Prince Charming
(based on talks given in
Stanford University, California and American University, Cairo)
By Israel Shamir
- What has he found in her? - jealously gossip the shrills. -
Why does he shower her with gifts? What's she got that we
haven't? She costs him a lot of money and good will, she
alienated him from his old buddies, and for a good reason: the
little murderous bitch, hers is a brand name for every mean
trick, but he, usually tight-fisted and penny-pinching,
generously cares and stonewalls for her, lays low her enemies
and silences her critics. What is the secret behind the peculiar
love affair between Daughter of Zion from Middle East and the
superpower across the ocean? These questions tease the mind, and
call us to explore the source of the great anomaly of our time.
Like exploring the source of Nile in preceding century, it
requires an ability to look into lions' eyes with a white hunter
's disdain for death, and Sherlock Holmes' detective talents.
The current favourite explanation is a vaguely defined
"strategic interest of American corporations", sometimes
deciphered as desire of the US weapon industries to sell their
stuff to Arabs. Others prefer America's need to have a base, or
a "local cop on the beat" in the troubled area. Idealists
believe in Americans' guilt feelings, in the long shadow of
Holocaust or psychological similarity. Another prolific school
explains the anomaly by oil. Arab oil has to be under American
control and who would be better to do the job than ferocious
Hassidic Jews? Although, this school explains everything by oil,
whether it is the war in Afghanistan, looming American attack on
Iraq, tension between India and Pakistan, or trouble in
Palestine. They remind me of ancient Greek philosophers who
believed in existence of one basic element the world is built
of.
Thales said, water is the basis of all things. Anaximenes said,
air is the basis of all things. Heraclites said, all is fire. It
is all pipelines, proclaims a chorus of experts whenever there
is a discussion of reasons behind American policies in the
Middle East. It seems quite convincing, until one is reminded a
cheerful line of Afif Safiye, the witty PNA man in London:
"Palestine has a lot of oil. Olive oil."
.
In order to understand the obscure charms of the Daughter of
Zion, we should remember that Uncle Sam is but a third lover of
the plucky girl. With Bush's predecessors, the British Empire in
1917-1922 and the Soviet Union in 1945-1949, we have an
advantage of full knowledge of sources and motives. The archive
documents were aired, published and analysed by better men,
while we can just sum up the fruits of their labour, and find
out "what attracts them".
II
The first Prince Charming to be seduced by her husky voice was
British Foreign Secretary Lord Balfour, who promised to turn
Palestine into a National Home for the Jews. Britain reneged on
promises given to Arabs, seized Palestine, enforced the Jewish
rule in the land, killed and exiled every unbending Palestinian
leader, destroyed Palestinian economy and trained the future IDF
shock troops to deal with natives. They've got preciously little
in return. Palestine was an expensive thing to run, and it
caused a lot of trouble. Perfide Albion became an object of much
dislike in the Middle East. British soldiers and officers were
killed by both Palestinians and by not-so-easily placated
Zionists. Traditional explanation for their strange behaviour is
an identical one to that given for the US support. It is again
"imperialism", "oil", "strategic value", "divide and rule" and
similar platitudes, (minus guilt and Holocaust, as it happened
well before Hitler.) But a neat "collection of the official
documents, memoranda and letters of those in power in London and
in Palestine" in the decisive years 1917-1922 contains just one
reference to economic value of Palestine as perceived by the
British statesmen, "Palestine has no strategic value whatsoever
". There is no "oil" in the index at all.
In private discussions behind the closed doors of the Whitehall,
one can't find even a shred of imperialist desires to divide and
rule. Contrariwise, the British leaders "anticipated great
trouble from Zionists" (General Allenby). As Lord Cecil
succulently put it, "we (the British) are not going to get
anything out of it [of possession of Palestine]". British did
not need Palestine, they would love to get rid of the place, but
they did not dare. The Palestine Papers put to rest the
"imperialist" explanation, leave alone oil, for the tumultuous
affair between Zionists and the British Empire.
Now, a thoughtful Israeli writer, Tom Segev, has proposed quite
different motive in his best-selling book One Palestine,
Complete. Published in English last year, it was acclaimed by
the Jewish pundits of America as "thoroughly researched" (Jewish
week), "fascinating" (Hadassa Magazine), "landmark of
information" (Houston Jewish Herald), while this great admirer
of Sharon, Ron Grossman of Chicago Tribune called it "brilliant.
an utterly fascinating narrative of the period".
Segev does not mince words. He rejects oil-strategy explanations
and in the very beginning of his book, he affirms: England did
it because its rulers "certainly believed in great power of the
World Jewry to influence world events, whether in the US or in
revolutionary Russia. British government had come to conclusion
that it is worth their while to conquer Palestine, to suppress
its people and to give it to Zionists in order to curry favour
with the World Jewry.
The Prime Minister, Lloyd George "feared Jews", and in his
memoirs he explained his momentous decision to support Zionists
by urgent need to form an alliance, "a contract with Jewry", "a
highly influential power whose goodwill was worth paying for",
in order to win the war. "The Jews had every intention of
determining the outcome of the WWI. They could influence the US
to intensify their involvement in the war, and as the real
movers behind the Russian revolution, they also controlled
Russia's attitude towards Germany. The Jews offered themselves
to the highest bidder, and unless Britain would
clinch the deal first, the Germans would have bought them". The
astute Lloyd George based his opinion on the reports of British
ambassadors, who were unequivocal. "The influence of the Jews is
very great, - noted his man in Washington. - They are well-organised
and especially in press, in finance, and in politics their
influence is considerable". The ambassador in Turkey reported
that an international connection of Jews was the real power
behind Ataturk's revolution. The Foreign Office undersecretary
Lord Cecil summed it up, "I do not think it is easy to
exaggerate the international power of the Jews". The Royal
Institute of International Affairs asserted that "the sympathy
of Jews was vital to winning the war".
Jews fully shared this vision of united and powerful Jewry,
writes Segev. The postmaster general Herbert Samuel, a Jew and a
Zionist, proposed in 1915 to give Palestine to Jews so "millions
of Jews scattered around the world, including the two million in
the US, would show lasting gratitude for all generations". (It
actually lasted less than 20 years until the beginning of
Zionist anti-British terror) In a proper British understatement,
Samuel wrote, "the goodwill of the whole Jewish race may not be
without its value". The Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann "did his
best to encourage this
impression", says Segev. He "conjured up the myth of Jewish
power" and "reinforced British predilection for seeing the Jews
everywhere and behind every decisive event". But Brits were not
biting until in 1917 their military situation became desperate.
Russian front had been collapsing under the influence of
Bolsheviks, and Germans transferred divisions to the Western
front. Britain decided to deal with the Jews so they will push
America into European war.
III
Now, Tom Segev did not discover America, but he has introduced a
much-needed rhetoric device, called "perception". Wisely, he
does not say, "Jews wielded such a power that Britain preferred
to deal with them and surrender Palestine sacrificing thousands
of British soldiers and millions of Palestinians". Instead, the
Israeli writer Tom Segev uses a formula perfectly acceptable
even to severe Political Correctness enforcement officers. Not
"Jewish power", but "perception of Jewish power", "belief in
Jewish power" was the moving factor, akin to belief in
witchcraft. His device and its application allow us to continue
to deal with our subject peacefully, leaving the adjacent but
troublesome question of reality vs. perception to some other
time. A perception is almost as good as a real thing, wrote Mark
Twain in his £1 million Bill. An American hero of this short
story is universally accepted for a millionaire, though he has
not a penny on his soul, and he still makes millions on the base
of the perception. The New York Times review of Tom Segev's book
describes Balfour and other British supporters of Zionists as
"acting from anti-Semitic reasons". It is an interesting
definition: even devout Christian Zionists fully supportive of
the Jewish state, are considered "anti-Semites", if they
perceive and refer to the power of Jews. Before WWII, an
anti-Semite would consider Jewish power to be a rather negative
After the war, in order to be innocent, one should not even
notice Jews. That is why an open, no-holds-barred debate of real
extent of Jewish power would not be an easy one, as it is
notoriously hard to measure and prove influence and no newspaper
or TV network of the Western world would touch it with a barge
pole. Segev further protects himself by attributing to the Brits
a silly belief that "the Jews control the world" . No sane
person, from Lloyd George to Hitler, ever thought so. The world
is too big and complex to control. But the Jewish apologists
usually attribute this exaggerated claim to their opponents,
refute it and consider the case closed. We shan't fall for it,
and keep the case open a bit longer. Segev does not reason why
hard-nosed British politicians and civil servants succumbed to
such an illusion, why they did not ascribe the "decisive
influence" to West African witch doctors or Chinese Tao masters,
but to the Jews. This lacuna is filled by a thick volume by
University of California Professor Alfred S. Lindemann published
by Cambridge University Press, Esau' s Tears .
Lindemann refers to the Russo-Japanese War of 1905, when Jacob
H. Schiff, the American financier, blocked the Russian attempt
to obtain bonds they sought in the international markets to
finance the war, and provided financial support for Japan,
eventually causing humiliating defeat of Russia. Afterwards,
Schiff boasted that "international Jewry is a power after all"
Simon Wolf, another important American Jewish leader, confidant
of presidents, lectured the Russians: "The Jews of the world
control much of it. There is no use in disguising the fact that
in the US, the Jews form an important factor in the formation of
the public opinion and in the control of finances. they exercise
an all-potent and powerful influence". In 1905, after the
Russo-Japanese war, their boasts were accepted as justified.
Winston Churchill and Theodore Herzl firmly believed that
international Jewry has enormous power in international
relations. Professor Lindemann concludes, "they were not wrong
in believing that Jews were a power in the world, and a rising
one, particularly because of influence they could exercise in
the up-and-coming US". Lindemann concurs that the reason behind
the Balfour declaration was Balfour 's and the US President
Wilson's fear that the Germans might make such a declaration,
rally influential Jews to the cause of the Central Powers and
put paid to the Anglo-American war effort . That is why English
rushed to outbid other potential buyers of the perceived Jewish
influence.
IV
It is well outside the scope of this piece to decide or even
discuss whether the Jews actually delivered the goods as
promised, or were they able to do it, or even whether the Jews
exist. It would suffice to say that it certainly appears so.
America threw its fresh forces to the battlefields of Europe,
tired German armies were defeated, Treaty of Versailles sealed
the fate of Germany and Palestine. Long standing traditionally
good relations between German Jews and Germans were irrevocably
ruined by the perceived
alliance of the Jews with the enemy of Germany. Eventually,
ordinary Jews, ordinary Germans and ordinary Palestinians were
made to pay a terrible price for the ambitions of the American
Jewish leadership. The British did not dare to cheat on the Jews
after the war, as they were threatened again by possible Jewish
desertion, this time to the Russian cause. Head of British
Military Intelligence General MacDonogh warned the highest
circles of the Empire, "The most important thing about Palestine
is not its topographical relation to Syria or anything else, but
that it interests the whole of the Jews all over the world.
Zionists tell me that if the Jewish people did not get what they
were asking for in Palestine, we should have the whole of Jewry
turning Bolsheviks and supporting Bolshevism in all the other
countries as they have done in Russia" . Quite recently, Israeli
right-wing, notably Sharon, Lieberman and Netanyahu, repeatedly
stated that "if the Jewish people didn't get what they were
asking for in Palestine", they will switch their support to
Russia of President Putin. It took a few trips by Israeli
ministers to Russia to enforce the American leadership's
commitment to support Israel, although it was an empty threat.
Now, for a first time in centuries, the Jews lost their
perceived position of power brokers between two powers. Putin's
Russia is too weak to threaten America; radical Left is rather
weak and has no identifiable Jews; European Jews did not recover
after the WWII. It is luck (or skill) of Israeli leaders that
the US is lead by nincompoop Bush, not by people like President
Nixon, or Lord Curzon, the man who said in March 1920: "The
Zionists are after a Jewish state with the Arabs as hewers of
wood and drawers of water. That is not my view. I want the Arabs
to have a chance and I do not want a Jewish State" . But Nixon
has been impeached through the efforts of Jewish-owned
Washington Post, and Lord Curzon perished in strange
circumstances.
As he predicted, British Empire got very little good out of the
deal with the Jews even in the medium run. British victory over
Germany in 1918 was a Pyrrhic one, as it accelerated the decline
of the Empire. Many politicians moaned that instead of begging
for Zionist alliance and pushing for victory in 1915-1917, it
would be better for the British if they would make peace with
Germany. British rule in Palestine gave England no influence, no
profits, no strategic advantage, it did not even guarantee the
Jewish support, leave alone gratitude. Organised mainstream
Jewry supported America, Jewish communists supported Russia,
while Jewish right-wing looked towards Mussolini and Hitler for
inspiration and assistance. Zionist militant organisations,
Hagana, Irgun and Stern Gang humiliated, terrorised and murdered
British soldiers, officials and statesmen. Very soon, the
English understood that they made a big mistake to enter the
deal. They discovered, as many leaders before them and after
them, until Yasser Arafat, that one needs a very long spoon to
eat with Devil from the same pot.
V
The love affair between English Prince Charming and Daughter of
Zion was over, but she did not remain lonely and deserted. The
place of the British gentleman was taken by Joseph Stalin. In
1945-1949, the Soviet Union became the strong supporter of the
fledging Jewish state. Russia voted for partition of Palestine,
was first to recognise Israel, and was the main supplier of arms
to Zionists (via their Czech satellite) while the West imposed
its blockade on the Palestinian side. Eventually, the Russian
admirer dumped the girl, like his British predecessor, and
returned to support the Palestinian cause. The strange zigzag of
Russian policy intrigued politicians and scholars, who offered
predictable explanations: "Stalin's desire for Middle East
foothold", "Soviet belief in pro-Communist sympathies of Jews in
Palestine", "Russia's trying to undermine British imperialism"
and surely, "oil", "expansionism" and "imperialism". All these
explanations seem plausible. For us, the Israelis, the most
favourite one connected Russia's move with the Israeli Left. In
1948, the fighters of Palmach imitated the Red Army, sung
Russian songs; some of them had Russian or Polish Communist
background. Geo-strategists preferred the Russian search for a
harbour in the Mediterranean, while political scientists saw it
as the struggle the between Russian Bear and the British Lion
for the influence in the Middle East. We would not know the
right answer, but last year the Foreign Offices of Moscow and
Tel Aviv jointly published two heavy (I know, I carried them)
volume of documents pertaining to this period. It contains
secret and confidential letters by Stalin and to Stalin, and
provides a full insight into the Second Lover's Tale.
"Yes, our support of Zionist state is a complete break with the
long-standing Soviet tradition of supporting anti-colonial and
anti-imperialist movements. Yes, this decision of ours will
poison relations with the Arab world. Yes, it will enslave the
native people of Palestine. But it can sway the American Jews to
the side of the Soviet Union, and the
American Jews will deliver the US to us" - that was the true
reasoning of Stalin and his men. In those years, strong
sympathies of the American Jews to the Soviet cause led to the
Rosenberg Trial, and Senator McCarthy already felt it in the
air. Stalin, as the Brits before him, did not care much about
Palestine. He did not consider the British Empire an important
enemy - after two world wars, England was ruined. He was not
interested in oil. He thought, as the Brits, to make a contract
with the Jewry, to give the Jews what they want and to get their
support in return. It took him some time to understand his
mistake. Israeli strongman David Ben Gurion disabused potential
friends of Moscow and stressed that the first and most important
friend and master of Israel remains the American Jewish
leadership. When the first ambassador of Israel, Golda Meir,
arrived in Moscow, Stalin witnessed incredible surge of Jewish
solidarity. The Jewish wives of Kremlin commissars, from Mrs
Molotov to Mrs Whatshisname, rushed in tears to Mrs Meir as to
their long lost sister. The Jews in Russia occupied too many too
important positions, and thousands of them crowded the streets
in front of the Israeli embassy. Stalin hoped his support of
Israel would have helped him to captivate the mind of American
Jews, but now he had realised that, by means of Israel, the
leaders of American Jews captivated the mind of Russian Jews.
Instead of getting the Fifth Column in New York, he allowed
Americans (via their Israeli ally) to activate their Fifth
Column in Moscow. Stalin underestimated the hold Israel has over
Jewish mind. He looked into this abyss and retreated as soon as
possible.
VI
Two previous important partners of the Jewish state supported it
as they perceived Jewish influence in America being a joystick
to the superpower control board. They believed: give to Jews
what they want (Palestine), and they will give you what you want
(America). For real or for perception, they came to grief. In a
classic English story, A Monkey Paw, a magic tool fulfils the
owner's wish but in such a horrible way that he has a reason to
regret asking for it. The alliance with Jews had a similar
effect. They got what they asked for, - victory in war or
pro-Russian stand of American Jews, but came to regret it. Still
the belief in Jewish power is the most common one among the
elites of the world. That is why many countries send to Tel Aviv
their best and most experienced ambassadors, usually on their
way to or from Washington Embassy. That is why, whenever a
country wishes to beseech Washington, it sends an envoy to Tel
Aviv. The Israelis pass the request to the right people in the
US, and apparently it works.
This belief is the most common one in the US, as well. American
politicians support Israel because they share the opinion of
Lloyd George and Herzl. They also respect the condition demanded
by heirs of Jacob Schiff and never, but never mention the
dreadful words, "Jewish power". In the world free of taboos, a
new Henry Miller can't shock his readers referring to sex, but
to the Jews and their unseen might. Is it only a perception?
Perhaps. But the American traditional elites pay for it a real
double price: they send their folks to fight a third war within
the last hundred years for somebody's else perceived interests,
and their positions at the top table disappear daily. This
perception bleeds Iraq and Palestine, sends money to Israel,
distorts the public discourse. Not in vain, Mark Twain used to
say, a perception is almost as good as a real thing.
|