Zionist Terror in Headlines
There is so much to cover on the ongoing genocide in Gaza committed by Israeli forces - facilitated by munitions provided to the Israeli government by the US government, the UK government, and other European nation state leadership war criminals, complicit in the genocide. Note the language used in the opening paragraph of this post as necessary in being wary of the tyranny of words, by not conflating the people with their government.
Events have been spun, propagandised, and subdued. A revisionist history is being rewritten in real time to suit the agenda of the day - to obfuscate war crimes, or to justify them - in the eyes of the supportive mainstream media and their government sponsors.
Let us recap on the carnage in headlines - all linked to original sources plus PDFs of the articles embedded in this post for you to download if you wish. We conclude this piece by traveling back in time one hundred years ago, to examine the British government’s shocking influence on Zionism, as laid out in now declassified files, amplified by Thomas Suarez’s book - Palestine Hijacked: How Zionism Forged An Apartheid State From River to Sea…
These headlines are only covering the period of April to 6th June 2025, at the time of publishing this. Assuredly, many readers of this Substack will have also been keeping receipts of the entire timeline.
Palestine Hijacked: How Zionism Forged An Apartheid State From River to Sea
In chapter 2 - “With a stroke of a pen” - Suárez wrote in a footnote (pg30):
*While much of the Peel Commission’s proceedings has been long available, the full record of the “secret” testimony of witnesses was only formally declassified in 2017. “These copies…will, no doubt, be of considerable value to the historian of the remote future” — so wrote J.M. Martin, secretary to the Peel Commission, in an annotation dated 1/2/40 on the blank front leaf of copy FO 492/19. Eight decades later, we are now in that “remote future.” Martin states that 30 copies of the secret proceedings were printed, and that “the Commission didn’t even allow the witnesses to retain copies of the record of their own evidence.” On the same day, a second annotator confirmed that “10 spare copies only will be retained by the Library,” though in 1968 it was noted that “only 3 copies now held.” These correspond to FO 492/19, FO 492/20, FO 492/21: the author has checked all three.
Within the main body of this chapter, he wrote:
With the advantage of twenty years’ reflection, key players behind the Balfour declaration testified about it at the 1937 Peel Commission, convened to address the ongoing upheavals in Palestine that Zionist dispossession had caused in the interim.
David Lloyd George, Prime Minister when the declaration was signed, testified that “the Zionist leaders gave us a definite promise” that “they would do their best to rally Jewish sentiment and support throughout the world to the allied cause…if the British government were to declare their sympathy for a Jewish administration of Palestine.”
It was important to “rally Jewish sentiment,” he explained because in 1917 “there were no American divisions at the front…in the trenches…and we had every reason at the time to believe that in both countries the friendliness of hostility of the Jewish race might make a considerable difference.”
Winston Churchill testified the same. Zionism was embraced because “it was a potent factor on public opinion in America” from which “we gained great advantage in the war.”
But Horace Rumbold, who had been Britain’s ambassador in Berlin for the five years ending with Adolf Hitler’s rise to power in 1933, and who is remembered for his unvarnished warnings of Hitler’s ambitions, asked whether Zionist policy is worth “the lives of our men, and so on.” And did it follow, he asked Churchill, that having “conquered Palestine we can dispose of it as we like?”
Churchill replied to that and similar questions by repeating the deal with the Zionists: “We decided on the process of conquest of [Palestine] to make certain pledges to the Jews.”
The head of the commission, William Peel, was skeptical of this reasoning. He asked Churchill if it is not “a very odd self-government” when “it is only when the Jews are a minority that we can have it.”
Churchill never addressed the question, insisting instead that “we have every right to strike hard in support of our authority.” Yet when Peel pointed out that the Zionists were the cause of the present ethnic tensions, that “even the old [indigenous Palestinian] Jews who used to get on so well with the Arabs have now been roped into the hatred of the Arabs,” Churchill did not deny this. “It is a serious situation,” was his reply.
Reginald Copland, a historian, remarked that the “average Englishman” would wonder why the Arabs were being denied self-government, and why he had “to go on shooting the Arabs down because of keeping his promise to the Jews.”
Peel, similarly, asked Churchill if the British public:
“might get rather tired and rather inquisitive if every two or three years there was a sort of campaign against the Arabs and we sent out troops and shot them down? They would begin to enquire, “Why is it done? What is the fault of these people?…Why are you doing it? In order to get a home for the Jews?”
“And it would mean rather brutal methods,” added Laurie Hammond, who had worked with the British colonial administration in India. “I do not say the methods of the Italians at Addis Ababa,” referring to Benito Mussolini’s Ethiopian massacre of February 1937, “but it would mean the blowing up of villages and that sort of thing?” The British, he recalled, had blown up part of the Palestinian port city of Jaffa.
Peel agreed, and added that “they blew up a lot of [Palestinian] houses all over the place in order to awe the population. I have seen photographs of these things going up in the air.”
When Peel challenged Churchill’s remarks and questioned whether “it is not only a question of being strong enough,” but of the ethics of “downing” the Arabs who simply want to remain in their own country, Churchill lost patience.
“I do not admit that the dog in the manger has the final right to the manger,” he countered, “even though he may have lain there for a very long time.” He denied that “a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America, or the Black people of Australia,” by their replacement with “a higher grade race.”
Weizmann’s arguments at the hearings were of the same sort. He ridiculed the Palestinians’ desire for independence as “a crude imitation of the material side of European nationalism, very crude,” and mocked them for fearing that “we shall come and sweep them out of the country.”
VIDEO LINKS
Trump & Netanyahu discuss Gaza Takeover.
'YOU ARE A MONSTER' Protestors confront Blinken at the Atlantic Council.
Max Blumenthal confronts Blinken over Israel's Genocide.
Sam Husseini's Viral Confrontation With Blinken.
Nicholas Creed is a Bangkok based writer. If you donate a virtual coffee or crypto, it would help to keep the lights on.
Email: nicholas.creed@protonmail.com with information and newsworthy stories for open source intelligence gathering to support this Substack, thank you.
Bitcoin address:
bc1p0eujhumczzeh06t40fn9lz6n6z72c5zrcy0are25dhwk7kew8hwq2tmyqj
Monero address:
86nUmkrzChrCS4v5j6g3dtWy6RZAAazfCPsC8QLt7cEndNhMpouzabBXFvhTVFH3u3UsA1yTCkDvwRyGQNnK74Q2AoJs6
A terrific piece of writing - thank you.
I have trouble simply reading these accounts, and then my reactions are Biblical in the need for revenge and justice.
I'm a Brit, much to my shame, and like so many others, feel totally impotent in the face of such evil.
I wish I had something constructive to say. All I can do is thank you for your admirable work and wish you well.