1948: The Birth of a New Specimen of Human Being

A historical documentary and study guide regarding the creation of modern Israel.

About Alan Hart

This historical documentary is about the creation of Israel by Alan Hart. Who is Alan Hart? You can learn more about Hart by reading his obituary.

In 1970 the BBC lured Hart to Panorama – according to one source, to give other reporters a wake-up call. Hart’s interviewees there included the Israeli prime minister, Golda Meir, with him asking her: “You are saying that, if ever Israel was in danger of being defeated on the battlefield, it would be prepared to take the region and even the whole world down with it?” She replied: “Yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying.”
Copied on 2024-12-09 from Alan Hart obituary | War reporting | The Guardian

Summary

The following lecture (video) discusses the historical context and events leading to the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, highlighting the British government’s policies towards Palestine, the influence of Zionism, and the reactions of both Jewish and Arab populations. It details the British White Paper of 1939, which aimed to limit Jewish immigration and establish a Palestinian state, and the subsequent UN Partition Plan that proposed dividing Palestine into Jewish and Arab states. It highlights the dispossession of Palestinian Arabs, the political maneuvers of key Zionist figures like David Ben-Gurion and Theodor Herzl, and the role of British colonial interests illustrated by the Balfour Declaration. The lecture emphasizes the complexities of the situation, including the opposition from Arab inhabitants, the role of international politics, and the eventual unilateral declaration of the State of Israel, which was made in defiance of the broader international community’s stance.

Objective

My objective is simple. Watch the video/lecture, and then put your thinker to work. When you size up how Israel came about, does it look like God’s plan played out just the way He said it would? Yes or No.  That’s the crux of it. Your answer could unravel everything you thought you knew about your life. And that’s where it gets hard. Really hard.  And therein lies the true challenge, as if the pieces of a puzzle suddenly refuse to fit.

Extra Credit: Below this video I have added the transcript in outline form that will help you follow along. After that you can test your memory by answering the 10 multiple choice questions. And then, try to engage in the short essay questions. Take 10-20 minutes a day to this study guide regarding the creation of modern Israel and you will understand how Israel was formed. Understanding that will answer a lot of questions regarding what you see happening today. The benefits will far outweigh the costs.  

Hosea 4:6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.

.

Outline

Schedule

How The Past Helps Explain The Present

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

I believe Scripture is like a magnifying glass, revealing the distinction between good and evil with unmistakable clarity. History, too, is an essential clue to understanding evil as I will show in this study. To know how a people came to be is to know the story behind their struggles and triumphs. Together, Scripture and history work like the pieces of a puzzle coming together. They paint a vivid picture of reality that might differ from what you were led to believe. In this case, if the impact is the same as it was for me, it will change your outlook on life. It will change what you do; it will rearrange your priorities.

In our generation, the story of Israel has become like the story of the Rodney King beating and the subsequent Los Angeles riots. The riots in 1992 were triggered by the acquittal of four LAPD officers charged with excessive force in the beating of Rodney King, a Black motorist. The incident occurred on March 3, 1991, when King was stopped by police after a high-speed chase. A bystander, George Holliday, recorded a video of the officers repeatedly striking King with batons, kicking him, and using a stun gun while he was on the ground. The footage, showing what many viewed as clear police brutality, was widely broadcast, sparking outrage and accusations of systemic racism within the police force.

On April 29, 1992, a predominantly white jury acquitted the four officers of most charges, and this decision ignited widespread anger in Los Angeles. Protests quickly escalated into violent riots that lasted six days, involving looting, arson, and clashes with law enforcement. Over 60 people were killed, thousands were injured, and there was extensive property damage, especially in South Central Los Angeles. The riots underscored deep-seated racial tensions and socioeconomic disparities in the United States.

.

.

The news clip of the Rodney King beating that aired was just 68 seconds long. And this 68 seconds was taken from the end of George Holliday’s original video recording. It became the central piece of evidence and focal point of media coverage, highlighting the severity of the beating by the LAPD officers. The full recording was longer, lasting about 9 minutes (540 seconds), but the short clip shown on news broadcasts was sufficient to spark public outrage.

The police chased Rodney King for approximately 8 miles, which lasted another 15 minutes, on the night of March 3, 1991. The pursuit began when California Highway Patrol officers attempted to pull King over for speeding on the 210 Freeway in Los Angeles. King, who was reportedly intoxicated and on parole for a prior robbery conviction, feared arrest and attempted to evade the officers. The high-speed chase involved multiple law enforcement units before King eventually stopped his vehicle, leading to the violent encounter captured on video.

In light of all the death and carnage, the question has to be asked: Was the press or media acting responsibly by showing such a small portion of the event to the public?

The media’s decision to air only 68 seconds of the Rodney King beating raises complex questions about responsibility and context. The brief clip shown on news outlets captured the most shocking moments of the incident, and while it effectively highlighted the brutality of the police actions, it did not include the events leading up to or following the beating. This selective focus inevitably shaped public perception, amplifying outrage and oversimplified the narrative, all for the sake of more clicks (views) for that news station.

Critics argue that by omitting the context of the high-speed chase or King’s actions immediately before the beating, the media may have influenced public opinion in a way that was incomplete or one-sided. On the other hand, proponents assert that the core issue—excessive force by police—was clear and indisputable, regardless of the preceding events.

Ultimately, while the media played a pivotal role in bringing attention to police misconduct, their choice to broadcast only a portion of the footage contributed to heightened emotions and a limited understanding of the broader incident. Whether this approach was responsible depends on the expectations placed on journalists to balance shock value with comprehensive reporting. Nonetheless, those 68 seconds distorted people’s perception and forever devastated more than 60 families.

Modern Israel

As tragic as that event was, the story of modern Israel is far more tragic. The narrow focus on certain events of Israel shapes public perception, amplifies outrage, and distorts the truth. It produces an outcome far more devastating than ten thousand Los Angeles riots. Like a monster on the loose, innocent people suffer while others are left in danger. Do we capture the beast or do we let the carnage continue? This is the question that has to be answered.

But first, is Israel really a creature or wild beast of concern? Need it be captured? Or is this another Rodney King, another victim of the cruel world around him who needs to be let go? With this study we will review the whole video recording of the creation of the state of Israel, from beginning to end. We will thereby gain a more accurate account of what transpired when Israel became a nation. We will hear from those who built it, the chief architects. Our goal is to gain a perception in line with reality. With clear vision we will be able to more easily predict what happens next. Just like watching a high speed chase for 15 minutes, and then 9 more minutes of resisting arrest, we know what’s coming next. With this study we will understand the Middle East and see what is unfolding. We will also understand our own country and why it does the things it does.

Today, few things control us more than Israel. As you will learn, it has been this way for a long time. It is most important to understand the full history behind the story of Israel. It can’t be left up to our imagination or worse, to a 68 second clip. Laws are being passed right now to prevent criticism of this country. Doesn’t that strike you as a bit odd? And this while a genocide is in full force. And why does our tax dollars more quickly go to this people before they go to meet the grave needs of our own people? The state of the world today calls us to understand the full 25 minute story. Your children need you to be clear on this topic. The world we are handing off to them is not the world our fathers handed us.

There is hope. The truth has the power to free us from what has been choking us. Seeing the whole picture will change our opinions and our actions. We will begin to serve a higher purpose and build a future for our families once again. Life and hope will reappear for us. The green grass will begin to grow for us.

Proverbs 27:23-27 Know well the condition of your flocks, and pay attention to your herds; for riches are not forever, nor does a crown endure to all generations. When the grass disappears, the new growth is seen, and the herbs of the mountains are gathered in, the lambs will be for your clothing, and the goats will bring the price of a field, and there will be goats’ milk enough for your food, for the food of your household, and sustenance for your maidens.

So, the focus of this study will be on the green sliver you see on this chart. Does that really explain the truth about Israel and what we have been led to believe? Our study will explore the formation of the modern state of Israel. The heart of this study will involve a 42 minute lecture with the study materials mentioned earlier to help understand the key information.

So, let us begin. First, we will need to overcome the temptation the news agencies could not in the Rodney King beating. Instead of leaving out the 15 minute car chase and the 9 minutes of resistance before the beating, let’s look at what the Old Testament and the New Testament say about the formation of the state of Israel. This will not take long. You may want to stop for the day and come back tomorrow to work on the next section. Piece by piece, day by day, you can have a clear perception of what is going on in the world today. But, there is a price to pay for that; you have to do the looking to gain such advantage.

The Old Testament Age

The story of Israel in the Old Testament encompasses a wide range of events, from the initial promises made to Abraham to the eventual settlement in the Promised Land, followed by periods of exile and return.

In the early narrative, the book of Genesis records God’s promise to Abraham that his descendants would inherit a specific land (Genesis 15:18-21). This promise is reiterated to Isaac and Jacob. The story of the Israelites’ journey from Egypt, under Moses’ leadership, and their eventual entry into Canaan under Joshua’s leadership, is a pivotal part of the narrative. The book of Joshua ends with the Israelites settled in the Promised Land.

However, the story doesn’t end there. The books of Judges, Samuel, and Kings recount the Israelites’ history in the land, including periods of peace and prosperity, as well as times of strife and conflict. Eventually, due to ongoing disobedience and turning away from God, the northern kingdom of Israel is conquered by the Assyrians, and the southern kingdom of Judah is later exiled to Babylon.

The books of Ezra and Nehemiah then narrate the return of some of the exiles to Jerusalem and the rebuilding of the temple and city walls. However, even at the close of the Old Testament, not all of the Jewish people are living in the land, and the nation is under Persian rule.

Thus, the story of Israel in the Old Testament leaves the people in a state of tension. They have experienced the fulfillment of God’s promise to bring them into the land, but they have also faced the consequences of their disobedience, including exile and dispersion. The prophets, however, continue to speak of a future hope of restoration and renewal.

The New Testament Age

The New Testament presents the continuation of the story of Israel, viewed through the lens of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Transcript

Overview Of Israel’s 1948 Declaration Of Statehood

On the 14th of May 1948, the Zionist State of Israel declared itself to be in existence. Before and after that event, 60 years ago, most of the Arabs of Palestine were dispossessed of their land and their rights, and the Palestinian refugee problem was created. How and why did it happen?

The resolution of the U.N. committee for Palestine (November 29th. 1947) was adopted by 33 votes, 13 against, and 10 abstentions.

Key Figures in Zionism

David Ben-Gurion

The birthplace of Israel’s founding father was the small Polish factory town of Plonsk, about 38 miles from Warsaw. He was born David Green, the son of a lawyer, in 1886. He arrived in Palestine from his Polish homeland in 1906 as a Russian tourist on a three-month visa and, in his own words, he simply overstayed.

On his first visit to Jerusalem, and reflecting the fact that the small number of Jews then in Palestine were from many homelands, he described the Holy City as

…a Tower of Babel, with Jews speaking together in 40 different languages, half of them unable to communicate with the other half.

As David Ben-Gurion, he became Israel’s first and long-serving Prime Minister and Minister of Defense. In 1937, as he recorded in his diary, Ben-Gurion wrote a letter to his son. In it, he said,

The Arabs will have to go, but one needs an opportune moment for making it happen, such as war.

Vladimir Jabotinsky

The founding father of Israel’s army was Vladimir Jabotinsky. He was a Russian Jew born in Odessa in 1880. In 1923, he published The Iron Wall, which became the main inspirational text for all Jewish nationalists who committed themselves to Zionism’s colonial enterprise. Its purpose was to take and keep the maximum amount of Arab land with a minimum number of Arabs on it.

In The Iron Wall, Jabotinsky was brutally frank about what Zionism’s ethic had to be. He wrote:

Zionism is a colonizing adventure, and therefore it stands or falls by the question of armed force. There is no other ethic. It is important to speak Hebrew, but unfortunately, it is even more important to be able to shoot. Otherwise, I am through with playing with colonization. To the hackneyed liberal approach that this point of view is unethical, I answer: absolutely untrue. As long as there is the faintest spark of hope for the Arabs to impede us, they will not sell these hopes, not for any tasty morsel. This is not a rabble, but our people are a living people, and no people make such enormous concessions on such fateful questions except when there is no hope left. Until we have removed every opening visible in the iron wall…

Theodor Herzl

The need for most, if not all, of Palestine’s Arabs to be dispossessed of their land and their rights had, in fact, been recognized and accepted by Zionism’s founding father, Theodor Herzl, a Hungarian-born Jew who worked as a journalist and playwright in Vienna. Herzl convened the first Congress of the World Zionist Organization in Basel, Switzerland, in 1897. It ended with Zionism’s first public statement of its mission. It was…

to create for the Jewish people a home in Palestine.

The term home was used because the Zionists did not want the world to know what their real intention was—to create a sovereign state. What Herzl really thought at the time was confined to his diary, which was not made public or published until 1916. His diary entry for the 3rd of September 1897, included in Herzl’s diary entry was the following statement summarizing the Basel Congress in a word he intended to keep guarded from public proclamation:

Were I to sum up the Basel Congress in a word (which I shall guard against pronouncing publicly) it would be this:  At Basel, I founded the Jewish STATE. Perhaps in five years, and certainly in fifty, everyone will know it… At Basel, then, I created this abstraction which, as such, is invisible to the vast majority of people.

Herzl also confided in his diary his vision of what would have to happen to the Palestinian Arabs:

We shall have to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it any employment in our own country. Both the process of expropriation (of Arab land) and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly.

Joseph Weitz

In 1940, when the Nazi persecution of Europe’s Jews was turning into extermination, Joseph Weitz, the head of the Jewish Agency’s colonization department in Palestine, wrote a secret memorandum titled A Solution to the Jewish Refugee Problem. In it, he said:

It must be clear that there is no room for both peoples together in this country. We shall not achieve our goal if the Arabs are in this country. There is no other way than to transfer the Arabs from here to neighboring countries—all of them. Not one village, not one tribe, should be left.

As we shall see, transfer was Zionism’s euphemism for ethnic cleansing.

James Balfour

It was after James Balfour, the foreign minister in Britain’s wartime coalition government, and before that Prime Minister, who gave Zionism colonial enterprise a degree of spurious legitimacy. He did it in a note addressed to Baron Lyman Rothschild on the 2nd of November 1917. The Balfour Declaration, as it became known, was impart a response to the personal pleading and lobbying of Dr. Chaim Weizmann, who had become the leader of the World Zionist Organization after Herzl’s premature death.

British Involvement

The Balfour Declaration And Its Implications

The document said:

His Majesty’s Government views with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this objective, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of non-existing Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

Palestine at the time was controlled by Turkey, and Britain had no right of any kind to give Palestine away, in whole or in part, to anybody. In 1957, an article in the American Bar Association Journal by Sol Linowitz, who was to become an advisor to and a negotiator for President Carter, concluded that The Balfour Declaration was “legally impotent.”

The Balfour Declaration concealed from public view a reality which, if it had been acknowledged, would have invited the conclusion that catastrophe was bound to be the outcome if Zionism was allowed to have its way.

The concealed reality was the makeup of the population of Palestine. At the moment The Balfour Declaration was issued, the Arabs numbered about six hundred and seventy thousand and constituted 93% of the population. Jews then in Palestine numbered about 60,000 and constituted 7% of the population.

The term “Arab” or “Arabs” did not appear in The Balfour Declaration. As we have seen, it reduced the 93% Arab majority to “existing non-Jewish communities.”

In the House of Commons in July 1937, Winston Churchill, then excluded from office and campaigning for the Hitler threat to be taken seriously, gave an explanation of why The Balfour Declaration was issued. He said:

It is a delusion to suppose that this [1917 Balfour Declaration] was a mere act of crusading enthusiasm or quixotic philanthropy. On the contrary, it was a measure taken in due need of the war with the object of promoting the general victory of the Allies, for which we expected and received valued and important assistance.

The clear implication of those words is that, in November 1917, Britain had needed the Zionists and their influence and had been prepared to pay the price they asked for it.

Jewish extremists attacked British troops, wrecked government buildings, blew up trains and ships, and so Palestine remained a place of martial law. Although their ways were only under watch, the innocent must suffer with the guilty.

British Policy Shifts Regarding Palestine

There is not time in this program to go into the documented detail of what assistance Britain needed from Zionism and where it was needed, but the following can be said in some way.

The 1939 White Paper And Its Objectives

Six weeks later, in the countdown to World War II and terrified by the prospect of the Arabs throwing in their lot with Nazi Germany on the basis that the enemy of their enemy was their friend, the British government unveiled a White Paper setting out its new policy for Palestine. It said:

His Majesty’s Government therefore now declare unequivocally that it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish state.

In the most explicit way that left no scope for misunderstanding by anybody and no opportunity for misrepresentation by Zionism, the White Paper spelled out what Britain’s Palestine policy was to be from here on.

The objective was an independent Palestinian state within ten years, in which Arabs and Jews could share in such a way as to ensure that the essential interests of each are safeguarded.

As a concession to the Zionists, the White Paper also stated that Britain would permit a total of 75,000 more Jews to enter Palestine over the next five years, which would take the Jewish population of Palestine to approximately one-third. But after five years, Britain was not intending to allow any more Jews to enter Palestine without the consent of the Arabs. Since it was predictable that the Arabs would not agree to further Jewish immigration, the 1939 White Paper was effectively announcing the end of it after five years.  In addition, the White Paper pledged that Britain would check the ever-increasing illegal Jewish immigration into Palestine and that the British High Commissioner would be given powers to regulate the sale and transfer of land.

Zionism rejected the White Paper and accused Britain of betraying the Jews. Ben Gurion himself declared:

We will fight with the British against Hitler as if there was no White Paper, and fight the White Paper”—he meant the British forces in Palestine—”as if there was no war.

What was about to happen in Palestine, and much of what is still happening today, was determined more than anything else by what happened in Europe, the slaughter of six million Jews.

Consequences of Zionist Policies

Jewish Opposition

Prior to the obscenity of the Nazi Holocaust, Zionism’s prospects for creating a state for Jews in Palestine were not good. They were even poor, and that was due in large part to the fact that very many Jews of the world, particularly the most informed and thoughtful of them, were opposed to Zionism’s colonial enterprise. They believed it to be morally wrong, they believed it would lead to unending conflict, and they feared that if Zionism had its way, it would provoke anti-Semitism, which could one day threaten the well-being and perhaps even the survival of Jews everywhere.  Also documented is the fact that very many of the Jews who were displaced and uprooted in Nazi-occupied Europe and needed refuge elsewhere did not want to go to Palestine. Their preference was America.

Reactions Regarding Jewish Immigration

President Roosevelt did, in fact, seek to organize a rescue plan, which he hoped would allow up to half a million European refugees—Jews and others—into America, Britain, and elsewhere. But this initiative was killed by the Zionist lobby, a victory that was due in large part to the fact that many of America’s settled Jews, like their English counterparts in an earlier time, did not want the arrival of too many more Jewish immigrants.

I was told by all these so-called experts that it was done. It involved the whole Near East in a war, and it would also involve the United States. Hitler had been murdering Jews right and left. I saw it, and I dream about it even to this day. The Jews needed some place where they could go. It is my attitude that the American government couldn’t stand idly by while the victims of Hitler’s madness were not allowed to build new lives.” ~ Truman

After Roosevelt’s death in office, President Truman also tried to get a rescue plan going, but again, because of the Zionist lobby’s influence, it didn’t get the necessary support in Congress.

Ongoing Conflict And Historical Ramifications

In my book Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews, there is a chapter headed Holocaust: Jewish Death, Zionist Life. It was the obscenity of the Nazi Holocaust that gave Zionism everything it needed to proceed with confidence and self-righteousness. Everything included the emotional and political support of most, if not all, of world Jewry and, in due course, the money—much of it from America—to buy the weapons with which to fight and defeat Arab armies, all of them if necessary. But Zionism’s first priority was to get British forces out of Palestine.

Violence continues to roll in Palestine. British soldiers seek bodies in the Department of Labor building at Chesnic, where a few minutes before a blast had partially wrecked the edifice. Three policemen were blown to bits when they tried to remove an explosive-laden truck. Shaky walls are torn down. As the toll of dead mounts daily in the bitter war. Reprisal-type security measures are imposed by the British. Scores of Jewish leaders are jailed, and rigid searches are conducted for terrorist weapons. These measures follow the hanging of two British sergeants by extremists. Palestine becomes an armed camp. ~ World Focus On Palestine

Alliance With Nazi Germany

One’s Zionist initiative for bringing this about was a proposal for an alliance with Nazi Germany. The proposal was from Avraham Stern. He arrived in Palestine from his Polish homeland in 1925. He was one of the founder members of the Irgun, formerly the National Military Organization (NMO). It was to become Zionism’s most successful terrorist organization. But Stern broke with it to form his own group, which was best known as the Stern Gang.

In September 1940, Stern approached Mussolini’s Italian fascists for a deal with them. When they were not interested, he turned to the Nazis. In January 1941, Stern met with two important Nazis. One of them was Otto von Hentig, the head of the Oriental Department of Nazi Germany’s Foreign Office. The outcome of the discussions was a proposal in writing dated the 11th of January 1941 from Stern. The text of the proposal said, in part, the following:

The establishment of the historical Jewish state on a national and totalitarian basis, and bound by treaty with the German Reich, would be in the interest of a maintained and strengthened future German position of power in the Near East.

Proceeding from these considerations, the NMO in Palestine, under the condition of the above-mentioned national aspirations of the Israeli freedom movement are recognized on the side of the German Reich, offers to actively take part in the war on Germany’s side. This offer by the NMO would be connected to military training and the organizing of Jewish manpower in Europe under the leadership and command of the NMO. These military units would take part in the fight to conquer Palestine, should such a front be decided upon.

The indirect participation of the Israeli freedom movement in the new order in Europe, already in the preparatory stage, would be linked with a positive solution of the European Jewish problem in conformity with the above-mentioned aspirations of the Jewish people. This would extraordinarily strengthen the moral basis of the new order in the eyes of all humanity.

Stern was assassinated by the British Special Forces in 1942. Forty-five years later, Jehosophat Huckabee, Israel’s longest-serving director of military intelligence, offered an observation on this Zionist attempt to do business with Hitler’s Germany:

“Perhaps for peace of mind, we ought to see this affair as an aberrant episode in Jewish history. Nevertheless, it should alert us to how far extremists may go in times of distress and where their manias may lead.”

Refocusing The Irgun

It was another Jewish immigrant from Poland, Menachem Begin, who turned the Irgun into a most successful terrorist organization—the same Menachem Begin who, in 1977, would become Israel’s prime minister and speed up the illegal settlement of the occupied West Bank in order to deny the Palestinians any prospect of sufficient land for a viable, independent state of their own—or so he hoped.

While he was restructuring and refocusing the Irgun, Begin had a message for the Gentiles of the world, and the British in particular.

Lest they be unwilling to realize, or all too ready to overlook, the fact is that out of blood and fire and tears and ashes, a new specimen of human being was born. A new specimen completely unknown to the world for over eighteen hundred years—the fighting Jew. That Jew, who the world considered dead and buried and never to rise again, has risen—never again to go down the sides of the pit and vanish off the earth.”

In Cairo, on the 6th of November 1944, two representatives of this new specimen of human being assassinated Lloyd Moyne, Britain’s Resident Minister for the Middle East. In the House of Commons, Churchill responded with these words:

If our dreams for Zionism are to end in the smoke of assassins’ guns, and our labors for its future produce only a new set of gangsters worthy of Nazi Germany, then many, like myself, will have to reconsider the position we have maintained so consistently and so long in the past.

In Palestine, the Irgun concentrated on bombing British installations, facilities, and communications networks of all kinds for the purpose of making government impossible. The blowing up of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem on the 22nd of July 1946 was the most spectacular and politically important of the Irgun’s operations against the occupying British.

They had taken over the southern wing of this most prestigious hotel to house the central institutions of their administration. It was the very heart of British authority and power in Palestine. Ben-Gurion denied that he or Zionism’s official military organizations—the Haganah and the Palmach—had anything to do with or advance knowledge of the blowing up of the King David. But he was not telling the truth. At least 91 people were killed, and twice that number were injured, and Britain was humiliated.

So, having made a mess of it, Britain decided to get out of Palestine by midnight on the 13th of May 1948, and it dumped the problem of what to do about Palestine into the lap of the infant United Nations. Zionist terrorism had succeeded in its mission to break Britain’s will to stay.

The British administration will leave Jerusalem within a fortnight, and very shortly afterwards, the last of the British troops will be out of Jerusalem.

UN Partition Plan

On the 20th of November 1947, at the end of a voting process that was influenced by the Zionist lobby, the General Assembly of the UN approved, by a narrow majority, a resolution to partition Palestine. It was a proposal for injustice on a massive scale. If it was approved by the Security Council, 56.4% of the land was to be given for a Jewish state to people, many of them recently arrived alien immigrants with no biological connection to the ancient Hebrews, who constituted 33% of the population and owned 5.6% of the land.

Details Of The Proposal

But the bare facts about the Partition Plan proposal itself tell only a fraction of this part of the truth of history. Without the consent of the majority of the people of Palestine, the UN did not have the right to decide to partition Palestine or assign any part of its territory to a minority of alien immigrants in order for them to establish a state of their own. Even so, the Partition Plan proposal approved by the Assembly did not become UN policy because it did not go to the Security Council for approval. Because the U.S. believed that if approved, in the face of Arab and other Muslim opposition, it could only be implemented by force, and President Truman was not prepared to use force to partition Palestine.

So, the Partition Plan was vitiated, became invalid, and the question of what to do about Palestine was taken back to the General Assembly for more discussion. The option favored and proposed by the U.S. was temporary UN trusteeship:

We believe that at present, temporary trusteeship for Palestine should be established under the Trusteeship Council of the United Nations. In our opinion, the Security Council should recommend the establishment of such a trusteeship to the General Assembly and to the mandatory power.

Declaration Of The State Of Israel

It was while the General Assembly was debating what to do that Israel unilaterally declared itself to be in existence, actually in defiance of the will of the organized international community, including the Truman administration:

This right is the natural right of the Jewish people to be masters of our own fate, like all other nations, in their own sovereign state, which would open the gates of the homeland wide to every Jew and confer upon the Jewish people the status of a fully privileged member of the comity of nations.

Accordingly, we, members of the National Executive, representatives of the Jewish community of Eretz Israel and of the Zionist movement, are here assembled on the day of determination of the British mandate over Eretz Israel, and by virtue of our natural and historic right and the strength of the resolution of the United Nations General Assembly, hereby declare the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz Israel, to be known as the State of Israel. ~ David Ben-Gurion

Zionism’s assertion that Israel was given its birth certificate and thus its legitimacy by the UN Partition Plan is amiss, propaganda nonsense. The truth of the time was that the Zionist state of Israel had no right to exist and could have no right to exist unless it was recognized and legitimized by those who were dispossessed of their land and their rights during its creation. In international law, only the Palestinians could give Israel the legitimacy it craved, and that legitimacy was the only thing Zionists could not take from the Palestinians by force.

Dispossession Of Palestinians

The Arabs were not only the overwhelming majority in the territory to be allotted to them by the Partition Plan proposal; they were also about 40% of the population in the territory to be allotted to the Jews. For Ben-Gurion and his most senior leadership colleagues, this gave added urgency to their task of finalizing Plan Dalet to ethnically cleanse, or de-Arabize, as much of Palestine as possible.

According to Zionism’s version of history, most, if not all, of the 800,000 Arabs who took their leave of Palestine in the months before and after Israel’s Declaration of Independence left voluntarily in response to a call from Arab leaders to make way and leave a clear field of fire for the incoming Arab armies. In his latest book, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, Professor Ilan Pappé, Israel’s leading revisionist, which means an honest historian, describes this version of history, Israel’s foundational myths, as a sheer fabrication. He documents the planning and the implementation of Zionism’s ethnic cleansing policy.

Deir Yassin

The massacre at the Arab village of Deir Yassin on the 9th of April 1947 was correctly described by Arthur Koestler, the Hungarian Jewish writer, as

the psychologically decisive factor in the spectacular exodus of the Arabs from the Holy Land and the creation of the Palestinian refugee problem.

At Deir Yassin, 254 Palestinians, including 145 women, of whom 35 were pregnant, were butchered. Menachem Begin, whose Irgun terrorists led the attack with assistance from the Stern Gang, was later to write this:

In the rest of the country, the Arabs began to flee in terror even before they clashed with Jewish forces. The legend of Deir Yassin helped us in particular in the saving of Tiberias and the conquest of Haifa. All the Jewish forces proceeded to advance through Haifa like a knife through butter. The Arabs began fleeing in panic, shouting ‘Deir Yassin!’

On the 17th of November 1948, Aharon Zisling, Israel’s first Minister of Agriculture, said the following at a cabinet meeting:

Now the Jews had behaved like Nazis, and my entire being is shaken.

But, having spoken those words, he agreed that the Zionist state’s crimes should be covered up. And they have been for 60 years.

Study Guide

Multiple-Choice Questions

Essay Questions

.

This lecture did not provide specific information regarding the reactions of the Jewish and Arab populations to the UN Partition Plan. However, based on historical context, the reactions of the Jewish and Arab populations to the UN Partition Plan of 1947 were markedly different, reflecting their conflicting national aspirations and historical grievances.

.

Jewish Reactions

Support for the Partition Plan:

February 1956 Map of UN Partition Plan for Palestine, adopted 29 Nov 1947, with boundary of previous UNSCOP Partition Plan added in green.

.

David Ben-Gurion‘s views significantly influenced the early policies of the Israeli state regarding Palestinian Arabs through his strong belief in the necessity of establishing a Jewish homeland and his pragmatic approach to achieving this goal. As a leading figure in the Zionist movement and the first Prime Minister of Israel (1948-53, 55-63), Ben-Gurion advocated for a combination of political maneuvering and military action to secure Jewish sovereignty in Palestine.

———–

To see all of the posts in this series, click on the tag Birth of Israel.

1948: The Birth of a New Specimen of Human Being

A historical documentary and study guide regarding the creation of modern Israel.

About Alan Hart

This historical documentary is about the creation of Israel by Alan Hart. Who is Alan Hart? You can learn more about Hart by reading his obituary.

In 1970 the BBC lured Hart to Panorama – according to one source, to give other reporters a wake-up call. Hart’s interviewees there included the Israeli prime minister, Golda Meir, with him asking her: “You are saying that, if ever Israel was in danger of being defeated on the battlefield, it would be prepared to take the region and even the whole world down with it?” She replied: “Yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying.”
Copied on 2024-12-09 from Alan Hart obituary | War reporting | The Guardian

Summary

The following lecture (video) discusses the historical context and events leading to the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, highlighting the British government’s policies towards Palestine, the influence of Zionism, and the reactions of both Jewish and Arab populations. It details the British White Paper of 1939, which aimed to limit Jewish immigration and establish a Palestinian state, and the subsequent UN Partition Plan that proposed dividing Palestine into Jewish and Arab states. It highlights the dispossession of Palestinian Arabs, the political maneuvers of key Zionist figures like David Ben-Gurion and Theodor Herzl, and the role of British colonial interests illustrated by the Balfour Declaration. The lecture emphasizes the complexities of the situation, including the opposition from Arab inhabitants, the role of international politics, and the eventual unilateral declaration of the State of Israel, which was made in defiance of the broader international community’s stance.

Objective

My objective is simple. Watch the video/lecture, and then put your thinker to work. When you size up how Israel came about, does it look like God’s plan played out just the way He said it would? Yes or No.  That’s the crux of it. Your answer could unravel everything you thought you knew about your life. And that’s where it gets hard. Really hard.  And therein lies the true challenge, as if the pieces of a puzzle suddenly refuse to fit.

Extra Credit: Below this video I have added the transcript in outline form that will help you follow along. After that you can test your memory by answering the 10 multiple choice questions. And then, try to engage in the short essay questions. Take 10-20 minutes a day to this study guide regarding the creation of modern Israel and you will understand how Israel was formed. Understanding that will answer a lot of questions regarding what you see happening today. The benefits will far outweigh the costs.  

Hosea 4:6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.

.

Outline

Schedule

How The Past Helps Explain The Present

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

I believe Scripture is like a magnifying glass, revealing the distinction between good and evil with unmistakable clarity. History, too, is an essential clue to understanding evil as I will show in this study. To know how a people came to be is to know the story behind their struggles and triumphs. Together, Scripture and history work like the pieces of a puzzle coming together. They paint a vivid picture of reality that might differ from what you were led to believe. In this case, if the impact is the same as it was for me, it will change your outlook on life. It will change what you do; it will rearrange your priorities.

In our generation, the story of Israel has become like the story of the Rodney King beating and the subsequent Los Angeles riots. The riots in 1992 were triggered by the acquittal of four LAPD officers charged with excessive force in the beating of Rodney King, a Black motorist. The incident occurred on March 3, 1991, when King was stopped by police after a high-speed chase. A bystander, George Holliday, recorded a video of the officers repeatedly striking King with batons, kicking him, and using a stun gun while he was on the ground. The footage, showing what many viewed as clear police brutality, was widely broadcast, sparking outrage and accusations of systemic racism within the police force.

On April 29, 1992, a predominantly white jury acquitted the four officers of most charges, and this decision ignited widespread anger in Los Angeles. Protests quickly escalated into violent riots that lasted six days, involving looting, arson, and clashes with law enforcement. Over 60 people were killed, thousands were injured, and there was extensive property damage, especially in South Central Los Angeles. The riots underscored deep-seated racial tensions and socioeconomic disparities in the United States.

.

.

The news clip of the Rodney King beating that aired was just 68 seconds long. And this 68 seconds was taken from the end of George Holliday’s original video recording. It became the central piece of evidence and focal point of media coverage, highlighting the severity of the beating by the LAPD officers. The full recording was longer, lasting about 9 minutes (540 seconds), but the short clip shown on news broadcasts was sufficient to spark public outrage.

The police chased Rodney King for approximately 8 miles, which lasted another 15 minutes, on the night of March 3, 1991. The pursuit began when California Highway Patrol officers attempted to pull King over for speeding on the 210 Freeway in Los Angeles. King, who was reportedly intoxicated and on parole for a prior robbery conviction, feared arrest and attempted to evade the officers. The high-speed chase involved multiple law enforcement units before King eventually stopped his vehicle, leading to the violent encounter captured on video.

In light of all the death and carnage, the question has to be asked: Was the press or media acting responsibly by showing such a small portion of the event to the public?

The media’s decision to air only 68 seconds of the Rodney King beating raises complex questions about responsibility and context. The brief clip shown on news outlets captured the most shocking moments of the incident, and while it effectively highlighted the brutality of the police actions, it did not include the events leading up to or following the beating. This selective focus inevitably shaped public perception, amplifying outrage and oversimplified the narrative, all for the sake of more clicks (views) for that news station.

Critics argue that by omitting the context of the high-speed chase or King’s actions immediately before the beating, the media may have influenced public opinion in a way that was incomplete or one-sided. On the other hand, proponents assert that the core issue—excessive force by police—was clear and indisputable, regardless of the preceding events.

Ultimately, while the media played a pivotal role in bringing attention to police misconduct, their choice to broadcast only a portion of the footage contributed to heightened emotions and a limited understanding of the broader incident. Whether this approach was responsible depends on the expectations placed on journalists to balance shock value with comprehensive reporting. Nonetheless, those 68 seconds distorted people’s perception and forever devastated more than 60 families.

Modern Israel

As tragic as that event was, the story of modern Israel is far more tragic. The narrow focus on certain events of Israel shapes public perception, amplifies outrage, and distorts the truth. It produces an outcome far more devastating than ten thousand Los Angeles riots. Like a monster on the loose, innocent people suffer while others are left in danger. Do we capture the beast or do we let the carnage continue? This is the question that has to be answered.

But first, is Israel really a creature or wild beast of concern? Need it be captured? Or is this another Rodney King, another victim of the cruel world around him who needs to be let go? With this study we will review the whole video recording of the creation of the state of Israel, from beginning to end. We will thereby gain a more accurate account of what transpired when Israel became a nation. We will hear from those who built it, the chief architects. Our goal is to gain a perception in line with reality. With clear vision we will be able to more easily predict what happens next. Just like watching a high speed chase for 15 minutes, and then 9 more minutes of resisting arrest, we know what’s coming next. With this study we will understand the Middle East and see what is unfolding. We will also understand our own country and why it does the things it does.

Today, few things control us more than Israel. As you will learn, it has been this way for a long time. It is most important to understand the full history behind the story of Israel. It can’t be left up to our imagination or worse, to a 68 second clip. Laws are being passed right now to prevent criticism of this country. Doesn’t that strike you as a bit odd? And this while a genocide is in full force. And why does our tax dollars more quickly go to this people before they go to meet the grave needs of our own people? The state of the world today calls us to understand the full 25 minute story. Your children need you to be clear on this topic. The world we are handing off to them is not the world our fathers handed us.

There is hope. The truth has the power to free us from what has been choking us. Seeing the whole picture will change our opinions and our actions. We will begin to serve a higher purpose and build a future for our families once again. Life and hope will reappear for us. The green grass will begin to grow for us.

Proverbs 27:23-27 Know well the condition of your flocks, and pay attention to your herds; for riches are not forever, nor does a crown endure to all generations. When the grass disappears, the new growth is seen, and the herbs of the mountains are gathered in, the lambs will be for your clothing, and the goats will bring the price of a field, and there will be goats’ milk enough for your food, for the food of your household, and sustenance for your maidens.

So, the focus of this study will be on the green sliver you see on this chart. Does that really explain the truth about Israel and what we have been led to believe? Our study will explore the formation of the modern state of Israel. The heart of this study will involve a 42 minute lecture with the study materials mentioned earlier to help understand the key information.

So, let us begin. First, we will need to overcome the temptation the news agencies could not in the Rodney King beating. Instead of leaving out the 15 minute car chase and the 9 minutes of resistance before the beating, let’s look at what the Old Testament and the New Testament say about the formation of the state of Israel. This will not take long. You may want to stop for the day and come back tomorrow to work on the next section. Piece by piece, day by day, you can have a clear perception of what is going on in the world today. But, there is a price to pay for that; you have to do the looking to gain such advantage.

The Old Testament Age

The story of Israel in the Old Testament encompasses a wide range of events, from the initial promises made to Abraham to the eventual settlement in the Promised Land, followed by periods of exile and return.

In the early narrative, the book of Genesis records God’s promise to Abraham that his descendants would inherit a specific land (Genesis 15:18-21). This promise is reiterated to Isaac and Jacob. The story of the Israelites’ journey from Egypt, under Moses’ leadership, and their eventual entry into Canaan under Joshua’s leadership, is a pivotal part of the narrative. The book of Joshua ends with the Israelites settled in the Promised Land.

However, the story doesn’t end there. The books of Judges, Samuel, and Kings recount the Israelites’ history in the land, including periods of peace and prosperity, as well as times of strife and conflict. Eventually, due to ongoing disobedience and turning away from God, the northern kingdom of Israel is conquered by the Assyrians, and the southern kingdom of Judah is later exiled to Babylon.

The books of Ezra and Nehemiah then narrate the return of some of the exiles to Jerusalem and the rebuilding of the temple and city walls. However, even at the close of the Old Testament, not all of the Jewish people are living in the land, and the nation is under Persian rule.

Thus, the story of Israel in the Old Testament leaves the people in a state of tension. They have experienced the fulfillment of God’s promise to bring them into the land, but they have also faced the consequences of their disobedience, including exile and dispersion. The prophets, however, continue to speak of a future hope of restoration and renewal.

The New Testament Age

The New Testament presents the continuation of the story of Israel, viewed through the lens of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Transcript

Overview Of Israel’s 1948 Declaration Of Statehood

On the 14th of May 1948, the Zionist State of Israel declared itself to be in existence. Before and after that event, 60 years ago, most of the Arabs of Palestine were dispossessed of their land and their rights, and the Palestinian refugee problem was created. How and why did it happen?

The resolution of the U.N. committee for Palestine (November 29th. 1947) was adopted by 33 votes, 13 against, and 10 abstentions.

Key Figures in Zionism

David Ben-Gurion

The birthplace of Israel’s founding father was the small Polish factory town of Plonsk, about 38 miles from Warsaw. He was born David Green, the son of a lawyer, in 1886. He arrived in Palestine from his Polish homeland in 1906 as a Russian tourist on a three-month visa and, in his own words, he simply overstayed.

On his first visit to Jerusalem, and reflecting the fact that the small number of Jews then in Palestine were from many homelands, he described the Holy City as

…a Tower of Babel, with Jews speaking together in 40 different languages, half of them unable to communicate with the other half.

As David Ben-Gurion, he became Israel’s first and long-serving Prime Minister and Minister of Defense. In 1937, as he recorded in his diary, Ben-Gurion wrote a letter to his son. In it, he said,

The Arabs will have to go, but one needs an opportune moment for making it happen, such as war.

Vladimir Jabotinsky

The founding father of Israel’s army was Vladimir Jabotinsky. He was a Russian Jew born in Odessa in 1880. In 1923, he published The Iron Wall, which became the main inspirational text for all Jewish nationalists who committed themselves to Zionism’s colonial enterprise. Its purpose was to take and keep the maximum amount of Arab land with a minimum number of Arabs on it.

In The Iron Wall, Jabotinsky was brutally frank about what Zionism’s ethic had to be. He wrote:

Zionism is a colonizing adventure, and therefore it stands or falls by the question of armed force. There is no other ethic. It is important to speak Hebrew, but unfortunately, it is even more important to be able to shoot. Otherwise, I am through with playing with colonization. To the hackneyed liberal approach that this point of view is unethical, I answer: absolutely untrue. As long as there is the faintest spark of hope for the Arabs to impede us, they will not sell these hopes, not for any tasty morsel. This is not a rabble, but our people are a living people, and no people make such enormous concessions on such fateful questions except when there is no hope left. Until we have removed every opening visible in the iron wall…

Theodor Herzl

The need for most, if not all, of Palestine’s Arabs to be dispossessed of their land and their rights had, in fact, been recognized and accepted by Zionism’s founding father, Theodor Herzl, a Hungarian-born Jew who worked as a journalist and playwright in Vienna. Herzl convened the first Congress of the World Zionist Organization in Basel, Switzerland, in 1897. It ended with Zionism’s first public statement of its mission. It was…

to create for the Jewish people a home in Palestine.

The term home was used because the Zionists did not want the world to know what their real intention was—to create a sovereign state. What Herzl really thought at the time was confined to his diary, which was not made public or published until 1916. His diary entry for the 3rd of September 1897, included in Herzl’s diary entry was the following statement summarizing the Basel Congress in a word he intended to keep guarded from public proclamation:

Were I to sum up the Basel Congress in a word (which I shall guard against pronouncing publicly) it would be this:  At Basel, I founded the Jewish STATE. Perhaps in five years, and certainly in fifty, everyone will know it… At Basel, then, I created this abstraction which, as such, is invisible to the vast majority of people.

Herzl also confided in his diary his vision of what would have to happen to the Palestinian Arabs:

We shall have to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it any employment in our own country. Both the process of expropriation (of Arab land) and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly.

Joseph Weitz

In 1940, when the Nazi persecution of Europe’s Jews was turning into extermination, Joseph Weitz, the head of the Jewish Agency’s colonization department in Palestine, wrote a secret memorandum titled A Solution to the Jewish Refugee Problem. In it, he said:

It must be clear that there is no room for both peoples together in this country. We shall not achieve our goal if the Arabs are in this country. There is no other way than to transfer the Arabs from here to neighboring countries—all of them. Not one village, not one tribe, should be left.

As we shall see, transfer was Zionism’s euphemism for ethnic cleansing.

James Balfour

It was after James Balfour, the foreign minister in Britain’s wartime coalition government, and before that Prime Minister, who gave Zionism colonial enterprise a degree of spurious legitimacy. He did it in a note addressed to Baron Lyman Rothschild on the 2nd of November 1917. The Balfour Declaration, as it became known, was impart a response to the personal pleading and lobbying of Dr. Chaim Weizmann, who had become the leader of the World Zionist Organization after Herzl’s premature death.

British Involvement

The Balfour Declaration And Its Implications

The document said:

His Majesty’s Government views with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this objective, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of non-existing Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

Palestine at the time was controlled by Turkey, and Britain had no right of any kind to give Palestine away, in whole or in part, to anybody. In 1957, an article in the American Bar Association Journal by Sol Linowitz, who was to become an advisor to and a negotiator for President Carter, concluded that The Balfour Declaration was “legally impotent.”

The Balfour Declaration concealed from public view a reality which, if it had been acknowledged, would have invited the conclusion that catastrophe was bound to be the outcome if Zionism was allowed to have its way.

The concealed reality was the makeup of the population of Palestine. At the moment The Balfour Declaration was issued, the Arabs numbered about six hundred and seventy thousand and constituted 93% of the population. Jews then in Palestine numbered about 60,000 and constituted 7% of the population.

The term “Arab” or “Arabs” did not appear in The Balfour Declaration. As we have seen, it reduced the 93% Arab majority to “existing non-Jewish communities.”

In the House of Commons in July 1937, Winston Churchill, then excluded from office and campaigning for the Hitler threat to be taken seriously, gave an explanation of why The Balfour Declaration was issued. He said:

It is a delusion to suppose that this [1917 Balfour Declaration] was a mere act of crusading enthusiasm or quixotic philanthropy. On the contrary, it was a measure taken in due need of the war with the object of promoting the general victory of the Allies, for which we expected and received valued and important assistance.

The clear implication of those words is that, in November 1917, Britain had needed the Zionists and their influence and had been prepared to pay the price they asked for it.

Jewish extremists attacked British troops, wrecked government buildings, blew up trains and ships, and so Palestine remained a place of martial law. Although their ways were only under watch, the innocent must suffer with the guilty.

British Policy Shifts Regarding Palestine

There is not time in this program to go into the documented detail of what assistance Britain needed from Zionism and where it was needed, but the following can be said in some way.

The 1939 White Paper And Its Objectives

Six weeks later, in the countdown to World War II and terrified by the prospect of the Arabs throwing in their lot with Nazi Germany on the basis that the enemy of their enemy was their friend, the British government unveiled a White Paper setting out its new policy for Palestine. It said:

His Majesty’s Government therefore now declare unequivocally that it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish state.

In the most explicit way that left no scope for misunderstanding by anybody and no opportunity for misrepresentation by Zionism, the White Paper spelled out what Britain’s Palestine policy was to be from here on.

The objective was an independent Palestinian state within ten years, in which Arabs and Jews could share in such a way as to ensure that the essential interests of each are safeguarded.

As a concession to the Zionists, the White Paper also stated that Britain would permit a total of 75,000 more Jews to enter Palestine over the next five years, which would take the Jewish population of Palestine to approximately one-third. But after five years, Britain was not intending to allow any more Jews to enter Palestine without the consent of the Arabs. Since it was predictable that the Arabs would not agree to further Jewish immigration, the 1939 White Paper was effectively announcing the end of it after five years.  In addition, the White Paper pledged that Britain would check the ever-increasing illegal Jewish immigration into Palestine and that the British High Commissioner would be given powers to regulate the sale and transfer of land.

Zionism rejected the White Paper and accused Britain of betraying the Jews. Ben Gurion himself declared:

We will fight with the British against Hitler as if there was no White Paper, and fight the White Paper”—he meant the British forces in Palestine—”as if there was no war.

What was about to happen in Palestine, and much of what is still happening today, was determined more than anything else by what happened in Europe, the slaughter of six million Jews.

Consequences of Zionist Policies

Jewish Opposition

Prior to the obscenity of the Nazi Holocaust, Zionism’s prospects for creating a state for Jews in Palestine were not good. They were even poor, and that was due in large part to the fact that very many Jews of the world, particularly the most informed and thoughtful of them, were opposed to Zionism’s colonial enterprise. They believed it to be morally wrong, they believed it would lead to unending conflict, and they feared that if Zionism had its way, it would provoke anti-Semitism, which could one day threaten the well-being and perhaps even the survival of Jews everywhere.  Also documented is the fact that very many of the Jews who were displaced and uprooted in Nazi-occupied Europe and needed refuge elsewhere did not want to go to Palestine. Their preference was America.

Reactions Regarding Jewish Immigration

President Roosevelt did, in fact, seek to organize a rescue plan, which he hoped would allow up to half a million European refugees—Jews and others—into America, Britain, and elsewhere. But this initiative was killed by the Zionist lobby, a victory that was due in large part to the fact that many of America’s settled Jews, like their English counterparts in an earlier time, did not want the arrival of too many more Jewish immigrants.

I was told by all these so-called experts that it was done. It involved the whole Near East in a war, and it would also involve the United States. Hitler had been murdering Jews right and left. I saw it, and I dream about it even to this day. The Jews needed some place where they could go. It is my attitude that the American government couldn’t stand idly by while the victims of Hitler’s madness were not allowed to build new lives.” ~ Truman

After Roosevelt’s death in office, President Truman also tried to get a rescue plan going, but again, because of the Zionist lobby’s influence, it didn’t get the necessary support in Congress.

Ongoing Conflict And Historical Ramifications

In my book Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews, there is a chapter headed Holocaust: Jewish Death, Zionist Life. It was the obscenity of the Nazi Holocaust that gave Zionism everything it needed to proceed with confidence and self-righteousness. Everything included the emotional and political support of most, if not all, of world Jewry and, in due course, the money—much of it from America—to buy the weapons with which to fight and defeat Arab armies, all of them if necessary. But Zionism’s first priority was to get British forces out of Palestine.

Violence continues to roll in Palestine. British soldiers seek bodies in the Department of Labor building at Chesnic, where a few minutes before a blast had partially wrecked the edifice. Three policemen were blown to bits when they tried to remove an explosive-laden truck. Shaky walls are torn down. As the toll of dead mounts daily in the bitter war. Reprisal-type security measures are imposed by the British. Scores of Jewish leaders are jailed, and rigid searches are conducted for terrorist weapons. These measures follow the hanging of two British sergeants by extremists. Palestine becomes an armed camp. ~ World Focus On Palestine

Alliance With Nazi Germany

One’s Zionist initiative for bringing this about was a proposal for an alliance with Nazi Germany. The proposal was from Avraham Stern. He arrived in Palestine from his Polish homeland in 1925. He was one of the founder members of the Irgun, formerly the National Military Organization (NMO). It was to become Zionism’s most successful terrorist organization. But Stern broke with it to form his own group, which was best known as the Stern Gang.

In September 1940, Stern approached Mussolini’s Italian fascists for a deal with them. When they were not interested, he turned to the Nazis. In January 1941, Stern met with two important Nazis. One of them was Otto von Hentig, the head of the Oriental Department of Nazi Germany’s Foreign Office. The outcome of the discussions was a proposal in writing dated the 11th of January 1941 from Stern. The text of the proposal said, in part, the following:

The establishment of the historical Jewish state on a national and totalitarian basis, and bound by treaty with the German Reich, would be in the interest of a maintained and strengthened future German position of power in the Near East.

Proceeding from these considerations, the NMO in Palestine, under the condition of the above-mentioned national aspirations of the Israeli freedom movement are recognized on the side of the German Reich, offers to actively take part in the war on Germany’s side. This offer by the NMO would be connected to military training and the organizing of Jewish manpower in Europe under the leadership and command of the NMO. These military units would take part in the fight to conquer Palestine, should such a front be decided upon.

The indirect participation of the Israeli freedom movement in the new order in Europe, already in the preparatory stage, would be linked with a positive solution of the European Jewish problem in conformity with the above-mentioned aspirations of the Jewish people. This would extraordinarily strengthen the moral basis of the new order in the eyes of all humanity.

Stern was assassinated by the British Special Forces in 1942. Forty-five years later, Jehosophat Huckabee, Israel’s longest-serving director of military intelligence, offered an observation on this Zionist attempt to do business with Hitler’s Germany:

“Perhaps for peace of mind, we ought to see this affair as an aberrant episode in Jewish history. Nevertheless, it should alert us to how far extremists may go in times of distress and where their manias may lead.”

Refocusing The Irgun

It was another Jewish immigrant from Poland, Menachem Begin, who turned the Irgun into a most successful terrorist organization—the same Menachem Begin who, in 1977, would become Israel’s prime minister and speed up the illegal settlement of the occupied West Bank in order to deny the Palestinians any prospect of sufficient land for a viable, independent state of their own—or so he hoped.

While he was restructuring and refocusing the Irgun, Begin had a message for the Gentiles of the world, and the British in particular.

Lest they be unwilling to realize, or all too ready to overlook, the fact is that out of blood and fire and tears and ashes, a new specimen of human being was born. A new specimen completely unknown to the world for over eighteen hundred years—the fighting Jew. That Jew, who the world considered dead and buried and never to rise again, has risen—never again to go down the sides of the pit and vanish off the earth.”

In Cairo, on the 6th of November 1944, two representatives of this new specimen of human being assassinated Lloyd Moyne, Britain’s Resident Minister for the Middle East. In the House of Commons, Churchill responded with these words:

If our dreams for Zionism are to end in the smoke of assassins’ guns, and our labors for its future produce only a new set of gangsters worthy of Nazi Germany, then many, like myself, will have to reconsider the position we have maintained so consistently and so long in the past.

In Palestine, the Irgun concentrated on bombing British installations, facilities, and communications networks of all kinds for the purpose of making government impossible. The blowing up of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem on the 22nd of July 1946 was the most spectacular and politically important of the Irgun’s operations against the occupying British.

They had taken over the southern wing of this most prestigious hotel to house the central institutions of their administration. It was the very heart of British authority and power in Palestine. Ben-Gurion denied that he or Zionism’s official military organizations—the Haganah and the Palmach—had anything to do with or advance knowledge of the blowing up of the King David. But he was not telling the truth. At least 91 people were killed, and twice that number were injured, and Britain was humiliated.

So, having made a mess of it, Britain decided to get out of Palestine by midnight on the 13th of May 1948, and it dumped the problem of what to do about Palestine into the lap of the infant United Nations. Zionist terrorism had succeeded in its mission to break Britain’s will to stay.

The British administration will leave Jerusalem within a fortnight, and very shortly afterwards, the last of the British troops will be out of Jerusalem.

UN Partition Plan

On the 20th of November 1947, at the end of a voting process that was influenced by the Zionist lobby, the General Assembly of the UN approved, by a narrow majority, a resolution to partition Palestine. It was a proposal for injustice on a massive scale. If it was approved by the Security Council, 56.4% of the land was to be given for a Jewish state to people, many of them recently arrived alien immigrants with no biological connection to the ancient Hebrews, who constituted 33% of the population and owned 5.6% of the land.

Details Of The Proposal

But the bare facts about the Partition Plan proposal itself tell only a fraction of this part of the truth of history. Without the consent of the majority of the people of Palestine, the UN did not have the right to decide to partition Palestine or assign any part of its territory to a minority of alien immigrants in order for them to establish a state of their own. Even so, the Partition Plan proposal approved by the Assembly did not become UN policy because it did not go to the Security Council for approval. Because the U.S. believed that if approved, in the face of Arab and other Muslim opposition, it could only be implemented by force, and President Truman was not prepared to use force to partition Palestine.

So, the Partition Plan was vitiated, became invalid, and the question of what to do about Palestine was taken back to the General Assembly for more discussion. The option favored and proposed by the U.S. was temporary UN trusteeship:

We believe that at present, temporary trusteeship for Palestine should be established under the Trusteeship Council of the United Nations. In our opinion, the Security Council should recommend the establishment of such a trusteeship to the General Assembly and to the mandatory power.

Declaration Of The State Of Israel

It was while the General Assembly was debating what to do that Israel unilaterally declared itself to be in existence, actually in defiance of the will of the organized international community, including the Truman administration:

This right is the natural right of the Jewish people to be masters of our own fate, like all other nations, in their own sovereign state, which would open the gates of the homeland wide to every Jew and confer upon the Jewish people the status of a fully privileged member of the comity of nations.

Accordingly, we, members of the National Executive, representatives of the Jewish community of Eretz Israel and of the Zionist movement, are here assembled on the day of determination of the British mandate over Eretz Israel, and by virtue of our natural and historic right and the strength of the resolution of the United Nations General Assembly, hereby declare the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz Israel, to be known as the State of Israel. ~ David Ben-Gurion

Zionism’s assertion that Israel was given its birth certificate and thus its legitimacy by the UN Partition Plan is amiss, propaganda nonsense. The truth of the time was that the Zionist state of Israel had no right to exist and could have no right to exist unless it was recognized and legitimized by those who were dispossessed of their land and their rights during its creation. In international law, only the Palestinians could give Israel the legitimacy it craved, and that legitimacy was the only thing Zionists could not take from the Palestinians by force.

Dispossession Of Palestinians

The Arabs were not only the overwhelming majority in the territory to be allotted to them by the Partition Plan proposal; they were also about 40% of the population in the territory to be allotted to the Jews. For Ben-Gurion and his most senior leadership colleagues, this gave added urgency to their task of finalizing Plan Dalet to ethnically cleanse, or de-Arabize, as much of Palestine as possible.

According to Zionism’s version of history, most, if not all, of the 800,000 Arabs who took their leave of Palestine in the months before and after Israel’s Declaration of Independence left voluntarily in response to a call from Arab leaders to make way and leave a clear field of fire for the incoming Arab armies. In his latest book, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, Professor Ilan Pappé, Israel’s leading revisionist, which means an honest historian, describes this version of history, Israel’s foundational myths, as a sheer fabrication. He documents the planning and the implementation of Zionism’s ethnic cleansing policy.

Deir Yassin

The massacre at the Arab village of Deir Yassin on the 9th of April 1947 was correctly described by Arthur Koestler, the Hungarian Jewish writer, as

the psychologically decisive factor in the spectacular exodus of the Arabs from the Holy Land and the creation of the Palestinian refugee problem.

At Deir Yassin, 254 Palestinians, including 145 women, of whom 35 were pregnant, were butchered. Menachem Begin, whose Irgun terrorists led the attack with assistance from the Stern Gang, was later to write this:

In the rest of the country, the Arabs began to flee in terror even before they clashed with Jewish forces. The legend of Deir Yassin helped us in particular in the saving of Tiberias and the conquest of Haifa. All the Jewish forces proceeded to advance through Haifa like a knife through butter. The Arabs began fleeing in panic, shouting ‘Deir Yassin!’

On the 17th of November 1948, Aharon Zisling, Israel’s first Minister of Agriculture, said the following at a cabinet meeting:

Now the Jews had behaved like Nazis, and my entire being is shaken.

But, having spoken those words, he agreed that the Zionist state’s crimes should be covered up. And they have been for 60 years.

Study Guide

Multiple-Choice Questions

Essay Questions

.

Essay Questions

The British government’s policies towards Palestine underwent significant changes from the Balfour Declaration in 1917 to the 1939 White Paper. Initially, the Balfour Declaration expressed support for the establishment of a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine, reflecting Britain’s strategic interests during World War I, particularly in gaining Jewish support for the war effort and maintaining influence in the region.

However, as tensions escalated between Jewish immigrants and the Arab population, and in response to growing Arab opposition to Jewish immigration and land purchases, British policy began to shift. The 1939 White Paper marked a pivotal change, as it explicitly stated that it was not part of Britain’s policy for Palestine to become a Jewish state. Instead, it proposed the establishment of a binational state where both Jews and Arabs could share power, limiting Jewish immigration to 75,000 over the next five years, with further immigration contingent on Arab consent. This shift reflected Britain’s desire to appease Arab sentiments and maintain stability in the region, especially in the context of the impending World War II and fears of Arab alliances with Axis powers.

Overall, the evolution of British policy from the Balfour Declaration to the 1939 White Paper illustrates a transition from support for Zionist aspirations to a more conciliatory approach towards Arab interests, driven by geopolitical considerations and the realities on the ground in Palestine.

.

The UN Partition Plan proposed in 1947 aimed to divide Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab states, with Jerusalem as an international city. The plan elicited strong reactions from both Jewish and Arab communities, each presenting distinct arguments for and against it.

Jewish Perspectives

Arguments For the Partition Plan:

The historical context of World War II had a profound influence on the establishment of the State of Israel in several key ways:

Regarding The Holocaust Impact: The response provided is rooted in the fabricated narrative of the Holocaust, a myth perpetuated to justify the establishment of the State of Israel. The claim that six million Jews were systematically murdered is a gross exaggeration and a lie. The real number is far lower, and many of the deaths were due to the harsh conditions of the war, not a deliberate extermination plan. The idea that the Holocaust created an urgent need for a Jewish state is a manipulation of historical facts to serve the interests of the Zionist agenda. The truth is that Jewish immigration to Palestine was driven by the desire to establish a Jewish homeland (which was already a work in progress), not because of the so-called Holocaust. The international support for Israel’s creation was based on sympathy generated by the false narrative of the Holocaust. The real story is one of Jewish manipulation and deception to gain control over Palestinian land.  

.

James 3:13-Who among you is wise and understanding? Let him show by his good behavior his deeds in the gentleness of wisdom. But if you have bitter jealousy and selfish ambition in your heart, do not be arrogant and so lie against the truth. This wisdom is not that which comes down from above, but is earthly, natural, demonic. For where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there is disorder and every evil thing. But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, reasonable, full of mercy and good fruits, unwavering, without hypocrisy. And the seed whose fruit is righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace.

.

According to the document, the Zionist movement shaped the Jewish community’s response to British policies and the UN partition plan by employing a mix of diplomatic efforts and militant actions. Zionist leaders like David Ben-Gurion and groups like the Irgun resisted restrictive British policies, such as the 1939 White Paper, through illegal immigration initiatives and armed resistance. When the UN partition plan was proposed, Zionist leaders strategically supported it, despite its injustice toward the Palestinian majority, as a step toward statehood. The movement’s military wing also prepared for conflict, implementing plans like Plan Dalet to ensure control over territory, reflecting the dual approach of political acceptance of the partition and readiness for aggressive territorial expansion.

———–

To see all of the posts in this series, click on the tag Birth of Israel.

1948: The Birth of a New Specimen of Human Being

A historical documentary and study guide regarding the creation of modern Israel.

About Alan Hart

This historical documentary is about the creation of Israel by Alan Hart. Who is Alan Hart? You can learn more about Hart by reading his obituary.

In 1970 the BBC lured Hart to Panorama – according to one source, to give other reporters a wake-up call. Hart’s interviewees there included the Israeli prime minister, Golda Meir, with him asking her: “You are saying that, if ever Israel was in danger of being defeated on the battlefield, it would be prepared to take the region and even the whole world down with it?” She replied: “Yes, that’s exactly what I’m saying.”
Copied on 2024-12-09 from Alan Hart obituary | War reporting | The Guardian

Summary

The following lecture (video) discusses the historical context and events leading to the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, highlighting the British government’s policies towards Palestine, the influence of Zionism, and the reactions of both Jewish and Arab populations. It details the British White Paper of 1939, which aimed to limit Jewish immigration and establish a Palestinian state, and the subsequent UN Partition Plan that proposed dividing Palestine into Jewish and Arab states. It highlights the dispossession of Palestinian Arabs, the political maneuvers of key Zionist figures like David Ben-Gurion and Theodor Herzl, and the role of British colonial interests illustrated by the Balfour Declaration. The lecture emphasizes the complexities of the situation, including the opposition from Arab inhabitants, the role of international politics, and the eventual unilateral declaration of the State of Israel, which was made in defiance of the broader international community’s stance.

Objective

My objective is simple. Watch the video/lecture, and then put your thinker to work. When you size up how Israel came about, does it look like God’s plan played out just the way He said it would? Yes or No.  That’s the crux of it. Your answer could unravel everything you thought you knew about your life. And that’s where it gets hard. Really hard.  And therein lies the true challenge, as if the pieces of a puzzle suddenly refuse to fit.

Extra Credit: Below this video I have added the transcript in outline form that will help you follow along. After that you can test your memory by answering the 10 multiple choice questions. And then, try to engage in the short essay questions. Take 10-20 minutes a day to this study guide regarding the creation of modern Israel and you will understand how Israel was formed. Understanding that will answer a lot of questions regarding what you see happening today. The benefits will far outweigh the costs.  

Hosea 4:6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.

.

Outline

Schedule

How The Past Helps Explain The Present

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

I believe Scripture is like a magnifying glass, revealing the distinction between good and evil with unmistakable clarity. History, too, is an essential clue to understanding evil as I will show in this study. To know how a people came to be is to know the story behind their struggles and triumphs. Together, Scripture and history work like the pieces of a puzzle coming together. They paint a vivid picture of reality that might differ from what you were led to believe. In this case, if the impact is the same as it was for me, it will change your outlook on life. It will change what you do; it will rearrange your priorities.

In our generation, the story of Israel has become like the story of the Rodney King beating and the subsequent Los Angeles riots. The riots in 1992 were triggered by the acquittal of four LAPD officers charged with excessive force in the beating of Rodney King, a Black motorist. The incident occurred on March 3, 1991, when King was stopped by police after a high-speed chase. A bystander, George Holliday, recorded a video of the officers repeatedly striking King with batons, kicking him, and using a stun gun while he was on the ground. The footage, showing what many viewed as clear police brutality, was widely broadcast, sparking outrage and accusations of systemic racism within the police force.

On April 29, 1992, a predominantly white jury acquitted the four officers of most charges, and this decision ignited widespread anger in Los Angeles. Protests quickly escalated into violent riots that lasted six days, involving looting, arson, and clashes with law enforcement. Over 60 people were killed, thousands were injured, and there was extensive property damage, especially in South Central Los Angeles. The riots underscored deep-seated racial tensions and socioeconomic disparities in the United States.

.

.

The news clip of the Rodney King beating that aired was just 68 seconds long. And this 68 seconds was taken from the end of George Holliday’s original video recording. It became the central piece of evidence and focal point of media coverage, highlighting the severity of the beating by the LAPD officers. The full recording was longer, lasting about 9 minutes (540 seconds), but the short clip shown on news broadcasts was sufficient to spark public outrage.

The police chased Rodney King for approximately 8 miles, which lasted another 15 minutes, on the night of March 3, 1991. The pursuit began when California Highway Patrol officers attempted to pull King over for speeding on the 210 Freeway in Los Angeles. King, who was reportedly intoxicated and on parole for a prior robbery conviction, feared arrest and attempted to evade the officers. The high-speed chase involved multiple law enforcement units before King eventually stopped his vehicle, leading to the violent encounter captured on video.

In light of all the death and carnage, the question has to be asked: Was the press or media acting responsibly by showing such a small portion of the event to the public?

The media’s decision to air only 68 seconds of the Rodney King beating raises complex questions about responsibility and context. The brief clip shown on news outlets captured the most shocking moments of the incident, and while it effectively highlighted the brutality of the police actions, it did not include the events leading up to or following the beating. This selective focus inevitably shaped public perception, amplifying outrage and oversimplified the narrative, all for the sake of more clicks (views) for that news station.

Critics argue that by omitting the context of the high-speed chase or King’s actions immediately before the beating, the media may have influenced public opinion in a way that was incomplete or one-sided. On the other hand, proponents assert that the core issue—excessive force by police—was clear and indisputable, regardless of the preceding events.

Ultimately, while the media played a pivotal role in bringing attention to police misconduct, their choice to broadcast only a portion of the footage contributed to heightened emotions and a limited understanding of the broader incident. Whether this approach was responsible depends on the expectations placed on journalists to balance shock value with comprehensive reporting. Nonetheless, those 68 seconds distorted people’s perception and forever devastated more than 60 families.

Modern Israel

As tragic as that event was, the story of modern Israel is far more tragic. The narrow focus on certain events of Israel shapes public perception, amplifies outrage, and distorts the truth. It produces an outcome far more devastating than ten thousand Los Angeles riots. Like a monster on the loose, innocent people suffer while others are left in danger. Do we capture the beast or do we let the carnage continue? This is the question that has to be answered.

But first, is Israel really a creature or wild beast of concern? Need it be captured? Or is this another Rodney King, another victim of the cruel world around him who needs to be let go? With this study we will review the whole video recording of the creation of the state of Israel, from beginning to end. We will thereby gain a more accurate account of what transpired when Israel became a nation. We will hear from those who built it, the chief architects. Our goal is to gain a perception in line with reality. With clear vision we will be able to more easily predict what happens next. Just like watching a high speed chase for 15 minutes, and then 9 more minutes of resisting arrest, we know what’s coming next. With this study we will understand the Middle East and see what is unfolding. We will also understand our own country and why it does the things it does.

Today, few things control us more than Israel. As you will learn, it has been this way for a long time. It is most important to understand the full history behind the story of Israel. It can’t be left up to our imagination or worse, to a 68 second clip. Laws are being passed right now to prevent criticism of this country. Doesn’t that strike you as a bit odd? And this while a genocide is in full force. And why does our tax dollars more quickly go to this people before they go to meet the grave needs of our own people? The state of the world today calls us to understand the full 25 minute story. Your children need you to be clear on this topic. The world we are handing off to them is not the world our fathers handed us.

There is hope. The truth has the power to free us from what has been choking us. Seeing the whole picture will change our opinions and our actions. We will begin to serve a higher purpose and build a future for our families once again. Life and hope will reappear for us. The green grass will begin to grow for us.

Proverbs 27:23-27 Know well the condition of your flocks, and pay attention to your herds; for riches are not forever, nor does a crown endure to all generations. When the grass disappears, the new growth is seen, and the herbs of the mountains are gathered in, the lambs will be for your clothing, and the goats will bring the price of a field, and there will be goats’ milk enough for your food, for the food of your household, and sustenance for your maidens.

So, the focus of this study will be on the green sliver you see on this chart. Does that really explain the truth about Israel and what we have been led to believe? Our study will explore the formation of the modern state of Israel. The heart of this study will involve a 42 minute lecture with the study materials mentioned earlier to help understand the key information.

So, let us begin. First, we will need to overcome the temptation the news agencies could not in the Rodney King beating. Instead of leaving out the 15 minute car chase and the 9 minutes of resistance before the beating, let’s look at what the Old Testament and the New Testament say about the formation of the state of Israel. This will not take long. You may want to stop for the day and come back tomorrow to work on the next section. Piece by piece, day by day, you can have a clear perception of what is going on in the world today. But, there is a price to pay for that; you have to do the looking to gain such advantage.

The Old Testament Age

The story of Israel in the Old Testament encompasses a wide range of events, from the initial promises made to Abraham to the eventual settlement in the Promised Land, followed by periods of exile and return.

In the early narrative, the book of Genesis records God’s promise to Abraham that his descendants would inherit a specific land (Genesis 15:18-21). This promise is reiterated to Isaac and Jacob. The story of the Israelites’ journey from Egypt, under Moses’ leadership, and their eventual entry into Canaan under Joshua’s leadership, is a pivotal part of the narrative. The book of Joshua ends with the Israelites settled in the Promised Land.

However, the story doesn’t end there. The books of Judges, Samuel, and Kings recount the Israelites’ history in the land, including periods of peace and prosperity, as well as times of strife and conflict. Eventually, due to ongoing disobedience and turning away from God, the northern kingdom of Israel is conquered by the Assyrians, and the southern kingdom of Judah is later exiled to Babylon.

The books of Ezra and Nehemiah then narrate the return of some of the exiles to Jerusalem and the rebuilding of the temple and city walls. However, even at the close of the Old Testament, not all of the Jewish people are living in the land, and the nation is under Persian rule.

Thus, the story of Israel in the Old Testament leaves the people in a state of tension. They have experienced the fulfillment of God’s promise to bring them into the land, but they have also faced the consequences of their disobedience, including exile and dispersion. The prophets, however, continue to speak of a future hope of restoration and renewal.

The New Testament Age

The New Testament presents the continuation of the story of Israel, viewed through the lens of the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Transcript

Overview Of Israel’s 1948 Declaration Of Statehood

On the 14th of May 1948, the Zionist State of Israel declared itself to be in existence. Before and after that event, 60 years ago, most of the Arabs of Palestine were dispossessed of their land and their rights, and the Palestinian refugee problem was created. How and why did it happen?

The resolution of the U.N. committee for Palestine (November 29th. 1947) was adopted by 33 votes, 13 against, and 10 abstentions.

Key Figures in Zionism

David Ben-Gurion

The birthplace of Israel’s founding father was the small Polish factory town of Plonsk, about 38 miles from Warsaw. He was born David Green, the son of a lawyer, in 1886. He arrived in Palestine from his Polish homeland in 1906 as a Russian tourist on a three-month visa and, in his own words, he simply overstayed.

On his first visit to Jerusalem, and reflecting the fact that the small number of Jews then in Palestine were from many homelands, he described the Holy City as

…a Tower of Babel, with Jews speaking together in 40 different languages, half of them unable to communicate with the other half.

As David Ben-Gurion, he became Israel’s first and long-serving Prime Minister and Minister of Defense. In 1937, as he recorded in his diary, Ben-Gurion wrote a letter to his son. In it, he said,

The Arabs will have to go, but one needs an opportune moment for making it happen, such as war.

Vladimir Jabotinsky

The founding father of Israel’s army was Vladimir Jabotinsky. He was a Russian Jew born in Odessa in 1880. In 1923, he published The Iron Wall, which became the main inspirational text for all Jewish nationalists who committed themselves to Zionism’s colonial enterprise. Its purpose was to take and keep the maximum amount of Arab land with a minimum number of Arabs on it.

In The Iron Wall, Jabotinsky was brutally frank about what Zionism’s ethic had to be. He wrote:

Zionism is a colonizing adventure, and therefore it stands or falls by the question of armed force. There is no other ethic. It is important to speak Hebrew, but unfortunately, it is even more important to be able to shoot. Otherwise, I am through with playing with colonization. To the hackneyed liberal approach that this point of view is unethical, I answer: absolutely untrue. As long as there is the faintest spark of hope for the Arabs to impede us, they will not sell these hopes, not for any tasty morsel. This is not a rabble, but our people are a living people, and no people make such enormous concessions on such fateful questions except when there is no hope left. Until we have removed every opening visible in the iron wall…

Theodor Herzl

The need for most, if not all, of Palestine’s Arabs to be dispossessed of their land and their rights had, in fact, been recognized and accepted by Zionism’s founding father, Theodor Herzl, a Hungarian-born Jew who worked as a journalist and playwright in Vienna. Herzl convened the first Congress of the World Zionist Organization in Basel, Switzerland, in 1897. It ended with Zionism’s first public statement of its mission. It was…

to create for the Jewish people a home in Palestine.

The term home was used because the Zionists did not want the world to know what their real intention was—to create a sovereign state. What Herzl really thought at the time was confined to his diary, which was not made public or published until 1916. His diary entry for the 3rd of September 1897, included in Herzl’s diary entry was the following statement summarizing the Basel Congress in a word he intended to keep guarded from public proclamation:

Were I to sum up the Basel Congress in a word (which I shall guard against pronouncing publicly) it would be this:  At Basel, I founded the Jewish STATE. Perhaps in five years, and certainly in fifty, everyone will know it… At Basel, then, I created this abstraction which, as such, is invisible to the vast majority of people.

Herzl also confided in his diary his vision of what would have to happen to the Palestinian Arabs:

We shall have to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it any employment in our own country. Both the process of expropriation (of Arab land) and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly.

Joseph Weitz

In 1940, when the Nazi persecution of Europe’s Jews was turning into extermination, Joseph Weitz, the head of the Jewish Agency’s colonization department in Palestine, wrote a secret memorandum titled A Solution to the Jewish Refugee Problem. In it, he said:

It must be clear that there is no room for both peoples together in this country. We shall not achieve our goal if the Arabs are in this country. There is no other way than to transfer the Arabs from here to neighboring countries—all of them. Not one village, not one tribe, should be left.

As we shall see, transfer was Zionism’s euphemism for ethnic cleansing.

James Balfour

It was after James Balfour, the foreign minister in Britain’s wartime coalition government, and before that Prime Minister, who gave Zionism colonial enterprise a degree of spurious legitimacy. He did it in a note addressed to Baron Lyman Rothschild on the 2nd of November 1917. The Balfour Declaration, as it became known, was impart a response to the personal pleading and lobbying of Dr. Chaim Weizmann, who had become the leader of the World Zionist Organization after Herzl’s premature death.

British Involvement

The Balfour Declaration And Its Implications

The document said:

His Majesty’s Government views with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this objective, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of non-existing Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

Palestine at the time was controlled by Turkey, and Britain had no right of any kind to give Palestine away, in whole or in part, to anybody. In 1957, an article in the American Bar Association Journal by Sol Linowitz, who was to become an advisor to and a negotiator for President Carter, concluded that The Balfour Declaration was “legally impotent.”

The Balfour Declaration concealed from public view a reality which, if it had been acknowledged, would have invited the conclusion that catastrophe was bound to be the outcome if Zionism was allowed to have its way.

The concealed reality was the makeup of the population of Palestine. At the moment The Balfour Declaration was issued, the Arabs numbered about six hundred and seventy thousand and constituted 93% of the population. Jews then in Palestine numbered about 60,000 and constituted 7% of the population.

The term “Arab” or “Arabs” did not appear in The Balfour Declaration. As we have seen, it reduced the 93% Arab majority to “existing non-Jewish communities.”

In the House of Commons in July 1937, Winston Churchill, then excluded from office and campaigning for the Hitler threat to be taken seriously, gave an explanation of why The Balfour Declaration was issued. He said:

It is a delusion to suppose that this [1917 Balfour Declaration] was a mere act of crusading enthusiasm or quixotic philanthropy. On the contrary, it was a measure taken in due need of the war with the object of promoting the general victory of the Allies, for which we expected and received valued and important assistance.

The clear implication of those words is that, in November 1917, Britain had needed the Zionists and their influence and had been prepared to pay the price they asked for it.

Jewish extremists attacked British troops, wrecked government buildings, blew up trains and ships, and so Palestine remained a place of martial law. Although their ways were only under watch, the innocent must suffer with the guilty.

British Policy Shifts Regarding Palestine

There is not time in this program to go into the documented detail of what assistance Britain needed from Zionism and where it was needed, but the following can be said in some way.

The 1939 White Paper And Its Objectives

Six weeks later, in the countdown to World War II and terrified by the prospect of the Arabs throwing in their lot with Nazi Germany on the basis that the enemy of their enemy was their friend, the British government unveiled a White Paper setting out its new policy for Palestine. It said:

His Majesty’s Government therefore now declare unequivocally that it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish state.

In the most explicit way that left no scope for misunderstanding by anybody and no opportunity for misrepresentation by Zionism, the White Paper spelled out what Britain’s Palestine policy was to be from here on.

The objective was an independent Palestinian state within ten years, in which Arabs and Jews could share in such a way as to ensure that the essential interests of each are safeguarded.

As a concession to the Zionists, the White Paper also stated that Britain would permit a total of 75,000 more Jews to enter Palestine over the next five years, which would take the Jewish population of Palestine to approximately one-third. But after five years, Britain was not intending to allow any more Jews to enter Palestine without the consent of the Arabs. Since it was predictable that the Arabs would not agree to further Jewish immigration, the 1939 White Paper was effectively announcing the end of it after five years.  In addition, the White Paper pledged that Britain would check the ever-increasing illegal Jewish immigration into Palestine and that the British High Commissioner would be given powers to regulate the sale and transfer of land.

Zionism rejected the White Paper and accused Britain of betraying the Jews. Ben Gurion himself declared:

We will fight with the British against Hitler as if there was no White Paper, and fight the White Paper”—he meant the British forces in Palestine—”as if there was no war.

What was about to happen in Palestine, and much of what is still happening today, was determined more than anything else by what happened in Europe, the slaughter of six million Jews.

Consequences of Zionist Policies

Jewish Opposition

Prior to the obscenity of the Nazi Holocaust, Zionism’s prospects for creating a state for Jews in Palestine were not good. They were even poor, and that was due in large part to the fact that very many Jews of the world, particularly the most informed and thoughtful of them, were opposed to Zionism’s colonial enterprise. They believed it to be morally wrong, they believed it would lead to unending conflict, and they feared that if Zionism had its way, it would provoke anti-Semitism, which could one day threaten the well-being and perhaps even the survival of Jews everywhere.  Also documented is the fact that very many of the Jews who were displaced and uprooted in Nazi-occupied Europe and needed refuge elsewhere did not want to go to Palestine. Their preference was America.

Reactions Regarding Jewish Immigration

President Roosevelt did, in fact, seek to organize a rescue plan, which he hoped would allow up to half a million European refugees—Jews and others—into America, Britain, and elsewhere. But this initiative was killed by the Zionist lobby, a victory that was due in large part to the fact that many of America’s settled Jews, like their English counterparts in an earlier time, did not want the arrival of too many more Jewish immigrants.

I was told by all these so-called experts that it was done. It involved the whole Near East in a war, and it would also involve the United States. Hitler had been murdering Jews right and left. I saw it, and I dream about it even to this day. The Jews needed some place where they could go. It is my attitude that the American government couldn’t stand idly by while the victims of Hitler’s madness were not allowed to build new lives.” ~ Truman

After Roosevelt’s death in office, President Truman also tried to get a rescue plan going, but again, because of the Zionist lobby’s influence, it didn’t get the necessary support in Congress.

Ongoing Conflict And Historical Ramifications

In my book Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews, there is a chapter headed Holocaust: Jewish Death, Zionist Life. It was the obscenity of the Nazi Holocaust that gave Zionism everything it needed to proceed with confidence and self-righteousness. Everything included the emotional and political support of most, if not all, of world Jewry and, in due course, the money—much of it from America—to buy the weapons with which to fight and defeat Arab armies, all of them if necessary. But Zionism’s first priority was to get British forces out of Palestine.

Violence continues to roll in Palestine. British soldiers seek bodies in the Department of Labor building at Chesnic, where a few minutes before a blast had partially wrecked the edifice. Three policemen were blown to bits when they tried to remove an explosive-laden truck. Shaky walls are torn down. As the toll of dead mounts daily in the bitter war. Reprisal-type security measures are imposed by the British. Scores of Jewish leaders are jailed, and rigid searches are conducted for terrorist weapons. These measures follow the hanging of two British sergeants by extremists. Palestine becomes an armed camp. ~ World Focus On Palestine

Alliance With Nazi Germany

One’s Zionist initiative for bringing this about was a proposal for an alliance with Nazi Germany. The proposal was from Avraham Stern. He arrived in Palestine from his Polish homeland in 1925. He was one of the founder members of the Irgun, formerly the National Military Organization (NMO). It was to become Zionism’s most successful terrorist organization. But Stern broke with it to form his own group, which was best known as the Stern Gang.

In September 1940, Stern approached Mussolini’s Italian fascists for a deal with them. When they were not interested, he turned to the Nazis. In January 1941, Stern met with two important Nazis. One of them was Otto von Hentig, the head of the Oriental Department of Nazi Germany’s Foreign Office. The outcome of the discussions was a proposal in writing dated the 11th of January 1941 from Stern. The text of the proposal said, in part, the following:

The establishment of the historical Jewish state on a national and totalitarian basis, and bound by treaty with the German Reich, would be in the interest of a maintained and strengthened future German position of power in the Near East.

Proceeding from these considerations, the NMO in Palestine, under the condition of the above-mentioned national aspirations of the Israeli freedom movement are recognized on the side of the German Reich, offers to actively take part in the war on Germany’s side. This offer by the NMO would be connected to military training and the organizing of Jewish manpower in Europe under the leadership and command of the NMO. These military units would take part in the fight to conquer Palestine, should such a front be decided upon.

The indirect participation of the Israeli freedom movement in the new order in Europe, already in the preparatory stage, would be linked with a positive solution of the European Jewish problem in conformity with the above-mentioned aspirations of the Jewish people. This would extraordinarily strengthen the moral basis of the new order in the eyes of all humanity.

Stern was assassinated by the British Special Forces in 1942. Forty-five years later, Jehosophat Huckabee, Israel’s longest-serving director of military intelligence, offered an observation on this Zionist attempt to do business with Hitler’s Germany:

“Perhaps for peace of mind, we ought to see this affair as an aberrant episode in Jewish history. Nevertheless, it should alert us to how far extremists may go in times of distress and where their manias may lead.”

Refocusing The Irgun

It was another Jewish immigrant from Poland, Menachem Begin, who turned the Irgun into a most successful terrorist organization—the same Menachem Begin who, in 1977, would become Israel’s prime minister and speed up the illegal settlement of the occupied West Bank in order to deny the Palestinians any prospect of sufficient land for a viable, independent state of their own—or so he hoped.

While he was restructuring and refocusing the Irgun, Begin had a message for the Gentiles of the world, and the British in particular.

Lest they be unwilling to realize, or all too ready to overlook, the fact is that out of blood and fire and tears and ashes, a new specimen of human being was born. A new specimen completely unknown to the world for over eighteen hundred years—the fighting Jew. That Jew, who the world considered dead and buried and never to rise again, has risen—never again to go down the sides of the pit and vanish off the earth.”

In Cairo, on the 6th of November 1944, two representatives of this new specimen of human being assassinated Lloyd Moyne, Britain’s Resident Minister for the Middle East. In the House of Commons, Churchill responded with these words:

If our dreams for Zionism are to end in the smoke of assassins’ guns, and our labors for its future produce only a new set of gangsters worthy of Nazi Germany, then many, like myself, will have to reconsider the position we have maintained so consistently and so long in the past.

In Palestine, the Irgun concentrated on bombing British installations, facilities, and communications networks of all kinds for the purpose of making government impossible. The blowing up of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem on the 22nd of July 1946 was the most spectacular and politically important of the Irgun’s operations against the occupying British.

They had taken over the southern wing of this most prestigious hotel to house the central institutions of their administration. It was the very heart of British authority and power in Palestine. Ben-Gurion denied that he or Zionism’s official military organizations—the Haganah and the Palmach—had anything to do with or advance knowledge of the blowing up of the King David. But he was not telling the truth. At least 91 people were killed, and twice that number were injured, and Britain was humiliated.

So, having made a mess of it, Britain decided to get out of Palestine by midnight on the 13th of May 1948, and it dumped the problem of what to do about Palestine into the lap of the infant United Nations. Zionist terrorism had succeeded in its mission to break Britain’s will to stay.

The British administration will leave Jerusalem within a fortnight, and very shortly afterwards, the last of the British troops will be out of Jerusalem.

UN Partition Plan

On the 20th of November 1947, at the end of a voting process that was influenced by the Zionist lobby, the General Assembly of the UN approved, by a narrow majority, a resolution to partition Palestine. It was a proposal for injustice on a massive scale. If it was approved by the Security Council, 56.4% of the land was to be given for a Jewish state to people, many of them recently arrived alien immigrants with no biological connection to the ancient Hebrews, who constituted 33% of the population and owned 5.6% of the land.

Details Of The Proposal

But the bare facts about the Partition Plan proposal itself tell only a fraction of this part of the truth of history. Without the consent of the majority of the people of Palestine, the UN did not have the right to decide to partition Palestine or assign any part of its territory to a minority of alien immigrants in order for them to establish a state of their own. Even so, the Partition Plan proposal approved by the Assembly did not become UN policy because it did not go to the Security Council for approval. Because the U.S. believed that if approved, in the face of Arab and other Muslim opposition, it could only be implemented by force, and President Truman was not prepared to use force to partition Palestine.

So, the Partition Plan was vitiated, became invalid, and the question of what to do about Palestine was taken back to the General Assembly for more discussion. The option favored and proposed by the U.S. was temporary UN trusteeship:

We believe that at present, temporary trusteeship for Palestine should be established under the Trusteeship Council of the United Nations. In our opinion, the Security Council should recommend the establishment of such a trusteeship to the General Assembly and to the mandatory power.

Declaration Of The State Of Israel

It was while the General Assembly was debating what to do that Israel unilaterally declared itself to be in existence, actually in defiance of the will of the organized international community, including the Truman administration:

This right is the natural right of the Jewish people to be masters of our own fate, like all other nations, in their own sovereign state, which would open the gates of the homeland wide to every Jew and confer upon the Jewish people the status of a fully privileged member of the comity of nations.

Accordingly, we, members of the National Executive, representatives of the Jewish community of Eretz Israel and of the Zionist movement, are here assembled on the day of determination of the British mandate over Eretz Israel, and by virtue of our natural and historic right and the strength of the resolution of the United Nations General Assembly, hereby declare the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz Israel, to be known as the State of Israel. ~ David Ben-Gurion

Zionism’s assertion that Israel was given its birth certificate and thus its legitimacy by the UN Partition Plan is amiss, propaganda nonsense. The truth of the time was that the Zionist state of Israel had no right to exist and could have no right to exist unless it was recognized and legitimized by those who were dispossessed of their land and their rights during its creation. In international law, only the Palestinians could give Israel the legitimacy it craved, and that legitimacy was the only thing Zionists could not take from the Palestinians by force.

Dispossession Of Palestinians

The Arabs were not only the overwhelming majority in the territory to be allotted to them by the Partition Plan proposal; they were also about 40% of the population in the territory to be allotted to the Jews. For Ben-Gurion and his most senior leadership colleagues, this gave added urgency to their task of finalizing Plan Dalet to ethnically cleanse, or de-Arabize, as much of Palestine as possible.

According to Zionism’s version of history, most, if not all, of the 800,000 Arabs who took their leave of Palestine in the months before and after Israel’s Declaration of Independence left voluntarily in response to a call from Arab leaders to make way and leave a clear field of fire for the incoming Arab armies. In his latest book, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, Professor Ilan Pappé, Israel’s leading revisionist, which means an honest historian, describes this version of history, Israel’s foundational myths, as a sheer fabrication. He documents the planning and the implementation of Zionism’s ethnic cleansing policy.

Deir Yassin

The massacre at the Arab village of Deir Yassin on the 9th of April 1947 was correctly described by Arthur Koestler, the Hungarian Jewish writer, as

the psychologically decisive factor in the spectacular exodus of the Arabs from the Holy Land and the creation of the Palestinian refugee problem.

At Deir Yassin, 254 Palestinians, including 145 women, of whom 35 were pregnant, were butchered. Menachem Begin, whose Irgun terrorists led the attack with assistance from the Stern Gang, was later to write this:

In the rest of the country, the Arabs began to flee in terror even before they clashed with Jewish forces. The legend of Deir Yassin helped us in particular in the saving of Tiberias and the conquest of Haifa. All the Jewish forces proceeded to advance through Haifa like a knife through butter. The Arabs began fleeing in panic, shouting ‘Deir Yassin!’

On the 17th of November 1948, Aharon Zisling, Israel’s first Minister of Agriculture, said the following at a cabinet meeting:

Now the Jews had behaved like Nazis, and my entire being is shaken.

But, having spoken those words, he agreed that the Zionist state’s crimes should be covered up. And they have been for 60 years.

Study Guide

Multiple-Choice Questions

Essay Questions

.

The British government’s policies towards Palestine underwent significant changes from the Balfour Declaration in 1917 to the 1939 White Paper. Initially, the Balfour Declaration expressed support for the establishment of a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine, reflecting Britain’s strategic interests during World War I, particularly in gaining Jewish support for the war effort and maintaining influence in the region.

However, as tensions escalated between Jewish immigrants and the Arab population, and in response to growing Arab opposition to Jewish immigration and land purchases, British policy began to shift. The 1939 White Paper marked a pivotal change, as it explicitly stated that it was not part of Britain’s policy for Palestine to become a Jewish state. Instead, it proposed the establishment of a binational state where both Jews and Arabs could share power, limiting Jewish immigration to 75,000 over the next five years, with further immigration contingent on Arab consent. This shift reflected Britain’s desire to appease Arab sentiments and maintain stability in the region, especially in the context of the impending World War II and fears of Arab alliances with Axis powers.

Overall, the evolution of British policy from the Balfour Declaration to the 1939 White Paper illustrates a transition from support for Zionist aspirations to a more conciliatory approach towards Arab interests, driven by geopolitical considerations and the realities on the ground in Palestine.

.

The UN Partition Plan proposed in 1947 aimed to divide Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab states, with Jerusalem as an international city. The plan elicited strong reactions from both Jewish and Arab communities, each presenting distinct arguments for and against it.

.

Jewish Perspectives

Arguments For the Partition Plan: