U.S. Governments Were Not Always Subservient To Zionism

. . . Zionist plans for such an “assured” home were focussed on Britain when towards the end of the First World War it became apparent that as one of the Allied Powers, Britain, would end up in control of Palestine. The Zionist leaders then not only asked the British Government to make a declaration of support for their aims, but also proposed the draft which formed the basis for the now infamous Balfour Declaration.

Edwin Montagu — the only Jewish British Cabinet member, who strongly opposed Zionism — suggested that the “reconstitution of Palestine as the national home of the Jewish people” implied that Muslims and Christians were to make way for the Jews; that Jews would be put in all positions of preference; that the Muslims would be regarded as foreigners in Palestine; and that Jews would be treated as foreigners in every country except Palestine which was why he described Zionism as being anti-Semitic. Montagu’s views obviously influenced the final version of the Balfour Declaration which — by highlighting the rights of the non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine, and the rights of Jews outside Palestine — gave less support than had been hoped for by the Zionists:

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 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 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 sincerely,

Arthur James Balfour

The rights of the existing non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine were further recognised two years later in 1919 when U.S. President Woodrow Wilson dispatched the King-Crane Commission to areas of the former Ottoman Empire to seek opinions about their future governance. In the section concerning Palestine and Zionism the report explicitly stated the following:

“If the strict terms of the Balfour Statement are adhered to it can hardly be doubted that the extreme Zionist Program must be greatly modified. For a “national home for the Jewish people” is not equivalent to making Palestine into a Jewish State; nor can the erection of such a Jewish State be accomplished without the gravest trespass upon the “civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine.” The fact came out repeatedly in the Commission’s conference with Jewish representatives, that the Zionists looked forward to a practically complete dispossession of the present non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine, by various forms of purchase.

“The non-Jewish population of Palestine, nearly nine-tenths of the whole, are emphatically against the entire Zionist program. To subject a people so minded to unlimited Jewish immigration, and to steady financial and social pressure to surrender the land, would be a gross violation of the peoples’ rights. No British officer, consulted by the Commissioners, believed that the Zionist program could be carried out except by force of arms . . . Decisions, requiring armies to carry out, are sometimes necessary, but they are surely not gratuitously to be taken in the interests of a serious injustice. The initial claim, often submitted by Zionist representatives, that they have a “right” to Palestine, based on an occupation of two thousand years ago, can hardly be seriously considered.

“In view of all these considerations, and with a deep sense of sympathy for the Jewish cause, the Commissioners feel bound to recommend that only a greatly reduced Zionist program be attempted, and even that, only very gradually initiated. This would have to mean that Jewish immigration should be definitely limited, and that the project for making Palestine distinctly a Jewish commonwealth should be given up.”

Zionism with its usual disregard for anyone or anything that did not share and support its objectives, scornfully ignored such views while pursuing its fundamental policy — still assiduously pursued to this day — of aggressively promoting the concept of “return” so that for many Jews “next year in Jerusalem” became the mantra . . . fostered on the basis of a fallacious religious narrative and exploited by a Jewish population of whom — according to an Israeli study — 15 percent were atheists and 37 percent were agnostic. Therefore justification and support for a Jewish state stemmed not from belief in the Biblical narrative, but from an irreligious Zionist nationalism intent on displacing the Palestinian people and taking their land under the somewhat questionable pretext that the establishment of a Jewish state would guarantee prevention of a second Holocaust . . .

Excerpt from Hiramic Brotherhood: Ezekiel’s Temple Prophecy.

Featured Posts
Recent Posts
Search By Tags
Follow Us
  • Facebook Basic Square
  • Blogger App Icon
  • Twitter Basic Square