The date is December 3, 1972, and it\u2019s right there in a headline of the Tri-City Herald<\/em>, the newspaper that serves Pasco-Kennewick-Richland in the state of Washington:\u00a0 \u201c<\/span>Jews sent President Truman letter bombs, book tells<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/a>.<\/span><\/strong>\u201d\u00a0 The newspaper picked up the article, we see, from the Associated Press (AP).<\/span><\/p>\n Not only does the article carry the authority of the AP, but the book in question bears the authority of none other than President Harry Truman\u2019s own daughter, Margaret.\u00a0 It is her biography of her father, entitled simply Harry S. Truman,<\/em> and at the time the article was written, the book had just been published. \u00a0\u00a0The passage in question\u2014a long paragraph that begins on page 489 and ends on page 490 (pp. 533-534 of the paperback edition)\u2014is in a section on threats and attempts on President Truman\u2019s life.\u00a0 Note that she misidentifies Anthony Eden as Foreign Secretary, which he had not been since 1938.\u00a0 Later, of course, he would become Prime Minister.\u00a0 Ernest Bevin was Foreign Secretary in 1947, and he was the primary target to the assassination attempts:<\/span><\/p>\n In the summer of 1947, the so-called <\/span>Stern Gang<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/a> <\/span>of Palestine terrorists tried to assassinate Dad by mail.\u00a0 A number of cream-colored envelopes about eight by six inches, arrived in the White House, addressed to the President and various members of the staff.\u00a0 Inside them was a smaller envelope marked \u201cPrivate and Confidential.\u201d\u00a0 Inside that second envelope was powdered <\/span>gelignite<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/a>, a pencil battery and a detonator rigged to explode the gelignite when the envelope was opened.\u00a0 Fortunately, the White House mail room was alert to the possibility that such letters might arrive.\u00a0 The <\/span>previous June<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/a> <\/span>at least eight were sent to British government officials, including Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden.\u00a0 The British police exploded one of these experimentally and said it could kill, or at the very least maim, anyone unlucky enough to open it.\u00a0 The mail room turned the letters over to the Secret Service and they were defused by their bomb experts.\u00a0 The Secret Service still screens all our mail.<\/span><\/p>\n The AP article also reminds us that the news of the aborted attack on Truman did not originate with Margaret Truman, some quarter century after the fact.\u00a0 It had been reported in far greater and more accurate detail by White House staff mail reader <\/span>Ira R. T. Smith<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/a> (with Joe Alex Morris) in his 1949 book, Dear Mr. President \u2026 The Story of Fifty Years in the White House Mail Room.<\/em>\u00a0 Fortunately, that entire book is now <\/span>online here<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/a>.\u00a0 This is from pp. 229-230:<\/span><\/p>\n On another occasion, in the summer of 1947 I was summoned back to Washington from my vacation because controversy over important issues, including the Palestine question, had greatly increased the volume of mail to the President.\u00a0 I was rather surprised that the volume should be more than could be handled routinely by the office but when I got back I found that not all the difficulty was due to volume.\u00a0 Some of the letters received had obviously been intended to kill.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n There had been a flurry in England in June of that summer because eight or more government officials and political personages had received terrorist letters in which explosives were cleverly concealed.\u00a0 Among those who got such letters were Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin, Colonial Secretary Arthur Creech Jones, President of the Board of Trade Sir Stafford Cripps, and former Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden.\u00a0 Cripps\u2019s secretary noticed that the letter he received was hot (police said later it was apparently about ready to explode) and he stuck it in water.\u00a0 Eden carried his letter unopened in his briefcase for twenty-four hours before a secretary, tipped off by police, found it.\u00a0 There were two envelopes, the outer one about eight by six inches and cream-colored.\u00a0 The inner envelope was marked \u201cPrivate and Confidential,\u201d presumably in an effort to see that it was opened by the man to whom it was addressed.\u00a0 Inside the second envelope was powdered gelignite, a pencil battery, and a detonator arranged to explode when the envelope was opened.\u00a0 Police exploded one experimentally and said that it was powerful enough to kill a man.\u00a0 The so-called Stern gang of Palestine terrorists later claimed responsibility for having sent the letters from its \u201cbranch in Europe.\u201d\u00a0 The letters were postmarked from Italy.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n The same kind of terrorist letters had been found in the White House mail, and as a result the staff had been handling all letters with great care, thus slowing up the routine.\u00a0 So far as I know none of those received in this country resulted in an explosion, which may have been due to the excellent system introduced for handling the White House mail during the war.<\/span><\/p>\n Upon reading these two accounts, two questions come immediately to mind:\u00a0 Why is this attempted assassination of the president of the United States not common knowledge and what is the larger political context?\u00a0 That is to say, why would the Stern Gang want to kill President Truman?<\/span><\/p>\n Addressing the second question first, the reader can\u2019t help but note that the books use the identical vague term \u201cStern Gang of Palestine terrorists\u201d to refer to the perpetrators.\u00a0 One might get the impression that they were Palestinian terrorists, except for the fact that the Stern Gang is well known as a Jewish extremist group with a long string of murderous outrages to its credit (or discredit, if you prefer).\u00a0 Both accounts at least tell us that the White House bombs were part of a pattern, that similar attempts had previously been made by the Stern Gang upon various British officials.\u00a0 But their common purpose in telling us this is to explain why the White House was on alert for such bombs and was successful in interdicting them.\u00a0 They don\u2019t give us the slightest clue as to why the bombs might have been sent in the first place.<\/span><\/p>\n In 1946 the British were still in <\/span>political control of Palestine<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/a>, formerly ruled by the Ottomons, under an arrangement created in the wake of World War I and approved by the League of Nations in 1923.\u00a0 Prior to WW I, it should be pointed out, Palestine had been part of the Muslim <\/span><\/strong><\/span>Ottoman Syria<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/a> <\/span>since 1516, more than a century before the Pilgrims landed on Plymouth Rock, and before that it had been part of the Muslim <\/span>Mamluk Empire<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/a> centered in Egypt.\u00a0 The Zionist movement, led primarily by Jews from Eastern Europe, was determined to drive the British out and <\/span>terrorism<\/span><\/a> of all sorts\u2014assassinations, kidnappings, bombings, extortion, etc.\u2014was at the very core of the effort.<\/span><\/p>\n The problem with the British was that they were carrying out their commitment under the <\/span>Balfour Declaration<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/a> <\/span>far too conscientiously.\u00a0 \u00a0As a means of gaining support from world Jewry, especially in the United States and Russia, against their enemies in World War I, which included the Ottomon Empire, the Balfour Declaration endorsed the Zionist objective of a Jewish homeland in Palestine (still at that time under Ottomon control), \u201cit being clearly understood that nothing [would be] done which [would] prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine\u2026.\u201d\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n The Zionists wanted massive Jewish immigration from Europe and total political control of Palestine, with the apparent eventual goal of <\/span>supplanting<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/a> <\/span>the entire non-Jewish population from the area.\u00a0 Such policies would certainly have been\u2014and have been\u2014prejudicial in the extreme toward the rights of the locals, and the British refused to institute them, incurring the murderous wrath of the terrorist Stern Gang, which counted future Israeli Prime Minister <\/span>Yitzhak Shamir<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/a> <\/span>(born Icchak Jeziernicky) among its leaders and its brother in terror, <\/span><\/strong><\/span>Irgun<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/a>, one of whose leaders was future Prime Minister <\/span>Menachem Begin<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/a> <\/span>(born Mieczys\u0142aw Biegun).\u00a0 Why British government officials, and Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin in particular, would have been targeted for killing by the Zionist terrorists can be well appreciated by reference to <\/span>Bevin\u2019s Wikipedia page<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/a>.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Although the attempted assassinations in Britain were unsuccessful, the terror campaign against the British worked.\u00a0 The British gave up their mandate and turned the whole question of Palestine\u2019s future over to the United Nations to decide.\u00a0 Under heavy pressure from the United States, the majority of the UN General Assembly voted to partition Palestine into Jewish and non-Jewish sectors.\u00a0 This final arrangement, according to Bevin, was \u201c\u2026so manifestly unjust to the Arabs that it is difficult to see how we could reconcile it with our conscience.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Terror had worked on the British, but why would anyone have thought it necessary against President Truman, of all people?\u00a0 With a <\/span>village and an institute named for him<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/a> <\/span>there, he is regarded today as a hero in Israel for defying almost all his foreign policy advisers and <\/span>recognizing the new Jewish state of Israel<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/a> as soon as David Ben Gurion declared its existence in May of 1948. But in the summer of 1947 it was far from a foregone conclusion that Truman would come through for the Zionists.\u00a0 Some idea of his thinking on Palestine at the time can be gleaned from a letter he wrote to a friend, Edward W. Pauley, on October 22, 1946:<\/span><\/p>\n That situation is insoluble in my opinion.\u00a0 I have spent a year and a month trying to get some concrete action on it.\u00a0 Not only are the British highly successful in muddling the situation as completely as it could possibly be muddled, but the Jews themselves are making it almost impossible to do anything for them.\u00a0 They seem to have the same attitude toward the \u201cunderdog\u201d when they are on top as they have been treated as \u201cunderdogs\u201d themselves.\u00a0 I suppose that is human frailty.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u2013Robert H. Ferrell, Harry S. Truman, A Life <\/em>(1994), p. 307.<\/span><\/p>\n Some more evidence of his thinking in 1946 can be had from Truman\u2019s memoirs:<\/span><\/p>\n My efforts to persuade the British to relax immigration restrictions in Palestine might have fallen on more receptive ears if it had not been for the increasing acts of terrorism that were being committed in Palestine.\u00a0 There were armed groups of extremists who were guilty of numerous outrages.\u00a0 On June 16 eight bridges were blown up near the Trans-Jordan border, and two other explosions were set off in Haifa.\u00a0 The following day there was a pitched battle between Jews and British troops in Haifa, other explosions had started a fire and caused great damage in the rail yards there.\u00a0 British officers were kidnapped.\u00a0 Others were shot at from passing automobiles.\u00a0 Explosions took place in ever-increasing numbers, and the British uncovered a plot by one extremist group to kidnap the British commander in chief in Palestine.\u00a0 \u2013Memoirs of Harry S. Truman, Vol. 2, Years of Hope<\/em> (1956). pp. 150-151<\/span><\/p>\n Many of the signals being picked up by the Jewish leadership in the United States, as Truman expressed his exasperation over their heavy pressure campaign, could easily have made their way to the Stern Gang, persuading them that in this Missouri Baptist from a relatively humble background they had an American Bevin on their hands:<\/span><\/p>\n In June of 1946 he at first refused to see a delegation of all the New York Congressmen, and finally received them only with obvious impatience.\u00a0 He was no better when the two Senators from the state, [Robert] Wagner and [James] Mead, brought a former member of the <\/span>Anglo-American Committee of Enquiry<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/a> <\/span>(into Palestine) to see him.\u00a0 \u201cI am not a New Yorker,\u201d Truman is alleged to have told them.\u00a0 \u201cAll these people are pleading for a special interest.\u00a0 I am an American.\u201d \u2013 Roy Jenkins, Truman<\/em> (1986), p. 117<\/span><\/p>\n Particularly offensive to Truman was the attitude of <\/span>Rabbi Abba Hillel Silver<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/a> <\/span>of Cleveland, who, with <\/span>Stephen Wise<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/a>, was co-chairman of the American Zionist Emergency Council.\u00a0 A Republican and close ally of Senator Taft, Rabbi Silver had helped write a pro-Zionist plank in the 1944 Republican platform.\u00a0 At one point during a meeting in Truman\u2019s office, Silver had hammered on Truman\u2019s desk and shouted at him. \u201cTerror and Silver are the causes of some, if not all, of our troubles,\u201d Truman later said, and at one Cabinet meeting he reportedly grew so furious over the subject of the Jews that he snapped, \u201cJesus Christ couldn\u2019t please them when he was on earth, so how could anyone expect that I would have any luck.\u201d –David McCullough, Truman<\/em> (1992), p. 599<\/span><\/p>\n In 2006 The Times <\/em>of London had what appeared to be a <\/span>blockbuster revelation<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/a>: \u201cJewish terrorists plotted to assassinate Ernest Bevin, the foreign secretary, in 1946, as part of their campaign to establish the state of Israel, newly declassified intelligence files have shown.\u201d Five terrorist cells from the Stern Gang and Irgun were planning to descend upon London with bombings and assassinations, the MI5 files are said to have shown, but, in the end, only some 20 letter bombs were sent, with Bevin his Tory predecessor Anthony Eden mentioned as among the recipients.<\/span><\/p>\n The interesting thing here is that these are treated as brand new revelations, available only because some secret files have finally been declassified.\u00a0 But as we have seen, the essential facts about the letter bombs in Britain had been published\u2014with even more detail given\u2014in a book in the United States in 1949 and then repeated in outline form in a book by none other than the daughter of the American president.\u00a0 Another interesting fact is that the 2006 story in The Times<\/em> was not picked up by a single mainstream news organ in the United States and was even taken down from The Times\u2019 <\/em>web site within a couple of weeks.\u00a0 The only reason we still have the full story up on the Internet is that it was picked up by the alternative news organ Information Clearing House<\/em> (\u201cnews you won\u2019t find on CNN,\u201d indeed<\/em>).<\/span><\/p>\n The <\/span>Wikipedia page<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/a> <\/span>on the letter bomb is doubly revealing.\u00a0 First, for anyone entertaining the fantasy that a mere bomb small enough to be contained in a mail envelope is too trivial a thing to be treated as an assassination attempt, the list of historical examples given is instructive.\u00a0 The Unabomber, Theodore Kaczynski, killed three people and wounded 27 others with his mailed bombs, and the list is full of other instances of people killed or seriously maimed by them.<\/span><\/p>\n Perhaps even more interesting is that as of the date of the publication of this article, eighteen examples of the use of letter bombs are given, but the attacks on such important figures as Truman, Bevin and Eden are not mentioned.\u00a0 The list even includes an attack on a U.S. vice president in 1915.\u00a0 Since anyone can put information on Wikipedia as long as it meets that page\u2019s requirements for credibility\u2014which the foregoing revelations certainly do\u2014what we must conclude is that even with the 2006 report by The Times <\/em>and the 1972 book by Margaret Truman, the fact of Zionist terrorist letter-bomb attacks on major political leaders in Great Britain and the United States is still hardly known by anyone.<\/span><\/p>\n We have noted how the U.S. press suppressed the relatively recent news of the attempts on Bevin and Eden.\u00a0 Writers of history (or is it their publishers?), at least in the United States, are at least as guilty of withholding this information.\u00a0 Perhaps I did not search diligently enough, but the only Truman biography that I could find that mentioned the letter bomb attack on Truman was that of his daughter.\u00a0 All those biographies that I consulted were written after hers, and, for some reason, they apparently found this attempted assassination unworthy of mention.* \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Even someone as generally well informed about high level skulduggery as this writer had his scholarship diminished by his ignorance of the revelations in the Margaret Truman and Ira R. T. Smith books. When I learned of the Zionist attacks on Bevin et al., I wrote Part 4 of \u201cWho Killed James Forrestal?\u201d subtitled \u201c<\/span>Britain\u2019s Forrestal<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/a>,\u201d and included a section that reflected my ignorance entitled \u201cWho Knew?\u201d\u00a0 It is worth repeating in its entirety here:<\/span><\/p>\n Although it is apparent that those signers of the <\/span><\/strong><\/span>warning letter to The New York Times<\/em><\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/a> had no knowledge of the previous attempt on the life of Ernest Bevin, one must wonder who, outside the ranks of British intelligence, did know about it.\u00a0 In particular, we have to wonder if one so connected to the higher reaches of power in the world as Bernard Baruch, when he warned his friend Forrestal in February of 1949 that he had already become too identified with opposition to Israel for his own good, knew more than he was telling about the danger that Forrestal faced. \u00a0And when Forrestal complained about being followed and bugged, did he know that the Irgun crowd had come pretty close to snuffing out the life of his British counterpart?\u00a0 Could such knowledge have been behind his resistance to commitment to Bethesda Naval Hospital and his reported claim that he would never leave the hospital alive when he attempted to get out of the car taking him there?\u00a0 Might that have been the revelation from Secretary of the Air Force Symington on the day of Forrestal\u2019s departure from office that drove him into his sudden funk?\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n And after Forrestal\u2019s death, could there have been any doubt in the minds of those aware of the attempt on Bevin who had ultimately been behind the later crime?\u00a0 Might these have included those powerful friends such as Ferdinand Eberstadt and Robert Lovett, who had failed to visit him in the hospital and then, when the results of the investigation of his death were never made public, failed to register any public complaint?\u00a0 At the very least, those in the know included the contemporary and future leaders of Great Britain, and the knowledge that the leaders of the United States government had conspired with Zionist thugs in the assassination of the one courageous voice of reason in their midst would very likely have animated their own future Middle East policy.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Now we can see that those questions almost certainly answer themselves.\u00a0 Not only would such connected, well-informed people as Baruch, Forrestal, Eberstadt, and Lovett, have known about the Zionists\u2019 attempts to kill Bevin, they would in all likelihood have known about the attempts on Eden and Truman as well.\u00a0 But thanks to the controllers of information and molders of opinion in our society, most of the rest of us did not know.<\/span><\/p>\n Not only was my scholarship undermined by the general blackout of the news of the attempted Truman hit, but so, too, was that of Alison Weir, as reflected in her January article, \u201c<\/span>Bush & Obama?\u00a0 Assassination and U.S. Presidents<\/span><\/strong>.<\/span><\/a>\u201d\u00a0 Her article is about the public suggestion of a Jewish leader in Atlanta that Israel might consider assassinating a U.S. president deemed \u201cunfriendly to Israel.\u201d\u00a0 She observes that such a thing might not be all that farfetched by citing a <\/span><\/strong><\/span>1992 article<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/a> <\/span>by former Representative Paul Findley of Illinois in which he alleges that Israel, in fact, had pretty advanced plans in 1991 to assassinate President George H.W. Bush and blame it on Saddam Hussein.\u00a0 She notes, as well, that former Stern Gang leader Yitzhak Shamir was prime minister of Israel at the time.\u00a0 How much stronger would her case have been had she known about the attempt on Truman!<\/span><\/p>\n Even David Duke, in his video, \u201c<\/span>Israeli Deception against America<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/a>,\u201d as he details Israel\u2019s terrorist attacks against the United States, seems to be unaware of the attempt on the life of our president, unless his failure to mention it rests on the technicality that in 1947 the state of Israel was still a year away from its creation.<\/span><\/p>\n Reflecting on these matters, we are more and more convinced of the truth of the quote by Abraham Lincoln, with which we lead off \u201c<\/span>America\u2019s Dreyfus Affair, the Case of the Death of Vincent Foster<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/a>,\u201d\u00a0 \u201cIn this and like communities, public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it, nothing can succeed. Consequently, he who moulds public sentiment goes deeper than he who enacts statutes or pronounces decisions.\u201d\u00a0 And molding public sentiment begins with <\/span>controlling public information<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/a>.\u00a0 On no subject is information more controlled and public sentiment more manipulated than the subject of <\/span><\/strong><\/span>Israel and Palestine<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/a>Why Kill Truman?<\/h2>\n
Why Don\u2019t We Know?<\/h2>\n
![Ira R. T. Smith<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/a> (with Joe Alex Morris) in his 1949 book, Dear Mr. President \u2026 The Story of Fifty Years in the White House Mail Room.<\/em>\u00a0 Fortunately, that entire book is now <\/span>online here<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/a>.\u00a0 This is from pp. 229-230:<\/span><\/p>\nOn another occasion, in the summer of 1947 I was summoned back to Washington from my vacation because controversy over important issues, including the Palestine question, had greatly increased the volume of mail to the President.\u00a0 I was rather surprised that the volume should be more than could be handled routinely by the office but when I got back I found that not all the difficulty was due to volume.\u00a0 Some of the letters received had obviously been intended to kill.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\nThere had been a flurry in England in June of that summer because eight or more government officials and political personages had received terrorist letters in which explosives were cleverly concealed.\u00a0 Among those who got such letters were Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin, Colonial Secretary Arthur Creech Jones, President of the Board of Trade Sir Stafford Cripps, and former Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden.\u00a0 Cripps\u2019s secretary noticed that the letter he received was hot (police said later it was apparently about ready to explode) and he stuck it in water.\u00a0 Eden carried his letter unopened in his briefcase for twenty-four hours before a secretary, tipped off by police, found it.\u00a0 There were two envelopes, the outer one about eight by six inches and cream-colored.\u00a0 The inner envelope was marked \u201cPrivate and Confidential,\u201d presumably in an effort to see that it was opened by the man to whom it was addressed.\u00a0 Inside the second envelope was powdered gelignite, a pencil battery, and a detonator arranged to explode when the envelope was opened.\u00a0 Police exploded one experimentally and said that it was powerful enough to kill a man.\u00a0 The so-called Stern gang of Palestine terrorists later claimed responsibility for having sent the letters from its \u201cbranch in Europe.\u201d\u00a0 The letters were postmarked from Italy.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\nThe same kind of terrorist letters had been found in the White House mail, and as a result the staff had been handling all letters with great care, thus slowing up the routine.\u00a0 So far as I know none of those received in this country resulted in an explosion, which may have been due to the excellent system introduced for handling the White House mail during the war.<\/span><\/p>\nUpon reading these two accounts, two questions come immediately to mind:\u00a0 Why is this attempted assassination of the president of the United States not common knowledge and what is the larger political context?\u00a0 That is to say, why would the Stern Gang want to kill President Truman?<\/span><\/p>\nWhy Kill Truman?<\/h2>\nAddressing the second question first, the reader can\u2019t help but note that the books use the identical vague term \u201cStern Gang of Palestine terrorists\u201d to refer to the perpetrators.\u00a0 One might get the impression that they were Palestinian terrorists, except for the fact that the Stern Gang is well known as a Jewish extremist group with a long string of murderous outrages to its credit (or discredit, if you prefer).\u00a0 Both accounts at least tell us that the White House bombs were part of a pattern, that similar attempts had previously been made by the Stern Gang upon various British officials.\u00a0 But their common purpose in telling us this is to explain why the White House was on alert for such bombs and was successful in interdicting them.\u00a0 They don\u2019t give us the slightest clue as to why the bombs might have been sent in the first place.<\/span><\/p>\nIn 1946 the British were still in <\/span>political control of Palestine<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/a>, formerly ruled by the Ottomons, under an arrangement created in the wake of World War I and approved by the League of Nations in 1923.\u00a0 Prior to WW I, it should be pointed out, Palestine had been part of the Muslim <\/span><\/strong><\/span>Ottoman Syria<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/a> <\/span>since 1516, more than a century before the Pilgrims landed on Plymouth Rock, and before that it had been part of the Muslim <\/span>Mamluk Empire<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/a> centered in Egypt.\u00a0 The Zionist movement, led primarily by Jews from Eastern Europe, was determined to drive the British out and <\/span>terrorism<\/span><\/a> of all sorts\u2014assassinations, kidnappings, bombings, extortion, etc.\u2014was at the very core of the effort.<\/span><\/p>\nThe problem with the British was that they were carrying out their commitment under the <\/span>Balfour Declaration<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/a> <\/span>far too conscientiously.\u00a0 \u00a0As a means of gaining support from world Jewry, especially in the United States and Russia, against their enemies in World War I, which included the Ottomon Empire, the Balfour Declaration endorsed the Zionist objective of a Jewish homeland in Palestine (still at that time under Ottomon control), \u201cit being clearly understood that nothing [would be] done which [would] prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine\u2026.\u201d\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\nThe Zionists wanted massive Jewish immigration from Europe and total political control of Palestine, with the apparent eventual goal of <\/span>supplanting<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/a> <\/span>the entire non-Jewish population from the area.\u00a0 Such policies would certainly have been\u2014and have been\u2014prejudicial in the extreme toward the rights of the locals, and the British refused to institute them, incurring the murderous wrath of the terrorist Stern Gang, which counted future Israeli Prime Minister <\/span>Yitzhak Shamir<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/a> <\/span>(born Icchak Jeziernicky) among its leaders and its brother in terror, <\/span><\/strong><\/span>Irgun<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/a>, one of whose leaders was future Prime Minister <\/span>Menachem Begin<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/a> <\/span>(born Mieczys\u0142aw Biegun).\u00a0 Why British government officials, and Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin in particular, would have been targeted for killing by the Zionist terrorists can be well appreciated by reference to <\/span>Bevin\u2019s Wikipedia page<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/a>.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\nAlthough the attempted assassinations in Britain were unsuccessful, the terror campaign against the British worked.\u00a0 The British gave up their mandate and turned the whole question of Palestine\u2019s future over to the United Nations to decide.\u00a0 Under heavy pressure from the United States, the majority of the UN General Assembly voted to partition Palestine into Jewish and non-Jewish sectors.\u00a0 This final arrangement, according to Bevin, was \u201c\u2026so manifestly unjust to the Arabs that it is difficult to see how we could reconcile it with our conscience.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\nTerror had worked on the British, but why would anyone have thought it necessary against President Truman, of all people?\u00a0 With a <\/span>village and an institute named for him<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/a> <\/span>there, he is regarded today as a hero in Israel for defying almost all his foreign policy advisers and <\/span>recognizing the new Jewish state of Israel<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/a> as soon as David Ben Gurion declared its existence in May of 1948. But in the summer of 1947 it was far from a foregone conclusion that Truman would come through for the Zionists.\u00a0 Some idea of his thinking on Palestine at the time can be gleaned from a letter he wrote to a friend, Edward W. Pauley, on October 22, 1946:<\/span><\/p>\nThat situation is insoluble in my opinion.\u00a0 I have spent a year and a month trying to get some concrete action on it.\u00a0 Not only are the British highly successful in muddling the situation as completely as it could possibly be muddled, but the Jews themselves are making it almost impossible to do anything for them.\u00a0 They seem to have the same attitude toward the \u201cunderdog\u201d when they are on top as they have been treated as \u201cunderdogs\u201d themselves.\u00a0 I suppose that is human frailty.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u2013Robert H. Ferrell, Harry S. Truman, A Life <\/em>(1994), p. 307.<\/span><\/p>\nSome more evidence of his thinking in 1946 can be had from Truman\u2019s memoirs:<\/span><\/p>\nMy efforts to persuade the British to relax immigration restrictions in Palestine might have fallen on more receptive ears if it had not been for the increasing acts of terrorism that were being committed in Palestine.\u00a0 There were armed groups of extremists who were guilty of numerous outrages.\u00a0 On June 16 eight bridges were blown up near the Trans-Jordan border, and two other explosions were set off in Haifa.\u00a0 The following day there was a pitched battle between Jews and British troops in Haifa, other explosions had started a fire and caused great damage in the rail yards there.\u00a0 British officers were kidnapped.\u00a0 Others were shot at from passing automobiles.\u00a0 Explosions took place in ever-increasing numbers, and the British uncovered a plot by one extremist group to kidnap the British commander in chief in Palestine.\u00a0 \u2013Memoirs of Harry S. Truman, Vol. 2, Years of Hope<\/em> (1956). pp. 150-151<\/span><\/p>\nMany of the signals being picked up by the Jewish leadership in the United States, as Truman expressed his exasperation over their heavy pressure campaign, could easily have made their way to the Stern Gang, persuading them that in this Missouri Baptist from a relatively humble background they had an American Bevin on their hands:<\/span><\/p>\nIn June of 1946 he at first refused to see a delegation of all the New York Congressmen, and finally received them only with obvious impatience.\u00a0 He was no better when the two Senators from the state, [Robert] Wagner and [James] Mead, brought a former member of the <\/span>Anglo-American Committee of Enquiry<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/a> <\/span>(into Palestine) to see him.\u00a0 \u201cI am not a New Yorker,\u201d Truman is alleged to have told them.\u00a0 \u201cAll these people are pleading for a special interest.\u00a0 I am an American.\u201d \u2013 Roy Jenkins, Truman<\/em> (1986), p. 117<\/span><\/p>\nParticularly offensive to Truman was the attitude of <\/span>Rabbi Abba Hillel Silver<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/a> <\/span>of Cleveland, who, with <\/span>Stephen Wise<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/a>, was co-chairman of the American Zionist Emergency Council.\u00a0 A Republican and close ally of Senator Taft, Rabbi Silver had helped write a pro-Zionist plank in the 1944 Republican platform.\u00a0 At one point during a meeting in Truman\u2019s office, Silver had hammered on Truman\u2019s desk and shouted at him. \u201cTerror and Silver are the causes of some, if not all, of our troubles,\u201d Truman later said, and at one Cabinet meeting he reportedly grew so furious over the subject of the Jews that he snapped, \u201cJesus Christ couldn\u2019t please them when he was on earth, so how could anyone expect that I would have any luck.\u201d –David McCullough, Truman<\/em> (1992), p. 599<\/span><\/p>\nWhy Don\u2019t We Know?<\/h2>\nIn 2006 The Times <\/em>of London had what appeared to be a <\/span>blockbuster revelation<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/a>: \u201cJewish terrorists plotted to assassinate Ernest Bevin, the foreign secretary, in 1946, as part of their campaign to establish the state of Israel, newly declassified intelligence files have shown.\u201d Five terrorist cells from the Stern Gang and Irgun were planning to descend upon London with bombings and assassinations, the MI5 files are said to have shown, but, in the end, only some 20 letter bombs were sent, with Bevin his Tory predecessor Anthony Eden mentioned as among the recipients.<\/span><\/p>\nThe interesting thing here is that these are treated as brand new revelations, available only because some secret files have finally been declassified.\u00a0 But as we have seen, the essential facts about the letter bombs in Britain had been published\u2014with even more detail given\u2014in a book in the United States in 1949 and then repeated in outline form in a book by none other than the daughter of the American president.\u00a0 Another interesting fact is that the 2006 story in The Times<\/em> was not picked up by a single mainstream news organ in the United States and was even taken down from The Times\u2019 <\/em>web site within a couple of weeks.\u00a0 The only reason we still have the full story up on the Internet is that it was picked up by the alternative news organ Information Clearing House<\/em> (\u201cnews you won\u2019t find on CNN,\u201d indeed<\/em>).<\/span><\/p>\nThe <\/span>Wikipedia page<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/a> <\/span>on the letter bomb is doubly revealing.\u00a0 First, for anyone entertaining the fantasy that a mere bomb small enough to be contained in a mail envelope is too trivial a thing to be treated as an assassination attempt, the list of historical examples given is instructive.\u00a0 The Unabomber, Theodore Kaczynski, killed three people and wounded 27 others with his mailed bombs, and the list is full of other instances of people killed or seriously maimed by them.<\/span><\/p>\nPerhaps even more interesting is that as of the date of the publication of this article, eighteen examples of the use of letter bombs are given, but the attacks on such important figures as Truman, Bevin and Eden are not mentioned.\u00a0 The list even includes an attack on a U.S. vice president in 1915.\u00a0 Since anyone can put information on Wikipedia as long as it meets that page\u2019s requirements for credibility\u2014which the foregoing revelations certainly do\u2014what we must conclude is that even with the 2006 report by The Times <\/em>and the 1972 book by Margaret Truman, the fact of Zionist terrorist letter-bomb attacks on major political leaders in Great Britain and the United States is still hardly known by anyone.<\/span><\/p>\nWe have noted how the U.S. press suppressed the relatively recent news of the attempts on Bevin and Eden.\u00a0 Writers of history (or is it their publishers?), at least in the United States, are at least as guilty of withholding this information.\u00a0 Perhaps I did not search diligently enough, but the only Truman biography that I could find that mentioned the letter bomb attack on Truman was that of his daughter.\u00a0 All those biographies that I consulted were written after hers, and, for some reason, they apparently found this attempted assassination unworthy of mention.* \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\nEven someone as generally well informed about high level skulduggery as this writer had his scholarship diminished by his ignorance of the revelations in the Margaret Truman and Ira R. T. Smith books. When I learned of the Zionist attacks on Bevin et al., I wrote Part 4 of \u201cWho Killed James Forrestal?\u201d subtitled \u201c<\/span>Britain\u2019s Forrestal<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/a>,\u201d and included a section that reflected my ignorance entitled \u201cWho Knew?\u201d\u00a0 It is worth repeating in its entirety here:<\/span><\/p>\nAlthough it is apparent that those signers of the <\/span><\/strong><\/span>warning letter to The New York Times<\/em><\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/a> had no knowledge of the previous attempt on the life of Ernest Bevin, one must wonder who, outside the ranks of British intelligence, did know about it.\u00a0 In particular, we have to wonder if one so connected to the higher reaches of power in the world as Bernard Baruch, when he warned his friend Forrestal in February of 1949 that he had already become too identified with opposition to Israel for his own good, knew more than he was telling about the danger that Forrestal faced. \u00a0And when Forrestal complained about being followed and bugged, did he know that the Irgun crowd had come pretty close to snuffing out the life of his British counterpart?\u00a0 Could such knowledge have been behind his resistance to commitment to Bethesda Naval Hospital and his reported claim that he would never leave the hospital alive when he attempted to get out of the car taking him there?\u00a0 Might that have been the revelation from Secretary of the Air Force Symington on the day of Forrestal\u2019s departure from office that drove him into his sudden funk?\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\nAnd after Forrestal\u2019s death, could there have been any doubt in the minds of those aware of the attempt on Bevin who had ultimately been behind the later crime?\u00a0 Might these have included those powerful friends such as Ferdinand Eberstadt and Robert Lovett, who had failed to visit him in the hospital and then, when the results of the investigation of his death were never made public, failed to register any public complaint?\u00a0 At the very least, those in the know included the contemporary and future leaders of Great Britain, and the knowledge that the leaders of the United States government had conspired with Zionist thugs in the assassination of the one courageous voice of reason in their midst would very likely have animated their own future Middle East policy.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\nNow we can see that those questions almost certainly answer themselves.\u00a0 Not only would such connected, well-informed people as Baruch, Forrestal, Eberstadt, and Lovett, have known about the Zionists\u2019 attempts to kill Bevin, they would in all likelihood have known about the attempts on Eden and Truman as well.\u00a0 But thanks to the controllers of information and molders of opinion in our society, most of the rest of us did not know.<\/span><\/p>\nNot only was my scholarship undermined by the general blackout of the news of the attempted Truman hit, but so, too, was that of Alison Weir, as reflected in her January article, \u201c<\/span>Bush & Obama?\u00a0 Assassination and U.S. Presidents<\/span><\/strong>.<\/span><\/a>\u201d\u00a0 Her article is about the public suggestion of a Jewish leader in Atlanta that Israel might consider assassinating a U.S. president deemed \u201cunfriendly to Israel.\u201d\u00a0 She observes that such a thing might not be all that farfetched by citing a <\/span><\/strong><\/span>1992 article<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/a> <\/span>by former Representative Paul Findley of Illinois in which he alleges that Israel, in fact, had pretty advanced plans in 1991 to assassinate President George H.W. Bush and blame it on Saddam Hussein.\u00a0 She notes, as well, that former Stern Gang leader Yitzhak Shamir was prime minister of Israel at the time.\u00a0 How much stronger would her case have been had she known about the attempt on Truman!<\/span><\/p>\nEven David Duke, in his video, \u201c<\/span>Israeli Deception against America<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/a>,\u201d as he details Israel\u2019s terrorist attacks against the United States, seems to be unaware of the attempt on the life of our president, unless his failure to mention it rests on the technicality that in 1947 the state of Israel was still a year away from its creation.<\/span><\/p>\nReflecting on these matters, we are more and more convinced of the truth of the quote by Abraham Lincoln, with which we lead off \u201c<\/span>America\u2019s Dreyfus Affair, the Case of the Death of Vincent Foster<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/a>,\u201d\u00a0 \u201cIn this and like communities, public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it, nothing can succeed. Consequently, he who moulds public sentiment goes deeper than he who enacts statutes or pronounces decisions.\u201d\u00a0 And molding public sentiment begins with <\/span>controlling public information<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/a>.\u00a0 On no subject is information more controlled and public sentiment more manipulated than the subject of <\/span><\/strong><\/span>Israel and Palestine<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/a>](\"http:\/\/www.dcdave.com\/article5\/DearMrPresident.jpg\"){kind=link}