Let me share some if my thoughts with you. Please understand that I am not
trying to convert anyone to my particular beliefs. As I stated at the outset, I
am only trying to give you - my sons and other descendants - a view of what kind
of person I was - what I did, what I observed and what I believed. In other
words, my "reflexions." You will all make your own choices as to
actions, observations and beliefs, and they will not necessarily be influenced
by mine. They will be your "reflexions."
Heading the list of such subjects, naturally, is the possibility of a global
war. Attached hereto, is a copy of a "thinkpiece" on this subject
called "Alternatives to Oblivion" which I wrote in 1959. If I had the
desire and the energy, with more than 30 years of hindsight, to rewrite this
document today, I would make some changes in it based upon what I know now but
what I could not have known at the time I wrote it. However, by and large, as I
re-read it today, I feel that it was well written and that the basic theme of
the document is as valid today as it was when I wrote it.
Evidently, others also felt that it was a valid theme. Attached hereto are some
original papers to support this statement, as follows:
1) A letter from Dean Acheson, formerly United States Secretary of State, dated
April 16, 1959: "Dear Colonel Moore: I have read with the greatest profit
your very interesting and able paper, and take comfort from the fact that our
views are so close together. With many thanks, Sincerely Yours, Dean Acheson."
2) A letter from my West Point classmate, Johnny Bowen, dated 9 February, 1959,
in which he says: "I am impressed with its profundity and clear perception.
To me it is a realistic evaluation in the true light of present world
conditions, stated in eloquent and convincing terms." The letter is signed
"J.W. Bowen, Major General, G.S., Assistant Chief of Staff for Reserve
Components." Johnny later became Lieutenant General in the Army.
3) A hand written note from Fritz Kraemer, described in one national publication
(Time Magazine) as Henry Kissinger's early "mentor" (teacher/advisor)
in the United States. Fritz was one of the students at the National War College
when I was on the faculty in 1958. The note reads as follows: I find this paper
so exceptionally impressive that I would like to advise two things:
a) Have it read at once in an ad hoc Pentagon Committee (appointed by Chief of
Staff Taylor) which is just now re-examining the entire problem of U.S. military
strategy.
b) Send it to Kissinger with a request that he review it for publication."
Signed "Kraemer".
4) To further explain who Fritz Kraemer was, herewith is an extract from an
article in Time Magazine dated 16 March, 1981, concerning former Secretary of
State, Alexander Haig: "As a young staff major at the Pentagon in 1962, he
(Haig) was spotted by Fritz Kraemer, a former political analyst who gave an
early boost to Kissinger's career."
Next on the list of broad "reflexions" is a subject closely related to
or, perhaps even an integral part of, the first subject, which was the possibly
of global war. This subject is "Israel and the Middle East." I feel
that, of all the possible "triggers" to a global war, the Arab/Israeli
tension in the Middle East is as likely a "trigger" as one could
imagine at the time of this writing (1987).
This is a difficult subject to discuss because, at this moment in time, if an
American expresses any criticism whatsoever of Israel or its Jewish/American
supporters, one is automatically tagged as being "anti-Semitic."
(Incidentally, the terms "Semitic" and "Semite" are
historically interesting. Although the press and modern literature indicate that
the Jews have sole rights to Semitic origin, a cursory review of these terms, to
be found in most modern encyclopedias, will reveal that the ancient Hebrews and
today's Jewish people were and are only a minority of the Semitic peoples whose
history goes back some 4,000 years or more. Today, the Arabs of Semitic origin
far outnumber the Jews of Semitic origin. So, in reality, when one uses the term
"anti-Semitic," accurately, it means that one is predominantly
"anti-Arab.")
As an example of how difficult it is to express an honest, unbiased opinion
concerning Jews anywhere - either in America or Israel - I am reminded of an
incident which occurred a few years ago when General George Brown was Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in Washington, D.C. George had been a student at
the National War College during one of my years on the faculty. I knew him
reasonably well as a rather subdued, thoughtful type of student who, on the one
hand, tended to shy away from radical or highly emotional viewpoints about the
world in which we live, but on the other hand, did not hesitate to express his
views clearly and convincingly on the subjects with which he was familiar,
regardless of whether they were the "popular" or "accepted"
views of others.
As I recall, it was during the latter part of his term of office as Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff that he was invited to address a college audience. At
the conclusion of his address, in reply to a student question, he made a
statement to the effect that Jews in the United States exert an extraordinary
influence in relation to their percentage of the population, on the control of
our press and other public media.
When his remarks to this College audience became public knowledge, there was an
instant reaction from certain influential Jewish leaders throughout the United
States. In fact, there was a demand that he be relieved of his duties as
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Fortunately, for all concerned, there
were some wise members of the Administration who knew George well, and knew that
he would not make public statements without any factual basis. Presumably they
reasoned that to relieve him of his position would really open a Pandora's Box
from which no one would benefit - not even the Jews, and the matter was quietly
dropped.
But, be that as it may, like all controversial questions, there are two sides to
this Arab-Israeli conflict, and the right is not always or even predominantly on
one side. I have tried to analyze why we Americans are so biased against the
Arabs. The answer may be somewhat akin to another question. Why were we so
pro-Greek in the Greek-Turkish dispute over Cyprus? The most obvious and evident
answer is that there are many times more Greeks than Turks in the United States.
Likewise, no U.S. politician has to worry about the Arab vote and few small
businessmen worry about Arab customers.
This being the case, it is no wonder that we Americans don't get a more balanced
picture of the root causes and issues involved in the Arab-Israeli conflict. I
wouldn't know exactly how to balance it, but I think I have a feeling for some
of the causes of the imbalance.
During our meeting with Prime Minister Ben Gurion and his Cabinet, there was a
question repetitively asked by our group which has stuck in my mind all these
years, perhaps because it is as vital today as it was in the late 1950s. It was
not answered to my satisfaction at that time and, in my opinion, it is not being
answered satisfactorily today.
The question concerned Israel's intentions regarding geographical expansion of
its territory. Having been told of, and having seen for ourselves, the crowded
conditions and the limited habitable areas of this small country, we had
difficulty reconciling this with Israel's world-wide call for more émigrés. We
asked the question quite bluntly - "Don't you plan ultimately to expand the
present borders of Israel by one means or another? (This question was asked long
before Israel annexed the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.) The reply was, of
course, vehemently negative. But now, in the light of the last 30 odd years of
history, a nagging question persists as to whether the subsequent border
expansions, if not deliberately planned and contrived by the Israelis, were
hoped for and welcomed when the opportunities for expansion presented
themselves.
Of the three primary problem areas in the Arab-Israeli conflict, namely Israel's
borders, Jerusalem, and the Palestinian homeland, I suppose the Palestinian
problem is the most difficult to solve. But to even approach a solution, one has
to first understand the Palestinians and the other Arabs who befriend them. We
Americans seem to have very little of such understanding. I speak broadly of
what the polls indicate. On the other hand, I have found over the years,
particularly when I was involved with U.S. industry in the Arab world, that
there are a surprising number of people in the State Department, the Department
of Commerce, other government agencies, and in U.S. industry, who not only
understand the Palestinians and their Arab friends, but who feel strongly that
the U.S. bias against them and in favor of Israel, will eventually turn out to
be not only against the long term best interests of the United States, but
perhaps of Israel too.
If I seem to belabor this matter of Israel and its Arab neighbors more than most
other subjects in this thesis, it is primarily because I strongly believe that
this ongoing Arab-Israeli dispute has within it the "spark" which may
ultimately ignite another worldwide conflict between nations. It is obvious that
I am not inherently against international conflicts involving the United States,
when I believe the United States is not only justified, but obligated to
participate in them. But I am not at all sure of our obligation to have
participated in the Viet Nam war, and I am genuinely frightened by the fact that
the United States continues to consider itself obligated to support Israel, no
matter what Israel does to the Palestinians and to its other Arab neighbors. I
am also thoroughly disgusted with what Israel does to the United States, it
founding father, so to speak. To be quite blunt about it, Israel acts like a
very spoiled "brat." Let me give a few examples.
By far, the most infamous case of Israeli arrogance vis-a-vis the United States
is the case of the Israeli assault on the USS Liberty. Most Americans are either
unaware or forgetful of this terrible incident in which the Israelis, with
unquestionable knowledge of what they were doing, attacked the American ship,
USS Liberty in international waters in 1967 in order to silence America's
knowledge of Israeli secret military operational plans, and in so doing, killed
34 U.S. sailors and wounded 171 others. If this isn't "terrorism," of
which the Israelis constantly accuse the PLO, what is? I enclose herewith a copy
of an article which appeared in the June 1985 "Retired Officers
Magazine" of the U.S. Military Retired Officers Association detailing this
operation. It, of course, received very limited press coverage for such a
heinous event, for reasons which, by now should be evident to all except those
who deliberately choose to be blind. Here are a few excerpts from this article:
(It was written by Lt. Cdr James M. Ennes, Jr., USN Retired. He was Officer of
the deck on board the USS Liberty, 13 miles at sea at the time when the
"incident" occurred.)
"Officially, USS Liberty (AGTR-5) was a "technical research
ship," a 455 foot, 10,000 ton "mobile base for research in
communications and electromagnetic radiation." However, newsmen and
governments everywhere knew "research" was a pseudonym for
"intelligence." To them, we were an electronic "spy ship",
and we were not always welcome. We would soon learn that in this area at this
time, a spy ship was not welcome at all."
"Our country was officially neutral in this war. Israel - widely considered
America's best friend in the area - controlled the sky and most of the ground.
Since before midnight we had been circled regularly by Israeli warplanes, so we
were certain the Israelis knew who we were. Some of the Israeli planes came so
close that sailors waved to the pilots and could see the pilots waving
back."
"For extra safety, I had ordered our wind-torn flag replaced by a new one
which stood out, clearly visible in a 12-knot breeze, and we felt reassured when
our radio intercept operators heard the Israeli pilots reporting to their
headquarters that they could see our American flag."
"... on the bridge, Lt. Lloyd Painter had assumed control of the ship.
Almost immediately he received an urgent report from radar: 'Three high speed
surface craft approaching from starboard quarter, range 16 miles speed 32
knots.'"
"Lt. Painter glanced at the bridge radar repeater and called Captain
McGonagle: -- 'Captain, you gotta look at this. I never saw anything move so
fast!'"
"Then another report from radar: 'Now I've got three high performance
aircraft, same range and bearing closing fast.'"
"No one was alarmed. By now we had been reconnoitered eight times in
daylight by Israeli aircraft, and this looked like another routine visit. I
summoned Chuck Rowley, a cryptologic technician who also served as the ship's
photographer, and together we climbed one deck to the signal bridge, the ship's
highest platform, to try to take some pictures of the approaching Israeli
aircraft."
"Unseen, the lead airplane had made a 180 degree turn and was approaching
from dead ahead, all guns blazing. Exposed men felt heat, surprise and confusion
as two dozen or more rockets from the airplane tore large holes in the heavy
deck plating below us. Naked sun bathers ran for safety while men in the gun
mounts received direct hits that threw them high into the air."
"When our regular 5 by 8 foot American flag was shot down, signalman Joe
Meadors and Russell David hauled up an over-sized 7 x 13 foot flag. Still the
attack continued."
"When a helmsman fell, Quartermaster Frank Brown took the wheel and died
there. Ensign David Lucas helped move Brown's body, then took the wheel himself.
When gasoline stored on deck burst into flame, Cdr. Philip Armstrong tried to
release the burning drums into the sea. The effort costs him his life. When the
ship's doctor, Richard Kipefer, spotted two helplessly wounded men on deck, he
tucked a man under each arm and carried them through gunfire to safety. Every
man outdid himself, and still the onslaught continued."
"Some 35 minutes into the attack, the torpedo boats, sighted earlier, came
into their firing range. The aircraft pulled away. Signalman David re-checked
the oversized flag, saw it flying freely, and then switched on a 12-inch signal
lamp. 'USS Liberty, U.S. Navy Ship.' He flashed to the approaching boats until
he was hit by gunfire and his lamp disabled."
"Stand by for torpedo attack, starboard side," warned a voice from the
bridge."
"...McGonagle saw a torpedo pass close astern. A near miss. Petty Officer
Rick Aimetti heard one pass below him 'sounding like a motorboat' as he stood
near the forecastle. Two more torpedoes passed safely, unseen. And a fifth,
apparently launched from a mere 550 yards, made a direct hit on the ship's
intelligence spaces. The torpedo instantly killed 25 fine young men."
"The firing stopped 75 minutes after it started, possibly because of the
threatened arrival of Sixth fleet airpower. Still another hour passed. Finally,
the Israeli torpedomen moved closer to the ship and signaled 'Do you need help?'
The reply was a rude one: -- 34 men dead or dying. 171 wounded from a 294-man
crew."
"One of the first messages to arrive from Washington instructed survivors
to discuss the attack with no one. Courts of inquiry were being held in both
countries and both reports would be swathed in secrecy." (Underlining is
mine.)
"The American report, except for a declassified segment released to the
press, remained Top Secret until forced out nine years later under the Freedom
of Information Act. Its testimony reveals most of the scenario described
here."
"The Israeli report remains classified today, withheld from Americans at
the request of the Israeli government, although a copy was leaked in 1980. That
report informs American government leaders that the attack was a tragic result
of errors on both sides. According to the report: Torpedomen, investigating an
erroneous report of a shore bombardment misjudged Liberty's actual five knot
speed to be 32 knots. Because of the miscalculated high speed, torpedomen
incorrectly classified Liberty as an enemy warship and called in the aircraft.
Attacking aircraft conducted three, low level, pre-attack identification runs,
but wrongly concluded that the target was an Arab warship when they failed to
see a flag or other markings. Torpedo boats also failed to see a flag and asked
the ship to identify itself. Liberty refused (according to the Israelis) and
sent a signal meaning 'identify yourself first.' Extensive morning and noon-hour
pre-attack reconnaissance described by crewmen 'may be dismissed as exaggerated'
says the Israeli government, which says there was no such reconnaissance."
"For years, Liberty survivors and other interested Americans have asked
both governments to reinvestigate the matter to resolve the discrepancies
between what survivors say happened and what the Israeli government reported. So
far, they have been ignored. But there is powerful support for the survivors'
claims that the attack was no accident."
"Dean Rusk, who was Secretary of State when the ship was attacked, says
simply, 'I have never believed the Israeli explanation.' Former National
Security Agency Deputy Director, Louis Tordella adds, "I believe it was a
deliberate attack.'"
"Former Central Intelligence Agency director, Richard Helms, agrees. 'To
say that this was an accident is drawing a pretty long bow in view of the
evidence' says Helms. And former Joint Chief of Staff Chairman, Admiral Thomas
Morrer, USN-Ret., states his case even more strongly: 'Its ridiculous to say
this was an accident. There was good weather, she was flying the U.S. flag, and
the planes and torpedo boats attacked over a long period of time. I think
Congress should investigate the incident, even now, 18 years later.'"
"Yet, officially, the USS Liberty matter is closed. No government agency is
willing to reexamine the evidence. It deserves to be reexamined."
End of quotations from the TROA Magazine.
The foregoing accounts are only a few examples of the arrogant abuse of Jewish
power throughout today's world. They barely touch on the plight of the
Palestinian Arabs, whose native country was taken away from them back in the
1940s primarily because of the political power of the tiny Jewish minority in
the United States, which leveraged this power on President Truman and the U.S.
Congress which, in turn leveraged its influence on the United Nations to create
Israel.
Throughout the 4,000 year history of the Jews, they have been oppressed by
countless peoples and nations throughout the world. We are left with the
impression today that this long-standing oppression was always completely
undeserved: It was simply the fact that their concept of God and the creation
and existence of the universe was at odds with various other religious beliefs
whose defenders were more predominant and powerful at the time in question. But,
is this possibly an over simplified answer to a 4,000 year old question?
I hesitate to open up past wounds, but let's just very briefly look again at the
"holocaust." It was one of the most disgraceful events in human
history. The Germans who propagated it (distinct from the Germans of today) will
be rightly reviled until the end of human history. The Germans of that era were
looking for a scapegoat for their economic misery in the world of the 1930s.
Hitler and his cohorts provided a simplistic answer to the question of who was
responsible for this economic misery. The Jews in Germany at that time, that is
to say, the post World War I years, were very much in control of certain key
factors in Germany. They controlled a large percentage of the banks, certain key
industries and, to a certain extent, the media. Or, to put it another way, they
were in somewhat the same position in Germany in those pre World War II years as
the Jews are in the United States today. Hitler's solution to this problem was
not only heinous and barbaric; it was stupid. Without incurring the everlasting
wrath and indignation of the rest of the world, he could just as easily have
quietly relieved the German Jews of their important and influential positions in
the German society, or, if they resisted to much, he could have arranged their
deportation to a number of other countries such as the United States. But to his
everlasting disgrace, he chose the ugly solution to what he called the
"Jewish Problem."
So, let's look at the situation in the United States today, where approximately
2-1/2 percent of our population has intimidated the U.S. Congress, all existing
administrations, and a significant proportion of our media. We give Israel more
than 3-1/2 billion dollars every year - dollars which we sorely need to help
solve some of our own domestic problems. One would think that Israel might
acknowledge our gift of her original political existence and her continued
economic existence, if not by openly expressed gratitude, at least by not
killing our sailors and by not jeopardizing our security by her espionage
activities against us.
REFLEXION: I refer again to the comments of General George Brown, former
Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff, when he indicated that the approximately
2-1/2 percent of our population - the Jews in the United States - exert an
extraordinary influence, out of all proportion to their numbers, on the press
and the other media within the United States. If any proof of his comments are
needed, it would seem that the Liberty "incident" amply supplies this
proof. George might have added that it is not only the American press which is
under the thrall of Jewish influence. It is also the Congress and the executive
branch of our government. Look again at the "Liberty Story" and you
will see that this is true.
Next, let me mention the "Pollard Spy Affair." I think most Americans,
if they know anything at all about this "affair," have long since
forgotten it, or dismissed it as something inconsequential in American/Israeli
affairs. Let me quote some excerpts from an article in Time Magazine, word for
word, dated 16 March 1987, Subject: "Espionage", Title: Spying Between
Friends", Sub-title: - "The Pollard verdict causes a wave of unease in
Israel." I believe this article, if read and understood by many Americans,
has now been largely forgotten by most Americans, including those who are
members of the U.S. Congress. I quote from the article:
"No one in Israel was mincing words. Defense Minister Yitzhak Rabin called
it a 'real disaster, a real wound in Israeli-U.S. relations.' Foreign Minister
Shimon Peres admitted that Israel had made a 'regretful mistake.' Declared
former Foreign Minister Abba Eban. 'This is the most difficult moment in the
history of Israel's international relations, especially because the wrongdoing
was done here.'"
"The disaster, the wound, the mistake, the wrongdoing, turned on the case
of Jonathan Jay Pollard, 32, an American naval intelligence analyst, who was
given a sentence of life imprisonment last week for spying in Israel's behalf
against the U.S. Pollard's wife, Anne. 26, was condemned to prison for five
years. In Israel this final denouncement of the Pollard affair precipitated a
painful self-examination of intelligence operations as well as worries about the
future of the special relationship between Israel and the United States."
"The saga of Jonathan Pollard the spy, began in the spring of 1984, when he
first met Colonel Aviam Sella, one of Israel's best-known younger military
officers through a mutual acquaintance. ...Pollard offered to spy for the
Israelis and soon began to steal documents from the Naval Investigative Service
in Suitland, MD, where he worked. On a trip to Paris that Fall, he met Yosef
Yagur, scientific attaché at the Israeli Consulate in New York City, and Rafi
Eitan, the former deputy head of Mossad, the Israeli intelligence agency. Eitan
was running the small little-known intelligence unit to which Pollard was
passing information. Month after month, Pollard delivered highly classified
documents to the apartment of Irit Erb, a secretary at the Israeli Embassy in
Washington, where the material was photocopied."
"In November, 1985, co-workers finally noted that Pollard was taking
classified papers home with him and informed the FBI. During the ensuing
interrogation, Pollard phoned his wife and alerted her to what was happening by
using the code word 'cactus'. Anne Henderson-Pollard then warned the Israelis of
the impending danger and tried unsuccessfully to dispose of a suitcase full of
classified documents. A few days later the Pollards drove to the Israeli-Embassy
compound, where they apparently hoped to gain refuge and perhaps political
asylum. But the Israelis, realizing that the Pollards were being followed by the
FBI, turned them away, and the pair were soon arrested. Sella, Yagur and Erb
quietly slipped out of the country."
"In a world in which spying between friendly nations is not uncommon, what
was unusual about the Pollard case? For one thing, the sheer volume of the
intelligence material Pollard stole and turned over to Israel. According to the
Government, if all these documents were stacked in one place, the resulting
mountain of paper would be 6 ft. deep, and 10 ft. high. Furthermore, the
material stolen covered a wide range of highly sensitive subjects, from nuclear
facilities in Iraq and Pakistan, to Soviet surface-to-air missile capabilities
to the antiaircraft defenses around the Palestine Liberation Organization
headquarters in Tunis. Israel later staged an air attack on the PLO buildings,
killing at least 60 Tunisians and Palestinians. Declared Defense Secretary,
Casper Weinberger: 'It is difficult for me to conceive of a greater harm to
national security than that caused by the defendant in view of the breadth, the
critical importance to the U.S., and the high sensitivity of the information he
sold to Israel.'"
"Throughout the case, Pollard's attorneys attempted to portray their client
as an idealistic Zionist whose actions were based on his concern for Israel's
security and survival. The prosecution, however, pointed out that Pollard had
received some $50,000 for his espionage and, had he remained in the service of
the Israelis for an additional nine years, would have wound up with at least
$500,000."
"The defense also based its case on the contention that spying for Israel,
a close U.S. ally, was fundamentally different from spying for, say, the Soviet
Union and that nobody could prove that Pollard's actions had actually harmed his
country. The prosecution took a dim view of that argument. Explains John Martin,
the Justice Department's chief of internal security: 'God forbid that the day
should come when we would have the burden of showing that not only did a spy
give up information on nuclear weapons but that those weapons were used under
hostile conditions.'"
"... In a letter published in the Jerusalem Post, Pollard wrote of his
'absolute obligation' to spy for Israel and alluded to circumstances in which a
person might be forced to use 'situational ethics' as a guide to his
conduct."
"... In an unusually emotional courtroom finale, the Pollards pleaded
desperately for clemency. But despite the fact that Pollard entered a guilty
plea last summer and since then had been cooperating to some degree with the
Government in fingering the Israeli officials with whom he had worked, the U.S.
District Court Judge Aubrey Robinson, Jr. concluded that Pollard's crime merited
the harshest punishment the court could impose."
"When the case first broke in late 1985, the U.S. was not yet aware of the
seriousness of the espionage, and accepted Israeli promises of assistance in
settling the affair. The Justice Department wanted to proceed with the trial of
Pollard and the indictment of his Israeli contacts, but the State Department
argued that American relations with Israel should receive primary consideration.
Secretary of State George Schultz spoke of Israeli 'cooperation' on the case,
and State Department Legal Adviser Abraham Sofaer headed a delegation that was
sent to Israel to collect the documents Pollard had stolen. According to court
records, Sofaer returned with a mere 163 documents out of the thousands that had
been taken."
"Gradually the Administration's anger increased as it realized the gravity
of the security breach and the difficulty of ascertaining exactly what had
happened. Moreover, though Jerusalem still insisted that Pollard had been part
of a 'rogue' spy team, Washington began to suspect that those who had worked
with him were actually being rewarded. Eitan, who had headed the Pollard
operation, was appointed board chairman of Israeli Chemicals. Two weeks ago
Colonel Sella was named commander of one of Israel's most important air bases,
Tel Noff."
"After learning of Stella's promotion, the Administration canceled a joint
American-Israeli air force training course and put Tel Noff off limits to U.S.
officers and other officials. In addition, the Administration threatened to
suspend its policy of military cooperation with the Israeli Air Force unless
Stella's appointment was rescinded. Last week a federal grand jury in Washington
issued an indictment against Stella."
"Israel's Foreign Minister Peres is undoubtedly right in his judgment that
the "body of relations" between the U.S. and Israel is strong and can
withstand the shock of the Pollard affair. But the case raises troubling
questions about the proprieties of espionage between allies. Says the Justice
Department's Martin: 'Even as friendly as you are, there are times when national
interests are different. It is up to policy makers to decide who gets what. We
can't have individuals secretly providing information to any friend or
foe.'"
So much for this particular report of the Pollard affair. Let me pursue this
subject a bit further. I would like to quote an article in the San Diego Union
of March 17, 1987, by Bryce Denno, called "Israel Manipulates the United
States," and which gets to the core of the Arab-Israeli dispute and the
Israeli-United States "love affair." It reads as follows:
"I applaud the Tribune editorial 'Wake Up to U.S. Anger, Israel' (3/7/87)
which voiced indignation over the Pollard spy affair."
"But I question your observation that 'the Israeli government, for a long
time, has misjudged the nature of support for Israel in the United
States.'"
"To the contrary, Israel has a realistic view of the political clout it
wields in our country and that is why it continues to manipulate us to get what
it wants."
"Israel wants, above all, no diminution and preferably and increase, in the
military and economic aid it receives from the United States. In fiscal year
1987, Israel received $4.6 billion in such aid, about $1,000.00 for each
Israeli."
"Historically, the U.S. had employed foreign aid in pursuit of its
interests, rewarding or penalizing recipient countries accordingly. Israel had
long been an exception to that criterion, and Lebanon provides just one recent
example. Israel's invasion of Lebanon was highly detrimental to U.S.
interests."
"In an offensive war, Israel's use of weapons that we had provided made a
mockery of our military assistance laws, which restrict the use of such weapons
to defensive purposes. We lost more than 200 Marines whom we had introduced into
ravaged Lebanon to help clean up the mess the Israelis had created."
"The anarchy in Beirut and the virulent anti-Americanism created by the war
would led later to the seizure of U.S. hostages."
"Significantly, there has not been a single voice of protest against the
Israeli spying raised on Capitol Hill amidst a traditionally pro-Israel
Congress."
"Thus, it's not Israel that needs to 'wake-up', as the Tribune editorial
suggests. Israel knows what's going on. It's the U.S. which does not."
At the risk of seeming to give too much emphasis to this subject of Israeli
influence throughout the Western world, I feel obligated to cite a few more
examples of what this powerful influence is doing to us.
Perhaps the most ridiculous and unbelievable news account I have read in many
years was the item in Time Magazine of May 11, 1987, regarding 2-1/2 hours of
tributes to one of the world's greatest actors, Sir Alec Guiness, which took
place in Lincoln Center, New York. It referred to some of his greatest roles on
stage and in films, but said, "His Fagin in Oliver Twist was omitted at
Guiness's request because he says some have found the portrayal
anti-Semitic." As you probably know, Oliver Twist was a book written by
Dickens in 1838, in which Oliver, a waif, after being maltreated and half
starved in an orphan asylum, runs away to London, where he is exploited by the
'underworld of the Jew', namely Fagin. In other words, the stage portrayal of
one of the greatest literary masterpieces of the 19th century had to be omitted
from Alec Guiness's tributes, because the story was probably too close to the
truth at that time in London. Whether the 'underworld of the Jew' in 1838 was
exaggerated or not by Dickens, we don't know. It is possibly doubtful; but there
is no doubt at all that the 'Power of the Jew' 150 years later throughout the
Western world is undeniable.
On November 20, 1987, the San Diego Union told of the overwhelming approval of
the U.S. Congress of a bill which would require all countries which receive cash
grants from the United States in excess of $10 million to buy U.S. goods in an
equal amount and to ship these goods in U.S. ships. -- all countries, that is,
except that one country which receives by far the greatest amount of cash grants
from the United States, namely Israel, which receives some 3-1/2 to 4 billion
dollars a year in such cash grants from us. One can't help but wonder if this is
the way we hope to convince the world of our "fair trade policies."
This brings to mind another article which appeared recently in the San Diego
Union, written by Marrietta D. Luce and Warren W. Luce. I quote it in its
entirety as follows:
"It is not only unfortunate but also disastrous for U.S. policy in the
Middle East that so few Americans have taken the time to honestly and fairly
investigate the historical background of the problems we face there."
"Most of us are non-thinking, unquestioning, uninformed, disinformed,
propagandized and apathetic; accepting the slanted views we see and hear from TV
dramas and Hollywood movies as being the whole truth."
"Because so few of us really care, ethnic and religious special-interest
groups who favor Israel for whatever reasons and the politicians seeking support
of those interest groups, have been unable to create and maintain a policy which
has not only alienated the Arabs who want to be our friends, but continue to
pour billions of dollars annually into an Israel which does not live up to her
agreements either with us or the international community, which steals from and
spies on us (the Lavon affair in Egypt in 1954 and the USS Liberty attack in
1967) and which has betrayed us by giving U.S. military secrets stolen by Jay
Pollard to the Soviets in return for promises to increase emigration of Soviet
Jews to Israel."
"As a nation supposedly committed to the right of all peoples to
self-determination and to be free from occupation and oppression by another
people or country, we should be demanding of our government that full pressure,
including the cessation of funds, be put upon Israel to withdraw her military
from the occupied territories of Gaza and the West Bank, and to come to the
peace table with whomever the Palestinians choose as their representatives, even
the PLO."
On November 30, 1988, our Secretary of State, George Schultz, in defense of his
decision to deny Yasir Arafat a visa to address the United Nations, said,
"People tend to forget to quickly the horrors of terrorism."
Secretary Schultz was absolutely right. People tend to forget the terrorism
which was practiced under the very personal supervision and leadership of a Jew
named Menachim Begin who led a terrorist attack on the major international hotel
in Jerusalem, killing many women and children long before Israel became a State.
As you know, he later became Prime Minister of Israel. His justification was
essentially that he was only trying to take away the land of the Palestinians in
order to establish the "rightful" State of Israel.
Yes, I know that the Israelis claim that the disputed territory was Israel a few
thousand years before it was Palestine. If we truly follow this line of
reasoning, we should immediately turn the United States back to the American
Indians.
To summarize, we the United States and Israel stand alone in a vote of the
United Nations (Great Britain abstaining) against letting Mr. Arafat address the
United Nations in its permanent New York Headquarters.
Why do we do this? We do this because the approximate 2-1/2% of our population -
the Jews - have a tremendous influence on our press, on our Congress, and on our
Administration. Why do they have this tremendous influence on governments? I
don't really know, but they have had it over various governments throughout the
world for approximately 4,000 years, even though they were a minority of the
population. When they controlled much of the press and the financial
institutions of Germany before World War II, I believe that their percentage of
the population was approximately the same as it is in the United States today,
although I must admit that I have no research data to back up this statement. In
any case, the "Hitler Solution" to this problem was one that we and
all the world will deplore until the end of time.
We must seek some sort of peaceful solution to the traditional Jewish
aggressiveness throughout the centuries. As we have seen recently, we and the
Israelis stand virtually alone against the rest of the world in our attitude
toward the Palestinians. We keep talking about the terrorism of Yasir Arafat,
while the rest of the world laughs, remembering the original terrorism of
Menachim Begin and his Jewish cohorts when they blew up the King David Hotel in
Jerusalem, and the terrorism of the present Prime Minister of Israel - Mr.
Shamir.
So, who is really a terrorist? Is it the PLO which blows up a bus in Israel,
suspecting that there is an enemy of the Palestinians aboard and killing 24 or
30 innocent civilians in the process? Or is it an air strike by Israeli jets
against a suspected PLO enclave, killing 200 or 250 innocent civilians? It
really depends upon who is defining terrorism. Experts on this subject have said
that "Contras" in Central America are a good example of terrorists
"by any standard because their use of force is indiscriminate." Others
have asked whether the African National Congress which fights against apartheid
policies in South Africa is a terrorist group. If a Palestinian child throws
rocks against an Israeli soldier in the country of his birth, is the child a
terrorist? Or is it the Israeli soldier who kills him with a rifle, as has
happened so many dozens of times in recent memory? Decide for yourself. And
finally, were the American revolutionaries who routed the British in the late
1700s terrorists? I suppose the British of those days would have undoubtedly
said, "Yes," they are terrorists. What is the essential difference? It
depends on who is defining terrorism and, in our time, the U.S. Congress, a U.S.
Administration, and a U.S. press, all pretty much "educated" not to
irritate the 2-1/2 percent of our population - the Jews - are willing to accept
any definition of terrorism that Israel proclaims.
We Americans have always espoused the right of free speech, even if the people
exercising this right were expressing ideas completely contrary to our own ideas
of how our government or other governments should run.
Why now (December 1988) do we suddenly deny this right to a man named Arafat
when he applies for permission to address the United Nations? Our answer is that
we deny it because he espouses terrorism. This is ridiculous, not because he
does not espouse terrorism. He does. But so does Israel and so have other
national spokesmen throughout this century who have been allowed to address the
United Nations.
This all sounds as though I am anti-Semitic. Am I anti-Semitic? By no means.
Neither am I anti-Jewish. I won't use the old cliché that "some of my best
friends are Jewish," but I will say that some of the Jewish people that I
know quite will, I respect very much and I have the feeling that they respect
and trust me as well. I would not want to break this mutual feeling of trust and
respect just because a certain minority of Jews in the United States and Israel
want to test the limits of their power in the United States Congress, the United
States Administration, and with the American public. But to return to my
previous question as to whether I am either anti-Semitic or anti-Jewish, let me
explain my answer. I am one of the very few (perhaps less than on/tenth of one
percent) of Americans who have had the privilege of meeting for hours with a
Prime Minister of Israel and his Cabinet and also with a large number of Prime
Ministers and Kings of the Arab world throughout the Middle East and North
Africa. I therefore feel that I have a more balanced view of the Arab-Israel
conflict than do most of my countrymen and countrywomen.
I am well aware of the fact that the number of Semites in the Arab world far
outnumber the number of Semites in the Jewish world. I think I also understand
why the term, "anti-Semitic" has been substituted for the term
"anti-Jewish." There are and always have been a number of Americans
who, for one reason or another, have had anti-Jewish feelings, whether justified
or not. It used to be expressed when I was growing up in various parts of the
United States as "the guy 'Jewed' me down." It was a clever move on
the part of the Israelis and their American supporters to change the modern
dictionary definitions of Semite and Semitic, the implication being that all
Semites are Jews. It just sounds better to the average uninformed American who
doesn't bother to distinguish the difference between a "race" and a
"people," and he certainly doesn't want to be accused of being
"racially prejudiced." It was a neat trick and it seems thus far to
have worked.
I know that I have devoted an extraordinary amount of space in these "reflexions"
to the subject of Israel - its actions in the past and present, and its
intentions for the future. I can almost hear some of you say, "C'mon
Dad," or "C'mon Grandpa. Aren't you exaggerating a bit, and aren't you
overly concerned about a subject which is of minimal importance to our
future?" My answer is - read once again what I have said and note that for
the most part it is "quotes" from national publications. Then, read
the book which I have left you in my library entitled, 'They Dare to Speak Out'
by former U.S. Congressman, Paul Findley. You will find that, far from
exaggerating the problem, I have barely touched on it. The book is a compilation
of views on this subject by some of the most prestigious political, press, and
religious leaders of our country. To name just a few - Senator Charles Percy,
Senator Adlai Stevenson III, Secretary of State George Ball, Senator J. William
Fulbright, Jessie Jackson, Senator Paul McClosky, media analyst Georgie Ann
Geyer, and religious leader Dean Francis Sayre.
I might add that when I called the local book shop to see if they carried the
book, the answer was an immediate "no." I then asked if I could order
it. The answer was not an immediate "yes" or "no." It was
"wait a minute." After a minute or two, the answer was
"yes." I don't think I have to explain why old established book shops
in an American community don't carry the book for sale or why they hesitate a
bit before agreeing to order it. To put it in simple terms, the book shop was
"afraid" to carry this book and "hesitant" to order it. If
you think I have overly exaggerated this subject, read the book.
So much for the world in which we live today. In many respects, it is a far
better world than the world in which our grandparents and great-grandparents
lived, particularly from the standpoint of economic well being and creature
comforts for a significant portion of the world's population. In other respects,
it is far a more frightening world - a world in which business greed and
business insensitivity to human needs - more or less always present in our
society since the days of our country's founding fathers - now threatens our
ecological environment, and a world in which differing political and religious
beliefs pose a far more immediate debacle for what we call the "human
race." It is a nuclear debacle from which there can be no recovery, at
least for thousands of years to come. Yes, I know that currently we are being
lulled into the belief that because of Perestroika and Glasnost, there is
virtually no danger any more. But I would issue a note of caution, perhaps two
notes of caution. We must keep our defense intact against what currently seems
to be a lessening Soviet threat, and strange as it may sound to Americans, we
must watch our "friend," Israel ever more vigilantly - not because
Israel would deliberately cut off the golden flow of U.S. financial support that
keeps it alive, but because Israel has proven time after time since the days of
its inception, that it is completely callous to the rights and needs of its Arab
neighbors, from whose land Israel was carved. Not only that, it has displayed an
almost unbelievable arrogance toward its mentor and its benefactor - the United
States, e.g., the USS Liberty affair, the Pollard Spy affair, etc., etc. Just as
the arrogance and insensitivity of one individual -- Adolph Hitler sparked World
War II, the arrogance and insensitivity of one tiny country -- Israel -- could
conceivably provide the spark in a flammable region -- the Middle East -- that
ignites what may truly be the "last great war of the human race."
Now, let me say a few words to you, my family and to you, my descendants who
have taken the time to read this document.
As I stated on page 1, I wish I knew more about the life of my grandfather,
Jackson Moore. Perhaps these REFLEXIONS will at least partially obviate such a
wish on your part regarding me. I say "partially" because it could be
too great a task for me and probably somewhat boring for you if I were to try to
set forth all of the details of my relatively long life. So, I have chosen to
encapsulate it to include only those aspects of it which I think might be
interesting to you.
And, finally, if these REFLEXIONS do little else, perhaps they will help to
steer your lives around some of the shoals and obstacles that I have encountered
and encourage you to explore the world - physically, if possible, but at least
mentally and spiritually with an open mind.
ADDENDUM:
I have in my possession, and I will leave to you, my descendants, a large
envelope filled with news clippings and various notes and documents prepared and
collected by me over a number of years, which will supplement, and in many
cases, confirm what I have set forth in this basic document which I have called
"REFLEXIONS." I hope you will find these documents interesting and
informative.