Taking Back Our Stolen History
The Zionist State of Israel is Created Fulfilling Biblical Prophecy? Or Was it an Elaborate Scam?
The Zionist State of Israel is Created Fulfilling Biblical Prophecy? Or Was it an Elaborate Scam?

The Zionist State of Israel is Created Fulfilling Biblical Prophecy? Or Was it an Elaborate Scam?

In the late 1800s a small, fanatic movement called “political Zionism” began in Europe.

Its goal was to create a Jewish state somewhere in the world. Its leaders settled on the ancient and long-inhabited land of Palestine for the location of this state. Palestine’s population at this time was approximately ninety-six percent non-Jewish (primarily Muslim and Christian).

Over the coming decades Zionist leaders used various strategies to accomplish their goal of taking over Palestine:

  • Encouraging Jewish immigration to Palestine, partly through the invention of such deceptive slogans as “a land without a people for a people without a land,” when, in fact, the land was already inhabited. Since the majority of Jews were not Zionists until after WWII, Zionists used an array of misleading strategies, including secret collaboration with the Nazis, to push immigration.
  • Convincing a “Great Power” to back this process. By turn, Zionists approached the Ottomans, the British, and the U.S. to further their cause. While the Ottomans turned them down, the British (being promised that American Zionists would push the U.S. to enter World War I on the side of England) eventually acceded, as did the U.S. (due to concerns of politicians like Harry Truman that they would lose elections otherwise).
  • Buying up the land (sometimes through subterfuges), proclaiming it Jewish for all eternity, and refusing to allow non-Jews to live or work on the purchased land. This was called “redeeming” the land and was financed by a variety of means, including by such wealthy banking families as the Rothschilds. (James Perloff says that the Rothschilds committed their fortune to the Zionist movement, beginning no later than 1829)
  • Violence, if such financial dispossession should fail or prove too slow – as it did.

In addition, Theodor Herzl began hosting the World Zionist congresses in Basle, Switzerland in 1897, and the British government was persuaded to issue the Balfour Declaration to Lord Walter Rothschild in 1917 promising the Zionists “establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people” in exchange for the Zionists bringing America into World War I on Britain’s side. However, Zionist seizure of Palestine could not have occurred without the consent and cooperation of the world’s Christian community. Given the centuries-old conflict between Jews and Christians, it was necessary to remold Christian theology to accommodate the Rothschild plan.

Cyrus Scofield and his reference Bible came on the scene for this express purpose aided by John Darby’s ‘secret Rapture’ doctrine. Scofield’s Bible birthed “Christian Zionism,” and with it, untold sorrows over the past century:

In the 1930s, Jewish land ownership had increased from approximately 1% to just over 6% of the land, and violence had increased as well. With the emergence of several Zionist terrorist gangs (whose ranks included a number of future Prime Ministers of Israel), there was violent conflict. Numerous people of all ethnicities were killed – then, as now, the large majority of them Christian and Muslim Palestinians.

This growing violence culminated in Israel’s ruthless 1947-49 “War of Independence,”in which at least 750,000 Palestinian men, women, and children were expelled from their homes by numerically superior Israeli forces – half before any Arab armies joined the war. This massive humanitarian disaster is known as ‘The Catastrophe,’ al Nakba in Arabic.

Victims of 1948 Deir Yassin Massacre

Zionist forces committed 33 massacres and destroyed 531 Palestinian towns. Author Norman Finkelstein states: “According to the former director of the Israeli army archives, ‘in almost every village occupied by us during the War… acts were committed which are defined as war crimes, such as murders, massacres, and rapes’…Uri Milstein, the authoritative Israeli military historian of the 1948 war, goes one step further, maintaining that ‘every skirmish ended in a massacre of Arabs.’”

Count Folke Bernadotte, a former official of the Swedish Red Cross who saved thousands of Jews during World War II and was appointed U.N. mediator in Palestine, said of the refugees: “It would be an offence against the principles of elemental justice if these innocent victims of the conflict were denied the right to return to their homes.” Bernadotte was assassinated by a Zionist organization led by future Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir.

On 14th May 1948, the State of Israel was established by the Israeli Declaration of Independence.  At present, 31 UN nations still do not recognize Israel as a state.

In Douglas Reed’s book, Controversy of Zion, we’re given a detailed — almost microscopic — look behind the scenes at the manipulations, threats, bribes and murders committed in order to secure the vote by the United Nations, mandating the ‘state’ of Israel as a homeland for the so-called Jews. He describes the ‘contest’ between Republicans and Democrats — their fawning promises of capitulation — before the upcoming presidential election to garner financial support and votes from the Jews.

First, a couple of paragraphs from the preface to explain the twenty-two-year gap between the completion of this vital book and it’s publication, which can be purchased from Omni Christian Book Club. You can find ordering information in our Resources section, at the bottom of the page. Here’s the preface excerpt:

“. . . The disappearance into almost total oblivion of Douglas Reed and all his works was a change that could not have been wrought by time alone. Indeed, the correctness of his interpretation of the unfolding history of his time found some confirmation in what happened to him when at the height of his powers.

“After 1951, with the publication of Far and Wide, in which he set the history of the United States of America into the context of all he had learned in Europe of the politics of the world, Reed found himself banished from the bookstands, all publishers’ doors closed on him, and those books already written liable to be withdrawn from library shelves and ‘lost’, never to be replaced.

“His public career as a writer now apparently at an end, Reed was at last free to undertake a great task for which all that had gone before — his years as a foreign correspondent, his travels in Europe and America, his conversations and contacts with the great political leaders of his day, plus his eager absorption through reading and observation of all that was best in European culture — were but a kind of preparation and education that no university could provide and which only the fortunate and gifted few could fully use.

“Experiences which other men might have accepted as defeat, served only to focus Reed’s powers on what was to be his most important undertaking — that of researching and retelling the story of the last 2,000 years and more in such a way as to render intelligible much of modern history which, for the masses, remains in our time steeped in darkness and closely guarded by the terrors of an invisible system of censorship. . . ” IVOR BENSON, Durban, Natal, August 1978

Benson goes on to tell of Reed’s three-year period of research and writing the book, with the Epilogue being added in 1956, then, the book gathering dust for twenty-two years, until it was finally published in 1978 by the Dolphin Press, Durban, Natal, South Africa.

Knowing this, dear reader — knowing how desperately you are NOT wanted to have this information — I hope your desire for truth and understanding is strong enough that you will get the book and read it from cover to cover. It does, indeed, lay the groundwork for other smaller gems written by various authors — several of which are posted here —  that help us to at least begin to grasp the breadth and depth of an International Priesthood’s insidious, centuries-long plan for World Dominion.


The reader will recall that in the years preceding the Second War, Zionism was in collapse in Palestine; and that the British Parliament in 1939, having been forced by twenty years of experience to realize that the “Jewish National Home” was impossible to realize, had decided to abandon the unworkable “Mandate” and to withdraw after ensuring the parliamentary representation of all parties in the land, Arab, Jews and others.

The reader then beheld the change which came about when Mr. Churchill became Prime Minister in 1940 and privately informed Dr. Weizmann (according to Dr. Weizmann’s account, which has not been challenged) that he “quite agreed” with the Zionist ambition “after the war. . . to build up a state of three or four million Jews in Palestine”. Mr. Churchill always expressed great respect for parliamentary government but in this case, as a wartime potentate, he privily and arbitrarily overrode a policy approved, after full debate, by the House of Commons.

After that, the reader followed Dr. Weizmann in his journeys to America and saw how Mr. Churchill’s efforts “to arm the Jews” (in which he was opposed by the responsible administrators on the spot) received support from there under the “pressure” of Dr. Weizmann and his associates. That was the point at which the reader last saw the Zionist state in gestation. Throughout 1944, as Mr. Churchill records in his war memoirs, he continued to press the Zionist ambition.

“It is well known I am determined not to break the pledges of the British Government to Zionists expressed in the Balfour Declaration, as modified by my subsequent statement at the Colonial Office in 1921, No change can be made in policy without full discussion in Cabinet”. (June 23, 1944).

The policy had been changed after full discussion in Cabinet and Parliament, in 1939. Here Mr. Churchill simply ignored that major decision on policy and reverted to the earlier one, echoing the strange words of another Colonial Secretary (Mr. Leopold Amery, earlier quoted) that this policy could not change.

“I am anxious to reply promptly to Dr. Weizmann’s request for the formation of a Jewish fighting force put forward in his letter of July 4th (July 12, 1944). I like the idea of the Jews trying to get at the murders of their fellow-countrymen in Central Europe and I think it would give a great deal of satisfaction in the United States. I believe it is the wish of the Jews themselves to fight the Germans everywhere. It is with the Germans they have their quarrel”. (July 26th, 1944).

At the time when Mr. Churchill dictated this last memorandum his words about “settling the question of Palestine at the peace table” were so irrelevant that he might have had humorous intent in using them. The issue was closed, for the Zionists had arms, the men to use these arms were to be smuggled through Europe from the revolutionary area by the West (as shown in the last chapter), and both major political parties in England and America were ready to applaud any act of aggression, invasion or persecution the transmigrants committed with the arms they had obtained.

General Wavell, the commander in the Middle East, had long before informed Mr. Churchill that “left to themselves, the Jews would beat the Arabs” (who had no source of arms-supply). General Wavell’s view about the Zionist scheme was that of all responsible administrators on the spot, and for that reason he was disliked by Dr. Weizmann.

The reader has already seen, as far back as the First War, that Dr. Weizmann’s displeasure was dangerous even to high personages and it may have played a part in General Wavell’s removal from the Middle East command to India.

The official British History of the War in the Middle East describes General Wavell as “one of the great commanders in military history” and says tiredness, caused by his great responsibilities, was aggravated by the feeling that he did not enjoy the full confidence of Mr. Churchill, who bombarded his Middle East commander with “irritating” and “needless” telegrams about “matters of detail”. By his relegation General Wavell may have been another victim of Zionism, and British military prowess have suffered accordingly in the war; this cannot be established but it is a reasonable surmise.

In 1944 assassination again appeared in the story. Lord Moyne, as Colonial Secretary, was the Cabinet minister then responsible for Palestine, the post earlier held by Lord Lloyd (who had been rudely rebuked by Mr. Churchill for tardiness in “arming the Jews” and had died in 1941). Lord Moyne was the friend of all men, and sympathetic to Judaism, but he shared the view of all his responsible predecessors, that the Zionist enterprise in Palestine would end disastrously.

For that reason, and having sympathy for suffering mankind in general, he was inclined to revive the idea of proving land in Uganda for any Jews who truly needed to find a new home somewhere.

This humane notion brought him the mortal hatred of the Zionists, who would not brook any diversion of thought from the target of their ambition: Palestine. In 1943 Lord Moyne modified his view, according to Mr. Churchill, who suggested that Dr. Weizmann should go to Cairo, meet Lord Moyne there and satisfy himself of the improvement.

Before any meeting could come about, Lord Moyne was assassinated in Cairo (November 1944) by two Zionists from Palestine, one more peacemaker thus being removed from a path strewn with the bones of earlier pacifiers.

This second great moment in the Palestinian drama approached. Mr. Roosevelt had been told by Dr. Weizmann that the Zionists “could not rest the case on the consent of the Arabs” but had remained non-committal. Mr. Churchill, according to Dr. Weizmann, had committed himself, in private, and in 1944 Dr. Weizmann grew impatient to have from Mr. Churchill a public committal in the form of an amended Balfour Declaration which would award territory (in place of the meaningless phrase “a national home”) to Zion (in 1949 he was still very angry that Mr. Churchill, on the “pretext” that the war must first be finished, refrained from making this final public capitulation).

What followed remains deeply mysterious. Neither Mr. Roosevelt nor Mr. Churchill had any right to bestow Arab land on the (Zionist) lobbyists who beleaguered them in Washington and London; nevertheless, what was demanded of them was, in appearance, so small in comparison with what had just been done at Yalta, that Mr. Roosevelt’s submission and some harsh ultimatum to Kin Ibn Saoud would have surprised none. Instead, he suddenly stepped out of the part he had played for many years and spoke as a statesman; after that he died.

On February 28 Mr. Roosevelt returned to Washington. On March 28 Ibn Saoud reiterated by letter his verbal warning (since confirmed by events) of the consequences which would follow from American support of the Zionists. On April 5 President Roosevelt replied reaffirming his own pledge verbally given to Ibn Saoud that:

“I would take no action, in my capacity as Chief of the Executive Branch of this Government which might prove hostile to the Arab people”.

On April 12 he died. This pledge would never have become known but for the action of an American statesman, Secretary of State James G. Byrnes, who published it six months later (October 18, 1945) in a vain attempt to deter Mr. Roosevelt’s successor, President Truman, from taking the very “action hostile to the Arabs” which President Roosevelt swore he would never commit.

Mr. Roosevelt’s pledge was virtually a deathbed one, and another of history’s great unanswered questions is, did he mean it? If by any chance he did, then once more death intervened as the ally of Zionism. His intimate Mr. Harry Hopkins (who was present at the meeting and drafted a memorandum about it) sneered at the suggestion that it might have been sincerely intended, saying that President Roosevelt was “wholly committed publicly and privately and by conviction” to the Zionists.

(This memorandum records Mr. Roosevelt’s statement that he had learned more from Ibn Saoud about Palestine in five minutes than he had previously learned in a lifetime; out of this, again, grew the famous anecdote that Ibn Saoud said, “We have known for two thousand years what you have fought two world wars to learn”.

What is clear is that the last few weeks and days of Mr. Roosevelt’s life were overshadowed by the controversy of Zion, not by American or European questions. Had he lived, and his pledge to Ibn Saoud become known, Zionism, which so powerfully helped to make and maintain him president for twelve years, would have become his bitter enemy. He died.

In this question of Palestine, Mr. Roosevelt was liberated from his dilemma by death. Mr. Churchill was left to face his. He had courted Zionist favour from the days of the 1906 election. He had been a member of the British Government in 1917, of which another member (Mr. Leopold Amery, quoted in a Zionist paper in 1952) said,

“We thought when we issued the Balfour Declaration that if the Jews could become a majority in Palestine they would form a Jewish state. . . We encouraged not a divided Palestine, which exists only west of the Jordan”.

Mr. Churchill never publicly stated any such intention (indeed, he denied it), but if it was his view this means that even the Zionist state set up after the Second World War by no means fulfills the intention of those who made the Balfour Declaration, and that further conquests of Arab lands have yet to be made by war.

The governing word in the passage quoted is “if”: “if the Jews could become a majority. . .” By 1945 three decades of Arab revolt had shown that the Zionists never would “become a majority” unless the Arabs were driven out of their native land by arms. The question that remained was, who was to drive them out? Mr. Roosevelt had sworn not to. Dr. Weizmann, ever quick to cry “I stay here on my bond”, liked to claim that Mr. Churchill was committed as far as Dr. Weizmann wanted him to go.

Even Mr. Churchill could not do this deed. He, too, then was liberated from his dilemma; not by death, but by electoral defeat. His memoirs express wounded pride at this rebuff; “All our enemies having surrendered unconditionally or being about to do so, I was immediately dismissed by the British electorate from all further conduct of their affairs”.

It was not as simple as that. The future historian has to work from such material, but the living participant knows better, and I was in England and saw the election when Mr. Churchill was “dismissed”. In truth the British electorate could hardly have been expected to see in the outcome of the war (of which Mr. Churchill is the bitterest critic) cause for a vote of thanksgiving to Mr. Churchill, but there were other reasons for his defeat than mere disillusionment.

As in American elections, so in this British one of 1945 the power to “deliver the votes” was shown. Mr. churchill had gone far in “arming the Jews” and in private committing himself to Zionism, but not far enough for Dr. Weizmann. In England at the mid-century, control of the press was virtually complete, in this question: Zionist propaganda at the election turned solidly against Mr. Churchill and was waged in behalf of the Socialists, who had given the requisite promise of support for “hostile action” against the Arabs. (“The Arabs should be encouraged to move out as the Jews move in…”).

The block of Jewish Members of Parliament swung over in a body to the Socialist party (and was strongest in the left wing of it, where the Communists lurked). With high elation the Zionist saw the discomfiture of their “champion” of 1906, 1917 and 1939. Dr. Weizmann says that the Socialist victory (and Mr. churchill’s “dismissal”) “delighted all liberal elements”. This was the requital for Mr. Churchill’s forty years of support for Zionism; he had not actually ordered British troops to clear Palestine of Arabs and, for a while, was an enemy.

The British Socialists, at last provided with a great majority in parliament, then found at once that they were expected by forcible measures to “encourage the Arabs to move out”. When they too shrank from the assassin’s deed the cries of “betrayal” fell about their ears like hailstones. Dr. Weizmann’s narrative grows frantic with indignation at this point; the Socialist government, he says, “within three months of taking office repudiated the pledge so often and clearly, even vehemently, repeated to the Jewish people”.

During forty years Lord Curzon seems to have been the only leading politician caught up in this affair to realize that even the most casual word of sympathy, uttered to Dr. Weizmann, would later be held up as “a pledge”, solemnly given and infamously broken.

Among the victorious Socialists a worthy party-man, one Mr. Hall, inherited the Colonial Office from Lord Lloyd, Lord Moyne and others dead or defamed, and was barely in it when a deputation from the World Zionist Congress arrived:

“I must say the attitude adopted by the members of the deputation was different from anything which I have ever experienced. It was not a request for the consideration by His Majesty’s Government of the decisions of the Zionist conference, but a demand that His Majesty’s Government should do what the Zionist Organization desired them to do”.

Continued on next page…