Tuesday, March 30, 2010

Historical errors and consequences. Part I


by Alex Rose


1st part of 2


When the Ottoman Empire was disbanded after World War I, the League of Nations was left with an enormous tract of land to organize. The initial idea was to allow the Jews to create a state in their original homeland, in the area that the British called Palestine. The remaining 99.9% of the Middle East was initially to become a single Arab state. This territory was subsequently divided into a group of Arab states. In addition, by administrative finagling, Great Britain went counter to the requirements of the Mandate and gave the area east of the Jordan -- some 78% of the original Mandated Palestine -- to what eventually became the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordon.


In this essay we discuss some major historic errors Israel has made and their consequences. There is, however, one devastatingly wrong decision that Israel had nothing to do with -- Jimmy Carter toppling the Shah of Iran from his throne. This led directly to Ahmadinejad and the Mullah regime.



The Palestine Mandate, at times known as Mandate for Palestine or British Mandate of Palestine was a legal instrument for the administration of Palestine formally approved by the League of Nations in June 1922, based on a draft by the principal Allied and associated powers after the First World War. The mandate formalized British rule in Palestine from 1917-1948. The preamble of the mandate declared:

"Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandate should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish People, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

The Mandate was a consequence of a decision by the San Remo Conference on April 24, 1920 to assign it under the League of Nations to Britain. The terms of the Mandate were also discussed with the United States which was not a member of the League. An agreed text was confirmed by the Council of the League of Nations on July 24, 1922, and it came into operation in September 1923.

Absent to the subject document is any reference to Arab political rights. In fact, interestingly, in contemporary times, Rashid Khalidi freely acknowledged this omission noting the British refusal to do otherwise. For the Arabs it was unacceptable and considered that it would be "self murder", but this did not deter the British who absolutely rejected the principle of majority rule or any other measure that would give an Arab majority control over the government of Palestine.

With Israel's Declaration of Independence, there were choices to be made. Recognizing that the Arabs who were destined to become Israeli citizens would undoubtedly have their inner conscience sensitized in sympathy with the Arab nations, the Israeli government elected to exclude them from the IDF. However, at the same time, the government awarded them political rights, which as stated above was not a requirement of the Mandate, nor that of the UN 1947 Resolution. It is beyond the calculus of the human mind to comprehend this original sin of a government of the modern State of Israel. On the other hand, its fall-out is self evident. Clearly, an error can be classified as one of misjudgment or of deliberate intent. Additionally, an error can become a victim of misinformation or concealment.

As noted by Sarah Honig, "Until 1948 Palestine was synonymous with the Hebrew Eretz Yisrael. The Palestinian epithet was largely reserved for Jews and used by them. Local Arabs preferred allegiance to Greater Syria or Iraq.

Golda Meir used to quip: 'I am a Palestinian but don't like the name. Palestine is a name the Romans gave Eretz Yisrael with the express purpose of infuriating defeated Jews — Why should we use a spiteful name meant to humiliate us? Christendom inherited the name from Rome and the British chose to call the land they mandated Palestine. Local Arabs picked it up as their nation's supposed name, though they couldn't even pronounce it correctly, and turned it into Filastin, a fictional entity'."

Palestine/Filastin never had an independent existence, cultural uniqueness, linguistic distinctiveness or religious idiosyncrasy to differentiate it from the surrounding Arab milieu. In 1950, the late King Hussein, stressed over and over in numerous pronouncements that 'Jordan and Palestine are one and the same.' So did Palestinian leaders, including Yasser Arafat. The Palestinian Covenant, in fact, covets all of Jordan - precisely because it's Palestine. Yet eventually it became expedient, PR-wise, to claim that Palestine exists exclusively west of the mini-river, justifying the campaign for a second Palestinian Arab state."



Many years have passed since the era of former President Jimmy Carter's involvement in the Iran hostage crisis and its resultant impact on today's Middle East. What follows is a discourse on the heady days extending from 1976 through 1981 drawn from the following:

  1. James Perloff - Iran and the Shah: What Really Happened - May 13, 2009 [http://www.the newamerican.com/history/European/1111].
  2. Carter Administration's Dilemma: Iran's Theocracy by Slater Bakhtavar [Attorney at Bakhtavar & Associates with post doctoral degree in International law, founder of Republican Youth of America].
  3. Jimmy Carter - People & Events: The Iranian Hostage Crisis, November 1979-January 1981 [American Experience].
  4. The Real Jimmy Carter by Steven Hayward [American Enterprise Institute].
  5. Role of US Former President Carter Emerging in Illegal Financial Demands on Shah of Iran [Defense of Foreign Affairs Daily, March 15, 2004].
  6. Jimmy Carter spins the Iran Hostage Crisis on Foreign Soil [One Citizen Speaking.com - November 18, 2009].
  7. Jimmy Carter under Fire for Recruiting Soviets against Reagan by Wes Vernon [NewsMax.com, October 30, 2002].
  8. Jimmy Carter & the 40 Ayatollahs by Diane Alden [October 30, 2002].
  9. Jimmy Carter's Nobel Legacy by Edward Daley: Withdrawal of Support for Shah of Iran [March 10, 2003; http://www.americandaily.com/item/1340].
  10. Carter sold out Iran1977-1978 by Chuck Morse [October 11, 2002].
  11. Carter sold out Iran1977-1978 Response by Dr. Norman Livergood [The New British Oil Imperialism].

Criticizing the Carter's administration of the crisis in Iran, President Reagan observed, "I did criticize the President because of his undermining of our stalwart ally, the Shah — ". This diplomatic expression, while typical of Ronald Reagan, was an understatement while noteworthy given the extraordinary protection afforded Carter by the media. With the development of virtually an unlimited availability of credible knowledge in recent years, it can be stated with certainty that Jimmy Carter's failure to order the US into actual combat with Iran in 1979-1980 over the Hostage incident allowed the rise of contemporary radical Islam to commence. The snowball effect of was visibly displayed on September 11, 2001 and the too numerous to mention terrorist attacks worldwide. So effective has this evil phenomena been is manifest in the costly and time consuming security measures adopted in the public arena and now considered normality.

It can be said unequivocally that Carter's pursuit of wrongheaded human rights resulted in the origin of present day universal terrorism with the fall of Iran. Clearly, every potential leader given to terrorism from Arafat, Osama bin Laden et al must have been encouraged by this singular gross act of appeasement. There is a history here which embraces evil, dishonor and may even be described as traitorous. It most certainly demands the "public's right to know". From 1941 until 1979, Iran was ruled by a constitutional monarchy under Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, Iran's Shah [king]. When the Shah assumed power, bandits dominated the land, literacy was one percent and women had no rights under Islamic dictates. The Shah changed all this, primarily using oil generated wealth to modernize the nation. He built rural roads, postal services, libraries, electrical installations, constructed dams to irrigate Iran's arid land making the country 90 percent self-sufficient in food production. He established colleges and universities, and at his own expense, set up an educational foundation to train students for Iran's future.

The Shah of Iran, who for over 20 years was viewed as a progressive modern ruler by Islamic standards, suddenly found himself regarded as a monster by the international left media during 1977-1978. How did this happen? Shortly after his appointment to President in 1977, Jimmy Carter launched a deliberate campaign to undermine the Shah. The Soviets and their left wing apparatchiks would coordinate with Carter by smearing the Shah in a campaign of lies meant to topple his throne. The result would be the establishment of a Marxist/Islamic state in Iran headed by the tyrannical Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. Unlike his successor, President Ronald Reagan, Carter chose to appease the Soviets rather than to work towards their demise. Further, he elected to betray a proven and outstanding ally of the US and Israel, the Shah, with one of the world's most oppressive regimes.

Wes Vernon's "Reagan's War the Epic Story of Forty-Year Struggle and Final Triumph over Communism" reveals how Carter as president and later as a private citizen, sought the help of an avowed foreign enemy of the US, the USSR, to undermine Reagan's candidacy in 1960 and, even more shocking, attempted to cripple President Reagan's foreign policy in 1984. NewsMax.com CEO Christopher Ruddy has written that Carter "may well have committed treason" by enlisting the help of the Soviet Union in the 1980 and 1984 presidential elections.

In an analysis by Alan Peters which appeared in a 2004 edition of Defense &Foreign Affairs, he points to strong intelligence which emerged confirming that Jimmy Carter attempted to demand financial favors for his political friends from the Shah. The rejection of this demand by the Shah could well have led to Carter's resolve to remove the Iranian Emperor from office. This involved the cancellation of the Bandar Mahshahr project awarded to Brown and Root and as a personal favor to him, given to his friends at a cost 10% above the cost quoted by Brown and Root. The analysis demonstrates the linkage between the destruction of the Shah's government directly attributable to Carter's actions, the Iran-Iraq War and the subsequent rise of radical Islamist terrorism.

Being an ally of the US in the Cold War, Iran was a target for Soviet subversion and espionage. As in the case of the US in today's war on terror, Iran arrested and incarcerated many who threatened its sovereignty & existence, mainly Soviet agents , their collaborators and Islamic terrorists. This activity was found to be unacceptable to Carter upon his taking office given that a perverted form of "human rights" was declared as among his highest priorities. He chastised the Shah for his human rights record and engineered the withdrawal of American support from him.

The Carter administration's continuous demand upon the Shah was to "liberalize". On October 26, 1978, he freed 1,500 prisoners, but increased rioting followed. The Shah commented that "the more I liberalized, the worse the situation in Iran became. Every initiative I took was seen as proof of my own weakness and that of my government". Revolutionaries equated liberalization with appeasement. "My greatest mistake", the Shah recalled, "was in listening to the Americans on matters concerning the internal affairs of my kingdom".

In November 1978, President Carter nominated George Ball as a member of the Trilateral Commission. The commission acted under the direct control of the National Security Council's Zbigniew Brzezinski, an ardent opponent of the Shah. This commission cultivated a clandestine Iran task force. While serving on this commission, George Ball championed cessation of US support for the Shah and clandestine support for Rubhullah Ayatollah Khomeini who, albeit in exile, led a proletariat Islamic opposition. In pursuing this agenda Ball sought to garner the support of Robert Bowie, the Deputy Director of the United States CIA.

Within Iran, Islamic fundamentalists, who resented the Shah's progressive pro-Western views, combined with Soviet sponsored communists to overthrow the Shah. A union of this notion can only be understood in terms of a common goal given that communism is committed to destroying all religion, which Marx called "the opiate of the masses".

In the final analysis, Carter aided and abetted the return of Khomeini and allowed him to seize power in Iran and, as a result, we are now reaping the harvest of anti-American fanaticism and extremism. Khomeini unleashed the hybrid of Islam and Marxism which has spawned suicide bombers and hijackers. President Carter and the extremists in his administration are directly to blame for this disaster and should have been held accountable.

Alex Rose

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.


1 comment:

Salubrius said...

The creation of the "Palestian People" can be credited to the Soviet disinformation masters according to Major General Ion Pacepa, the highest ranking Soviet bloc defector during the Cold War. The term appears three times in the Preamble of the PLO charter drafted in Moscow in 1964and affirmed by the first 422 members of the Palestinian National Council, each hand picked by the KGB. The term actually was "Palestinian Arab People" to exclude Jews. Also excluded were the Arabs in Jordan, in the West Bank and Gaza until after the Six Day War when the West Bank and Gaza came under Jewish control. In a revision of the PLO charter, the exclusions of Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza were removed.
The effect of the creation of the alleged "Palestinian People" was to disguise attacks motivated by
religious jihad as attacks motivated by secular nationalism with a quest for political self determination.

In those years the Soviets were creating several "liberation organizations" including another one in Bolivia in 1964, one in Columbia in 1965 and in the 70s, they created the Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia that bombed US Airline offices in Europe, and the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine that bombed Israeli children on buses. Of all these, the PLO was the most successful.

Post a Comment