everything that there is to stop this thing." He later explained, "We just told the Israelis it was absolutely indefensible and that if they expect our support in the Middle East and in maintaining their position, they had better behave… We went to town right away to give them hell."

UN Secretary General Dag Hammarskjöld shared Eisenhower’s view that Israel needed to learn to behave. Consequently, Hammarskjöld and Ben-Gurion engaged in some heated exchanges after the UN Secretary General publicly condemned Israel for its retaliatory actions against Palestinians. In 1956 Ben-Gurion complained that Hammarskjöld’s remarks had encouraged assaults on Israel by Egypt and Jordan. Hammarskjöld replied as follows:

On February 2, 1957, the UN General Assembly passed a resolution demanding Israel’s withdrawal from the Gulf of Aqaba and the Gaza Strip, but Ben-Gurion refused. Fed up with Israel’s treachery, Eisenhower wrote a strong letter to Ben-Gurion demanding Israel’s withdrawal. Still Ben-Gurion refused.¹⁰

It had been rumored that UN Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjöld of Sweden was quietly pushing for sanctions—with the full support of the Eisenhower administration—against Israel if it continued to maintain troops in the Gulf of Aqaba and Gaza in defiance of US and UN demands for immediate withdrawal. In response, Lyndon Johnson—then Senate Majority Leader—wrote a letter to Secretary of State John Foster Dulles urging the Eisenhower Administration not to support UN sanctions against Israel. Johnson’s letter to Dulles appeared in the New York Times on February 20, 1957. The Senate Majority Leader’s argument was that it was an unfair double-standard to punish a small country like Israel when large countries like the Soviet Union were allowed to openly defy UN resolutions without being punished.¹¹

In addition, Johnson rallied Senate Democrats to oppose Israel sanctions. He used partisan politics to pressure Eisenhower into retreating from principle, but Eisenhower stood his ground and kept applying pressure to Israel by cutting off or delaying financial assistance. When Israel began to run out of money, in March 1957, Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion finally agreed to withdraw troops from the occupied territories. President Eisenhower triumphed, but Johnson had protected Israel from the humiliation of UN sanctions. Sadly, Eisenhower was the last US president to stand up to the Israeli government and it’s American supporters. At least he proved it could be done.¹²

Lyndon Johnson’s defense of Israel during the Suez Crisis would serve as an omen of how he would, as president, allow Israel to seize land and power in the Middle East during the Six Day War, which began on June 5, 1967, ten years after the Suez Crisis.

Things had changed a great deal over the ten years leading up to the Six Day War. Israel’s most influential adversaries had either died or left public office. Eisenhower had retired years earlier and was in failing health. John Foster Dulles had died of cancer in 1959. Dag Hammarskjöld had been killed in a mysterious plane crash in the Congolese province of Katanga in 1961. President Kennedy of course had been assassinated in Dallas in 1963. And Israel’s old ally, Lyndon Johnson, had become Commander-in-Chief of the United States. In July of 1965, President Johnson had appointed Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg as US ambassador to the UN. Goldberg—a Jew and ardent supporter of Israel—replaced Adlai Stevenson as US delegate to the UN after Stevenson died suddenly of a heart attack on July 14, 1965. The Yemen War had been eroding Arab unity since the conflict began in 1962. By 1967, Egyptian forces had suffered heavy losses and were weakened after five years of military involvement in the Yemen War.

Whether these events were random or planned is anyone’s guess, but they were definitely advantageous to Israel by the time the Six Day War occurred in 1967.

The Six Day War was a watershed event that transformed Israel from a small nation into a colonial empire. Although Israel became a nation in 1948, it expanded dramatically after the Six Day War. Israel took from the Arabs—through military force—the Old City of Jerusalem, the Sinai and the Gaza Strip, the Jordanian territory west of the Jordan River known as the West Bank, and the Golan Heights, on the Israeli-Syrian border.¹³ In addition to acquiring new land, Israel gained control of an additional 900,000 Arabs who became the discontented subjects of the new Israeli empire. Since 1967, the number of Arabs under Israel’s military control has grown to over 1.75 million.¹⁴

Amnesty International has documented Israel’s inhumane treatment of its Palestinian subjects citing arbitrary arrests, torturing detainees, destroying or sealing the homes of Arab suspects and their relatives, confiscating land, destroying crops, and diverting precious water from thirsty Palestinians in the desert to fill the swimming pools and water the lawns of Israeli settlers.¹⁵ This conduct is condoned, embraced, and encouraged by the United States through its steadfast financial and military support of Israel. Today, US tax payers spend approximately $3 billion annually to subsidize, support, and arm Israel. Although Israel is a wealthy country by western standards, it receives the highest amount of American foreign aid money, 28 percent.¹⁶

Jewish scholars Michael Kazin and Maurice Isserman described in their book, America Divided: The Civil War of the 1960s, the passion ignited within American Jews by the Six Day War. They wrote the following:

The swift, complete victory was followed by a long and wrenching occupation of Palestinian lands. For many American Jews, the 1967 conflict awakened and inspired passions that did much to transform the meaning of their identity. No longer was Israel just a reason for Jewish pride, a desert miracle of orange groves and thriving kibbutzes, whose creation was romanticized in Exodus-a popular novel and film of the late '50s and early '60s. Israel was now the homeland of fellow Jews who had fought alone for their survival and were resigned to living in perpetual danger. The threat came not just from Arab militants but from communist powers, their Third World allies, and a good many American leftists who were eager to prove their "anti-imperialist" credentials. In the face of extinction, Israel became "the ultimate reality in the life of every Jew living today," as a young professor at Brandeis University put it, "In dealing with those who oppose Israel, we are not reasonable and we are not rational. Nor should we be."¹⁷

Those are troubling words, but they reflect the true agenda of those who support the Jewish state of Israel.

Jun. 8, 1967: Israel Attacked the USS Liberty

In the midst of the Six Day War, Israel attacked the USS Liberty spy vessel killing 34 American sailors and wounding 75.

George Ball wrote a riveting account of Israel’s attack on the USS Liberty on June 8, 1967. Ball’s comments are significant because he was undersecretary of state in the Johnson and Kennedy administrations. The following text is an excerpt from Ball’s book, The Passionate Attachment: America’s Involvement With Israel, 1947 to the Present:

During the [Six Day] War, Israel attacked the USS Liberty. The Liberty was an American intelligence-gathering vessel, then cruising in international waters near Egypt and reading the radio transmissions on both sides. It flew the American flag and was painted in US Navy colors, complete with number and name.

On the fourth day of the war [June 8, 1967], with both Jordan and Egypt routed, the Israelis turned their attention to Syria, the original cause of all this trouble. Guns mounted on the Golan Heights had subjected Galilee to sporadic bombardment for years and the Israelis had every intention of capturing those Heights before hostilities were over. Meanwhile, the United Nations had adopted a cease-fire resolution and they feared there might not be enough time to accomplish this objective without, as it were, going into overnight.

The Liberty’s presence and function were known to Israeli leaders. They presumably thought it vital that the Liberty be prevented from informing Washington of their intentions to violate any cease-fire before they had completed their occupation of the Golan. Their solution was brutal and direct.

Israel aircraft determined the exact location of the ship and undertook a combined air-naval attack. Apprised of Israel’s plans from various sources, the US Navy Department faced a delicate problem. Due regard for the lives of America’s naval personnel should have impelled the Navy to urge the State Department to warn off Israel in no uncertain terms; meanwhile, the Navy have alerted the Liberty to its danger and dispatched ships or planes for its protection. But none of these actions was taken in time.

There has, for years, been a continuing argument about the tragic lapse. Some say that a warning to Israel might have exposed U.S. sources of secret intelligence. Whatever the motive, the President or one of his aides took the decision to risk the ship and its crew, and merely ordered them, without explanation, to steam west at top speed. Unhappily, that notice was too little and taken too late. Israeli ships and planes attacked, killing 34 American sailors, wounding 75, and leaving 821 rocket and machine-gun holes in the Liberty. It was only when the Israelis were preparing to board the ship that American planes belatedly appeared from the west and forced them to retire.

The sequel was unedifying. The [Johnson] administration tried vigorously to downplay the whole matter. Although it silenced the crew, casualties to the sailors and damage to the ship could not possibly be concealed. Thus, an elaborate charade was performed. The United States complained pro forma to Israel, which reacted by blaming the victims. The ship, they rejoined, had not been clearly marked but looked like an Arab ship—which was definitely untrue. Nor did the Israelis even pretend that they had queried the American Embassy in Tel Aviv regarding the status of the well-marked ship. In the end, the Israelis tendered a reluctant and graceless apology; indemnities for the victims and damaged ship were both parsimonious and slow in coming. The sordid affair has still not been erased from the history books; an organization of devoted survivors has kept the cause alive over the years by publishing a newsletter and holding well-advertised meetings.

Yet the ultimate lesson of the Liberty attack had far more effect on policy in Israel than America. Israel’s leaders concluded that nothing they might do would offend the Americans to the point of reprisal. If America’s leaders did not have the courage to punish Israel for the blatant murder of American citizens, it seemed that their American friends would let them get away with almost anything.

(George Ball, The Passionate Attachment, pp. 57 - 58)

Could things get any worse?

Although the destruction of Lebanon is clearly a human tragedy, at least real issues are beginning to surface. And as previously stated, all parties have agreed to a cease-fire, but apparently only because Israel has run out of steam. Based on their past actions, Israel will probably violate the cease-fire at some point in order to attain the land they believe God gave them per the Old Testament biblical teachings.

Americans need to face the fact that the price of oil is getting higher and higher because the United States government is making enemies with oil-producing nations by constantly protecting Israel. If we would dump Israel immediately, the price of gas would quickly drop.


	(L) Saniora prior to the conflict. (Center) Saniora greets Condoleezza Rice with a kiss on both cheeks as his country is destroyed by Israeli bombs. (R) July 23: A car burns after an Israeli missile strike near Tyre, Lebanon. (AP)

		There seems to be more to the Israeli-Lebanese conflict than meets the eye. It is obvious that the Israelis and Bush are using Lebanon as a pawn to get at a larger enemy: namely Iran's charismatic President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The Zionist-controlled American news media portrays President Ahmadinejad as a mad man, a religious fanatic, and sadly the American public generally accepts this as fact. But few Americans realize this so-called mad man has a PhD in Transportation Engineering and a Master's in Civil Engineering from the Iran University of Science and Technology. This is hardly the stuff of which religious fanatics are made. When he criticizes Zionism, he obviously speaks from the mind as well as the heart.
	President Ahmadinejad