Zionism, Calvinism and the “Jewish national home” in Palestine into a “Jewish Commonwealth” (Theresa May the new Lord Protector?)
Document:Who is the Enemy?
| The desire for a ‘Jewish Homeland’ among the Jewish Diaspora is commonly understood to explain the origins of political Zionism in the mid-late 19th century; but that is only part of the story. This article is a brief introduction to the key role of the inheritors of Oliver Cromwell’s ‘Commonwealth’ in its realisation in the State of Israel by actively seeking to harness the Diaspora to their purposes. |
article by Thierry Meyssan dated 2014/08/04
Subjects: Zionism, Israel, Puritanism
Source: Voltaire Network (Link)
Translated from French by Roger Lagassé
Wikispooks Comment
The origins of political Zionism – commonly understood as arising in the mid-late 19th century – are not fully explained by the desire among the Jewish Diaspora for a ‘Jewish Homeland’. Rather it is the clear understanding of that desire by non-Jewish ruling elites (specifically of the Anglo-Saxon Puritan dissenting tradition originating with Oliver Crowell’s ‘Commonwealth’) and its potential for harnessing Jewish support to its purposes, that explains the incubus, turned chimera, turned monstrosity that the world is faced with in the early 21st century.
This article provides a brief but compelling introduction to the subject; compelling because it also explains the existence of that otherwise bizarre phenomenon known as ‘Christian-Zionism’ in the manner of the perfect fit of a particularly difficult jig-saw piece.
Contents
[hide]
Introduction
Everyone has an opinion to explain the massacres committed by the State of Israel in Gaza. While in the 70s and 80s, it was seen as a demonstration of Anglo-Saxon imperialism, many interpret it today as a conflict between Jews and Arabs. Reviewing the long period of history – four centuries -, Thierry Meyssan, a consultant to several governments, analyzes the origins of Zionism, its true ambitions and determines who the enemy is.
The war, which has continued uninterrupted for 66 years in Palestine, has taken a new turn with the Israeli operations named “Our Brother’s Keeper,” followed by “Steadfast Roc” (translated strangely in the Western press as “Protective Edge”).
Clearly, Tel Aviv – having chosen to instrumentalize the disappearance of three young Israelis in order to launch these operations and “uproot Hamas” to exploit Gaza gas, according to the plan set out in 2007 by the current Minister of Defence [1] – was overwhelmed by the reaction of the Resistance. Islamic Jihad responded by sending medium range rockets, very difficult to intercept, which are added to those launched by Hamas.
The violence of the events, having already cost the lives of more than 1,500 Palestinians and 62 Israelis (but Israeli figures are subject to military censorship and probably reduced), has raised a wave of protests around the world. In addition to its 15 members, the Security Council, which met on July 22, opened the floor to 40 other states that intended to express their outrage at the behavior of Tel Aviv and its “culture of impunity”. The session, instead of lasting the usual 2 hours, lasted 9 [2].
Symbolically, Bolivia declared Israel a “terrorist state” and repealed the agreement on free movement of which it was the object. But in general, statements of protest are not followed by military aid, with the exception of those of Iran and symbolically, Syria. Both support the Palestinian population through Islamic Jihad, the military wing of Hamas (but not its political wing, a member of the Muslim Brotherhood) and the PFLP-GC.
Unlike during precedents (operations “Cast Lead” in 2008 and “Column of Cloud” in 2012), the two states that protect Israel at the Council (the United States and the United Kingdom) have facilitated the development of a statement by the President of the Security Council highlighting Israel’s [3] humanitarian obligations. In fact, beyond the basic question of a conflict that has lasted since 1948, there is a consensus to condemn at least Israel’s disproportionate use of force.
However, this apparent consensus masks very different analyzes: some authors interpret the conflict as a religious war between Jews and Muslims; others see it as rather a political war in a classic colonial pattern. What are we to think?
What is Zionism?
In the middle of the seventeenth century, British Calvinists gathered around Oliver Cromwell and questioned the faith and the hierarchy of the regime. After overthrowing the Anglican monarchy, the “Lord Protector” presumed to allow the British people to achieve the moral purity necessary to weather a 7-year tribulation, welcome the return of Christ and live peacefully with him for 1000 years (the “Millennium”). To do this, according to his interpretation of the Bible, the Jews were to be scattered to the ends of the earth, then regrouped into Palestine to rebuild the temple of Solomon. On this basis, he established a Puritan regime, lifted the 1656 ban against Jews settling in England and announced that his country was committed to create the State of Israel in Palestine [4].
The Cromwell sect was in turn overthrown at the end of the “First English Civil War,” his supporters killed or exiled and the Anglican monarchy was restored. Zionism (that is to say, the proposed creation of a state for the Jews) was abandoned. It reappears in the eighteenth century with the “Second English Civil War” (according to UK school history textbooks), which the rest of the world knows as the “War of Independence of the United States” (1775 – 83). Contrary to popular belief, it was not undertaken on behalf of the Enlightenment ideal that animated a few years later the French Revolution, but funded by the King of France and conducted on religious grounds shouting “Our King is Jesus!”.
George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, to name a few, presented themselves as the successors of the exiled supporters of Oliver Cromwell. The United States logically resumed the Zionist project.
In 1868, in England, Queen Victoria appointed Jewish Benjamin Disraeli as Prime Minister,. He proposed to grant a share of democracy to the descendants of Cromwell supporters to be able to rely on all the people to extend the power of the Crown in the world. Above all, he proposed an alliance with the Jewish Diaspora to lead an imperialist policy of which it would be the avant-garde. In 1878, he put “the restoration of Israel” on the agenda of the Congress of Berlin in the new redivision of the world.
It is on this basis that the Zionist UK restored good relations with its former colonies become the United States at the end of the “Third English Civil War”, which is, in the United States, known as the “American Civil War” and in continental Europe as the “Civil War” (1861-1865) – which saw the victory of the successors of supporters of Cromwell, the WASP (White Anglo-Saxon Puritans) [5]. Again, it is quite wrong to present the conflict as a struggle against slavery while five northern states still practiced it.
Until nearly the end of the nineteenth century, Zionism is therefore exclusively a puritan Anglo-Saxon project to which only a Jewish elite adheres. It is strongly condemned by the rabbis who interpret the Torah as an allegory and not as a political plan.
Among the current consequences of these historical facts, we must admit that if Zionism aims at the creation of a state for the Jews, it is also the foundation of the United States. Therefore, the question of whether policy decisions are all made in Washington or Tel Aviv has only relative interest. It is the same ideology that is in power in both countries. Furthermore, Zionism having enabled the reconciliation between London and Washington, the challenge is to tackle this alliance, the most powerful one in the world.
Adherence of the Jewish People to Anglo-Saxon Zionism
In today’s official history, it is customary to ignore the seventeenth-nineteenth century period and present Theodor Herzl as the founder of Zionism. However, according to internal publications of the World Zionist Organization, this is also false.
The true founder of modern Zionism was not Jewish, but a Christian dispentionnaliste. Reverend William E. Blackstone was a U.S. preacher for whom true Christians would not have to participate in trials at the end of time. He taught that the latter would be taken to heaven during the final battle (the “rapture of the Church”, in English “the rapture”). In his view, the Jews would fight this battle and come out at the same time converted to Christ and victorious.
It is the theology of Reverend Blackstone which served as the basis for Washington’s unwavering support for the creation of Israel. And this long before AIPAC (the pro-Israel lobby) was created and took control of Congress. In reality, the power of the lobby derives not so much from its money and its ability to finance election campaigns as from this ideology still present in the USA [6].
The theology of rapture, stupid as it may seem today, is very powerful in the United States. It represents a phenomenon in libraries and the cinema (see the movie Left Behind, with Nicolas Cage, to be released in October).
Theodor Herzl was an admirer of diamond magnate Cecil Rhodes, British imperialism theorist and founder of South Africa, Rhodesia (to which he gave his name) and Zambia (formerly Northern Rhodesia). Herzl was not a religious Jew and had not circumcised his son. Atheist like many European bourgeois of his time, he advocated first to assimilate the Jews by converting them to Christianity. However, taking up the theory of Benjamin Disraeli, he came to the conclusion that the best solution was to engage them in British colonialism by creating a Jewish state in present day Uganda or Argentina. He followed the example of Rhodes in buying land and building the Jewish Agency.
Blackstone managed to convince Herzl to join the concerns of dispentionnalistes to those of colonialists. For this it sufficed to consider establishing Israel in Palestine and multiplying biblical references. Thanks to this simple idea, they recruited the majority of European Jews to their project. Today Herzl is buried in Israel (on Mount Herzl) and in his coffin the State has placed the annotated Bible that Blackstone had given him.
Zionism has thus never had the goal of “saving the Jewish people by giving them a home,” but the triumph of Anglo-Saxon imperialism by associating them with it. Furthermore, not only is Zionism not a product of Jewish culture, but the majority of Zionists has never been Jews, while the majority of Jewish Zionists are not religious Jews. Biblical references ubiquitous in Israeli public discourse, reflect only the thought of the believing part of the country and are primarily intended to convince the U.S. population.
The Anglo-Saxon pact for the creation of Israel in Palestine
The decision to create a Jewish state in Palestine was taken jointly by the British and U.S. governments. It was negotiated by the first Jewish Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, Louis Brandeis, under the auspices of Reverend Blackstone and was approved both by President Woodrow Wilson and Prime Minister David Lloyd George, in the wake of the Anglo-French Sykes-Picot Accord dividing up the “Middle East”. This agreement was gradually released to the public.
The future Secretary of State for the Colonies, Leo Amery, was tasked with managing the elders of the “Zion Mule Corps” to create, with two British agents Chaim Weizmann and Ze’ev Jabotinsky, the “Jewish Legion” within the British army.
The Foreign Minister, Lord Balfour, sent an open letter to Lord Walter Rothschild to commit to creating a “Jewish national home” in Palestine (November 2, 1917). President Wilson included among his official war goals (No.12 of the 14 points presented to Congress 8 January 1918) the creation of Israel [7].
Therefore, the decision to create Israel has nothing to do with the destruction of the European Jews which came two decades later, during the Second World War.
During the Paris Peace Conference, Emir Faisal (son of the Sharif of Mecca and later King of British Iraq) signed, on January 3, 1919, an agreement with the Zionist Organization, pledging the continued support for the Anglo Saxon decision.
The creation of the State of Israel, which was made against the people of Palestine, was therefore also made with the agreement of the Arab monarchs. In addition, at the time, the Sharif of Mecca, Hussein bin Ali, did not interpret the Koran as Hamas did. He did not think that “Muslim land cannot be ruled by non-Muslims.”
The legal establishment of the State of Israel
In May 1942, the Zionist organizations held their conference at the Biltmore Hotel in New York. The participants decided to transform the “Jewish national home” in Palestine into a “Jewish Commonwealth” (referring to Commonwealth by which Cromwell briefly replaced the British monarchy) and allow mass immigration of Jews to Palestine. In a secret document, three objectives were specified:
- The Jewish state would embrace the whole of Palestine and probably Transjordan;
- the displacement of Arabs in Iraq and
- the taking in hand by Jews of sectors of development and control of the economy throughout the Middle East.
Almost all participants were unaware that the “final solution of the Jewish question” (die Endlösung der Judenfrage) had just begun secretly in Europe.
Ultimately, while the British did not know how to satisfy both Jews and Arabs, the United Nations (which then had only 46 Member States) proposed a plan to partition Palestine based on the indications that the British had provided. A binational state would be created including a Jewish state, an Arab state and an area “under special international regime” to administer the holy places (Jerusalem and Bethlehem). This project was adopted by Resolution 181 of the General Assembly. [8]
Without waiting for the result of negotiations, the president of the Jewish Agency, David Ben Gurion unilaterally proclaimed the State of Israel immediately recognized by the United States. Arabs in Israeli territory were placed under martial law, their movements were restricted, their passports confiscated. Newly independent Arab countries intervened. But without having constituted armies , they were quickly defeated. During the war, Israel proceeded to ethnic cleansing and forced at least 700,000 Arabs to flee.
The UN sent a mediator, Count Folke Bernadotte, a Swedish diplomat who saved thousands of Jews during the war. He found that the demographic data provided by the UK authorities were false and demanded the full implementation of the Partition Plan for Palestine. However, Resolution 181 requires the return of 700 000 expelled Arabs, the creation of an Arab state and the internationalization of Jerusalem.
The UN special envoy was murdered, 17 September 1948, on the orders of the future Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir.
Furious, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted Resolution 194, which reaffirms the principles of Resolution 181 and, moreover, proclaims the inalienable right of the Palestinians to return to their homes and be compensated for the harm they have just undergone [9].
However, Israel, having arrested Bernadotte’s killers, tried and convicted them, was accepted into the UN on the promise to honor the resolutions. But it was all lies. Immediately thereafter, the killers were pardoned and the shooter became the personal bodyguard of Prime Minister David Ben Gurion.
Since its accession to the UN, Israel has continued to violate the resolutions that have accumulated in the General Assembly and the Security Council. Its organic links with two Board members with the right to veto place it outside of international law. It became an offshore State of the United States and the United Kingdom allowing them to feign respect for international law while violating it from this pseudo-state themselves.
It is absolutely wrong to think that the problem posed by Israel concerns only the Middle East. Today, Israel takes militarily action anywhere in the world poviding a cover for Anglo-Saxon imperialism. In Latin America, Israeli agents organized repression during the coup against Hugo Chavez (2002) or the overthrow of Manuel Zelaya (2009). In Africa, they were everywhere present during the war of the Great Lakes and organized the arrest of Muammar el-Qaddafi. In Asia, they led the assault and killing of Tamil Tigers (2009), etc.. Each time, London and Washington swear they are not involved. In addition, Israel controls many media and financial institutions (such as the US Federal Reserve).
The struggle against imperialism
Until the dissolution of the USSR, it was obvious to all that the Israeli issue sprung from the struggle against imperialism. Palestinians were supported by all the anti-imperialist world – up to the members of the Japanese Red Army, who came to fight alongside them.
Today, the globalization of the consumer society and the loss of values that ensued fostered a loss of consciousness of the colonial character of the Jewish state. Only Arabs and Muslims feel concerned. They show empathy for the plight of Palestinians, but ignore Israeli crimes in the world and do not respond to other imperialist crimes.
However, in 1979, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini explained to his Iranian faithful that Israel was a puppet in the hands of the imperialists and the only real enemy was the alliance of the United States and the United Kingdom. For stating this simple truth, Khomeini was caricatured in the West and Shiites presented as heretics in the East. Today Iran is the only country in the world to send massive amounts of weapons and advisers to help the Palestinian resistance, while the Zionist Arab regimes amiably debate via video conferences with the Israeli President during meetings of the Gulf Security Council [10].
References
- ↑ Extension of the Gas War to the Levant – by Thierry Meyssan, Translation Roger Lagassé, Al-Watan/Voltaire Network, 21 July 2014.
- ↑ Meeting of the Security Council on the Middle East and the Israeli offensive in Gaza – Voltaire Network, 22 July 2014.
- ↑ Statement by the President of the Security Council on Gaza – Voltaire Network, 28 July 2014.
- ↑ L’Effroyable imposture 2, Manipulations et désinformations – Sur l’histoire du sionisme, on se reportera au chapitre correspondant (« Israël et les Anglo-Saxons. Edition Alphée, 2007. Les lecteurs y trouveront de nombreuses références bibliographiques.
- ↑ The Cousins’ Wars : Religion, Politics, Civil Warfare and the Triumph of Anglo-America, by Kevin Phillips, Basic Books (1999).
- ↑ American Theocracy (2006) by Kevin Phillips.
- ↑ La formulation du point 12 est particulièrement sibylline. Ainsi, lors de la conférence de paix de Paris, en 1919, l’émir Fayçal l’évoqua pour revendiquer le droit des peuples anciennement sous le joug ottoman à disposer d’eux-mêmes. Il s’entendit répondre qu’il avait le choix entre une Syrie placée sous un ou sous plusieurs mandats. La délégation sioniste fit valoir que Wilson s’y était engagé à soutenir le Commonwealth juif à la grande surprise de la délégation états-unienne. En définitive, Wilson confirma par écrit qu’il fallait entendre le point 12 comme un engagement de Washington pour la création d’Israël et à la restauration de l’Arménie.
- ↑ Résolution 181 de l’Assemblée générale de l’Onu – Réseau Voltaire, 29 novembre 1947.
- ↑ Résolution 194 de l’Assemblée générale de l’ONU – Réseau Voltaire, 11 décembre 1948.
- ↑ Shimon Peres addressed Gulf Security Council, end November – Translation Alizée Ville, Voltaire Network, 5 December 2013
Some Books and Themes Informing a Cynical and not Timonist view of Neo-Liberal Fascism.
2 thoughts on “Zionism, Calvinism and the “Jewish national home” in Palestine into a “Jewish Commonwealth” Not safe for snowflakes. #OccupyTheEuropeanSpring”