February 17, 2001
Dear President Bush:
Re: Middle East Peace
There are good reasons for me to suppose that two of your top advisors, Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell, have at least been exposed to my work. This work is highly respected within most of the African-American academic community, although it has been purposefully suppressed from so-called "White Mainstream" higher education.
Very recently, because of your difficult election against the background of escalating crisis in the Middle East, several friends in the non-Caucasian American community have contacted me personally, by phone, snail mail, fax and e-mail in the sincere hope, which I share, that your Administration will offer some fundamental new direction in policy. I suppose these friends and research colleagues have prompted me to try to communicate with you for the following reasons.
First, despite some of my perspectives reflected in some books, I am a Caucasian from the so-called mainstream American culture. Second, almost uniquely, I have studied the long-term interplay of genetics, culture and history which is a crucial part of the Middle East crisis. Third, I have studied the potential of low-technology warfare (which you may prefer to call "terrorism") as fall-out from Third World development projects, a study of ancient technology and even novel-writing.
If Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell are indeed familiar with my work, then you may appreciate some of the following facts about the ongoing Middle Eastern threat to world peace.
As recently as October 1999, one of the most prominent Israeli archaeologists, Dr. Ze'ev Herzog of Tel Aviv University, pleaded with the Israeli public and government to base policies on fact instead of biblical folklore. Nonetheless, Ariel Sharon (and others) have expressed the intention of expanding modern Israel to the borders of "David's" purely biblical and mythical empire.
This has been known for centuries by chroniclers such as Muggadasi and Al-Bakhri (The Book of Kingdoms and Roads, circa AD 1050) and specialist historians like J.M. Bury (The History of the Eastern Roman Empire, 1912). It was first brought to limited public attention by Dr. A.N. Poliak of Tel Aviv University in his 1939 article in Zion magazine and then in his 1950 Hebrew-language book Khazaria: The History of a Jewish Kingdom in Europe. Arthur Koestler popularized the Khazar conversion for the Western world in The Thirteenth Tribe (1976).The British government's White Paper of 1939 was based upon these facts and called for limiting Zionist immigration into Palestine to 2000 persons per month for two years. Thereafter, Zionist immigration into Palestine would be prohibited altogether. The British idea was apparently to approximate the minority population of Jews in Palestine as it had been in Roman times before the expulsions of about AD 70.
After World War II, however, Britain was too weak to administer its Palestinian mandate. The United States had emerged from the war as the leading Western power and largely sponsored the creation of the United Nations. One of the UN's first acts was to create modern Israel as the "traditional homeland" of the Jews to be populated by Central European Zionists -- and this was "cleverly" done before most Arab states were voting members of the United Nations.
In short, modern Israel was created as a "traditional homeland" of people who were never the majority of biblical residents in the region, and to be populated by people who were not related to biblical Hebrews anyway! Not only that, but the creation was accomplished by expropriating Arab land in a region made notoriously unstable as the only land corridor between contending European, Asian and African powers. It was a region that had also recently become strategically coveted because of oil deposits. This creation was not the smartest expression of American foreign policy, to put it mildly, but it may prove to have been the last...if the world is subjected to a nuclear war because of it.
This action was possible only because of Jewish financial influence within the Roosevelt and Truman administrations, and only because of propaganda by Jewish-dominated media and Hollywood in America.
These were the same ethnic political loyalties and media control, by the way, that almost cost you the 2000 election by supposed "mistakes" in broadcasting false early vote returns that favoured Gore-Lieberman in the critical state of Florida.
Their most impressive exhibition of this aggression, and the one responsible for almost all later Middle East violence, was their determination to force the U.S. into creating Israel, via the UN in 1947-1948, in the first place. The initial Arab-Israeli War of 1948 was a pretty good demonstration of their capacity for aggression and survival, too. Thereafter, they have been able to sit back and appear as relatively peaceful victims of aggression while the United States has financially supported them, and militarily protected them, from completely understandable Arab outrage.
In more recent years, however, Israel's invasions and pre-emptive strikes against neighbouring and Arab states, its treatment of domestic Palestinians and its determination to acquire nuclear weapons have been more evidence of this underlying genetic propensity for aggression. Israel's nuclear capability was largely acquired through "loyal (Jewish) Americans" who stole fissionable material from U.S. installations. This theft has even been a subject for arrogant pride in several Jewish-authored and Jewish-published mass-market American books like Ken Follet's Triple.
Israel is therefore the only Middle Eastern state known to possess "weapons of mass destruction" that you fear Iraq will acquire. But, to say nothing more, I am certain that American administrations have been quietly terrorized by Israel's "weapons of mass destruction" for more than a decade.
These people will never submit to this kind of "responsibility". Getting rid of Saddam Hussein will not solve the problem. Another Arab leader will only emerge and receive (obviously) the same popular support that Hussein now enjoys in Iraq. Don't be misled by "CIA" or other nonsense that getting rid of Saddam Hussein will make the Arab world "responsible" enough to accept Old Testament Jewish myths. No amount of sanctions against Iraq (or any other Arab state) will solve the problem, even if most of the world remained in favour of sanctions -- which it is not. The "CIA" and your other alphabet agencies operate upon shallow short-term data, which is why their predictions have so often been so dangerously wrong.
The long-term interplay of history, genetics and culture is a subject that has been avoided by all American researchers except me (to my knowledge). My view, if it is of any value to you, is that the Arab world will never accept the existence of modern Israel, no matter how many treaties are signed and no matter what is agreed in them. From the Arab point of view, all such treaties will have been made under the duress of U.S. power. From their point of view, and I'm inclined to agree with them, the Arab world will still exist long after the United States of America has been fragmented and forgotten (like Greece, Rome, Holland, France, Germany and Britain) as the premier world power. The Arabs think on this time scale.
That fundamental admission and concession might at least buy some talking room. Israel exists now, and nothing can be done about it. It cannot be "undone" except by successful Arab attack and genocide, as Arthur Koestler observed in his popular 1976 book about the "Khazar deception" in The Thirteenth Tribe. The U.S. cannot permit the genocide of Israel -- so long as the United States remains a force capable of defending Israel, that is.
The U.S. could also sponsor a promotional campaign to encourage mixed marriages between Jews and Gentiles. The idea would be to dilute genetic proclivities of discrimination and aggression. Additionally, thought should be given to limiting, by a quota if need be, Jewish participation in sensitive social sectors: press and media, entertainment, education and corporate control. Such a program might have reduced your own election hassles.
The idea of these policies would be to clear up the purposefully propagandized muddle between Judaism as a religion like any other, and Jews as an ethnic group that has existed from biblical times.
Most Americans have never encountered a true ethnic Jew who can count his or her descent from biblical Palestine. Such people exist in the world, Sephardic Jews, but they represent only 5% of all those practising Judaism and most of them are in southern France, Spain, the Caribbean and South Africa. They did not invent Zionism and are generally not in favour of it.
What most Americans perceive as "Jewish" is actually Eastern European Caucasus steppe culture. And it is Caucasus steppe aggression and in-group favouritism that has resulted in such inordinate social influence of this steppe people in American society.
- An attempt to educate Americans about Judaism as a biblical religion, as opposed to the culture of the "Ashkenazim" converts to Judaism, would go a long way to undermine the public's muddled sympathy for the modern state of Israel. Such an American social and education policy might convince the Arab world that it is not up against "fanatical Judeo-Christian fundamentalism" and so might encourage the relaxation of Islamic fundamentalism. This is not a "quick fix". It is a long-term strategy for relative peace in the Middle East.
- Inevitably, however, the population of Israel will expand, but the borders would not be allowed to expand. Israelis seeking to immigrate into the United States, Canada or Western Europe would be subjected to the same forces of assimilation as outlined above.
- Or, they could remain in an increasingly over-populated Israel and face the economic and lifestyle deterioration that this choice would impose. But Israel could not expand, and would not be eligible for any UN or any other public humanitarian aid.
Their hardships would not be due to any natural circumstance beyond their control, but only to their conscious choice to maintain primitive rituals associated with being the "chosen people".
Most of the world hopes that the air strikes against Iraq on February 15-16 reflected your sincere (at least) interpretation of the Gulf War accords. If these strikes (and any future ones) are only a continuation of blind support for Israel, then the United States will continue to lose allies, even token ones like Britain, all over the world. France has already left the so-called "Coalition". The U.S. will make bitter enemies out of most of the world. And even the United States is not strong enough to bend the entire world to its will.
Perhaps you should also give some thought to semantic definitions. A "rogue" nation is one that doesn't accept U.S. endorsement of Jewish biblical myths. A "terrorist" is someone, unlike yourself and Bill Clinton, who cannot deploy sophisticated weaponry to kill innocent people but who must deliver bombs in suitcases and cars instead. If you and the U.S. persist in automatic aggression against the Arab world, such definitions will become wry world-wide jokes at America's expense.
More to the point, your relatively open society has no real defense against concerted and intelligent low-tech "terrorism". The United States has not experienced this -- yet, simply because potential eneemies have not thought of it. The terrorism has so far been random and more or less freelance, never a considered national strategy of military response. However, if this notion should ever occur to Arabs (or others), the current U.S. reliance on high-tech armed forces actually constitutes a serious military disadvantage.
I'm sure that Colin Powell can tell you that the essential advantage of high-tech warfare is that the individual soldier has great firepower to destroy well-defined targets. But what if there are no well-defined targets in a situation of low-tech war? No tanks, no factories, no troop concentrations. Low-tech war is labour intensive using assets that may not even look like weapons, or even be weapons until they are quickly assembled and deployed. All the sophisticated radars, IFRs, satellite imaging, jet aircraft and smart missiles suddenly become obsolete. Low-tech war is labour intensive and so the United States would have to become a virtual military and police state in order to defend itself against a determined, organized and thoughtful low-tech adversary.
U.S. forces experienced something of this nature in Vietnam, but the potential danger to the United States itself was contained simply because the Vietnamese adversary would have been a visual minority in the U.S. That is not the case in a confrontation with the Arab world. For much less than the cost of just one F-117 stealth fighter, thousands of square miles of the United States could be reduced to panic, massive evacuation and economic and social unproductiveness for a lengthy period of time. After experimenting a bit to see if this particular low-tech strategic capability would work (it does), I thought of writing a pop novel about it. But I didn't because I feared that someone would actually use it. I would be happy to brief your military on my thoughts about both tactical and strategic low-tech warfare. But, to be honest, I cannot see how some weapons could be countered effectively.
Faced with a concerted low-tech offensive of this sort, the United States would be forced to begin restricting the very freedoms on which the country was supposedly founded. Is the support and assertion of Jewish myths really worth the loss of basic American freedoms?
In conclusion, America's "National Will" could be expressed with much more dignity, and with greater compassion for the world's people, than by the automatic assertion of the chauvinistic ethnic myths of just one minor people who are misguided enough to believe that they are "the chosen".
Astute political observers will remember that the first year of the Bush Administration's Israeli-Palestinian policy seemed to reflect much of the above very good advice.
I suppose that most of us who can still remember events of two years ago, in spite of the distractions of hectic and frightening events that have been orchestrated by largely Jewish-owned North American media in collusion with the largely Jewish-owned "military industrial complex", can recall encouraging vignettes. Remember when Colin Powell walked hand-in-hand with Yasser Arafat and demamded that the Israeli road blocks were to be dismantled immediately? The Israeli obstructions came down pronto.
Or, remember that Colin Powell was supposed to announce U.S. commitment to a separate and independent Palestinian State on notorious "9/11"? Well, 9/11 certainly pre-empted and scuttled that planned policy change, didn't it? So, who do you suppose really orchestrated the attack on the WTC?
Even after 9/11, U.S. policy was still committed to the Palestinain State.
Things changed drastically around October 3-4, 2001. At that time, Israel's Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, thundered: "The United States will not appease the Arabs at Israel's expense. Israel will henceforth determine its own policy."
The only event that I can think of that punctuated this evident collision between U.S. policy and angry Israeli response was the shooting down of an Aeroflot airliner over the Black Sea during these two days. The airliner had taken off from Ben-Gurion airport in Israel and was about an hour out on its way to the old "Jewish Autonomous Area" east of the Urals. Then, when high over the Black Sea, it was supposedly hit, accidentally, by a Ukrainian missile during scheduled Ukrainian Army manoevers that were routinely taking place at the time.
Although the Ukrainian commander, convincingly (in my opinion), denied that there were any ground-to-air missiles in the manoevers capable of hitting the airliner, the Ukrainian Army accepted responsibility for the tragedy. For what it is worth, I have attempted to verify the types of missiles deployed during these Ukrainian Army exercises and have been able to find out that only ground-to-ground anti-tank missiles were supposedly assigned to these war games. I would welcome any further information on this matter.
My view must be, therefore, that the Aeroflot airliner was sabotaged by Israelis before it took off from Ben-Gurion Airport. Knowing about the scheduled Ukrainian Army manoevers, the Mossad decided to blame the incident on apparently non-existent Ukrainian ground-to-air missiles. The ignorant public would be in no position to question this deception. It is possible that Israel was serving notice on President George Bush and U.S. policy that any deviation from previous American unconditional support for Israel would be met by, first, violent disruption of air traffic all over the world.
But second, it is something of an open secret -- and even the plots of several popular books -- that Israel has had nuclear bombs since at least 1973. See Ken Follett's Triple and Tom Clancy's more recent The Sum of All Fears. Indeed, there's been reasonable speculation that President John F. Kennedy's opposition to Israeli nuclear bombs played a significant role in his assassination in which Jack "Ruby" (Rubinski, a Mossad agent) played a major role in both the event and its cover-up. See Final Judgement by Michael Collins.
Did Sharon's October 3-4 vow that "Israel will henceforth determine its own policy" involve the threat of using nuclear bombs in the Middle East? We will possibly never know, but what we do know is that U.S. Middle East policy immediately reverted to its traditional and unconditional support of Israeli State terroriam -- while invading Afghanistan (October-November 2001) and Iraq (March 2003) under the guise of the "War Against Terrorism".
Instead of looking in Iraq for dubious "weapons of mass destruction" and non-existent missiles that "could hit London and the United Sttes within 45 minutes", the UK, UN and the U.S. might take a close look at Israel's Dimona Nuclear facility.
In any event, following October 3-4, 2001, we witnessed Israel's systematic and unopposed destruction of any possible "Palestinian Authority". By early September 2003, U.S. policy had been cowed so much that Israel felt arrogant enough to announce that it might exile Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat.
In short, George Bush apparently followed something very similar to my advice in the beginning of his Administration, but lacked the courage and integrity to bring Israel and domestic Jewish influence to heel.
United States and Israel will pay a high price for this failure of nerve
and justice by George Bush. Either that, or someone somewhere has
decided that Anglo-American power, manipulated by Jewish money and influence,
has at last actually become capable of subjugating the entire world to
the "American Way of Life".