The Journal of History     Summer 2005    TABLE OF CONTENTS

Book Review

The Myths of Zionism

By John Rose
Copyright 2004
Pluto Press
London, Ann Arbor, MI
232 pp including Index, Bibliography

Reviewed by Arlene Johnson, Publisher

When a person testifies in a court of law, they are told to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. However, when a person writes a book, he can conveniently omit crucial information which would, if told, allow the reader to comprehend history more knowledgeably.

Professor Rose begins The Myths of Zionism sincerely enough, though no mention of either Rothschild, Rockefeller or any of the other 13 families which created Zionism. However, when he had written 100 pages he launches an attack on the very book which exposes Zionism for what it is, a book which lays out what we are experiencing today, which includes the Palestinian people and the Jews in the Holy Land, otherwise known as Israel.

To wit: "Here then, was that degenerate political culture of the Tsar regime in its death throes. A culture which set the Black Hundred pogromist gangs on the Jews, and which would later forge a document, a favourite of Hitler incidentally, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the fabled Tsarist fantasy which alleged a Jewish 'conspiracy' to rule the world." Moreover, he even misinterprets the book as it isn't that "Jews" will rule the world; it's that international banking Jews will rule the world, an enormous difference.

Rose begins his book accurately enough with this quote on page 76:

"In the period of Geniza many Jews were ready to ask God to bless their Muslim and Christian neighbours."

However, reverting back to denying the reader the accurate situation, on page 118 Rose states

"...the United States replaced Britain as sponsor and began to use the newly -created State of Israel to pursue its imperialist designs. This would so enlarge Zionism as a politics of oppression that, by the beginning of the twenty-first century, it was reeling from world-wide condemnation."

Rose is blasting the US instead of the real villains.

Rose captures his readers' support with the following quote taken from Doumani's book published in 1995 on page 85:

"Embedded between two steep mountains in a narrow but lush valley and surrounded by a wide belt of olive groves, vineyards, fruit orchards, and a sprinkle of palm trees, the ancient city of Nablus has long been described as resembling, in the words of Shams al-Din al-Ansari in the fourteenth century, 'a palace in a garden.'

The secret was water - the primary reason why Nablus was able to support a large population and a wide range of manufacturing establishments. Its twenty-two gushing springs were channelled into the city's public fountains, mosque courtyards, gardens, tanneries, and dye and pottery establishments, as well as the private homes of the rich. Water was also carried down the 1220-metre long valley that widened westward via aqueducts that fed irrigation channels and power the large, round stones of grain mills. In the summer heat, evaporated water formed a thin blue mist that enveloped the city and accentuated its charms.

'Its beauty can hardly be exaggerated ... Clusters of white-roofed houses nestling in the bosom of a mass of trees, olive, palm, orange, apricot, and many another varying the carpet with every shade of green ... Everything fresh, green, soft, and pictuesque, with verdure, shade, and water everywhere ... a rich blue haze from the many springs and steamlets, which mellows every hard outline' wrote H.B. Tristram [London 1881-2].

The phrase 'Little Damascus,' which its inhabitants constantly use to describe Nablus, sums of the look, feel, and essence of the city. (Doumani 1995: 22)"

Professor Rose is a sociologist. He needs to read accurate history before undertaking such a book as this. He could have read some of this history two years prior to the time he began (by his own admission) to write his book. On page 121, he states

"Balfour, the statesman who signed the famous declaration, was also prime minister at the time of the infamous Aliens act of 1905. This legislation has slammed the door in the fact of Eastern European Jewish migrants fleeing the waves of pogroms in the Russian Empire. Balfour had personally piloted the Bill through the House of Commons. He insisted, nevertheless, that he was a vigorous opponent of anti-Semitism. Even the Jewish Chronicle, then as today a conservative commentator on public affairs, expressed surprise at this breathtaking display of hypocrisy (Stein 1961: 149-50). [footnote] 2 That splendid acronym, NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) had yet to be coined, but it fits perfectly with Balfour's attitude. Jews were not welcome in Britain's backyard, but Britain would welcome them in the front garden of the Palestinian Arabs, with or without the Arabs' approval."

Nowhere does Rose mention that it was the Zionists who made a deal with Balfour to bring the US into the First World War to save the UK from defeat.

And on page 122, Rose completely disregards that Winston Churchill is a Zionist, too, something that even David Ben-Gurion admitted in his book, A Personal History, with the following words:

"Winston Churchill The idea that Zionism might re-order Jewish life had particular appeal to Churchill, who became Colonial Secretary after the war and hence the minister directly responsible for the implementation of the Balfour Declaration. Churchill had been profoundly disturbed by the Russian Revolution and was convinced that the 'International Jew' was behind it. He called the Bolsheviks 'a bacillus,' and expression frequently applied to Jews in anti-Semitic publications. This reinforced his Zionist convictions. He believed that the Zionists 'would provide the antidote to this sinister conspiracy and bestow stability instead of chaos on the Western world' (Segev 2000:158)."

Rose, however, does quote Churchill with the following on page 122:

"If, as well may happen, there should be created in our own life time by the banks of the Jordan a Jewish State under the protection of the British Crown... an even will have occurred in the history of the world which from every point of view would be beneficial and would be especially in harmony with the interests of the British Empire. (Fromkin 1989: 519)"

But then reverts back to misinformation in this:

"Even Weizmann was amazed at Churchill's readiness to encourage the Zionists. Weizmann once admitted to the new Colonial Secretary that the Zionists were smuggling arms into Palestine in response to rising Arab hostility. Churchill told him, 'We don't mind, but don't speak of it' (Segev 2000: 194)."

But then this gem which would tend to indicate that Rose really does want to solve this problem on page 124:

"Wouldn't Zionism itself, far from alleviating anti-Semitism, inadvertently promote it? [Footnote] 4"

And this one too on page 130:

"Many of Wingate's own troops thought he was mad. It's not difficult to see why. He had a penchant for crackpot schemes of provocation. On one occasion he wanted his Jewish soldiers to dress up as Arabs, go to the Arab market in Haifa and start shooting (Segev 2000: 431)."

However, again Rose returns to the theme lambasting one of the best books ever written, since it clearly stipulates the clamity that the world is enduring today, The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion with the following on page 165:

"...the phrase 'Zionist conspiracy' is emotionally and historically loaded, especially in Europe and America. It resonates with memories of European anti-Semitism's classical handbook, the infamous forgery The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion (see Chapter 6), which accused the Jews of secretly conspiring to control the world."

Then, continuing this issue on page 166,

"There is not, and never was, a unified Jewish global bloc."

Professor Rose doesn't mention the international boycott of German goods after WW I ended by the worldwide Jewish community which was clearly a unified Jewish global bloc because he may not want the reader to know that it had a leadership of those who created Zionism in the first place.

In addition to citing Edward Said, who, until his death, was a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, which is the American branch of the western European Illuminati, and Noam Chomsky, who disregards the proof of physics in the Kennedy assassination, Professor Rose acknowledges Roland Rance, a man who castigated Israel Shamir (See>) when he thanks Rance for making him aware of various Web sites in a quote on page 185:

"This is also the view of David Hirst, the Guardian's distinguished Middle East correspondent. [Footnote] 3"

Then, Footnote 3 on page 214 addresses these Web sites, which could be traps for the innocent:

Read Naiem Giladi, of the Black Panthers, at You can also read the relevant chapter in David Hirst's The Gun and the Olive Branch at I am grateful to Roland Rance for drawing my attention to these web-sites."

In a quote on page 190 Rose states:

"Why Islam and the Arab nations should have been expected to make the concession to the modern world of separating politics from religion when the West's most provocative representative refused to do so is further proof of Western arrogance and its enduring Orientalism" could be interpreted as a remark holding western governments responsible instead of the real culprits which control said governments.

Rose, on pages 132-4 mentions Swedenburg's book on the Palestine Revolt and Sabra and Shatila, but he accepts the statement which said on page 135 that "The Nazi Holocaust was intended to bring about the destruction of the Jewish people in Hitler's so-called Final Solution."

Rose even reiterates the disinformation as to why the Atom bomb was dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki three years after I, myself, published the truth, and he misses the entire point of the Illuminati's "Thesis - antithesis = solution" discussion which various people have illustrated over the years.


If a person desires to help a people who have been persecuted to the extent that they are experiencing a slow genocide as the Palestinian people are, he will not accomplish it with a combination of truths, half truths, innuendo, and outright Zionist propaganda. He does it with the truth, the whole true, and nothing but the truth, regardless of his profession, religious affiliation, or political persuasion.


The Journal of History - Summer 2005 Copyright © 2005 by News Source, Inc.