In a prosperous country, above all in an imperialist country, leftwing politics are always partly humbug. There can be no real reconstruction that would not lead to at least a temporary drop in the English standard of life, which is another way of saying that the majority of left-wing politicians and publicists are people who earn their living by demanding something that they don't genuinely want. They are red-hot revolutionaries as long as all goes well, but every real emergency reveals instantly that they are shamming. One threat to the Suez Canal, and ‘anti-Fascism’ and ‘defence of British interests’ are discovered to be identical.
It would be very shallow as well as unfair to suggest that there is nothing in what is now called ‘anti-Fascism’ except a concern for British dividends. But it is a fact that the political obscenities of the past two years, the sort of monstrous harlequinade in which everyone is constantly bounding across the stage in a false nose — Quakers shouting for a bigger army, Communists waving Union Jacks, Winston Churchill posing as a democrat — would not have been possible without this guilty consciousness that we are all in the same boat. Much against their will the British governing class have been forced into the anti-Hitler position. It is still possible that they will find a way out of it, but they are arming in the obvious expectation of war and they will almost certainly fight when the point is reached at which the alternative would be to give away some of their own property instead of, as hitherto, other people's. And meanwhile the so-called opposition, instead of trying to stop the drift to war, are rushing ahead, preparing the ground and forestalling any possible criticism. So far as one can discover the English people are still extremely hostile to the idea of war, but in so far as they are becoming reconciled to it, it is not the militarists but the ‘anti-militarists’ of five years ago who are responsible. The Labour Party keeps up a pettifogging grizzle against conscription at the same time as its own propaganda makes any real struggle against conscription impossible. The Bren machine-guns pour from the factories, books with titles like Tanks in the Next War, Gas in the Next War, etc pour from the press, and the warriors of the New Statesman gloze over the nature of the process by means of such phrases as ‘Peace Bloc’, ‘Peace Front’, ‘Democratic Front’, and, in general, by pretending that the world is an assemblage of sheep and goats, neatly partitioned off by national frontiers.
In this connextion it is well worth having a look at Mr (Clarence K.) Streit's much-discussed book, Union Now. Mr Streit, like the partisans of the ‘Peace Bloc’, wants the democracies to gang up against the dictatorships, but his book is outstanding for two reasons. To begin with he goes further than most of the others and offers a plan which, even if it is startling, is constructive. Secondly, in spite of a rather nineteen-twentyish American naivetй, he has an essentially decent cast of mind. He genuinely loathes the thought of war, and he does not sink to the hypocrisy of pretending that any country which can be bought or bullied into the British orbit instantly becomes a democracy. His book therefore presents a kind of test case. In it you are seeing the sheep-and-goats theory at its best. If you can't accept it in that form you will certainly never accept it in the form handed out by the Left Book Club.
Briefly, what Mr Streit suggests is that the democratic nations, starting with fifteen which he names, should voluntarily form themselves into a union — not a league or an alliance, but a union similar to the United States, with a common government, common money and complete internal free trade. The initial fifteen states are, of course, the USA, France, Great Britain, the self-governing dominions of the British Empire, and the smaller European democracies, not including Czechoslovakia, which still existed when the book was written. Later, other states could be admitted to the Union when and if they ‘proved themselves worthy’. It is implied all along that the state of peace and prosperity existing within the Union would be so enviable that everyone else would soon be pining to join it.
It is worth noticing that this scheme is not so visionary as it sounds. Of course it is not going to happen, nothing advocated by well-meaning literary men ever happens, and there are certain difficulties which Mr Streit does not discuss; but it is of the order of things which could happen. Geographically the USA and the western European democracies are nearer to being a unit than, for instance, the British Empire. Most of their trade is with one another, they contain within their own territories everything they need, and Mr Streit is probably right in claiming that their combined strength would be so great as to make any attack on them hopeless, even if the USSR joined up with Germany. Why then does one see at a glance that this scheme has something wrong with it? What is there about it that smells — for it does smell, of course?
What it smells of, as usual, is hypocrisy and self-righteousness. Mr Streit himself is not a hypocrite, but his vision is limited. Look again at his list of sheep and goats. No need to boggle at the goats (Germany, Italy and Japan), they are goats right enough, and billies at that. But look at the sheep! Perhaps the USA will pass inspection if one does not look too closely. But what about France? What about England? What about even Belgium and Holland? Like everyone of his school of thought, Mr Streit has coolly lumped the huge British and French empires — in essence nothing but mechanisms for exploiting cheap coloured labour — under the heading of democracies!
Here and there in the book, though not often, there are references to the ‘dependencies’ of the democratic states. ‘Dependencies’ means subject races. It is explained that they are to go on being dependencies, that their resources are to be pooled among the states of the Union, and that their coloured inhabitants will lack the right to vote in Union affairs. Except where the tables of statistics bring it out, one would never for a moment guess what numbers of human beings are involved. India, for instance, which contains more inhabitants than the whole of the ‘fifteen democracies’ put together, gets just a page and a half in Mr Streit's book, and that merely to explain that as India is not yet fit for self-government the status quo must continue. And here one begins to see what would really be happening if Mr Streit's scheme were put into operation. The British and French empires, with their six hundred million disenfranchised human beings, would simply be receiving fresh police forces; the huge strength of the USA would be behind the robbery of India and Africa. Mr Streit is letting cats out of bags, but all phrases like ‘Peace Bloc’, ‘Peace Front’, etc contain some such implication; all imply a tightening-up of the existing structure. The unspoken clause is always ‘not counting niggers’. For how can we make a ‘firm stand’ against Hitler if we are simultaneously weakening ourselves at home? In other words, how can we ‘fight Fascism’ except by bolstering up a far vaster injustice?
For of course it is vaster. What we always forget is that the overwhelming bulk of the British proletariat does not live in Britain, but in Asia and Africa. It is not in Hitler's power, for instance, to make a penny an hour a normal industrial wage; it is perfectly normal in India, and we are at great pains to keep it so. One gets some idea of the real relationship of England and India when one reflects that the per capita annual income in England is something over £80, and in India about £7. It is quite common for an Indian coolie's leg to be thinner than the average Englishman's arm. And there is nothing racial in this, for well-fed members of the same races are of normal physique; it is due to simple starvation. This is the system which we all live on and which we denounce when there seems to be no danger of its being altered. Of late, however, it has become the first duty of a ‘good anti-Fascist’ to lie about it and help to keep it in being.
What real settlement, of the slightest value, can there be along these lines? What meaning would there be, even if it were successful, in bringing down Hitler's system in order to stabilize something that is far bigger and in its different way just as bad?
But apparently, for lack of any real opposition, this is going to be our objective. Mr Streit's ingenious ideas will not be put into operation, but something resembling the ‘Peace Bloc’ proposals probably will. The British and Russian governments are still haggling, stalling and uttering muffled threats to change sides, but circumstances will probably drive them together. And what then? No doubt the alliance will stave off war for a year or two. Then Hitler's move will be to feel for a weak spot or an unguarded moment; then our move will be more armaments, more militarization, more propaganda, more war-mindedness — and so on, at increasing speed. It is doubtful whether prolonged war-preparation is morally any better than war itself; there are even reasons for thinking that it may be slightly worse. Only two or three years of it, and we may sink almost unresisting into some local variant of austro-Fascism. And perhaps a year or two later, in reaction against this, there will appear something we have never had in England yet — a real Fascist movement. And because it will have the guts to speak plainly it will gather into its ranks the very people who ought to be opposing it.
Further than that it is difficult to see. The downward slide is happening because nearly all the Socialist leaders, when it comes to the pinch, are merely His Majesty's Opposition, and nobody else knows how to mobilize the decency of the English people, which one meets with everywhere when one talks to human beings instead of reading newspapers. Nothing is likely to save us except the emergence within the next two years of a real mass party whose first pledges are to refuse war and to right imperial injustice. But if any such party exists at present, it is only as a possibility, in a few tiny germs lying here and there in unwatered soil.
1939
THE END
____BD____
George Orwell: ‘Not Counting Niggers’
First
published: Adelphi. — GB, London. — July 1939.
- Reprinted:
- — ‘The Collected Essays, Journalism and Letters of George Orwell’. — 1968.
____
Machine-readable version: O. Dag
Last modified on:
2019-12-29
![[The book cover page]](https://www.orwell.ru/library/books/img_file/cejl_s0.jpg)
George Orwell
‘The
‘CEJL’’
© 1968 Harcourt Brace Jovanovich
‘Not Counting Niggers’: [Index page]
Book of the Week
This is a book that I have read and think worthwhile or someone has written up as special. There are a thousand or more being published in England every week so it is difficult to keep track of what is out there. There is not a lot of point in knowing especially if you know pretty much what you like.
https://www.orwell.ru/library/articles/niggers/english/e_ncn
https://www.orwell.ru/library/articles/niggers/english/e_ncn
https://www.orwell.ru/library/articles/niggers/english/e_ncn
http://www.amazon.com/The-Crisis-Zionism-Peter-Beinart/dp/0805094121
The Spectre Haunting Jews In America At the core of the tragedy lies the
refusal to accept that in both America and Israel, we live in an age not of
Jewish weakness, but of Jewish power, and that without moral vigilance, Jews
will abuse power just as hideously as anyone else. American Jewish
organizations do not deny that Jews wield power, privately, they exult in
it. Emotionally, power is what groups like AIPAC sell…. They deny that Jews,
like all human beings, can use power not merely to survive, but to destroy.
A few years ago, a journalist reported that Malcolm Hoenlein, the
influential executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major
Jewish Organizations, had a photo in his conference room of Israeli F-15s
flying over Auschwitz. It is a photo of a fantasy. Israeli jets never bombed
Auschwitz and never will. What they have bombed, in recent years, is the
Gaza Strip, a fenced-in, hideously overcrowded, desperately poor slum from
which terrorist groups sometimes shell Israel. Hoenlein, in other words, has
decorated his conference room not with an image of the reality that he helps
perpetuate, but with an image of the fantasy that he superimposes on that
reality. In this way, he embodies the American Jewish establishment, which,
by superimposing the Jewish past on the Jewish present, is failing the
challenge of a new age. Beinart has offered a powerful indictment of
the American Jewish Establishment, to be sure, but he steadfastly refuses to
challenge the very legitimacy of that establishment. For the one question that
has not been asked is why its loss of the younger generation of American Jews
should be regarded as a problematic development in the first place, much less
a crisis. American Judaism, in the main, does not
regard itself as a religion in the sense that the term is understood in the
modern world. American Jews, in this discourse, are less a religious community
than a polity. All of the major denominations of American Judaism are
affiliated with the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations,
which regards itself as the governing body of the whole American community and
has essentially no other purpose than to advocate for the State of Israel.
Said “community,” in turn, is regarded to be nothing more than an appendage of
the transnational polity called “the Jewish people” of which, according to the
official ideology of the State of Israel, it is the collectively held
possession as opposed to a state of all its citizens. When John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt
published their 2005 book,
The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, it was vulnerable to
predictably lurid charges in part because it was not just aimed at the
powerful American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). The authors also
insisted on documenting a much wider phenomenon, and their use of the somewhat
vague term “Israel lobby” did not properly elaborate that AIPAC and scores of
other politically powerful non-religious Jewish organizations like it are all
affiliates of the larger Conference of Presidents. Peter Beinart’s original
essay in The New York Review of Books, “The
Failure of the American Jewish Establishment,” spoke more directly to this
reality and provided the more apt and precise term “American Jewish
Establishment,” of which the Israel lobby is merely a part. It is largely for this very reason that
Beinart’s exposure of this establishment has provoked yet unprecedented
hysteria from the famously hysterical neoconservative movement. He has been
given a megaphone to announce to the world for the first time what informed
American Jews have always understood about the neocons — that they, in fact,
are the true self-hating Jews, with their pathological hatred of any
expression of Judaism’s traditions of social justice and other affronts to the
Spartan virtues. In short, he has said everything about the American Jewish
Establishment for which Pat Buchanan and Norman
Finkelstein were so brutally
vilified in years past. Perhaps no hostile reviewer of The Crisis
of Zionism was more hysterical than Daniel Gordis, president of Israel’s
Shalem Centre, in the Jerusalem Post. Gordis
proclaimed, in what can only be considered a deliberate misrepresentation,
that “Beinart’s problem, most fundamentally, is that the American liberalism
with which he is so infatuated does not comfortably have a place for Jewish
ethnic nationalism. … Beinart’s problem isn’t really with Israel. It’s with
Judaism.” Beinart
responded forcefully: Gordis wants me to be some deracinated
Rosa Luxembourg [
sic ], cold to my own people and moistened only by the pain of
others. Sorry, that’s not the book I wrote because it’s not the person I am.
At the root of Gordis’ misrepresentations lies this problem. As he’s written
elsewhere, he’s convinced that many young liberal Jews are embracing a brand
of universalism that undermines their commitment to the Jewish people. It’s
convenient for him to make me the poster child of this phenomenon. … The
problem with this analysis is that I actually share Gordis’ concern.
“Are
Young Rabbis Turning on Israel?” Gordis asked in the June 2011 issue of
Commentary. The article began by relating with horror an email sent out by
the faculty of Hebrew College, a nondenominational rabbinical seminary in
Boston, on the occasion of Israel’s War Memorial Day, asking with respect to
the fallen on both sides of the 1948 war, “On this day, what do you remember
and for whom do you grieve?” The question apparently never dawned on anyone
why American rabbinical students should be commemorating the Memorial Day of a
foreign nation to begin with. Indeed, the article at times descends into
self-parody, with a signature neocon reference to Neville Chamberlain.
Nonetheless, Gordis still got to the heart of the matter: What is entirely gone is an instinct of
belonging, the visceral sense on the part of these students that they are
part of a people, that the blood and the losses that were required to create
the State of Israel is their blood and their loss. What
appears to be, at first blush, an issue of weakening Zionist loyalties is
thus actually something far more worrisome. What Gordis evaded is the fact this is not
just a story about students: there already exists a considerable cohort of
senior rabbis of this persuasion. In the aftermath of Gaza, an obscure San
Francisco-based left-wing protest group called
Jewish Voice for Peace was
rapidly propelled by the force of events into becoming a national
organization, and late in 2010 it announced the formation of a “Rabbinical
Council” consisting of over 30 rabbis and rabbinical students. Jewish Voice
for Peace has proven unique in seriously questioning, when not flatly
rejecting, the first principles of Zionism and the American Jewish
Establishment. I attended a recent talk by Beinart at my
Brooklyn synagogue, Kolot Chayeinu,
which has significant ties to Jewish Voice for Peace. The rabbi, Ellen
Lippmann, though not a member of JVP, has been an outspoken leader of the
nearly-as-radical Rabbis for Human Rights, and
both the congregation’s president and education director are longstanding
supporters. The audience for this talk was mostly middle-aged and older,
Beinart’s primary audience seeking reassurance in its progressive Zionism. The
overwhelming sense was of preserving a spiritual dependence on the State of
Israel in an anti-regime form. But this is by no means representative of the
cutting edge of progressive American Judaism. The current student rabbi at Kolot Chayeinu,
Scott Fox, described in an earlier interview the mood lamented by Daniel
Gordis on his own campus in New York: Every year around three people try to
tackle the conversation about Israel in their senior sermon. All of these
people have been appalled at the changes going on in American Jewish
identity. The response to their sermons has been weak. Other than that we
rarely talk about Israel, if at all, in casual conversation or in class.
There is simply little interest in it. Fox describes himself as a non-Zionist,
explaining, “My Judaism is not the Judaism of a political state and certainly
has no connection to the modern State of Israel and its culture and history.
For me they are not the Jewish state, but a Jewish state. They
are Jewish neighbours who share parts of my identity, but not much at that.”
Speaking for himself as well as for the wider American Jewish community as
documented in sociological surveys, he hastened to add, “This is not fuelled by
political strife, or compassion fatigue, or self-hatred; it is simply that
American Jews have a deep identity and rich history, and Israel does not
factor into that identity.” Of the student body at Hebrew Union College, said
Fox, “I would say that we are about one third in favour of the above, one third
appalled and fighting vehemently against this trend, and one third ambivalent.
Most of the faculty is in the second category, although there are some who
are also ambivalent. Few, if any, are in favour of these changes.” This, in short, is the spectre haunting
American Jewry, or at least its self-appointed leadership in the Israel lobby
and the American Jewish Establishment. The mere proposition that Judaism is a
religion and not a nationality is irrationally feared and despised by this
establishment. There are plainly self-interested reasons for this, including
but not limited to those of the Israel lobby. The increasing disaffection with
Israel and Zionist ideology is colliding with several other trends in American
Jewry that would not necessarily be otherwise related. These include
dramatically rising rates of intermarriage; the gradual breakdown of
denominationalism that has been largely propelled by the atrophy of the
Conservative movement and the growth of unaffiliated progressive
congregations; and the rapid decline of the suburban base that most Jewish
institutions have been designed to serve for the last half-century.
Peter Beinart leaves no doubt that he is
painfully aware of these realities that complicate his liberal Zionist ideal
in the present day. Shortly after the publication of the original New York
Review of Books essay, Ross Douthat
identified the unspoken fear behind the piece as being “ that liberal Jews
are (very gradually) following the same trajectory as liberal Episcopalians
before them, keeping their politics but surrendering their distinctive
cultural and religious identity, and that the demise of liberal Zionism says
something, not only about the fate of Israel, but about the fate of secular
Judaism in the United States.” Beinart takes this head-on in the concluding
chapters of his book. He convincingly disassembles the scepticism of the
“alienation thesis” about young American Jews and Israel and explains that for
the bulk of the current generation it is exactly what Douthat described: “they
are less alienated than indifferent.” But Beinart also describes the rise of a
progressive religious movement in the current generation that is decidedly
non-Zionist, with some of its standard bearers even deeply involved in
anti-Zionist activism through groups like Jewish Voice for Peace. Beinart
upbraids this movement: It is a lovely dream, and an abdication.
Even on purely religious grounds… Jewish liturgy itself, if taken
seriously, requires wrestling with what Jews make of their return to the
land of Israel. … Acting ethically in an age of Jewish power means
confronting not only the suffering that gentiles endure but the suffering
that Jews cause. For Jews who espouse liberal principles, indifference to
whether the Jewish state remains a democracy constitutes as deep a betrayal
of the bonds of peoplehood as indifference to whether there remains a Jewish
state at all. Israel cannot be tucked away in the attic, left to degrade
while progressive, committed Jews live their religious and ethical ideals in
the United States. A disfigured Jewish state will haunt not only American
Zionism but American Judaism. And the American Jews who try to avert their
eyes will be judged harshly by history, no matter how laudable their soup
kitchens and how spirited their prayer. There is no question that the Zionist legacy
will unavoidably haunt any progressive Jewish future in America or anywhere
else. But to the contrary, it is the abnormal relationship between American
Jewry and Israel, from which a growing number of young rabbis are recoiling,
that is in such great measure responsible for the unfolding tragedy. It might
be asked in response to Beinart’s challenge: is the rich American Jewish
social justice tradition, the legacy of Meyer London, Rose Schneiderman,
Andrew Goodman, and Michael Schwermer really supposed to be reduced to
assisting in Washington bureaucratic wrangling on behalf of the loyal
opposition of a foreign country, as the closely aligned J Street has
essentially asked? Beinart’s alternative is an idealized
liberal Zionist tradition of the civil rights era. But liberal American
Judaism in the 1950s and ’60s was ultimately defined less by the civil rights
movement than by the garish Scientology-style demands for financial obeisance
to the United Jewish Appeal, denounced by a few unbowed anti-Zionist rabbis as
a new form of Baal worship. Here is where Beinart’s profound unseriousness
comes into view, which many critics detected in his 2006 Cold War
liberal-revivalist manifesto
The Good Fight. For the historical hero of The Crisis of Zionism,
Rabbi Stephen Wise, an arch-defender of the Soviet Union up to his death in
1949, was as antithetical a character to the narrative of the first book as
could be asked for. This abiding ideological commitment, indeed,
was largely why, in the years leading up to the founding of the State of
Israel, Wise was marginalized by Abba Hillel Silver, a zealot for the first
principles of Jewish nationalism who could forge alliances with such unlikely
figures as Sen. Robert Taft. Yet after 1948, Silver himself was marginalized
for such heterodox opinions as opposing the 1956 Suez War at the expense of
the foremost disciple of Stephen Wise, Philip Bernstein, who as a founder of
AIPAC set the organization’s belligerent and maximalist tone from the
beginning. Indeed, one suspects that if they were alive today, Wise would be
with the neocons and Silver with J Street. This history betrays much of the wishful
thinking in Beinart’s narrative, undermining his distinction between the
“historically liberal” American Jewish Congress and Anti-Defamation League
with the “non-liberal” AIPAC and American Jewish Committee. One of the
“exiles” from the American Jewish Establishment Beinart profiles is Philip
Klutznick, who was roundly ostracized for advocating a two-state solution (to
the point of writing in defence of AIPAC “scalping” victim Sen. Charles Percy)
in the 1970s, but in 1960 was one of the critical operatives who thwarted a
proactive stand on the Palestinian refugee problem by candidate John F.
Kennedy. In the words of the great philosopher of our generation, Homer
Simpson, “Everything’s perfect about the past except how it led to the
present.” To be clear, the Israeli predicament is a
tragedy of epic proportions. When Beinart and other more conscientious
progressive Zionists speak of a genuine two-state solution based on the 1949
armistice line, they speak of what Israel should have accepted in the 1950s.
Even for a moment in the 1990s, a two-state solution on Israel’s terms could
have come off, with Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat the only men with even a
prayer of being able to sell such a deal to their respective peoples. But
through it all has been the fatal conceit that Israel could not simply be a
nation-state unto itself but must define itself as the possession and
representative of the whole transnational “Jewish people.” Ultimately, one
senses that Beinart and many of those he speaks for are more interested in
saving Zionism for themselves than in saving Israel as a Jewish state. Whether or not they have the literary
talent, and even the haziest historical knowledge, to articulate it, both the
indifferent and assimilating majority and the religiously committed
progressive minority of the rising American Jewish generation understand that
this historic American Jewish idolatry of the State of Israel has been the
problem, not the solution. What they seek from the State of Israel is, as
Yitzhak Rabin might have said, a divorce, not a marriage. In offering a romance for the
left-liberal-tinged American Zionism of the early statehood era, Peter Beinart
repeats and indeed celebrates the refusal to make the choice that it is in all
likelihood far too late to make now: whether to content itself to be a normal
nation-state, even a “Jewish” one, or to insist that it is still the
possession and representative of an imagined transnational entity, of which
the other major component is one of the most politically powerful
socio-cultural groups in the world’s sole superpower.
Taking Sides: America's Secret Relations With a Militant Israel
Geoffrey Wheatcroft wrote How Israel gets away with murder
For more
reviews go to Books Errors & omissions, broken links,
cock ups, over-emphasis, malice [ real or imaginary ] or whatever; if
you find any I am open to comment. Updated on
09/11/2022 20:40
QUOTE
Since even before its release last month,
Peter Beinart's
The Crisis of Zionism has been extravagantly denounced and praised.
To his everlasting credit, Beinart has described in vivid and uncompromising
terms the corrupting and corrosive impact of the American Jewish establishment
he so courageously exposed in The New York Review of Books:
UNQUOTE
The other is people who despise the very idea of Israel.
Peter Beinart is a Zionist. He opposes the occupation primarily (although
not exclusively) because he believes it is destroying Israel. If there is
one message that comes through in this book (I read a review copy)it is that
Beinart wants the Israel he grew up on (one that he understands was far from
perfect) to be there for his children.
He thinks that the continued occupation will ultimately either destroy
Israel's soul or even its physical existence.
Those fears clearly drove him to write this book.
Reading it, I kept thinking of my father-in-law who survived the Holocaust
and how much he worried that Israel's leaders would let it be destroyed.
He used to say, "These Jews from Poland and Russia figured out how to create
a Jewish country from nothing. What did they know? But sitting in Warsaw and
Lodz, they figured out how you create ministries and embassies and a whole
government. They figured out how to build an army. But I'm afraid that their
children aren't so smart. They take it for granted. They will lose it all
unless they get smart."
That is what Beinart thinks too. An old Jewish soul in a young American man.
This book can change history. That is why it is creating such a ruckus. The
noise you hear are the moans of those who are devoted to the status quo and
worry that Beinart is challenging it.
It's a great book and a pleasure to read.
Not to sound too much like the late 1960's person I am, Beinart's plea
reminds me of the quote Bobby Kennedy always invoked. I think it's Tennyson.
"Some people see things as they are and ask why. I dream of things that
never were and ask "why not."
That is what Beinart is doing.
MJ Rosenberg
UNQUOTE
The Jew explains.
QUOTE
A bit daunting for those who are just taking their first steps into looking at
Middle Eastern affairs. Otherwise, Stephen Green has compiled a excellent review
of US documents that adds light to the relationship between Israel and its main
ally. Well worth exploring for anyone interested in the background behind the
conflicts.
UNQUOTE
If you are starting your study of politics and modern
history this book is highly recommended by Jay in the comments part of
Judith Coplon And Why The Venona Project Was Stopped. Another good starting
point is Behind
Communism by Frank L Britton. They are not about the news in the main stream
media; they are about who controls politicians, teachers etc.
Without quite admitting that Jews control America. He knows
exactly who the guilty are but hiding the truth is what main stream media are
about; Jews too of course.
Email
me at Mike Emery. All
financial contributions are cheerfully accepted. If you want to keep
it private, use my PGP Key. Home
Page