Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews, Volume 1 (61 page)

What more could he have done? The answer is another question.

How would Truman have responded if Forrestal, shortly after his lunch with Baruch, had gone quietly to him and said something like the following: “Mr. President, I believe that continued support for Zionism right or wrong for reasons of short-term, domestic political considerations will have catastrophic consequences for America in the longer term... and also the Free World as a whole and ultimately the Jews of the world. I feel it would be a gross dereliction of duty on my part if I did not say this to you, and I regret that I will be obliged to resign if you are not prepared to insist that the Palestine problem be taken out of U.S. domestic politics, to enable us to solve this problem before it becomes unmanageable—for future generations if not us.”

In that light it’s not unreasonable to speculate that Forrestal might have gone to his grave tormented by the belief that he could and should have fought longer and harder, to the point of resignation if necessary, for the Palestine problem to be taken out of partisan American domestic politics.

There is no way of knowing how President Truman would have responded to such an ultimatum from America’s first Secretary of Defence. He might have found the courage to confront Zionism or he might not.

But now the question. Did Forrestal really commit suicide, or, was he strangled with the sash of his bathrobe and bundled out of the window by a person or persons unknown?

A reviewer of all the evidence with regard to the assertions that Forrestal committed suicide and the lack of evidence, is David Martin as mentioned above. He describes himself as a Washington economist and political commentator whose media career went into “abeyance” because of his preference for truth, and who, as a consequence, found himself “on freedom’s last redoubt, the Internet.” His Internet file
Who Killed James Forrestal?
is comprehensively sourced and fully documented when he is quoting from newspapers, books and official documents. I accessed his work by putting “David Martin also known as DCDave” into Google’s search box; and my readers can do the same if they wish.

As Martin notes, one of several reasons for legitimate doubt about the assertion that Forrestal committed suicide lies in the fact that the Navy kept the full transcript of its official investigation and report secret for 55 years.

The review board to investigate the first U.S. Secretary of Defence’s death was appointed the day after it, on 23 May 1949, by Admiral Morton D. Willcutts, the head of the National Naval Medical Center. The board completed its work eight days later on 31 May, but its brief summary report of five points in 17 lines was not published until 11 October. No explanation was offered for the delay. Despite the fact that the media had conditioned the public to believe that Forrestal had taken his own life, there was no conclusion or even a mention of suicide in the board’s summary report. As reported by
The New York Times
on 12 October, it merely stated that Forrestal had died “as a result of injuries, multi extreme, received incident to a fall from a highpoint in the tower, Building 1.”

In other words, the notion that Forrestal committed suicide was a media assertion—a Zionist-driven assertion?—and nothing else.

The summary report did not address the matter of what might have caused Forrestal to fall or the fact, confirmed by the coroner, that when his broken body was recovered from the third-floor passageway roof on which it landed—skull crushed, abdomen split and lower left leg severed—the sash from his bathrobe was still wound tightly around his neck. In the media- asserted version of how Forrestal committed suicide, he took the sash from his bathrobe, tied one end to the radiator under the window and the other around his neck, opened a securely locked window and climbed out. The obvious implications are that he was intending to hang himself and fell only because either the sash could not take the strain of his weight or he made a lousy job of tying it to the radiator. There was no evidence of any kind that a sash had been tied to the radiator.

The complete report of the review board was not made public until April 2004 and even then its most important exhibit—Forrestal’s alleged handwriting on the night of his death—would not have been released (would have remained secret, probably for all of time) but for the fact that Martin succeeded on his third attempt to make the Freedom of Information Act work for complete and full disclosure.

As Martin subsequently noted in his Internet file: “Among the discrepancies between the report and the accounts given in the principal Forrestal biographies are that the transciption of the poem by Sophocles
appears to many to have been written in a hand other than Forrestal’s
.” (Emphasis added).

There is no evidence of any kind to support the notion that before his death Forrestal was reading a book of poems and copying or transcribing by hand lines from one of them. As Martin also notes: “The book of poems, which was described in great detail in the newspapers, down to the colour of its binding, does not show up in the exhibits at all.” And not one witness who appeared before the review board had seen the book.

What did show up (the exhibit Martin forced into the open by making best use of the Freedom of Information Act) was a piece of brown paper on which it was asserted that Forrestal had written the lines from the Sophocles poem. Martin compared that handwriting with various letters Forrestal was known to have written. He concluded: “It [the handwriting of the exhibit] doesn’t look the least bit like Forrestal’s handwriting, as one can plainly see at
http://www.dcdave.com/article4/041103.htm
.”

In his Internet file, under the heading
The Cover-up Collapses,
Martin added the following:

One hardly needs an expert to tell him that the person who transcribed the poem is not the same person who wrote the various letters that are known to have been written by Forrestal. The most obvious difference is that Forrestal writes his words and letters straight up and down, while the poem transcriber writes with a more conventional, consistent lean to the right. Forrestal, on the other hand, is more conventional in how he writes his small r’s, making either a single hump or an almost imperceptible double peak, while the transcriber has a very distinctive, exggerated first peak in almost every one he makes. The transcriber is a very conventional “archer” in the manner in which he makes his small m’s and n’s. Forrestal, on the other hand, is a typical “swagger”, sagging down between peaks, as opposed to rounding over arches.

What’s most amazing is the complete brazenness on display.
One can truly say that the transciption of “Chorus of Ajax” is not a forgery.
Not the slightest effort was made to mimic James Forrestal’s handwriting.
The perpetrators must have been completely confident that no attempt would be made by the Navy to authenticate the note, and, in fact, that no question would ever be raised either by the press or anyone with a public forum as to the authenticity of the handwriting in the transcription. (Emphasis added).

On the matter of the handwriting, a possible conclusion invited, or so it seems to me, is that the story of Forrestal and Sophocles’s dark and solemn poem was fabricated to create the impression that Forrestal had written an implied suicide note.

The complete report of the review board also revealed a fact that had not previously been reported and, so far as I am aware, was not reported by the media after it was revealed. Broken glass was found in Forrestal’s bed. That could be indicative of a struggle, violent at least to some degree.

There are two other observations by Martin which I think should be considered by all with doubts about the circumstances of Forrestal’s death.

For over a year he had been subject to a vilification campaign in the press the like of which hardly any public figure has ever had to endure in America. Leading the campaign, from the left and the right respectively, were America’s two best known and most powerful syndicated columnists, Drew Pearson and Walter Winchell. They painted Forrestal as a corrupt tool of Wall Street and the oil companies who put the interests of his cronies ahead of concern for the wellbeing of refugees from European persecution. [Elsewhere Martin noted that Pearson’s protégé, Jack Anderson, later asserted that Pearson “hectored Forrestal with innuendos and false accusations.”] His big offense was that he was outspoken in his opposition to the creation of the state of Israel. He had received threatening telephone calls and complained of being followed and electronically bugged.

Author Arnold Rogow wrote
James Forrestal, A Study of Personality, Politics and Policy
(Macmillan,1963). Relying largely on information obtained in interviews with some of Forrestal’s fiercest critics inside and outside the Truman administration, the book supported the theory that Forrestal committed suicide. But even Rogow was to state in a note on page 181 of his book that “it is entirely possible that he (Forrestal) was ‘shadowed’ by Zionist agents in 1947 and 1948.”

A possible implication by extension and within the context of the whole Forrestal story is that Zionist agents of one sort or another might have been involved in Forrestal’s death. Some and perhaps many readers will be outraged by that observation of mine, but there are facts to be faced. One, generally speaking, and as we have seen and will see, is that Zionism has resorted to targeted assassinations when it considered they would serve its purpose, still does resort to targeted assassinations and probably always will. Another fact, a particular one revealed by documents de-classified in 2006, is that British intelligence thwarted a very serious attempt by Begin’s Irgun to assassinate Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin in 1946.

Martin also offered this observation:

One might argue that because Israel had already been recognised by the United States by the time Forrestal died, and because he had been removed from the Truman cabinet and discredited by his breakdown and hospitalization, he was no longer a threat to supporters of Israel. But he was a man of prominence, wealth and determination who intended to buy a newspaper and write a book that threatened to expose a number of Roosevelt- Truman administration secrets, especially related to the machinations that brought the United States into World War II and the wartime policies that advanced the interests of the Soviet Union. His voluminous diary was confiscated by the Truman White House and its full contents have never been revealed. [As we have seen, Millis maintained that it was on Forrestal’s own instructions that his diaries and documents were sent to the White House for safekeeping. Millis and Martin can’t both be right].

In the jury of my own mind, the answer to the question of whether Forrestal committed suicide or was murdered is an open one.

By the time of Forrestal’s death Zionism’s child was one year old and had established itself as the military master of the region; and it had done so in a manner that gave substance to Forrestal’s fear that the surrender to Zionism might well come to be viewed as the most monumental and catastrophic failure of government in America’s history.

By the end of its first year of its existence Israel had:

• Won its “war of independence”;
  

• Was in occupation of more Arab land than had been allotted to the Jewish state in the vitiated partition plan; and
  

• Having created the Palestinian refugee problem was rejecting the international effort, supported initially by President Truman, to solve it.
  

In the course of the first three chapters of Volume Two of this book, we shall see how these developments came about; and how the bullets fired by a Zionist assassin killed the prospect of a solution to the Palestinian refugee problem before it became, together with Israel’s arrogance of power, the source of unending and escalating conflict; with the real prospect of it going all the way to Armageddon.

1
     So far as I am aware the term “Israeli occupied” media was first coined by Philip Giraldi in an article posted on
Anti-War.com
on 12 August 2008. It was subsequently used by a number of commentators.

2
     Arabs as well as Jews are Semites, so unless qualified anti-Semitism means prejudice against and even hatred of Jews
and
Arabs. In this book I follow common practise in the Western world and use the term anti-Semitism as though it means only prejudice against and even hatred of Jews.

3
     Hajo G. Meyer,
An Ethical Tradition Betrayed, The End of Judaism
(G. Meyer Books, 2008).

4
     Ilan Pappe,
The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine
(Oneworld Publications Limited, October 2006).

1
     Golda Meir, interview with author for BBC’s Panorama programme, April 1971

2
     Lenni Brenner,
Zionism in the Age of the Dictators
(UK Croom Helm, 1983), Preface.

3
     Alfred M. Lilienthal,
The Zionist Connection II: What Price Peace?
(North American, 1982), pp. 403–404.