Chapter 7 – Zionists and Nazis – shared values

by Peter Cohen

Killed between 80 and 100 Arabs, women and children. To kill the children they fractured their heads with batons. There was not one house without corpses. The men and women of the villages were pushed into houses without food or water. Then the sappers came to dynamite the houses. One commander ordered a soldier to bring two women into a house he was about to blow up… Another soldier prided himself upon having raped an Arab woman before shooting her to death. Another Arab woman with her newborn baby was made to clean the place for a couple of days, and then they shot her and the baby. Educated and well-mannered commanders who were considered ‘good guys’… became base murderers, and this not in the storm of battle, but as a method of expulsion and extermination. The fewer the Arabs who remain, the better.

The above might be mistaken for a description of a German Einsatzgruppe going about its daily business in the Ukraine in 1942. But it was reported in the Histadrut-owned newspaper Davar (9 June 1979) by an Israeli soldier who in 1948 participated in the occupation and destruction of the Palestinian village of Duelma, one of more than 400 villages that were destroyed by the Israelis. The methods used at Duelma were applied regularly during the ethnic cleansing of Palestine by the Zionists.

The text is given in Israel‘s Sacred Terrorism – A study based on Moshe Sharett’s Personal Diary, by Livia Rokach, which is available on the Internet. Sharett was Israel’s first foreign minister, and was also Prime Minister 1953-55. Livia Rokach was the daughter of a minister in Sharett’s cabinet.

The brutality illustrated in the above text is not the only characteristic shared by Zionists and Nazis. Their ideologies have several points in common as well:

  • A people linked by the bond of blood
  • A people superior to all others
  • The ethnic nation – reserved for the superior people
  • The ethnic nation is above international law
  • Permission to kill non-members of the ethnic nation
  • Militant anti-Communism
  • Perception of anti-Semitism as “natural”.

Much of the information below is from Lenni Brenner’s Zionism in the Age of Dictators, which can be downloaded in PDF format at http://www.marxists.de/middleast/brenner/


The bond of blood

The Nazis claimed that the German Volk was united by the bond of blood, and the Zionists believe the same of the Chosen People. The individual is defined and formed by the mystic force and purity of the blood bond.

The philosopher Martin Buber was an ardent Zionist. In Drei Reden über das Judentum (1911) he described the supposed feelings of a young Jewish man (emphasis added):

[He] …senses in this immortality of the generations a community of blood, which he feels to be the antecedents of his I, its perseverance in the infinite past. To that is added the discovery, promoted by this awareness, that blood is a deep rooted nurturing force within individual man; that the deepest layers of our being are determined by blood; that our innermost thinking and our will are colored by it.

In Jewish Questions (1914) the Austrian anthropologist Ignatz Zollschan claimed that the Jews were

…a nation of pure blood, not tainted by diseases of excess or immorality, of a highly developed sense of family purity, and of deeply rooted virtuous habits would develop an exceptional intellectual activity. Furthermore, the prohibition against mixed marriage provided that these highest ethnical treasures should not be lost, through the admixture of less carefully bred races… there resulted that natural selection which has no parallel in the history of the human race… If a race that is so highly gifted were to have the opportunity of again developing its original power, nothing could equal it as far as cultural value is concerned. (See also the letter from the German Zionist Federation to the Hitler government, quoted below.)


Superior to other peoples

Both Nazis and Zionists claim that they represent a superior people, in the one case “Aryans”, in the other “Jews”. The Nazis spoke of the Master Race, while the Zionists are convinced that the Jews are God’s Chosen People, and also refer to them as a “race”. Prof. Paul Eidelberg, president of the Foundation for Constitutional Democracy in the US (emphasis added):

Remarkable that so many Jews fail to appreciate the greatness of the Jewish People. This fact, more than any other, will account for the decrepit behavior of Israeli governments vis-à-vis the Arab world and its Western allies. Hence let us enter the lofty spirit of one of the profoundest philosophers, Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook (1865-1935), Israel’s first Chief Rabbi.

Referring to secular Zionists, Rabbi Kook writes: ‘The denial of our ‘Thou hast chosen us’ vocation and singularity is a fatal blunder. Set apart from the Gentiles, as evident in our incomparable history, Jewish excellence and nobility surpasses that of any other nation. Our self-recognition implies an awareness of the Jewish grandeur; its renunciation spells a denial of the self. A people that disregards its essence, diminishes its stature. The obliteration of our exalted nature is the sole cause of our decline…’ The concept of the superior people was developed in the late 19th century by middle-class Jews in Germany, apparently under the influence of the development of Germanic nationalism.


The ethnic nation

The modern concept of the nation-state was discussed previously. It is rooted in the Peace of Westphalia of 1648, and citizenship in such a nation is part of the legacy of the French Revolution of 1789. The citizens of the nation are equal under the law, irrespective of ethnic background or religious conviction.

For Nazis and Zionists, the nation is defined by membership in the superior ethnic group, and this alone entitles an individual to full nationality. A decision by the Israeli Supreme Court in 1972 established that non-Jews can be citizens of Israel, but cannot qualify for Israeli nationality. The Court stated that there is no Israeli nation separate from the Jewish people.

The individual is subordinate to the interests of the people and the nation. The task of the leaders of the nation is to ensure that the “destiny” of the people is fulfilled.

For the Nazis, this destiny was defined as Blut und Boden – Blood and Soil. Zionists proclaim that the Jews must build their nation on the hallowed soil of Palestine, which was given to them by their God. .

The need to expand the territory of the superior people’s domain is part of both ideologies. Although Zionists often refer to Palestine as their divinely ordained ancestral home, they have always had a vision of hegemony in the Middle East over a much wider territory.

The shaded area in the map below represents Israel as conceived by Theodor Herzl, the founder of the Zionist movement. In his Complete Diaries (Vol. II) he states that the Jewish nation extends: “From the Brook of Egypt (the Nile!) to the Euphrates.”

Rabbi Fischmann, a member of the Jewish Agency for Palestine, included the map in his testimony before the UN Special Committee of Enquiry on 9 July 1947: “The Promised Land extends from the River of Egypt (the Nile) up to the Euphrates, it includes parts of Syria and Lebanon.” The map shows that it also includes substantial portions of Iraq and Saudi Arabia (see Chapter X). (The map is reproduced in Ralph Schoenman’s The Hidden History of Zionism. The typographical error “CaspainSea” occurs in the original.)

Ch7_img1

Herzl’s map of the Zionist vision – Greater Israel


Rejection of international law

Since the ethnic nation is incompatible with the concept of the modern sovereign nation-state, it is also incompatible with agreements between sovereign nations. The ethnic nation therefore rejects international law. The Nazis declared repeatedly that the interests of das Volk were paramount and not subject to legal considerations or restrictions imposed by other countries. For the Zionists, the only principle governing agreements with other nations is the interest of the Chosen People, whose “destiny” supersedes international law.

For example, the plan for partition of Palestine that was approved by the UN General Assembly in 1947 was rejected by the Palestinians but approved by the Zionists, who invoked it as the justification for the boundaries of the state of Israel that they proclaimed unilaterally.

However, the partition plan also stipulated that Palestinians resident in the area allotted to the Zionists were to remain there as citizens of the new state. The Israelis proceeded to expel about 750,000 Palestinians from this territory in an extremely bloody ethnic cleansing. (See Ilan Pappe’s The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, 2006.) As soon as the Palestinians had been driven out, the Israeli government declared that they were not citizens of Israel and would never be allowed to return to their former homes. Although the Zionists had announced their acceptance of the partition plan, in reality the leaders of the ethnic nation approved only the parts that they considered suitable.

In 1949, Israel applied for membership in the UN and was accepted. But one of the conditions was that the Israeli government had to formally approve General Assembly Resolution 194, which “Resolves that the (Palestinian) refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible.”

Israel approved the Resolution, became a UN member, and has disregarded it ever since, like virtually all other UN Resolutions regarding Palestine, and does not consider itself bound by international conventions.


Permission to kill non-members of the ethnic nation

As an outstanding professor of chemistry in Israel, Israel Shahak became in his own words “a real member of the Israeli establishment”. http://www.argumentations.com/Argumentations/StoryDetail_4187.aspx

He stated that

At first I was a convinced Zionist by upbringing and a follower of Ben Gurion. I changed very rapidly in 1956, during the Suez war, when I was 23 years old, because it was a great shock to discover that Ben Gurion had lied, because I really believed when I was mobilized into the army that this was a war of defense. But then he comes and says that it is a war to reestablish the kingdom of David and Solomon, and that Sinai is not a part of Egypt. I saw that I would have to oppose this Messianic idea, which I still regard as the central feature in my opposition to Israeli policies.

Shahak was a leading member of the Israeli League for Human and Civil Rights and became its chairman in 1970. He devoted the rest of his life to opposing Israel’s inhumane treatment of its Arab citizens and of Palestinians in the occupied territories. In 1999 he and Professor Norton Mezvinsky (also Jewish) published Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel (2004). The book was severely criticized by a number of Zionists, and Shahak later wrote a long rebuttal of their arguments that included a detailed review of the Halacha, which is the corpus of Orthodox Jewish law. In it he quotes a statement by Yitzhak Ginsburgh, a leading Israeli rabbi, on 26 April 1996 in the Jewish Weekly, a leading American journal in the so-called Jewish community:

Legally, if a Jew does kill a non-Jew, he’s not called a murderer. He didn’t transgress the Sixth Commandment: Thou Shall not murder. This applies only to Jews killing Jews. Therefore [in a Jewish state] his punishment is ‘given over to heaven’ rather than to a secular court.

Shahak points out that the Halacha “permits Jews to kill not only Arabs but non-Jews in general at random, if other non-Jews ‘made a provocation’… In other words, Halacha allows Jews to lynch non-Jews”. According to Shahak, In terms of the Halacha Ginsburgh is simply accurate and no rabbi (in Israel or the US) had tried to prove him wrong”.  http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Global_Media_Lightning_Headlines/message/5444

As far as I know there was no law in Nazi Germany that explicitly permitted Nazis or Germans in general to kill non-Germans. But if they did kill a Jew or a Communist they were not subject to punishment. The Halacha is obviously far more extensive, as it extends to all non-Jews.


Militant anti-Communism

For both Nazis and Zionists, the interests of the superior race include militant anti-Communism. Both ideologies consider Communism a menace to their races and their ethnic nations. The Nazis promoted the interest of the German bourgeoisie, and most of the leaders of the Zionist movement were from bourgeois backgrounds. The Zionist leaders approved of capitalism and even supported the Germans in World War 1. See also the letter below in which the Irgun, a Zionist paramilitary force, offers its services to the Nazis in their war against the Soviet Union.

The Jewish Bund in Eastern Europe was a workers’ organization dedicated to the Communist movement, and therefore to assimilation. This was anathema to the Zionists, and was one reason for their determined anti-Communism.


Zionism requires anti-Semitism

From the French Revolution onward, Jews in many European countries became increasingly assimilated, considering themselves to be citizens first and Jews second.

According to the Zionists, Jewish residence in non-Jewish countries was the cause of anti-Semitism, which they regarded as the natural and inevitable result of attempts to mix two different “races”. Anti-Semitism was not worth fighting against because it could not be “cured”.

In l895 Herzl wrote in his diary: “In Paris, as I have said, I achieved a freer attitude toward anti-Semitism, which I now began to understand historically and to pardon. Above all, I recognized the emptiness and futility of trying to combat anti-Semitism”.

Chaim Weizmann, for many years head of the World Zionist Organization and subsequently the first president of the state of Israel, told a Berlin audience in March 1912 that “each country can absorb only a limited number of Jews, if she doesn’t want disorders in her stomach. Germany already has too many Jews”.

In a conversation with Lord Balfour in 1914 Weizmann said that “we too are in agreement with the cultural anti-Semites, in so far as we believe that Germans of the Mosaic faith are an undesirable, demoralizing phenomena”. (Margaret Edelheim-Muehsam, Reactions of the Jewish Press to the Nazi Challenge, in Leo Baeck Institute Year Book 1960.)

The passage of years did nothing to change Weizmann’s opinions. In his autobiography Trial and Error, published in 1949 – after the Holocaust – he commented on proposed legislation in the UK that would have blocked Jewish immigration to the UK prior to World War 1:

Whenever the quantity of Jews in any country reaches the saturation point, that country reacts against them… The fact that the actual number of Jews in England, and even their proportion to the total population, was smaller than in other countries was irrelevant; the determining factor in this matter is not the solubility of the Jews, but the solvent power of the country… this cannot be looked upon as anti-Semitism in the ordinary or vulgar sense of that word; it is a universal social and economic concomitant of Jewish immigration, and we cannot shake it off.

The German intellectuals who succeeded Herzl as leaders of the Zionist movement

agreed with the anti-Semites that the Jews did not belong in Germany, and that sexual unions between Germans and Jews were undesirable because they would generate children with contaminated Jewish blood.

In the Zionist newspapers, assimilated (non-Zionist) Jews were regularly described in the same terms used by German anti-Semites. Not until the Holocaust began did the Zionists change their tune.

In March 1942 Chaim Greenberg, editor of the Zionist newspaper Jewish Frontier, wrote that there had been

…a time when it used to be fashionable for Zionist speakers (including the writer) to declare from the platform that ‘To be a good Zionist one must be somewhat of an anti-Semite’. To this day Labor Zionist circles are under the influence of the idea that the Return to Zion involved a process of purification from our economic uncleanliness. (Chaim Greenberg, The Myth of Jewish Parasitism, Jewish Frontiers, March 1942.)

These attitudes follow logically from the Zionist insistence on the superiority and purity of “the Jewish people”, and the need to establish an exclusively Jewish state. They could hardly object to the Nazis’ demand that Germany become judenrein, when they themselves wanted just that. The logic of the Zionist position was stated clearly by Jacob Klatzkin, co-editor of the Encyclopedia Judaica, in 1925:

If we do not admit the rightfulness of anti-Semitism, we deny the rightfulness of our own nationalism. If our people is deserving and willing to live its own national life, then it is an alien body thrust into the nations among whom it lives, an alien body that insists on its own distinctive identity, reducing the domain of their life. It is right, therefore, that they should fight against us for their national integrity. Instead of establishing societies for defense against the anti-Semites, who want to reduce our rights, we should establish societies for defense against our friends who desire to defend our rights (Jacob Agus, The Meaning of Jewish History, vol. II).

Since the Zionists agreed with Hitler that the Jews were alien to the German Volk and did not belong in Germany, it is not surprising that they cooperated with the Nazis in an attempt to promote their project for colonizing Palestine. They hoped that the Nazis would help them arrange for emigration of young, healthy German Jews to rebuild the Promised Land.

But the current Zionist leaders condemn criticism of Israel’s brutality as anti-Semitic, and this obscene hypocrisy is echoed in a large proportion of the mainstream media, not least in Sweden.


Gestapo officer invited to Palestine

In 1932 the Zionist Federation of Germany (Zionistische Vereinigung für Deutschland, ZVfD ) approached high-ranking Nazis. Kurt Tuckler, one of the directors of the ZVfD, asked Baron Leopold Itz Edler von Mildenstein to write an article sympathetic to Zionism in a Nazi publication. von Mildenstein was an SS officer and the first head of the Gestapo’s Jewish Department. The Baron agreed, on condition that he could visit Palestine. Shortly after Hitler seized power early in 1933, Tuckler, von Mildenstein and their wives went to Palestine, where the Baron remained for six months.

Rabbi Joachim Prinz described the attitude of the German Zionists when Hitler came to power in 1933 (Joachim Prinz, Zionism under the Nazi Government, Young Zionist, London, November 1937):

Everyone in Germany knew that only the Zionists could responsibly represent the Jews in dealings with the Nazi government. We all felt sure that one day the government would arrange a round table conference with the Jews, at which after the riots and atrocities of the revolution had passed the new status of German Jewry could be considered. The government announced very solemnly that there was no country in the world which tried to solve the Jewish problem as seriously as did Germany. Solution of the Jewish question? It was our Zionist dream! We never denied the existence of the Jewish question! Dissimilation? It was our own appeal! (…) In a statement notable for its pride and dignity, we called for a conference.

A Holocaust Reader (Lucy Dawidowicz (ed.), 1976) gives the text of a memorandum sent by the ZVfD in June 1933 to the Nazi Party, which includes the following (emphasis added):

May we therefore be permitted to present our views, which, in our opinion, make possible a solution in keeping with the principles of the new German State of National Awakening and which at the same time might signify for Jews a new ordering of the conditions of their existence… Zionism has no illusions about the difficulty of the Jewish condition, which consists above all in an abnormal occupational pattern and in the fault of an intellectual and moral posture not rooted in one’s own tradition (this refers to assimilated Jews)… An answer to the Jewish question truly satisfying to the national state can be brought about only with the collaboration of the Jewish movement that aims at a social, cultural, and moral renewal of Jewry… a rebirth of national life, such as is occurring in German life through adhesion to Christian and national values [under the Nazis!], must also take place in the Jewish national group. For the Jew, too, origin, religion, community of fate and group consciousness must be of decisive significance in the shaping of his life…

On the foundation of the new state, which has established the principle of race, we wish so to fit our community into the total structure so that for us too, in the sphere assigned to us, fruitful activity for the Fatherland is possible …Our acknowledgement of Jewish nationality provides for a clear and sincere relationship to the German people and its national and racial realities. Precisely because we do not wish to falsify these fundamentals, because we, too, are against mixed marriage and are for maintaining the purity of the Jewish group…

…fidelity to their own kind and their own culture gives Jews the inner strength that prevents insult to the respect for the national sentiments and the imponderables of German nationality; and rootedness in one’s own spirituality protects the Jew from becoming the rootless critic of the national foundations of German essence. The national distancing which the state desires would thus be brought about easily as the result of an organic development.

Thus, a self-conscious Jewry here described, in whose name we speak, can find a place in the structure of the German state, because it is inwardly unembarrassed, free from the resentment which assimilated Jews must feel at the determination that they belong to Jewry, to the Jewish race and past. We believe in the possibility of an honest relationship of loyalty between a group-conscious Jewry and the German state…

For its practical aims, Zionism hopes to be able to win the collaboration even of a government fundamentally hostile to Jews, because in dealing with the Jewish question no sentimentalities are involved but a real problem whose solution interests all peoples, and at the present moment especially the German people.

The realization of Zionism could only be hurt by resentment of Jews abroad against the German development. Boycott propaganda such as is currently being carried on against Germany in many ways is in essence un-Zionist, because Zionism wants not to do battle but to convince and to build… Our observations, presented herewith, rest on the conviction that, in solving the Jewish problem according to its own lights, the German Government will have full understanding for a candid and clear Jewish posture that harmonizes with the interests of the state.


Zionists break the anti-Nazi boycott

The “boycott propaganda” referred to in the memorandum consisted of repeated calls by various Jewish groups in the UK and the US for an international boycott of German goods. Internal disputes among these groups made it difficult to organize a large-scale systematic boycott, but spontaneous action in several countries including the US began to have an adverse effect on German exports.

At the same time, the Zionist project in Palestine was in serious financial trouble, and more money was urgently needed. A Zionist businessman in Palestine made the Germans an offer. German Jews would buy German goods in Germany and then export them to Palestine. The buyer would emigrate to Palestine and sell the goods in order to recover the purchase price, minus a percentage that the Nazi government would keep as a commission.

In the spring of 1933 the Nazis were already worried about the effect of the boycott on the German balance of trade. The German Consul in Jerusalem understood immediately that the Zionist offer could benefit Germany. He wrote to the ministry in Berlin: “In this way it might be possible to wage a successful campaign against the Jewish boycott of Germany. It might be possible to make a breach in the wall”.

The Consul explained that a continued boycott would be interpreted as preventing Jews from finding new homes in Palestine. In another letter to the Ministry, he wrote: “It is important to break the boycott first and foremost in Palestine, and the effect will inevitably be felt on the main front, in the United States”. (David Yisraeli, The Third Reich and the Transfer Agreement, Journal of Contemporary History, vol. VI, 1971.)

In May 1933 the Nazis signed a “Transfer Agreement” (Hebrew Ha’avara) that enabled 1 million Reichsmark worth of Jewish property to be shipped to Palestine in the form of farm machinery. The World Zionist Organization now saw a chance to raise even more money. They suggested that frozen Jewish bank funds in Germany be released by the Nazis and transferred to Palestine, and that the owners would emigrate. This interested the Germans because it meant that Jews would be leaving Germany, and every Jew who left would help Germany become judenrein.

It would also help to disrupt a Boycott Conference that was to be held in London later in the year. And that is precisely what happened. In the summer of 1933 the Nazis announced that they had formally signed an agreement for ongoing transfer of Jewish-owned property and funds from Germany.

According to Dr Fritz Reichert, the Gestapo’s agent in Palestine:

The London Boycott Conference was torpedoed from Tel Aviv because the head of the Transfer in Palestine, in close contact with the consulate in Jerusalem, sent cables to London. Our main function here is to prevent, from Palestine, the unification of world Jewry on a basis hostile to Germany… It is advisable to damage the political and economic strength of Jewry by sowing dissension in its ranks (Yisraeli).

While the Zionist leaders were proud of the accommodation they had made with the Nazis, most Jews were furious. Some of them were Zionists. Abba Hillel Silver, a well-known rabbi in Cleveland, stated in August 1933:

Why the very idea of Palestine Jewry negotiating with Hitler about business instead of demanding justice for the persecuted Jews of Germany is unthinkable. One might think that the whole affair was a bankruptcy sale and that the Jews of Palestine were endeavoring to salvage a few bargains for themselves. (Samuel Untermyer, Rabbi Silver Denounces Deals Reported Negotiated with Germany, Jewish Daily Bulletin, 30 August 1933.)

In Australia, the Melbourne Jewish Weekly News wrote:

They will make us a laughing-stock among the Germans, who will be able to declare that when it comes to a conflict between Jewish business and sentiment, business always wins. (The Palestine Orange Agreement, Jewish Weekly News, Melbourne, 10 November 1933.)

In September 1933 Rabbi Stephen Wise, a well-known American Zionist, referred to the Ha’avara as the new golden calf:

I think I speak the mind of Jews everywhere when I say we hold in abhorrence any Jew, whether in or out of Palestine, who undertakes to make any commercial arrangements with the Nazi government for any reason whatever. (Dr Stephen Wise on Policy of World Jewry, World Jewry, London, 24 August 1934.)

At the World Jewish Conference in Geneva in 1934, Wise attacked the leaders of the Zionist movement:

One leading Palestinian put it over and over again at (the WZO Congress in August 1933) in Prague: Palestine has primacy. This conference must clearly state, that while Palestine has primacy over all other factors in the equation, its primacy ceases when it comes into conflict with a higher moral law.

Wise was right. For the Zionist leaders, the project in Palestine took precedence over the needs of millions of individual Jews world-wide. Such people were nothing more than a “reservoir from which they would pick young immigrants to build their state” (Brenner).

As Weizmann said:

The only dignified and really effective reply to all that is being inflicted upon the Jews of Germany is the edifice erected by our great and beautiful work in the Land of Israel … Something is being created that will transform the woe we all suffer into songs and legends for our grand-children. (Barnett Litvinoff, Weizmann – Last of the Patriarchs, 1976.)

But the anger of other Jews was obvious and loud. Baruch Charney Vladeck was the Chairman of the Jewish Labor Committee in the US and a former member of the Jewish Bund in Poland. Like virtually all Jewish labor leaders, he despised and rejected Zionism. In a public debate in New York in December 1935 he said:

You may argue from now till Doomsday, but this is double bookkeeping of the most flagrant sort. That nobody should break the boycott but the Jews of Palestine! And nobody deal with Germany but the Zionist organization! (…) It is my contention that the main purpose of the Transfer (Ha’avara) is not to rescue the Jews from Germany but to strengthen various institutions in Palestine… Palestine thus becomes the official scab-agent against the boycott in the Near East…”

The Nazis were very pleased with the Ha’avara because it not only broke the boycott, but also helped to offset international indignation about their treatment of the Jews in Germany.

Nahum Goldmann, a leading Zionist who had been involved in the negotiations for the Ha’avara, recounted in his autobiography a conversation with Edvard Benes, the Czechoslovakian Foreign Minister and a non-Jew, whose view of the Transfer Agreement was clear:

Don’t you understand, he shouted, that by reacting with nothing but half-hearted gestures, by failing to arouse world public opinion and take vigorous action against the Germans, the Jews are endangering their future and their human rights all over the world?… I knew Benes was right… in this context success was irrelevant. What matters in a situation of this sort is a people’s moral stance, its readiness to fight back instead of helplessly allowing itself to be massacred.


Baron von Mildenstein and the SS praise the Zionists

The following is from Zionism in the Age of Dictators:

By 1934 the SS had become the most pro-Zionist element in the Nazi Party. Other Nazis were even calling them soft on the Jews. Baron von Mildenstein had returned from his six-month visit to Palestine as an ardent Zionist sympathiser. Now as the head of the Jewish Department of the SS Security Service, he started studying Hebrew and collecting Hebrew records; when his former companion and guide, Kurt Tuchler, visited his office in 1934, he was greeted by the strains of familiar Jewish folk tunes. (Jacob Boas, The Jews of Germany: Self-Perception in the Nazi Era as Reflected in the

German Jewish Press 1933-1938, 1977.) There were maps on the walls showing the rapidly increasing strength of Zionism inside Germany. (Heinz Hohne, The Order of the Death’s Head, 2001.)

von Mildenstein was as good as his word: he not only wrote favorably about what he saw in the Zionist colonies in Palestine; he also persuaded Goebbels to run the report as a massive twelve-part series in his own Der Angriff (The Assault), the leading Nazi propaganda organ (26 September to 9 October 1934). His stay among the Zionists had shown the SS man… the way to cure a centuries-long wound on the body of the world: the Jewish question… It was really amazing how some good Jewish boden under his feet could enliven the Jew: The soil has reformed him and his kind in a decade. This new Jew will be a new people. (Leopold von Mildenstein (pseudonym von Lim), Ein Nazi fährt nach Palästina, Der Angriff, 9 October 1934.)

To commemorate the Baron’s expedition, Goebbels had a medal struck: on one side the swastika, on the other the Zionist star. There is no record of any protest about the medal by the Zionist leaders. (Jacob Boas, A Nazi Travels to Palestine, History Today, London, January 1980. http://www.scribd.com/doc/37999500/Boas-Jacob-%E2%80%9CA-Nazi-Travels-to-Palestine-%E2%80%9D-History-Today-Vol-30-issue-1-1980-pp-33-38)

In May 1935 Reinhardt Heydrich, who was then the chief of the SS Security Service, later the infamous Protector of the Czech lands incorporated into the Reich, wrote an article, The Visible Enemy, for Das Schwarze Korps, the official organ of the SS. In it Heydrich assessed the various tendencies among the Jews, comparing the assimilationists quite invidiously with the Zionists. His partiality towards Zionism could not have been expressed in more unmistakable terms: “We must separate Jewry into two categories… the Zionists and those who favor being assimilated. The Zionists adhere to a strict racial position and by emigrating to Palestine they are helping to build their own Jewish state… The time cannot be far distant when Palestine will again be able to accept its sons who have been lost to it for over a thousand years. Our good wishes together with our official good will go with them”. (Hohne, ibid., and Karl Schleunes, The Twisted Road to Auschwitz, 1971. Emphasis added.)

Only young, able-bodied Jews are wanted

A ‘Situation Report on the Jewish Question’ was received by SS Reichsführer Heinrich Himmler in the spring of 1934. It stated that most of the country’s Jews considered themselves to be Germans and did not want to leave the country. It would therefore be a good idea to encourage the Zionists to persuade their fellow Jews that they should emigrate to Palestine. In January 1935, the Bavarian Gestapo informed the police that

‘…members of the Zionist organizations are, in view of their activities directed towards emigration to Palestine, not to be treated with the same strictness which is necessary towards the members of the German-Jewish assimilationists.’ (Kurt Grossmann, Zionists and Non-Zionists under Nazi Rule in the 1930s, Herzl Yearbook. Emphasis added.)

But the WZO was not interested in most German Jews even if they did want to emigrate, since they were not Zionists, didn’t speak Hebrew, were not trained in occupations that were useful for building the Jewish state, and were usually too old. The Zionists did not want immigrants over the age of 30, unless of course they had plenty of money.

The UK imposed quotas on immigration to Palestine under the terms of the Mandate from the League of Nations. The British provided the WZO with a number of certificates which the Zionists were entitled to distribute annually to Jews who wanted to emigrate to Palestine. The largest base of support for the WZO within an individual country was in Poland. So German Jews received only 22% of the certificates.

After the German annexation of Austria, the Third Reich suddenly included about 190,000 more Jews, which was more than the Nazis could handle through deportation or forced emigration. The Nazis therefore lost interest in these solutions, which in effect meant that the Jews were doomed.

The Zionist leaders were in fact indifferent to the fate that awaited Jews in Germany and other countries who were either not suitable for emigration according to Zionist criteria or who were not allowed to emigrate.


Older Jews are only dust

The most shocking expression of the Zionists’ attitude came from Chaim Weizmann, the future first president of Israel. He testified before the Peel Commission in London in 1937, when the British were considering whether they would allow a Jewish state to be formed on the Mandate territory. Weizmann told the commission that such a state could not possibly absorb all the Jews in Central and Eastern Europe. He said that the Zionists needed two million young people.

At the Zionist Congress in the same year, he referred to his testimony and said (emphasis added):

The old ones will pass; they will bear their fate, or they will not. They are dust, economic and moral dust, in a cruel world… Two millions, and perhaps less… only a branch will survive. They had to accept it. The rest they must leave to the future, to their youth. If they feel and suffer, they will find a way.

After the Kristallnacht in 1938, several members of the British Parliament proposed that Jewish children in Germany be given automatic visas to enter the UK. This was not in accordance with the policies of the Zionist leaders. One of them was David Ben-Gurion, the first Israeli prime minister and a Zionist hero.

On 7 December 1938 he told a group of British Zionists:

If I knew that it would be possible to save all the children in Germany by bringing them over to England, and only half of them by transporting them to Eretz Yisrael, then I would opt for the second alternative. For we must weigh not only the life of these children, but also the destiny of the People of Israel. (Yoav Gelber, Zionist Policy and the Fate of European Jewry 1939-42, Yad Vashem Studies, vol. XII.)

This clearly reflects the Zionist obsession with building a new state in Palestine at the expense of the majority of Jews, and contradicts a central claim in modern Israeli propaganda, namely that the Zionists are the true representatives of the Jewish people.

Although it was highly improbable that Britain would allow mass immigration into Palestine, Ben-Gurion was still worried about the adverse effect that saving Jews would have if they were sent elsewhere than Palestine. On 17 December 1938 he told the Zionist Executive:

If Jews will have to choose between the refugees, saving Jews from concentration camps, and assisting a national museum in Palestine, mercy will have the upper hand and the whole energy of the people will be channelled into saving Jews from various countries. Zionism will be struck off the agenda not only in world public opinion, in Britain and the United States, but elsewhere in Jewish public opinion. If we allow a separation between the refugee problem and the Palestinian problem, we are risking the existence of Zionism. (Cited in Ari Bober, ed., The Other Israel, 1972, available in PDF format at http://www.akivaorrbooks.org/files/TheOtherIsrael.pdf)

Like Weizmann, Ben-Gurion valued the project for building a state in Palestine more than the lives of the Jews who would not or could not participate in it. Like the Nazis, both men valued the mystical “destiny” of their people more than the lives of individuals.

Since 1948, it has been evident that the Zionist leaders value the state of Israel more than the lives of anyone at all.


Zionists disengage from struggle against Fascism

The Zionists’ determination to arrive at an accommodation with the Nazis which would serve the interests of the project in the Promised Land led them to break the boycott of Germany. It also led them to remain apart from movements and organizations that were attempting to combat Fascism outside Germany.

Even after Mussolini had joined forces with Hitler and sent troops to Spain to help General Franco overthrow the legally elected government, the Zionists were not willing to quarrel with the Italian dictator. In March 1937, Nahum Goldmann, a prominent Zionist, stated publicly that he wanted to

…emphasize that world Jewry as a whole, or through its various organizations, never opposed the Italian government. On the contrary, Jewry remembers with thanks the loyalty of the fascist Government. (Leon Harris, Mussolini in Hitler’s Footsteps, in Jewish Life, September 1938, emphasis added.)

The Spanish Republican government was supported by workers and peasants, and was generally regarded as dangerously socialist by the leaders of the Western nations. The International Brigade that was formed to defend it included non-Zionist Jews from several countries. It is estimated that more than 10% of the British contingent in the Abraham Lincoln Brigade were Jewish, and about 30% of the American. The Polish brigade comprised about 5,000 exiles, of whom about 45% were Jews.

The Zionist leaders did not want their members to fight against the Fascists in Spain. On 24 December 1937 the Zionist newspaper Ha’aretz denounced the American Jews in the Lincoln Brigades for fighting in Spain rather than coming to Palestine to work. (Morris Schappes, An Appeal to Zionists: Keep War Out of Palestine, Jewish Life, April 1938.)

Estimates of the number of Jews in Palestine who defied the Zionist leaders and went to Spain vary between 267 and 500. According to The Encyclopedia of Zionism and Israel, 400 Jewish Communists from Israel fought for the SpanishRepublic. (Communists in Israel, Encyclopedia of Zionism and Israel, vol.2.)

Lenni Brenner: “In 1973 the Israeli veterans of the conflict (Spanish Civil War held a reunion and invited veterans from other countries to attend. One of these, Saul Wellman, an American Jew, later described the most dramatic incident of the event, which occurred when they toured Jerusalem and met the mayor, Teddy Kolleck. They had been debating whether they had been right to go to Spain in the midst of the Arab revolt and Kolleck had his own answer to their discussion: “The question is not

why they went, but rather why didn’t we go as well? (Saul Wellman, Jewish Vets of the Spanish Civil War, Jewish Currents, June 1973.)


Fighting – and not fighting – the Fascists in Great Britain

The main Fascist organization in the UK during the 1930s was the British Union of Fascists (BUF), headed by Sir Oswald Mosley. The BUF’s thugs often staged brutal attacks in the East End of London, which had a large Jewish population. The Communist Party of Britain fought the Mosleyites in the streets, and the East End Jews saw the Party as their protector.

But the Zionist leaders told their members that the Jews had no quarrel with Fascism, and once again the main reason was that active resistance would endanger the help that might be obtained from the Nazis for the Palestine project.

In August 1934 the magazine Young Zionist published an article entitled Should Jews join Anti-Fascist Societies? The author wrote

Suppose that under a Fascist regime reprisals are used against anti-Fascists, all Jews must suffer … So the question looms up once more – should we? (…) Meanwhile there are three ideals which cry out aloud for the support of all Jews… 1. The unity of the Jewish People. 2. The need for a stronger Jewish pride. 3. The building of Eretz Yisrael. And we are wasting our time wondering whether we should join anti-Fascist societies!

A pitched battle was fought in Cable Street, London on 4 October 1936. It broke the back of the BUF, which had planned to march through the East End. More than 5,000 police tried to protect the marchers against about 100,000 counter-demonstrators. The police failed. Brenner quotes from an article by Zionist William Zukerman, “one of the most distinguished Jewish journalists of the age”, published subsequently in the New York newspaper Jewish Frontier:

No English-speaking city has ever seen anything like the scenes which marked this attempted demonstration. (…) Those who like myself had the privilege of taking part in the event will never forget it. For this was one of those great communal acts of a mass of people aroused by a profound emotion or by a sense of outraged justice, which makes history… It was indeed the great epic of the Jewish East End… The Communists and the Independent Labour Party must be given the credit for being the most active fighters of Mosley’s Fascist anti-Semitism.

There are no reports that representatives of Zionist organizations participated in the battle.


Fighting Fascists in the USA

A similar battle took place outside MadisonSquareGarden in New York on the night of 20 February 1939. A Fascist meeting was to be held in the Garden, and about 50,000 people turned out to stop it. Zionist organizations had explicitly opposed participation in the counter-demonstration, on the grounds that “We are, and must be, essentially non-political”.

Lenni Brenner’s book includes well-documented evidence that Zionists throughout Europe refused to join in the struggle against Fascism, and like the Zionists in Germany actively collaborated with Fascist movements.


Volunteering for the Fascist crusade against Judeo-Bolshevism

Irgun Zvia Leum (National Military Organization, NMO) was established in Palestine in 1931 by a group of right-wing Zionists, and was usually referred to as the Irgun. Its aim was to fight the British and establish a Jewish state in Palestine. When Britain declared war on Germany in 1939, most of the Irgun members decided to support the struggle against the Nazis. A splinter group headed by Abraham Stern regarded themselves as the “true” Irgun and decided to continue fighting the British.

This group was known as “the Stern gang”, and was a terrorist organization. Stern claimed that it was only by defeating the British that the Zionists would be able to establish a Jewish state in Palestine. His position was a logical derivation of Zionist dealings with such notables as Simon Petliura and Benito Mussolini, as well as the SS and various Nazi leaders.

In 1941 the Stern gang, still calling itself the NMO, sent a proposal to the Nazis entitled Concerning the Solution of the Jewish Question and Participation in the War on the Side of Germany. It included the following text:

It is often stated in the speeches and utterances of the leading statesmen of National Socialist Germany that a prerequisite of the New Order in Europe requires the radical solution of the Jewish question through evacuation (Jew-free Europe).

The evacuation of the Jewish masses from Europe is a precondition for solving the Jewish question; but this can only be made possible and complete through the settlement of these masses in the home of the Jewish people, Palestine, and through the establishment of a Jewish state in its historic boundaries. The solving in this manner of the Jewish problem, thus bringing with it once and for all the liberation of the Jewish people, is the objective of the political activity and the years-long struggle of the Israeli freedom movement, the National Military Organization (Irgun Zvai Leumi) in Palestine.

The NMO, which is well-acquainted with the goodwill of the German Reich government and its authorities towards Zionist activity inside Germany and towards Zionist emigration plans, is of the opinion that: Common interests could exist between the establishment of a new order in Europe in conformity with the German concept, and the true national aspirations of the Jewish people as they are embodied by the NMO.

1. Cooperation between the new Germany and a renewed folkish-national Hebraium would be possible and,

2. The establishment of the historic Jewish state on a national and totalitarian basis, bound by a treaty with the German Reich, would be in the interest of a maintained and

strengthened future German position of power in the Near East.

3. Proceeding from these considerations, the NMO in Palestine, under the condition the

above-mentioned national aspirations of the Israeli freedom movement are recognized on the side of the German Reich, offers to actively lake part in the war on Germany’s side.

This offer by the NMO, covering activity in the military, political and information fields, in

Palestine and, according to our determined preparations, outside Palestine, would be connected to the military training and organizing of Jewish manpower in Europe, under the leadership and command of the NMO. These military units would take part in the fight to conquer Palestine, should such a front be decided upon.

The indirect participation of the Israeli freedom movement in the New Order in Europe, already in the preparatory stage, would be linked with a positive-radical solution of the European Jewish problem in conformity with the above-mentioned national aspirations of the Jewish people. This would extraordinarily strengthen the moral basis of the New Order in the eyes of all humanity.

The cooperation of the Israeli freedom movement would also be along the lines of one of the last speeches of the German Reich Chancellor, in which Herr Hitler emphasized that he would utilize every combination and coalition in order to isolate and defeat England.

Stern was killed in a gunfight with the British in 1942. In 1944 the gang was under the leadership of Menachem Begin, a Zionist who had fled Poland. He later became Prime Minister of Israel 1977-83. Since by this time it was obvious that the Germans would lose the war, the Stern gang began to fight the British again. One of the directors of the gang’s terrorist operations was Yitzak Shamir, who was appointed Israel’s Foreign Minister by Begin and also served as Prime Minister 1983-84. Shamir was a member of the Stern gang when it sent the memorandum quoted above.

In 1944 the Stern-gang operations directed by Shamir included the murder of Lord Moyne, the British Minister of state for the Middle East in Cairo, as well as a series of bombings of British installations. Subsequent terrorist activities included planting a bomb in the KingDavidHotel in Jerusalem on 22 July 1946.

The bombing killed 91 people, of whom 49 were second-rank clerks, typists and messengers, junior members of the Secretariat, employees of the hotel and canteen workers. (Nicholas Bethell, The Palestine Triangle, 1979, and Thurston Clarke, By Blood and Fire, 1981, cited by Wikipedia.)

The Stern gang also murdered Count Bernadotte in 1948, because they considered that the plan for Palestine as a democratic multi-ethnic state that he was preparing for the UN was unfavorable to the Zionists.


Celebrating terrorism

From the London Times, 20 July 2006:

As Israel wages war against Hezbollah “terrorists” in Lebanon, Britain has protested about the celebration by right-wing Israelis of a Jewish “act of terrorism” against British rule 60 years ago this week.

The rightwingers, including Binyamin Netanyahu, the former Prime Minister, are commemorating the bombing of the KingDavidHotel in Jerusalem, the headquarters of British rule, which killed 92 (sic!) people and helped to drive the British from Palestine.

They have erected a plaque outside the restored building, and are holding a two-day seminar with speeches and a tour of the hotel by one of the Jewish resistance fighters involved in the attack.

Simon McDonald, the British Ambassador in Tel Aviv, and John Jenkins, the Consul-General in Jerusalem, have written to the municipality, stating: “We do not think that it is right for an act of terrorism, which led to the loss of many lives, to be commemorated.”

In particular they demanded the removal of the plaque that pays tribute to the Irgun, the Jewish resistance branch headed by Menachem Begin, the future Prime Minister, which carried out the attack on July 22, 1946.

The plaque presents as fact the Irgun’s claim that people died because the British ignored warning calls. “For reasons known only to the British, the hotel was not evacuated,” it states.

Mr McDonald and Dr Jenkins denied that the British had been warned, adding that even if they had “this does not absolve those who planted the bomb from responsibility for the deaths”. On Monday city officials agreed to remove the language deemed offensive from the blue sign hanging on the hotel’s gates, though that had not been done shortly before it was unveiled last night.

The controversy over the plaque and the two-day celebration of the bombing, sponsored by Irgun veterans and the right-wing Menachem Begin Heritage Centre, goes to the heart of the debate over the use of political violence in the Middle East. Yesterday Mr Netanyahu argued in a speech celebrating the attack that the Irgun were governed by morals, unlike fighters from groups such as Hamas.

“It’s very important to make the distinction between terror groups and freedom fighters, and between terror action and legitimate military action,” he said.


Terrorizing the Palestinians

Begin, Shamir and their colleagues acquired expertise in terrorism, which they applied extensively during the ethnic cleansings of Palestine, as illustrated by the quotation at the beginning of this chapter. One of their memorable achievements was the slaughter of more than 100 Palestinian men, women and children in the village of Deir Yassin on 9 April 1948.

Neither Begin, Shamir or their fellow Irgunists have ever shown any public remorse for their terrorist activities. On the contrary. During Begin’s premiership, his government issued a postage stamp commemorating Abraham Stern as a national hero. Subsequent Israeli governments do not consider their past or present Zionist activities as terrorism, in contrast to observable facts.


Zionists betray Hungarian Jews

Admiral Miklos Horthy, a rabid anti-Communist, became dictator of Hungary in 1920 and entered into an alliance with Nazi Germany in the late 1930s. As the Red Army drove westward into Central Europe during the winter of 1943-44 and the Nazis seemed to be headed for certain defeat, Horthy was considering making a separate peace with the Allies. He was forestalled by Hitler, who ordered the German Army to occupy Hungary in March 1944.

There had been no systematic executions of Jews in Hungary before the Germans came, and many thousands of Polish and Czechoslovakian Jews had fled there. When the Germans arrived there were about 700,000 Jews in the country. The Germans decided to round them up, drive them into ghettos or intern them in “collection camps”, and then send them off for death by labor or gassing. An SS officer named Adolf Eichmann, who had served under Baron von Mildenstein, was in charge of the process.

The Zionist leadership decided to negotiate with Eichmann and persuade him to release a number of Jews for emigration to Palestine. One of the negotiators was Rezso Kastner, a devoted Zionist.

After the war Eichmann fled to South America. In 1960 he was kidnapped by agents of the Israeli secret service, who brought him to Israel to stand trial as an accomplice in the Holocaust. In 1955 Eichmann had given interviews to a Dutch journalist who was also a Nazi, and these were published in Life magazine after he was kidnapped. Eichmann described Kastner as

…a young man about my age, an ice-cold lawyer and a fanatical Zionist. He agreed to help keep the Jews from resisting deportation and even keep order in the collection camps… if I would close my eyes and let a few hundred or a few thousand young Jews emigrate illegally to Palestine. It was a good bargain. For keeping order in the camps, the price of 15,000 or 20,000 Jews, in the end there may have been more, was not too high for me.

Dr Kastner’s main concern was to make it possible for a select group of Hungarian Jews to emigrate to Israel…

I believe that Kastner would have sacrificed a thousand or a hundred thousand of his blood to achieve his political goal. He was not interested in old Jews or those who had become assimilated into Hungarian society. But he was incredibly persistent in trying to save biologically valuable Jewish blood, that is, human material that was capable of reproduction and hard work. You can have the others, he would say, but let me have this group here. And because Kastner rendered us a great service by helping keep the deportation camps peaceful, I would let his groups escape. After all, I was not concerned with small groups of a thousand or so Jews. (Adolf Eichmann, I Transported Them to the Butcher, LIFE, 5 December 1960, emphasis added.)

Kastner arranged to pay a bribe to Eichmann, and the Jews he was allowed to save left Hungary on a train for Switzerland on 6 December 1944. A colleague of Kastner named André Biss wrote A Million Jews to Save (1975), in which he confirmed Eichmann’s statements. Biss described the passengers on the train:

Then came the most numerous group, Kastner’s pride – the Zionist youth. These were composed of the members of various organizations of agricultural pioneers, and of extreme right-wing revisionists who already possessed immigration certificates, and a number of orphans… Lastly came those who had been able to pay cash for their journey, for we had to collect the sum the Germans demanded…300 at the most were of this category…

Kastner’s mother, his brothers, sisters and other members of his family from Klausenburg [Kluj] were passengers… Members of the families of those who had fought for the formation of this convoy formed at the most a group of 40 to 50 persons … In the confusion that ensued about 380 persons managed to clamber into the train which left Budapest, not with 1,300 passengers as expected, but crammed full with more than 1,700 travellers.

Kastner thus saved a number of Jews with “biologically valuable blood”, a smaller number who could pay cash, and members of his family, all in the service of the Zionist project in Palestine.

The Kastner story might have remained nothing more than a shameful and perhaps isolated episode, had it not resurfaced some years later in Israel, where Kastner’s actions were endorsed by the Israeli Supreme Court.


Kastner is exposed after the war

In 1953 a Jewish journalist named Malchiel Gruenwald publicly denounced Kastner as a collaborator, and also claimed that after the war Kastner had saved an SS colonel from being hanged as a war criminal by testifying that he had tried to save Jews. Gruenwald also stated that Kastner hoped to make money for himself on the deal with Eichmann.

David Ben-Gurion was then prime minister of Israel, and his government sued Gruenwald for libel. The implication was obviously that in Ben-Gurion’s eyes Kastner had done no wrong.

In 1955 an Israeli court ruled that Gruenwald had not libeled Kastner, except on the charge of trying to enrich himself. The judge stated:

The Nazis’ patronage of Kastner, and their agreement to let him save six hundred prominent Jews, was part of the plan to exterminate the Jews. Kastner was given a chance to add a few more to that number. The bait attracted him. The opportunity of rescuing prominent people appealed to him greatly. He considered the rescue of the most important Jews as a great personal success and a success for Zionism. (Ben Hecht, Perfidy, 1997.)

The Israeli Labor government appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of Israel, where the state’s Attorney-General Chaim Cohen argued:

Kastner did nothing more and nothing less than was done by us in rescuing the Jews and bringing them to Palestine You are allowed, in fact it is your duty to risk losing the many in order to save the few It has always been our Zionist tradition to select the few out of many in arranging immigration to Palestine. Are we therefore to be called traitors? (Emphasis added.)

Apparently unaware of the meaning of his argument, Cohen admitted that:

Eichmann, the chief exterminator, knew that the Jews would be peaceful and not resist if he allowed the prominents to be saved, that the train of the prominent Jews was organized on Eichmann’s orders to facilitate the extermination of the whole people”. (Emphasis added)

 But Cohen also argued:

There was no room for any resistance to the Germans in Hungary and that Kastner was allowed to draw the conclusion that if all the Jews of Hungary are to be sent to their death he is entitled to organize a rescue train for 600 people. He is not only entitled to do it but is also bound to act accordingly. (Hecht)

In 1957 Kastner was murdered. In 1958 the Israeli Supreme Court ruled on the government’s appeal, and absolved Kastner of the charge of collaboration. As part of the majority opinion, Judge Shlomo Chesin stated:

He (Kastner) didn’t warn Hungarian Jewry of the danger facing it because he didn’t think it would be useful, and because he thought that any deeds resulting from information given them would damage more than help … Kastner spoke in detail of the situation, saying, ‘The Hungarian Jew was a branch which long ago dried up on the tree.’ This vivid description coincides with the testimony of another witness about Hungarian Jews. ‘This was a big Jewish community in Hungary, without any ideological Jewish backbone’

The question is not whether a man is allowed to kill many in order to save a few, or vice-versa. The question is altogether in another sphere and should be defined as follows: a man is aware that a whole community is awaiting its doom. He is allowed to make efforts to save a few, although part of his efforts involve concealment of truth from the many; or should he disclose the truth to many though it is his best opinion that this way everybody will perish. I think the answer is clear. What good will the blood of the few bring if everyone is to perish? (Hecht, emphasis added.)

Both the government’s argument and the Court’s decision are in line with Ben-Gurion’s views on saving or not saving Jewish children in German (see above). The description of Hungarian Jews as having “dried up”, “lacking any ideological Jewish backbone” (i.e. they were not Zionists) is in line with Chaim Weizmann’s  dismissal of elderly Jews in Europe as “economic and moral dust” (see above).

The Kastner case is one of the most dramatic demonstrations of the Zionist leadership’s essential contempt for human beings who do not subordinate themselves to Zionist ideology. It also demonstrates the fraudulence of their claim that they represent “the Jewish people”, which does not exist, any more than a Christian or Muslim people (See the Israeli historian Shlomo Sand’s The Invention of the Jewish People, 2009.)


Silence at the Forum for Living History

Before the Holocaust, Zionist leaders cooperated with European Fascists, including those who were later responsible for the Holocaust. They continued to do so while the Holocaust was in progress. Before the Holocaust was over, future leaders of the state of Israel led a terrorist gang against the British, who were at war with the same Nazis who perpetrated the Holocaust. After World War 2, Begin, Shamir, Ben-Gurion and other future leaders of Zionist Israel directed widespread terrorism against Palestinian civilians, who most certainly had not been responsible for the Holocaust.

In accordance with the prevalent Western view of Israel, the Forum for Living History does not consider this worthy of note in its efforts to transmit knowledge of history “on the basis of the Holocaust” to its target audience. A search for “Zionists” and “Zionism” at the Forum’s web site returned no results.

Advertisements