Watchman Willie Martin Archive


     Winston Churchill certainly left his mark.  There are few who

question the indomitable spirit of this half‑Jew; that in their eyes he

exemplified the so‑called British spirit during some of the darkest

days of World War II as the English responded to his rallying cry. It

is an unfortunate fact of history that it was his insistence upon the

destruction of Dresden (his so‑called "thunderclap of victory") which

resulted in the death of literally hundreds of thousands of women and

children in that open city.  All this was in strict contradiction to

any concept of warfare as conducted by civilized nations. Therefore,

do not, by any stretch of imagination construe what is to follow as any

endorsement of Winston Churchill, but he did go through some

interesting phases.


                         HITLER SAVED BRITAIN!

     "The real story of any great event in history is apt to be very

different to what appears at the time.  That is especially the case in

war.  The fate of millions of people turns on decisions that are taken

by one man, who may be influenced by the most curious of motives in

reaching a decision that changes the whole course of history.

     The way he makes up his mind is known only by a few men behind the

scenes, who usually have good reason for keeping it quiet.  The truth

sometimes leaks out later; sometimes never.  When it emerges it often

bears out the saying that 'truth is stranger than fiction.' A novelist

has to appear plausible, and would hesitate to make use of such

astounding contradictions as occur in history through some extra

ordinary accident or twist of psychology.

     Nothing could be more extraordinary than the way that the decisive

events of 1940 were shaped.  France was overcome by an offensive in

which few of the higher executants had any faith, and the invasion only

succeeded through a belated change of plan on the German side that

happened to fit the situation produced by rigidity of plan combined

with over‑confidence on the French side.  Stranger still was the way

that the British Army escaped, and Britain herself was preserved from

invasion.  The truth here runs quite contrary to the popular picture.

     It would have seemed incredible to most of Hitler's ardent

followers in Germany.  Little indication of it emerged in the

revelations at Nuremberg.  [But then Nuremberg was so that the Jews

could enrich themselves even more through lying holocaust propaganda!].

The bare facts were known to a small circle at the top of the German

Army, but the essential clue was held by only a few, not the topmost,

who were present one day at Rundstedt's headquarters when Hitler

disclosed the way his thoughts were running.

     The escape of the British Army from France has often been called

'the miracle of Dunkirk.'  For the German armored forces had reached

the Channel coast behind the back of the British Army while this was

still deep in the interior of Flanders.  Cut off from its own bases,

and from the bulk of the French Army, it seemed likely also to be cut

off from the sea.  Those who got away have often wondered how they

managed to do so.

     The answer is that Hitler's intervention saved them...A sudden

order from him over the telephone stopped the armored forces just as

they were in sight of Dunkirk, and held them back until the retreating

British had reached the port and slipped out of their clutches.

Rundstedt and other generals concerned, as executive commanders or on

the higher staffs, gave me accounts from their different angles of this

staggering order and it effects.

     But although the British Army thus escaped from the trap in

France, it was in no state to defend England.  It had left most of its

weapons behind, and the stores at home were almost empty.  In the

following months Britain's small and scantily‑armed forces faced the

magnificently‑equipped army that had conquered France, with only a

strip of water between them.  Yet the invasion never came.

     At the time we believed that the repulse of the Luftwaffe in the

'Battle over Britain' had saved her.  That is only part of the

explanation.  The last part of it.  The original cause, which goes

deeper, is that HITLER DID NOT WANT TO CONQUER ENGLAND.  He took little

interest in the invasion preparations, did nothing to spur them on, and

cancelled them at the first plausible excuse...(The German Generals

Talk, by B.H.  Liddell Hart, pp.  105‑107)

                         HITLER'S "HALT" ORDER

     "On wheeling north, Guderian's Panzer Corps headed for Calais

while Reinhardt's swept west of Arras towards St.  Omer and Dunkirk.

On the 22nd, Boulogne was isolated by Guderian's advance, and next day

Calais.  That same day Reinhardt reached the Aire‑St.  Omer Canal, less

than twenty miles from Dunkirk ‑‑ the only escape port left to the

B.E.F.  The German armored forces were much nearer to it than the bulk

of the B.E.F.

     'At that moment,' Rundstedt told me, 'a sudden telephone call came

from Colonel von Grieffenberg at O.K.H., saying that Kleist's forces

were to halt on the line of the canal.  It was the Fuhrer's direct

order and contrary to General Halder's view.  I questioned it in a

message of protest, but received a curt telegram in reply, saying: 'The

armored divisions are to remain at medium artillery range from Dunkirk'

[a distance of eight or nine miles].  'Permission is only granted for

reconnaissance and protective movements.'

     Kleist said that when he got the order it seemed to make no sense

to him. 'I decided to ignore it, and to push on across the Canal.  My

armored cars actually entered Hazerbrouck, and cut across the British

lines of retreat.  I heard later that the British Commander‑in‑Chief,

Lord Gort, had been in Hazebrouck at the time.  But then came a more

emphatic order that I was to withdraw behind the canal.  My tanks were

kept halted there for three days.'

     Thoma, who was chief of the tank side of the General Staff, told

me that he was right up forward with the leading tanks, near Bergues,

where he could look into the town of Dunkirk itself.  He sent back

wireless messages direct to O.K.H., begging for permission to let the

tanks push on. But his appeal had no effect.  Referring to Hitler's

attitude, he bitingly remarked: 'You can never talk to a fool. Hitler

spoilt the chance of victory.'

     Meanwhile the British forces streamed back towards Dunkirk, and

cemented a defensive position to cover their reembarkation.  The German

tank commanders had to sit and watch the British slipping away under

their very nose.  'After three days the ban was lifted,' Kleist said,

'and the advance was resumed ‑‑ against stiffening opposition.  It had

just begun to make headway when it was interrupted by a fresh order

from Hitler ‑‑ that my forces were to be withdrawn, and sent southward

for the attack on the line that the remainder of the French Army had

improvised along the Somme.  It was left to the infantry forces which

had come down from Belgium to complete the occupation of Dunkirk ‑‑

AFTER THE BRITISH HAD GONE.'" (Ibid.  pp.  132‑133)




all fronts together is our front, that of Jewry.  WE {Jews} ARE NOT




guarantee of victory is predominantly based on weakening the enemy

forces, on destroying them in their own country, within the resistance.




VICTORY." (Chaim Weizmann, president of the World Jewish Congress, in a

speech on Dec.  3, 1942 ‑‑ New York).

     Thus, we can easily see that International Jewry has not only

overstepped the "bounds of propriety" but that it stands exposed,

"hoist on its own petard" so to speak and is presently coming under

public scrutiny as never before.

     As more and more information is being passed out to the general

public by newsletters such as this one.

     So new let me share with you, some of the thinking of this half‑

Jew before he learned the realities of politics, and sold his soul for

public recognition, by accommodating the wishes of International Jewry.

     To begin, let us turn back the clock to November 5, 1919, where

Sir Winston Churchill is standing before the British Parliament,

addressing his colleagues:

     "No sooner did Lenin arrive on his return to Russia than he began

beckoning a finger here and there to obscure persons in sheltered

retreats in New York, in Glascow, in Berne, and in other countries, and

he gathered together the leading spirits of a formidable sect, the most

formidable sect in the world, of which he was the high priest and

chief.  With these spirits around him he set to work with demoniacal

ability to tear to pieces every institution on which the Russian State

depended.  Russia was laid low.  Russia had to be laid low."

     Later, in a famous article in the Illustrated Sunday Herald,"

London, February 8, 1920, page 5, Churchill described in the following

words, "the most formidable sect in the world" and explained why

"Russia had to be laid low."  This article was in part reproduced by

the B'nai B'rith News, Chicago, in its issue of May 1920 under the

heading of Some Indirect Compliments, Churchill wrote:

     "The conflict between good and evil which proceeds unceasingly in

the breast of man nowhere reaches such an intensity as in the Jewish

race.  The dual nature of mankind is nowhere more strongly or more

terribly exemplified.  We owe the Jews in the Christian revelation for

a system of ethics which, even if it were entirely separated from the

supernatural, would be incomparably the most precious possession of

mankind, worth in fact the fruits of all other wisdom and learning put

together.  And it may well be that this same astounding race may at the

present time be in the actual process of producing another system of

morals and philosophy, as malevolent as Christianity was benevolent,

which if not arrested, would shatter irretrievably all that

Christianity has rendered possible.  It would almost seem as if the

gospel of Christ and the gospel of anti‑Christ were destined to

originate among the same people; and that his mystic and mysterious

race had been chosen for the supreme manifestations, of both the divine

and the diabolical...

     There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of

Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution

by those international and for the most part atheistical Jews.  It is

certainly a very great one: it probably outweighs all others.  The

majority of the leading figures are Jews.  Moreover, the principal

inspiration and driving power comes from Jewish leaders.  Thus

Tchitcherin, a pure Russian, is eclipsed by his nominal subordinate

Litvinoff, and the influence of Russians like Bukharin or Lunacharski

cannot be compared with the power of Trotsky, or of Zinovieff, the

Dictator of the Red Citadel (Petrograd), or of Krassin or Radek ‑‑ all

Jews.  In the Soviet institutions the predominance of Jews is even more

astonishing.  And the prominent, if not indeed the principal, part in

the system of terrorism applied by the Extraordinary Commissions for

Combatting Counter Revolution has been taken by Jews.  The same evil

prominence was obtained by Jews in the brief period of terror during

which Bela Kun ruled in Hungary.  The same phenomenon has been

presented in Germany (especially Bavaria), so far as this madness has

been allowed to prey upon the temporary prostration of the German

people.  In all these countries the part played by the Jews in

proportion to their numbers in the population is astonishing."

     In the same article Churchill commented on the Jewish role in

revolutionary movements as follows:

     "This movement among the Jews is not new.  From the days of

Spartacus‑Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky

(Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma

Goldman (United States), this world‑wide conspiracy for the overthrow

of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of

arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality,

has been steadily growing.  As a modern writer, Mrs. Webster, has so

ably shown, it played a definitely recognizable part in the tragedy of

the French Revolution.  It has been the mainspring of every subversive

movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at last this band of

extraordinary personalities from the underworld (criminal elements‑‑the

so‑called Costa Nostra or Mafia is totally controlled by Jews) of the

great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by

the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed

master of that enormous empire."

     Realizing that the foregoing utterances by Sir Winston will come

as a surprise to many, we should mention the support given to these

allegations by one Maurice Samuel, himself a member of the tribe, in

his amazing frank You Gentiles (Harcourt Brace & Co. New York, Aug.

1924, page 155), where he states the following:





     It would not be difficult to document an endless array of such

assertions but let us get on with the "rest of the story." First

however, and in light of so much that is happening, we wish to give

credit where credit is due and share some remarkable insights with you

given by Robert H. Williams in his final (early 1958) issue of the

highly informative Williams Intelligence Summary:

     "I can assure you that millions more of our people today are aware

that we are in great danger, millions more are at least suspicious of

the identity of the revolutionaries than ever before.  Like all power

movements of our time, both Communism and Zionism are racial...

Communism was launched as a destructive gangster apparatus for the cult

of Jewish bankers who also finance and use Zionism in the conquest of

governments.  It was not for Jews, but to destroy the races and

governments, cultures and religions, making way for the Zionist


     It is the most motley mongrelization of races.  Zionism, being

purely Jewish, must depend on non‑Jews or reveal its identity.

     Eventually, it must expose itself anyway.  It is impossible for it

to carry on the program of Communist‑like propaganda and terrorism

without eventually becoming conspicuous...This racial character of

Zionism is our guarantee that the Zionist masters cannot go on forever

with their destructive program.  They will eventually be called to


     May we dare suggest that America today is witnessing the approach

of the final accounting? Bear with us for one more quote and then we'll

get down to the nitty gritty, so to speak.

     The setting for this amazing revelation goes back a few years and

involves Norman Dodd, the individual who in large measure, implemented

the inquiries of the famous Reece Committee.  In an experience which

rather paralleled that of Senator Jack B. Tenney of the California

State Fact Finding Subcommittee, Norman Dodd was offered invaluable

help by members of the Anti‑Defamation League ‑‑ UP TO A POINT. That

point being an investigation that appeared dangerous to International

Jewry.  Thereafter, they quite brazenly made it clear they would (and

did) destroy the Committee. But prior to that event, a certain

intellectual tie had developed between Norman Dodd and a certain

person, which we will document and describe in the following, in

November 1953:

     "My position was director of Research for the Reece Committee.

The setting (for this experience) was the cocktail bar of the Mayflower

(hotel) in Washington.  I was there by invitation.  My host was Herman

Edelsberg ‑‑ the Washington Representative of the Anti‑Defamation

League of B'nai B'rith.  Our visit lasted more than two hours during

which in response to the interest I showed in his "work," so to speak,

he towards its end told this to me: 'We have a problem.  It is this.

Because of the power which we have amassed, the best thing we should do

is to dissolve ‑‑ to liquidate.  But ‑‑ this we will not ever do.

Therefore, the power which we have amassed will ‑‑ as such a power

always does ‑‑ ultimately destroy us.  This we know.  But the trouble

is that in the process it will destroy everything else.  This too we


     After this astounding pronouncement, Norman Dodd states that

Herman Edelsberg went on to say the following:

     "'We have an Achilles heel.  As we succeed we get closer and

closer to the surface.  This means our 'surfacing' is bound to be

picked up by someone who will treat it like the end of a loose string

by following it to where it leads.  We think we will be able to spot

such a person before he gets too far and that we have enough power to

stop him going on.'"

     That will have to suffice for the moment but it is becoming quite

clear that the "loose string" is clear to any who have eyes to see! And

of course to top it all we have David Ben Gurion, at that time Prime

Minister of the Israeli state happily proclaiming in an interview

granted to Look Magazine, January 6, 1962, that within twenty five

years (make that 1987) he anticipated that:

     "...With the exception of the USSR as a federated Eurasian state,

all other continents will become united in a world alliance (That he

knew about, what President Bush calls the 'New World Order' in 1962

there is no question), at whose disposal will be an international

police force (the United States Military).  All armies will be

abolished and there will be no more wars.  In Jerusalem, the United

Nations (a truly United Nations ‑‑ and his timing was a little off but

we can see what he said is now quickly coming to pass) will build a

shrine of the Prophets to serve the federated union of all continents;

this will be the seat of the Supreme Court of Mankind, to settle all

controversies among the federated continents, as prophesied by Isaiah."

     Think of the implication of this, if you will.  A Prime Minister

of "Israel," a nation with whom we are told we have a "special

relationship" (it appears to be one of slave and master) can't resist

the temptation to "show off" and brag a little.  He also anticipated

that the United States would be turned into a "...welfare state with a

planned economy," an eventuality that no longer seems remote, but is in

fact a reality!, but more pointedly, he pictured our nation being ruled

from "Israel!"  Yet the President of the United States and bought‑and‑

paid for Congress never dare say a word!

     Let's see if we can put the picture together and bring it to

current date.  Because we know the ball of string is beginning to


     It is our contention that "Israel" comes very close to not having

a friend in the world, except the United States and Russia which the

Jews rule totally.  Of course we must recognize, the fact, that

"Israel" has captured the means of mass communications throughout the

civilized world but there is a distinct undercurrent indicating that

those who had submitted to the pressures applied by the ADL and their

various Zionist masters, are deserting the ship.  Thus we find the New

York Times, the Washington Post, Time, U.S. News and World Reports, and

Newsweek Magazines, all carrying spectacular stories highly critical of

"Israel."  Also we have recently seen a documentary on CNN that was

highly critical of the bastard, murderous state of Israel. Having been

an ardent "Israel/Zionist/Jew" watcher for over a quarter of a century

we are hardly a disinterested party.  But we assure you, the signs are

there.  Let us share an extremely revealing article from the New York

Times of July 11th, 1986.  Which shortly before this criticism, or

rather admission that "Israel" was slipping from grace, would have been



     By Stephen Engleberg ‑‑ Special to The New York Times: WASHINGTON,

July 10:

     "There was once a time when allegations that the Israeli

Government had violated American law were handled with an eye to

preserving the close relationship between the United States and Israel.

     Suspicions of misconduct by Israel typically did not end up in

front of grand juries but were resolved quietly through talks between


     Matters are somewhat different now.  In the last year, the

Israelis have been the subject of a series of well‑publicized

investigations involving allegations of espionage and illegal export of

American technology.

     At no time in the history of the state of Israel have the United

States authorities been investigating more visibly embarrassing cases

involving charges of crimes by the Israeli government or its


     Senior Administration officials deny that this sudden spurt of

cases reflects a change in policy toward Israel.  Some observers

contend, however, that the investigations are a sign that the White

House has failed to maintain discipline over the Government's law‑

enforcement agencies.  Pro‑Israel lobbyists are privately asking

whether mid‑level officials in the Justice Department or United States

Customs Service have been disclosing the investigations as part of an

unauthorized vendetta against Israel.

     Whatever the case, the relationship between Israel and the United

States does appear to be moving in several different directions at


     On Sunday, for instance, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of

Staff, Admiral William J. Crowe Jr., was at the Israeli Embassy for a

ceremony honoring the departing military attache.  Just a few days

later, Administration officials disclosed that the Customs Service and

the Justice Department were investigating a possible plan for illegally

exporting equipment used in making cluster weapons.

     In a statement that suggested a longing for the days when such

cases were handled through diplomatic channels, the former Israeli

chief of staff, Rafael Eitan, said, 'If there was any substance to

these allegations, the Americans could have approached us quietly and

discreetly and clarified matters.'

     The Israelis were particularly angry that the case had been

disclosed to the news media by unnamed officials before they were

notified of its existence.

     Another case involving the possible illegal export of technology

for tank cannon barrels broke last December, and in that instance

camera crews from 'The NBC Evening News' accompanied the Customs

Service agents as they executed search warrants in upstate New York.

     Steven Green, who has written critically of the Israeli‑American

military relationship, said that he was finding increasing numbers of

middle‑level officials in Washington who were willing to discuss what

they believe is a pattern of Israeli misconduct.  'I find that people

are more and more frequently willing to be cooperative to find informal

channels to get the word out,' Mr.  Green said.  'It's from a feeling

of frustration.'

     Supports of Israel contend that this willingness to disclose

information about investigations of the Israelis springs largely from

lower‑level officials.  At the highest levels, they contend, the Reagan

Administration remains a staunch supporter of Israel.

     'There has never bee a period with this much friendliness and

trust,' said Hymen Bookbinder, the Washington representative of the

American Jewish Committee.  'This is an unprecedented period of

friendship and there are a few people who don't like this.'

     An official Israeli statement on Wednesday, however, suggested

that that the raising of the cluster weapon case caused 'serious

astonishments' that cloud 'overcloud the good relations prevailing

between the U.S. and Israel.'

     The most prominent of the cases related to Israel involved

Jonathan Jay Pollard, the former Navy analyst who recently pleaded

guilty to spying for Israel.  Former Justice Department officials say

they know of previous instances in which cases of Israeli spying in the

United States were handled without criminal proceedings.  But Mr.

Pollard's behavior immediately before his arrest ‑‑ a dash into the

Israeli Embassy with F.B.I.  agents trailing him ‑‑ made it impossible

to dispose of the incident quietly.  Additionally, the justice

Department has taken a hard‑line stand against all espionage, and was

loathe to avert its eyes from Mr.  Pollard just because he was working

for the Israelis.

     The situation worsened when Justice Department officials concluded

they had been misled by the Israelis about the number of people

involved in the case.  'That whole thing left an extremely bad taste in

people's mouths,' said one official familiar with the case.

     Mr. Pollard is now cooperating with the investigation and a grand

jury in Washington, D.C., is continuing to investigate.

     Customs officials and the Justice Department have been looking

into allegations that American companies shipped technology for tank

cannon barrels to Israel in violation of export laws.  That case is

still under investigation.  Finally, a grand jury last year indicted a

California businessman, Richard Kelly Smyth, on charges of illegally

exporting to Israel 800 devices of the type used to trigger nuclear


     Space limitations preclude offering other than a cursory glance at

much of the material that has been amassed. But a sample follows:

     Time, No Whitewash ‑‑ Pressures for a Probe, and we find a

relentless pressure being brought to bear on "Israel," due to the

murder of two Palestinian prisoners! What's so unusual about that! But

it was hung out on the clothesline in public view!

     Next, the ongoing multi‑level exposure of the "Israeli" government

in the notorious Pollard affair! Were it any other country in the

world, by now we would be breaking off diplomatic relations but even

so, from the "Israeli" standpoint, there is no way they can put the lid

on the entire sordid affair.  Why this reaches back to the 1960's and

the "Pennsylvania ripoff" of vast quantities of uranium that ended up

in "Israel."  The same military officers involved at the time, were

operating as "controls" in the Pollard affair. Someone is going to

write a book on this business and it appears that it will be like

"Rambo" with parts one through four.  Heads continue to roll and no one

in our government dares try to cover up the affair.

     Newsweek gives us detailed and substantial information under the

heading "Israel: Leaders on the Spot ‑‑ a coalition in trouble" (of

that there can be no doubt ‑‑ the country is splintered and virtually

ungovernable) and this also is about two murdered Palestinians!  The

Israeli's bragged openly about his murder of hundreds of men, women and

children in the Deir Yassin affair, yet our President invited the Prime

Minister to Camp David to determine how to continue to occupy

Palestine, in what they dare term "Israel!"  Now, suddenly, this

orchestration of criticism for a government that is only doing what it

does best and naturally, that is to say, MURDER AND TORTURE, ON AN


     Finally in Newsweek, in a full page article including a photograph

of an Israeli (retired?) general in handcuffs, we find: "A FRIENDSHIP

UNDER PRESSURE ‑‑ New charges that Israel is swiping (the word should

be stealing) U.S. secrets."  The article deals with cluster bombs which

the Israeli government has proven it will use on helpless civilian



Zionists and the Anti‑Defamation League have blackmailed our Congress

is simply beyond belief.  However, at long last there is every sign

that what was suggested by Robert Williams and outlined above is

actually beginning to happen.  That it will be a slow process, goes

without saying, because the Jews have almost absolute control of the



     We suggest that were it not for the incalculable harm done to our

government's ability to serve its American people through our foreign

policy ‑‑ this harm being directly traceable to the false doctrine

espoused by such fiends of "Israel" as Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson.

We further suggest the William's "prophecy" would be happening faster.

Having correctly assessed the fact that the Zionists would end up

exposed to public scrutiny, he could not possibly have imagined the

sinister distortion of scripture that would lead untold millions to put

"Israel" above loyalty to either Christ or country. What a travesty!

The blood soaked Israeli leaders are truthfully able to say, "...We

have the Christians of America!"  And Jerry Falwell urging eighty

thousand preachers associated with the so‑called Moral Majority, "To

stand against Israel is to stand against God."  And as Ruth Mouly

pointed out in her article in the Humanist, May/June 1982 entitled "The

Religious Right and Zionism;"

     "The degree of commitment which characterizes many Christian

Zionists is illustrated by the words of a pro‑Israeli Kansas

journalist, 'As a gentle American, as a Christian who considers loyalty

to God above all human commitments, if the choice ever comes between

loyalty to an American government and loyalty to Israel, I have no

choice.  I must stand by Israel.'"

     There are few men in the entire world more dangerous to your

liberties than Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell!

     We close with the words of Richard Cotten who said: "FREEDOM IS


              Entity in Palestine

                    Author Unknown*

         On May 1949, the General Assembly of International Security

        Council recognized Israel as a state established on

        Palestinian land. Israel's first government was headed by

        David Ben Gorion. As a consequence, Palestine, particularly,

        and Middle East region, generally, entered in a bloody conflict

        which continues till the present day. The declaration of Israel's

        State was not a sudden result of 1948‑War, but has much

        deeper roots dating back to the old British imperialist


         The idea of establishing the State of Israel emerged in the

        wake of what was later known by as the Balfour Declaration, in

        which Arthur James Balfour, the British Prime Minister,

        romised in 1917 that Britain will do its best to establish a

        Jewish national home in Palestine. This ill‑omened Declaration

        was the starting point for all events which preceded the

        Declaration of the Israeli State.

         Early this century, Britain's policy had been going towards

        settling down the British presence in India, Egypt and vast

        parts of Africa to protect the roads leading to these

        ettlements. However, Palestine had a strategic position for it is

        essential to protect the Sinai and the Suez Canal. Additionally,

        it is located on the road between India and Africa. As a result,

        Britain concluded that it is very necessary to put this region

        under its control, through settling foreign people, which would

        serve as a buffer zone. At the same time, the Zionist

        Movement was seeking to establish a state. On the other hand,

        in the Zionist First Summit, held in Basel, Switzerland in 1897,

        23 Jewish leaders announced that Jews should establish a

        Jewish state in Palestine and remove all the current


         As a result, the Zionist and the British interests had

        intersected, and consequently, an alliance between these two

        imperialistic powers had formed.

         It is very obvious that the real dimensions of this alliance was

        represented in statements and attitudes of Jewish and British

        leaders. For instance, Ben Gorion said:" Britain is protecting

        us, so we must not be at the back ranks. We have to form

        Jewish Militia to protect ourselves and destroy Arabs. This will

        not, simply, be achieved unless we received support and aid

        from Britain". While Azar Weizman said in his memories:"

        There was a confidential agreement in which Britain had

        engaged itself to hand over Palestine without Arab people to

        us in 1934". Churchill, British Prime Minister, said in response

        to Arabs' demand of revoking Balfour Declaration:" They ask

        for me to reject Balfour Declaration and haul Jewish

        immigration. I can't do that, and I don't wish also. I think it is

        much better for world, Jews, Britain and Arabs also to

        mplement this Declaration. Establishing Jewish state on

        Jordan's River bands with 4 or 5 million Jews will be in

        Britain's interest".

         prime Minister Churchill did not concern himself about the

        fairness of removing an entire population from their homeland

        but was more concerned about what is in Britain's interests.

        his is not democracy or liberty but racism and colonialism. In

        this way Britain, then Palestine's Mandatory Power, sought to

        establish a Jewish state in the colony of Palestine.

         On April 5th, 1920 the League of Nations decided that Britain

        is going to be the mandatory power in Palestine, In its turn,

        Britain had appointed the Jewish Herbert Samuel as its high

        Commissioner who accepted the cooperation with the Jewish

        rganization. On the other hand and inspite of the protests,

        Balfour said:" Zionism is more important than 700,000 Arab


         Thus, Mandatory Power started to bring Jews from all over the

        world and settled them in Palestine. Furthermore, the British

        government had granted the Jewish Organization vast powers

        to bring ten thousands of Jewish people a year. Also,

        Mandatory Power helped Jews on dominating strategic

        positions inside Palestine for establishing settlements. On the

        other hand, this Power had forced the Arab farmers to sell their

        lands because of their incapability to pay back the debts and


         The Jews began to surge into Palestine. So, while their

        number was 58 thousand in 1918, this number increased to 92

        thousand between 1939 to 1945, then to 161 thousand

        between 1946 and 1948 to reach to 4.2 million in 1992.

         The British‑Jewish coordination continued until the Jews knew

        that, unlike American Power, Britain's imperialistic power was

        about to collapse. So, Jews went to the side of United States

        which completely supported them. Rejecting U.S.A. to interfere

        in the Palestinian issue, British government decided to refer

        the subject to Security Council.

         In 1947, Security Council issued its Resolution of Dividing

        Palestine into two regions: Arab (11500 km.squar) and Jewish

        (14100 km.sq.). As a result of Military clashes inside

        Palestine, Security Council froze its Resolution on March

        1948. The Jews began, on April 1948, their aggressions. As a

        result, the Jews conquest most of Arab cities and villages after

        they had evacuated them from Arab population. At this time,

        Argon's gangs headed by Minahim Beigen committed a

        terrifying massacre at Dair Yassine killing about 250 women,

        children and old men. After the massacre, Beigen said:" Were

        it not For victory of Air Eosin, Israel would not had been ever".

        John Kimchi, Jewish writer, commented:" It is an ugliest

        shameful stain in Jews' history".

         Thus, we can see that the conspiracy was created by Zionism,

        supported by Britain and sponsored by U.S.A.

         So, killing, terrorism and displacing peoples are basic

        elements on which Israel State established and grew in

        addition to claim on an alleged religious right to Palestinian


         Before Zionist occupation, number of Jews in Palestine was

        about 58 thousand who were living in peace with 642 thousand

        Arab citizens, both Moslems and Christians.

         In fact, not all Zionists, now presented in Palestine, are

        Semitics. As Jewish sources say that about 82% of Zionists

        who are, now, staying and governing Israel, are non‑Semitic


Reference Materials