Alan Hart

Dear Lord Guthrie,

The gentlemen who are members of Britain’s military elite, its Top Brass, don’t come more distinguished than your good self. You rose to become Chief of the General Staff (Head of the Army) in 1994; from 1997 to 2001 you were Chief of the Defence Staff and the Principal Military Adviser to two prime ministers and three Secretaries of State for Defence; and you are Colonel of The Life Guards, Gold Stick to Her Majesty The Queen and Colonel Commandant of the SAS. (You also find time to be, among other things, a Director of N.M.Rothschild & Sons Limited).

All that and more being so, I was astonished to hear you this morning, on BBC Radio Four’s Today programme shortly after 0835, make (forgive the Americanisation) a colossalally wrong statement. You were giving your thoughts on the need, sometimes, for pre-emptive war; and about the events of June 1967 you said ? I quote verbatim – the following:

“I think there are examples of, er, pre-emptive war which are rather good. I think in 1967, though the United Nations condemned Israel, Israel was quite right to actually attack before it was attacked, because if it had been attacked, Israel would have disappeared.”

The truth of the time was that the Arabs were notintending to attack. And Israel’s political and military leaders knew that.

Before I continue, I think I should say that I was there. I persuaded my masters at ITN to let me go to Israel three weeks before the fighting started because my gut instincts were telling me that there would be war. As it happened, I was the first foreign correspondent to the banks of the Suez Canal with the advancing Israelis. Because of the quality of my sources, I was also quite well informed about what was happening behind closed doors on the Israeli side in the final countdown to war. One of my sources, and actually my mentor in Israel, was (then retired) Major General Chaim Herzog, a former Director of Military Intelligence and one of the founding fathers of that agency. On day two of the war, he said to me: “If Nasser had not been stupid enough to give us a pretext to go to war, we would have invented one in a year to 18 months.”

But you don’t need to have been there to know the truth of history -I mean the facts as opposed to Zionist mythology upon which the first and still existing draft of Judeo-Christian history is constructed. All you have to do, if you want the truth, is to read the post war confessions of some of the key Israeli decision makers. You can find these confessions with context in Volume Two of my book, Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews, Chapter 24, AmericaTakes Sides, War with Nasser Act II; and the Creation of Greater Israel,starting on page 60.

Here are some examples of who said what:

In an interview published in Le Mondeon 28 February 1968, Israeli Chief of Staff Yitzhak Rabin said: “I do not believe that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions which he sent into Sinai on 14 May would not have been enough to unleash an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it.”

On 14 April 1971, a report in the Israeli newspaper Al-Hamishmarcontained the following statement by Mordecai Bentov, a member of the wartime national government. “The entire story of the danger of extermination was invented in every detail and exaggerated a posteriorito justify the annexation of new Arab territory.”

On 4 April 1972, General Haim Bar-Lev, Rabin’s predecessor as chief of staff, was quoted in Ma’ariv as follows: “We were not threatened with genocide on the eve of the Six-Day War, and we had never thought of such a possibility.”

In the same Israeli newspaper on the same day, General Ezer Weizman, Chief of Operations for the 1967 war and a nephew of Chaim Weizman, was quoted as saying: “There was never any danger of annihilation. This hypothesis has never been considered in any serious meeting.”

In the spring of 1972, General Matetiyahu Peled, Chief of Logistical Command during the war and one of 12 members of Israel’s General Staff, said in a radio interview: “Israel was never in real danger and there was no evidence that Eygpt had any intention of attacking Israel? Israeli intelligence knew that Eygpt was not prepared for war.”

In the same programme Chaim Herzog said: “There was no danger of annihilation. Neither Israeli headquarters nor the Pentagon ? as the memoirs of President Johnson proved ? believed in this danger.”

On 3 June 1972, Peled was even more explicit in an article forLe Monde. He wrote: “All those stories about the huge danger we were in facing because of our small territorial size, an argument expounded once the war was over, have never been considered in our calculations. While we proceeded towards the full mobilisation of our forces, no person in his right mind could believe that all this force was necessary to our ‘defence’ against the Eygptian threat. This force was to crush once and for all the Eygptians at the military level and their Soviet masters at the political level. To pretend that the Eygptian forces concentrated on our borders were capable of threatening Israel’s existence does not only insult the intelligence of any person capable of analysing this kind of situation, but is primarily an insult to the Israeli army.”

The complete truth about the 1967 war includes the following facts:

Israel’s prime minister of the time, the much maligned Levi Eshkol, did not want to take his country to war. And nor did his chief of staff, Rabin. They wanted only very limited military action, an operation far, far short of war, to put pressure on the international community to cause Eygpt’s President Nasser to re-open the Straits of Tiran. (Which he was anxious to do provided he could be seen to be doing so under international pressure).

Israel went to war because its military and political hawks insisted that the Arabs were about to attack. They promoted this nonsense to undermine Eshkol by portraying him to the country as weak .The climax to the campaign to rubbish Eshkol, who was wise not weak, was a demand by the hawks that he surrender the defence portfolio and give it to Moshe Dayan, Zionism’s one-eyed warlord and master of deception. Four days after Dayan got the portfolio he wanted, and the hawks had secured the green light from the Johnson administration to smash Eygpt’s air and ground forces, Israel went to war.

What actually happened in Israel in the final countdown to that war was something very close to a military coup, executed quietly behind closed doors without a shot being fired. For Israel’s hawks the war of 1967 was the unfinished business of 1948/49 ? to create Greater Israel with all of Jerusalemits capital. In reality Israel’s hawks set a trap for Nasser and, for reasons of face, he was daft enough to walk into it.

There can be no denying that most Israelis didbelieve they faced the danger of annihilat
ion, but that was only because their leaders refused to tell them the truth ? that Israel was not in danger. While I was writing the truth about that war, I found myself saying aloud to my readers that there were moments, and this was one of them, when I wanted to “cry out” with the pain of knowing how much Israeli and almost all other Jews have been deceived by Israel’s leaders and Zionism’s spin doctors everywhere.

Zionism’s assertion that poor little Israel faced the danger of annihilation in 1967 was not only a monstrous propaganda lie, it became the cover which allowed Israel to get away where it matters most, North America and Western Europe, with presenting its aggressionas self-defence; and itself as the victimwhen, actually, it was and is the oppressor.

Can you now understand, Lord Guthrie, why I was astonished by what you said this morning?

The question arising is something like this. Did you say what you said out of ignorance of the facts and documented truth of history, or are you content to peddle a propaganda lie to serve powerful vested interests which prefer war to peace?

I describe the conflict in and over Palestine as the cancer at the heart of international affairs which will consume us all unless there is informed and honest debate about who must do what and why for justice and peace. The pre-requisite for informed and honest debate is an acknowledgement by all of the truth about what happened in the Middle East (and behind closed doors in the major capitals of the world and at UN headquarters)in 1967.

Sincerely,

Alan Hart

If you liked this post, then...

• Share it with others using this button:
• Comment on it using the form below.
• Subscribe to my blog via email or RSS to get "new post" alerts.
• Follow me on Twitter (@alanauthor).