Part 2 of 2
The Souring of Arab and Western Relations
Israel has existed for much of its history since 1948 by maintaining the fiction that it is the only reliable state in the Middle East that is Western-orientated amidst a sea of states hostile to “Western values.” This is highly misleading. Israel was for the first years of its existence largely a center of Marxist agitation in the Middle East, and even before the declaration of Israel in 1948, Zionist settlers in Palestine were conveyers of the Marxist creed that has never found fertile ground in any form among the Arabs.
Israel is neither pro-Western nor anti-Western; it is pro-Israel, no more and no less. Israel has always played a duplicitous game diplomatically. For example, it has for decades maintained a largely covert relationship with Red China to the point of contravening US restrictions on weapons transfers. As for the souring of relations between the West and the Arabs, this is of a particularly treacherous nature, and is a festering sore that the West has the responsibility to heal.
The origins of this perfidy are in World War I at a time when the Arabs were under Ottoman rule. Zionist hopes for gaining Palestine seemed at the time to rest with Turkey and Germany; while Arab independence rested with vanquishing those powers, out of which independent Arab states might emerge. In return for Arab support, the Allies led them to believe that independent states would be granted.
In 1915, Sheriff Hussein of Mecca, speaking for the Arab world, approached Sir Henry McMahon, British Commissioner in Cairo, offering support for the war against the Turks if Britain would pledge support for Arab independence. Correspondence between the two during 1915 and early 1916 culminated in McMahon’s guarantee of British support for independence within the requested boundaries.
However, in the “Sykes-Picot Agreement” of 1916 between Britain and France, “parts” of Palestine would be under international administration upon agreement among the Allies and with the Arabs represented by the Sheriff of Mecca. This Anglo-French agreement already had the seeds of duplicity as it gave the two powers control over Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Transjordan, reneging on the commitment that had already been given by the British to Sheriff Hussein, and without his knowledge.
Lord Curzon remarked that the boundary lines drawn up by the Sykes-Picot agreement indicated “gross ignorance” and he assumed that it was never believed the agreement would be implemented. Prime Minister Lloyd George considered the Sykes-Picot agreement foolish and dishonourable, but it was nonetheless implemented after the Allied victory.
In 1916 the war was going badly for the Allies, and the only hope was to persuade the USA to enter. Sykes approached the War Cabinet with the suggestion that if Palestine was offered as a Jewish homeland, then Jewish sympathy could be mobilized for the Allied cause, and the USA might be induced to join the conflict. US Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis used his influence to induce President Wilson to adopt an interventionist policy.
In return for Zionist support the British reneged on their promises to the Arabs and secretly promised to support a Jewish homeland in Palestine; a guarantee which became known as the “Balfour Declaration.” The machinations were confirmed by Lloyd George to the Palestine Royal Commission in 1937, the report of which states that George told the commission that if the Allies supported a Jewish homeland in Palestine the Zionist leaders had promised to “rally Jewish sentiment and support throughout the world to the allied cause. They kept their word.”
The Arabs, fighting in the field for the Allies, were unaware of the new arrangements that had been reached via the Sykes-Picot agreement and the Balfour Declaration. When the Bolsheviks came to power in Russia they revealed these secret agreements, but the Arabs continued to fight, due to Allied assurances that neither Sykes-Picot nor the “Balfour Declaration” would undermine the promises that had been made to them.
Among the numerous reiterations of Allied support for the Arab cause, “The Anglo-French Declaration” of 9 November 1918 most plainly stated that France and Britain would support setting up “indigenous governments and administrations in Syria (which included Palestine) and Mesopotamia (Iraq). With such assurances, the Arab fight against the Turks was of crucial importance to the Allies. These treacherous maneuvers laid the foundations for the festering Middle East sore that has been aggravated ever since by the slavish attitude the USA and its allies have displayed towards Israel.
This background of Western duplicity towards the Arabs, along with the Zionist wire-pulling, is directly relevant to the present “clash of civilizations,” the “war on terrorism,” and the Breivik atrocity as a manifestation of these. Leading up to the Breivik massacre of Labor Party youth, the neo-cons had been agitating against the Labor Government that was indicating it would adopt a more strident policy towards Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians. In particular, the youth wing of the party was lobbying for a Norwegian economic boycott of Israel.
Joseph Klein, posting on Horowitz’s Front Page Mag two days before Breivik’s rampage, described the Norwegian Government as “Quislings” and called them the “the latest example of Norwegian collaboration with the enemies of the Jews.” Is the language any less inflammatory than Breivik’s European Declaration of Independence that the news media and their pundits are scrutinising for signs of “right-wing extremism”? Klein stated: “Norwegian Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Stoere declared during a press conference this week, alongside Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, that “Norway believes it is perfectly legitimate for the Palestinian president to turn to the United Nations” to seek recognition of an independent Palestinian state.”
An agreement was signed giving Palestine’s representative in Norway full ambassadorial status. Stoere also appealed for financial help for Palestinians. Other transgressions by the Norwegians, according to Klein, include a Labour Member of Parliament stating that Jews exaggerate the Holocaust; “socialist leader” Kristin Halvorsen having participated in an anti-Israel demonstration while serving as minister of finance; the Norwegian Government’s divesting of funds from two Israeli companies in 2010; the claim that “anti-Semitism is ‘alive and well’ among the Norwegian political, cultural and academic elite; pro-Hitler sentiments expressed by Muslim students in Norway,” and more.
Klein stated that part of the reason for this rise in “anti-Semitism” is because of the toleration of multiculturalism by the Norwegian Establishment. He ends by writing: “Norway is repeating its Quisling treachery of the Nazi era, this time in league with a growing radical Muslim population. And once again the Jews are the victims.”
A Hebrew website, Rotter, states that two days before the massacre the leader of the Norwegian Labour Party Youth, Eskil Pederson, said in an interview that it was time to end dialogue with Israel and undertake tough measures, including an economic boycott by Norway. The youth at the Labor camp aimed to lobby their party for a boycott. The site describes the Labor youth camp:
48 hours before the shooting attack on the island, the youth met the Norwegian Foreign Minister. Some called for a boycott of Israel.
On Wednesday, the second day of the ruling party youth conference on the island, the youth holiday camp discussed with the Norwegian Foreign Minister Jonas Gahar Store, and ordered him to support Palestine. About 48 hours later, many of them were killed, Anders Bering Breivik launched a shooting crazy.
Labor Youth Movement demanded recognition of a Palestinian state, and foreign minister have said that the Palestinians get their own state. “The occupation must end, the wall should be demolished and it has to happen now,” said Ghar Store to the audience. Some of the youngsters in the camp waving a placard with the word “boycott Israel.” Demanded an economic embargo on Israel. Summer camp ended in the massacre.
Leader, Eskil Pedersen, said that young people require imposition of an economic embargo on Israel. “Our policy on the Middle East is to be more active and demand recognition of Palestine. There is also the peace process back on track,” said Pedersen. The Foreign Minister agreed with him, but said that a boycott is not the right approach: “This will make dialogue become a monologue.” 
The media pundits have waxed indignant about the “extremists” who have posted on “far Right” websites in support of Breivik’s actions, Dr Matthew Goodwin, writing for the Telegraph:
Make no mistake: Breivik has already become a heroic figure for sections of the ultra far right, much in the same way Timothy McVeigh became a hero for sections of the militia movement in the United States. In Britain, his anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant and anti-establishment ideas are easily found in a far-right scene that has become fragmented and chaotic.
Yet it does not seem to have been pointed out that Breivik’s action has generated enthusiasm in Israel. Some of the posts on the Israeli Hebrew website Rotter, state:
- Because I waited with this response until after it became clear that there was indeed a conference which explicitly called for the Boycott of Israel. I am very happy and pleased about the massacre that took place in the camp of the enemies of Israel.
- Hitler Youth members killed in the bombing of Germany were also innocent. Let us all cry about the terrible evil bombardment carried out by the Allies. . . . We have a bunch of haters of Israel meeting in a country that hates Israel in a conference that endorses the boycott. So it’s not okay, not nice, really a tragedy for families, and we condemn the act itself, but to cry about it? Come on. We Jews are not Christians. In the Jewish religion there is no obligation to love or mourn for the enemy.
- It’s stupidity and malice not want the death of those who call to boycott Israel.
- I have no sympathy for those who want the destruction of Israel.
- Not looking for excuses but it’s not our mourning. Like not mourning at the time the 50 thousand dead in the bombing of Dresden
- May all our enemies be paid with such speed.
- At least now they have more important things to worry about than Israel.
- Maybe we can arrange a badge of honor on behalf of the International Headquarters for Saving People and the Land.
It seems that Breivik’s actions made a lot of “sense” from a pro-Zionist perspective, and the motives have nothing to do with ideologies of the “far Right,” and much to do with supporting Israel.
The “clash of civilizations” now taking place in the name of the “war on terrorism” is a second “Cold War” foisted upon the world in order to achieve American global hegemony. With the eclipse of the “Cold War” following the implosion of the Soviet bloc, the USA required another world bogeyman to justify its global adventures. The “right” was dragooned into supporting US globalization during the Cold War under the banner of “fighting communism,” “defending democracy,” etc.
With the conclusion of the anti-Soviet Cold War, these same ideologues undertook a new Cold War, this time against Islam, using the same type of sloganeering. Islamophobia is the new anti-Sovietism, and is serving the same interests. Trotskyites and other Marxists disaffected by the rise of Stalin created the ideological foundations for the Cold War. The so-called “neo-conservative” movement has its origins in Trotskyist anti-Stalinism. Anti-Soviet rhetoric has been altered to apply to the new “menace of racial Islam.”
The slogan now is “Islamofascism,” coined by neo-con ideologue Stephen Schwarz, director of the Center for Islamic Pluralism. Schwartz’s background, like most of the neo-con founders, is as a Trotskyite, and he reiterated to the neo-con magazine National Review that he would defend the legacy of Trotsky to his “last breath.” How does this legacy connect with “revolutionary conservative” or the “right”? It is a creation of plutocracy, Zionism, post-Trotskyites, and the CIA.
A better option for a revived Western Civilization, based on genuine “Western values,” and for the world, could revolve upon what the neo-cons and their Zionist allies have condemned as “Eurabia.” The common enemies are Zionism, US cultural subversion, international finance, and concomitant forms of imperialism. Relations between the West and the Arab states were evolving past the very old antagonisms until Zionist machinations entered the scene during World War I. It is not too late to correct the distorted relationships that have occurred between the West and the Arabs, and then an amicable solution can be found to the problems of Muslim immigration. As for Breivik, he is a product of the forces that are inimical to the traditional West.
1. K. R. Bolton, “The Red Face of Israel,” Foreign Policy Journal, August 2, 2010, http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2010/08/02/the-red-face-of-israel/all/1 
2. K. R. Bolton, “Chinese TV Series Lauds Israel: The Alliance Between China and Zionism,” Foreign Policy Journal, 18 August, 2010, http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2010/08/18/chinese-tv-series-lauds-israel-the-alliance-between-china-and-zionism/all/1 
3. Sami Hadawi, Bitter Harvest: Palestine 1914–79 (New York: Caravan Books, 1979), p. 11.
4. Hadawi, Bitter Harvest, p. 12.
5. Hadawi, Bitter Harvest, pp. 12–13.
6. Hadawi, Bitter Harvest, p. 13.
7. Palestine Royal Commission Report cited by Hadawi, Bitter Harvest, p. 14.
8. Hadawi, Bitter Harvest, p. 15.
9. J. Klein, ‘The Quislings of Norway,” Front Page Mag, 20 July, 2011, http://frontpagemag.com/2011/07/20/the-quislings-of-norway/ 
10. J Klein, ibid.
12. M. Goodwin, “Norway Killer: many within Far-Right share Anders Breivik’s ideas,” The Telegraph, London, 26 July 2011, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/8658417/Norway-killer-many-within-far-right-share-Anders-Breiviks-ideas.html 
14. K. R. Bolton, “America’s ‘World Revolution’: Neo-Trotskyist Foundations of US Foreign Policy,” Foreign Policy Journal, 3 May 2010, http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2010/05/03/americas-world-revolution-neo-trotskyist-foundations-of-u-s-foreign-policy/0/ 
15. S. Schwartz, “Trotskycons?,” National Review, 11 June 2003: http://faceoff.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-schwartz061103.asp