Friday, October 20, 2017

America and Zion

America's Great Game: The CIA’s Secret Arabists and the Shaping of the Modern Middle East, by Hugh Wilford.

Americans had ventured into the Arab world for many decades prior to the end of World War Two.  Much of this time, the interaction was driven by private means: missionaries, universities, archeologists, charitable organizations.  For those Americans exposed to this world, the overwhelming description that could be applied would be to label these as Arabists: understanding and appreciating both the Arab people and the Arab culture.

This was even true in the early years of official US government intervention in the region.  In many ways, it couldn’t be otherwise: the early “official” Americans – for example, the cousins Kim and Archie Roosevelt – were introduced into this Arab world by the Americans who were already there, those already sympathetic to the Arab people: the missionaries, university presidents archeologists, and leaders of charitable organizations.

So what changed?  This is to be explored next by Wilford.

The excuse began with communism.  President Truman formally announced the beginning of the Cold War in March 1947, announcing that the United States would provide aid to those countries threatened by communism.  With this came the Marshall plan, the establishment of a permanent civilian intelligence agency, and the National Security Act.  But the story begins earlier.

What about Palestine, Arabs, Jews and Zionists?  Historically the US stayed out of this issue, leaving it to Britain and their 1922 League of Nations mandate.  During this mandatory period: Jewish immigration, Arab revolts, Jewish terrorist acts…the tension was ever-increasing and the British appetite for continuing on – not to mention their financial wherewithal – was waning.

In the meantime, Zionists in America – supported by a faction of Christians who saw the creation of the state of Israel as bringing the world one step closer to their desired Armageddon – were making headway.  Newspaper advertisements, Jewish survivors from Europe, lobbying congress: a focused effort to gain support from the US government to the Zionist cause.

The Roosevelt administration was reluctant to support the Zionist cause.  This reluctance was based on the view of the Middle East experts in the State Department – they were primarily Arabists at the time; the entirety of American experience in the Middle East until this time was in support of and sympathetic to the Arabs.  Support for a Jewish state would turn the Arabs away from America, toward the communists. 

Further, many of the Jews that were lobbying for a Jewish state were socialists themselves – imagine…the US government supporting Zionist socialists in order to turn the Arabs into socialists in league with the Soviets! 

To say nothing of the oil: as one State Department analyst described the Saudi oil fields, “the greatest single prize in all of history.”  Lend-Lease dollars were flowing into Saudi Arabia after FDR declared the country of vital strategic importance in 1943.  And the king of this vitally strategic country had a strong opinion on the topic at hand:

…Ibn Saud was implacably opposed to Zionism and deeply suspicious of American intentions in Palestine.

The Saudis were secretly approached with development money to support the Jewish cause; he rejected the proposal “angrily, as an attempted bribe.”  (My, how times have changed.)

Harold Hoskins returned to Washington from his visit with Ibn Saud.  He offered his view to FDR…

…”that the establishment of a Jewish State in Palestine can only be imposed…[and] maintained by force” – in other words, that if the Zionists were to succeed, FDR would have to send American troops into the Middle East.

Need I review the history of American involvement in the intervening seventy-five years?

In February 1945, when returning from Yalta, Roosevelt hosted a reception for Ibn Saud on board the USS Quincy.  Even with Persian rugs strewn across the deck and all of Roosevelt’s personal charm, Roosevelt was unable to move the king from his anti-Zionism.  But in every other way, the meeting was a success – cementing the relationship between the two.

With FDR’s passing, Truman came to the White House with more sympathetic Zionist views. Truman found more of his support in the US from Jews as opposed to Arabs.

As congressional elections loomed in the fall of 1946, Truman chose the eve of Yom Kippur, October 4, to declare his public support for the notion of a Jewish state in Palestine, the first US president to do so.

This at the time when the situation in Palestine was deteriorating rapidly: Jewish terrorists went after British targets, hastening Britain’s decision to surrender authority to the United Nations and its ultimate withdrawal. 

The possibility of a partition was raised, supported by Zionists and opposed by the Arabs.  The CIA produced a paper on the matter – wrong in some aspects but quite prescient in many regarding the potential results of a partition: it would lead to prolonged armed hostilities between Jews and Arabs; it would seriously destabilize many parts of the Arab world; it would damage the previously good reputation of the United States in the region.

The report did not change minds.  The US supported the partition resolution in the United Nations; many prominent Arabists in the State Department resigned in protest, others were shunted off of the Arab desk into less meaningful or visible positions.

Their Ivy League skills and their exceptional knowledge of the region and the people did not help them; they learned a hard lesson:

The emotional power of Zionism in Holocaust-era America and the skill of the Zionist movement’s leadership in mobilizing the support of ordinary Americans were more than a match for these advantages.


The term Arabist was transformed: from a term identifying someone who was knowledgeable of and appreciative of Arab culture to someone who was…hold your breath…an anti-Semite.


  1. I'm a Dinner Jacket has made a great point: Why do the Palestinians suffer for the crime committed by the Germans? Why not a Jewish State in Europe or North America since the Palestinians did not commit the Holocaust?

    1. Let's assume the so called "Holocaust" was exactly what they claim and not grossly exaggerated war propaganda (see the work of Jim Rizzoli, Fred Leuchter, David Irving, and Ernst Zundel), wouldn't the argument be that the Jewish ethnostate should have been located in Germany, not "Europe" or "North America"? Why would a jewish ethnostate in Europe (outside of Germany) or North America be considered just but one in Palestine unjust? Does this actually make sense to you?

      Also are you implying that Germany has not been "punished" for the Second World War? See the book Hellstorm by Thomas Goodrich for an utterly harrowing account of what was done to the Germans in their defeat which included the rape of over 2 million German women by the "allies," as well as widespread torture, executions, and starvation death camps. In addition to the cruelties suffered in defeat is the ridiculous jewish demand that Germany in eternally indebted to Israel and must pay them billions every year in "reparations."

      Furthermore the "Shoah" was not the impetus for the Zionist project only its final justification. But what of that? Are the Jews "unsafe" in Europe today where they enjoy special privileges and can always go to Israel to escape punishment for crimes and the consequences of their policies? How about America? South America? If the "goyim" are so antisemitic why don't they all go to Israel?

      The whole thing is a scam for money and power. The chutzpah is astounding.

    2. I don't think Ahmadinejad disagrees with you. I believe he has specifically said Germany before but I couldn't find that quote. I think he has cast a wider net to demonstrate that there were many other options.

  2. I have previously written about this highly embarrassing, and therefore actively covered up, aspect of modern fundamentalism, namely, the movement's substitution of Jews for Christians as the victims of a supposedly future (but actually past) "Great Tribulation." Fundamentalists actively support the State of Israel, despite their belief that by doing so, they are helping to lure millions of Jews into a horrible death: "Holocaust II." They do so for a reason: they expect to escape death personally. This is a powerful incentive.


    1. Max - there is no tribulation. Revelations were fulfilled in 70 AD when God send his servant, Titus, to punish the Judea. Titus left no stone unturned, and fulfilled the prophesies.

    2. Matt: No, not all. Christ is hard yet to establish the New Jerusalem, Satan et al have yet to be fast into the lake of fire never to tempt the tempt/torment the saints, etc. Christ is yet to return and the now is not even purgatory.

  3. Arrrrgh. Maranatha Lord Jesus if for no other reason than to end my tablet disability.

    Matt: No, not all. Christ is yet to establish the New Jerusalem, Satan et al have yet to be sent into the lake of fire never to tempt/torment the saints, etc. Christ is yet to return and the now is not even purgatory.

  4. Christian fundamentalists

    Christian Zionism

    Dispensationalist beliefs about the fate of the Jews and the re-establishment of the Kingdom of Israel put them at the forefront of Christian Zionism, because they believe that he will restore the Jews, according to their understanding of Old Testament prophecy. They believe that the methodologies of God may change but his purposes to bless Israel will never be forgotten; he will show unmerited favor to a remnant of Israel, just as he has to the Church, in order to fulfill all the promises made to the genetic seed of Abraham.

    Dispensationalists typically endorse the modern state of Israel, consider its existence as a political entity as God revealing His will for the Last Days,

    Political analyst Richard Allen Greene has argued that dispensationalism has had a major influence on the foreign policy of the United States. This influence has included continued aid for the state of Israel.[31]
    Political commentator Kevin Phillips claimed in American Theocracy (2006) that dispensationalist and other fundamentalist Christians, together with the oil lobby, have provided political assistance for the invasion of Iraq during 2003.

    Christian fundamentalism began in the late 19th and early 20th centuries among British and American Protestants

    Christian right
    Dispensational fundamentalists viewed the 1948 establishment of the state of Israel as an important sign of the fulfillment of biblical prophecy, and support for Israel became the centerpiece of their approach to U.S. foreign policy.


    1. "Christian right
      Dispensational fundamentalists viewed the 1948 establishment of the state of Israel as an important sign of the fulfillment of biblical prophecy, and support for Israel became the centerpiece of their approach to U.S. foreign policy."

      Totally agree. It is my opinion that it is the delusion to befall the Church. Israel has become an idol.

  5. Christian Zionism is a belief among some Christians that the return of the Jews to the Holy Land, and the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, is in accordance with Biblical prophecy.

    The idea that Christians should actively support a Jewish return to the Land of Israel, along with the parallel idea that the Jews ought to be encouraged to become Christians as a means of fulfilling a Biblical prophecy, has been common in Protestant circles since the Reformation.

    Christian support for Jewish restoration was brought to America by the Puritans who fled England. In colonial times, Increase Mather and John Cotton, among many others, favored Jewish restoration.[10] Later Jonathan Edwards also anticipated a future return of Jews to their homeland.[15] However it was not until the early 19th century that the idea gathered political impetus.
    Ezra Stiles at Yale was a prominent supporter of Jewish restoration. In 1808, Asa McFarland, a Presbyterian, voiced the opinion of many that the fall of the Ottoman Empire was imminent and would bring about Jewish restoration.
    Many Christians believed that the return of the Jews to Judea, as prophesied in the Bible, was a necessary preliminary step towards the Second Coming. In this particular interpretation, after the Jews returned they would both accept Jesus as their savior and rebuild the Temple, which would usher in the Second Coming of Christ.
    The dispensationalist theology of John Nelson Darby which motivates one stream of American Christian Zionism is often claimed to be a significant awakener of American Christian Zionism.[citation needed] He first distinguished the hopes of the Jews and that of the church and gentiles in a series of 11 evening lectures in Geneva in 1840. His lectures were immediately published in French (L'Attente Actuelle de l'Eglise), English (1841), German and Dutch (1847) and so his teachings began their global journey.

    Examples of Protestant leaders combining political conservatism with Christian Zionism are Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, leading figures of the Christian Right in the 1980s and 1990s. Falwell said in 1981: "To stand against Israel is to stand against God. We believe that history and scripture prove that God deals with nations in relation to how they deal with Israel."


    Owyhee Cowboy

  7. Sensationalism is simply that God has dealt with the world, and with the descendants of Abram especifically, with distinct set of rules. Adamic, Nohadic, Mosaic and Christic.
    The term hyper-dispensation[alism] is used by some, me included, to refer to people that also try to shoehorn the pre-tribulation rapture, 7 year tribulation period, as literal event yet to happen before Christ's return.

    1. On for goodness sake. Dispensationalism not Sensationalism.