The Enduring Power of Zionism’s Propaganda Lies

Fatah’s leaders did eventually succeed in closing down the BSO, but there was nothing they could do to prevent the PFLP and foreign mercenaries it recruited from continuing to play the terror card. Thus it was, through the 1970s, that Israel had no trouble at all in convincing the Western world that the PLO was one vast terrorist organisation and that Yasser Arafat was the terror master. That was not true but it seemed to be so to those whose only source of information was the news on television, radio and in the newspapers.

That’s the end of the short summary as in my book. I would welcome the opportunity to sit with the BBC’s news and current affairs chiefs to outline the need for the truth of history. If such a meeting took place the main point I would stress, fully documented, is that Zionism’s claim that Israel has lived and still lives in danger of annihilation is propaganda nonsense to facilitate the assertion that Israel is the VICTIM, (when actually it is the AGGRESSOR and OPPRESSOR), and therefore must be free to act with impunity in any way it thinks fit, even when its actions demonstrate contempt for international law and the human and political rights of the Palestinians. But there will be no such meeting. Partly out of fear of offending Zionism too much and provoking its wrath, the BBC’s news and current affairs chiefs have no desire to put the truth about the making and sustaining of the Israel-Palestine conflict on their agenda.

And the same can be said of virtually all the mainstream media’s editorial executives.

In the Preface of the original, two-volume UK hardback edition of my book I speculated that one of the reasons for the mainstream media’s complicity in Zionism’s suppression of the truth of history might be the unspeakable belief that the truth about the Israel’s criminal behaviour could provoke Holocaust II, shorthand for another great turning against Jews everywhere.

I had, I wrote, a totally opposite belief – that the only way to stop the monster of anti-Semitism going on the rampage again in a foreseeable future if Zionism continued to have its way is by telling the truth of history, to show, among other things, why it is wrong to blame all Jews for what a minority have done and are still doing in the name of Zionism.

I had no doubt, I added, that publishers, editors and politicians who are complicit in the suppression of the truth of history honestly believe they are serving the best interests of the Jews (as well as their own short-term vested interests). But to them all I said: You are wrong. Dangerously wrong. By refusing to come to grips with the truth of history and, in particular the difference between Judaism and Zionism and why it is perfectly possible to be passionately anti-Zionist without being anti-Semitic, you are helping to set up all Jews to be blamed for the crimes of the relative few.

In that 2007 Preface I also called on the Jews of the mainly Gentile nations of North America and Western Europe to find the will and the courage to end their silence on Israel’s behaviour. Silence, I wrote, is not the way to refute and demolish a charge of complicity in Zionism’s crimes.

Today, as Israel becomes more and more isolated and reviled, one sign of hope that a Zionist-provoked turning against Jews everywhere can be averted is in the fact that a still smallish but growing number of North American and European Jews are beginning to speak out and distance themselves from the Zionist monster.

Hopefully this means that the enduring power of Zionism’s propaganda lies can be challenged and defeated, even if the mainstream continues to prefer Zionism’s version of history.

 

Page 3 of 3 | Previous page

  1. Rehmat:

    Dear Allan, I’m many people will disagree with you on this one.

    The 1972 Munich Olympic Games “massacre” was not as it seemed, and was actually a Mossad operation conducted by their agent, Abu Nidal, to garner sympathy for the criminal state of Israel.

    Abu Nidal was NOT a Palestinian resistance fighter (terrorist) that he was made out to be, but was actually working for the CIA and Mossad.

    http://rehmat1.com/2011/10/26/2012-london-olympics-and-mossad/

    http://northerntruthseeker.blogspot.ca/2012/07/the-munich-1972-massacre-was-psyops.html

  2. Anutosh:

    I agree with you that playing the victim role is wrong and counterproductive for Israel.

    I just watched Nelson Mandela presentation during the town hall meeting in NewYork in 1990 were his very principled stand on what is right was impressive but also unusual position for a politician (see http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article37191.htm).
    What a pity that the Israelis could not possibly follow this route, the present route only leads to disaster for the jews and for the whole world. For this reason, showing compassion and pity to the Israelis (and to the jews) might bring the present government of Israeli in a much more embarrassing position.
    What is your opinion?

  3. Niels Jespersen:

    Alan,

    You say that you have documentation – however, some years ago (when the movie directed by Spielberg about Munich appeared) I tried to convey the message of your book in a reader commentary.

    I met complete disbelief.

    I tried then to find other surces than your book to document the case – but found none really.

    Do you have supplemntary (other sources than those referred to in your book) sources to subsatntiate your story?

    Best regards,

  4. pabelmont:

    Interesting story, parallel to the 1967 war. Whether or not Egypt’s actions before the war were sufficiently violent (or sufficiently provocative) to constitute the “first shots”, undoubtedly the major violence came from Israel and was unnecessary at the time it came. Israeli leaders have said they knew Egypt would not attack them.

    So, as you report here, and in 1967, the same modus operandi: a small (if violent) Arab step followed by a large and intransigent we-will-not-negotiate-with-terrorists violent step by Israel.

    And when the Arabs refuse to take the small first step, Israel does it for them and then treats the (small) Arab second step as a “first step” and hits “back” with maximum force.

    All possible only because of a complaisant international media.

  5. Jack Dresser:

    P.S. I also note two other disparities between the Wikipedia story and yours in the book that should be resolved. They report the demand was for release of 234 prisoners, and there were 8 terrorists, with 5 killed (as you report) and 3 captured.