Editor’s note: This post originally appeared on David’s Tent, a ministry of Israeli believers Avner and Rachel Boskey. The Boskey’s have ministered at Tabernacle of David, and we consider them trustworthy and Biblically sound.
Sometimes the stout-hearted can learn from history. There are certainly enough examples which might grant wisdom to those who so desire. Indeed, the present superpower machinations and intrigue surrounding the Middle East – with the focus here on jihadi forces versus Israel – have some sobering lessons to impart, for those who have eyes to see.
But to take instruction, one has to clean out one’s ears and polish one’s spectacles. Preconceived ideas of which world powers are the heroes and which are only partly heroic – these perspectives may need to be deposited in the cubicles at the doors of the classroom, in order to more clearly discern what is truly taking place. Under the glare of history’s microscope, heroes sometimes turn out to be anti-heroes, while those who are universally castigated often turn out to be the true champions.
This newsletter examines five such cases:
- former US President Lyndon B. Johnson and his perspectives on Greece and Cyprus in 1965
- former American Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and his realpolitik towards Cyprus and Turkey in 1974
- former American Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and his realpolitik towards Israel in 1975
- British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain and his fateful decisions regarding Sudetenland, Czechoslovakia and Adolf Hitler in 1938
- US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken and his ‘bagman’ activities regarding the shaping of Israeli strategic and American domestic politics between 2020-2024
“America is an elephant – Cyprus is a flea – Greece is a flea”
At one point in the career of the rough-talking Texan who became POTUS, Lyndon Baines Johnson addressed some fiery words to Alexander Matsas, Greece’s Ambassador to Washington. The context was a June 1964 US-Greek disagreement concerning the fate of Cyprus (as quoted in ‘I Should Have Died’ (1977), Philip Deane, pp. 113-114):
- “Then listen to me, Mr. Ambassador: F*** your parliament and your constitution. America is an elephant. Cyprus is a flea. Greece is a flea. If these two fleas continue itching the elephant, they may just get whacked good . . . We pay a lot of good American dollars to the Greeks, Mr. Ambassador. If your Prime Minister gives me talk about democracy, parliament and constitution, he, his parliament and his constitution may not last long.”
On April 21, 1967, a military junta led by three Greek Generals took over Greece in a coup. The CIA was certainly involved in encouraging these leaders, and LBJ’s earlier comments take on a more menacing air in this context.
“There is no American reason why the Turks should not have one-third of Cyprus”
In 1974, a fascinating document archived at the US National Security Advisor’s Memoranda of Conversation Collection (situated at the University of Michigan’s Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library in Ann Arbor, Michigan) throws light on how the United States government views power politics and warlike moves against its own allies. The US at that time related to the Greek military dictatorship as an ally. Yet they also stationed nuclear weapons at Incirlik Air Base, Turkey after 1958. Today there are purportedly 90 B61 gravity bombs on site. The US strategic game-plan involved dealing simultaneously with two mortal enemies – Turkey and Greece. Yet ultimately, the American cards were stacked in favor of the Turks.
In Secretary of State Henry Kissinger’s discussion with the POTUS Ford, Kissinger stated quite flatly:
“We would have our hands full to keep the Greeks from going to war. The Turks right now are extremely nationalistic. For a few years ago, the Turkish tactics are right – grab what they want and then negotiate on the basis of possession . . . But if the Turks run loose on Cyprus, the Greeks could come unglued. We certainly do not want a war between the two, but if it came to that, Turkey is more important to us . . . There is no American reason why the Turks should not have one-third of Cyprus.”
- American public avowals of loyalty do not always stand the test of a good crisis. All allies of the US should remind themselves of this unappetizing fact on a daily basis.
“We can reduce Israel’s size to historic proportions”
The long-term heart and strategy of the US State Department regarding its end-game for Israel is no secret. On December 17, 1975 US Secretary of State Dr. Henry Kissinger met S’adun Hammadi, Iraq’s Minister of Foreign Affairs at the Iraqi Ambassador’s residence on Rue d’Andigne, Paris. In that meeting Kissinger communicated a ‘no-nonsense’ US foreign policy regarding Israel:
- “Israel does us more harm than good in the Arab world”
- “We can’t negotiate about the existence of Israel but we can reduce its size to historical proportions”
- “So I think in ten to fifteen years Israel will be like Lebanon – struggling for existence, with no influence in the Arab world”
- “If the issue is the existence of Israel, we can’t cooperate. But if the issue is more normal borders, we can cooperate”
- “I think the Palestinian identity has to be recognized in some form … (It) will be a tremendous fight … (but) no solution is possible without it”
This State Department realpolitik position still informs the thinking of American diplomats and politicians today: Israel’s borders must be shrunk in order to weaken its military and political standing in the Middle East, and a Palestinian state needs to be established on land which has been pried away from Israeli control. An awareness of these anti-biblical schemes can help intercessors to pray for leaders and diplomats in the US and elsewhere, for these talking points are part and parcel of British, European and Russian strategies as well.
The betrayal by the West
Adolf Hitler had plans to swallow up Europe piece by piece. One of the largest initial pieces was the Sudetenland – territories in Czechoslovakia to where a significant number of Germans laborers had moved, seeking work and new opportunities. The Führer threatened Continental Europe with war if Sudetenland were not given to him in appeasement.
Chamberlain believed that negotiations with Hitler could avoid a World War. His impression was that Hitler could turn out to be a man of peace. “In spite of the hardness and ruthlessness I thought I saw in his face, I got the impression that here was a man who could be relied upon when he had given his word.”
To avoid war, France and the United Kingdom permitted Nazi Germany to incorporate the Sudetenland. In meetings at the Munich Conference with Hitler on September 15th (Berchtesgaden, Bavaria), 22nd (Rheinhotel Dreesen, Rüngsdorf, Bad Godesberg) and 29th (the Führerbau, Munich), Chamberlain was manipulated and bullied into finally abandoning England’s Czechoslovak ally to the tender mercies of the Nazi juggernaut. The representatives of Czechoslovakia were not allowed to take part in any negotiations due to Hitler’s refusal to allow their participation, as their homeland was drawn and quartered by Europe’s Great Powers. Up to that point the Czechs had refused to bow to any form of diplomatic surgery, preferring to trust in their small though well-trained army and in their political alliances with France and the Soviet Union.
The Munich Agreement was signed at 01:30 on September 30, 1938 by Hitler, British PM Sir Neville Chamberlain, Italian Fascist PM Benito Mussolini and French PM Édouard Daladier. This Quartet’s meeting was known as the ‘Four-Power Conference.’ It sanctioned the immediate Nazi invasion and annexation of Czech Sudetenland. A few hours after having signed away Czechoslovakia, Chamberlain took a light nap, arose and asked Hitler to sign a peace treaty between the United Kingdom and Germany. Hitler happily agreed. The German High Command’s plot to stop Hitler was shelved, and Europe tumbled slowly into the abyss.
Czech politicians joined the newspapers in regularly using the term The Betrayal by the West (Czech: zrada Západu, Slovak: zrada Západu). All of the Czechoslovak border fortifications (the only viable defense against German invasion) were now in Nazi hands. Poland seized Trans-Olza; Hungary annexed and occupied the remainder of Carpathian Ruthenia. Chamberlain returned to Britain claiming he had established peace in our time. However, within a year of the agreement World War II had started. Czech poet František Halas published a poem with verse about the “ringing bell of betrayal” that occurred at Munich. MP Winston Churchill was said to have declared that “Britain and France had to choose between war and dishonor. They chose dishonor. They will have war.” To this day, the terms ‘Munich’, Sudetenland,’ Chamberlain and ‘peace for our time’ convey betrayal and diplomatic duplicity.
After Munich, Hitler no longer had any fear that the West would oppose his genocidal plans. His comments about Chamberlain and Daladier were telling on this point: “I did not think it possible that Czechoslovakia would be virtually served up to me on a plate by her friends.” Even more telling was Hitler’s conclusion: “Our enemies are little worms. I saw them at Munich” (“Unsere Gegner sind kleine Würmchen. Ich sah sie in München”). In March 1939 Hitler invaded and conquered the rest of Czechoslovakia.
On Friday October 5, 2001 Israeli PM Ariel Sharon gave an evening press conference where he said:
- “We can rely only on ourselves…Today Israel suffered another murderous Palestinian terrorist attack which took a heavy toll. All of our efforts to reach a cease-fire have been torpedoed by the Palestinians. Fire did not cease, not even for one day. We are currently in the midst of a complex and difficult diplomatic campaign. I turn to the Western democracies, first and foremost the leader of the free world, the United States. Do not repeat the dreadful mistake of 1938, when the enlightened democracies of Europe decided to sacrifice Czechoslovakia for the sake of a temporary, convenient solution. Don’t try to appease the Arabs at our expense. We will not accept this. Israel will not be Czechoslovakia. Israel will fight terror.”
In a blunt response on October 6, White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer said: “The President believes that these remarks are unacceptable. Israel could have no better or stronger friend that the United States and no better friend than President Bush.” Yet the American push to get Israel to retreat from Gaza, the Golan, the West Bank and the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem continued full press from that day onward.
A banana republic in the desert
The present US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken has been active in communicating State Department wishes and Presidential orders to Israel throughout the past eight months of the Israel-Hamas war. Little is known by most people about Blinken’s political role prior to his current office.
Blinken was functioning as Biden’s principal foreign policy advisor and spokesman for his 2020 presidential campaign. As senior campaign official, he reached out to acting CIA Director Mike Morell on or before October 17, 2020, and triggered him to organize 50 colleagues in the intelligence community to sign a letter “falsely claiming that damning emails from Hunter Biden’s laptop [just] published by The [New York]Post were Russian disinformation.” At 10:53 pm that night, “Blinken emailed Morell a USA Today article” dealing with the same theme. Over the next two days, Morell “gathered signatures from 51 former intelligence officials, including himself and four other former CIA directors, including John Brennan and Leon Panetta.” Morell also testified “that he sent an email telling Nick Shapiro, former chief of staff to Brennan, that the Biden campaign wanted the statement to go to a particular reporter at the Washington Post.” Morell testified that “he received a call from Steve Ricchetti, chairman of the Biden campaign, to thank him for writing the statement.”
Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and Rep. Michael Turner (R-Ohio), chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, wrote to Blinken on April 20, 2023, requesting his assistance because they “have learned that you played a role in the inception of this statement while serving as a Biden campaign advisor. This concerted effort to minimize and suppress public dissemination of the serious allegations about the Biden family was a grave disservice to all American citizens’ informed participation in our democracy.”
When asked about Blinken’s role in the disinformation letter sent out by CIA acting Director Morell (according to his sworn testimony to the House Judiciary Committee), State Department spokesman Vedant Patel refused to answer directly, only stating that “It is not a State Department issue, and I don’t really have a comment on this from the State Department.” Morell was not a State Department employee, and at that time neither was Anthony Blinken.
Since moving to the State Department, Blinken’s statement and policies have raised concerns regarding his strategic perspectives on Israel-related issues.
- On June 11, 2024, Blinken lectured Israel, telling them that they do not and should not respond to Hezbollah rocket and anti-tank missile attacks from jihadi Hezbollah terrorists in Lebanon: “The situation in northern Israel is definitely complex, but Israel does not have to respond to every launch of a UAV or rocket by Hezbollah.” So far, 31 Israelis have been killed, and 96,000 Israelis have had to move away from the border due to Hezbollah over-the-border attacks. Which of those attacks are the ones that Israel does not have to respond to?
- On June 10-12, 2024 “Secretary of State Blinken is expected to arrive in Israel today to meet with the Israeli leadership in order to put pressure on Israel to reach a deal with Hamas . . . The Biden administration sees this as a major goal, against the background of the upcoming elections.” “A senior administration official told NBC News that the Israeli raid to free the four hostages Saturday will likely make Blinken’s efforts to achieve an agreement and release the remaining hostages even more difficult.” It seems that short term results which could affect the coming US elections are more important to the American powers-that-be than freeing Israeli hostages.
- Blinken’s boss, POTUS Biden, said at an event for influencers at the White House last week: “I am pressuring the Israelis to withdraw . . . I have made very clear to the Israelis what they have to do in the near term and if they don’t, what’s going to happen.” A withdrawal by the IDF would leave Hamas alive and well, ready to retake the Gaza Strip and carry out more ‘October 7-type pogroms, rapes, murders and kidnappings.
- State Department officials who carry out the policies of Secretary of State Blinken leaked on June 10, 2024 that they are considering having the US make a separate deal with Hamas to free hostages with dual citizenship. The talks wouldn’t include Israel and would take place via Qatari mediators, two current senior U.S. officials and two former ones told NBC. The officials said they didn’t know what the United States could exchange for the hostages, but that Hamas might agree to a deal to “strain relations between the U.S. and Israel and put additional domestic political pressure on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.” Blinken seems to be using his office to create cracks in a US-Israel alliance as well as to fan the flames of a fire which will remove Israel’s current Prime Minster, Benjamin Netanyahu, from leading the country. This is only one of several banana-republic type actions being taken by the State Department.
Fair-weather friends and erratic allies
Dr. Majid Rafizadeh, president of the International American Council on the Middle East, and a board member of Harvard International Review, has published an incisive June 15, 2024 article: “As US Is Being Encircled by Enemies, the US Administration Wants Israel to Surrender to Terrorists.” Here are a few selected quotes:
- While Russian warships, including a nuclear submarine, this week docked in Cuba, and with China building a major deep-water port in Peru that could serve the Chinese military, the US administration is pressuring only Israel to allow the Iran-backed terrorist group Hamas to win the war it launched against Israel on October 7. Instead of supporting Israel’s right to defend itself against coordinated and sustained attacks, the Biden administration’s public wavering suggests a pro-terrorist shift in US policy away from Israel. This shift represents a betrayal that leaves Israel in the no-win position of either rejecting US proposals, or allowing Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthis and other Iranian-backed terrorist groups to keep trying to advance their goal of ultimately destroying Israel.
- When an ally is attacked by terrorists, the fundamental principle of an alliance dictates that the victim must be provided unwavering support to defeat the terrorists and dismantle the terror infrastructure completely, ensuring that the terrorists cannot regroup to launch further attacks. Without such a commitment, the trust between allies erodes, and terrorists are emboldened. The situation has become particularly dire for Israel, which has been facing brutal attacks on multiple fronts. Despite these assaults, the Biden Administration has not only failed consistently to support Israel after it was invaded on October 7, 2023, accompanied by thousands of missiles, but has also pressed for policies favoring Hamas and its sponsors and enablers, Qatar and Iran.
- After yet another of Iran’s other proxy terrorist militias, Hezbollah, not only joined Hamas in attacking Israel but has kept escalating its attacks, the response from the Biden administration has been to warn – not Hezbollah or Iran against warmongering – but Israel. Asking Israel to do nothing against Hamas and Hezbollah after eight months of escalating aggression is akin to asking the United States, after the 9/11 attacks, to leave Al Qaeda untouched and allow it to remain in power. Would the U.S. have listened to such a recommendation?
- This policy muddle raises serious questions about the reliability of the United States as a steadfast ally. By not taking decisive action to support Israel, the administration is also sending a warning of inconsistency and weakness to all prospective allies, and encouraging them to rely on America’s adversaries instead. The consequences of this approach are unfortunately far-reaching. They affect not only the immediate security of Israel but also the credibility of the United States on the global stage, the broader stability of the region, and the very preservation of the US, which is currently being encircled by enemies.
How should we then pray?
- Pray for followers of Yeshua worldwide to understand these superpower strategies, and to pray for the Middle East in light of them
- Pray for the physical rescue of the approximately 120 Israeli hostages (including babies) kidnapped by Hamas, Islamic Jihad and PFLP/PLO. At this moment some hostages are being tortured, raped and starved (this based on testimonies of recently released hostages). Sadly, many of these hostages are dead; Hamas is holding on to the corpses of Israeli citizens in cold storage to be used by them as bargaining chips
- Pray for Hamas’ cruel terror dictatorship in Gaza to be decisively shattered and for all chains broken off the Palestinians living there, and for Iran’s role in jihadi deception, dissimulation and anti-Semitism to be exposed and opposed by world leaders
- Pray for the raising up of Ezekiel’s prophetic Jewish army throughout the earth
Your prayers and support hold up our arms and are the very practical enablement of God to us in the work He has called us to do.
In Messiah Yeshua,
Avner Boskey
Donations can be sent to:
FINAL FRONTIER MINISTRIES
BOX 121971 NASHVILLE TN 37212-1971 USA
Donations can also be made on-line (by PayPal or credit card) through: www.davidstent.org
The post The elephant and the flea appeared first on David's Tent.
