Showing posts with label Comparing Zionism Nazism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Comparing Zionism Nazism. Show all posts

10 March 2018

When Holocaust survivor Professor Ze’ev Sternhell compares Israel to Nazi Germany It’s Time to Wake Up

It’s not anti-Semitic to compare Israel to Nazi Germany – it's what all anti-fascists should do


If there is one thing that the Zionist movement and Israel’s supporters hate it is comparisons between the ‘Jewish’ State of Israel and Nazi Germany.  ‘Anti-Semitism’ they cry like crows. It is the only Zionist response to criticism.  The fake Zionist IHRA definition of anti-Semitism that Theresa May has embraced, gives as one of 11 illustrative examples of ‘anti-Semitism’:

Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.’

Shami Chakrabarti, in her Report on racism and anti-Semitism to the Labour Party also criticised the use of Holocaust comparisons. 
In day -to-day political debate , it is always incendiary to compare the actions of Jewish people or institutions anywhere in the world to those of Hitler or the Nazis or to the perpetration of the Holocaust. Indeed such remarks can only be intended to be incendiary rather  than persuasive.’
Shami Chakrabarti, whose Report was admirable in many ways, in particular its (so far ignored) recommendations on a fair and transparent disciplinary process in the Labour Party, was out of her depth when she dealt with Zionism and Israel.  It was not a subject she knew anything about and her opinions were shallow and superficial.

Even if it is ‘incendiary’ to compare demonstrations in Israel that chant ‘Death to the Arabs’ to similar ones in Nazi Germany or Poland, where the chant was ‘Death to the Jews’, is that any reason to be silent?  If Nazi Germany forbade Jews buying German ‘national’ land in much the same way as non-Jews are prevented from buying ‘Jewish national’ land in Israel, is the fear of being ‘incendiary’ a reason to be quiet? 

But in any case the comparison is not between Jews and Nazi Germany but between Zionists and Nazi Germany - a big difference.


The reason that it should be compulsory to make comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany is not in order to offend those whose relatives died in the Holocaust but to ensure that the ideas of Nazism and Hitlerism do not triumph once again.  It is today one of the few moral constraints on the actions of the Israeli state and Israelis themselves.

It is precisely because Israel derives its legitimacy from the Holocaust, which it claims as its moral and political foundation that we should remind its supporters of the growing similarity between the State of Israel and pre-war Nazi Germany.

Neo-Nazi Richard Spencer is a self-declared  White Zionist
The fact that ideologues of White Supremacy, like neo-Nazi Richard Spencer of the alt-Right, call themselves White Zionists only reinforces this comparison.  Those who pretend that the welcome by neo-Nazi and far-Right parties for Israel is a one way affair, that it is not reciprocated, are being deliberately disingenuous

Sebastian Gorka at the Zionist Organisation of America 2017 Annual Gala Dinner

Mort Klein, President of the Zionist Organisation of America, who welcomed Sebastian Gorka to the ZOA’s 2017 annual Gala dinner asked rhetorically: “Reagan had Nazis supporting him, so what?”  The Jewish Voice described how ‘Tonight Klein outdid himself with a superstar cast of participants including Steve Bannon, Sebastian Gorka, Senator Joe Lieberman...’

Gorka, who was a deputy assistant to Donald Trump was photographed at Trump’s inauguration wearing the Vitézi Rend, a medal issued by a Hungarian fascist group. This group collaborated with Nazi Germany during the war. Vitézi Rend was founded by Admiral Horthy, who ruled Hungary as Prince Regent, in 1920.  During the war Horthy formed an alliance with Nazi Germany and from May to July 1945  Horthy presided over the deportation of nearly ½ million Jews to Auschwitz.  Horthy was a self-confessed anti-Semite. 

But it wasn’t only far-Right Mort Klein, at whose dinner Alan Dershowitz, former Senator Lieberman and Steve Bannon attended, who welcomed Gorka. As Joseph Massad noted in The shocking alliance between Zionism and Anti-Semitism, Gorka was welcomed by the Jerusalem Post with warm applause and a prominent speaking slot at its annual conference in May 2017 in New York 
Other speakers at the same conference included Israel’s Education, Defence and Justice Ministers Naftali Bennet, Avigdor Liebermann and Ayelet Shaked.  As the Forward noted, ‘Despite his controversial ties to allies of the Nazis, White House counterterrorism adviser Sebastian Gorka has scored invitations to speak at upcoming pro-Israeli events.  

Indeed the leader of the Israeli Labour Party, Isaac Herzog, a man who was always willing to condemn Jeremy Corbyn as ‘anti-Semitic’ was also a speaker at the conference.
An op-ed defending Gorka explained that “The real agenda is clear: Gorka has written forcefully about the need to defeat the jihadi threat to Western civilization,

The alliance between Europe’s far Right anti-Semitic parties and the Zionist movement and Israel is founded, above all, on a common and shared hatred of Muslims.  Zionism feeds into anti-Islamic hatred in Europe and the fascists see Israel as the model kind of state that they would like to see back home.

In the fight against Islam and the Palestinians, the support of neo-Nazi Gorka is welcomed

Professor Ze’ev Sternhell

Ze’ev Sternhell is a childhood survivor of the Holocaust who was born in Przemyśl, Poland.  He was smuggled out of the ghetto into Lwow and survived the war, having been adopted by a Catholic family.  In 2008 Sternhell was injured by a bomb planted by settler terrorists.  Sternhell is also an expert in fascism, which is why his comparisons between Germany 1933-39 and Israel today cannot be understated.

What Sternhell compares Israel to is not the Nazi Germany of the Holocaust post-1941 but the pre-1939 era when the Nazi programme was one of expulsion and the removal of basic rights from the Jews of Germany.  From 1933 onwards there was a steady process of what might be called incremental discrimination against the Jews of Germany.  The first act was the Law for the Restoration of the Professional Civil Service which resulted in the dismissal of most Jewish civil servants.  The following six years saw the removal of citizenship from Jews and their economic pauperisation as Jews were prevented from owning businesses, Jewish children prevented from going to public schools and even, on November 29th 1938 owning carrier pigeons!  See Anti-Jewish legislation in prewar Nazi Germany.
A kosher certificate handed out by Lehava to employers who refuse to hire Arab workers
In Israel too there are growing campaigns for businesses to dismiss Arab workers, for Jews not to rent land or property to non-Jews as well as state authorised discrimination in terms of the segregation of education, jobs, housing etc.  This is accompanied in the social sphere by government sponsored campaigns against social and personal relations between Jews and Arabs in order to preserve the ethnic purity of the Jewish race in Israel, because in Israel being Jewish is a national and not just a religious category. 

In 2014 we had the sick scenes of hundreds of protestors from Lehava, a state funded organisation, demonstrating outside the marriage reception of a Jewish woman and an Arab man.  Lehava itself organises lynch mobs to attack Arabs suspected of dating Jewish men.  Under the aegis of now Deputy Foreign Minister Tsipi Hotoveli, the ‘charitable’ front of Lehava has received state funding for over a decade. Israel Funds Group That 'Saves Jewish Girls' From Marrying Arabs.
Racism in Israel however has never been a private matter.  The Jewish National Fund is a body established by the JNF Law 1953.  The JNF controls 93% of Israeli land with the Israeli Land Authority.  Its constitution prevents it from leasing or renting land to non-Jews and when this arrangement was upset by a Supreme Court ruling in Kadan in 2000 the Knesset simply passed the Receptions Committees Law which substituted indirect for direct discrimination.  It was otherwise known as the "High Court- Kaadan bypass law".

After the Kadan ruling the JNF argued that not only did 70% of Israeli Jews oppose allocating their land to non-Jews, but that 80% of Jews preferred Israel to be a Jewish state to a state of its own citizens
At the present time the Israeli government is piloting through the Knesset a Jewish Nation State Law which will enshrine in basic law, the equivalent of Israel’s Constitution, the fact that Arabs are not even second class citizens of Israel.  They are, at best tolerated tresspassers.

The process of discrimination in Israel isn’t confined to Palestinians in the Occupied Territories but increasingly to Israel’s Arab citizens too.  Thus we see that the Jewish state is progressively becoming the equivalent of the Aryan state in Germany before 1939.  This is the background to the comparisons by Professor Sternhell.  Those who decry such comparisons are saying that the present apartheid situation in Israel is an acceptable price to pay for the existence of a ‘Jewish’ state.

Tony Greenstein
Professor Sternhell

Zeev Sternhell Haaretz, 19.01.2018 02:00 

I frequently ask myself how a historian in 50 or 100 years will interpret our period. When, he will ask, did people in Israel start to realize that the state that was established in the War of Independence, on the ruins of European Jewry and at the cost of the blood of combatants some of whom were Holocaust survivors, had devolved into a true monstrosity for its non-Jewish inhabitants. When did some Israelis understand that their cruelty and ability to bully others, Palestinians or Africans, began eroding the moral legitimacy of their existence as a sovereign entity?
The answer, that historian might say, was embedded in the actions of Knesset members such as Miki Zohar and Bezalel Smotrich and the bills proposed by Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked. The nation-state law, which looks like it was formulated by the worst of Europe’s ultra-nationalists, was only the beginning. Since the left did not protest against it in its Rothschild Boulevard demonstrations, it served as a first nail in the coffin of the old Israel, the one whose Declaration of Independence will remain as a museum showpiece. This archaeological relic will teach people what Israel could have become if its society hadn’t disintegrated from the moral devastation brought on by the occupation and apartheid in the territories.
The left is no longer capable of overcoming the toxic ultra-nationalism that has evolved here, the kind whose European strain almost wiped out a majority of the Jewish people. The interviews Haaretz’s Ravit Hecht held with Smotrich and Zohar (December 3, 2016 and October 28, 2017) should be widely disseminated on all media outlets in Israel and throughout the Jewish world. In both of them we see not just a growing Israeli fascism but racism akin to Nazism in its early stages.
Like every ideology, the Nazi race theory developed over the years. At first it only deprived Jews of their civil and human rights. It’s possible that without World War II the “Jewish problem” would have ended only with the “voluntary” expulsion of Jews from Reich lands. After all, most of Austria and Germany’s Jews made it out in time. It’s possible that this is the future facing Palestinians.
Indeed, Smotrich and Zohar don’t wish to physically harm Palestinians, on condition that they don’t rise against their Jewish masters. They only wish to deprive them of their basic human rights, such as self-rule in their own state and freedom from oppression, or equal rights in case the territories are officially annexed to Israel. For these two representatives of the Knesset majority, the Palestinians are doomed to remain under occupation forever. It’s likely that the Likud’s Central Committee also thinks this way. The reasoning is simple: The Arabs aren’t Jews, so they cannot demand ownership over any part of the land that was
According to the concepts of Smotrich, Zohar and Shaked, a Jew from Brooklyn who has never set foot in this country is the legitimate owner of this land, while a Palestinian whose family has lived here for generations is a stranger, living here only by the grace of the Jews. “A Palestinian,” Zohar tells Hecht, “has no right to national self-determination since he doesn’t own the land in this country. Out of decency I want him here as a resident, since he was born here and lives here – I won’t tell him to leave. I’m sorry to say this but they have one major disadvantage – they weren’t born as Jews.”
From this one may assume that even if they all converted, grew side-curls and studied Torah, it would not help. This is the situation with regard to Sudanese and Eritrean asylum seekers and their children, who are Israeli for all intents and purposes. This is how it was with the Nazis. Later comes apartheid, which could apply under certain circumstances to Arabs who are citizens of Israel. Most Israelis don’t seem worried. 

6 July 2017

Professors Ofer Cassif & Daniel Blatman of the Hebrew University, Jerusalem Compare Israel to Nazi Germany

According to the IHRA definition of Anti-Semitism Israeli Professors Cassif and Blatman are 'anti-Semitic'

According to the discredited International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of 'anti-Semitism' which Theresa May adopted in January and which the Zionists are trying to foist on the Labour Party, manifestations of anti-Semitism may include ‘Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.’  No doubt for telling it as they see it Israeli Professors Cassif and Blatman are also anti-Semitic?  Whereas the Prime Minister of Hungary, Viktor Orban, who signed up to the IHRA whilst seeking to rehabilitate Admiral Horthy, who presided over the deportation of nearly 1/2m Jews in 1944 is kosher!

According to this twisted 'logic' if you compare marches in Nazi Germany that demanded that Jews go to Palestine or worse to the ‘Death to the Arabs’ marches in Israel today that would be anti-Semitic. 
If you were to compare turning Jew killers in Nazi Germany to making an Arab killer like Elor Azaria a hero that too would be anti-Semitic.
If you were to point to the repeated targeting of the Arab minority in Israel by legislation passed by the Jewish majority to a similar phenomenon in Nazi Germany yesterday with respect to its Jewish community that would be anti-Semitic.
If you were to point to the Nazi programme from 1933 onwards that demanded the emigration and expulsion of Jews to the support for the expulsion of Israel’s Palestinian citizens that too is apparently anti-Semitic.
Gen. Yair Golan, who compared developments in Israel to Nazi Germany in a Holocaust Memorial Day speech
Or if you simply compared the scapegoating of Jews in Nazi Germany to the scapegoating of Arabs in Israel e.g. for the wave of fires that spread in Israel earlier this year, which were held to be an ‘arson intifada’ that would also be anti-Semitic according to the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism.
As the settler news agency Arutz Sheva reported at the time:
Security forces are dealing with a wave of fires breaking out all over the country. According to official estimates, terror squads are igniting the fires in various areas, and efforts are being made to locate these squads.
In January 2017 +972 Magazine reported Two months on, still no evidence of a 'fire intifada' in Israel but that had not stopped Netanyahu and Erdan, his security Minister talking about arson and launching a wave of arrests of Israeli Arabs, not one of whom was charged in the end.
 Professor Daniel Blatman wrote in Ha’aretz a few weeks ago an article Heading Toward an Israeli Apartheid State which compared developments in Nazi Germany with the Nuremburg laws and Apartheid South Africa to Israel today.  Professor Blatman is a Holocaust researcher and head of the Institute for Contemporary Jewry at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.  According to the contemptible charlatans who use ‘anti-Semitism’ as a weapon of British foreign policy to defame supporters of the Palestinians, Professor Blatman too is an anti-Semite.
Well another Israeli Professor Dor Ofer Cassif has also compared recent developments in Israel and the legislation passed by the Knesset to those of the Third Reich.  No doubt Professor Cassif too is an anti-Semite.  It would seem that these days anyone who dares speak out and tell the truth is an anti-Semite.  Zionism is determined it seems to legitimise and exonerate anti-Semitism by making completely legitimate and valid criticisms of racist rottweiller of a state equivalent to Jew hatred.
Of course the real anti-Semites, people like Donald Trump’s Strategic Advisor Steve Bannon are kosher because although they don’t much like ‘whiny Jews’ they love Israel!
Tony Greenstein
demonstration in Sheikh Jarrah, Jerusalem against settler occupation of Palestinian hopes and against apartheid in Israel
June 23, 2017 10:48
Professor Offer Cassif
Hebrew University Professor, Dr. Ofer Cassif, compared recent Israeli legislation, both proposed and passed, to those of the Third Reich in Nazi Germany, reported Channel 2 on Thursday as a recording of his class became public.

The statement occurred in a Politics and Government course as part of a preparatory college program at Hebrew University in Jerusalem. 

One of Cassif's students objected to the comparison, but the political science professor continued with his analogy stating that it is comfortable to deny the situation in order not to come to terms with reality, but that it would very dangerous to do so.

He also explained to his students that the comparison is a matter of fact rather than opinion. His personal thoughts on the matter are even far more reaching.

Cassif further criticized the current state of of affairs in Israel saying, "those who refuse to see the similarities between what is happening in Israel, specifically in the past two years, and Germany in the 1930s, has a problem and will be responsible for the potential situation of the state."

Cassif drew specific parallels from recent Israeli legislature regarding Arabs and Jews, to policies of Nazi Germany.

The Hebrew University professor stated that the proposed Israeli nation-state law is similar to 1930s Germany's methods of creating a hierarchy of citizens according to classes.

Cassif also criticized recent legislation passed
 legalizing 4,000 homes in the West Bank, stating that this this law, "allows Jews to take over Palestinian-owned land for themselves, just like Aryans in 1930 Germany were allowed to kick Jews out of their homes."

Cassif's next comparison was regarding the 
recent legislative proposal pushed by Netanyahu to ban funding from foreign NGOs. Cassif explained to his students that this bill is similar to laws passed in Nazi Germany limiting organizations that criticized the regime.

The Israeli Right was furious about the teachings of Prof. Cassif.

The Likud party defended the nation-state law, explaining that it "is based on the Israeli Declaration of Independence, and therefore this professor the very creation of the state is racist."

“Comparing the State of Israel to the most wicked regime in the history of mankind is not only a disgusting display of anti-Israel propaganda, but something more severe than Holocaust denial,” said CEO of right wing NGO Im Tirtzu, Matan Peleg.

In response to the criticism surrounding the publication of his lesson, Cassif stated that, "the purpose of a classroom is to hold discussions and I did not prevent any of my students from speaking, therefore I will not give in to the attempt to silence me and prevent an open and constructive discussion."

He also added that he stands behind his Israel-Nazi comparisons.

The Hebrew University of Jerusalem responded by saying that Cassif's "discussion took place during the class 'Fascism- past and present,' and it is unfortunate that certain students chose to record their professor when not agreeing with his stance, instead of conducting an open discussion based on facts and opinions."

This is not the first time Cassif has been criticized for making Nazi comparisons regarding Israel.

In late 2015, the Hebrew University professor 
called Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked "neo-Nazi scum."

In a similar occurrence Cassif took to social media last year, tweeting that Facebook blocked him for making a Hitler reference as a reaction to a pro-Netanyahu comment.


24 December 2016

Israel - the State of Terror - Thomas Suarez

Zionism ‘Started with the kind of aims with which Hitler started’ Robert Waley Cohen
The first thorough analysis of relevant British and US archives, 16 Dec. 2016
State of Terror: How terrorism created modern Israel.
Thomas Suárez. Bloxham, UK: Skyscraper Publications.

 By Iain Chalmers
This review is from: State of Terror (Hardcover)
I haven’t read this book but it seems fascinating.  I and others have always known about how the Zionist movement sought to block any avenues of escape, other than Palestine, for Jewish refugees during WW2 .  The aim was to use the refugees in order to batter open the gates of Palestine for Jewish immigration.
We also know, not least from the agents involved,such as Naim Giladi, that Zionist agents were involved in planting bombs in areas Jews frequented in Iraq and Morocco, among other Arab states, with the aim of simulating anti-Semitism and thereby provoking a stampede of Jews to the Israeli state.
However I didn’t know about the targeting of non-Zionist Jews although nothing about Zionism would at all surprise me.
Today, as Zionism seeks to portray itself as the ‘national liberation movement of Jews’ the kind of movement in whose mouth butter wouldn’t melt, it’s good to be reminded of the sordid racist and bloody record of the Zionist movement.
Tony Greenstein 
People interested in knowing how the state of Israel came to be established are indebted to Israeli historians, in particular Tom Segev, Benny Morris, Avi Shlaim and Ilan Pappé. Drawing on archives and other Israeli sources, these researchers have provided us with evidence that standard Zionist narratives about the creation of Israel do not stand up to scrutiny.
It seems surprising that, until now, relevant British Government archives have not received detailed attention. Thomas Suárez has now published a 400-page account of his findings from meticulous research, drawing especially on documents in the British National Archives at Kew, London, and also US Central Intelligence Agency papers. Ilan Pappé describes Suárez’s book - State of Terror - as “the first comprehensive and structured analysis of the violence and terror employed by the Zionist movement and later the state of Israel against the people of Palestine.”
What does State of Terror tell us that we didn’t already know about the violence and terror, within Palestine and beyond, employed by a determined settler-colonialist movement led principally by European, secular Jews?
The book refers to widely known terrorist acts against the British mandate government of Palestine (such as the dynamiting of the King David Hotel), and to terrorist attacks on the indigenous population of Palestine (such as that at Deir Yassin). State of Terror ‘revisits’ these notorious examples of terror directed against targets that stood in the way of establishing an ethno-supremacist settler state intended exclusively for Jews, and self-defined as the state of all Jews, everywhere.
Suárez introduced me to many other examples of Zionist terrorism with which I was not familiar, documented in almost numbing detail, and supported by references to hundreds of archival documents. Anyone who wishes to challenge his analysis has a great deal of work to do.
A feature of the book which has not been covered systematically elsewhere is terrorism and other measures used by the Zionist movement against non-Zionist Jews, within and outside Palestine. Some of these have also previously been well documented, but are less well known than they should be. They reveal the lengths to which the Zionist movement was prepared to go to secure its ambitions to populate Palestine and neighbouring territories with Jews, and ‘cleanse’ these territories of non-Jews.
Zionism - “starting with the kind of aims with which Hitler had started.... seemed to be based on one religion and one race.”, Robert Waley Cohen
In November 1940, under the authority of future prime minister Moshe Sharett, a Hagana bomber blew a hole in the side of the ship Patria to prevent its departure for Displaced Persons to camps in Mauritius. Of the 267 killed, most were Jews fleeing the war in Europe. Cinemas, printing presses, kiosks, radar stations, bridges, trains, roads, and cars were bombed, and the terror did not just target British and Palestinians, but ‘uncooperative’ Jews as well.

Suárez writes: “Both before and after 1948, hundreds of thousands of people in Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East became fair game for Zionist violence because they were Jewish, since Zionism depended not just on the transfer of non-Jewish Palestinians out of Palestine, but also on the transfer of Jews into Palestine. Anti-Jewish tactics included manipulating the Displaced Persons (DC) camps, thwarting safe haven opportunities in other countries [than Palestine], kidnapping Jewish orphans, [persuading Jewish children of non-Zionist Jews to betray their parents], and, [after 1948], destroying Jewish communities in North Africa and the Middle East through propaganda and false-flag ‘Arab’ terrorism – all to ship ‘ethnically correct’ people to Palestine in the service of the settler state”.

At a secret meeting in London in 1941 which involved Weizmann and Ben Gurion, a non-Zionist industrialist, Robert Waley Cohen, observed that the Zionists were “starting with the kind of aims with which Hitler had started”, and which “seemed to be based on one religion and one race.” When, a few years later, Roosevelt developed a plan to resettle half a million persons displaced by fascism in Europe, the initiative was derailed by Zionists intent on denying resettlement of European Jews anywhere other than Palestine.

More than any other book I have read, Thomas Suárez’s State of Terror lays bare the ruthlessness of the Zionist movement in its determination – unbroken since its inception at the end of the 19th century and continuing today - to establish a settler state with no defined borders, populated exclusively by Jews. And the book really brought home to me the ways that Zionism has benefitted from (and continues to thrive on) discrimination against Jews - real, alleged, or actively manufactured.

Politicians and others who acquiesce in or actively support the methods used by Zionism should read this book and consider what lessons it holds, not only for the people of Israel and Palestine as Zionism acts out ethno-religious superiority and messianic fundamentalism, but for all of us, given that Israel is one of the world’s few nuclear-armed states.
Iain Chalmers

16 December 2016

Declaration: I learned of Britain’s key role in creating the Israeli-Palestinian conflict during my first visit to Palestine in 1963. I subsequently worked for two years as a United Nations medical officer in Khan Younis in a clinic then serving over 40,000 refugees. I have returned to Gaza at intervals since then. I am a member of the steering group of the Lancet-Palestinian Health Alliance to promote research to help improve health and health services for Palestinians. I make financial donations to several Israeli and Palestinian human rights organisations and charities.

1946 train bombing, image from Tom Suarez's book State of Terror


A review of State of Terror: How terrorism created modern Israel, by Thomas Suárez. Published today in the UK, available for pre-order in the U.S.

To introduce the theme of this book, I can do no better than to quote its endorsement by Prof. Ilan Pappé:
A tour de force, based on diligent archival research that looks boldly at the impact of Zionism on Palestine and its people in the first part of the 20th century. The book is the first comprehensive and structured analysis of the violence and terror employed by the Zionist movement, and later the state of Israel, against the people of Palestine.
Thanks to Prof. Pappé and other Israeli ‘new’ historians working from Israeli government archives, we now have a good understanding of the extent of the catastrophe which befell the Palestinian people in the 1947-49 period as the Zionist forces fought through Palestine either driving out the non-Jewish population, or, if they fled, taking over their property and destroying empty villages.

The less well-known history of the period before this, from the Balfour Declaration of 1917 through the British Mandate of 1922-1948 has now been thoroughly researched in this new book by Thomas Suárez, working largely from British Government archives. He continues the story until the end of the 1956 war in which Israel, Britain and France attacked Egypt.

The book is a substantial work of historical scholarship of over 400 pages, including 680 endnotes, some of them long paragraphs quoting several sources. There is also a very comprehensive index, and a few contemporary photographs. Some maps of the territory would have helped the reader follow the story.

The story he tells is of a Zionist elite determined from the beginning to turn all of Palestine into a Jewish state in which the local non-Jewish Arab population would be either subjugated or expelled. The Zionists were quite willing to use violence and terrorism to achieve this aim, and the book traces the resulting unhappy history in detail, to the extent that, in places, it reads like a catalog of Zionist terror attacks. The Zionist policy is made clear in this quote from Menachem Begin, later a Prime Minister of Israel, which appears at the head of the book’s Introduction:
“We intend to attack, conquer and keep until we have the whole of Palestine and Transjordan in a Greater Jewish State”.
The author does not deny or condone the existence of Palestinian Arab terrorism, but shows how it was then (and remains today) “a reaction to Zionist ethnic subjugation and expropriation of land, resources and labour, with non-violent resistance having proved futile”. Whereas the Palestinian terrorists were loose bands of guerillas operating in the country districts, the Zionist terrorists were organized militias operating from within urban centers under the protection of those communities.

As Palestinian terrorism died down after the brutal suppression of the Arab protests in 1936, Zionist terror escalated, particularly after the 1939 White Paper which placed restrictions on Jewish immigration, “targeting anyone in the way of its political objectives – Palestinian, British or Jewish”. During the second world war, the official Zionist militia, Hagana, toned down its attacks on the British. Both Arab and Jewish Palestinians volunteered to join the Allied forces, though the Jews insisted on their own regiment.

From 1942 onwards, when it was clear that the Allies were going to win the war, the Zionists restarted their campaign of wholesale terrorism (as the British described it) to establish a Zionist state by force: a campaign which eventually forced Britain’s decision to abandon the Mandate, leading to the UN Partition Plan, civil war, ethnic-cleansing of the Arab population, and the unilateral declaration of the State of Israel in 1948.

Tom Suárez in the West Bank. Photo credit Sainatee Suárez  

The book makes the important point that in the early days most of world Jewry were opposed to Zionism. In Britain, the Jewish cabinet minister Lord Montagu, supported by other Jewish leaders, viewed the Zionists as collaborators with the anti-semites who were delighted with the idea of the Jews expelling themselves from their current homelands. Montagu was instrumental in changing the aim of the Balfour Declaration from “Palestine AS THE Jewish national home” to the vaguer “A Jewish national home IN Palestine”. Orthodox Jews, including the indigenous Arab Jews of Palestine, thought that the return of the Jews to the Land of Israel could not take place until the time of the Messiah, and rejected Zionism as an attempt to replace Jewish religion with a secular, nationalistic ideology. Liberal Jews did not believe that Jews constituted a national group who needed a political home, and were loyal to their existing homeland. In the USA a group of (mainly Reform) rabbis established the anti-Zionist American Council for Judaism, still active today.

The book also reveals the Zionist willingness to use violence against their Jewish opponents; their conviction that all Jews had an obligation to leave their homelands to go to Palestine; their willingness to stir up anti-semitism to encourage such migration; and their attempts to prevent displaced Jews going anywhere other than Palestine.

Jerusalem from the north, during the Mandate period, an image from Tom Suarez's book State of Terror

The coverage of historical events in the book is somewhat sketchy, and might confuse the general reader not already familiar with the topic: for example, the 1917 Balfour Declaration is discussed but the text is not provided. It presents the 1947 UN Partition Plan simply as a division of Palestine (excluding Jerusalem) into two states, Jewish and Arab, as if they were to be independent sovereign states. In fact, they were to be joined in a confederation effectively under UN trusteeship, and created by a process in which there was no place for a unilateral declaration of independence. Ben-Gurion’s attempt in Israel’s Declaration of Establishment to justify it through the Partition Plan was a fraud. We are told that the Declaration did not acknowledge any borders for the new state, but not told that the Zionists were forced to make a formal declaration of borders as proposed by the Partition Plan in order to achieve recognition by the USA. This is significant because it makes it clear that Israel was not invaded by 5 Arab armies on 15 May 1948, as Zionists claim: most of the fighting in the subsequent war was outside its borders, and only Syrian and Egyptian troops entered Israeli territory.

This book is true, and it is important. It proves beyond doubt that Israel is not the perpetual victim of Arab violence that it claims to be, but has been the aggressor throughout the history of the conflict.

Thomas Suárez is to be congratulated and thanked for his work. This book is a tremendous achievement by a writer who is also a talented musician and an expert in historic cartography.

Publication Information

UK Edition published by Skyscraper Publications, 13 October 2016, RRP £20.
Format: Hardcover, 417 pages
ISBN: 978-1911072034
Available on amazon.co.uk

US Edition published by Interlink-Olive Branch, November 23, 2016, $20
Format: Paperback, 288 pages
ISBN: 978-1566560689
Available for pre-order on amazon.com.

Electronic edition forthcoming. The book has its own website at state-of-terror.net

18 May 2016

Israeli General Compares Israel with the Nazis


Obersturmbannführer Golan’s Anti-Semitic Crime
As you will know, comparing Israel and Zionism with the Nazis is anti-Semitic.  Ken Livingstone went even further in suggesting an identity of interest between the Nazis and Zionists.  Clearly such wickedness must be punished.  Only Zionists are allowed to compare their opponents with Nazis and use the Holocaust to attack their opponents.  Everyone else must remain silent at all times because the poor dears will suffer terribly.  The now discredited Working Definition on Anti-Semitism of the European Union Monitoring Committee defined anti-Semitism as including a comparison of Israel with the Nazis.
You can therefore imagine how shocked I was that at Israel’s Holocaust Memorial Day, the Deputy Army Commander General Yair Golan told his audience that what happened in Europe bears a resemblance to what is taking place in Israel today.  Naturally this provoked outrage, not least from the same Netanyahu who excused Hitler for the Holocaust because the Palestinian Mufti of Jerusalem pushed him into it.  See  Top IDF officer Yair Golan compares modern Israel to 1930s Germany inbombshell speech 

In this article B. Michael has a look at a few reasons why Golan was correct to make the comparison he did.  Michael uses the term ‘unchosen’ throughout, in an ironic reference to the concept of the ‘chosen people’ as it applies in Israel today.

Tony Greenstein
Gen. Yair Golan

Why would that general compare Israel to 1930s Germany? Hmm...


What was going through that anti-Semite general’s head when he compared the Chosen People to 1930s Europe? A few pointers.

Haaretz - May 15, 2016 

With all the festivals and days of sadness behind us, we can now return to the nagging question: What on earth was going through that anti-Semite general’s head when he dared hint that we, the Chosen People, commit abominable acts like those perpetrated by the gentiles?
Really, what's he talking about?

OK, let’s start with the small details known to everyone. Maybe he was talking about: 

1. The rising number of calls proclaiming, “Death to the unchosen people!” 

2. The demands not to employ the “unchosen” ones, buy from them or rent or sell apartments to them, and drive them from the Holy Land (all sanctified by the Rabbinate and other kosher rabbis, naturally). 
3. The growing thuggishness that labels every “unchosen” person a legitimate target for insults, abuse, assaults, vilification and, if possible, manslaughter.

4. A soccer team that swears its ranks will include only those of pure blood and religion, and whose fans’ most popular chant is “Death to the unchosen ones.”

5. A society that produces pogrom-like actions and lynch mobs, church and mosque arsonists, and plenty of thugs and scoundrels.

6. Elected officials encouraging extrajudicial killings on our streets. 

In short, no big deal - just routine matters that no longer excite folk. Consequently, we have no choice but to expand the list and include some other items that may have escaped the collective memory... 

8. Spiritual leaders who publish books that determine when it’s acceptable to kill gentiles and their children. These religious leaders still tend their flocks. 

9. A movement that defends the purity of the people and its blood, and persecutes lecherous “unchosen” ones who dare consort with daughters of the Chosen Ones in order to defile them. On his Facebook page, the head of this holy movement calls for the mass murder of the “unchosen ones,” knowing no harm will befall him. 
10. Tens, if not hundreds or thousands, of businesses boasting of their employees’ purity. 

11. The chief Sephardi peddler of religion who declared, “Goyim were created solely to serve the Chosen People.” His noble predecessors determined that only Slavic nations were created in order to serve the then-master race. Our religious pastor surpasses them: he deemed all nations our servants. 

12. The education and culture ministers, who work tirelessly to synchronize education, culture, the media and arts, so everyone speaks in unison about one people, one state, one Torah and one viewpoint. 

13. The brilliant legal sophistry that prohibits the “unchosen” ones from purchasing state lands. Only the Chosen People may do so. 

14. The hundreds of communities that meticulously ensure the purity of their chosen population. The “unchosen” may not enter their gates lest they cause contamination by their very presence. All of this is legal. 
15. The Absentee Property Law, which regulates the assets of “absentees” even when the “absentees” are clearly present and living a stone’s throw away. Only the laws of Chosen People have clauses relating to “absent-present” persons whose presence doesn’t detract from their status as “absentees.” 

16. The fact that the assets of the “chosen ones” remain theirs forever, even after thousands of years of abandonment that exceed any statute of limitations. In contrast, the assets of the “unchosen” – even when they’re still holding them – will be confiscated, stolen, expropriated and transferred to the Chosen People. Just as our magnanimous Lord in heaven decreed. 

17. A society that controls millions of “inferior” people who lack civil and human rights, downtrodden by a mechanism called the “Civil Administration” and headed by a general.

18. A state that locks up a million and a half people in a gigantic enclosure, unsure whether to call it “Pale of Settlement” or the “Gaza Ghetto.”

19. A regime that imposes a grotesque legal system upon millions, which doesn’t require evidence and shows no truth, justice or compassion. However, the system does have a “court” – a contemptible theater whose main purpose is to give a “legal” and “authorized” appearance to a military dictatorship.

20. A justice minister who goes out of her way to crush the legal system, liberating the rulers at last from oppressive legal constraints.

21. A government that rules an occupied people, and sometimes its own subjects, according to emergency regulations that give it limitless authority “for security reasons.” (Damn, I wish I could remember where I’ve heard of this trick being used before.) 

22. A state – unique among all the world’s democracies – in which there’s no legal way for a “chosen” person to marry an “unchosen” one. 

23. A government that wholeheartedly believes in the Chosen People’s right to continue expanding eastward. This space extends from Mesopotamia to Nuweiba. 

24. A state that insists it’s the “only democracy” in the Middle East, whereas it’s actually the only “military theocracy” in the entire world. 

25. A state that proves pop psychology is occasionally accurate in its diagnosis: an abused child can indeed become an abusive adult. 

And that’s pretty much it. 

Is it because of these piffling details that Obersturmbannführer Golan remembered what he did? Odd. Very odd. There’s no comparison, clearly.