Gaza’s Genocide Proves that the Terms ‘Liberal’ & ‘Right-wing’ Zionist are a Distinction Without a Difference

What Kind of Person Writes a Biography With the Intention of Distorting What Their Subject Said & Justifying their Silencing? Step forward the Guardian’s Freedland

Rudolf Vrba interviewed by Claude Lanzmann about Rudolf Kasztner & Rabbi Weissmandel

In The Art of Biography Virginia Woolf described how the

biographer must ‘detect(ing) falsity,unreality... His sense of truth must be alive and on tiptoe.

By telling us the true facts, by sifting the little from the big, and shaping the whole so that we perceive the outline, the biographer does more to stimulate the imagination than any poet or novelist save the very greatest.

Jonathan Freedland in The Escape Artist, set out to do the exact opposite of what Woolf advised. Freedland was determined that the ‘true facts’ wouldn’t interfere with his narrative.

In a letter to Arnold Zweig, Freud wrote that ‘To be a biographer you must tie yourself up in lies, concealments, hypocrisies.’ It was as if Freud’s prescient passage was written with Freedland in mind!

Freedland’s concern when he wrote his biography was not to explain why Vrba was hostile to Zionism. He sole concern was to appropriate Vrba’s record of heroism whilst divorcing it from his anti-Zionism. So much so that at one point in his book we are told that Vrba ‘rooted for Israel’

A good biography must do more than just tell a story, it must bring to life the person who is the subject, warts and all. It must delve into what made them tick. Otherwise it is just a recitation of who did what and when.

I confess that when I first learnt that Freedland was bringing out a book on Rudolf Vrba I smelt a rat. Freedland is someone who could see ‘anti-Semitism’ in his grandmother’s grave. It was no surprise therefore when I read his book.

Below is the blog that Jonathan Cook, a prize-winning ex-Guardian journalist wrote about my article in Electronic Intifada and my last blog

Freedland caricatures Vrba’s views and erects straw men in order to demolish them. Vrba was someone I knew quite a lot about, having written a chapter about him in my own book. Freedland’s behaviour simply confirms my previous description of him as Britain’s most dishonest journalist, in a field which is crowded with competitors.

Freedland’s purpose was not to research and explain the background to Vrba’s criticism of Zionism but to impose his own views on Vrba and pretend that his anti-Zionism was just an aberration, a misunderstanding that could be excised without harming the heroic narrative that Freedland wanted to construct.

However this caused a dilemma because how could Freedland explain why Vrba was unknown in Israel and why he had been removed by Zionism’s holocaust historians from the history of the holocaust if not because of his anti-Zionist views?

In the end Freedland ends up justifying the silencing of the very person he is writing his Hollywood-style biography about. As Jonathan Cook says, now that Vrba has been politically neutered and made acceptable, he is fit to star in a Hollywood movie that will enrich Freedland.

Freedland struggles to justify the deliberate and conscious decision of Yehuda Bauer and the stable of Yad Vashem’s holocaust historians to erase all trace of Vrba. But he tries!! Vrba was

‘not an easy sell in Israel or in the mainstream Jewish diaspora.’

He was an

awkward witness... (as) was his tendency to refer to the Jews whom he blamed as ‘Zionists.’”

‘handing a platform to Rudolf Vrba may have come to seem like a risk.’

Even worse Vrba refused to

“soften his message to make it more palatable.”

And Vrba even believed that Zionists

 “like Hitler believed in a ‘master race.’”

What is noticeable is that Freedland doesn’t actually quotes Vrba’s views on Zionism.  Such as when he wrote, in his memoirs in the Daily Herald in February 1961 of the Hungarian Zionists that they were a

small group of quislings (who) knew what was happening to their brethren in Hitler's gas chambers and bought their own lives with the price of silence.

Such views must have been painful for Freedland to read and listen to (there are many long recordings of Vrba). The problem for Freedland was that Zionism has no equivalent heroes to Vrba and Marek Edelman. If anyone else had said half the things that Vrba said about Zionism and its collaboration with the Nazis during the Corbyn era, Freedland would have instantly called them ‘anti-Semitic’ and demanded their expulsion. It was indeed a dilemma.

Rudolf Kasztner - the Zionist Collaborator with Eichmann Who Kept Quiet About Auschwitz in Return for a Train Carrying Leading Zionists and Rich Jews Out of Hungary - Freedland naturally defended  him

Vrba was unknown until Claude Lanzmann, who I also have a section on in my book, interviewed him at length for his film Shoah. Lanzmann was a Zionist and he tried to shut down Vrba when he expressed his detestation of Zionism and its Kasztners.

As we know only too well, when it comes to what is happening in Gaza the Israeli state and Zionists lie, lie and lie again. However this is not always true when it comes to the history of Zionism and the holocaust. For many Zionists writing about their own record is cathartic even if they end up excusing it. What they say to themselves in their own journals is different from their propaganda to the world. Most of my book uses Zionist not anti-Zionist sources.

For example Shabtai Teveth, the official biographer of David Ben-Gurion, the first Prime Minister of Israel and the Chair of the Jewish  Agency before that, was extremely honest about Ben-Gurion’s attitudes during the holocaust in the final chapter ‘Disaster Means Strength’of his book Ben-Gurion: The Burning Ground 1886-1948 he explained Ben-Gurion’s attitude to the holocaust..

The very title of the chapter was indicative. The disaster he referred to was the holocaust itself and for Ben-Gurion its meaning was the strengthening of the Zionist movement. Teveth concluded that:

If there was a line in Ben-Gurion’s mind between the beneficial disaster and an all-destroying catastrophe, it must have been a very fine one. (p.851)

Freedland however is not a historian, he is a propagandist.  He fronted, via his Guardian columns, the dishonest attacks against Corbyn. Freedland never failed to invent a pretext for alleging that Corbyn was anti-Semitic or, at the very least, tolerated anti-Semites.

Freedland decried those who alleged that ‘anti-Semitism’ was being weaponised. He argued that questioning Jews about allegations of anti-Semitism was like doubting women or Black people of if they alleged rape or racism.

Freedland asked whether any other minority would have had their allegations called into question, thus avoiding the substance of the doubts themselves. Being a minority is one thing but being an oppressed minority is quite another but for Freedland Zionist Jews had the ‘right to define their own oppression’ even if it meant justifying the oppression of the Palestinians.

The fact that a substantial minority of Jews were not Zionists and did not agree with the way anti-Semitism was being weaponised on behalf of Israeli apartheid did not bother him.

Not once did Freedland ever spell out what this ‘anti-Semitism’ meant practically. We know that Black people in this country experience economic discrimination, police violence and imprisonment, racist attacks etc. but what was it that Jews, almost entirely White and middle class, experienced?  Freedland never said because he dealt in abstractions and false analogies.

Likewise with Israel. For Freedland this was a Jewish state. Jews in Britain identified with it (but not all) therefore it was anti-Semitic to challenge that identity. It is an argument that has no intellectual or moral basis. Is a challenge to someone’s identity racist? What about reactionary, sexist or racist identities? 

Netanyahu & Viktor Orban have a bromance - Orban believes that Admiral Horthy who presided over the deportation of nearly half a million Jews was an 'exceptional statesman'

Hindu men used to identify with Sati, the practice of burning widows on the funeral pyre of their husbands. One wonders whether Freedland would consider an attack on this custom as racist per se? There are those whose identity is bound up with female genital mutilation? Should criticism of that also be considered racist since it is practised still in many African countries? Why should the identification of some Jews with Apartheid in Israel be any different?

Of course all historians approach their subject with preconceived ideas and prejudices. Neutrality is a rare commodity. However honesty dictates that people should be open about where they are coming from rather than adopt a stance of Olympian neutrality.

Freedland did not merely criticise Vrba for the views he held, he distorted them, lied about them and then, to cap it all, he justified the attempts to silence them.

When I wrote Zionism During the Holocaust I had already concluded that Zionism was a reaction to anti-Semitism that accepted the conceptual framework of anti-Semitism. I made no pretence to neutrality but nor did I seek to distort or manipulate what advocates of Zionism who I quote say. I wanted them to condemn themselves out of their own mouths.

Freedland is different. Ostensibly he was writing a biography about someone who everyone accepts was an incredibly brave hero. Freedland accumulated the evidence, mainly papers from his family and was set to write the story. But instead of honestly setting out his stall he constantly ran up against the fact that politically he disagreed with Vrba on Zionism. So instead of calling out the censorship that Zionism’s holocaust historians had practised and at which Zionism is so good he ended up justifying it.

A Liberal Zionist is simply a Right-wing Zionist on a Journey of Self-Discovery

Freedland is nothing if not a ‘liberal’ Zionist and is a good example of the hypocrisy of this breed.  In Israel liberal Zionists are a rare breed. Ethnic Cleansing and Extermination are all the fashion. In Britain they are more numerous because Britain’s political climate is different. So what is their role? 

The function of ‘liberal’ Zionists in the West is to beautify what Ben Gvir, Smotrich and the Kahanists seek to achieve, even whilst they attack them personally. Their job today is to rationalise and justify the genocide and ethnic cleansing. October 7, when the Palestinian resistance fought back, is their rationale.

The ‘liberal’ Zionists go along 100% with the false narrative about a slaughter of the innocents and the equally false rape narrative.

The most left-wing and liberal Zionist group in Britain today is Yachad. They have issued a statement ‘Why the war must end and what comes next.’ Members of Yachad include Mike Katz, Chair of the Jewish Labour Movement  which led the ‘anti-Semitism’ attack against Corbyn in the Labour Party.

Nowhere in the statement is there any call for an arms embargo. Quite the contrary they supported Israel’s attack on Gaza saying that

The atrocities committed by Hamas on October 7^th precipitated a response by Israel, with the stated aim of removing Hamas from power, in order to prevent a repeat atrocity against Israelis.

Nowhere do they acknowledge the right of the Palestinians to resist the occupation. It calls for the removal of Hamas from power in Gaza because ‘no long-term ceasefire can hold whilst Hamas remains in power.’ They go on to say that

‘the tens of thousands of Israelis displaced from the Gaza border won’t be able to return home without a cast iron assurance that they will be safe.’

I may have missed it but there is no call for the removal of Ben Gvir, Smotrich, Gallant, Netanyahu et al. from Israel’s government because otherwise Palestinians won’t feel safe. There is no call to disarm the Israeli army because Palestinians aren’t safe.

It is an entirely chauvinist document from a coloniser’s perspective that presumes that Israel has the right to dictate who is allowed to rule in Gaza.

They go on to say that ‘The reality is that too many Palestinians are paying the price for Hamas’ crimes.’ thus ignoring 57 years of occupation in Gaza. Are Palestinians in the West Bank also paying the price of Hamas’ crimes one wonders?

How about reversing this and saying that the Israelis who died on October 7 paid the price of a suffocating siege for 17 years, an occupation for 57 years and the regular slaughter of Palestinians in Gaza as in Operation Protective Edge when twice as many Palestinians died as Israelis on October 7.

The statement was issued on December 12 last year and has not been updated since. It is as if the chain of torture camps such as Sde Teiman didn’t exist. The destruction of Gaza’s health sector, its universities, bombing of schools was just a figment of our imagination. There is no call for Israel to be sanctioned for genocide. All that matters is the safety of Israeli colonists and settlers.

This is quintessential ‘liberal’ Zionism. The only difference between ‘right-wing’ and ‘liberal’ Zionists is that at least the former are not hypocritical. They don’t pretend that they support equality and harmony. They are unabashed Jewish Supremacists. They don’t pretend that there is such a thing as a Jewish Democratic State.

The reality is that at the end of the day all Zionists agree on the necessity of a Jewish Supremacist ethno-nationalist state. They may disagree on tactics and questions like the judicial reforms but on the necessity of ethnic cleansing they are as one. Not even the most left-wing Zionist calls for the return of the Palestinian refugees who were expelled in 1948. Quite the contrary the JLM is absolutely opposed to this because you can’t have a Jewish state if the majority of inhabitants are not Jewish.

Whereas the JLM and Yachad support a two-state solution i.e. a Palestinian Bantustan, the Right in Israel has a simpler solution – expel the Palestinians. When you establish a state based on Jewish racial purity then the simpler, more violent solutions will win out.

The job of liberal Zionists is to kosher the Kahanists, fascists and open racists in the Israeli government. No liberal Zionist says that the racists must be removed from Israel’s government because there would be no one left. Palestinian safety is not their concern.

The fact that Jewish neo-Nazis like Ben Gvir, Smotrich, Chikli and all the others are in Israel’s government is simply a consequence of Israeli ‘democracy’ to them. The fact that Hamas was also democratically elected by Palestinians is irrelevant. Democracy only belongs to the coloniser never the colonised. This is the logic of settler-colonialism and it is this that Freedland signed up to with his weaponisation of ‘anti-Semitism’.

Yachad and Freedland don’t support the issuing of arrest warrants against Netanyahu and Gallant because there is a broad consensus that Israeli war crimes against Palestinians are not crimes. Some two-thirds of Israelis are opposed to the prosecution of the soldiers who sodomised Palestinian prisoners.

Instead Yachad talked about Hamas atrocities on October 7. Now I’m sure there were some atrocities such as shooting civilians in cold blood but they pale in comparison with Israel’s mass slaughter. For Yachad and Freedland Jewish blood is all that matters.

Hamas did not bomb schools with the express intention of killing children. It did not snipe children in the head. It did not bomb and attack hospitals. Any organisation that has any pretence at being ‘liberal’ would call for the overthrow of a state that allows these atrocities to be passed off as normal.

 ‘Liberal Zionist’ is an oxymoron. It is not possible to be a liberal and a Zionist. Which is why, at the end of the day, given the choice, Yachad will always line up with the Ben Gvirs and Smotriches than Jewish anti-Zionists. Even Jewish Nazis are preferable to anti-Zionists as long as they are Zionists.

Yachad has gone along, as has Freedland and other ‘liberal’ Zionists, with the narrative that came out of Netanyahu’s government that Hamas engaged in mass rape on October 7. This was after the 40 Beheaded Babies lies were discredited. I mention this because on October 8, before Israel’s propaganda narrative had got off the ground, the Times of Israel posted an article by a mother, Reut Karp, about

‘an alarming testimony from her children about the murder of their father, Dvir Karp, and his partner Stav in Kibbutz Re’im.’

Both the father and his partner were killed when a Hamas gunman broke into a house in the Kibbutz. There were also two children there by themselves. If the ‘beheaded babies’ and all the other atrocity propaganda was correct then one would assume that the gunman would have done what Israel’s soldiers have done in Gaza and that is murder the children too.  Not a bit of it. The Times of Israel describes how:

The terrorist calmed down my Daria and Lavi, covered them in a blanket, took lipstick and wrote on the wall: ‘The al-Qassam [Brigades] people don’t murder children.’

This is somewhat at odds with the Zionist narrative that The Times, the Guardian, Independent  and the rest of the British press were happy to run with of terrorists seeking to kill Israeli children. But when it comes to Palestinian children then the yellow press are silent.

There have been no front page headlines about Palestinian children being killed. Virtually every newspaper, including The Times and Independent splashed the ’40 Beheaded Babies’ on their front pages. Even now the Independent has a story ‘Kfar Aza smells of death’ which alleges that ‘babies were slaughtered’ in Hamas attack'. No babies were slaughtered that day. Just two died, accidentally. But of course if you engage in colonial tropes about savages then you must fit the facts to the perception and liberal Zionists are adept at this.

At the end of the day Yachad, the Union of Jewish Students, JLM and the other ‘liberal’ Zionists organisations all agree with the Ben Gvirs and Smotriches in a Jewish State. That is why they will never ally with anti-Zionists against right-wing Zionists. Zionism Uber Alles.

That is a lesson that the Palestinians have painfully learnt after the demise of the Oslo Accords. It is also something that the Palestine solidarity movement has to learn. The two-state solution is not only not desirable it is not going to happen and those who plug it are in reality pushing for the one-state solution that already exists – the State of Apartheid Greater Israel.

Tony Greenstein

Below I post correspondence from the Jewish Chronicle in 1943 about the successful attempt by the Zionist President of the Board of Deputies to sabotage the attempts of Rabbi Schonfeld to rescue Jewish refugees from Nazi occupied Europe - the Zionists wanted Jews to go to Palestine or nowhere - that meant they went to their deaths.

50 years later Marcus Retter, an Assistant to Rabbi Schonfeld, the Chair of the Chief Rabbi's Rescue Committee Wrote Explaining How the Zionists Preferred Jews to Go to the Gas Chambers than Seek Refuge in any Country Bar Palestine

Why did Jonathan Freedland Defend the Silencing of anti-Zionist Auschwitz Escapee, Rudolf Vrba, in The Escape Artist?

 Freedland Justified the Rewriting of History in order that the Holocaust could be Exploited by Zionism to Justify Genocide & Ethnic Cleansing

 'The Escape Artist: The Man Who Broke Out of Auschwitz to Warn the World, by Jonathan Freedland, John Murray (paperback edition, 2023)

 

The Vrba Wetzler Report

My Review of Freedland’s book has just been published by the Electronic Intifada. Below is a slightly amended version.

Freedland is an integral part of Britain’s Foreign Policy Establishment. He is a patron of Chatham House, the Royal Institute of International Affairs where our rulers discuss British foreign policy whilst taking a vow of silence about what they discuss outside its hallowed portals. 

There is no doubt that Freedland has strong Mossad/MI5 connections. He has ensured, with the Guardian's Editor, Katherine Viner, that the Guardian has become a lapdog of the British state, refusing as it did to support Julian Assange.

Freedland played the 'Jews as an ethnic minority' card to undermine Corbyn

Freedland is a ‘liberal’ Zionist which means that he uses multi-culturalism, positing British Jews as an ethnic minority, in order to defend the far-right Israeli state and its government. 

For Freedland, Jews are equally oppressed as Muslims and because most Jews define being Jewish in terms of Israel, we must not criticise the current genocide or Israel's Jewish Supremacist i.e. Zionist ideology.

The job of liberal Zionism is to do what right-wing Zionism cannot do abroad which is to pretend that Israel is the embodiment of Jewish, democratic values..

I confess I was somewhat surprised when 2 years ago Freedland brought out a biography on Rudolf Vrba, the man who, with his friend Alfred Wetzler, escaped from Auschwitz.  The book has had rave reviews in the right-wing press by those who know next to nothing about the holocaust except how to best exploit it for Israel’s genocidal purposes.

Today it is clear that you cannot be an anti-racist if you are a Zionist. When I grew up this wasn’t so clear but today it should be clear to all except the politically blind that a Jewish ethno-nationalist state cannot be anything other than a racist apartheid state. Just as the Christian nationalist states of Eastern Europe were the most enthusiastic about participating in the holocaust so it is with Israel, which today identifies with Nazi values.

When neo-Nazis and the far-right wax lyrical about Israel’s ethno-religious nationalism only the dishonest and stupid can have any illusions about where Israel is heading. It is the job of the Freedlands of this world to paint Israel in rosy colours and hide the fact that it has been a key supporter of fascism and repression the world over. What’s happening in Gaza happened many times over in Guatemala in the 1980s where Israel supplied the arms and training to the genocidal regime there.

Read and enjoy!

Tony Greenstein 

Jonathan Freedland is a senior journalist at The Guardian as well as a columnist for the Jewish Chronicle. He is the latter’s figleaf liberal Zionist. It was therefore a surprise that Freedland should choose to write about Rudolf Vrba, an anti-Zionist Jewish hero of the Holocaust.

Freedland’s problem was that the Zionist movement, because of its collaboration with the Nazis, in its desire to use their rise to power to build a ‘Jewish’ state, has virtually no Jewish anti-Nazi resistance heroes to its credit.

On 10 April 1944, alongside Alfred Wetzler, Vrba escaped from Auschwitz with the aim of warning Hungarian Jewry of the Nazis’ plans to exterminate the last major surviving Jewish community in Europe.

Noah Lucas, a critical Zionist historian described how,

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, it was clear, Zionism could not move the masses of world Jewry. The forces unleashed by Hitler in all their horror must therefore 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."

Those few Zionists who did fight in the Resistance, like Chajka Klinger were extremely critical of the role that the Zionist movement played.

My first criticism of The Escape Artist is its title. It gives the impression that Vrba was a circus act, another Houdini. Indeed Freedland makes just such a comparison. Freedland manages, in one short phrase, to both demean and trivialize Vrba’s bravery and heroism. Vrba was no escape artist or magician. He was someone whose survival was a combination of extreme bravery, good judgment and pure luck.

Vrba had very good reasons to hate the Zionist movement but Freedland is careful not to allow them space in his biography. Born Walter Rosenberg, Vrba lived in Slovakia, a puppet Nazi state which had been separated off from Czechoslovakia when Hitler invaded and dismembered it in 1939. It was ruled by the Hlinka or Slovak People’s Party. The president was a Catholic priest Father Tiso.

Freedland describes how as a 17-year-old, in February 1942, Vrba received a summons to report for deportation. Slovakia was the first country to deport its Jews. From March to October 1942 some 57,000 out of 88,000 Jews were deported.

Vrba’s reaction, in March 1942, was to flee to Hungary where he made contact with the socialist underground in Budapest. What Freedland doesn’t mention is that after staying with the underground Vrba visited Hungary’s Zionists. In Vrba’s autobiography, I Cannot Forgive, he describes what happened:

That afternoon I went to OMZsA House, headquarters of the Zionist organization in Budapest. There I told my story in detail to a stern-faced man in his middle thirties.

He pondered a while before he said: “You are in Budapest illegally. Is that what you are trying to say?

 “Yes.”

“Don’t you know you’re breaking the law.”

I nodded, wondering how a man with such a thick skull could hold down what seemed like a responsible position.

“And you expect to get work here without documents?”

“With false documents.”

Had I torn up the Talmud and jumped on it, I do not think I could have shocked him more. His mouth opened once or twice and then he roared: “Don’t you realize it’s my duty to hand you over to the police?”

Now it was my turn to gape. A Zionist handing over a Jew to Fascist police. I thought I must be going mad.

“Get out of here! Get out as fast as a bad wind!”

I left utterly bewildered. It was nearly three years before I realized just what OMZsA House and the men inside it represented.

When his contacts in the Underground warned him that the Zionist official might report him to the police Vrba decided to leave Budapest for Slovakia. Naturally not a word of this appeared in Freedland’s book.

Freedland had access to the personal papers of Vrba from his first wife Gerta Vrbova and his second wife, Robin, as well as other relatives. There is therefore a lot of useful and interesting information that he acquired on the personal life of Vrba but the use to which he put this is questionable, in particular the judgements he made about Vrba’s relationship with Vrbova.

Gerta Vrbova

Freedland never interviewed or met Vrba. He only talked to a bitter ex-wife, Gerta Vrbova, who blamed her ex-husband for the marital breakdown. So what did Freedland think he was doing making an assertion that "their lovemaking lacked the tenderness, the gentleness, she craved. Instead she felt it carried a trace of violence."

This is more than just prurience. It is an attempt to sow the seeds of doubt as to Vrba's character. Jane Bennett, Vrba's step-daughter, had memories of a "lovely, modest man." Freedland comments that "It was Rudi’s side of the acrimonious family story they heard." Well yes, but the same is true of Freedland! [pp. 318, 319]

Because the hardback preceded the paperback by a year, Bennett was able to come forward with another side to the story. According to her Rudi experienced "distress that, when he sent gifts to his two daughters, his presents would be returned, unopened." It would seem that Gerta, who had taken Freedland into her confidence, had a vengeful side to her. Not something she would admit to the credulous Freedland.

This biography is not a disinterested account of Vrba’s life. From the start Freedland had a hidden political agenda, prime amongst which was whitewashing the record of the Zionist movement during the Holocaust. Vrba was prime amongst the critics of the Zionist movement in Hungary in enabling the extermination of Hungarian Jewry.

When Vrba and Wetzler escaped from Auschwitz and reached the Jewish Council offices in Zilina, Slovakia they immediately set down their accounts of what was happening in Auschwitz, the only functioning Nazi extermination camp by then.

The report they compiled, the Vrba-Wetzler Report [VWR] (also known as the Auschwitz Protocols) revealed for the first time that Auschwitz was not, as was widely believed, a concentration and labor camp but an extermination camp.

Vrba and Wetzler were desperate to reveal the deadly preparations being made in Auschwitz to receive the 800,000 strong Hungarian Jewish community.

Rudolf Kasztner

The VWR, which was completed by 26 April by the Slovakian Judenrat [Jewish Council], was handed to the leader of Hungarian Zionism, Rudolf Kasztner by 29 April. Instead of distributing it and using it to inform Hungarian Jews of what would happen if they boarded the deportation trains, Kasztner covered its existence up and then used it as part of his negotiations with Adolf Eichmann, whose task it was to implement the Final Solution, in order to secure a train out of Hungary for the Zionist and Jewish elite.

On June 30 1944, 1,684 ‘Prominent’ Jews left Hungary, first for the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp and then for Switzerland. They comprised Kasztner’s extended family along with Jewish and Zionist leaders. Meanwhile, from 15 May to 7 July when Admiral Horthy, the ruler of Hungary called a halt to the deportations, some 437,000 Hungarian Jews had been deported to Auschwitz, the vast majority of whom were led straight to the gas chambers.

Freedland obscures the reasons why Kasztner did not distribute the VWR and omits his role in not only keeping the truth of Auschwitz from its victims but in actually misinforming them.

In Israel some years later, Kasztner was accused by a fellow Hungarian Jew, Malchiel Gruenwald, of collaborating with the Nazis. Because by then he had become a senior government official, Kasztner was forced by the state to sue for libel. However the trial of Gruenwald rapidly became effectively a trial of Kasztner. 

Dieter Wisliceny

Kasztner’s undoing came when he denied giving testimony at Nuremberg in favor of Kurt Becher, a Nazi leader and Heinrich Himmler’s personal emissary in Germany. Gruenwald's attorney Shmuel Tamir (who later became a Kahanist) then produced Kasztner’s affidavit in support of Becher. Later it transpired he had given favorable testimony to a host of other Nazi war criminals including two of Eichmann’s closest butchers, Dieter Wisliceny and Hermann Krumey.

Freedland’s explanation for Kasztner testifying in favor of mass murderers was that "perhaps Kasztner’s motivation was less compassion for Nazis in need than a blackmailed man’s fear of exposure."

This "explanation" is a novel one. Nazi war criminals on trial for their lives in Nuremberg were unlikely to be in a position to blackmail anyone. Kasztner’s efforts were not only on his behalf but that of the Jewish Agency and the World Jewish Congress.

Kurt Becher

Freedland’s suggestion that Kasztner’s appeal was upheld by the Supreme Court (by which time he was dead, assassinated by agents of Shin Bet in 1957), because

they accepted that Kasztner had in good faith believed that he was engaged in an effort to save the many, rather than the few

Haim Cohen

is the precise opposite of what happened. The Supreme Court found no such thing. Haim Cohen, Israel’s attorney-general, conducted the appeal. He argued that:

If in Kasztner’s opinion, rightly or wrongly, he believed that one million Jews were hopelessly doomed, he was allowed not to inform them of their fate; and to concentrate on the saving of the few. He was entitled to make a deal with the Nazis for the saving of a few hundred and entitled not to warn the millions ... that was his duty… It has always been our Zionist tradition to select the few out of many in arranging the immigration to Palestine ... Are we to be called traitors?

Judge Cheshin summed up the viewpoint of the majority of the Supreme Court when he ruled that:

A person sees that an entire community is doomed, is he allowed to make efforts to save the minority, although some of the efforts consist in hiding the truth from the majority or must he reveal the truth to all.

The decision of Israel’s Supreme Court was primarily political not legal. Cheshin voiced the fears of Israel’s Zionist Establishment that:

if we rule that Kasztner collaborated with the enemy because he failed to inform those who boarded the trains in [Kasztner's hometown] Kluj that they were heading for extermination, then it is necessary to bring to court today …. many other leaders and half-leaders who also kept silent in times of crisis, who didn’t inform others about what they knew.

Being a modest man, Freedland begins the book with "Praise for The Escape Artist" and there are 39 examples which demonstrate not so much the brilliance of his book as the ignorance of his admirers.

Adjectives such as "riveting," "thrilling" and "fascinating" abound. To Jamie Susskind Freedland’s book is "not just one of the best books I’ve read about the Holocaust, it is one of the most important books I’ve ever read."

To Zionist historian Simon Schama, the book is "immersive, shattering and ultimately redemptive." To Tom Holland The Escape Artist ranks alongside Anne Frank’s Diary and Primo Levy.

All I can say to these "experts" is that they should read Vrba’s book I Cannot Forgive. There is nothing of importance in The Escape Artist that isn’t in Vrba’s book. It is Vrba’s book, not Freedland’s cheap imitation thriller that ranks alongside Anne Frank’s Diary and Is This a Man.

According to the Financial Times, "Vrba died almost forgotten." Melissa Fay Green told how "I didn’t know Vrba’s name previously." For C.J. Carey it was a "little-known story."

The real question is why Vrba was unknown. The Holocaust has produced thousands of books and articles. Why then was it that the names of the first Jewish escapees from Auschwitz (leaving aside Siegfried Lederer who was taken out by an SS man) were almost entirely missing from the history of the Holocaust and Auschwitz?

The simple answer is that a conscious decision was taken by the Zionist Holocaust historians, led by Yehuda Bauer and Yisrael Gutman, to erase all mention of Vrba and Wetzler. Freedland justifies this and Zionism’s distortion of history because of the need to preserve Zionism’s monopoly when it comes to Holocaust history.

Freedland writes that “even in Israel … Vrba and Wetzler were barely recalled at all" and that it was only because of Ruth Linn’s "tireless campaign" that his memoir was eventually translated into Hebrew in 1998.

Even at Yad Vashem, the country's official Holocaust archive, museum and memorial in Jerusalem, the Auschwitz Report was filed away without the names of its authors."

Argentina's Jewish Mothers of the Disappeared Demonstrated Against Israel's Support for a Junta that Murdered Thousands of Jews

Freedland notes that the escapee’s two names had been anonymised yet he found this acceptable "because he was not an easy sell in Israel or in the mainstream Jewish diaspora." But Vrba’s memoirs were published in the diaspora. They were not however published in Israel, despite it being the nation that "stops once a year" to remember a Zionist version of the Holocaust. A sanitized Holocaust which justifies the very racism that European Jews experienced during the Nazi era.

Freedland claimed, in a dishonest rendition of the historical record, that what made Vrba "a more awkward witness still was his tendency to refer to the Jews whom he blamed as 'Zionists." This is untrue. Vrba was careful to distinguish between Zionists and Jews. It is Freedland himself who is guilty of this crime.

Freedland’s book is part of the process of manipulating and changing the historical record to accord with a false narrative of Zionist heroism. Freedland pretends that Vrba was a supporter of Israel "and rooted for it" believing that its existence "was a good thing for Jews."

The idea that Vrba was some kind of Zionist is absurd. Freedland provides no evidence for his assertion. On the contrary when he first met Ruth Linn, a Haifa University professor of education, he told her that he had no interest in “your state of the Judenrats and Kastners."

After the war Vrba was employed as a researcher in biochemistry in Czechoslovakia. But as time went on he became dissatisfied with Stalinist Czechoslovakia and decided to escape to the West.

Thus it was that Vrba escaped to Israel where he could claim citizenship under the Law of Return. But as Freedland concedes "this was no journey of Zionist homecoming." Israel was a gateway to the West.

(Vrba)did not take to Israel … nor was he much moved by the romance of a perennially persecuted nation … But there was something more painful. He looked around this new state and, often in high places, he saw the very individuals he believed had failed the historic test that had confronted them all less than fifteen years earlier.

Freedland describes how Vrba

could not contain his anger against those Zionists who he felt had betrayed the Jewish people, starting with Kasztner and, in his view the early Israeli leaders.

Freedland takes issue with Vrba’s attitude to the Zionists citing a few who had not collaborated such as Moshe Krausz, the head of the Palestine Office in Budapest.

This is true. In my book Zionism During the Holocaust I explain the  background to the establishment of the United State's War Refugee Board in January 1944, which was responsible for saving 200,000 Jews. It had been undertaken by the dissident revisionist Zionists ShmuelMerlin and Peter Bergson. But this was in the teeth of opposition by America’s Zionist leaders, Stephen Wise and Nahum Goldmann.

Freedland spoke of "a hinted suggestion that Zionism was prepared to sacrifice the mass of European Jewry in order to establish" the Israeli state. It was more than a hinted suggestion. The Zionist leaders repeatedly made it clear that saving Jews was secondary to building a "Jewish" state. For example Ben-Gurion argued that:

“It is the job of Zionism not to save the remnant of Israel in Europe, but rather to save the land of Israel for the Jewish people and the Yishuv.”

As Marek Edelman, the last Commander of the Warsaw Ghetto Resistance said:

“[During the war] it never even entered any of our minds that the Zionists were deliberately remaining passive in regard to the physical destruction of the Jews in order to additionally justify the founding of the State of Israel…

Instead of attacking the resulting distortion of Holocaust history Freedland justifies Vrba’s silencing because "handing a platform to Rudolf Vrba may have come to seem like a risk." A risk to whom or what? The truth or the Zionist rewriting of Holocaust history?

Freedland, despite his exploitation of Vrba’s memory, deplores the fact that Vrba was not minded to "soften his message to make it more palatable." Why should Vrba have softened his message? Is that what historians should do: adjust to the political climate of the day? Or is telling the truth more important?

Even worse Vrba speculated that Zionists such as Kasztner "like Hitler believed in a ‘master race.'" But such a belief is integral to Zionism as we can see today in Gaza.

Freedland justifies Bauer’s attempt to erase Vrba from history because of what the Zionist historian claimed was his "deep hatred for the Jewish leadership, Zionism. etc." Bauer is one of the main defenders of Kasztner, arguing that even if the Auschwitz Protocols and the secret of Auschwitz had been known, Hungarian Jews would not have believed it.

This is not the place to analyze this bogus argument -- knowing yet not knowing. The fact is that Kasztner had no right to make a decision on behalf of Hungary’s Jews to keep the secret of Auschwitz from them after the sacrifice made by Vrba and Wetzler.

As Israel's attorney-general Haim Cohen said at Kasztner’s appeal:

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 Prominents" was organized on Eichmann’s orders to facilitate the extermination of the whole people … 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 it but is also bound to act accordingly.

Moshe Silberg

Moshe Silberg, the sole dissenting Supreme Court Judge, savaged this argument that even if de facto Kasztner facilitated the extermination of the Jews he was not guilty of collaboration:

"I must say that I cannot accept this argument. Is this ‘innocence’? Is there ‘representation’ of despair? Can a single individual, even jointly with some friends, despair on behalf – and without the knowledge – of 800,000 people? … The burning question of ‘By what authority’ and ‘quo warranto’ is an adequate answer to such a claim of Bona Fide.

Freedland tells how Vrba "refused to conform to what the world expects of a Holocaust survivor." Instead of praising Vrba’s determination to tell the truth Freedland sides with those who tried to silence him.

It was the leadership  of the Zionist movement -- whether it was in Hungary, Palestine or the United States -- who collaborated with the anti-Semites and obstructed rescue.

Stephen Wise and Nahum Goldmann tried to get Zionist dissidents Bergson and Merlin deported from the United States. In Israel after the war, Budapest Zionist functionary Moshe Krausz complained to the Jewish Agency about Kasztner only to find himself sacked.

Ruth Linn wrote a book describing how Vrba and the Auschwitz Protocols had remained unknown, not by accident but because of the deliberate decision of Bauer and the Zionist historians of Yad Vashem to erase him from history.

Freedland cites Linn’s book Escaping Auschwitz – A Culture of Forgetting in his bibliography but chose not to quote from it. In many ways Freedland’s biography of Vrba is really a response to Ruth Linn’s description of the process of erasure. Linn wrote that:

Whereas the two escapees accurately predicted the fate of the Hungarian Jews, what they could not have foreseen was that their postwar memoirs and documented report would be kept from the Israeli Hebrew-reading public …

Although I am a native Israeli who graduated from a prestigious private high school, I had never heard about the escape from Auschwitz at the numerous Holocaust ceremonies I attended. Nor had I ever read about it in any detail in any of the Hebrew Holocaust textbooks at school.

Linn told how "no [Israeli] publishing house, including Yad Vashem, would show any interest at all." Linn therefore set out to

trace the use the family of Israeli historians have made of misnaming, misreporting, miscrediting and misrepresenting in the secretive tale of the escape from Auschwitz.

Linn gives as an example the decision of Bauer in his best-known Hebrew textbook The Holocaust: Some Historical Aspects to devote just one sentence to the escape from Auschwitz and to render the two Jewish escapees anonymous. Both Bauer and fellow Yad Vashem historian Yisrael Gutman mention the escape at length in their 1994 English publications, yet it is absent in the Hebrew versions.

In 1999, a year after Vrba’s memoirs had been published in Hebrew, "an account of the escape from Auschwitz was finally included in Gutman’s Hebrew writings for high-school students." As Linn remarks:

Could a narrative of an individualistic escape, by a non-Zionist Jew critical of his Jewish leaders, ever be made to harmonize with the ‘collective aura’ that dominated the state of Israel?"

Netanyahu and Hungary's anti-Semitic Prime Minister - Viktor Orban

Zionism has always found its friends among the anti-Semites. Its founder, Theodor Herzl, wrote in his diaries that

the anti-Semites will become our most dependable friends, the anti-Semitic countries our allies.

Netanyahu’s friendship with Hungary’s Victor Orban is but one example.

Sanitized biography

Freedland had access to the personal papers of Vrba. Now that Vrba and his first wife Vrbova are dead, he has an obligation to place these papers in an academic archive and let others decide for themselves whether Freedland’s interpretation of them is skewed or not.

Freedland used his Guardian column to repeatedly attack Corbyn for 'antisemitism'

Freedland was a leading protagonist in the false anti-Semitism campaign in the Labour Party between 2015 and 2019. His choice of an anti-Zionist Jewish Holocaust hero as the subject of a book is therefore curious to say the least. It appears that one of Freedland’s motives in writing the biography was in order to both justify Vrba’s silencing by Zionism’s Holocaust historians and to obscure his message that Zionism was a quisling Jewish movement during the Holocaust.

What didn’t see the light of day in Freedland’s book was Vrba’s response of 22 September 1963 in The Observer to a letter the previous week by Jacob Talmon, who had complained bitterly when Hannah Arendt's reports of the Eichmann trial were published earlier that month.

Jacob Talmon, a professor at the Hebrew University, criticized Arendt for raising the question of the Judenrate (Jewish councils) and their collaboration with the Nazis in the implementation of the Final Solution. Vrba asked:

Did the Judenrat (or the Judenverrat) in Hungary tell their Jews what was awaiting them? No, they remained silent and for this silence some of their leaders -- for example, Kasztner -- bartered their own lives and the lives of 1,684 other 'prominent' Jews directly from Eichmann.

Nor did Freedland refer to Vrba’s memoirs in the Daily Herald of February 1961 when he wrote:

I am a Jew. In spite of that, indeed because of that, I accuse certain Jewish leaders of one of the most ghastly deeds of the war. This small group of quislings knew what was happening to their brethren in Hitler's gas chambers and bought their own lives with the price of silence … I was able to give Hungarian Zionist leaders three weeks’ notice that Eichmann planned to send a million of their Jews to his gas chambers … Kasztner went to Eichmann and told him, 'I know of your plans; spare some Jews of my choice and I shall keep quiet.

This is the story that Freedland chose not to tell in his sanitized biography of Vrba.

Tony Greenstein is the author of Zionism During the Holocaust