A thread listing @TuckerCarlson 's many LIES during his recent interview with globalist Jeffrey Sachs: 🧵
1.Israel is not the target US recipient of foreign aid. Tucker exaggerates the aid given to Israel and ignores the aid provided to U.S. allies that is buried in the defense budget .

https://x.com/Shoshana51728/status/1969183790376358306

@TuckerCarlson

https://x.com/Shoshana51728/status/1969612900688859465

The terms "illegal settlements" and "occupation " as applied to Judea and Samaria have NO legal precedent under international law. These terms are merely political terms , applied only to Israel , to provide a faux legal veneer to allow for the ethnic cleansing of all Jews from Judea and Samaria, as the British and the Arabs did in 1948.

https://x.com/Shoshana51728/status/1693639500956643748

In 1946 the Arabs BEGGED the British to end the Mandate and leave so the Arabs could destroy the Yishuv. The British obliged and even loaded the Arab armies up with weapons and added their own British colonial army , the Arab Legion, to the offensive against the Jews.

The Arabs/British lost. Again and again and again ... yet Eurotrash keeps giving the Arabs a 'do -over', hoping eventually to destroy the State of Israel.

"When we met again some time later, Crossman told me of his interview with Jamal el Husseini, who had insisted on the utter impossibility of any other way out of the conflict other than a Jewish-Arab war. He railed bitterly against the British, whose interference, he claimed, obstructed such a straight decision. Jamal firmly believed that the outcome would be an Arab victory and cited precedent as proving that many historic problems had been finally resolved by direct conflict.
I heard the same theory expressed in due course by another Arab leader, Abdul Rahman Azzam Pasha, sec-retary-general of the Arab League.This Arab craving for a solution by force of arms and a straight clash with the Jews, from which they hoped to emerge victorious and to destroy the Yishuv once for all, characterized every statement and submission they made. Jamal once said in private conversation: "Great historic conflicts are always settled by force of arms and weapons. Let us have the struggle and get it over with."" ~~'State in the Making' , David Horowitz

https://x.com/Shoshana51728/status/1893754713520349350

What a retard. "Decoupling from Israel."

So...no intelligence from Israel, no technology from Israel, no $30 billion spent a year by Israel to purchase US weapons , no Israel doing America's dirty work...

So many fucking retards.

https://twitter.com/Anc_Aesthetics/status/1968472195291594878

https://x.com/Shoshana51728/status/1909630531462992203

Palestinian Nidal Hasan served in the U.S. military . The United States taxpayers paid for his college education and his medical school education. He repaid the American people by MURDERING 13 American soldiers and seriously wounding thirty others when he went on a shooting rampage/massacre at Fort Hood . One of the women soldiers he murdered was pregnant.

The international community has known for DECADES that UNRWA is a terrorist organization whose sole purpose is to destroy the State of Israel...

"The spokesman for United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon quietly announced on the UN website that UNRWA employees have “in a number of cases” beeen subjected to disciplinary action, including suspension and loss of pay, following an investigation that verified evidence published by UN Watch — in one report last week, and another in September — of incitement to anti-Semitic violence committed by at least 22 UNRWA employees. UNRWA added that it “condemns and will not tolerate anti-Semitism or racism in any form.”
Curiously, UNRWA’s admission was made public only as a bracketed addition buried deep in a UN transcript, and not posted as a stand-alone statement by the UN, or indeed anywhere at all on the UNRWA website.
UN Watch welcomed the announcement, yet noted that “the UN statement hides more than it reveals,” said Hillel Neuer, executive director of the Geneva-based non-governmental monitoring group.
“We need to know, first, which of the UNRWA teachers identified in our reports were suspended, what were the findings, and whether the UN investigations found any additional incitement to anti-Semitic violence.”
“Second,” said Neuer, “In light of the above, UN Watch is demanding a full apology from UNRWA spokseman Chris Gunness for his McCarthyite tirade against what he called UN Watch’s ‘baseless allegations about antisemitism’.”

unwatch.org/un-very-regret…

https://x.com/Shoshana51728/status/1880448083189985514

I am going to tell you something which will make you understand why (until Trump took office) the U.S. Statement Department's policies on the Israel-'Palestinian' conflict have been SO wrong in general and why the U.S. State Department has done everything in its power to prop up Palinazi terrorists more specifically.

Beginning in 1957 , the U.S. State Department began training its MENA region Foreign Service officers (FSOs) through a program called the Middle East Area Program (MEAP) . This training took place in Beirut , Lebanon at the American University in Beirut, also known in the 1960s and 1970s as Guerrilla U due to the fact that it was infiltrated by Palestinian terrorists. The MEAP’s director, Dr. Ernest McCarus, forged close links to the American University of Beirut so that students could attend courses at the university and use its library. Language classes were conducted in the morning at the embassy and then the FSOs walked to the nearby AUB campus for afternoon area studies classes.

The Beirut school drew upon 'scholars' from America and the AUB. AsI said, AUB was known as Guerrilla U-- its undergraduates were drawn from across the Middle East,NO JEWS at the time, only Christian and Muslim students. Their politics reflected the increasingly militant, often leftist or Marxist, political viewpoint of the then PLO leaders.

AUB was also the cradle of anti Catholic , anti Zionist ( antisemitic) and anti Maronite nationalism.

Diplomats from the course quickly became the core staff in the State Department’s division of Near East and South Asian Affairs (NEA) and served in embassies across the Middle East. To add to the ridiculousness of this training scam, in the 1980s when Beirut became too dangerous for Americans because the PLO destroyed the country, the program followed the PLO and was relocated to Tunis along with Arafat. 🤪

On July 1, 1973, Israeli military attache Colonel Yosef Alon was murdered on his front yard in Chevy Chase Maryland. He worked in the Israeli embassy in Washington. The FBI claimed they had no idea who had committed the crime 🙄 despite the fact that the Palinazis claimed responsibility.

In fact, the FBI and the CIA covered up the fact that they knew the PLO was responsible for the murder of Colonel Alon. The CIA engaged in the cover up because at the time, CIA officer Robert Ames and CIA chief of Beirut station Frank Anderson were so busy sucking Ali Hassan Salameh's cock that they didn't want to upset their new friendship with the PLO. Just like the CIA covered up the PLO's murder of the two US diplomates in Khartoum on March 1, 1973, they covered up the murder of Alon on AMERICAN soil! Only a few months later, the CIA and the State Department wined and dined Arafat and Salameh in NYC at the Waldorf and the UN!

The CIA's and State Department's love affair with the Palinazis has brought nothing but death and destruction to thousands of Americans and Israelis! "The next briefing was on the assassination of Israeli air attaché to the U.S. Josef [sic] Alon in July 1973…. It was noted that information that came to our attention years after the assassination indicated that Fatah/ Black September was “probably” responsible for the murder, and that a two man hit team had entered the U.S. specifically to carry it out and had left immediately afterwards. “
August 4, 1978, CIA Memorandum for Michael Glennon and John Ritch, on the Staff of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, OLC: 78–2965, bullet point #4. According to the memo, the two staffers visited CIA headquarters for a series of briefings related to requests for information by the Subcommittee of International Operations. A fair amount of the memorandum has been redacted by the U.S. government; however, the portions relating to Colonel Alon are relatively intact.”

— Chasing Shadows: A Special Agent's Lifelong Hunt to Bring a Cold War Assassin to Justice by Fred Burton, John Bruning
a.co/hrLvMnT

From Caroline Glick's 2007 piece linked below.

I will post a detailed description on how and when the CIA and State Department came to embrace the PLO , Arafat and Ali Hassan Salameh later...

"Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Yasser Arafat was a master of the big lie. Since he invented global terrorism with the founding of the Fatah terror organization in 1959, Arafat successfully portrayed himself as a freedom fighter while introducing the world to passenger jet hijackings, schoolhouse massacres and embassy takeovers.

To cultivate the myth of his innocence Arafat ordered his Fatah terror cells to operate under pseudonyms. In the early 1970's he renamed several Fatah murder squads the Black September Organization while publicly claiming that they were "breakaway" units completely unrelated to Fatah or to himself.

In 2000, as he launched the current Palestinian jihad, he repeated the process by renaming Fatah terror cells the Aksa Martyr Brigades and then claiming that they were completely unrelated to Fatah or to himself. This fiction too, has been successful in spite of the fact that all Aksa Martyr Brigades terrorists are members of Fatah and most are members of Palestinian Authority official militias who receive their salaries, guns and marching orders from Fatah.

Last week, with the quiet release of a 33-year-old US State Department cable, a good chunk of the edifice of his great lie was destroyed. ON MARCH 1, 1973, eight Fatah terrorists, operating under the Black September banner stormed the Saudi Arabian Embassy in Khartoum, Sudan during a farewell party for the US Embassy's Charges d'Affaires George Curtis Moore. The terrorists took Moore, US ambassador Cleo Noel, Belgian Charges d'Affairs Guy Eid and two Arab diplomats hostage. They demanded that the US, Israel, Jordan and Germany release PLO and Baader-Meinhof Gang terrorists, including Robert F. Kennedy's Palestinian assassin Sirhan Sirhan and Black September commander Muhammed Awadh (Abu Daud), from prison in exchange for the hostages' release.

The next evening, the Palestinians brutally murdered Noel, Moore, and Eid. They released their other hostages on March 4.

Arafat denied any involvement in the attack. The US officially accepted his denial. Yet, as he later publicly revealed, James Welsh, who served at the time of the attack as an analyst at the National Security Agency, intercepted a communication from Arafat, then headquartered in Beirut to his terror agents in Khartoum ordering the attack.

In 1986, as evidence of Arafat's involvement in the operation became more widely known, more and more voices began calling for Arafat to be investigated for murder. As the New York Sun's online blog recalled last week, during that period, Britain's Sunday Times reported that 44 US senators sent a letter to then US attorney-general Edwin Meese, "urging the American government to charge the PLO chief with plotting the murders of two American diplomats in 1973."

The article went on to note that the Justice Department's interest in pursuing the matter was making senior State Department officials uneasy: "State Department diplomats, worried that murder charges against Arafat would anger the United States' friends in the Arab world, are urging the Justice Department to drop the investigation."

As late as 2002, in spite of President George W. Bush's pointed refusal to meet with Arafat, the State Department continued to protest his innocence. At the time, Scott Johnson, a Minneapolis attorney and one of the authors of the popular Powerlineblog weblog, inquired into the matter with the State Department's Near Eastern Affairs Bureau. In an emailed response from the bureau's deputy director of press affairs Gregory Sullivan, Johnson was told, "Evidence clearly points to the terrorist group Black September as having committed the assassinations of Amb. Noel and George Moore, and though Black September was a part of the Fatah movement, the linkage between Arafat and this group has never been established."[ THIS WAS A BLATANT LIE. ]

So it was that for 33 years, under seven consecutive presidential administrations, the State Department denied any knowledge of involvement by Arafat or Fatah in the execution of its own people.

Until last week. THE CABLE released by the State Department's historian states, "The Khartoum operation was planned and carried out with the full knowledge and personal approval of Yasir Arafat, Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization, (PLO), and the head of Fatah. Fatah representatives based in Khartoum participated in the attack, using a Fatah vehicle to transport the terrorists to the Saudi Arabian Embassy."

Although clearly skilled in the art of deception, Arafat could never have succeeded in creating and prolonging his fictions and with them, his crimes, without the cooperation of the US government and the media. In this vein, the release of the State Department cable raises two daunting questions. First, how is it possible that the belated admission of a massive 33 year cover-up of the murder of senior American diplomats spanning the course of seven consecutive presidential administrations has been ignored by the US media? A Google news search for Cleo Noel brought up but a handful of stories - none of which were reported by the major news networks or national newspapers. On the face of it, the released cable, which calls into question the very foundation of US Middle East policy for the past generation is simply stunning. The cable concludes, "The Khartoum operation again demonstrated the ability of the BSO to strike where least expected. The open participation of Fatah representatives in Khartoum in the attack provides further evidence of the Fatah/BSO relationship. The emergence of the United States as a primary fedayeen target indicates a serious threat of further incidents similar to that which occurred in Khartoum."

The media's silence on the issue does not merely raise red flags abut their objectivity. By not availing the American public to the knowledge that Fatah and the PLO have been specifically targeting Americans for 33 years, the media has denied the American people basic knowledge of the world in which they live. The media's abject refusal to cover the story raises an even more egregious aspect of the episode. Specifically, what does the fact that under seven consecutive administrations, the US government has covered up Arafat's direct responsibility for the murder of American diplomats while placing both Arafat and Fatah at the center of its Middle East policy, say about the basic rationale of US policy towards Israel and the Palestinians? What would US Middle East policy looked like, and what would have been the results for US, and international security as a whole, if rather than advancing a policy that made Arafat the most frequent foreign visitor to the White House during the Clinton administration, the US had demanded his extradition and tried him for murder? How many lives would have been saved if the US had not been intent on upholding Arafat's big lie? How would such a US policy have impacted the subsequent development of sister terror organizations like Hizbullah, al-Qaida and Hamas, all of which were founded by members of Arafat's terror industry?

Sadly, the release of the cable did not in any way signal a change in the US policy of whitewashing Fatah. In contravention of US law, for the past 13 years, the State Department has been denying that Fatah, the PLO and the Palestinian Authority are terrorist organizations, and has been actively funding them with US taxpayer dollars. This policy went on, unchanged even after Fatah gunmen murdered three US embassy employees in Gaza in October 2003.

This policy continues, unchanged still today, as Fatah's current leader, Arafat's deputy of 40 years Mahmoud Abbas works to form a unity government with Hamas. Indeed, the central component of the US's policy towards the Palestinians today is the goal of strengthening Fatah by arming, training and funding its Force 17 terror militia.

In a November 14, 2006 interview on Palestinian television, Ahmed Hales Abu Maher who serves as Secretary of Fatah in Gaza, bragged of Fatah's role in the development of international terrorism. In his words, reported by Palestinian Media Watch, "Oh warrior brothers, this is a nation that will never be broken, it is a revolution that will never be defeated. This is a nation that gives an example every day that is imitated across the world. We gave the world the children of the RPG [Rocket Propelled Grenades], we gave the world the children stone [-throwers], and we gave the world the male and female Martyrdom-Seekers [suicide bombers]."

Imagine what the world would have looked like if, rather than clinging to Arafat's big lie that he and his Fatah terror organization were central components of Middle East peace, the US had captured and tried Arafat for murdering its diplomats and worked steadily to destroy Fatah. Imagine how our future would look if rather than stealthily admitting the truth, while trusting the media not to take notice, the US government were to base its current policies on the truth, and the media were to reveal this truth to the world."

jpost.com/opinion/column… "The Khartoum operation was planned and carried out with the full knowledge and personal approval of Yasir Arafat, Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), and the head of Fatah. Fatah representatives based in Khartoum participated in the attack, using a Fatah vehicle to transport the terrorists to the Saudi Arabian Embassy.
Initially, the main objective of the attack appeared to be to secure the release of Fatah/BSO leader Muhammed Awadh Abu Da'ud) from Jordanian captivity. Information acquired subsequently reveals that the Fatah/BSO leaders did not expect Awadh to be freed, and indicates that one of the primary goals of the operation was to strike at the United States because of its efforts to achieve a Middle East peace settlement which many Arabs believe would be inimical to Palestinian interests.
Negotiations with the BSO terrorist team were conducted primarily by the Sudanese Ministers of Interior and of Health. No effort was spared, within the capabilities of the Sudanese Government, to secure the freedom of the hostages. The ter- rorists extended their deadlines three times, but when they became convinced that their demands would not be met and after they reportedly had received orders from Fatah headquarters in Beirut, they killed the two United States officials and the Belgian Charge. Thirty-four hours later, upon receipt of orders from Yasir Arafat in Beirut to surrender, the terrorists released their other hostages unharmed and surren- dered to Sudanese authorities.
The Khartoum operation again demonstrated the ability of the BSO to strike were least expected. The open participa- tion of Fatah representatives in Khartoum in the attack pro- vides further evidence of the Fatah/BSO relationship. The emergence of the United States as a primary fedayeen target indicates a serious threat of further incidents similar to that which occurred in Khartoum."

2001-2009.state.gov/documents/orga…

This!!!

I routinely ask PaliNazi fellow travelers who claim Israel is illegitimate if they think Jordan or any other state created under the Mandate system is illegitimate. They never have an answer. Jordan is the most contrived, British colonial, faux state in the MENA region yet NO ONE seems to have an issue with Jordan. I wonder why...🙄

"In today’s political climate, no country faces more existential scrutiny than Israel. News outlets, social media commentators, and international organizations repeatedly question its legitimacy. But here’s the paradox: No one seems to ask whether Jordan has the right to exist, even though both Israel and Jordan were born from the same colonial mandate.

So why the double standard?

The uncomfortable answer is a toxic mix of modern antisemitism, historical revisionism, and global hypocrisy.

The British Mandate for Palestine, established after World War I, covered an area that included present-day Israel, Jordan, and the Palestinian territories. The land had been part of the Ottoman Empire for centuries before the British took control.

Here’s the relevant history:

In 1922, Britain arbitrarily cut off 78% of the Mandate to create Transjordan, today’s Jordan, installing the Hashemite monarchy.

In 1946, Jordan gained full independence with minimal resistance or international drama.

But when Israel declared independence in 1948, it was instantly attacked by five Arab nations and plunged into decades of conflict and global condemnation.

No one called Jordan’s birth a catastrophe. But Israel’s creation sparked endless accusations, wars, and a global campaign to undermine its legitimacy.

There are 22 Arab states, and approximately 50 Muslim-majority countries. There are countless Christian nations. No one disputes their right to exist based on religious or cultural identity.

But Israel? The only Jewish state in the world? That’s “controversial.”"

algemeiner.com/2025/08/20/why…

https://x.com/Shoshana51728/status/1893038269073420703

Long thread on the history of the U.S. -Israel alliance.

I find it hilarious that people claim the U.S. is ‘owned by Israel.’ In reality , nothing could be further from the truth. Let’s take a look at the U.S.’s Middle Eastern policies beginning in 1947, shall we?

In December of 1947 the U.S. imposed an arms embargo on the Yishuv. At the same time, the British and the French were flooding the Arabs and the surrounding Arab states with arms.

In April of 1948, Congressman Celler wrote the following in an excoriating letter to the US State Department, denouncing the arms embargo as emboldening the Arabs who were being amply supplied by the British and the French. The letter had no effect :

“ You equalize the blame in view of the evidence that it is the Jews who have been placed in the position of self-defense and who have at the same time amply demonstrated their ability for self-government. Why is that distinction not made by the Department of State when that distinction is clearly set forth by the report of the Palestine Commission to the Security Council? Whose purpose is the arms embargo really serving? It is a fact that Great Britain and France are sending arms to aggressive Arab states under the cover of “contractual obligations”. France recently shipped seven million dollars’ worth of arms to Syria. The British have maintained a strong blockade around the coast to prevent any shipment of arms to Palestine Jews while carrying out their “contractual obligations” to the Arabs. How is self-control among the Arabs strengthened when it is common knowledge that the arms embargo has encouraged them in their intransigency? ”

In March of 1948, despite initially voting in favor of UNGA Resolution 181 to partition Mandatory Palestine, the U.S. changed course and announced that it would NOT attempt to enforce the partition resolution .

Again, while the Arabs were being flooded with arms and already had standing state armies that were created, trained, supplied and commanded by the British and the French, the United States continued to maintain the arms embargo placed on the Jews knowing that if the Jews were able to survive the civil war started by the Arabs in December 1947, the nascent State of Israel would be invaded by the surrounding Arab states, including the British colonial army, the Jordanian Arab Legion.

In the Spring of 1948 the U.S. arms embargo on the Jews continued and a United Nations arms embargo was also placed on the Jews . The Arabs maintained their flow of incoming weapons from the French , the British and others.

When Israel declared independence in May of 1948, the U.S. granted the state de facto recognition , NOT de jure recognition. De facto recognition was symbolic and given because the Soviet Union planned to grant both de facto and de jure recognition to Israel and the U.S. did not want to be perceived as unsupportive of the United Nations which had recognized the Jews’ right to a state in 1947 ( despite the non-binding effect of said resolution).

Throughout the 1948-1949 war, the United States worked with Great Britain during each ceasefire period to attempt to force the Jews to accept as small a state as possible.

The United States continued to reject all pleas from the Jews to lift the arms embargo as well as pleas for economic assistance.

The U.S. arms embargo on the State of Israel remained in effect as to offensive weapons until AFTER the Six Day War.

Between 1948 and 1974, the only economic assistance Israel received from the U.S. government was in the form of LOANS ( all of which were repaid) ,loan guarantees and excess food stuffs. At the same time, the U.S. flooded the Arab states, especially Egypt and Saudi Arabia, with HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS and weapons. This despite the fact that the Arab states were also receiving weapons and aid from the Soviet Union/and or Britain and France.

What was the U.S. doing policywise during the 1950s? Despite Egypt having decided to ally with the Soviet Union, the U.S. continued to flood the Egyptians with weapons and hundreds of millions of dollars. In 1956-57 Israel was forced by the United States to retreat from the Sinai without receiving anything in return. The U.S. handed the Egyptians and the Soviet Union a HUGE win at Israel’s expense.

The United States made several attempts at forming defense pacts with various Arab states (including Iraq, Jordan and Egypt) , none of which of course included Israel. The United States had already guaranteed the defense of Saudi Arabia.

Despite Ben Gurion’s pleas, the United States refused to even consider including Israel in any proposed defense pact or treaty. This U.S. refusal and hostile posture was the impetus for Ben Gurion to decide that Israel absolutely needed nuclear weapons.

Throughout the 1960s the U.S. continued to pressure Israel to give up ‘land for peace’ ( which the Arabs of course had no interest in ) .

To be continued…you do not want to miss out! 1960s:

During the fall and winter of 1962, Kennedy decided to increase U.S. economic assistance to Egypt. In fact, during his administration’s three years, the U.S. would provide roughly $ 500 million in economic assistance. There were those in the administration—in the State Department and the White House—who wanted not only to expand our economic support for Nasser but also to cement it. Again, throughout this period Egypt was receiving hundreds of millions of dollars in weapons from the Soviet Union.

At the same time, Saudi King Faisal wanted and received new American commitments toward Saudi security, additional provision of arms and declarations of backing for the kingdom. Kennedy promised to accelerate F-5A aircraft deliveries and naval visits to Saudi ports to demonstrate U.S. support.

During this period Egypt was in a proxy war with Saudi Arabia in Yemen. Israel assisted Saudi Arabia while the Egyptians gassed civilians in Yemen. Israel was the first to report to the U.S. the fact that Egypt was gassing civilians in Yemen

In 1964 the Israelis tried purchase tanks from the U.S. The U.S. refused stating that “selling tanks to Israel would arouse Arab suspicions of a pro-Israel bias and spur anti-American actions in every Arab state, including the “harassment of US diplomatic establishments and of oil companies.””
A scheme was created whereby Israel would purchase used U.S.tanks from Germany instead however the Germans reneged as soon as the plan became public.

Israel got nothing from the U.S. except pressure to take in Arab refugees ( event hough Israel had taken in 800,000 Jewish refugees that Arabs had ethnically cleansed from their shitty countries).

Despite receiving no U.S. support, Israel continued to kick Arab and Soviet ass, shooting down Soviet made MIGS flown by Arabs from Syria.

In 1967 UNEF ( the peacekeeping force in the Sinai) withdrew at the demand of Nasser and the Egyptian forces occupied Sharm el-Sheikh and blockaded the straits. The combination of Egypt sending six divisions into the Sinai and blockading the straits completely reversed the outcome of the 1956 war. Israel was now facing a massive Egyptian military force on its border without the blocking presence of the UNEF. Its port of Eilat was cut off from the world.

‘Despite the U.S. having ‘assured’ Israel in 1957 that it would prevent a future blockade by the Egyptians of the straits, once again the U.S. took NO ACTION to help Israel and allowed the Egyptians to continue its blockade. The result was the Six Day War and the Israelis AGAIN kicking the Arabs’ asses despite having ZERO support from the U.S. or any other country for that matter.

After the Six Day War, France put an end to all future arms sales to Israel and the U.S. continued to its arms embargo on Israel.

To be continued...

The person who all the groypers quote to 'prove' their claim that Robert Maxwell was a Mossad agent is serial liar Ari Ben-Menashe. There is no proof that Maxwell was a Mossad agent. 🙄 But there is a ton of proof that Ari Ben-Menshe is a compulsive liar.

Just a few of Ari Ben -Menashe's lies:

1. Lied about the "October surprise" and was totally discredited by multiple congressional committees and reports.

2. Lied about being Mossad agent --he was a translator for a government agency and the IDF.

3. Lied about being the person who found whistle blower Vanunu.

4. Lied about meeting George Bush.

5. Lied about being the person who tipped off the press about Iran Contra.The tip actually came from Rafsanjani's enemies-two former aides of the Ayatollah Hussein Ali Montazeri, a well-known conservative cleric. Their aim was to thwart Iranian moderates' secret dealings with the United States.

6. Lied about working for Yitzhak Shamir.

7.Lied about Iran giving Israel a sheet of Chobham.

8.Lied about providing Israel with information in 1978 that the Shah would fall.The Israeli ambassador to Iran at the time provided the analysis.

9. Lied about Israel flying all of Iran's F-14 out of the country after the 1979 revolution. Never happened.

10. Lied about knowing Dennis Rohan, the Australian Christian who set fire to Al-Aqsa . Also lied about the 'lack of a trial' for Rohan and that the JDL was involved with Rohan. Rohan had a very well known and public trial. 🤣

11. Lied about selling 80 billion dollars worth of arms to Iran.

12. Lied about knowing Viktor Chebrikov.

13. Lied about Robert McFarlane being a Mossad asset.

I could go on and on.

Maxwell had filed a libel suit against Ari Ben -Menashe before he died.

Newsweek and ABC television investigated Ben-Menshe and both found him to be a total fraud:

"Among the news organisations that have checked out his (Ari Ben -Menshe) claims is the American magazine Newsweek, which said last week it had obtained convincing denials that he had “positions of influence” in Israeli intelligence.

Newsweek believes there is only evidence that he was a Farsi translator who lost his job because of repeated absences on private trips abroad.

Researchers from the American ABC television network went so far as to put Ben-Menashe on a lie- detector machine, “We put him in a New York hotel for two days with one of the best lie-detector experts in America,” said Christopher Isham, a producer in charge or ABCs investigations unit.

The results were astonishingly consistent: on a scale of unreliability from hero to minus eight, “on every major question Ben Menashe recorded either minus eight or minus seven — showing he was clearly trying to deceive us”

“The biggest negative reading came when we asked him if he had been telling us the truth for the previous two months. It nearly went off the scale.”"

newsweek.com/one-man-many-t…

peterhounam.com/mirrorgate-spi… timesofisrael.com/how-an-austral…

For all the newbies out there, let me explain how 'Palestine' works. Palestine lies. Always.

In 1991, the University of South Florida hired a guy named Ramadan Shallah. Ramadan was born in Gaza and had an Egyptian passport.

Several years prior to 1991, a few 'Palestinians' set up a cell--they didn't call it a terrorist cell of course but that is exactly what it was--they called it the ' World and Islam Studies Enterprise.' How fun!
One of the founders of the cell was also a University of South Florida visiting professor , Khalil Shiqaqi. Khalil was the brother of the founder of Islamic Jihad. Nothing to see folks!

Another member of the cell was a Kuwaiti born 'Palestinian ' who also taught at the University of South Florida, Sami al-Arian.

Ramadan Shallah was brought into the cell by Arian and Shiqaqi as a volunteer for the World and Islam Studies Enterprise.

Arian then pushed the University of South Florida to hire Ramadan Shallah. A retired US foreign service member, Arthur Lowrie, who also worked at the University of South Florida , jumped at the chance to hire a bunch of Jew hating Arabs to run the school's Middle Eastern studies program. How authentic they all thought! Hurray!!!

Everyone at the university thought Shallah was such a lovely guy... no one cared that he erased Israel from the map and was teaching Middle Eastern studies at a university without any reference to Israel. No one cared that he was radicalizing students against Jews and Israel...he was so "soft spoken' they all said. 🙄

Fast forward three years ---good old Ramadan Shallah was named the new leader of Islamic Jihad!

Al Arian plead guilty to aiding to providing support to Islamic Jihad, a US designated terrorist organization and was eventually deported to Turkey. His disgusting wife was seen in the pro Hamas encampments at Columbia.

PaliNazis have been infiltrating the US for many decades. They abuse the freedoms the US provides for its citizens and seek to destroy the US from within. They are aided by anti American Arabists who , since the 1940s, have created a permanent bureaucracy within the US State Department. From a NYTs article about good old Ramadan Shallah...

PaliNazis and friends aren't going to like it when I report on this new, old book...🤣 650,000 non- Jews max lived (during the two years prior to the 1947-1949 war started by the Arabs ) in what became Israel per 1949 armistice lines. Subtract from that number the 156,000 non-Jews who remained in Israel after the war and we arrive at a figure of 494,000 which represents the true maximum possible number of Arab refugees created by the war started by the Arabs in December 1947.

Of that 494,000 , 248,000 went to Jordan and were given citizenship and thus cannot be considered refugees.  494,000 minus 248,000 is 246,000.

Subtract from 246,000 another 3,000 who were settled in Iraq and the total maximum number of actual possible Arab refugees was 243,000. In reality, even many of those Arabs weren't really refugees as the wealthy Arabs were among the first to flee in 1947, early 1948 and were self sustaining.

Boo fucking hoo-- a maximum of 243,000 Arabs became refugees and had to move a mere 15-20 miles north /east/south because of a war of annihilation that they started.

The nakba narrative , in fact , the entire 'Palestinian' victimhood narrative is a fucking scam!

You can't hate the British government enough. The British government has always been a cesspool of Jew hate.🧵

Immediately after being awarded the Mandate of Palestine, the British government began to violate its terms, first by lopping off 78% of the territory promised for Jewish immigration and land purchase, and handing it over to a an Arab colonizer from the Hejaz (the Hashemite clan), next by unlawfully limiting Jewish immigration and land purchase , next by systematically murdering Jews in an effort to destroy the Yishuv and finally by arming , training , leading and supporting its colonial army , the Arab Legion, which mass attacked and murdered Jews both prior to the end of the Mandate and after ( along with themArab invasion by British other proxy armies of the Arab League).

The following contemporaneously reported news articles are a small sampling of the filthy , disgusting atrocities the British perpetuated against the Jews.

"The mass meeting was not a mere storm of protest. A definite program for future activity was outlined by Mr. Warburg, whose resignation as head of the Jewish Agency last week was a gesture of non-confidence in the present British government. Mr. Warburg indicated that the Zionists will press a campaign to have Transjordania, a vast, fertile country and a part of Palestine now practically an unpopulated wasteland, opened for settlement either to Arabs or Jews. The Transjordania argument, he pointed out, takes from Great Britain any excuse that Palestine is over-crowded.

Besides the emphasis of this all-important program for new Zionist activity, the speakers devoted themselves to analysis of the Passfield White Paper, proving that legally, logically, and from every other point of view it was unsound .

jta.org/archive/50000-… "The Haganah reported that a new incident with the Arab Legion was narrowly averted today near Latrun, thanks to the illegal presence in the Jewish convoy of a gun mounted on the cab of one of the vehicles and manned by Jewish settlement police. According to the account, two Arab Legion trucks caught up with and passed the Jewish convoy on the road, then stopped. The Arabs deployed to the sides of the road then trained their rifles at the encoming vehicles. As the truck approached, the Arabs saw the machinegun trained on them and lowered their rifles.
One of the Jews wounded in the Arab Legion attack on a convoy at Beth Naballah on Sunday, today described the incident to a Jewish Telegraphic Agency correspondent. “As our convoy approached the Arab Legion camp at Beth Naballah, we saw 40 Arabs attacking Jewish trucks."

“I found myself lying under several dead comrades, and heard the Arabs yell : ‘Slaughter the Jews.’ Our driver, though wounded, miraculously regained control of the pick-up and speeded to a neighboring British camp . All the while we were pursued by the Legionnaires–to the the British camp where they were halted by a British sergeant who fired his revolver into the air. However, the Arab bullets wounded the sergeant and the Legionairres retreated only after British reinforcements arrived.”
jta.org/archive/settle…

New old book...so many fascinating observations by Colonel Richard Meinertzhagen who was a British soldier, intelligence officer stationed in and around Mandatory Palestine before and during the mandate era. "I am sure the Arabs will accept anything from the Peace Conference but would never accept a Jewish Sovereign State imposed by Great Britain in say five years' time. There are vast anti-semitic forces at work even now in London and elsewhere but they are as yet incoherent and powerless to intervene in Paris. In five years' time they will be in a position to deny to the Jews their rights ."

The Colonel was spot on! The Jews should have listened to him!

Contemporaneous correspondence prepared for the AJC in May, 1948, confirmed that the British colonial army , the Arab Legion, was placed in Jewish areas long before May , 1948 and remained there to fight the Jews.

The 1948 War of Independence must be understood as a war against Britain!

"The most blatant, however, of all examples of partiality in this matter is the handing over of several camps to the Arab Legion, king Abdullah's army of 15,000 men, under British command.

The Legion has for months been an active brother-in-arms of the Syrian and Iraqi infiltrees, and is responsible for the loss of many lives.

All this has been going on, not only with British knowledge, but under British command: The fact that the Legion is now being put by the British in place of their own troops means in fact that the British are putting Arab attacking forces in commanding positions to hold the places for the Arabs.
Latest news that Britain is returning the Legion to Trans-jordan appear untrue, and are discredited. The Legion was sent here last year to stay, just for this purpose." The British did everything in their power to try to ensure that the Jews were unable to arm themselves, hoping the British colonial army, the Arab Legion and the Arab League armies would destroy the Jewish state!

"Circles responsible for defense explained that it was impossible to bring in heavy equipment before the end of the Mandate, because the British kept a close naval blockade and had supervision on all Jewish actions.
Even on May 14 a British naval vessel entered Tel-Aviv port and searched foreign boats for arms!!"

How did the civil war begin in British Mandatory Palestine?

"Arab attacks on Jews in Palestine began on November 30, the day after the partition vote. On that day, a Jewish ambulance en route to the Hadassah Hospital outside Jerusalem came under fire, a group of Arabs ambushed a Jewish bus traveling from Netanya to Jerusalem, killing five and wounding seven, and attacked another Jewish bus en route to Jerusalem from Hadera, killing two

. A Jewish person was murdered in Tel-Aviv’s Camel Market; in the prison at Acre, Arab prisoners attacked Jewish ones, who were forced to barricade themselves in their cells before the British intervened; in Haifa Jews passing through Arab neighborhoods were shot at, and Jewish vehicles were stoned all over Palestine. Over the next several days there were shootings, stonings, and rioting, bombs tossed into cafes, Molotov cocktails thrown into shops, killing and maiming scores.

In Jerusalem, young Arabs commandeered the offices of the local national committees demanding weapons, and the AHC proclaimed a three day strike to begin the next day, enforcing closure of Arab shops, schools, and businesses and organized and incited Arab crowds to attack Jewish targets. On December 2, a mob of several hundred Arabs ransacked Jerusalem’s Jewish commercial center, looting, burning, stabbing, and stoning all before them.

Arab violence in response to the partition was hardly limited to Palestine; violence literally exploded in all the Arab capitals, with thousands taking to the streets chanting anti-Jewish and anti-Western slogans. There were also physical attacks on British and American legations, so much so that the British government had to make arrangements to evacuate British citizens from Syria. In Cairo, the ‘ulema of Al-Azhar University (one of Islam’s supreme authorities) proclaimed a “worldwide jihad in defense of Arab Palestine.” Earlier, on November 2, 1947 the ‘ulema had  issued a fatwa pertaining to “the Jews,” condemning anyone consorting or dealing with Jews (“buying their produce”) as “a sinner and criminal…who will be regarded as an apostate to Islam, he will be separated from his spouse. It is prohibited to be in contact with him.”

Up until December 4, most of the Arab violence was scattershot and the result of intifada-like incited mayhem. It was on December 4, however, that the real Palestinian Arab assault began in earnest, when some 120-150 armed Arabs attacked the Efal kibbutz outside Tel-Aviv, the first small unit military attack on a Jewish settlement. The settlers were reinforced by a Palmach platoon, and the Arabs, after several costly frontal assaults, withdrew, leaving about 70 dead behind.

On December 8 Hasan Salame, the Palestinian militia commander of the Lydda front, launched another large-scale attack on the Hatikva quarter in south Tel-Aviv. Like the Romans sallying off to defeat Hannibal at Trebia in 218 b.c., Salame’s fighters had set off to Hatikva with a full detail of bags, sacks, and other luggage for the spoils and booty they expected to reap after their victory, and their womenfolk had journeyed along to encourage them on. In the melee that ensued, Salame’s fighters drove back the Haganah a bit, and even captured a few houses, promptly looting them and then putting them to the torch—a grim foretaste as to what would have happened had the Quarter fallen to them. Only when Haganah reinforcements arrived (by circuitously infiltrating British patrols) were the Arabs beat back, and put to flight, leaving sixty dead behind them. Alas, for Salame’s fighters, as with the Romans, there was no victory to be had.

Two days later there was another abortive assault on the Hatikva, and an armed assault on the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem. All these platoon and company-sized attacks were repulsed, but they set the pattern for the conflict, which was evolving from mob rioting and armed clashes to more military/guerilla style small unit operations. It was not until December 9 that the Haganah’s head of operations, Yigael Yadin began responding in kind to consolidate and protect crucial Jewish transportation arteries, and on December 14, Arab forces attacked a major convoy to Ben-Shemen. The war had begun, and the Arabs were attacking the Yishuv, not the other way around. At the Arab league summit in Cairo, it was decided to send one million Egyptian pounds and 10,000 rifles to the Palestinian war effort.

The small-scale violence of the first several days were incited and encouraged by Arab leaders both inside and outside of Palestine, and the military attacks on the settlements were launched by company-sized Arab and Palestinian militias. Throughout December and January the military attacks on the roadways and settlements continued to escalate in scale, frequency, intensity, and sophistication."

blogs.timesofisrael.com/the-day-the-wa… "Arab sources said Sheikh Hassan Salameh, noterious pro-Nazi leader who was parachuted into Palestine during the war and was captured and subsequently escaped from the British, is now back in Jaffa leading the attacks on Tel Aviv. Dispatches from Cairo disclosing that the ex-Mufti has returned there from Lebanon are arousing fears here who believe that he will shortly arrive in Palestine."

jta.org/archive/police…

Ostensibly the Arab Legion was the Jordanian army. In reality, it was a British created, British trained, British commanded and British armed and supported colonial army that the British used as a means off attempting to destroy the Yishuv after WW2 and failing that , attack Israel in an effort to force Israel to reduce the territory it controlled to a rump state.

In violation of the terms of the Mandate which required Britain to prevent the entry of foreign armies into the territory, the British used the Arab Legion to attack Jewish convoys, towns and kibbutzim.

In December 1947, the Arab Legion murdered 14 Jews and wounded countless others. These attacks continued throughout the beginning of 1948 ( see below).

The Jewish Agency sent a letter to the UN Palestine Committee but of course, nothing was done to stop the British and their colonial army from attacking the Jews ( see below).

From May 4-May 14, right before the end of the Mandate, the Arab Legion attacked the Etzion Bloc (Gush Etzion), a cluster of Jewish villages north of the Biblical town of Hebron.

The British were MANDATED to protect the Jewish community per the terms of the Mandate yet instead it destroyed the Etzion Bloc and murdered and expelled all their inhabitants.

A Red Cross mission had come to the Bloc on the evening of 13 May in the middle of the attack on Kfar Etzion, but the Arab Legion refused to let it intervene in the fighting or even to take out the wounded.
Only on the afternoon of 14 May, after the defeat of Kfar Etzion, did the Arab Legion allow the Red Cross to participate in the surrender of the other Jewish villages. By the evening, Revadim, Massuot Yitzhak and Ein Tzurim had surrendered. The battle ended with 233 Jews killed, including 127 massacred, and the surrender of 320 men and women.

Glubb Pasha planned and coordinated the attack so any claim by the British of a lack of knowledge or involvement was total bullshit un.org/unispal/docume…

Below is the text of a speech given by a British parliamentary member named Mr. Davis in January 1949 that was delivered during a debate in parliament over whether Britain should recognize the state of Israel.

Mr. Davis excoriates Mr. Bevin and the entire Foreign Office. It's savage! A must read!

"I listened to the recital of events put forward by the Foreign Secretary. There was great sympathy for the Jews for what they had suffered, but, with regard to the Arabs, there was great credit for the position they had occupied throughout. One could not but notice that there was a sharp distinction between his attitude towards the one and the other.

When the war came, the Jews were naturally on the side of the Allies. Six million of those of their faith had already been murdered and cruelly tortured by Hitler at that time. There was no doubt about which side they were on. But what about the Grand Mufti, and the part he played throughout the war? Where was he, and which side did he want to win? What is more, which side did King Farouk want to win? We had to surround his palace one night with British troops and guns because he would have betrayed us to the enemy at the most dangerous moment of our occupation of North Africa.

When we are reciting those things, let us not forget the part played by those people.What happened at the end of the war? I well remember the speeches made during the 1930's by right hon. Gentlemen now sitting on the Government Front Bench when they were leading the Opposition. No one denounced with greater ferocity than the present Leader of the House the vacillation of the then Government. Right hon. and hon. Members opposite remember the resolutions that were passed by their party with regard to what was to happen in Palestine, and the promises that they made during and before the 1945 Election.

What has happened since? More vacillation. Because of the position which had arisen, a vast army had to be maintained in Palestine at an enormous cost, and British lives were lost.

Ultimately, ignoring the agreement made with America for the Anglo-American Commission, we came to the conclusion that this was not a British question, that it was not solely an Arab or a Jewish question, but a world question.

We then handed back the Mandate to the United Nations and asked them as a world body to deal with the position, and to try to find a settlement.

What did we do then—we who, as the right hon. Gentleman said, have played a nobler and greater part than any other race with regard to the Jews? We were the first to offer them safety, to draw no distinction between them and the Gentiles or Christians in any country, and to allow them to occupy positions, not only in this House, but in the Executive or the judiciary.

We were also the first to suggest the opening of a home for them in Palestine. The right hon. Gentleman said that we promised the same thing to both Arabs and Jews. I do not know how he comes to that conclusion. When one reads the evidence afterwards given by the then Prime Minister, Mr. Lloyd George, one finds that he pointed out that at the moment when the promise was made, there were very few Jews in Palestine. They could not possibly have formed a Government.

The object was to encourage them to go there, and when, ultimately, they were in a position to do so, a State might then be formed.That was the history of this country in relation to the Jews. We were the first to propose the Jewish home, the first to ask for the Mandate; it was we who took on the Mandate from the United Nations, 

Then came the period when we said we were going to hand it over. We handed over on 14th May. Under what conditions did we walk out? We had stopped the Jews, as much as we possibly could, from getting arms. What they had was largely what they had got surreptitiously.

We had stopped immigration as much as we could. The White Paper still existed, but what had we done about the Arabs? We had armed and trained them, and done everything we could with regard to Egypt. We had not done our duty to the fellaheen, but we had helped the landowning class in Egypt until they were wealthy and in a position, as they are today, in which they could afford to be arrogant and insulting.

They (the Egyptians) were fully armed and trained by us. The same thing happened in Transjordan. We entered into an agreement to subsidise them, and to keep British officers there to train their men.

As I have said, on 14th May we walked out and left the Jews to their fate. That day they declared the State of Israel, and the next day seven armed Arab nations attacked them.

Was there a word of protest about aggression from this country? There was not a sound. In spite of our past record, all we did, as far as I can see, was to follow the horrible example of 2,000 years ago of taking a bowl of water and washing our hands of the whole thing.

The State of Israel was proclaimed, as I say, and they were attacked by seven nations. Then a miracle happened, such as we have read of in the Bible—a miracle of Gideon, which believing Jews think has been repeated in their time. We are reminded of stories, such as the great one which Byron put into one of his poems:"The Assyrian came down like a wolf on the fold."
Arab armies disappeared overnight. They were held back. Jerusalem was relieved, and by 10th June who was asking for a cease-fire? Not the small number of Jews. Put them all together, and even now there are only about 700,000. There are 40 million Arabs. Divide the 700,000 by half, men and women, and it is 350,000. Divide again to allow for the children, and the total army comes to between about 100,000 and 150,000.

They held back the Arabs. Then came the Arab cry for a cease-fire, and the Jews assented.Later on, when the Armistice was still going on, the United Nations Organisation asked for an extension of the ceasefire. Much praise has been meted out to the Arabs, but not a word was said about the fact that the Jews agreed and the Arabs refused.

On 8th July Egypt attacked again, this time with the boast that they were going to drive every Jew into the Mediterranean. They did not even ask for help from the other Arab States, they were so certain of themselves.

Was there a protest from us? Were the Egyptians accused of aggression when they bombed Tel Aviv which had been built up by these hard working people who had known what persecution was and who were realising for the first time what freedom meant? Not a bit.

The bombs were supplied by Britain in planes supplied by Britain. Was there a word of protest about that?Egypt expected to be victorious. But she was soundly beaten and again asked for a truce.

On 19th July came the second cease-fire, and again the Jews accepted. Again they said. "Now we hope that this will be the precursor of permanent peace." It is rather interesting to note that at that particular moment King Abdullah sent a request for armed troops to be sent. He then began to put out feelers as to whether he could make a peace separately and on his own account with the Jews. Did he receive any encouragement from his allies who had made a treaty with him—from this Government? Is there on record a word of encouragement to him to make the peace? He and his people are the most concerned. It has been suggested—and I will come to it in a moment—that the Arabs remaining in Palestine will come under his jurisdiction He will have to work in the closest collaboration, certainly in the closest contact with this new State of Israel. Has he received any word of encouragement to continue and make peace? So far as I know, if rumour is true, he has not been encouraged, but rather the reverse.

Passing over the intervening time, when Egypt again began bombing in September, the United Nations Organisation asked that Egypt should allow a Jewish convoy to go through to certain beleaguered people. The Egyptians refused. What would anybody have done under those circumstances? The Jews said, "Our people are starving, we will take a convoy through"—and they did. They said that they were free to act, and they did act.

Fighting again broke out, and again the Egyptian forces were beaten, for the third time. It simmered down a little until 22nd September, when it broke out much more fiercely, and again Egypt was defeated. Her forces were partly surrounded, and it was then, and then only, that they were pursued out of the Negeb into their own territory.

Incidentally, the Negeb has been suggested by the United Nations Organisation as Jewish territory. How could anyone, as he travelled along the desert in a jeep, or whatever it was they were rising, where there are practically no landmarks, say where the Negeb ends?

This time they crossed the border, and when they did that, what did the right hon. Gentleman and his Government do? At once they protested that the Jews were the aggressors. There was not one word of protest about the Egyptians having been the aggressors in going over into the Negeb. But the moment the Jews, in pursuing them, crossed over, the situation was different. They were now the aggressors.

As I have said, Egypt started by thinking that she herself could throw every Jew into the Mediterranean. When she found she was defeated she sent out an S.O.S. to the other Arab States. Not one responded.

Let us look at the other side. Arabs are fighting in the Jewish forces today. Bedouins have asked for the protection of the Jewish forces. They are capable of living and working together, and they need not be fighting and murdering one another.

All along, Transjordan have obviously been anxious for a direct settlement and an end of hostilities. Quite clearly, there is very strong disagreement between King Farouk and his Government and King Abdullah.

May I tell the House one or two interesting items? On 1st December a number of Palestinian Arabs chiefs met at Jericho and unanimously came to the conclusion that the man they wanted at their head was King Abdullah of Transjordan. This was communicated to him, and naturally he was thrilled and said that he would take on that great position. When this came to his knowledge, King Farouk of Egypt denounced the action on 11th December and said that he would not accept the unification of Palestine and Transjordan under Abdullah. Those are the two we are supposed to be helping for the same purpose. They were already quarrelling.

On 12th July the theological authorities met in Cairo and supported King Farouk and reprimanded—theologically I suppose —King Abdullah. What did King Abdullah do? He has a radio station at Ramallah and he has been broadcasting news for a considerable time. He was the first to give the news of their defeats to the ordinary Egyptians. He gave a very short announcement, but he warned the Egyptian Government and King Farouk that if King Farouk went on like that he would tell the Egyptians the full story about what had happened and the thrashings they had had, which would cause such dissatisfaction that they would rise en masse and turn out King Farouk and his Government. Those are the people we are supposed to be bolstering up in defence of British interests.

Having been defeated on 4th January, Egypt applied for a cease-fire. Hostilities were continuing but we knew that an application had been made for a ceasefire and that the chances were that that would be granted. That was the moment we chose for the criminal act of sending boys on a low reconnaissance over a dangerous area which led to their death. It was a criminal act from the point of view of the boys themselves, and a much more substantial apology ought to have been made to their sorrowing parents

.What has been happening throughout is on the lines of the statement to which I drew attention in the right hon. Gentleman's speech, when I said that he praises the Arabs and has only a little sympathy for the Jews. He deprecated that 500,000 refugees had left Palestine. He disagreed with the sending away of ordinary people who desired nothing but peace. I agree, but I do not remember a very strong protest coming from the right hon. Gentleman when Poles were driven back from East Poland because it was the desire of our then ally, Stalin, that they should go. I do not remember a very strong protest when ordinary workpeople and farmers were driven out of East Prussia.

If the Foreign Secretary is going to make a general statement as to what is justice, he should not distinguish between one class and another. Hold out one standard for the whole lot of us.

What have we been doing? Whatever rumour has come against the Jews, we have believed it at once and spread it at a very inconvenient time for the Jews. On 8th June we spread the rumour that the Jews had invaded Transjordan. It was untrue. We even associated Dr. Bunche the acting-Mediator, with it, but the moment it came to his knowledge he denied it and said that he had seen the parties concerned after the supposed event and that they had made no complaint to him.

The extraordinary thing was that we spread that rumour in Paris at the very moment when Israel was applying to the United Nations for membership and it helped to defeat the application.

Then on 29th December when the Jews were chasing the defeated Egyptians into Egyptian territory, we chose that moment to say, "They have gone into Egyptian territory and are aggressors, and goodness knows what they will do." That was just in time to help us with our resolution in the Security Council to censure the Jews for what they had done.

What are we doing even today as shown in answers to Questions today in this House? Where did the Jews get their arms? From Czechoslovakia. How did they get them? They have Spitfires. One hon. Member suggested that the Spitfires must have come from us via Czechoslovakia and must have been sent there to help the Jews in breach of the Declaration of 29th May. The right hon. Gentleman would not answer that definitely. He knows that a good number of the Spitfires which the Jews are using have been captured from the Egyptians and repaired.

While the Government are blaming the Jews in that way, have they said one word about the arming of Egypt with Spitfires—exactly the same Spitfires as the Jews have—or has one word been published to the world of what they have said to Transjordan? No.

There is again a clear distinction between the two sides.What conclusion must inevitably be drawn from a recital like this? It is a conclusion which we do not want to draw. It is sheer pretence that we have been acting throughout as the honest brokers. It is sheer hypocrisy to say that we are desirous of holding the scales evenly.

I am afraid that that is happening not only throughout the Government Front Bench but also the Foreign Office.

In any event, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford asked, have we done anything by our attitude for which the Arabs are grateful? Why, the Egyptians themselves are blaming us for their defeats. What is more, they are held up as the people whom we should help and maintain. We have helped Egypt ever since 1881; we have helped her very considerably in every way, and yet the one desire of the Egyptian Government is that we should quit Egypt, the Sudan and the Canal area. At the present moment there is not a single Arab State which trusts us, and never was our prestige lower in Egypt than it is today. The Egyptians are not only arrogant to British people, but are insulting to those who have helped them so far.

In the meantime, there is not one hon. Member who did not expect the right hon. Gentleman, who has had a further week, to announce that he was now going to recognise Israel de facto. Every hon. Member expected that the Foreign Secretary was holding that announcement back for a week when he asked that the Debate should be adjourned last week. What is happening? Even today he has said "No, I want to think more about this; I want to draw others in, and then we will consider it further."

In a moment of aberration he said that the State of Israel is a fact. It is a fact, and it has been a fact, and people have been dying for it since 14th May. Israel has now been recognised by 23 or 24 States. States are continuing to recognise Israel. In the period between Christmas and the meeting of this House last week—which the right hon. Gentleman says was a difficult period and the wrong period in which to consider it—Canada came to the conclusion that she should recognise Israel.

Are America and South Africa to be flouted? There is General Smuts, who was a member of the War Cabinet when this promise of a home in Palestine was first made. What about the attitude of Australia and New Zealand? In every instance when some resolution from the British Foreign Office has been brought forward, an effort has been made by Australia and New Zealand to tone it down so that it should not be so harsh against the Jews. What do those countries say?

Then there is Russia. The right hon. Gentleman says, "Oh yes, two great nations rush in so that neither shall be left out." Does the right hon. Gentleman think for a moment that that argument weighed with General Smuts or with the Government which has succeeded his in South Africa? Is it an argument that weighed with Canada? Is not the truth that a great number of nations have been waiting for us and have held back because we have refused to take this step? Is not the Foreign Secretary's own admission today the same as saying that the chances are that when he calls them together this week and next week, because we are now ready to grant de factorecognition, the whole of them will follow our lead? Why was this not done months ago, so that all this trouble could have been avoided?

Then it is said, "Ah, yes, but Russia is the real danger there. This may become a Communist State." The young men who are fighting in the air for Israel fought on the side of the Allies during the last war. Most of them came from this country and from the Commonwealth or from the United States. The language they talk is English and their briefing is in English. Yesterday they had elections. I do not know what happened, but there is today not a Communist in the Government and there was one only in the last assembly.

But if this Government desire to create a Communist State in the Middle East, the way they have gone about it is undoubtedly the best way to do it. Instead of being friendly they have been unsympathetic and now they complain of the natural result of their policy.

What has been the position with regard to Aqaba? We entered into an agreement on 29th May, 1948, at U.N.O. It is well that the House should be reminded of that. The Security Council called upon all Governments and authorities concerned to order a cessation of armed force for a period and here I will quote:"calls upon all Governments and authorities concerned to undertake that they will not introduce fighting personnel into Palestine, into Egypt, into Iraq, into Lebanon, into Saudi Arabia or into Transjordan."

In case there is anyone in the House who does not know it, Aqaba is in Transjordan. The Security Council Resolution also states:"It further calls upon all Governments and authorities concerned to refrain from importing or exporting arms and material into Palestine"
and so on down the same list of countries, including Transjordan. It is perfectly clear what was in the mind of the American Government, because through the Under-Secretary of State we were told, "Do not do anything to make the position worse. Do not send personnel or arms." That was said, whether it was a cease-fire or not. It was not intended that this should be limited to a mere four weeks. It was perfectly obvious that it was intended as the best way of securing peace. We were entitled, when Transjordan asked us to send troops, to do so under our treaty obligations, and, indeed, it may be our duty to do so, but why choose this moment?
Undoubtedly, protests have come from other Governments and certainly from America.

The movement of troops to Aqaba was not the only thing. There was all the activity in the Mediterranean. Is it or is it not true that it was intended at one time to land troops in Gaza and then, because of protests, it was thought better not to? Is it or is it not true that protests are being made and have been considered, not only by America, but by France and other countries to the effect that this, instead of helping the situation, was a risk which might lead to far graver consequences? There is not one of us who does not remember that the shooting of an Archduke in Sarajevo led to the murder of millions. Once this kind of thing starts, we do not know when it will end.
The Foreign Secretary referred to the question of the planes. Again why did we choose that moment to send these planes out and who gave the order? I believe that the movement of the troops to Aqaba was settled by the Defence Committee and had the full consent of the Cabinet.

Is it or is it not true that in this case those planes were ordered out on reconnaissance—which led to the death of those boys—without the Secretary of State for Air knowing anything at all about it and that he was only told later? I mention this because it shows the whole trend of our policy. It may be that even today, there is a change in what the Government propose to do and it may be that they will now give recognition to Israel. What is more important is whether there is going to be a change of heart. That is the real thing. If there is, then again the friendships which have been lost can be regained.
We have not got one friend in that important area today. There was a suggestion at one time that when the State of Israel was formed it might become part of the British Commonwealth of Nations. That was the suggestion put forward by some hon. and right hon. Gentlemen from this side of the House. There is still that hope if there is a change of heart of His Majesty's Government. If they do it, then I look again to the day when this desert will become a fair and flowering land, in which will be found a free and contented people, enjoying, not only their lives, but their freedom and their religion."

More to add to my Jon Kimche post...

[As most of you may know, the Arabs and the invading Arab militias had been attacking the Jews since November 30, 1947, the day after the partition resolution was passed in the UNGA. The Jews were being badly beaten because they were merely defending themselves. In April 1948,the Haganah finally went on the offensive as they could no longer afford to sit back and lose 400 people a month , appear weak ( especially to the US government which already reversed its decision to support partition) and in the face of the now certain Arab state invasion that would commence in about a month...]

🚨"The orange blossom filled the spring air, wild flowers of every colour carpeted the land, and departing Arabs stood by the roadside offering chickens and eggs to passing travellers, while Arab villagers drove their cattle to neighbouring Jewish settlements to turn them into cash before they set out into the dark uncertainty of the future to become voluntary refugees. I asked many of them why they were leaving, but none could or would give a convincing answer. They all said that they would be back soon, that their leaders had ordered them to leave. It was a strange scene. It seemed a complete contradiction of those who said the Jews and Arabs could never live peaceably together, for Jewish farmers who had worked with these Arabs for many years were seeking to persuade them to stay, and when they failed were saying good-bye with tears in their eyes.
They could not understand what had happened..."

🚨Just before the meeting began [ to sign the Haifa truce agreement] , it appeared that the Arab leaders had received a message, and instead of signing the document they asked innumerable questions on detail while the British and Jews impatiently waited. Suddenly, at five o'clock, after the meeting had been in progress for an hour, the Arab leader asked for a short adjournment so that he could consult further with his colleagues. The six Arab notables left the Town Hall while the others waited.
An hour passed, the Arabs did not come back. Another hour and with it came wild rumours that the Arab delegation had left Haifa. But at 7.30 five of the six Arabs returned. They no longer smiled, they no longer looked pleased, they looked to all the world like men who were walking to their doom.
The meeting restarted. Without ceremony, Victor Hayeck, the leader of the Arab delegation, announced that they would not sign the truce. Instead, they would advise all Arabs in Haifa to leave the town forthwith. For a moment there was stunned silence. Then Stockwell was on his feet. " Have you gone mad? » he asked the Arab leader. The Jewish Mayor of Haifa, the elderly Shabtai Levi, with tears running down his Cheeks, pleaded with his Arab colleagues on the Municipal Council not to do it. But the Arab leaders had no choice. The Arab League authorities had made the decision for them. The tragedy of the Haifa Arabs was now sealed and signed.
The conference broke up. The Haganah made a last attempt. Leaflets were distributed among the remaining Arabs, assuring them of equal treatment, pleading with them to stay. They left, Only a tiny remnant, perhaps 5,000 out of 65,000, remained."

🚨"Meanwhile the British were on their way out, departing in haste.
They shut down one Department after another. They ceased to collect taxes, to register cars, to maintain health control; files were dispersed and destroyed, and the machinery of Government shut down in a manner the wildest anarchist could not in his fondest dreams have imagined. Once again British action, designed to prevent the implementation of the Partition decision, led to the Jewish state more effectively than any step taken by the United Nations.
When the British left, the Jews were compelled to take over the functions of Government as the only alternative to anarchy.
They proved that they had the men, the means and the foresight to do so. Jewish business, transport, banks, life continued as before with hardly a break. But the chaos prophesied for the Jews descended on the Arab areas of Palestine. Their Jewish market had disappeared. The government jobs had gone.
Business stopped.
The banks closed. Refugees arrived. The
British left, and the Jews started to joke about putting up a statue to Ernest Bevin, the man they considered to be their arch-enemy, who by his blind fury had forced them into state-hood, while, the Palestine Arabs were praying to be saved from their British friends who had brought such misery upon them."
[this was the REAL reason so many of the poor Arabs fled...the Arabs had never set up the organizations necessary to run a state like the Jews had. Once the wealthy Arabs and the British left, their lives fell apart.]

🚨"... the news agencies have usually no alternative when reporting from countries exercising strict control and censorship over all reporting. This was true of all the war reports which emanated from Moscow during the war, and it was even more true of the reporting from the Arab capitals.
In this way an image of Arab strength was built up by the news agencies which was understandably believed not only by the public but by governments. The whole world was led by the nose because the news agencies were afraid of trying their hand at critical reporting or of sending anyone to the Arab capitals who was not prima facie a partisan of the Arab cause.
With few exceptions, the editors of the London national newspapers were little better. They were too apt to accept sensational statements without applying a critical check. Later, the British pro-Arabists turned on the Arabs for their exaggerations and their unreliable press reports, but no one questioned the undiscriminating distribution and publication of these reports by the British and American agencies and by most English-speaking newspapers."

[same problem today...pro Arab news agencies regurgitate everything that comes from Palinazis.]

🚨"Counting every form of active combatant including the Palmach, the armed settlers, the Haganah volunteers, the first mobilized conscripts and the Jews who had come from abroad, the Palestine Jews had less than 10,000 men to meet the Arab invasion. Indeed, if we consider only trained and organized units with light arms (there were no heavy arms), the Jewish total was no more than 6,000 on May 15th. These included
the "armies " in Jerusalem, in the Negev, in the north and those covering the approaches to the coastal plain and the Valley of Esdraelon, the main centres of Jewish life."

[in the 1980s, the 'new historians'would claim that the Jews were not really outmatched because they had 50,000 fighters. Like everything the new historians claim, that's a bunch of BS- the higher number of combatants and the increase in the heavy weaponry on ly came about AFTER the first truce agreement and much of it not until well into the fall of 1948. It is a MIRACLE that the Jews survived the initial Arab invasion which was meant to take over Haifa, the Negev, Jerusalem , the Galilee and decimate the Jewish state,]

🚨Meanwhile the Arab armies were moving in. The Egyptians advanced across the purely Arab-populated coastal strip to Isdud, twenty miles south of Tel-Aviv and along the inland road through Beersheba to Hebron and Bethlehem.
They made no real attempt to attack Jewish positions; even the isolated settlements far behind the Egyptian lines were attacked only by long-range artillery and by Spitfire fighter-bombers.
This comparative passivity of the Egyptian army fitted into the Arab invasion. plan as it had been agreed upon in Amman at the end of April.

***A full outline of the proposed invasion plan was given by a high-ranking officer on General MacMillan's staff to a conference of British intelligence officers in Haifa on May 6th--nine days before the invasion.***

The officer explained that the Egyptians on the coast would fight a holding action and if necessary fall back on Gaza. Their purpose would be to lure the Jewish defenders away from the central front, from Haifa, Tel-Aviv and Jerusalem.

Meanwhile, the second column of Egyptians advancing inland would link up with the Arab Legion in the Hebron-Bethlehem sector and together they would storm the New City quarter of Jerusalem, held by the Jews. The function of the Syrian and Lebanese troops was to nail down the Jewish forces in the extreme north by a series of attacks on the Jewish frontier settlement on as wide a front as possible.
With the Jewish forces thus committed in the extreme north and south and in isolated Jerusalem, the second phase of the Arab invasion would take place. This was to be decisive.
The Arab Legion, reinforced by the Iragi troops, would force the Jordan on a twelve-mile front between Samakh (at the southern end of Lake Tiberias) and Beisan. The focus of the attack would be the Jewish settlement of Gesher where the road crossed the Jordan. The attackers would then divide, one group advancing along the undulating and roundabout road through Javnel and Nazareth and heading for the coast at Acre.
The second column would cut along the forty miles of good, straight and flat road from Beisan through Afuleh to Haifa.
Both columns would thus converge on Haifa and occupy the port by May 21st on the sixth day of the invasion.
The assumption was that the British Government would then recognize Transjordan sovereignty over Haifa, with Britain maintaining her special position as Transjordan's principal treaty partner and chief financial provider.

The Egyptians advanced along the coast " according to plan " and then sat down to consolidate. Their aircraft and guns attacked settlements and towns, but they drew no substantial Jewish forces to the south. The second Egyptian column had linked up with the Arab Legion south of Jerusalem, also "according to plan". But the Egyptian commander informed the commander of the Arab Legion that he had no authority to participate in the Legion's assault on Jerusalem. Indeed, serious differences arose between the Transjordan and Egyptian commanders about their respective authority in the area south of Jerusalem which they both occupied.
Nokrashy Pasha, the Egyptian Premier, who was represented as the most determined Arab leader, opposed the invasion. King Abdullah who had been described by the Foreign Office and the British press as a reluctant moderate, and was also believed to be that by most Jews, was the chief driving force behind the invasion plan. He stood to gain most. He believed he had the support of the British Government for his projected annexation of the whole of Arab Palestine with the addition of Haifa.[ he did]
Egyptian intervention in Palestine was in the end prompted as much, if not more, by the desire to forestall Transjordan claims on southern Palestine as to oppose those of the Jews. The Syrians at the last moment also objected to the agreed invasion plan, which reserved all territorial benefits for King Abdullah. They insisted that one of the two columns to force the Jordan should be provided by the Syrian Army, which would then proceed to advance through Nazareth to Acre, and thus assure Syria of her share in the conquest and reduce the power and prestige of King Abdullah and the size of his enlarged kingdom.
Finally, King Abdullah discovered on the morrow of the invasion zero hour May 15th- that Jewish Jerusalem was a harder nut than he had calculated, that he had to fight without Egyptian support, and that he had to commit more of his own troops than he had anticipated.
Thus, though outwardly everything went well for the Arabs during the first forty-eight hours of the invasion, the poison of suspicion, jealousy and rivalry was already at work when the moment came to put the second phase of the invasion plan into operation.
The Syrians had concentrated a column with two hundred vehicles, some French tanks and guns for the break-through at Samakh into the cluster of Jewish settlements on both sides of the Jordan and so to Nazareth and Acre on the coast. They were determined that theirs was to be the glory and the prize, shared with no one certainly not with King Abdullah. On the second day of the invasion they launched their main assault without consultation or collaboration with the Arab Legion, scheduled to operate six miles further down the river. The Syrian attack made good progress at first. Samakh was captured and the perimeter of the Jewish defences penetrated. Tanks entered Daganiah and the lightly armed Jewish Armed Guards were being forced back. The road to Nazareth seemed to be opening.
But, meanwhile, the peril of the situation on this sector had been realized by the Jewish High Command. To Daganiah settlement, in mortal danger, was allocated the entire artillery at the disposal of the Israeli army-two 65-mm. guns on wooden wheels and without sights.
In view of the danger, a home-made flame-thrower, as yet untried, invented by a Tel-Aviv engineer, was also sent to Daganiah in the fervent hope that the flame would shoot in the right direction. On the fourth day of this battle when the issue was in a balance, the Israelis counter-attacked. The flame-thrower went into action. It worked. The two guns fired into the advancing Syrian tanks and vehicles; they registered a direct hit with their first round. Faced by this formidable firepower, the Syrians regrouped. They turned their column; they left three tanks and four armoured cars and retired. This breach on the Israeli front had been sealed. The Syrian march to Nazareth and the coast remained a pious hope.
Down the river Tordan, at Gesher, the Arab Legion was about to start its race to Haifa. The systematic shelling of the Jewish positions had begun according to the planned time-table, but when the moment for the main attack came, King Abdullah was receiving urgent signals from the British commander of his troops in Jerusalem, demanding immediate reinforcements there.
Abdullah had always been attracted much more by the magic of being King of Jerusalem than by the usefulness of having possession of the port of Haifa. The British might find it more practical that he should control Haifa, but in the Arab world the glamour of Jerusalem was far greater.
Abdullah therefore did not hesitate. The troops that were meant for Haifa were directed to Jerusalem. The attack across the Jordan was still pressed, but only with inadequate forces.
Some managed to get across and establish a bridgehead of some three square miles on the hills to the south of Gesher. But there they were contained and they received no reinforcements.
The Syrians had their own worries, and Abdullah's appetite for Terusalem had been whetted by initial success.
Thus on this sector also there was no march on Haifa. By May 21st, when the converging columns were due in Haifa, they were securely pinned down on the Jordan. One more military project thus joined the long list of those that "did not go according to plan"."

[there was NO agreement between the Jews and Abdullah as the new historians love to claim. This fairytale is one that has clearly been promoted by the British government to deflect attention from the fact that the British government colluded with the Arabs to destroy the Yishuv and then the nascent state of Israel]

🚨"Tel-Aviv was bombed daily and continuously by the Egyptians. There were no Israeli anti-aircraft guns and no planes to take the air. The Israeli Government had bought " Messerschmit 109" fighter planes in Prague, but they could not be flown out, as the Greek Government would not allow them to land and refuel. They had therefore to be taken to pieces and loaded into Dakota transports and flown non-stop to Israel. It was not until a month later that these Messerschmits, flown mainly by ex-R.A.F. Jewish men, took the air against the Spitfires flown by the Egyptians. Meanwhile the Egyptians could pick their targets in comfort and drop their bombs. "

🚨"We must now follow the manoeuvres among the United Nations that led to the first Palestine truce.

The Security Council met on Saturday, May 15th, 1948, on the day when the Arab armies invaded Palestine. The Egyptian delegate informed the Council that Egypt was concerned only in the preservation of law and order. None of the Big Three (Britain, the United States and the Soviet Union) intervened. On Monday, May 17th, the Security Council met again. The United states delegate now proposed that, as a breach of the peace had taken place within the meaning of Article 39 of the Charter, the Council should order an immediate " cease fire" and stand fast.

The other British representative, Sir Alexander Cadogan, did not speak until the following day; he then expressed grave doubt about the American proposal. He doubted whether there had been a breach of the peace or that there had been a clear case of aggression.
Four days passed, while the world's press still reported Arab victories.
The American delegate returned again with the charge that a breach of the peace had taken place, and once more invoked the sanctions of Article 39 to compel a
" cease fire". Again Sir Alexander opposed, and the Council adjourned for another two days. On May 24th, the Council received a message from the Provisional Government of Israel accepting the "cease fire" proposed in the British resolution. The Syrian member of the Security Council asked for an extension of the
Two days time-limit. Sir Alexander supported this request. Two days passed and then another two days and still nothing was done.
On May 29th Sir Alexander again opposed hasty action. He also opposed a simple proposal by the Soviet Union, which was supported by the United States and France, to order a " cease fire within thirty-six hours under threat of U.N. Sanctions." Instead, Sir Alexander Cadogan proposed another resolution of his own which, he said, might halt the fighting without the pressure of the sanctions chapter of the Charter. The heat was off.
The Arabs went on. Next day the Jewish quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem capitulated. Sir Alexander's resolution was now voted upon and accepted as the lesser evil. It was not until thirteen days later, when the Arab armies were near the point of exhaustion, that they accepted the "cease fire".

During this long interval Sir Alexander maintained a revealing silence on the Security Council. Not once did he express any need for more forceful action by the Security Council to bring the fighting to an end."

[I have written extensively and linked US official declassified documents from the archives that show that behind the scenes, the US State Department was colluding with the British government to prevent the Security Council from taking action until the British had achieved their goals or until the Arabs needed a break. I'll link those tweets below.] Here is the original post...

https://x.com/Shoshana51728/status/1895871385743802727