|
The Old Zionist Smear
Machine
General Patrick J. Hurley in 1932
The
1943
report of special envoy to the Middle East,
General Patrick J. Hurley, to President Franklin D. Roosevelt opposing Zionists
ambitions in Palestine, produced a predictable response among certain adherents
to that cause in the United States. Here is how Hurley's biographer, Don
Lohbeck, described it:
Another faction within the State Department
(besides the pro-imperialists and the pro-Communists ed.) that was more
concerned with promoting the interests of a foreign group than in protecting the
interests of the United States was the pro-Zionist element--and, because of
Hurley's refusal to endorse the Zionist program for the imposition of a Jewish
state on the inhabitants of Palestine, they joined in attempting to destroy his
influence with the President and smear him out of any position of national
importance....
The formula was simple. First,
Hurley's opponents in the State Department "leaked" secret information to
selected columnists and commentators; second, this information was
published in a twisted and perverted form, veiled with mysterious innuendoes
that actually said nothing but implied all manner of evil things; third,
political pressure groups tried to have Hurley removed from all positions of
influence on the basis of the false charges and innuendoes.
First:
unnamed government officials supplied propagandist
Drew Pearson with
confidential information from General Hurley's report to Roosevelt on his
interview with
King Ibn Saud.
Second: on August 17, the following
paragraph appeared in Pearson's newspaper column:
Ibn Saud, now recognized as the most
powerful of all Arabs, gave Hurley some strong words against the Jews in
Palestine, saying he was determined to drive them from all Arab lands. Hurley
reported that he had told Ibn Saud diplomatically that he was in agreement.
Third: two days later, the Zionist
Congressman from New York, Emanuel Celler, picked up the smear campaign and
"threatened to seek a Congressional investigation of the activities of three
State Department employees unless the State Department 'ceases its absurd
opposition to Palestine as a haven for the Jews.'" In a letter to Roosevelt,
Celler said:
I cannot remain silent in the face of the
brazen betrayal of Palestine by the British Foreign Office. I cannot bite my
tongue any longer while Jew-haters, many of whom are Roosevelt-baiters, grin
like Cheshire cats at the abetting of this betrayal by some of our own officials
in the State Department.
Celler named General Patrick J. Hurley,
Harold Hoskins (formerly executive assistant to Assistant Secretary of State
Adolf A. Berle, Jr.), and Wallace Murray (State Department adviser on political
relations) as among those "who have contributed their bit to the betrayal of
Palestine." He further charged:
Hurley
has been wined and dined by the self-alleged friend of the Allies, King Ibn
Saud, and has contracted thereby a severe case of myopia, capable of focusing
his vision in the one direction only as indicated by his host.
As the charge of anti-semitism (sic)
continued, and others joined in the smear campaign, Hurley felt compelled to
discuss the matter with the President. On August 20, he wrote to Roosevelt as
follows:
This letter is for the purpose of keeping
the record straight.
I rendered a written report to you on my
conversations with His Majesty Ibn Saud, King of Saudi Arabia. I amplified that
report verbally in a conference with you....
King Ibn Saud never made any such statement
to me [as printed by Drew Pearson] and I never made any such reply to the King.
I did not report to you or to anyone else any such conversation.
The balance of Mr. Pearson's column above
referred to on the Arab-Jewish policy is also false as far as I am concerned.
From Mr. Pearson's column and from the
Washington Daily News of August 19th, I notice that certain Congressmen
and Senators, especially Congressman Emanuel Celler of New York, have made
various false charges against me, all I presume, based on the Pearson
falsehood. In addition to all that, they threaten me with a Congressional
investigation. Besides that which is appearing in the press, I am receiving
letters from Zionist Jews. Every one of these contains an attack or at least
language that is intimidating. I am being baited by the Jews.
I am not at all worried or even annoyed by
these false accusations. I feel, however, that the purpose of this falsehood is
to injure my relations and, more important, the relations of the United States
with the King of Saudi Arabia. The latter at this time might, as you know,
cause some delays and embarrassment. In justice to King Ibn Saud I think it
should be repeated here that the falsehoods published by Mr. Pearson and his
backers do unjustly misrepresent the King. King Ibn Saud expressed to me the
most kindly solicitude for the welfare of the Jewish communities in the Arab
nations. The Arabs always speak of the Jews as their kins-people. The king,
however, is opposed to giving a Jewish minority control over an Arab majority in
any Arab nation.
In
my written report to you I did not detail my conversations with King Ibn Saud on
the Palestine problem. I merely said that the King's attitude on that subject
had been published in an interview in Life Magazine and had been
expressed in a letter to you personally. All of this occurred before I
conferred with the King.
All this makes more absurd the Jewish
attack on me. Notwithstanding this I have not answered any of the letters, nor
have I replied to any of the attacks that have been published. As your personal
representative I have determined to discuss the subject only with you.
To which letter President Roosevelt replied
as follows:
PERSONAL AND
CONFIDENTIAL
August 30, 1943
Dear Pat:
Thanks for yours of August nineteenth
referring to a printed story in Drew Pearson's column. You are quite right in
answering none of the letters from Jews or others who believe Drew Pearson's
columns.
His ill-considered falsehoods have come to
the point where he is doing much harm to his own Government and to other
nations. It is a pity that anyone anywhere believes anything that he writes.
So much for Mr. Drew Pearson.
Always sincerely,
(s) FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT
Patrick J. Hurley
(Chicago: Henry Regnery Company, 1956), pp. 198-201
General Hurley's frank description
of perhaps the most influential columnist of the 1940s and 1950s as
"propagandist Drew Pearson" was most apt. The following notation appeared at
the bottom of an
anti-Zionist article written by John Mitchell
Henshaw in the spring of 1968: "The late John Henshaw was chief legman for
columnist Drew Pearson, who later broke with Pearson. At that time, Henshaw’s
expenses were paid by the Anti-Defamation League, a lobby for Israel, which had
a "special relationship" with Pearson. Thus Henshaw’s Middle East insights are
unique."
Pearson was also responsible for
the phony story after James Forrestal's death from a fall from a 16th floor
window of the Bethesda Naval Hospital that he had made four "previous" suicide
attempts and that, before being "treated" at Bethesda, Forrestal had run from
his villa at Hobe Sound, Florida, in the middle of the night exclaiming, "The
Russians are coming." (See
"Who
Killed James Forrestal?" and
"James
Carroll on James Forrestal".) No one worked
harder to sell the story that the strongly anti-Zionist and anti-Communist
Forrestal killed himself than did the propagandist Pearson.
David Martin, November 8, 2006
All Pictures Were Added To This Article
By Gnostic Liberation Front.

Ibn Saud of Saudi Arabia and FDR
at Cairo, 1945; FDR promised American Friendship
|