Archive
White Powder, Dark Legacy – Part II: The Merchant of Death and the Price of Redemption
How a Mistaken Obituary and a Life Built on Explosives Gave Birth to the Greatest PR Cover-Up in the History of Peace
By Marivel Guzman | Akashma News
Obituary of Infamy: The Death That Wasn’t

Digital illustration generated by AI | Concept by Marivel Guzman | Akashma News
In 1888, death knocked — but not for Alfred Nobel. It came for his brother Ludvig. Yet in a tragic twist of error, a French newspaper published an obituary for Alfred instead, bearing the now-infamous title: “Le marchand de la mort est mort” — “The Merchant of Death is Dead.”
The obituary condemned him in no uncertain terms: “Dr. Alfred Nobel, who became rich by finding more ways to kill people faster than ever before, died yesterday.” The paper, mistaking identity and fate, did not just misreport a death — it ignited a legacy crisis.
For Alfred Nobel, a man who held over 350 patents and presided over a transcontinental web of explosives and weapons factories, the headline struck deeper than any criticism he had ever faced. It wasn’t just public shame — it was a preview of how history would remember him–not as a benefactor of science, but as a harbinger of death. And he couldn’t allow that.
Thus began the most elaborate act of image laundering in modern history — the founding of the Nobel Peace Prize.
This moment didn’t inspire him. It terrified him. Within a few years, Nobel would write a new will — not to change the world, but to clean his name.
But contrary to the romantic mythology crafted by mainstream biographies and fanfare, Nobel’s creation was not born from an epiphany or a deep-seated yearning for peace. It was an act of strategic repentance — a calculated move to offset a violent empire with a philanthropic afterlife. The Peace Prize became a posthumous shield, not a symbol of his ideals, but a buffer against the damning truth of his industrial legacy.
Obituary of Infamy: The Death That Wasn’t
In April 1888, the Journal des Débats, a prominent French newspaper, ran an obituary that would echo through history—not for its tribute, but for its mistake. The paper believed Alfred Nobel had died while visiting Cannes. In truth, it was his brother Ludvig who had passed. But it was Alfred’s name, Alfred’s face, and Alfred’s legacy that graced the page under a damning headline:
“Le marchand de la mort est mort”
“The Merchant of Death is Dead”
Rather than a eulogy, it read like a public indictment.
It portrayed Nobel not as a man of science or innovation, but as a profiteer of carnage—a man who had made his fortune by engineering tools of destruction, and whose legacy would be written in blood, not ink.
This public misfire was no trivial error. For Nobel, it served as a preview of judgment day, not in a religious sense—he was a committed atheist—but in the court of public memory. The shame was immediate, and perhaps for the first time, irrevocable.
Though Nobel never publicly acknowledged the obituary’s impact, the timeline is telling. Within months, he began drafting revisions to his will. And by 1895—one year before his death—he completed a legally binding testament that redirected the bulk of his vast fortune not to family, not to science, but to the creation of a peace prize.
But not just peace — he included prizes for chemistry, physics, medicine, literature, and economics. Peace was almost an afterthought — tucked among disciplines that, ironically, had already helped refine warfare. This wasn’t about peace — it was about legacy control.
Contextual Anchor:
At the time of Ludvig’s death and the mistaken obituary, Alfred Nobel:
Held over 355 patents globally
Operated more than 90 factories tied to weapons, projectiles, and explosives production
Accumulated wealth through arms contracts from major European powers
Calling him a “man of peace” would be like calling an arms dealer a conflict resolution expert.
“He did not fear Hell. He feared being forgotten – or worse, remembered as what he truly was”
Marivel Guzman, Akashma News
Peace for Sale: Nobel’s Will and the Reinvention of a Warmonger
On November 27, 1895, Alfred Nobel signed his third and final will at the Swedish-Norwegian Club in Paris. It was brief, startlingly vague, and — for a man obsessed with precision — surprisingly open to interpretation.
In just over 1,200 words, Nobel allocated 94% of his vast fortune (roughly $200 million USD in today’s value) to establish annual prizes in Physics, Chemistry, Physiology or Medicine, Literature — and Peace.
But the wording of the Peace Prize bequest was as elusive as his character:
“…to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.”
On paper, this sounds noble. But in practice, it was a clause written without structure, oversight, or clarity — ripe for manipulation.
The Peace Clause: Loopholes, Ambiguity, and Historical Irony
Unlike the other prizes, which had clear scientific or literary criteria, the Peace Prize was rooted in subjective terms: “fraternity,” “peace congresses,” “abolition of armies.” Nobel did not name a peace foundation, a review committee, or even a political framework to define these goals.
The result? The Norwegian Storting (Parliament), not even mentioned in the will, quickly took ownership of the Peace Prize selection. This was a deeply political body — and its decisions over the next century would prove that “peace” was often awarded to military leaders, imperialists, and proxy-war apologists.
Contradictions Worth Highlighting:
Nobel left no requirement for transparency, allowing for secrecy in deliberations
Several Peace Prize recipients have been presidents, prime ministers, or military commanders — figures whose nations were actively at war at the time of the award
War criminals like Henry Kissinger, and preemptive invaders like Barack Obama, were laureates — mocking Nobel’s stated goal of reducing standing armies
Delucidation:
The Peace Prize was never designed to ensure peace. It was structured to protect Nobel’s name. By tying his fortune to an institution of “fraternity,” Nobel placed his legacy into a protective shell — a fortress of moral authority, guarded not by ethics but by gold and global ceremony.
“The man who gave the world dynamite also gave it a gold medal for pretending not to use it.”
Marivel Guzman, Akashma News
Laureates of Hypocrisy: When Peace Was Awarded for War
Alfred Nobel’s Peace Prize, supposedly intended to reward efforts to abolish war and promote fraternity between nations, has repeatedly fallen into the hands of those whose legacies are soaked in blood, surveillance, or strategic silence. Instead of honoring peacemakers, the Nobel Committee has often decorated power brokers, political opportunists, and even perpetrators of violence — all under the gilded mask of diplomacy.
Here are just a few of the most glaring contradictions:
Henry Kissinger – 1973
“Awarded for negotiating the Vietnam ceasefire.”
While Kissinger accepted the prize, the war raged on for two more years. Secret bombings in Cambodia and Laos, orchestrated under his authority, left millions dead and destabilized Southeast Asia. The irony was so grotesque that Le Duc Tho, his Vietnamese counterpart, refused the prize altogether.
Barack Obama – 2009
“For extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy.”
When awarded, Obama was barely in office. He would go on to expand drone warfare, authorize more arms sales than any president before him, and oversee NATO’s intervention in Libya, which led to the total collapse of a sovereign state.
Menachem Begin – 1978
“For peace negotiations with Egypt.”
Begin, former commander of the Zionist militant group Irgun, had overseen bombings, assassinations, and ethnic cleansing campaigns during Israel’s founding years. The group’s 1946 attack on the King David Hotel left 91 dead. Peace with Egypt was strategic, not moral.
Aung San Suu Kyi – 1991
White Powder, Dark Legacy: Alfred Nobel’s War for Peace**
This investigative feature revisits the life of Alfred Nobel, the inventor of dynamite, through a critical lens. It explores the contradictions between his contributions to warfare and his later public image as a benefactor of peace. Through analysis of Nobel’s writings and industrial empire, the piece dismantles the myth of a man driven by pacifism and reveals instead a legacy rooted in calculated power and destruction.
“For her non-violent struggle for democracy.”
Initially a global symbol of resistance, she later became complicit in the genocide of the Rohingya Muslims, defending the military’s atrocities at the International Court of Justice in 2019.
Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres – 1994
“For efforts to create peace in the Middle East.”
Both men had long careers in the Israeli military establishment. Peres was instrumental in establishing Israel’s nuclear weapons program, while Rabin oversaw brutal military operations during the First Intifada.
Delucidation:
The Nobel Peace Prize, designed by a man seeking to rewrite his own obituary, has itself become a tool of historical laundering — a way for empires to appear humane, for wars to be masked as diplomacy, and for the most powerful actors to be rebranded as peacemakers. It is no longer (if it ever was) a prize for peace — but a strategic endorsement, handed out by elites to other elites.
“When murderers receive medals, peace is no longer a goal — it’s a brand.”
Marivel Guzman, Akashma News
Nobel’s Final Invention: A Peace Prize for Empire
Alfred Nobel may have invented dynamite, but his most enduring creation wasn’t an explosive — it was a myth. A myth so powerful, so polished, so gold-plated, that it managed to detonate truth itself. The Nobel Peace Prize was never truly about peace. It was about reputation, redemption, and the reinvention of a man who built an empire on controlled destruction.
And in the century since his death, that myth has only expanded — weaponized by governments, legitimized by media, and sold to the world as a symbol of human progress. But behind the prize is a ledger of blood, a list of laureates whose hands were not clean, whose nations were not at peace, and whose policies deepened conflict under the banner of diplomacy.
The Peace Prize today stands not as a testament to peace, but as a trophy of power. It rewards the powerful for gestures, not consequences. It cloaks violence in statesmanship. It turns war into ceremony. And it does so using the name of a man who once feared being remembered as The Merchant of Death
But no medal can erase truth. No eulogy can sterilize legacy.
And no prize — no matter how prestigious — can silence the reckoning that comes when the myth begins to crack.
“Alfred Nobel didn’t invent peace. He invented a prize to hide from what he’d done — and gave the empire a medal to wear while doing the same.”
Alfred Nobel invented dynamite, dreamed of peace, and built a legacy that fuels both.
White Powder, Black Legacy–Part I: Alfred Nobel’s War for Peace
In Part III of White Powder, Dark Legacy, Akashma News peels back the curated legacy of Alfred Nobel, diving into his unpublished writings and private contradictions. Was the Nobel Peace Prize born out of conscience or calculation? With sharp analysis and rare archival reflections, this installment exposes the ghost behind the medal—where regret, fear, and strategic reinvention collide.
As the Arabs see the Jews
Posted on December 06, 2012 by Akashma Online News
His Majesty King Abdullah, The American Magazine November, 1947
This fascinating essay, written by King Hussein’s grandfather King Abdullah, appeared in the United States six months before the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. In the article, King Abdullah disputes the mistaken view that Arab opposition to Zionism (and later the state of Israel) is because of longstanding religious or ethnic hatred. He notes that Jews and Muslims enjoyed a long history of peaceful coexistence in the Middle East, and that Jews have historically suffered far more at the hands of Christian Europe. Pointing to the tragedy of the holocaust that Jews suffered during World War II, the monarch asks why America and Europe are refusing to accept more than a token handful of Jewish immigrants and refugees. It is unfair, he argues, to make Palestine, which is innocent of anti-Semitism, pay for the crimes of Europe. King Abdullah also asks how Jews can claim a historic right to Palestine, when Arabs have been the overwhelming majority there for nearly 1300 uninterrupted years? The essay ends on an ominous note, warning of dire consequences if a peaceful solution cannot be found to protect the rights of the indigenous Arabs of Palestine.
As the Arabs see the Jews
His Majesty King Abdullah,
The American Magazine
November, 194
I am especially delighted to address an American audience, for the tragic problem of Palestine will never be solved without American understanding, American sympathy, American support.
So many billions of words have been written about Palestine—perhaps more than on any other subject in history—that I hesitate to add to them. Yet I am compelled to do so, for I am reluctantly convinced that the world in general, and America in particular, knows almost nothing of the true case for the Arabs.
We Arabs follow, perhaps far more than you think, the press of America. We are frankly disturbed to find that for every word printed on the Arab side, a thousand are printed on the Zionist side.
There are many reasons for this. You have many millions of Jewish citizens interested in this question. They are highly vocal and wise in the ways of publicity. There are few Arab citizens in America, and we are as yet unskilled in the technique of modern propaganda.
The results have been alarming for us. In your press we see a horrible caricature and are told it is our true portrait. In all justice, we cannot let this pass by default.
Our case is quite simple: For nearly 2,000 years Palestine has been almost 100 per cent Arab. It is still preponderantly Arab today, in spite of enormous Jewish immigration. But if this immigration continues we shall soon be outnumbered—a minority in our home.
Palestine is a small and very poor country, about the size of your state of Vermont. Its Arab population is only about 1,200,000. Already we have had forced on us, against our will, some 600,000 Zionist Jews. We are threatened with many hundreds of thousands more.
Our position is so simple and natural that we are amazed it should even be questioned. It is exactly the same position you in America take in regard to the unhappy European Jews. You are sorry for them, but you do not want them in your country.
We do not want them in ours, either. Not because they are Jews, but because they are foreigners. We would not want hundreds of thousands of foreigners in our country, be they Englishmen or Norwegians or Brazilians or whatever.
Think for a moment: In the last 25 years we have had one third of our entire population forced upon us. In America that would be the equivalent of 45,000,000 complete strangers admitted to your country, over your violent protest, since 1921. How would you have reacted to that?
Because of our perfectly natural dislike of being overwhelmed in our own homeland, we are called blind nationalists and heartless anti-Semites. This charge would be ludicrous were it not so dangerous.
No people on earth have been less “anti-Semitic” than the Arabs. The persecution of the Jews has been confined almost entirely to the Christian nations of the West. Jews, themselves, will admit that never since the Great Dispersion did Jews develop so freely and reach such importance as in Spain when it was an Arab possession. With very minor exceptions, Jews have lived for many centuries in the Middle East, in complete peace and friendliness with their Arab neighbors.
Damascus, Baghdad, Beirut and other Arab centers have always contained large and prosperous Jewish colonies. Until the Zionist invasion of Palestine began, these Jews received the most generous treatment—far, far better than in Christian Europe. Now, unhappily, for the first time in history, these Jews are beginning to feel the effects of Arab resistance to the Zionist assault. Most of them are as anxious as Arabs to stop it. Most of these Jews who have found happy homes among us resent, as we do, the coming of these strangers.
I was puzzled for a long time about the odd belief which apparently persists in America that Palestine has somehow “always been a Jewish land.” Recently an American I talked to cleared up this mystery. He pointed out that the only things most Americans know about Palestine are what they read in the Bible. It was a Jewish land in those days, they reason, and they assume it has always remained so.
Nothing could be farther from the truth. It is absurd to reach so far back into the mists of history to argue about who should have Palestine today, and I apologize for it. Yet the Jews do this, and I must reply to their “historic claim.” I wonder if the world has ever seen a stranger sight than a group of people seriously pretending to claim a land because their ancestors lived there some 2,000 years ago!
If you suggest that I am biased, I invite you to read any sound history of the period and verify the facts.
Such fragmentary records as we have indicate that the Jews were wandering nomads from Iraq who moved to southern Turkey, came south to Palestine, stayed there a short time, and then passed to Egypt, where they remained about 400 years. About 1300 BC (according to your calendar) they left Egypt and gradually conquered most—but not all—of the inhabitants of Palestine.
It is significant that the Philistines—not the Jews—gave their name to the country: “Palestine” is merely the Greek form of “Philistia.”
Only once, during the empire of David and Solomon, did the Jews ever control nearly—but not all—the land which is today Palestine. This empire lasted only 70 years, ending in 926 BC. Only 250 years later the Kingdom of Judah had shrunk to a small province around Jerusalem, barely a quarter of modern Palestine.
In 63 BC the Jews were conquered by Roman Pompey, and never again had even the vestige of independence. The Roman Emperor Hadrian finally wiped them out about 135 AD. He utterly destroyed Jerusalem, rebuilt under another name, and for hundreds of years no Jew was permitted to enter it. A handful of Jews remained in Palestine but the vast majority were killed or scattered to other countries, in the Diaspora, or the Great Dispersion. From that time Palestine ceased to be a Jewish country, in any conceivable sense.
This was 1,815 years ago, and yet the Jews solemnly pretend they still own Palestine! If such fantasy were allowed, how the map of the world would dance about!
Italians might claim England, which the Romans held so long. England might claim France, “homeland” of the conquering Normans. And the French Normans might claim Norway, where their ancestors originated. And incidentally, we Arabs might claim Spain, which we held for 700 years.
Many Mexicans might claim Spain, “homeland” of their forefathers. They might even claim Texas, which was Mexican until 100 years ago. And suppose the American Indians claimed the “homeland” of which they were the sole, native, and ancient occupants until only some 450 years ago!
I am not being facetious. All these claims are just as valid—or just as fantastic—as the Jewish “historic connection” with Palestine. Most are more valid.
In any event, the great Moslem expansion about 650 AD finally settled things. It dominated Palestine completely. From that day on, Palestine was solidly Arabic in population, language, and religion. When British armies entered the country during the last war, they found 500,000 Arabs and only 65,000 Jews.
If solid, uninterrupted Arab occupation for nearly 1,300 years does not make a country “Arab”, what does?
The Jews say, and rightly, that Palestine is the home of their religion. It is likewise the birthplace of Christianity, but would any Christian nation claim it on that account? In passing, let me say that the Christian Arabs—and there are many hundreds of thousands of them in the Arab World—are in absolute agreement with all other Arabs in opposing the Zionist invasion of Palestine.
May I also point out that Jerusalem is, after Mecca and Medina, the holiest place in Islam. In fact, in the early days of our religion, Moslems prayed toward Jerusalem instead of Mecca.
The Jewish “religious claim” to Palestine is as absurd as the “historic claim.” The Holy Places, sacred to three great religions, must be open to all, the monopoly of none. Let us not confuse religion and politics.
We are told that we are inhumane and heartless because do not accept with open arms the perhaps 200,000 Jews in Europe who suffered so frightfully under Nazi cruelty, and who even now—almost three years after war’s end—still languish in cold, depressing camps.
Let me underline several facts. The unimaginable persecution of the Jews was not done by the Arabs: it was done by a Christian nation in the West. The war which ruined Europe and made it almost impossible for these Jews to rehabilitate themselves was fought by the Christian nations of the West. The rich and empty portions of the earth belong, not to the Arabs, but to the Christian nations of the West.
And yet, to ease their consciences, these Christian nations of the West are asking Palestine—a poor and tiny Moslem country of the East—to accept the entire burden. “We have hurt these people terribly,” cries the West to the East. “Won’t you please take care of them for us?”
We find neither logic nor justice in this. Are we therefore “cruel and heartless nationalists”?
We are a generous people: we are proud that “Arab hospitality” is a phrase famous throughout the world. We are a humane people: no one was shocked more than we by the Hitlerite terror. No one pities the present plight of the desperate European Jews more than we.
But we say that Palestine has already sheltered 600,000 refugees. We believe that is enough to expect of us—even too much. We believe it is now the turn of the rest of the world to accept some of them.
I will be entirely frank with you. There is one thing the Arab world simply cannot understand. Of all the nations of the earth, America is most insistent that something be done for these suffering Jews of Europe. This feeling does credit to the humanity for which America is famous, and to that glorious inscription on your Statue of Liberty.
And yet this same America—the richest, greatest, most powerful nation the world has ever known—refuses to accept more than a token handful of these same Jews herself!
I hope you will not think I am being bitter about this. I have tried hard to understand that mysterious paradox, and I confess I cannot. Nor can any other Arab.
Perhaps you have been informed that “the Jews in Europe want to go to no other place except Palestine.”
This myth is one of the greatest propaganda triumphs of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, the organization which promotes with fanatic zeal the emigration to Palestine. It is a subtle half-truth, thus doubly dangerous.
The astounding truth is that nobody on earth really knows where these unfortunate Jews really want to go!
You would think that in so grave a problem, the American, British, and other authorities responsible for the European Jews would have made a very careful survey, probably by vote, to find out where each Jew actually wants to go. Amazingly enough this has never been done! The Jewish Agency has prevented it.
Some time ago the American Military Governor in Germany was asked at a press conference how he was so certain that all Jews there wanted to go to Palestine. His answer was simple: “My Jewish advisers tell me so.” He admitted no poll had ever been made. Preparations were indeed begun for one, but the Jewish Agency stepped in to stop it.
The truth is that the Jews in German camps are now subjected to a Zionist pressure campaign which learned much from the Nazi terror. It is dangerous for a Jew to say that he would rather go to some other country, not Palestine. Such dissenters have been severely beaten, and worse.
Not long ago, in Palestine, nearly 1,000 Austrian Jews informed the international refugee organization that they would like to go back to Austria, and plans were made to repatriate them.
The Jewish Agency heard of this, and exerted enough political pressure to stop it. It would be bad propaganda for Zionism if Jews began leaving Palestine. The nearly 1,000 Austrian are still there, against their will.
The fact is that most of the European Jews are Western in culture and outlook, entirely urban in experience and habits. They cannot really have their hearts set on becoming pioneers in the barren, arid, cramped land which is Palestine.
One thing, however, is undoubtedly true. As matters stand now, most refugee Jews in Europe would, indeed, vote for Palestine, simply because they know no other country will have them.
If you or I were given a choice between a near-prison camp for the rest of our lives—or Palestine—we would both choose Palestine, too.
But open up any other alternative to them—give them any other choice, and see what happens!
No poll, however, will be worth anything unless the nations of the earth are willing to open their doors—just a little—to the Jews. In other words, if in such a poll a Jew says he wants to go to Sweden, Sweden must be willing to accept him. If he votes for America, you must let him come in.
Any other kind of poll would be a farce. For the desperate Jew, this is no idle testing of opinion: this is a grave matter of life or death. Unless he is absolutely sure that his vote means something, he will always vote for Palestine, so as not to risk his bird in the hand for one in the bush.
In any event, Palestine can accept no more. The 65,000 Jews in Palestine in 1918 have jumped to 600,000 today. We Arabs have increased, too, but not by immigration. The Jews were then a mere 11 per cent of our population. Today they are one third of it.
The rate of increase has been terrifying. In a few more years—unless stopped now—it will overwhelm us, and we shall be an important minority in our own home.
Surely the rest of the wide world is rich enough and generous enough to find a place for 200,000 Jews—about one third the number that tiny, poor Palestine has already sheltered. For the rest of the world, it is hardly a drop in the bucket. For us it means national suicide.
We are sometimes told that since the Jews came to Palestine, the Arab standard of living has improved. This is a most complicated question. But let us even assume, for the argument, that it is true. We would rather be a bit poorer, and masters of our own home. Is this unnatural?
The sorry story of the so-called “Balfour Declaration,” which started Zionist immigration into Palestine, is too complicated to repeat here in detail. It is grounded in broken promises to the Arabs—promises made in cold print which admit no denying.
We utterly deny its validity. We utterly deny the right of Great Britain to give away Arab land for a “national home” for an entirely foreign people.
Even the League of Nations sanction does not alter this. At the time, not a single Arab state was a member of the League. We were not allowed to say a word in our own defense.
I must point out, again in friendly frankness, that America was nearly as responsible as Britain for this Balfour Declaration. President Wilson approved it before it was issued, and the American Congress adopted it word for word in a joint resolution on 30th June, 1922.
In the 1920s, Arabs were annoyed and insulted by Zionist immigration, but not alarmed by it. It was steady, but fairly small, as even the Zionist founders thought it would remain. Indeed for some years, more Jews left Palestine than entered it—in 1927 almost twice as many.
But two new factors, entirely unforeseen by Britain or the League or America or the most fervent Zionist, arose in the early thirties to raise the immigration to undreamed heights. One was the World Depression; the second the rise of Hitler.
In 1932, the year before Hitler came to power, only 9,500 Jews came to Palestine. We did not welcome them, but we were not afraid that, at that rate, our solid Arab majority would ever be in danger.
But the next year—the year of Hitler—it jumped to 30,000! In 1934 it was 42,000! In 1935 it reached 61,000!
It was no longer the orderly arrival of idealist Zionists. Rather, all Europe was pouring its frightened Jews upon us. Then, at last, we, too, became frightened. We knew that unless this enormous influx stopped, we were, as Arabs, doomed in our Palestine homeland. And we have not changed our minds.
I have the impression that many Americans believe the trouble in Palestine is very remote from them, that America had little to do with it, and that your only interest now is that of a humane bystander.
I believe that you do not realize how directly you are, as a nation, responsible in general for the whole Zionist move and specifically for the present terrorism. I call this to your attention because I am certain that if you realize your responsibility you will act fairly to admit it and assume it.
Quite aside from official American support for the “National Home” of the Balfour Declaration, the Zionist settlements in Palestine would have been almost impossible, on anything like the current scale, without American money. This was contributed by American Jewry in an idealistic effort to help their fellows.
The motive was worthy: the result were disastrous. The contributions were by private individuals, but they were almost entirely Americans, and, as a nation, only America can answer for it.
The present catastrophe may be laid almost entirely at your door. Your government, almost alone in the world, is insisting on the immediate admission of 100,000 more Jews into Palestine—to be followed by countless additional ones. This will have the most frightful consequences in bloody chaos beyond anything ever hinted at in Palestine before.
It is your press and political leadership, almost alone in the world, who press this demand. It is almost entirely American money which hires or buys the “refugee ships” that steam illegally toward Palestine: American money which pays their crews. The illegal immigration from Europe is arranged by the Jewish Agency, supported almost entirely by American funds. It is American dollars which support the terrorists, which buy the bullets and pistols that kill British soldiers—your allies—and Arab citizens—your friends.
We in the Arab world were stunned to hear that you permit open advertisements in newspapers asking for money to finance these terrorists, to arm them openly and deliberately for murder. We could not believe this could really happen in the modern world. Now we must believe it: we have seen the advertisements with our own eyes.
I point out these things because nothing less than complete frankness will be of use. The crisis is too stark for mere polite vagueness which means nothing.
I have the most complete confidence in the fair-mindedness and generosity of the American public. We Arabs ask no favors. We ask only that you know the full truth, not half of it. We ask only that when you judge the Palestine question, you put yourselves in our place.
What would your answer be if some outside agency told you that you must accept in America many millions of utter strangers in your midst—enough to dominate your country—merely because they insisted on going to America, and because their forefathers had once lived there some 2,000 years ago?
Our answer is the same.
And what would be your action if, in spite of your refusal, this outside agency began forcing them on you?
Ours will be the same.