To his radio audience Dr, Malik of Lebanon spoke, in part, as follows:
MR. MALIK: The United States has had a great history of very friendly relations with the Arab peoples for about one hundred years now. That history has been built up by faithful missionaries, educators, explorers, and archaeologist and businessmen for all these decades. Up to the moment when the Palestine problem began to be an acute issue, the Arab peoples had a genuine and deep sense of love and admiration for the United States. Then, when the problem of Palestine arose, with all that problem involved, by way of what we would regard as one-sided partiality on the part of the United States with respect to Israel, the Arabs began to feel that the United States was not as wonderful or as admirable as they had thought it was. The result has been that at the present moment there is a real slump in the affection and admiration that the Arabs have had towards the United States. This slump has affected all the relations between the United States and the Arab world, with diplomatic and non-diplomatic. And at the present moment I can say, much to my regret, but it is a fact that throughout the Arab world, perhaps at no time in history has the reputation of the United States suffered as much as it has at the present time. The Arabs, on the whole, do not have sufficient confidence that the United States, in moments of crises, will not make decisions that will be prejudicial to their interests. Not until the United States can prove in actual historical decision that it can withstand certain inordinate pressures that are exercised on it from time to time and can really stand up for what one might call elementary justice in certain matters, would the Arab people really feel that they can go back to their former attitude of genuine respect and admiration for the United States.
Thus the mess of pottage of vote-garnering in New York and other doubtful states with large numbers of Khazar Zionists has cost us the loyalty of twelve nations, our former friends, the so-called Arab and Asiatic block in the UN!
It appears also that the world‘s troubles from little blood-born Israel are not over. An official Israeli view of Germany was expressed in Dallas, Texas, on March 18, 1951, when Abba S. Eban was talking in Dallas about Israel to the United States and Israel‘s representative at the United Nations, stated that Israel resents the rehabilitation of Germany. Ambassador Eban visited the Texas city in the interest of raising funds for taking 200,000 immigrants this year, 600,000 within the next three years (Dallas Morning News, March 13, 1951) to the small state of Palestine, or Israel. The same day that Ambassador Eban was talking in Dallas about Israel‘s resentment at the rehabilitation of Germany, a Reuters dispatch of March 13, 1951 from Tel Aviv (Washington Times-Herald) stated that notes delivered yesterday [March 12] in Washington, London, and Paris and to the Soviet Minister at Tel Aviv urge the occupying powers of Germany not to hand over full powers to any German government without express reservations for the payment of reparations to Israel in the sum of $1,500,000,000.
This compensation was said to be for 6,000,000 Jews killed by Hitler. This figure has been used repeatedly (as late as January, 1952 Israeli broadcast heard by the author), but one who consults statistics and ponders the known facts of recent history cannot do other than wonder how it is arrived at. According to Appendix VII, Statistics on Religious Affiliation, of The Immigration and Naturalization Systems of the United States (A Report of the Committee on the Judiciary of the United States Senate, 1950), the number of Jews in the world is 15,713,638.
The World Almanac, 1949, p. 289, is cited as the source of the statistical table reproduced on p. 842 of the government document. The article in the World Almanac is headed Religious Population of the World. A corresponding item, with the title, Population, Worldwide, by Religious Beliefs is found in the World Almanac for 1940 (p. 129), and in it the world Jewish population is given as 15,319,359. If the World Almanac figures are correct, the world‘s Jewish population did not decrease in the war decade, but showed a small increase.
Assuming, however, that the figures of the U.S. document and the World Almanac are in error, let us make an examination of the known facts. In the first place, the number of Jews in Germany in 1939 was about 600,000, by some estimates considerably fewer, and of these, as shown elsewhere in this book, many came to the United States, some went to Palestine, and some are still in Germany.
As to the Jews in Eastern European lands temporarily overrun by Hitler‘s troops, the great majority retreated ahead of the German armies into Soviet Russia. Of these, many came later to the U.S., some moved to Palestine, some unquestionably remained in Soviet Russia and may be a part of the Jewish force on the Iranian frontier, and enough remained in Eastern Europe or have returned from Soviet Russia to form the hard core of the new ruling bureaucracy in satellite countries (Chapter II ). It is hard to see how all these migrations and all these power accomplishments can have come about with a Jewish population much less than that which existed in Eastern Europe before World War II.
Thus the known facts on Jewish migration and Jewish power in Eastern Europe tend, like the World Almanac figures accepted by the Senate Judiciary Committee, to raise a question as to where Hitler got the 6,000,000 Jews he is said to have killed. This question should be settled once and for all before the United States backs any Israeli claims against Germany. In this connection, it is well to recall also that the average German had no more to do with Hitller‘s policies; than the average American had to do with Franklin Roosevelt‘s policies; that 5,000,000 Germans are unaccounted for, 4,000,000 civilians (pp. 70, 71, above) and 1,000,000 soldiers who never returned from Soviet labor camps (p. 137); and that a permanent hostile attitude toward Germany on our part is the highest hope of the Communist masters of Russia.
In spite of its absurdity, however, the Israeli claim for reparations from a not yet created country, whose territory has been nothing but an occupied land through the entire life of the state of Israel, may well delay reconciliation in Western Europe; and the claim, even though assumed under duress by a West German government, would almost certainly be paid, directly or indirectly, by the United States.
As to Ambassador Eban‘s 600,000 more immigrants to Israel: Where will these people go unless more Arab lands are taken and more Christians and Moslems are driven from their homes?
And of equal significance: Whence will Ambassador Eban‘s Jewish immigrants to Israel come? As stated above, a large portion of pre-war Germany‘s 600,000 Jews came, with other European Jews, to the United States on the return trips of vessels which took American soldiers to Europe. Few of them will leave the United States, for statistics dhow that of all immigrants to this country, the Jew is least likely to leave. The Jews now in West Germany will probably contribute few immigrants to Israel, for these Jews enjoy a preferred status under U.S. protection. It thus appears that Ambassador Eban‘s 600,000 reinforcments to Israel apart from stragglers from the Arab world and a possible mere handful from elsewhere can come only from Soviet and satellite lands. Ifso, they will come on permission of and by arrangement with some Communist dictator (Chapter II, above). Can it be that many of the 600,000 will be young men with Soviet military training? Can it be that such permission will be related to the Soviet‘s great concentration of Jews in 1951 inside the Soviet borders adjacent to the Soviet-Iranian frontier?
Can it be true further that an army in Palestine, Soviet-supplied and Soviet-trained, will be one horn of a giant pincers movement (Keil und Kessel was Hitler‘s term) and that a thrust southward into oil-rich Iran will be the other? The astute Soviet politicians know that the use of a substantial body of Jewish troops in such an operation might be relied on to prevent any United States moves, diplomatic or otherwise, to save the Middle East and its oil from the Soviet. In fact, if spurred on by a full-scale Zionist propaganda campaign in this country our State Department (pp. 232-233), following its precedent in regard to Israel, might be expected to support the Soviet move.
To sum it up, it can only be said that there are intelligence indications that such a Soveit trap is being prepared. The Soviet foreign office, however, has several plans for a given strategic area, and will activate the one that seems, in the light of changing events, to promise most in realizing the general objective. Only time, then, can tell whether or not the Kremlin will thrust with Jewish troops for the oil of Iran and Arabia. Thus the Middle East flames in Iran, on the Israeli frontier, and along the Suez Canal.
Could we put out the fires of revolt which are so likely to lead to a full scale third World War? A sound answer was given by The Freeman (August 13, 1950), which stated that all we need to do to insure the friendship of the Arab and Moslem peoples is to revert to our traditional American attitudes toward peoples who, like ourselves, love freedom. This is true because the moslem faith is founded partly upon the teachings of Christ. Also, Anti-Arab Policies Are Un-American Policies, says William Ernest Hocking in The Christian Century (Is Israel A Natural Ally‘? September 19, 1951).
Will we work for peace and justice in the Middle East and thus try to avoid World War III ? Under our leftist-infested State Department, the chance seems about the same as the chance of the Moslem voting population and financial power surpassing those of the Zionists during the next few years in the State of New York!
(c) The Truman administration‘s third great mistake in foreign policy is found in its treatment of defeated Germany. In China and Palestine, Mr. Truman‘s State Department and Executive Staff henchmen can be directly charged with sabotaging the future of the United States; for despite the surrender at Yalta the American position in those areas was still far from hopeless when Roosevelt died in April, 1945. With regard to Germany, however, things were already about as bad as possible, and the Truman administration is to be blamed not for creating but for tolerating and continuing a situation dangerous to the future security of the United States.
At Yalta the dying Roosevelt, with Hiss at his elbow and General Marshall in attendance, had consented to the brutality of letting the Soviet use millions of prisoners of war as slave laborers, one million of them still slaves or dead before their time. We not only thus agreed to the revival of human slavery in a form far crueler than ever seen in the Western world; we also practiced the inhumanity of returning to the Soviet for Soviet sanctuary in areas held by the troops of the once Christian West! The Morgenthau plan for reviving human slavery by its provision for forced labor outside Germany after the war (William Henry Regnery Company, Chicago, 1950, p. 210) was the basic document for these monstrous decisions. It seems that Roosevelt initialed this plan at Quebec without fully knowing what he was doing (Memoirs of Cordell Hull, Vol. II) and might have modified some of the more cruel provisions if he had lived and regained his strength. Instead, he drifted into the twilight, and at Yalta Hiss and Marshall were in attendance upon him, while Assistant Secretary of State Acheson was busy in Washington.
After Roosevelt‘s death the same officials of sub-cabinet rank of high non-cabinet rank carried on their old policies and worked sedulously to foment more than the normal amount of post-war unrest in Western Germany. Still neglected was the sound strategic maxim that a war is fought to bring a defeated nation in to the victor‘s orbit as a friend and ally. Indeed, with a much narrower world horizon than his predecessor, Mr. Truman was more easily put upon by the alien-minded officials around him. To all intents and purposes, he was soon their captive.
From the point of view of the future relations of both Germans and Jews and of our own national interest, we made a grave mistake in using so many Jews in the administration of Germany. Since Jews were assumed not to have any Nazi contamination, the Jews who remained in Germany after the Nazi regime were available for use by military government (Zink: American Military Government in Germany, p. 136).
Also, many Jews who had come from Germany to this country during the war were sent back to Germany as American officials of rank and power. Some of these individuals were actually given on-the-spot commissions as officers in the Army of the United States. Unfortunately, not all refugee Jews were of admirable character. Some had been in trouble in Germany for grave non-political offenses and their repatriation in the dress of United States officials was a shock to the German people. There are testimonies of falsifications by Jewish interpreters and of acts of vengeance, The extent of such practices is not here estimated, but in any case the employment of such large numbers of Jews, whether of good report, or bad, was taken by Germans as proof of Hitler‘s contention (heard by many Americans as a shortwave song) that America is a Jewish land, and made rougher our road toward reconciliation and peace.