Taking Liberties With Gertrude

Now I get poetic licence, OK?

After all, I've read the Zionist narrative - haven't we all? - more times than I care to remember. Whether it's Next Year in Jerusalem, Making the Desert Bloom or The Palestinians Left at the Behest of Their Leaders, I've paid my dues.

Not, you'll be relieved to know, that the following interview has anything to do with the Zionist narrative this time around.

Still, it is an interview with a veteran spinner of ripping Zionist yarns, and this has to have some bearing, surely, at least in this case, on the question of just how far from the historical record can a historical novel stray before the adjective becomes entirely redundant.

Related questions in this case include:

a) seriously now, would you trust someone to write an historical novel if you knew their recall of much more recent events was, to say the least, decidedly shaky?

and

b) is a credulous fan of the Zionist narrative really the best person to interview that someone? 

I hasten to add that I haven't actually read the 'historical' novel concerned. My problem here is solely with parts of the following interview with its author:

Geraldine Doogue: Gertrude Bell was a British historian and linguist, a mountaineer, an intrepid adventurer as well as a diplomat and self-acclaimed [?] kingmaker in a region where Western women were few and far between. This was in the early years of the 20th century. Her story's coming to the big screen soon with Nicole Kidman taking on her role in a film directed by Werner Herzog, and a recently-published historical novel is also helping to make her incredible story more widely known. The Australian columnist and writer, Alan Gold is the author of Bell of the Desert, a novel, and I'm delighted to say he's with me in the studio... Gertrude Bell was a woman ahead of her time. She was tall, whip-smart, and somewhat unconventional, as you write. How did you become interested in her story? (Bell of the Desert, Saturday Extra, Radio National, 7/3/15)

Alan Gold: It was obviously around the time of the great kerfuffle in Iraq...

kerfuffle (n): a commotion or fuss

Half a million deaths or more. Millions of refugees. A country in tatters? That's a kerfuffle?

Geraldine Doogue: Circumstances took her to Tehran as a young Oxford graduate, that's Tehran, Iran, and this is where she quickly became fascinated with the Arab world...

So the best place to develop an interest in the Arab world is... Iran?! Interesting.

Alan Gold: Why did [the British government] turn to this woman? Well, she had been in the area probably for 10-15 years before WW I, and what she'd done was, she'd used her time as an archaeologist, as an explorer, as an adventurer to go around, but because she was a woman she was able actually get inside the camps of the Arab chiefs, inside their tents. How was she able to? Because she did it through the wives. Because she befriended the wives, she actually gave status to the wives of the leaders of these Arabs and she not only showed them what a woman should do in the Western world, what perhaps a woman could do in Arabia, but she actually made them feel self-important and that gave greater importance to the chieftains.

Just think - where would these benighted creatures have been without Gerty? One thing I imagine she taught them was the perils and pitfalls of giving women the right to vote. After all, Gerty was a big supporter of the Anti-Suffrage League (1908-18).

***

Alan Gold: After the First World War... there was a virtual vacuum in that whole area, Mesopotamia... they needed a king. So [Gertrude] looked around for who would be a suitable king and she found a man who'd just been booted out of Syria as king of Syria by the French, and he was in exile in London. His name was Faisal.* She knew him very well so she went to London and said 'Listen, darling. I can make you king of Iraq.' He said, 'What's Iraq?' and she said 'Come and I'll show you.' He came out with her and she spent a year with him holding his hand going around all of Iraq, introducing him to all of the tribal leaders until eventually there was a plebiscite as to who should lead this new country and he was voted in as king by 98% of the people and that became the first kingdom of Iraq.

Dumb Arab! Just think - where would this benighted creature have been without Gerty? But here's the thing, is the above account really what happened? Iraqi historian, Ali A. Allawi has a very different take:

"By the end of December 1920, the approaches from British officialdom regarding Faisal's availability for a leading role in Iraq markedly increased. Apart from Lawrence's soundings, Lloyd George had asked Philip Kerr to elicit Faisal's views on Iraq, and Curzon sent Young to the same end. In both cases, Faisal's reply was adamantly insistent - perhaps disingenuously - that he would not consider the throne of Iraq as his brother 'Abdullah had already been nominated for the post... However, on the night of 7-8 January 1921, the matter of Faisal's availability for the throne of Iraq was officially broached. Kinahan Cornwallis, whom Faisal knew and trusted, had been asked by Curzon to approach Faisal and ascertain his position... Faisal was doubtful of 'Abdullah's prospects in Iraq... But [he said] if the throne remained unobtainable for 'Abdullah... then he would accept the nomination... On the same day that Cornwallis ended his visit to Faisal, 8 January 1921, Faisal set out to the country home of Edward Turnour, the Earl of Winterton... The guests included Lawrence, and the Conservative MPs William Ormsby-Gore and Walter Guinness. Winterton, an Irish peer, was a personal friend of Faisal and had served with the Northern Army in the march from Aqaba to Damascus. Faisal spent the weekend at Winterton's home, and there the conversation turned towards Iraq. Winterton, who had been primed by Curzon,  also broached the subject of Faisal's nomination for the Iraqi throne... Winterton's biographer describes a five-hour discussion between Faisal, Winterton and the other guests... 'Finally... Faisal agreed to become king of Iraq.... Convincing him was not an easy matter. He felt a deep bitterness about the way that he had been treated by the British and the French, and he made some wounding remarks about the British character generally'." (Faisal I of Iraq, 2014, pp 319-22)

Lawrence, Kerr, Young, Cornwallis, Turnour, Ormsby-Gore, Guinness... but no Gerty! And no 'What's Iraq?' either.

Allawi again:

"On 5 June [1921] Faisal revealed a cable from Major Marshall, the British Consul in Jeddah, advising him that the cruiser Northbrook would be arriving in Jeddah and would carry him and his party directly to Basra. On 12 June Faisal embarked on the Northbrook heading for Basra. On board with him were a group of prominent Iraqis who had taken refuge in the Hijaz after the collapse of the 1920 rebellion. They were now returning as part of the amnesty that had been declared by the British authorities in Iraq. They included the Sh'ia religious figure Sayyid Muhammad al-Sadr, Yusuf al-Suwaidi, 'Abd al-Muhsin Abu-Tabikh, 'Alwan al-Yasiri, Rayih al-'Atiya and Ali Jawdat. Faisal also had his own group of advisers, including Rustum Haidar and Tahsin Qadri. Cornwallis, his newly appointed adviser... was also on the Northbrook... He had Faisal's confidence and was his trusted conduit for his dealings with the British authorities." (ibid pp 335-36)

A cast of thousands, but where was Gerty to hold his hand?

"The Ministry of Interior announced that 96% of the 'electorate' had assented to the election of faisal as king of Iraq." (ibid p 378)

What? Not 98? 

Alan Gold: At the beginning of the Gulf War when there was that terrible thing called shock and awe created by George Bush the first. What happened was the Iraqi army under Saddam Hussein virtually disappeared which left Baghdad without government...

Is this really so hard? The Gulf War was waged by George H.W. Bush (aka George Bush senior) from 1990 to 1991; Shock & awe was perpetrated by George W. Bush (aka George Bush junior) in 2003.

Finally, I bet here's one quote from Gerty you're unlikely to find in Gold's book (or Herzog's film for that matter):

"By the way, I hate Mr. Balfour's Zionist pronouncement with regard to Syria. It's my belief that it can't be carried out; the country is wholly unsuited to the ends the Jews have in view; it is a poor land, incapable of great development and with a solid two-thirds of its population Mohammedan Arabs who look on Jews with contempt. I think myself they will ficher themselves pas mal of Zionist ambitions, which it would be an invidious task to try and force upon them. To my mind it's a wholly artificial scheme divorced from all relation to facts and I wish it the ill-success it deserves - and will get, I fancy." (Letters 25/1/18, gerty.ncl.ac.uk)

[*On Faisal see my 18/6/14 post Iraq According to the Herald.]

Bigger Than 'Exodus'

Australian novelist Alan Gold sums up The Heritage Project on Radio National:

"It's a 3,000 year history of aspects of the Middle East told through 2 families who find themselves right at the very beginning, 1,000 BC, when King David and King Solomon's temple was being built, and then we trace them all the way through history right through to today." (The future of the pitch, Books & Arts Daily, 24/6/13)

Hm... the Middle East from King David to King Bibi? What's going on here?

And here's how Gold put it in another forum:

"For more than 200 years, novelists have confined their creativity to what happens inside the covers of a book. Today, with the exponential growth of the internet, authors can create an entire cosmos of inter-related characters and events, of which the novel might describe just a few; then the movie maker can pick up on linked events, a television series becomes part of the whole, then games creators, and of course the consumer, via TV, computers, tablets or smartphones can continue to participate in the creativity. This is a new and extraordinary realm of potential for authors and publishers alike." (The Heritage Project: A Storyworld from Mike Jones & Alan Gold, theliteraryplatform.com, 3/6/13)

Apparently, although The HP will begin as a novel, Bloodline (due for release in November this year), that's just the launching pad so to speak. After that, its extension(s), if all goes according to plan, could be coming to a screen near you...

Now all this talk of creativity turbocharged by technology is all well and good, but what about the The HP's content?

For an idea of what to expect here, either click on the 'Alan Gold label' below - or consider this little observation from a thumbs-down review of an earlier Gold novel, The Jericho Files (1993).

"Gold doesn't miss an occasion to pump up Israel's profile and generally make a fanfare of Jewishness. That's cool - I'm generally sympathetic to Israel - but when constantly repeated over hundreds of pages it can become annoying." (The Jericho Files, Alan Gold, christian-sauve.com)

Double, Double Toil & Trouble

Former Israeli ambassador to the UN Dan Gillerman, now in Australia, doesn't want us attending Durban II* (aka the Durban Review Conference) on April 20 (See my 20/2/09 post Danny Boy). [*The first, aka the World Conference Against Racism, was held in Durban in 2001.]

Alan Gold, Zionist apologist, novelist (*sigh*) and Durban I "delegate" (Smith should avoid racist conference, The Australian, 26/2/09) doesn't want us there either.

Gold knows in his bones that Durban II is cursed. After all, "The 120th anniversary of Hitler's birth falls on April 20 which coincidentally is the day nations will gather in Geneva under the banner of the UN to discuss ways of dealing with the growth of racism." "Coincidentally"? Are you sure it's just a coincidence, Alan? Durban I, that "notorious hate-filled gathering that devolved into one of the most racist and prejudiced meetings in the UN's history" also managed to coincide with the anniversary of some other day in Hitler's life (funny that), and "its anti-Semitism and anti-Israel agenda and hysterical crowd of extremists still send shudders of horror through human rights organisations."

Note the familiar conflation of anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism. In translation, Gold's hyper-ventilating prose simply means that some people at Durban I had sufficient gumption to call a spade a spade. For a fuller discussion of Durban I and the Israel lobby's campaign to thwart Australia's involvement in Durban II, see my posts Working Out the Mechanics of Our Relationship (18/1/08), Working Out the Mechanics of Our Relationship 2 (9/3/08), and Betraying the UDHR (10/12/08).

OK, so what foaming, spitting witch's brew does the Durban II draft agenda portend? According to Israel's Haaretz, "Draft resolutions for... Durban II... will brand Israel as an occupying state that carries out racist policies... They refer to 'the plight of Palestinian refugees and other inhabitants of the Arab occupied territories'... " (Durban II drafts: Israel is racist, occupying state, Shlomo Shamir, 21/2/09) Quelle horreur!

So how's the line-up at the starting gate, Alan? "Canada and Israel are so appalled at the agenda for this hate-fest that they have already announced their intention of boycotting. Officials in a growing number of European nations also have expressed their concern about attendance... The Obama administration* has said it will attend the preparations for the UN's Durban Review, but this must be viewed as a dangerous move." Thanks, Alan. And Australia? "Foreign Minister Stephen Smith hasn't yet announced whether Australia will attend the review... The 2009 agenda... must give Smith cause for concern... [Damn it!] We should play no part in this conference."

What's that, Alan? Another horreur? Merde! The Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) are "using the gathering in Geneva to demonise Israel, give official credence to Holocaust denial and legislate against freedom of speech." How so, Alan? "Using the catch-all phrase of Islamophobia, the OIC is attempting to deny nations the right to criticise extremism and violence." You mean, like your mob uses the catch-all phrase of anti-Semitism in order to deny nations the right to criticise Israeli extremism and violence?

[*Alan will be pleased to know that there's been a scratching here. According to The Age of 28/2/09, the United States has decided against taking part after finding out that "the draft document was made even worse after some changes." (US opts out of UN racism conference) What's the guess that Stephen now does a runner?]

Conscripting Gandhi

In his propaganda piece, Not the Gandhi of South Africa (The Australian - where else? - 11/7/08), Israel apologist Alan Gold (described as an "author" and "delegate to the UN World Conference Against Racism in Durban, South Africa") takes the sjambok to Nelson Mandela.

"I received an email from a SA friend," he tells us, "who has long been mystified by the international reverence of Mandela." Gold is equally mystified, considering that Mandela "was one of the leaders of the African National Congress, who created an armed wing called the Umkhonto we Sizwe or Spear of the Nation, which was dedicated to bombing civilian, industrial, military and government targets. South Africa's Truth and Reconciliation Commission has accused it of torture and executions without due process. And far from being a prisoner of conscience... Mandela was jailed for advocating the violent overthrow of the government." He also, according to Gold, "refused to publicly denounce terrorism as a weapon." In brief, concludes Gold, Mandela is not the Gandhi of South Africa - who "showed the world that non-violent non-co-operation is a far deadlier weapon than bombs and bullets."

Put to one side Gold's failure to place Mandela's 'terrorism' in the context of the greater terrorism of the white supremacist regime. Put to one side the spectacle of an advocate for the state of Israel, a state which has been raining "bombs and bullets" on the indigenous people of Palestine since its inception, which was apartheid South Africa's staunchest friend and ally, and which is, in fact, today's sole remaining apartheid state (See my 14/6/08 post, A Certain Jewish Tree Planting Group), condemning the champion of a people who suffered and died under another rain of "bombs and bullets," many of them from Israeli arsenals. The double standard is standard for Zionist propagandists. It's the chutzpah of conscripting Gandhi, of all people, in the service of his 'cause' that interests me.

What did the Mahatma think of the project to turn Arab Palestine into a Jewish state? The following is taken from G H Jansen's Zionism, Israel & Asian Nationalism, pp 169- 173:-
"... the Zionists tried and failed to gain the friendship of Mahatma Gandhi, the father of modern India... The Zionists did not pursue Gandhi merely because he was an influence in Asia, rather because he had a large following in the West... He was, after all considered a saint by many, and his endorsement of Zionism would have given the movement a certain moral and ethical weight. But no such endorsement, or even an expression of sympathy with Zionist aims, was forthcoming from him. Gandhi totally rejected the idea of Zionism which produced the state of Israel. His opposition remained consistent over a period of nearly 20 years and remained firm despite the skilful and varied application to him of that combination of pressure and persuasion known as lobbying.

"The Mahatma's wholly negative reaction to Zionism may surprise some people who would assume that the man who strove to win equality for India's outcasts would, out of compassion, be moved into a position of sympathy for the Jews, the outcasts of European Gentile society, and consequently of support for the Jewish State. This did not happen for 2 reasons.

"First, Gandhi believed in seeing all sides of a question; it followed that the Mahatma would reject the idea of establishing the Jewish State in Arab Palestine without consideration for the native inhabitants, even though the Jews in Europe were being persecuted.

"Secondly, the Zionists who approached Gandhi did not succeed in linking in the mind of the Mahatma the fate of European Jewry with the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine. His assessment of the problem of anti-Semitism and Jewish survival in Europe was based on his own experience with non-violence, first in South Africa, then in India, and on his belief in a multi-religious society...

"In [an] article [in his magazine Harijan on November 26, 1938], Gandhi wrote that his sympathies were all with the Jews, whom he had known intimately in South Africa and some of whom had become life-long companions... But this sympathy should not obscure the requirements of justice. Gandhi thought that the Jews, like other peoples of the earth, should insist upon making their home in their country of birth, instead of demanding a country belonging to other people. 'Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French. It is wrong and inhuman to impose the Jews on the Arabs. What is going on in Palestine today cannot be justified by any moral code of conduct. The mandates have no sanction but that of the last war. Surely it would be a crime against humanity to reduce the proud Arabs so that Palestine can be restored to the Jews partly or wholly as their national home. The nobler course would be to insist on a just treatment of the Jews wherever they are born and bred. The Jews born in France are French in precisely the same sense that Christians born in France are French...'

"Gandhi admitted that the German persecution of the Jews had no parallel in history... But [he] prescribed an alternative to violence against the Nazis: defiant, non-violent resistance on the part of the German Jews. 'If I were a Jew and were born in Germany, and earned my livelihood there, I would claim Germany as my home even as the tallest Gentile German might, and challenge him to shoot me or cast me in the dungeon. I would refuse to be expelled or submit to discriminating treatment'...

"The Mahatma's post-war attitude was summed up in a conversation he had with Louis Fischer, in which the Mahatma stated that the Jews of Germany had made the mistake of submitting passively to Hitler... the Jews should not have offered themselves to the butcher's knife; 'they should have thrown themselves into the sea' and committed harikiri rather than submit. When Fischer asked if Gandhi meant that the Jews should have committed collective suicide, Gandhi replied: 'That would've been heroism. It would have aroused the world and the people of Germany to the evils of Hitler's violence, especially in 1938, before the war. As it is, they succumbed anyway in their millions'.

"Lest it be thought too harsh a judgement it should be noted that when, concurrently with the trial of Adolf Eichmann, the Israeli Government arranged educational displays on 'the holocaust' in Israeli schools, the younger generation of Israelis was neither moved nor impressed but merely enquired, with shame and indignation, why the German Jews had not fought back."