Was Israel Ever Legitimate?

The history of Israel as a geopolitical fraud will fill entire libraries as those defrauded marvel at how so few deceived so many for so long. Those duped include many naive Jews who—even now—identify their interests with this extremist enclave.

Israeli leaders are wrong to worry about “de-legitimization.” They are right to fear that a long-deceived public is fast realizing that Israel’s founding was key to an ongoing deception.

The Invention of the Jewish People did not begin with Shlomo Sand’s 2009 bestseller by that title. There was no Exile says this Jewish scholar. Nor was there an Exodus. So how could there be a Return, the core premise of Israeli statehood?

If this patch of Palestinian land never rightly belonged to a mythical Jewish People, what then for the legitimacy of the “Jewish homeland.” And for that depiction by British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour in his November 1917 letter to Lord Rothschild?

Were Christians likewise seduced by Sunday school teachings reliant on the phony findings of Biblical archeologist William Albright? Shlomo Sand chronicles how in the 1920s Albright interpreted every excavation in Palestine to “reaffirm the Old Testament and thereby the New.”

In 1948, President Harry Truman, a Christian Zionist, was advised by Secretary of State George Marshall not to recognize this enclave as a state. This WWII general assured Truman that he would vote against him—and did.

That military tradition resurfaced in January 2010 when General David Petraeus dispatched a team to brief Admiral Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on the perils that Israel still poses to U.S. national security. Mullen was reportedly shocked. ((See: “The Petraeus Briefing.”))

He should not have been surprised. Such insights are hardly new. More than six decades ago the Joint Chiefs of Staff cautioned Truman about the “fanatical concepts of the Jewish leaders” and their plans for “Jewish military and economic hegemony over the entire Middle East.”

In December 1948, Albert Einstein and 27 prominent Jews urged us “not to support this latest manifestation of fascism.” They warned that a “Leader State” was the goal of the “terrorist party” that has governed Israel over all but a handful of the past 62 years.

The Joint Chiefs foresaw the “Zionist strategy will seek to involve [the U.S.] in a continuously widening and deepening series of operations intended to secure maximum Jewish objectives.”

Soon after Truman recognized Israel, his presidential campaign train was “refueled” by Zionist Jews with $400,000 in contributions ($3.6 million in 2010 dollars). Soon thereafter, Israel betrayed the U.S. by allying with the British and the French to invade Egypt.

Though London and Paris soon abandoned the operation, months more were required to dissuade Tel Aviv from pursuing their expansionist agenda then—as now—for Greater Israel.

Outraged by Israeli duplicity, Eisenhower sought help to rein them in. He soon found that even then (as now) the Israel lobby dominated Congress. Thus the former Supreme Allied Commander appeared on television with an appeal directly to the American people. Then—unlike now—a U.S. Commander in Chief threatened to reduce assistance to Israel.

To revamp Israel’s tattered image, New York public relations expert Edward Gottlieb retained novelist Leon Uris to write Exodus. Jewish Zionists have routinely proven themselves skilled storytellers and masterful mythmakers.

This 1958 bestseller was translated into dozens of languages and quickly made into a movie for the 1960 Christmas season starring Paul Newman and featuring Peter Lawford, brother-in-law of the just-elected President John F. Kennedy. ((See: “Time for an American Intifada?”))

The Myth of a Loyal Ally

Phil Tourney survived the June 8, 1967 Israeli attack on the USS Liberty that left 34 Americans dead and 175 wounded. The region-wide dynamics accompanying that provocative Six-Day land grab guaranteed the conflicts that remain so perilous to U.S. national security.

It was during this Israeli operation that Tourney gave a one-fingered salute to armed Israeli troops as they hovered in helicopters over the USS Liberty while preparing to rappel to the deck and, he surmises, kill the survivors and sink the ship.

Just then the captain aboard a nearby U.S. carrier scrambled jets to assist a vessel under attack by an “ally.” When Israeli intelligence intercepted the transmission, the helicopters fled only to have President Lyndon Johnson and Defense Secretary Robert McNamara recall our fighters.

Soon thereafter, Israeli torpedo boats pulled alongside the USS Liberty to inquire if those aboard needed assistance. Those same boats had just blown a hole in the hull, killing 25 Americans. Israeli machine-gunners had then strafed stretcher-bearers, firemen, life rafts and even the fire hoses—all clear war crimes. Only then did this ally display the chutzpah to ask if our servicemen required assistance.

Had that notorious land grab failed to advance the narrative of Israel as the victim, what might be the condition of U.S. national security today? Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently conceded the duplicity that continues to typify this “special relationship.”

As he confessed: “Our policy on Jerusalem is the same policy followed by all Israeli governments for 42 years, and it has not changed. As far as we are concerned, building in Jerusalem is the same as building in Tel Aviv.”

In other words, the 1967 war was neither defensive nor preemptive but an outright taking of land that, one year later, Tel Aviv acknowledged as precisely what concerned the Pentagon 62 years ago.

In effect, Netanyahu confirmed that this relationship reflects multi-decade premeditation. The U.S. has since discredited itself by protecting this “ally” from the rule of law for its taking and brutal occupation of land that rightly belongs to others.

Even now, few know that Mathilde Krim, a former Irgun operative, was “servicing” our Commander-in-Chief in the White House the night the 1967 war began. Her husband, Arthur, then chaired the finance committee for the Democratic National Committee.

Even now, few Americans know the role in that cover-up played by Admiral John McCain, Jr. Or the role still played in this sordid history by his son, Republican Senator John McCain III. ((See: “McCain Family Secret: The Cover-up.” ))

Are those who champion this “state” the same belief-makers responsible for the myth of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction? Iraqi meetings in Prague? Iraqi mobile biological weapons laboratories? High-level Iraqi contacts with Al Qaeda? Iraqi yellowcake uranium from Niger?

Was any of that intelligence legitimate? Whose interests were served by deceiving the U.S. to wage war in the Middle East? By the Suez Crisis? By the Six-Day War? By covering up the attack on the USS Liberty?

Adhering to an Enemy?

How are U.S. interests served by treating Israel as a legitimate state? When was Israeli behavior anything other than duplicitous? At what point do we concede the common source of the storylines foisted on an imperiled global public?

Who created the narrative that saw us segue seamlessly from a global Cold War to a global War on Terrorism? Remember the promise of a post-Cold War “peace dividend”? Who induced the U.S. to wage a war whose costs could total $3 trillion, including $700 billion in interest?

Why is debt always the prize? At the end of WWII, the U.S. was home to 50% of the world’s productive power. Were we induced to hollow out our economy by the same consensus-shapers that induced us to wage war in the Middle East?

Do these devastating dynamics trace to a common source?

Who benefits from the “Islamo” fascist narrative? Whose storyline—really—is The Clash of Civilizations? Who has long spied on the U.S. and routinely transferred to other nations our most sensitive defense technologies?

Who had the means, motive, opportunity and, importantly, the stable nation state intelligence required to perpetrate such a debilitating fraud from inside the U.S. government? And from inside other governments that joined the “coalition of the willing”?

If not Israel and its supporters—who? In effect, are those now advocating an “unbreakable bond” with Israel giving aid and comfort to an enemy within?

Israel is right to worry. It was never legitimate. As both an enabler and a target of this fraud, the U.S. has an obligation to concede its source—and to secure the weapons of mass destruction now under the control of this enclave.

Jeff Gates is author of Guilt By Association, Democracy at Risk, and The Ownership Solution. Read other articles by Jeff, or visit Jeff's website.

11 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. Rehmat said on April 8th, 2010 at 9:49am #

    Israel-Firster, Republican defeated presidential candidate, Senator John McCain, sang in 2007 what the Jewish Lobby wants Barack Obama to do now: “bomb-bomb-bomb, bomb-bomb Iran”. John McCain after singing to the tune of Barbara Ann, added: “Iran is dedicated to the destruction of Israel. that should alone concern us, but now they are trying for nuclear capabilities. I totally support the President (Bush) when he says that he will not allow Iran to destroy Israel.”

    One wonder why Washington is putting its own national interests to protect an entity whose very legitimacy is questioned by many Western historians, academics and politicians. For example, n April 6, Dr. Paul J. Balles questioned Israel’s false legitimacy: ““In the past, the Zionist controlled US media was able to ignore critical statements about Israel by retired generals and admirals. However, both Petraeus and Mullen are frontline commanders. When they say that the American relationship with Israel harms American interests, the media has to listen and report it”.


  2. MichaelKenny said on April 8th, 2010 at 11:00am #

    The problem with this debate is that it deals with the wrong question. It deals with Jewish entitlement, not Palestinian rights. Even if Israel was “illegitimate”, Palestinians would not acquire any rights that they do not already have. Equally, if Israel was proved “legitimate”, Palestinians would have no less rights than they have now. The converse is true of Israeli Jews. The human rights of one person are neither increased nor decreased by the human rights of another. And the origins of the Jews are totally irrelevant in that regard. I have always regarded Sand’s book as Israeli propaganda and I have always suspected that once the debate has been successfully sidetracked into Jewish entitlement, they will produce a book (probably already written!) refuting his thesis. That won’t be difficult! Simple example: if the Jews are European converts, how come so many of them look … Jewish? Middle Eastern. Americans may not notice that but we in Europe certanly do! The debate should be about human rights, not history.

  3. bozh said on April 8th, 2010 at 1:30pm #

    Many ‘jews’ look like georgians, armenians, and people from steppes: long-hooked noses, angular faces; with s’mwhat darker skin than german, polish, hungarian ‘jews’
    In fact some ‘jews’ look more polish with their butiful deepset blue eyes than some poles.
    Many look like arabs because they are indeed shemitic. Still others look like moors or arabs of n. afrika.

    Ancient hebrews got melted into canaanites. There was very few of them in canaan. And even just centuries ago there lived ab only 400k people.
    Thus, a mizrahite looks exactly as a jebusite, hittite, aramean [arab], nabatean [also arab], amonite, phoenician, et al looks like.
    All of these became one ethnos but with 3 cults.

    Look at white jews like douglas, newman, lieberman, streisand, frum, chomsky, bacall? What is canaanitic or hebraic, if u will, ab them? tnx

  4. catauro said on April 8th, 2010 at 5:07pm #

    most of the jew are khazars

  5. Ismail Zayid said on April 8th, 2010 at 5:12pm #

    Jeff Gates’s analysis of the creation of Israel illustrates accurately the extent and prowess of Zionist mythology in the U.S. and Western society. Is this exposure of these myths growing effectively, as Gates suggests. I wonder. Israel’s defiance of international law in the crimes it commits against the Palestinian people appears to go on without hindrance.

  6. bozh said on April 8th, 2010 at 5:20pm #

    catauro, yes.
    that’s all one need to say; the rest of it being a mere gossip! tnx

  7. Gary S. Corseri said on April 8th, 2010 at 5:59pm #

    This is a fine, provocative piece by Mr. Gates. And he hasn’t even touched upon 9/11 and Israel’s role in that, the Pollard spy case, Israel’s destabilizing arsenal of nuclear weapons, and various other Zionist crimes.

    I, for one, have known many “Jews” who don’t look especially Jewish. Long before Sand’s book, the great Arthur Koestler was explicating the Khazarian roots of modern Jews and their migrations, especially to Poland. Koestler was proud to call himself a Khazarian–and he could acknowledge the virtues of the Jewish religion while deploring Zionist policies. Many modern “Jews” are now in the position of Protestants during the Reformation–they oppose the absurd orthodoxies of the criminals dictating from the Church or Temple!

    One problem with this article and others like it: it’s a bit too light-handed in assessing the blame–light-handed towards Amerikans, that is. It presents those Amerikan “leaders” as simple boobs who were outmanouevered by the more clever “Jewish” minds. I think history will prove that “leaders” like the Bushes, the McCains, Truman and others–and, especially, those financial elite forces behind them–knew exactly what they were doing when they entered into their alliances and collaborations. As time passes, more will see how the architecture of the Anglo-American-Zionist New World Order began to take shape even before the Second World War, how it helped to foment the conditions that led to that War, and how it has been building and building ever since.

  8. AaronG said on April 8th, 2010 at 9:02pm #

    Remove the domino of religion from the world and watch this evil jewish/christendom partnership tumble.

  9. Justin Thyme said on April 9th, 2010 at 10:55pm #

    Israel’s so-called “legitimacy,” like all things that emanate from its political ideology of Zionism, must be weighed upon the scale of Truth. I believe that the state eventually manifested after literally hundreds of years of preparatory work most of which occurred within Great Britain.

    In other words the Zionist idea, like a seed, was carefully planted within the English mindset from around the 16th Century via a very subtle infusion of Judaic influence into the Christian churches and the Christian society of the times. This is extremely well documented in the 2-volume set of books called “History of Zionism 1600 – 1918” by Nahum Sokolow published in London in 1919 with an Introduction by the Rt. Honorable A. J. Balfour, M.P.

    In the author’s introduction he goes to great pains to show how the idea of Zionism is in fact synonymous with Judaism and the Jewish people as an historic group and then attempts to show how over the past two thousand years of being homeless the Jewish people were able to retain their memory of life in Palestine and keep it alive throughout the centuries.

    What is interesting for those of us today who are witnessing the climax of this longstanding ideology is the fact that all the original founding ideas were presented in what is now known as classic Zionist double-talk and deception. Zionism was the great promise of the Jewish people to the world that they would, given a “spiritual homeland” within the Middle East, turn the deserts into gardens and provide a safe refuge for all those Jews who were still wondering the face of the Earth in search of a spiritual and moral footing.

    As Sokolow states at the end of his introduction:
    “Zionists can define only what they need. They need not only to continue their work, but to develop it on the largest possible scale. They want to do the peaceful work of agriculturists, craftsmen and intellectuals. They are ready to invest capital, energy and intelligence in order to establish a home for the Jews. Palestine is to be re-made. To this end national autonomy safeguarding the welfare of a Jewish Palestine is needed.

    “Let humanity do for Palestine only a small part of what has been don so liberally for the most exotic colony – nay, less than that, because Zionists ask for no material support [I’m sure the U.S. taxpayers can relate to this statement! JT], and for no embarrassing responsibility. They ask only for sympathetic consideration and help, for recognition and protection. And let humanity be sure of the loyalty of a people which, although sorely tried, has never grown cold in its affections, a people which by its resurrection will become again what it was in very ancient times, not a military power [!!!??? JT] but a spiritual and peaceful power. Then the time will come when this people’s gratitude will recognize the indebtedness to the world for the co-operation which will assist its great and just cause.”

  10. jon s said on April 9th, 2010 at 11:27pm #

    Just one example of the author’s falsifications : the quote from Albert Einstein. Einstein was a confirmed Socialist-Zionist. In the quote about the “manifestation of fascism ” he was referring to Begin’s Herut Party, not to Zionism or Israel as such.
    See here:

  11. Mulga Mumblebrain said on April 26th, 2010 at 2:34pm #

    Yes jon,but Herut and its other manifestations, the Irgun and Likud-Kadima, represent the authentic face of Zionism.That is a fascist movement of Jews determined to displace and remove, by any means, the indigenous inhabitants of ‘EretzYisrael’ and who are prepared to commit almost any crime to achieve their Messianic apartheid dream of a ‘Jewish state’ built over the ruins of Palestine. And that tendency,always powerful in Israel, is now totally ascendant. Einstein et al merely successfully,if tragically, understood the trajectory along which Jewish fascism and racism would take Israel.If Einstein was alive today I’m certain he would revile the fascist state that has emerged in Israel, and its apologists.