Zionism and anti-Semitism -Siamese Twins – Joined at the Hip
Stanley Heller
'Zionist betrayal of Jews, from Herzl to Netanyahu' self-published, 2019,
pp147. Available from Middle East Crisis Committee, Box 3626, Woodbridge CT,
06525, USA, for a donation of $10 or more.
If you want to order a hard copy of the book then sending it by mail would be $15 in postage to the UK (& presumably Europe too).
There is also a digital edition. It is $7.50 from Lulu.com
Why is it that when world
Jewry were boycotting everything made in Germany the Zionists struck up a
trading agreement (Ha'avara) with them?
Why did Ben Gurion say, after
Kristallacht and the agreement by Britain to accept 10,000 German Jewish children
that:
‘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 history of the People of Israel.’[i]
Why did Ben Gurion’s
official biographer, Shabtai Teveth write that:
‘As the European Holocaust
erupted, Ben Gurion saw it as a decisive opportunity for Zionism... Ben Gurion
above all others sensed the tremendous possibilities inherent in the dynamic of
the chaos and carnage in Europe... In conditions of peace,… Zionism could not
move the masses of world Jewry. The forces unleashed by Hitler in all their
horror must be harnessed to the advantage of Zionism. ... By the end of 1942…
the struggle for a Jewish state became the primary concern of the movement.’
 |
| When the Holocaust was taking place, Zionism's attention was focussed on achieving statehood not on rescuing refugees |
Why in a memo to the Zionist
Executive did Ben Gurion write that:
‘if the Jews are faced with a
choice between the refugee problem and rescuing Jews from concentration camps
on the one hand, and aid for the national museum in Palestine on the other, the
Jewish sense of pity will prevail and our people's entire strength will be
directed at aid for the refugees in the various countries. Zionism will vanish
from the agenda and indeed not only world public opinion in England and America
but also from Jewish public opinion. We are risking Zionism's very existence if
we allow the refugee problem to be separated from the Palestine problem.’[ii]
The answers and more are in this short book by
Stanley Heller. This review was printed in Weekly
Worker
Review by Tony Greenstein
This book is
really just a sampler with a fairly arbitrary selection of topics about
Zionism’s relationship with its Siamese twin, anti-Semitism. Without
anti-Semitism there would have been no Zionism and that is why the Zionist
movement has always considered anti-Semitism as a kind of ‘distant relative’.
The founder
of political Zionism, Theodor Herzl, in his pamphlet The Jewish state,
compared the Zionist use of anti-Semitism to the use of steam as a source of
power. Zionism sought not to fight anti-Semitism, but to harness it.
There are,
however, large gaps in Heller’s brief account and his selection of topics is
somewhat arbitrary. Why choose the visit of the Nazis, Adolf Eichmann and
Leopold von Mildenstein, to Palestine as guests of the Labour Zionists, when
there are so many worse examples of Nazi-Zionist collaboration? Why omit
completely the story of Kasztner and the collaboration of Hungarian Zionism
with the Nazis, which cost thousands of lives?
Yet these
are minor points. Heller has done us a service with this book in reminding us,
in the days when Zionist accusations of ‘anti-Semitism’ are rife, that, when it
comes to genuine anti-Semitism, you will not see the Zionist movement for dust.
One of the
most remarkable things about the fake ‘anti-Semitism’ campaign waged against
Jeremy Corbyn for the past four years - what Justin Schlosberg has called a
“disinformation paradigm”1
- is the absence of evidence: hence why such a high percentage of those
suspended and expelled have been Jewish anti-Zionists.
Herzl made
it clear that opposition to anti-Semitism was “futile”, before going on to
“pardon” it.2
He believed anti-Semitism contained a “divine will to good”.3
One of the most remarkable aspects of the false anti-Semitism campaign is that
even the truth can be anti-Semitic!
By
‘anti-Semitism’ I mean what the man on the Clapham Omnibus understands by it,
which the Oxford English Dictionary defines as “hostility to or prejudice
against Jews”. Because Zionism has no interest in opposing genuine
anti-Semitism it has tried to foist the IHRA definition of it onto public
bodies. Anti-Semitism has been redefined as hostility to Israel and Zionism.
It was Ken
Livingstone’s propensity for blurting out the truth - namely that the Nazis
‘supported’ Zionism - which was responsible for the vitriolic attacks on him. A
little known fact is that Labour’s disciplinary process excluded, from the
start, any examination of the truth of what Livingstone had said. What mattered
was that he had said it. The sole concern of Labour’s witch-hunters was that
Ken had ‘given offence’ to the ‘Jewish community’.
In the wake
of the Charlie Hebdo murders in France, The Guardian and others
supported freedom of speech. An op ed in The Guardian by Jodie Ginsburg
thundered: “The right to free speech means nothing without the right to
offend.”4
Perhaps she should have added: ‘except if they are Zionist Jews or their
non-Jewish supporters’.
Not one
British newspaper, not even The Guardian or The Independent
supported Livingstone’s freedom of speech. They demanded his expulsion from
Labour. He was sacked by LBC radio, which was happy to employ neo-Nazi Katie
Hopkins and the far-right Nigel Farage.
But
targeting Muslims, as Charlie Hebdo did, was acceptable. One front page
called the Koran “shit”, because anti-Muslim racism is consistent with
imperialist discourse. However, speaking the truth about the record of Zionism
during the Nazi era is not covered by freedom of speech. Zionism is the
ideology that gave birth to and governs the Israeli state. What is at stake is
not a quibble about the truth, but very real political, strategic and economic
interests. Jews have been summoned as the first line of defence of western
strategic and economic interests. Jews are the shield for western imperialism.
Heller’s
description of how Zionism has betrayed the Jews, from the days of its founder,
Theodor Herzl to Netanyahu is a gripping one. One theme runs through the book:
Zionism sought to utilise, never to oppose, anti-Semitism. When a conflict
arose between the needs of Jews and building the ‘Jewish’ state, then the
latter always won out.
Heller
builds on Lenni Brenner’s books, Zionism in the age of the dictators and 51 Documents - Zionist Collaboration with the Nazis, which exposed some of the sordid details of the Zionist movement’s
relationships with fascism. This despite serious problems with Brenner’s
understanding of events and analysis.5
It would though have been useful to have provided, if not an index, at least a
contents page!
Heller
begins his journey with Herzl - “the Jewish man who thought that anti-Semitism
was natural”. The belief that anti-Semitism was a natural phenomenon was common
to all Zionists. Chaim Weizmann, president of the Zionist Organisation and
first president of Israel (his name does not appear in the book once) wrote in
his autobiography:
Whenever the
quantity of Jews in any country reaches saturation point, that country reacts
against them ... The determining factor in this matter is not the solubility of
the Jews, but the solvent power of the country.6
Collaboration
Heller
rightly points out that Herzl’s conversion to Zionism occurred not as a result
of the Dreyfus affair, but the election of Karl Lueger as mayor of Vienna in
1897. Lueger’s election was a shock to both the Jews and emperor Franz Joseph,
who only confirmed him in office after the fifth election. The last thing
Joseph wanted was anti-Semitism in his multi-national empire.
 |
| Hitler at Nuremberg |
Whilst
Hitler praised Lueger as his inspiration, he was no Hitler himself. Lueger was
an opportunist, who realised that without the spice of anti-Semitism he could
not win over the artisan vote in Vienna. He was more in the tradition of
‘municipal socialism’. Lueger also had many Jewish friends and, when reproached
about this, famously declared: “I decide who is a Jew.”
What Heller
does not mention is that Herzl created a myth, claiming that it was the Dreyfus
affair that had been the cause of his conversion to Zionism. Any objective
examination shows that Herzl was not interested in Dreyfus and almost certainly
believed in his guilt. This was why Herzl and Bernard Lazare, the earliest
campaigner for Dreyfus, parted company in 1899.
Heller
describes how early Zionists were willing to work with the worst anti-Semites.
Herzl met with Vyacheslav von Plehve, the Russian interior minister responsible
for the pogrom at Kishinev in 1903. In return for the legalisation of the
Zionist movement, he agreed not to criticise the Russian government. Vladimir
Jabotinsky, the founder of revisionist Zionism, reached an agreement with the
White Russian leader, Symon Petliura, who had the deaths of up to 50,000 Jews
to his credit. But that did not stop Jabotinsky holding hands with him.
Heller looks
at the Zionist sabotage of the Jewish boycott of Nazi Germany through its
negotiation of a trade agreement, Ha’avara, with the Nazis. The Zionists saw
the rise of the Nazis as an opportunity: “The last thing they considered was
mobilising world opinion against the brownshirt menace.”
 |
| Israel supplied weaponry to Guatemala under Rios Montt when the USA stopped shipments. The Guatemalan Junta butchered 200,000 Mayan Indians thanks to Israeli arms and training. |
The Zionists
broke the boycott, even though it held out the only possibility of leading to
the overthrow of Hitler. In practice they were writing off German Jewry. Today
the Zionists claim that Ha’avara was about saving Jews, but this is a lie. It
was about saving German Jewish wealth: 60% of capital investment in Jewish
Palestine between 1933 and 1939 came from Nazi Germany.7
According to Edwin Black, a rightwing Zionist and author of The transfer
agreement, “the Nazi party and the Zionist Organisation shared a common
stake in the recovery of Germany. If the Hitler economy fell, both sides would
be ruined.”8
An article
on the Jewish Telegraph Agency site is headed ‘Reich on verge of
collapse’.9
This was on account of the Jewish boycott. The sabotage of the anti-Nazi
boycott by Zionism was an example of prioritising the interests of the ‘Jewish
state’ over the lives of living Jews. Although the Zionists claimed that no-one
in 1933 could predict the extermination of the Jews, this is untrue. Samuel
Untermayer, organiser of the boycott, did just that.
As Edwin
Black pointed out, the boycott forced Hitler to restrain anti-Jewish attacks.
It denied Germany foreign exchange and the ability to “acquire the raw
materials needed to rebuild its war machine”. None of this mattered to the
Zionists.
Heller rightly
concentrates on the situation in Poland, where after the death of Józef
Piłsudski in 1935, the level of anti-Semitism soared. Jewish benches were
introduced in the universities. Attacks on Jews massively increased and the
government introduced anti-Semitic legislation, such as forcing businesses to
carry the name of the owner on their sign (thus making it clear which shops
were Jewish).
Jabotinsky’s
supporters, who were strong in Poland, collaborated first with the Piłsudski
regime and then the colonels’ government. They believed that Poland could take
over the Palestine mandate from the British. They also had cordial relations
with Mussolini’s fascists, training at the Italian naval station of
Civitavecchia. In 1938 Mussolini introduced anti-Semitic racial laws and
started persecuting Italian Jews. In 1943 during the Salo republic, Italian
fascists collaborated in the deportation of 8,000 Italian Jews to Auschwitz.
It was in
this situation of increasing anti-Semitism that Polish Jews turned to the Bund,
an anti-Zionist socialist organisation. As Shmuel Merlin, a revisionist leader
in Warsaw, told Lenni Brenner,
It was absolutely correct to say
that only the Bund waged an organised fight against the anti-Semites. We did
not consider that we had to fight in Poland. We believed the way to ease the
situation was to take the Jews out of Poland. We had no spirit of animosity.
Priority
Heller
quotes the notorious speech of Ben Gurion of December 9 1938 to the central
committee of Mapai, the centre-left party (in response to the Krystallnacht,
the British had offered to admit 10,000 unaccompanied Jewish children from
Germany):
If I knew that it was possible to save all the
children in Germany by transporting them to England, or only half by
transporting them to Palestine, I would choose the second, because we face not
only the reckoning of those children, but the historical reckoning of the
Jewish people.
If Jews were
to be rescued, according to their twisted logic, it had to be to Palestine.
Otherwise what purpose was there to this “national museum”, as Ben Gurion
described it?
Whereas
world Jewry viewed the rise of Hitler with foreboding, to the Zionist leaders
Hitler’s rise presented “unprecedented historical opportunities”. Heller quotes
Tom Segev’s Seventh million as claiming that for Ben Gurion the
extermination of the Jews was “above all else a crime against Zionism”.
Heller’s
short section on ‘rescue plans’ skirts over three that were abortive - the
rescue of 70,000 Jews from Transnistria in Romania, the delayed deportation of
Jews from Slovakia and the ‘Blood for Trucks’ proposal to the allies from Adolf
Eichmann in May 1944. Heller does justice to none of these proposals.
He follows
in Brenner’s footsteps in seeing the offer of a million Jews in exchange for
100,000 winterised trucks as genuine. That the Zionists took it seriously, when
it was obviously designed to split the Allies, is entirely to their discredit -
especially as they refused to publicise the plight of Hungarian Jews, who Eichmann
had already started deporting from Hungary on May 15, two days before this
so-called offer had been made.
Heller also
makes the mistake of attributing the stopping of the deportation of 30,000 Jews
from Slovakia in October 1942 as due to a bribe. Slovakia was the first country
in Europe whose Jews were deported. In fact it was Vatican pressure on the
puppet leader, Josef Tiso, a Catholic priest, which was responsible for the
calling off of the deportations.
Heller
quotes Tom Segev as saying, “Only a few survivors
owed their lives to the efforts of the Zionist movement.” Not only is this
true, but thousands more lost their lives because of the Zionist movement’s
campaign against rescue to anywhere but Palestine.
The author
quotes Segev as saying that “the Jewish leaders of Palestine never made the
rescue of European Jews into an overwhelming national priority”. This was an
understatement. The Zionist leaders focussed almost exclusively on building
their state, to the exclusion of the holocaust. But this did not stop Zionism
from using the holocaust as a propaganda weapon. Heller mentions the 32 members
of Haganah, the Jewish paramilitary group in Palestine, who were parachuted
into Europe in 1944 and accepts the story that they were sent to fight the
Nazis. He writes: “All praise must be given to these heroes.”
But this is
not true. According to the memoirs of Yoel Palgi, the only Hungarian
parachutist to survive, the aim was “to reconstruct the crumbling Zionist youth
movements there after the war”. Yechiam Weitz wrote: “While the parachutists outwardly defined theirs as a rescue mission,
... their primary goal was in effect to influence the survivors to choose
Palestine as their ultimate destination.”10
Heller
mentions the Livingstone affair, when Ken stated that Hitler supported Zionism.
Heller says that “Livingstone’s wording was regrettable” and that “Hitler
certainly didn’t believe in Zionism: his agents only worked with
Zionists in the 30s to get Jews out of Germany.” Livingstone, who has been
repeatedly misquoted by the bourgeois press, is misquoted again here. He said
that Hitler ‘supported’, not ‘believed in’, Zionism.
And it is
not true that Nazi agents only worked with the Zionists in order to get rid of
Germany’s Jews. There was also an ideological congruity, which was expressed in
the Ha’avara agreement. The collaboration was wider. The Zionist leaders
welcomed Hitler and the Nazis to power, believing that they would benefit. This
was what became known as ‘cruel Zionism’.
Zionism
never hesitates to mention the collaboration of the mufti of Jerusalem, but
omits to mention the “loathsome offer to collaborate with Hitler” of the Stern
Gang - one of whose leaders, Yitzhak Shamir, twice became Israel’s prime
minister. The Stern Gang “under Stern’s inspiration praised the Nazis
extravagantly for locking the Polish Jews into the ghettos, contrasting this
favourably with the conditions of Jewish life in Poland before the Nazi
invasion”. Was there any greater example of the madness of the Zionist fringe?
Heller gives
us a taste of a number of subjects that require much greater in-depth study. He
describes how the leadership of American Jewry betrayed the Jews of Europe. In
the section, ‘Arthur Goldberg whitewashes the passivity of the Jewish elite’,
Heller tells the story of the bad conscience of the leadership of American
Jewry.
In the 1980s
“the American Jewish Commission on the Holocaust” was set up, chaired by Arthur
Goldberg. It was initially financed by Jack Eisner, a former Warsaw ghetto
fighter. Part of its draft, which was leaked to the New York Times,
stated:
In
retrospect, one incontrovertible fact stands out above all others: In the face
of Hitler’s total war of extermination against the Jews of Europe, the Jewish
leadership in America at no stage decided to proclaim total mobilisation for
rescue.
It said that
the Zionists’ “exclusive concentration on Palestine as a solution” made them
unable to work for any other alternative.
Heller cites
the dissident revisionist, Peter Bergson, who told Stephen Wise, the leader of
American Zionists:
“If you were inside a burning house, would you want the people outside to scream, ‘Save them’, or to scream, ‘Save them by taking them to the Waldorf Astoria’?”
The Zionists
literally sabotaged rescue to anywhere but Palestine. Not content with this,
they spearheaded a campaign against those who did want to do something -
notably the Emergency Committee to Rescue Europe’s Jews. Stephen Wise and Nahum
Goldman advised the Roosevelt administration to deport the committee’s two
leaders, describing them as “worse than Hitler”.
Not
surprisingly, the Zionists did not like the draft report of the Commission and
it never saw the light of day. Eisner withdrew his financial backing when he
saw that the vested interests would not allow the truth to emerge. Nahum
Goldman, who was president of the Zionist Organisation, admitted that he and
Wise received a telegram from Jewish Resistance in Europe exhorting “12 top
American Jews to go and sit night and day on the steps outside the White House
until the Allies are moved to bomb Auschwitz and Treblinka”.
The US
airforce had the capacity to bomb Auschwitz, because it was already bombing
Buna/Auschwitz III, where the rubber factories were based. Indeed they bombed
one of the gas chambers by accident. Yet the American leaders refused to do
anything other than make polite requests. As Heller notes, on June 11 1944, the
Jewish Agency executive committee refused to call for the bombing of Auschwitz.
Israel’s Nazis
In chapter
5, Heller focuses on ‘Israel - employing German Nazis’. This is the remarkable
story of how the Israeli state employed leading Nazis after the war as agents.
The most notorious was Walter Rauff, who had personally designed the ‘Black
Raven’ mobile gas chambers that were first used between 1939 and 1941 to murder
up to 100,000 handicapped Germans. These same gas trucks made their way to
Poland, where they formed the first extermination camp at Chełmno at the
beginning of December 1941. Thousands of Jews and gypsies from Łódź - the
second major ghetto in Poland - were murdered there.
Rauff’s New
York Times obituary states: “Nazi hunters and governments that sought his
extradition, however, estimated that as many as 250,000 people - most of them
east European Jews - died in the vans.” However, this did not deter the Israeli
government from employing him. Israel not only paid Rauff, but also arranged
for an Italian visa. Rauff and his family sailed from Genoa to South America
courtesy of the Israeli state.
Another
agent was the swashbuckling Otto Skorzeny. He was responsible for helping
install the Nazi Arrow Cross regime in Hungary. Heller states that the result
of this for Hungarian Jews was the resumption of the deportations, with the
loss of 100,000 lives. I disagree. About 50,000 Jews were murdered, primarily
as a result of gang attacks by Arrow Cross thugs and in the forced march of
Jews to Vienna on November 8 1944.
It is untrue
that deportations were resumed. I have seen no evidence of this. A report on
the deportation of Hungarian Jews to Austria by Eleonore Lappin confirms this.
After the overthrow of regent Miklós Horthy and prime minister Géza Lakatos on
October 15, Eichmann returned two days later to Budapest:
However, by
this juncture in mid-October, the machinery of annihilation in Auschwitz had
already been disrupted and shut down. On October 7 1944, prisoners in the
Sonderkommando had destroyed at least one of the gas chambers. A short time
later, gassings were halted and Himmler gave the order to tear down the gas
chambers and crematoria. This was carried out in November and December 1944.
This is why,
when SS Brigadeführer Hugo Blaschke, mayor of Vienna, begged for labour
to help build anti-tank fortifications, Jews were forced to travel by foot
until Arrow Cross leader Ferenc Szálasi halted the march. The rail network had
all but collapsed.
Skorzeny had
kidnapped Horthy’s son, rolling him up in a carpet and threatening to execute
him if Horthy did not resign. Skorzeny bore a major responsibility for the
murder of Jews which followed, but this did not stop Israel from recruiting him
as a spy. Although Israel made great play of its capture of Adolf Eichmann in
Argentina in 1960, Heller shows how it was not interested in the capture of any
other Nazis, such as Josef Mengele, the notorious SS doctor in Auschwitz.
Israel and anti-Semites
The final
three chapters bring us up to date, beginning with chapter 6: ‘Selling guns to
Nazi-admiring juntas’. The Bolivian junta under Hugo Banzer was hiding Klaus
Barbie, head of the Gestapo in Lyons:
In August
1973, Israeli foreign minister Abba Eban visited Bolivia and was asked at a
press conference whether he had spoken to its dictatorial leader, Hugo Banzer,
about Barbie. Eban responded that it was an internal matter of the Bolivian
legal system, and that it would be up to Bolivia to decide whether or not to
extradite Barbie to France.
What kind of
‘Jewish’ state refuses to call for the extradition of a Nazi responsible for
the murder of at least 4,000 Jews?
When Luis
García Meza seized power in Bolivia in 1980, aiming to create a Pinochet-style
government, US president Jimmy Carter refused to recognise his regime. Israel,
however, had no such scruples. As Heller observes, “The Carter administration
applied sanctions against Meza. In contrast Israel gave Meza economic and
military aid.”
John Brown
in Ha’aretz described how
Israel also armed Bolivia’s military regimes, knowing that Nazi war criminal Klaus Barbie was part of the regime. Legal documents used to convict the head of the junta also showed that Barbie’s death squads used Israeli Uzis [submachine guns].
What was
Israel’s motive? A few million in arms sales! As Israel Shahak, the Israeli
human rights activist and holocaust survivor said in 1984, it was “beyond
shame”. He added: “During this time the
Israel of prime ministers Rabin and Begin did nothing - actually less than
nothing - as they aided the fascist regime.”
People
should bear this in mind when they consider the ‘anti-Semitism’ attacks on
Jeremy Corbyn. Heller describes Israeli relationships with Paraguay under the
dictatorship of Alfredo Stroessner, an open Nazi admirer. Paraguay played host
to Mengele. When the Israeli ambassador, Benjamin Varon was asked about
Mengele, his standard answer was: “The Israel government is not searching for
Dr Mengele - the Federal Republic of Germany is.”
The seventh
chapter, ‘Modern-day collaboration with Jew-haters’, includes Viktor Orbán,
prime minister of Hungary, who is intent on rehabilitating admiral Horthy, the
pro-Nazi leader of Hungary during the war, whom he described as an “exceptional
statesman”.
Heller says
that Horthy set up the ‘labour service system’ for men considered ‘unworthy’ of
being in the military, such as Jews. Heller says that 45,000 Jews served in it.
My own understanding is that the figure was double this and that half of them
survived. Ironically the labour service became a source of refuge and rescue.
Heller
describes how in 2019 Netanyahu gave a warm welcome to the premier of
Lithuania, Saulius Skvernelis. A year earlier Netanyahu had praised Skvernelis
for fighting anti-Semitism despite the fact that Lithuanian schools make into
heroes the anti-Soviet nationalists who were involved in the mass killing of
Jews. 95% of Lithuanian Jews were exterminated - the highest proportion in
Europe.
Israel has
cultivated warm relationships with a whole series of racist regimes and
figures, such as Austria’s neo-Nazi leader, Heinz Christian Strache, and
India’s Hindu nationalist leader, Narendra Modi. Israel even supplies weapons
to Ukraine’s neo-Nazi militia, the Azov Battalion .
The final
chapter is on ‘Trump, Netanyahu and the eruption of US anti-Semitism’. Trump is
an ideal example of how an anti-Semite can, at the same time, be the most
ardent Zionist. The man for whom neo-Nazis at Charlottesville were “fine
people” invited the anti-Semitic pastor, John Hagee, who believes that Hitler
was a “half-breed Jew”, to preside at the opening of the US embassy in
Jerusalem.
In short,
when Zionists talk about ‘anti-Semitism’, it is a camouflage to hide their own
collaboration with genuine anti-Semites.
Heller has
done us a great service in writing this all too short book. I can heartily
recommend it as an hors d’oeuvres. However it is only a taster. The full
story of Zionist collaboration with anti-Semites, the Nazis included, will take
up a much larger volume.
Tony
Greenstein
- . J
Schlosberg Labour, anti-Semitism and the news: a disinformation paradigm:
www.mediareform.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/Labour-antisemitism-and-the-news-FINAL-PROOFED.pdf.↩︎
- . www.marxists.org/history/etol/document/mideast/toi/chap3-11.html.
In his diaries (p6) he wrote: “In Paris, as I have said, I achieved a
freer attitude towards anti-Semitism, which I now began to understand
historically and to pardon. Above all, I recognised the emptiness and
futility of trying to ‘combat’ anti-Semitism.”↩︎
- . T
Herzl The complete diaries of Theodor Herzl New York 1960, p231.↩︎
- . The
Guardian February 16 2015.↩︎
- . See
my article, ‘Zionist-Nazi collaboration and the holocaust - a historical
aberration? Lenni Brenner revisited’ Journal of Holy Land Studies November
2014’.↩︎
- . C
Weizmann Trial and error pp90-91.↩︎
- . D
Rosenthal, ‘Chaim Arlosoroff, 65 years after his assassination’ Jewish
Frontier May-June 1998. In 1937 over 31 million Deutsche Mark were
transferred (FR Nicosia The Third Reich and the Palestine question London
2000, p213).↩︎
- . E
Black The transfer agreement Washington 2009, p253.↩︎
- . http://pdfs.jta.org/1935/1935-12-10_105.pdf↩︎
- . Y
Weitz, ‘Jewish refugees and Zionist policy during the holocaust’ Middle
Eastern Studies Vol 30, No2, April 1994, p359. Lenni Brenner in Zionism in
the age of the dictators (1983) made the same mistake.↩︎
[i] Zionism
and the Holocaust, http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/631/zionism-and-the-holocaust
Yoav Gelber, ‘Zionist policy, p.199, Segev, p.28. Ben-Gurion at the Mapai CC, 7.12.38, Labour
Party Archives, Bet Berl Tsofit., 22/38, Teveth, p.855, Piterberg, p.99.
[ii] Memo
of 17.12.38 to Zionist Executive cited by Machover-Offenburg Khamsin 6, p. 58,
Arie Bober, The Other Israel, p.171 https://tinyurl.com/y692ngan, John
Quigley, The Case for Palestine: An International Law Perspective,
pp. 26-27, Duke University Press, 2005. See also New Premises for a False
Conclusion ‒ Moshe Machover, Matzpen, 10.5.67., https://tinyurl.com/y6rtdzsw for a longer quotation by Yigal Elam in “New Premises
for the Same Zionism” in Ot, No. 2 Winter 1967, which puts this in perspective.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please submit your comments below