DON BELL REPORTS

A WEEKLY COMMENTARY

Year Twenty-Seven ... Number Eleven ... March 14, 1980

Table of Contents

MUST CATASTROPHIC CARTER CARRY ON?

One day in May, 1977, Jimmy Carter approached the podium at Notre Dame University to announce a new foreign policy for the United States. He said it was to be a new policy for a "new world", one in which he was confident that "democracy's example would be compelling." This "new world" would be one in which "the unifying threat of conflict with the Soviet Union has become less intensive," a world where "we are now free of that inordinate fear of communism." In this new world we could begin to disarm. So, he cut some $59 billion from President Ford's six-year rearmament program. He abandoned the B-1 bomber and the M-1 missile, refused to deploy the neutron bomb. He was "confident that democratic methods are the most effective, and so we are not tempted to employ improper tactics here at home and abroad." Accordingly, he dismantled the CIA and the FBI, caused the records on communists, radicals and terrorists to be destroyed. Furthermore, as Tom Anderson noted: "Carter placed a number of anti-patriot peace-lovers in key positions in the already-leftist State Department. They were pacifistic arms control peace-niks, 'civil rights' activists and one-worlders. For instance, Andrew Young, who slandered our nation repeatedly before all the world; Richard Holbrooke, assistant secretary for East Asia .. who promotes cozying up to Red China; Richard Moose, assistant secretary for Africa who opposed our involvement in Soviet-Cuban takeovers in Africa .. PAul Warnke; .. Marshall Shulman, special adviser on the Soviet Union; .. Anthony Lake, policy planning chief, and enthusiastic advocate of human rights, third world and arms control; Patricia Derian, human rights director and former racial agitator in the South; and last but not least, there's Carter's foreign policy adviser Brzezinski, the 'hard-liner' son Communists."

And how did the Soviet Union react to this "new world" policy of appeasement? By rushing ahead full speed with every armament program they had -- especially naval and air weaponry. The Communist conducted coups, initiated invasions, used surrogates and Red-trained terrorist in Angola, Afghanistan, Cambodia, Ethiopia, Grenada, Nicaragua, Somalia, South Yemen, Zaire. Then Carter produced his own final efforts in creating his "new world": he produced Iran and Afghanistan.

Then came that day in December when Carter reversed himself and his foreign policy, announced a new Carter Doctrine. He told an interviewer: "My opinion of the Russians has changed more dramatically in the last week than at any time in the previous two and a half years before that .. the action of the Soviets had made a more dramatic change in my opinion of what the Soviet's ultimate goals are than anything they've done in the previous time that I've been in office." The man who said in May of 1977 that the Soviets no longer menaced us in the same old ways and that we could safely disarm, said in December of 1979 that we faced "the greatest crisis since World War II."

Could a leader who so misread (or lied about) the signs of the times, and who so jeopardized the security of our Nation continue to be trusted? Well, notice what has happened. Last August, just seven months ago, Kennedy led Carter in the political polls by two to one. Now, thanks to Carter's "production" of Iran and Afghanistan and his "new opinion of the Russians", there has been a complete reversal. Carter now leads Kennedy by more than two to one. Even when Carter ordered that anti-Israel vote in the United Nations, his political rating remained unchallenged. The vote for him in the Democratic primary in Miami -- second only to New York in its "Jewish population" -- amounted to a landslide. Any man who can go against the powerful Zionist lobby in Washington and still keep his political popularity is no bungling idiot. He has done more to destroy the integrity and honor of the United States than any previous President in our history. And yet, the Great American Majority is as clay in his hands!

This anti-Zionist uprising is important. Spotlight provides a background that was completely blacked-out by the controlled press. On January 12, a delegation of top-ranking officials from Saudi Arabia arrived in Washington to tell Carter, Vance and Brzezinski what was really going on in the Middle East. The Saudi delegation was headed by Deputy Premier Prince Abdelaziz, who commands the Saudi National Guard; and the Saudi foreign minister, Prince Faisal. They explained what their intelligence analysts had discovered. Using Iran and Afghanistan as screens to cover an even more important operation, the Soviets were planning a drive to secure absolute control of the vital Persian Gulf, through which all Mideast oil must pass. The Saudi delegation had aerial photographs proving that Soviets "Elint" vessels (ships that are designed to gather electronic intelligence) are stationed in the Straits of Hormuz. These ship are backed up by a task force of Krivak-class Soviet destroyers and by as many as 14 Soviet submarines based at Socotra Island and in the waters of the Indian Ocean. The Saudi officials pointed out that, since the Saudi army is less than 50,000 strong, if the West wished to prevent all the Middle East oil fields from falling into Soviet hands, help was needed. Then Vice Premier Abdelaziz added: "The worst immediate threat we face is not the Soviet armed forces. It is the continuing Palestine crisis, which is creating grave unrest and instability throughout the Middle East. The failure to heed the grievances of Palestine's Arab refugees, driven from their homes and treated like cattle by their Zionist conquerors, is like a festering and malignant wound in the Arab body politic. It aggravates extremism, incites students to violence, encourages terrorism, and provides the Soviets with their best argument against the United States. The U.S. must no longer slavishly support Zionism, it must give a fair hearing and equitable treatment to the Arab cause, otherwise the Middle East will fall to the Soviets." (Unquote).

That was the challenge. Something had to be done to appease the Arabs. So, on March 1, the delegates of the 15-member nations of the United Nations Security Council met to approve a resolution condemning Israel's settlements in the occupied areas, including the former Arab sector of Jerusalem. Previous resolutions of this nature had been passed, and the United States had always abstained from voting. This time, however, the Saudi Arabian warning, plus the Soviet presence in the Persian Gulf, made a vote seem mandatory. It was a matter of oil interests vs. Zionist interests. And this time the oil interests had to appear to win. So the U.S. voted with the other 14 nations, condemning Israel. The Zionist lobby was flabbergasted. Never had any U.S. President ever dared to stand officially against the Zionist lobby. Of course, this President didn't stand long. Almost immediately, Cyrus Vance said it was a mistake, and his fault. But this wasn't sufficient to please the lobby. Carter had to apologize, and say it was high responsibility, which he did. The New York Times on March 9 reported: "The President confirmed reports that he had met privately with Ephraim Evron, the Israeli Ambassador on Monday afternoon to discuss the resolution and to advise him of the disavowal that was to be issued that night. Such a meeting between the President and an individual ambassador is highly unusual and reflects the special status of the Israel with the United States and the extraordinary sensitivity of issues that affect Israel during an election year."

Commenting on the incident, Newsweek reported: "Suddenly it was the Arabs' turn to feel betrayed, and they were handed over new evidence for their old charge that U.S. Mideast policy is in thrall to Israeli pressure. 'There's now a real crisis of credibility,' warned one senior Egyptian official. At the same time, the Israelis were hardly mollified. 'What matters is that the U.S. cast an affirmative vote in the U.N.,' insisted Prime Minister Menachem Begin ... 'The rest of the talk is unimportant.' Concluded a weary McHenry 'We woud up with the worst of both worlds'." (unquote)

Said Spotlight: "Carter's 'discovery' of the 'error' came as no surprise to seasoned political pundits, who know that the entire administration, from the White House to very top bureaucracy, is filled with political Zionists. "A political Zionist is a person who professes dual loyalty, loyalty both to the United States and to Israel. Where interests clash, the political Zionist is prone to put the interests of Israel ahead of those of the United States. This clash of interests resolves itself into a battle between the "black gold" interests and the yellow gold interests. According to many qualified observes, this is an economic and monetary battle between the oil-rich Arabs and the Israelis, with the Soviets standing by to take advantage of the clash. All of this puts Carter between the proverbial "devil and the deep blue sea." He must protect Arabs' interest because of Rockefeller's oil which we need; but he must not offend Rothschild's Israel, because the Zionists have the votes which can keep him in the White House or vice versa. To intensity Carter's dilemma, his administration is loaded with Trilateralist Commissioners who must be kind to the Arabs; but it also is filled with Zionists who demand that Israel be treated as our fifty-first State. To further complicate the situation, many Trilateralists are Zionists and many Zionists are Trilateralists. So the quandry becomes a catastrophe for Carter. Among the Zionists in his administration are Stuart Eisenstat, Carter's domestic adviser; Harold Brown, Secretary of Defense; Sol Linowitz, special envoy to the Middle East; Arthur Goldberg, on the President's Commission on the Holocaust, which spends millions perpetuating the holocaust theory; Jerome Kurtz of IRS who has renewed his war against private and church schools; Michael Pertschuk, Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission; Alice Rivlin, Director of the Congressional Budget Office; Philip Klutznik, new Secretary of Commerce; Alfred Kahn, Carter's economic adviser, etc.

Carter's dilemma intensified on Wednesday, March 12. Possibly as a rebuke to Carter because of his "error" with the UN resolution, the Israeli government suddenly seized another 1,000 acres of Arab land in occupied East Jerusalem. It was said to be the first stage of a new Israeli settlement plan for another 10,000 housing units which are to be built in that area. This put Carter on the spot once again. Votes or no votes, Begin's government had to be rebuked. So, Hodding Carter, stand-in for Jimmy Carter, issued the following statement:

"Our position has consistently been that the future of the occupied areas must be settled in the course of the negotiations for a comprehensive peace .. it is of the utmost importance to avoid any unilateral action which undermines these delicate negotiations or prejudices their outcome." Carter went on to say that the new Israeli land seizure was "illegal" and "interefered with the peace process in the Middle East." So Jimmy Carter is right back where he started; he must protect the Arab's interests without breaking his promise to the Zionists; that he will 'protect Israel at any cost' to the United States. As the black pawn in the game -- Ambassador Donald McHenry -- remarked, "We wound up with the worst of two worlds." Which poses the question asked in the title to this Report: "Must Catastrophic Carter Carry On?" The people's response in primary elections this year seems to answer "yes." It's a matter of religion. People, generally speaking, are worshipping "other gods" (humanism, money, materialism), and it is the "Conspiracy" that provides the churches and the priests. We approve of the way this is explained by Kevin Craig in the March issue of The Chalcedon Report (P.O. Box 158, Vallecito, California 95251). We quote:

That's why Carter can carry on. Only when this Nation returns to the faith of its founders will the Conspiracy be defeated. We can but pray that the day will come when Americans will know the Truth, and the Truth will make them free.

Extra copies of this Newsletter: 1 copy: 25 cents, 10 copies: $1.50, 20 copies: $3.00, 30 copies: $4.50, 40 copies: $6.00, 50 copies: $7.50, 100 copies: $10.00. More than 100 copies: 10 cents each. Please include extra if 1st class postage is desired. Subscription rates: $24 per year. Foreign airmail: $30 per year. DON BELL REPORTS Weekly, emphasizing the Christian American point of view. Address all orders: DON BELL REPORTS, P.O. BOX 2223, PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33480

Back to Top