But the President had not said enough. Warmed up, perhaps by audience contact, and flushed with the prospect of victory, which was enhanced by a decision of the organized leftists to swing after the opinion polls closed from Wallace to Truman, he swallowed the Israel cause, line, sinker and hook—the hook being never thereafter removed. Here from the New York Times of Oct. 29, 1948, is Warren Moscow‘s story:
President Truman made his strongest pro-Israel declaration last night. Speaking at Madison Square Garden to more than 16,000 persons brought there under the auspices of the Liberal Party, the President ignored the Bernadotte Report and pledged himself to see that the new State of Israel be large enough, free enough, and strong enough to make its people self-supporting and secure.
The President continuued:
What we need now is to help the people of Israel and they‘ve proved themselves in the best traditions of hardy pioneers. They have created a modern and efficient state with the highest standards of Western civilization.
In view of the Zionist record of eliminating the Arab natives of Palestine, continuous bombings, and the murder of the United Nations mediator, hardly cold in his grave, Mr. Truman owes the American people a documented explanation of his conception of best traditions and highest standards of Western civilization.
Indeed, our bi-partisan endorsement of Zionist aggression in Palestine, in bidding for the electoral vote of New York, is one of the most reprehensible actions in world history.
The Soviet-supplied Jewish troops which seized Palestine had no rights ever before recognized in law or custom except the right of triumphant tooth and claw (see The Zionist Illusion, by Prof. W. T. Stace of Princeton University, Atlantic Monthly, February, 1947).
In the first place the Khazar Zionists from Soviet Russia were not descended from the people of Hebrew religion in Palestine, ancient or modern, and thus not being descended from Old Testament People (The Lost Tribes, by Allen H. Godbey, Duke University Press, Durham, N.C., 1930, pp. 257, 301, and passim), they have no Biblical claim to Palestine.
Their claim to the country rests solely on their ancestors‘ having adopted a form of the religion of a people who ruled there eighteen hundred and more years before (Chapter II, above). This claim is thus exactly as valid as if the same or some other horde should claim the United States in 3350 A.D. on the basis of having adopted the religion of the American Indian! For another comparison, the 3,500,000 Catholics of China (Time, July 2, 1951) have as much right to the former Papal states in Italy as these Judaized Khazars have to Palestine! (Bible students are referred to the Apocalypse, The Revelation of St. John the Divine, Chapter II, Verse 9.)
Moreover, the statistics of both land-ownership and population stand heavily against Zionist pretensions. At the close of the first World War, there were about 55,000 Jews in Palestine, forming eight percent of the population. Between 1922 and 1941, the Jewish population of Palestine increased by approximately
380,000, four-fifths of this being due to immigration. This made the Jews 31 percent of the total population (East and West of Suez, by John S. Badeau, Foreign Policy Association, 1943, p. 46). Even after hordes from Soviet and satellite lands had poured in, and when the United Nations was working on the Palestine problem, the best available statistics showed non-Jews owning more land than Jews in all sixteen of the county size subdivisions of Palestine and outnumbering the Jews in population in fifteen of the sixteen subdivisions (UN Presentations 574, and 573, November, 1947).
The anti-Communist Arab population of the world was understandably terrified by the arrival of Soviet-equipped troops in its very center, Palestine, and was bitter at the presence among them, despite President Roosevelt‘s promise to Ibn Saud, of Americans with military training. How many U.S. army personnel, reserve, retired, or on leave, secretly participated is not known. Robert Conway, writing from Jerusalem on January 19, 1948, said:
More than 2,000 Americans are already serving in Haganah, the Jewish Defense Army, highly placed deplomatic sources revealed today. Conway stated further that a survey convinced the Jewish agency that 5,000 Americans are determined to come to fight for the Jewish state even if the U.S. government imposes loss of citizenship upon such volunteers. The expected number was 50,000 if no law on forfeiting citizenship was passed by the U.S. Congress (N.Y. News cable in Washington Times-Herald, January 20, 1948).
Among Americans who cast their lot with Israel was David Marcus, a West Point graduate and World War II colonel. Col. Marcus‘s service with the Israeli army was not revealed to the public until he was killed fighting with Israeli forces near Jerusalem in June, 1948. At the dedication of a Brooklyn memorial to Colonel Marcus a letter from President Truman . . . extoled the heroic roles played by Colonel Marcus in two wars (New York Times, Oct. 11, 1948). At the time of his death, Colonel Marcus was Supreme commander of Israeli military forces on the Jerusalem front (AP dispatch, Washington Evening Star June 12, 1948).
The Arab vote in the united States is negligible as the Zionist vote is not and after the acceptance of Israel by the UN the American government recognized as a sovereign state the new nation whose soil was fertilized by the blood of many people of many nationalities from the lowly Arab peasant to the royal Swedish United Nations, mediator. You can‘t shoot your way into the United Nations,said Warren Austin, U.S. Delegate to the UN, speaking of Communist China on January 24, 1951 (Broadcasts of CBS and NBC). Mr. Austin must have been suffering from a lapse of memory, for that is exactly what Israel did!
Though the vote of Arabs and other Moslem peoples is negligible in the United States, the significance of these Moslem peoples is not negligible in the world (see the map entitled ―The Moslem Block on p. 78 of Badeau‘s East of Suez). Nor is their influence negligible in the United Nations. The friendly attitude of the United States toward Israel‘s bloody extension of her boundaries and other acts already referred to was effectively analyzed on the radio (NBC Network, January 8, 1951) by the distinguished philosopher and Christian (so stated by the introducer, John McVane), Dr, Charles Malik, Lebanese Delegate to the United Nations and Minister of Lebanon to the United States. Dr. Charles Malik of Lebanon is not to be confused
with Mr. Jacob (Jakkov, Yakop) Malik, Soviet Delegate with Andrei Y. Vishinsky to the 1950 General Assembly of the United Nations (The United Nations—Action for Peace, by Marie and Louis Zocca, Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, N. J., 1951).