Showing posts with label Reinhard Heydrich. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Reinhard Heydrich. Show all posts

28 May 2023

Welding the Gates of Dachau or Jewish Exceptionalism? Rachel Mars, Vashti and The Politics of Cultural Banality

Roger Water’s Berlin Concert demonstrates how Political Culture can be subversive

Pickle is the weekly newsletter of alternative Jewish cultural group Vashti, which was founded in 2019 by Rivka Brown of Novara Media which supported the 'anti-Semitism' witchhunt. The group claims that it stands in opposition to the existing leadership of British Jews but does it?

Vashti  is one of a number of groups which have come about as a result of the Israel right or wrong, leadership of Britain’s Jews. Anything that weakens the Zionist consensus should be welcomed. However in their attempts to bridge the divide between anti-Zionism and Zionism there is a danger of Vashti reinforcing the very forces that caused them to form in the first place.

Jewish cultural politics can degenerate into self-indulgence and an identity politics which celebrates being Jewish for its own sake. It is but a short road to Zionism

A Jewish cultural politics that is not aware of this can end up reflecting rather than challenging the Zionist grip on British Jews. Any alternative Jewish political culture has to have as its focal point the Palestinians.

Identity politics carries with it the danger of counterposing the identity of the oppressor against the oppressed, given the Zionist context of Jewish politics today. Zionist feminism is a good example.

How Identity Politics Turned the Victims of Sabra & Chatilla into the Antisemitic Oppressors of Zionist Feminists - A Reply to Erica Burman,

Ahed Tamimi Exposes the Refusal of Western Feminism to Come to Terms with Zionism and Imperialism,

White Women as Slave Owners and the Myth of Sisterhood – Stephanie E. Jones and Why Zionist Feminism is an Oxymoron.

The Board of Deputies, the BBC and Tory establishment led the false ‘anti-Semitism’ attack on the Labour Left. Yet both Rivka Brown and Novara Media supported the witchhunt of Chris Williamson, Jackie Walker and Ken Livingstone. For some reason I was excluded from their attacks. Perhaps that was because I was White unlike Jackie.

When Rivka Brown was invited to a meeting billed as “A celebration of Jewish Radicalism” which was co-sponsored by Jewish Voices for Labour, I immediately wrote to JVL, pointing out Rivka’s poisonous attack on Chris Williamson as a ‘Jew Baiter’. I asked them to take their name off. To their credit they did so. See Solidarity is the Bread and Butter of Socialism. In the end Brown withdrew entirely.

Pickle & the Rachel Mars Interview

In the current Pickle Emma Jude Harris interviews Rachel Mars, a performance artist, starring in The Forge at the Barbican. The Forge consists of Mars welding together a replica of the gate at Dachau concentration camp. The original was stolen in 2014. It bore the slogan arbeit macht frei (work makes you free). 

Dachau was the first Nazi concentration camp and it opened on 22 March 1933, not for Jews but for communists and trade unionists.

Performance art is about challenging the conventions of visual art and using one’s body as the medium to convey hidden meanings. The mind boggles at what Mars was hoping to communicate by recreating a sign that symbolised Nazi terror. It is clear from her interview that she was not challenging conventional norms. I can’t imagine anything more boring than watching someone welding a gate on stage.

The first question Harris asked was What do you feel is your “inheritance” as a Jewish person?’ which in itself begs the question as to whether there is a common Jewish inheritance. Mars’ response that this came up in therapy this week – so the need to go to therapy is the first one.’ speaks to class not ethnicity. Do more Jews than non-Jews go to therapy or is it a particular type of person?

Rachel Mars

 ‘As a Jewish person, I have inherited many things … a love of language, and argument, and disagreement, and debate, a certain type of love for a certain sense of humour, the need for a particular kind of community, and also a helpful feeling of otherness in Britain. But also an unnamed grief or sadness… because of Holocaust inheritance. I've inherited a big hole where there should be a lot of other people and their histories….’

The apotheosis of otherness is diversity and the depoliticisation of racism. The result is Lammy, Sunak and Braverman and the celebration of betrayal and collaboration.

Does being ‘othered’ give you a ‘helpful feeling’? What is Jewish otherness? It sounds very much like the Zionist desire to keep Jews separate from non-Jews. Otherness was forced on Jews by anti-Semitism. The response was unity with non-Jews. And do you miss people you’ve never seen or known?

Jewish humour came about as a result of oppression. It was a way of mocking authority and turning the tables. In the words of Saul Bellow ‘Oppressed people tend to be witty.’ Today Jewish people are not oppressed. This reference to Jewish humour is nothing more than pastiche, the romanticisation of a past that has long disappeared.

The interview goes from the bizarre to the banal as Emma asks ‘So what is your least favourite Holocaust memorial? And why?’ to which Rachel responds Ooh. I've got quite a lot of favourite ones?’

Banal because there is no questioning of why the Jewish holocaust is memorialised when no other acts of genocide are treated in this way. Bizarre because it treats holocaust memorials as if she was a child choosing her favourite candies.

In 2013 the National Congress of American Indians petitioned for a National American Indian Holocaust Museum. It’s still waiting.

The Smithsonian’s National Museum of the American Indian depends on donations from American Indians themselves for support and this is not a Museum dedicated to the American Indian Holocaust.

The American Indian Genocide Museum in Texas is a voluntary organisation dependent on public donations. It does not receive the hundreds of millions of dollars that have been spent on the US Holocaust Memorial Museum [USHMM] in Washington.

What about a US National Slavery Museum? In 2001 a non-profit organization was founded in Fredericksburg, Virginia, to raise funds and campaign to establish a national museum on slavery. In 2008 the project died due to its inability to raise sufficient funds to pay property taxes, let alone begin construction. It has been abandoned.

The Legacy Museum in Montgomery, Alabama was established in 2018 at an estimated cost of $20 million raised from private donations and charitable foundations. It was established by the Equal Justice Initiative, a non-profit organisation. It costs $5 to enter.

Contrast this with the USHMM. In October 1980, Congress authorised the establishment of the USHMM in Washington. It received lavish funding from corporate America via tax deductible donations for its construction. It opened in April 1993. In the current year it will receive $65 million in Federal money. Entrance is free.

The USHMM commemorates just one holocaust. That of Jews. As a result of lobbying by Turkey, Israel, and American Jewish/Zionist organizations, there is no mention of the Armenian genocide in the museum. As I document in Zionism During the Holocaust, Elie Wiesel, who was instrumental in founding the USHMM, attempted to destroy an international conference on genocide in Tel Aviv in 1982 because it included sessions on the Armenian holocaust. Israel’s Foreign Ministry made strenuous efforts to sabotage the conference.

In December 2003, 67% of the USHMM’s budget was provided by federal funds. Its operating budget depends largely on US government funding. The Federal Government also donated 1.9 acres of land in the centre of Washington for its construction.

So I have a question for Rachel Mars and Vashti. Why does the US Government spend hundreds of millions of dollars maintaining a national holocaust museum for a genocide that took place in Europe yet it isn’t prepared to build or subsidise a national museum to remember slavery or the extermination of the Indians?

According to the National Congress of American Indians, the American Indian population was approximately 10 million in 1500 and barely 237,000 in 1900. Nearly 98% of Native Americans were wiped out through colonisation – be it by disease or extermination. Yet there is no federally funded museum to commemorate this.

It’s not just in America that the Jewish holocaust is commemorated. Virtually every European state has its memorials and museums. As I pointed out in my open letter (see below) to Vashti, a Holocaust Memorial Bill is currently being proposed by the very same government which describes the boat refugees as an ‘invasion’.

So while Rachel Mars picks and chooses which are her favourite memorials, as if she was a child choosing her favourite toy, the victims of other holocausts go unremembered. Emma Harris observers how

Germany did an amazing job of memorialising everything, and that it’s so incredible that they've had all these interventions’

to which Mars agrees. Not once does it occur to these two sages to ask why this is so and the relationship to the virtual outlawing of solidarity with the Palestinians. Could it be that the German state is memorialising the holocaust as a way of cementing its military relationship with Israel, the West’s strategic ally in the Middle East?

If these two empty heads, sated with their vapid identity politics, had any knowledge of the history of German imperialism they would know that genocide did not begin with the Jews but with the Herero and Namaqua people in South-West Africa between 1904 and 1907 where Darwinian theories of race supremacy were applied.

Eugenic experiments were conducted by Eugene Fischer, who became the leading racial hygienist under the Nazis and Director of the Kaiser Wilhem Institute of Anthropology. Fischer defined the Herero Africans as an “inferior race.”

Fischer came to Shark Island and other concentration camps to conduct medical experiments on the Herero prisoners, who were subjected to sterilisation and injections of smallpox, typhus and tuberculosis. 310 Herero and mixed-race children of Herero women and German men were made test subjects of “lesser racial quality.”

Fischer’s medical experiments were a testing ground for later medical experiments on Jews and others during the Holocaust. Fischer’s The Principles of Human Heredity of Race Hygiene,” was read by Hitler in Landsberg prison in 1924. Fischer became Chancellor of the University of Berlin, where he taught medicine to Nazi physicians including Josef Mengele. What happened in SW Africa and Shark Island became ‘a template for the Holocaust.’

German memorials to the Rhineland Bastards, and the victims of the Herero and Namaqua genocides are conspicuous by their absence. When Harris and Mars congratulate the German state on having ‘memorialised everything’ they fail to ask why not anyone else.

Mars referred to how ‘impactful’ the Jewish Museum in Berlin is yet failed to mention how the Israeli and German states forced the resignation of its previous Director, Peter Schaffer, in June 2019. Mars’ interview is an example of the triumph of form over substance.

Schafer had previously been criticised for inviting a Palestinian scholar to give a lecture at the museum. But it was a post to the museum’s Twitter account that cited an open letter signed by 240 Jewish and Israeli scholars which sparked the Zionist backlash.

The post concerned a parliamentary motion declaring the BDS movement antisemitic. The scholars said that “Parliament’s decision doesn’t assist the fight against anti-Semitism. On the contrary, it undermines it.” The museum used the hashtag #mustread in its retweet and added a quote from the letter.

The Jewish Museum in Berlin had, for a long time, been in the firing line for its independent political stance. It had come under attack in 2013 for having invited British Jewish scholar Brian Klug to give its annual Kristallnacht lecture and before that Judith Butler.

At the end of the interview Harris asks why Mars feels that her work is an ‘important intervention for you to be making right now’? Mars refers to a ‘picture of a small boat trying to make it to Dover…. We really need to make this about now – this is not going away.”

Yet there is no obvious connection between welding a replica gate and present day racism against refugees. On the contrary in praising the variety of different holocaust memorials, without ever asking why, she contributes to the legitimation of the very states that demonise refugees today. Mars refers to how

‘Britain is constantly trying to position itself as [the] only saviour for the Jewish community in the Holocaust. And if the Jewish community accepts that narrative, that is a major problem’

without any reference to what actually happened. It’s not only the ‘Jewish community’ i.e. its Zionist leaders but Mars and Harris themselves who fawn over the Holocaust Memorial Industry.

The USHMM obscures the role of the United States and the State Department under Breckinridge Long, in turning away Jewish refugees. As Albert Einstein wrote in a letter to Eleanor Roosevelt, the policy of erecting bureaucratic hurdles ‘makes it all but impossible to give refuge to the victims of fascist cruelty in Europe.’ A report to Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau on the ‘Acquiescence of This Government in the Murder of the Jews,’ concluded that ‘it takes months and months to grant the visa and then it usually applies to a corpse.’

You would look in vain in the interview for any mention of the policy of the State Department towards Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany. Likewise in Britain, the Holocaust memorial industry consciously avoids all mention of the role of the British government and Home Secretary Herbert Morrison in turning away Jewish refugees from Vichy France who were desperate to get out in the autumn of 1942 before the Nazis overran the territory.

Given the fake ‘anti-Semitism’ campaign in the Labour Party it is worth bearing in mind that in October 1942 Morrison received a delegation of eminent churchmen and public figures such as Eleanor Rathbone and Lord Astor, asking him for visas for 2,000 Jewish children and the elderly in Vichy France. Morrison refused.

On 31 December 1942 after the Allies had declared that Germany was exterminating Europe’s Jews Morrison made it clear that ‘he could not agree that the door should be opened to the entry of uncategorised Jews.’ Morrison believed that if the Jews were allowed to remain in Britain after the war ‘they might be an explosive element in the country, especially if the economic situation deteriorated.’

Morrison believed that most Jews were communists and feared that they would be prominent in any industrial unrest. Morrison was said to doubt that there was a holocaust. Morrison was also a supporter of Zionism so you won’t find any mention of this by the Zionists.

What Mars’ interview shows is that a Jewish cultural politics that concerns itself with form not substance, which reflects instead of questions, ends up supporting the Zionist holocaust narrative and whitewashing the role of the West. To fail to ask why there are memorials to the Jewish but not Gypsy or Disabled holocaust, still less the Native Americans or Slavery, is to collude in a narrative that uses the holocaust dead to oil the wheels of the West’s war machine.

Roger Waters in Berlin Shows How Political Culture Can Challenge Racism & Fascism

If you want to understand how Political Culture can be subversive then you only have to look at the concert Roger Waters has just held in Berlin. Judging by the reactions of the same Berlin police who banned Nakba Day demonstrations, Waters has scored a bullseye.

The German police are the linear descendants of the Nazi Security Police which united with the SS in September 1939, except now they claim to be anti-Nazi and opposed to anti-Semitism.

Roger Waters has challenged the Nazi-style behaviour of the German state for its suppression of solidarity with the Palestinians. The hypocrisy of the German Police who are alleging that comparisons between Israel and the Nazis are criminal ‘incitement’ is breathtaking.

Moshe Yalon calls Israeli Ministers Ben Gvir  & Smotrich ‘Mein Kampf in reverse’

Such comparisons are legion in Israel. Ex Likud Defence Minister Moshe Yalon calls out Ben Gvir and Smotrich as Jewish Nazis ‘Mein Kampf in reverse’. Today’s headline in Ha’aretz is Netanyahu’s Cabinet Ministers in Race to See Who Is Most Fascist.

Roger donned an imitation fascist garb to draw a comparison between the suppression of anti-Zionism in Germany today and its suppression by Nazi Germany. This may be painful for those who pretend that they are now opposed to anti-Semitism but it is nonetheless true. The Times of Israel reported that Waters had ‘sparked outrage”

by projecting Anne Frank’s name at recent concerts to draw comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany. Such comparisons are considered antisemitic under the widely-used IHRA definition of antisemitism.

If comparing Israel to Nazi Germany is anti-Semitic according to the IHRA then that only demonstrates how flawed the definition is!

Anne Frank, although only a teenager, never expressed Zionist sentiments and she considered Zionists freaks and oddities, as did most of Europe’s Jews. Anne wrote in her Diary (11.4.44) that

‘My first wish after the war is that I may become Dutch! I love the Dutch, I love this country…’

Palestine was not on her horizons. Zionism has colonised her name. Waters enraged the Zionists even further by linking Anne Frank’s name to that of Shireen abu Akleh, who was assassinated by Israel.

Vashti’s Cowardly Cultural Politics

The bravery of Roger Waters and his demonstration of how political culture can challenge bourgeois ideology is in contrast to the insipid and anaemic cultural politics of Vashti, who prefer to venerate a rusted Nazi gate than challenge the way that the holocaust has been used to underpin and legitimise the Palestinian genocide.

Vashti doesn’t dare make such comparisons because of the ‘offence’ it might cause to the Zionist leadership in Britain.

The Board of Deputies complained that it was “very concerning” that Waters will be performing in the UK, calling his concerts “political rallies.” Perish the thought. A concert that is political! Clearly Board members didn’t attend the Free Mandela concerts a generation ago.

Joe Biden’s ‘anti-Semitism’ Ambassador Deborah Lipstadt, a junk holocaust historian, was quick out of the stalls in condemning Roger Water’s as was her European counterpart Katharina von Schnurbein.

Death to the Arabs Demonstration in Jerusalem

We should take our hats off to Roger Waters. The comparisons between Israel and Nazi Germany are many and varied, from according different rights to different ethnicities to marches chanting ‘death to the Arabs.’ If the Zionists don’t like the comparison it’s because it’s true.

Tony Greenstein

Open Letter to Vashti

Dear Eli Machover/Vashti,

It was with a growing incredulity that I read your interview with performance artist, Rachel Mars. The focus was on Holocaust memorialisation and the ways our inherited trauma shapes the art we create’.

What stands out most is the inability of Rachel or the interviewer, Emma Jude Harris, to place holocaust memorialisation in a political context. Simple questions such as why the focus and emphasis is on the Jewish holocaust and why the holocaust in the Belgian Congo and the Slave Trade attract so little attention were not even asked.

Not once does Rachel or Emma ask how and why the ruling elites in our society have co-opted the holocaust to imperialism, still less how Zionism has constructed an apartheid society using the holocaust as its justification. Such simple questions yet Emma did not feel the need to ask them and Rachel felt no need to mention them.

Questions such as why the German political establishment has taken on a particular interpretation of the holocaust as a justification for their integration into the NATO alliance and how their support for Israel and Zionism has cemented that integration.

To seek answers to such questions one would have to consult books such as Edith Zertal’s Israel’s Holocaust and the Politics of Nationhood, or Yitzhak Laor’s The Myth of Liberal Zionism or my own newly released Zionism During the Holocaust – The Weaponisation of Memory in the Service of Nation and State.

Projected holocaust memorial in Victoria Gardens

Questions such as why a rabidly racist government in Britain, that demonises asylum seekers crossing the Channel as an ‘invasion’ is so keen on holocaust memorialisation that only three days ago it introduced a Holocaust Memorial Bill which will enable the erection of a holocaust memorial in Victoria Gardens next to Parliament despite strong local opposition.

Rachel mentions the abundance of holocaust memorials in Germany yet fails to mention the virtual outlawing of any manifestation of solidarity with the Palestinians in Berlin or other parts of Germany.

My young Israeli friend, Stav, is facing two weeks in a Berlin prison for taking part in Palestine solidarity action. She refuses to pay on principle the fine that was imposed by the German state for daring to express solidarity with the Palestinians and she also faces being gaoled in Britain for taking part in actions against Elbit. None of this was allowed to intrude on your arty-farty interview.

This is the real Jewish trauma that Rachel Mars ‘forgot’ to mention as opposed to the synthetic trauma that Israel and its diaspora Jewish offshoots have helped inflict on Jews as a way of generating support for the ‘Jewish’ state. Emma mentions ‘intergenerational trauma’ among Jews but Zionism has deliberately out to recreate and invent trauma as a means of solidifying support for its racist enterprise.

As I noted in Zionism During the Holocaust if the behaviour and attitude of non-Jews in Europe towards Jews had replicated that of Israeli Jews towards the Palestinians, then not 6 but 7 or even 8 million Jews would have died in the Holocaust.

This is the irony that escapes not only Emma and Rachel but Vashti too. The most pro-Zionist party today in Germany is Alternative for Germany which in the debate 3 years ago in the Bundestag wanted to make BDS illegal, is riddled with neo-Nazis and holocaust deniers.  

It was less than a month ago that two parliamentary representatives of AfD followed, in what has become a long tradition of neo-Nazis and the far-Right paying homage to the holocaust, when they paid a visit to Israel’s propaganda museum, Yad Vashem.

There is no mention of how, in attacking Jewish anti-Zionists, the German state today is repeating the actions of the Nazi state before 1939 against Jews who were not Zionists.

On 28 January 1935 Reinhard Heydrich issued a directive stating:

‘the activity of the Zionist-oriented youth organisations that are engaged in the occupational restructuring of the Jews … lies in the interest of the National Socialist state’s leadership…. (they are) not to be treated with that strictness that it is necessary to apply to the members of the so-called German-Jewish organisations (assimilationists).

In May 1935 Schwarze Korps, paper of the SS, wrote that:

the Zionists adhere to a strict racial position and by emigrating to Palestine they are helping to build their own Jewish state.... The assimilation-minded Jews deny their race and insist on their loyalty to Germany or claim to be Christians because they have been baptised in order to subvert National Socialist principles

None of this appears in your interview, even as background.  No mention of how it is the Palestinians who are now the real victims of the European Holocaust and how the 'intergenerational trauma' of Jews is relieved by supporting neo-Nazis in the Israeli government, as they cry 'death to the Arabs'.’ The interview with Mars referred to there being no state sponsored memorials to the victims of slavery or lynching in the USA, in comparison with a holocaust which didn't occur in America. Mars says:

There's a new-ish memorial to lynching [in Alabama]. And that was not state money. It was an individual pursuit, and it is incredible in terms of design and impact.

Mars and her interlocutor don’t ask why it is that a memorial to lynching is not sponsored by the state where it took place or indeed by the Federal Government. It’s simply taken as an act of god.

Not once do they ask why were hundreds of millions dollars spent on the US Holocaust Museum in Washington yet the American state does not see fit to memorialise the Holocaust of Native Indians and Africans that took place on its shores?

Nor did this interview venture to ask why it is that holocaust memorialisation conveniently omits Britain and America’s record in turning away Jewish refugees from the Nazi holocaust. There are some lessons from the holocaust that are best forgotten.

Mars witters on about the ‘sonic experience’ of the Jewish Museum in Berlin and how ‘impactful’ it is yet she fails to mention how the Israeli and German state took out the previous Director of the Museum, Peter Schaffer, in June 2019.

Schaffer’s ‘crime’ was having retweeted a report referring to a letter signed by 240 Israeli and Jewish scholars rejecting the parliamentary motion condemning BDS as anti-Semitic. The museum used the hashtag #mustread in its retweet and added a quote from the letter: “Parliament’s decision doesn’t assist the fight against anti-Semitism.”

The Jewish Museum in Berlin had, for a long time, been in the firing line of the Israeli and German states for its independent political stand on anti-Semitism. It had come under attack in 2013 for having invited British Jewish scholar Brian Klug to give its annual Kristallnacht lecture and before that Judith Butler.

The saccharine cultural politics that Vashti offers has not questioned how Israel and the Zionist movement, aided and abetted by the British and European states, has colonised diaspora Jewish institutions. Why is it that everything that Vashti touches has to be so superficial?

When I offered to write an article about the weaponisation of the memory of the Holocaust, the theme of my recent book, you didn't even acknowledge it. You must have taken fright at the very thought of debating the uses to which the Holocaust has been put.

As for 'intergenerational trauma' - I think there are other words for it like exploitation of past injustice in order to perpetrate present injustices.  But do tell me. Is this a psychological or a political ailment? Or just schmaltz dressed up as a pathology?

On a brighter note this will make for an excellent blog on how the Zionist narrative of the holocaust persists, even amongst those who claim not to be Zionist. Instead of creating a political culture which asks searching questions what you are doing is engaging in a cultural politics which simply reflects rather than questions existing culture and assumptions surrounding holocaust and how memory is manipulated to serve nation and state today.

I do not expect a reply to this letter since I doubt that you are capable of one. With that in mind I am blind copying it pending a blog.

Tony Greenstein

12 November 2017

On Both Sides of the Witch-hunt – The Alliance for Workers Liberty's Political Schizophrenia

It is not anti-Semitic to quote the mutual praise of Nazis and Zionists – just truthful


A member of the Hitler youth expressing his joy at the attacks on Jews and in Israel a small girl writing a message on a missile destined for the people of Gaza
If there is one thing that the Zionist movement hates it is being reminded of the time, 80 years ago when leading Nazis not only praised the German Zionist movement but also favoured it in preference to their ‘assimilationist’ opponents.

Whey then do I mention it?  Is it calculated cruelty? Have the Zionists changed their spots?  No the Zionist movement today is still willing to collaborate with fascists, Nazis and assorted anti-Semites. Whether it is the Zionist Organisation of America inviting Steve Bannon, the editor of Breitbart News, house magazine of the Alt-Right to their annual gala or the visit in July by Netanyahu to see his good friend the Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban.  
The AWL's article attacking Moshe Machover
Orban is the most racist leader in Europe and the competition is quite strong.  I wrote that Far from Netanyahu criticising him [Orban] for his anti-Semitism, quite the opposite took place and Israel’s Ambassador in Hungary Yossi Amrani was forced to withdraw his mild criticisms.’ 

Shortly before Netanyahu landed in Hungary Orban had launched a nasty anti-Semitic campaign against George Soros, a survivor of the Nazi occupation of Hungary who Netanyahu also hates, because he finances Israeli human rights groups.   I wrote of Orban:
Admiral Horthy, who Netanyahu's friend Viktor Orban is seeking to rehabilitate
‘His real crime has been the campaign by Orban and his Fidesz party to rehabilitate Admiral Horthy, Hungary’s ruler between 1920 and 1944 and the author of Hungary’s war-time alliance with Nazi Germany.’  
Horthy presided over the deportation of nearly ½ million Jews to Auschwitz but that little fact didn’t get in the way of Netanyahu’s love-in with him.  

According to the misnamed Alliance for Workers Liberty [Quoting Nazis to damn “the Zionists”] we are ‘left anti-Semites’ for raising such matters.  On the contrary, it is the AWL who are demonstrating that they are a bunch of social chauvinists and apologists for the racist crimes of imperialism and Zionism. 
Edwin Black, a devoted Zionist has written the most comprehensive book on the Nazi-Zionist trade agreement [Ha'avara] that helped destroy the Jewish and international boycott of Nazi Germany. [The Transfer Agreement, 1999, Brookline Books, London] Black describes how on March 25th 1933 Goering, panicked by the success of the Boycott summoned the leaders of German Jewry to his offices. At the last moment the Zionists secured an invitation. The 3 non-Zionist Jewish leaders denied that they had any influence over the Boycott campaign in America because, although they couldn’t say it, they welcomed the pressure on the Nazis.  It was this which had kept Nazi violence against Germany’s Jews in check.  Black describes what happened next:
‘‘Blumenfeld [Secretary of the German Zionist Federation] stepped forward on behalf of the Zionists, declaring that the German Zionist Federation was uniquely capable of conferring with Jewish leaders in other countries… Once uttered, the words forever changed the relationship between the Nazis and the Zionists.’ [Black p.36]
The Zionists, unlike the non-Zionists, were prepared to do their best to help the Nazis defeat the Boycott if in turn the Nazis would help them build a Jewish state in Palestine. 
The Zionist   paper which welcomed the Nuremberg Laws
Why is this relevant?  Because today, as fascist groups and racism (including anti-Semitism) grow in Eastern Europe and elsewhere, the Israeli state and its leaders have the friendliest of relations with not only Orban other racist and anti-Semitic regimes for example the Polish Prime Minister Beata SzydÅ‚o of the far-Right Law and Justice party.

Only today we hear news of a march of an estimated 60,000 fascists in Warsaw celebrating a pogrom against the Jews in Warsaw in 1936.  Polish Nationalist Youth March Draws Thousands in Capital - Crowd of mostly young people carries banners that read ‘Europe Will Be White’ and ‘Clean Blood’  Their slogan is ‘Pray for Islamic Holocaust’.  Presumably there is no point in praying for another Jewish one since most Poland Jews either died in the Holocaust or departed after the war.  We can assume that Israel will not be making any representations about this march.

Today the primary victims of fascist violence in Europe are Muslims and this is not unwelcome to Israel and the Zionist movement.  The far-Right in Europe and America openly admire Israel for its hostility to Muslims. The neo-Nazi leader of America’s alt-Right, Richard Spencer declares that he is a White Zionist.  Is there a difference between the march in Warsaw and the thousands of settlers who chant ‘Death to the Arabs’ in Jerusalem?
The Labour Party Marxists publication which the Zionists took exception to
The AWL is nothing if not stupid. You might have thought that their experience of being denounced as ‘anti-Semitic’ by Owen Smith in the leadership contest with Jeremy Corbyn would have taught them a lesson.  At least two AWL members – Pete Radcliffe and Daniel Randall were expelled from the Labour Party for ‘left anti-Semitism’.

The AWL is unique on the British Left. They are Trotskyist Zionists (though Trotsky would have run a mile from them!). Whereas most supporters of a 2 State solution in Palestine reluctantly accept the continuance of a racist Jewish Supremacist state, AWL endorse the Apartheid Jewish state enthusiastically.  Those who don’t share their enthusiasm are guilty of ‘left anti-Semitism’. 

Absurdly they are argue that ‘left anti-Semitism’ is not racist! As I pointed out at a debate with Daniel Randall on the 15th September 2016, if it’s not racist it’s not anti-Semitic either!  They should find another word, like anti-Zionist!
When the head of the Gestapo's Jewish desk Baron von Mildenstein went with Kurt Tuchler and their wives for a 6 month visit to Palestine in 1933, as guest of the Labour Zionist movement, they struck a medal on their return with the Swastika on one side and the Zionist Star of David on the other
During our debate I embarrassed Randall by noting that he had been expelled from the Labour Party for ‘left anti-Semitism’.  His response was:  ‘I do want to say from the outset that it is undeniably the case that the issue of anti-Semitism has been instrumentalised and manipulated by some on the Labour Right and their supporters in the press in order to undermine Corbyn and the Left.’ [see transcript]

Never before, or since have the AWL admitted that ‘left anti-Semitism’ is a weapon used by the Right against the Left.  It took the experience of the Summer of 2016 for the AWL to realise that for the Labour Right – ‘anti-Semitism’ and being on the Left were synonymous.  In Scotland, Rhea Wolfson, the left’s candidate for the National Executive Committee and herself a member of the Jewish Labour Movement had her nomination rejected by her Glasgow constituency, after Jim Murphy, Blair’s Scottish leftover, accused Momentum of ‘anti-Semitism’.

What has angered the AWL is that Moshe Machover has been exonerated and readmitted to the Labour Party despite writing an ‘apparently anti-Semitic’, article describing the warm relations between leading Nazis and the Zionist movement in Germany.  Indeed Sam Matthews of the Disputes Committee backed away from his initial description of the article that Moshe had written and which Labour Party Marxists had reprinted. 
Heydrich - in charge of the combined police (RSHA) and the 'engineer' of the Final Solution
In the article Moshe quoted an article Heydrich had written in the SS paper Das Schwarze Korps on September 26 1935:

‘National socialism has no intention of attacking the Jewish people in any way. On the contrary, the recognition of Jewry as a racial community based on blood, and not as a religious one, leads the German government to guarantee the racial separateness of this community without any limitations. The government finds itself in complete agreement with the great spiritual movement within Jewry itself, so-called Zionism, with its recognition of the solidarity of Jewry throughout the world and the rejection of all assimilationist ideas.’ 5

The full quotation can be found in ‘The Third Reich and the Palestine Question’ [I.B. Tauris, 1985, London, p.57 and a shortened version in Zionism and Anti-Semitism in Nazi Germany, CUP, 2008] by Francis Nicosia, Professor of Holocaust Studies at Vermont University.

Of course by itself, this quotation simply proves that the Nazis looked on the Zionist rejection of assimilation favourably.  Obviously Heydrich, who is described by Gerald Reitlinger as the ‘engineer’ of the Final Solution [The Final Solution, Valentine Mitchell, London, 1968. p.13] was lying when he said that the Nazis had no intention of attacking the Jewish people. 

Relations between the Zionists and the Nazis went much deeper.  Lucy Dawidowicz described how in January 1935 Heydrich had issued an instruction to the Gestapo in Bavaria that Zionist youth groups ‘are not to be treated with that strictness that it is necessary to apply to the members of the so-called German-Jewish organizations (assimilationists)’. [‘War Against the Jews 1933-45, Penguin 1987’ pp.118, citing Mommsen 'Der Nationalsozialistische Polizeistaat pp.78/9 and Nicosia, ZANG, p.119]

The question is whether this was just one-way traffic.  Did the Zionists reciprocate in any way and the answer is yes, very much so.  On 21st June 1933 the German Zionist Federation wrote a memo to Hitler explaining the ideological similarity between the Zionists and the Nazis.

‘On the foundation of the new state, which has established the principle of race, we wish so to fit in our community [so that] fruitful activity for the Fatherland is possible. Our acknowledgement of Jewish nationality provides for a clear and sincere relationship to the German people and its national and racial realities. Precisely because we don’t wish to falsify these fundamentals, because we too are against mixed marriages and are for maintaining the purity of the Jewish group… The realisation of Zionism could only be hurt by resentment of Jews abroad against the German development. Boycott propaganda… is in essence fundamentally unZionist, because Zionism wants not to do battle but to convince and to build.’ [Lucy Dawidowicz, A Holocaust Reader, p.150-153.]

The Zionists set their face against any campaign against the Nazis. They opposed a Boycott because they realized that Jewish Palestine could prosper by trading with Nazi Germany.  When faced with a choice between building a Jewish state and the needs of the Jewish diaspora they unhesitatingly chose the former.  At the World Zionist Congress in Prague in 1933 they failed even to condemn the Nazi regime. 

In August 1933 the Zionist leaders agreed a trade agreement, Ha’avara, with the Nazis which effectively destroyed the International Jewish Boycott of Nazi Germany. A Boycott which had the potential to destroy the Nazi government in its infancy. Instead the Zionist movement hitched its wagon to the success of the Nazi state.   The result was that the pressure was off Hitler and the regime in subsequently years could consolidate. 

As Black noted

Ha’avara meant that whilst most Jews were doing their best to undermine the German economy and effect the removal of Hitler, the Zionists’ interest was in stabilizing and safeguarding the German economy: ‘the Nazi party and the Zionist Organization shared a common stake in the recovery of Germany. If the Hitler economy fell, both sides would be ruined.’ [Black p. 253]

Even as ardent a Zionist as Elie Wiesel admitted that the

‘Jewish leaders of Palestine never made the rescue of European Jews into an overwhelming national priority. We know that Zionist leader Itzhak Gruenbaum... considered creating new settlements more urgent than saving Jews from being sent to Treblinka and Birkenau.

Wiesel cited approvingly Tom Segev’s conclusion that ‘Only a few survivors owed their lives to the efforts of the Zionist movement’. [The Land That Broke Its Promise : THE SEVENTH MILLION: The Israelis and the Holocaust, http://articles.latimes.com/1993-05-23/books/bk-38582_1_tom-segev/]

Yet the AWL would have you believe that to mention this naked collaboration is ‘anti-Semitic’. The AWL identify with the most right-wing, racist movement amongst Jewry.  This is the mark of their appeasement and concession to imperialism today.

It is argued that the Zionist movement at this time could not be certain that the professions of Heydrich and others, that they intended no harm to the Jews but merely sought racial separation, were false. The physical attacks on Jews in Germany and the vile anti-Semitic propaganda of Der Sturmer should have told them that the Nazi regime was no ‘ordinary’ anti-Semitic regime. Ordinary Jews knew this which was why they packed out Madison Square Gardens in New York as part of the movement to Boycott Nazi Germany. Unlike most Jews, the Zionists chose to believe the Nazis, which is why they alone of the Jews welcomed the 1935 Nuremburg Laws, which were described by Reitlinger as ‘the most murderous legislative instrument known to European history’.  The Introduction to the Nuremburg Laws read: 

‘If the Jews had a state of their own in which the bulk of their people were at home, the Jewish question could already be considered solved today… The ardent Zionists of all people have objected least of all to the basic ideas of the Nuremberg Laws, because they know that these laws are the only correct solution for the Jewish people too…’ [Moshe Machover and Mario Offenberg, Zionism and its scarecrows’ p. 38., Khamsin 6, Pluto Press, 1978, citing Die Nurnberger Gesetze, 5. Auflage, Berlin 1939 p.13/14]. 

On the 17th September, just 2 days after the promulgation of the Nuremburg Laws, Judische Rundschau, paper of the German Zionist movement welcomed them declaring that:

Germany is meeting the demands of the International Zionist Congress when it declares the Jews now living in Germany to be a national minority. Once the Jews have been stamped a national minority it is again possible to establish normal relations between the German Nation and Jewry.’ [http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/german-news-agency-on-the-nuremberg-laws ]

Moshe also cited the welcome for the Nazi regime by Rabbi Joachim Prinz, one of the leaders of the German Zionist Federation.  In his 1934 book ‘Wir Juden’ (We Jews) he stated that:

‘‘(The Jews) have been drawn out of the last recesses of christening and mixed marriages. We are not unhappy about it... The theory of assimilation has collapsed. … We want to replace assimilation by something new: the declaration of belonging to the Jewish nation and the Jewish race. A state, built according to the principles of purity of the nation and race can only be honoured and respected by a Jew who declares his belonging to his own kind.’

The AWL in their article criticise Machover for the ‘trope of Nazi-Zionist collaboration’ (‘trope’ is a favoured word for Zionist dopes!). The article quotes at length Heydrich to prove that he was a vicious anti-Semite.  No one however disputes or his role in the Holocaust. Yet despite this Heydrich spoke favourably of the Zionists and they in turn saw in the rise of the Nazis ‘proof’ that the Jews did not belong amongst the German nation.  The article goes on to quote Hitler in Mein Kampf as saying that a Jewish state would be “a central organisation for their (Jews’) world swindling … a haven for convicted scoundrels and a university for budding crooks.”

What else was Hitler expected to say?  That he saw a Jewish State as leading to the reforming of the Jewish character?  In fact many Nazis did believe this, including Eichmann who described himself as an ‘ardent Zionist’ but in 1922, Hitler, saw everything that was Jewish as being evil, including Zionism, which he knew little about.  However Hitler was willing to adapt to circumstances when in power.  In 1933 the same Hitler approved the trade agreement with the Zionists and in 1937-8 when others in the Nazi government wanted to end it, it was Hitler who was decisive in ensuring the Ha'avara continued up till the beginning of the war.

What Moshe Machover said in his article was merely a basic recitation of the facts of the early Zionist relationship with the Nazis.  Of course the Nazis’ flattering of the Zionist movement in Germany did not mean that they changed their attitude to the Jews.  They still sought either to expel them or exterminate them. The tragedy is that instead of unremitting opposition to Nazism, the Zionists became the Nazis useful fools. The Nazis played the Zionists like a violin. In 1941 with the beginning of the Holocaust and the deportation of the Jews of Germany, the Nazis made no distinction between Zionist and non-Zionists.  All Jews were destined for the gas chambers or the pits of Ponary. The Zionist movement even betrayed its own supporters in Europe.

Ha’avara led to 100m RM of trade between Germany and Palestine and accounted for 60% of total capital investment in the Zionist economy in Palestine. [David Rosenthall, Chaim Arlosoroff 65 Years After his Assassination, Jewish Frontier, May-June 1998, p. 28, New York]
In response to the Kindertransport when Britain agreed to admit 10,000 Jewish children from Germany, Ben Gurion declared that he would prefer to save half Germany's children if they went to Palestine than all of them in England - from his official biography, The Burning Ground 
Berl Katznelson, who was a founder of Mapai, the Israeli Labour Party, and editor of the Histadrut paper Davar saw the rise of Hitler as “an opportunity to build and flourish like none we have ever had or ever will have”. [Nicosia, ZANG, p.91. Tom Segev, The Seventh Million, p.18]. Ben Gurion “hoped the Nazis' victory would become a 'fertile force' for Zionism” 

The Zionist movement functioned as a Jewish Quisling movement.  The Jews of Europe were completely written off by the Palestinian Zionist movement and the Jewish Agency. 

In the course of their article the AWL also imply that Jackie Walker was anti-Semitic for saying that the Black Holocaust of slavery isn’t commemorated on Holocaust Memorial Day. As this is a fact then presumably AWL are happy with this exclusion.

Former NUS President Malia Bouatthia is also attacked as anti-Semitic for stating that Birmingham University was “something of a Zionist outpost  Ken Livingstone’s anti-Semitism is simply taken for granted.

The AWL represent an extreme version of a historic tendency of the British Left to accept what Lenin described as the crumbs off the table of imperialism. Lenin had been seeking to explain the conservatism of the British working class in terms of its identification with the British Empire.  The AWL have a long history of support for Western imperialism from refusing to call for the withdrawal of British troops from Iraq or Afghanistan to supporting the CIA backed Islamic Mojahadeen in Afghanistan to opposition to the Republican movement in Ireland.

In Palestine the AWL treat Zionism not as an ethno-nationalist settler colonial movement but as a legitimate form of nationalism. This is despite the fact that Zionism claims that Jews world wide form a nation despite the fact that diaspora Jews do not speak the same languge, occupy the same territory or have the same culture.  It is a racial view of Jewry.  The AWL having long abandoned any concept of imperialism refuse to see Israel as a client regime of US imperialism.  The AWL also have nothing to say about the virulent racism which is inherent in a Jewish settler colonial state.

Within the trade union movement the AWL have consistently opposed any attempts at solidarity with the Palestinians.  When I spoke to UNISON conference in 2007 and 2008 in support of BDS, one of those speaking against us was from the AWL.  However the AWL’s racist support for Israel had negligible support and the motions were passed overwhelmingly.

The AWL found themselves in a dilemma when the Labour Right and Zionist Jewish Labour Movement sought to expel Professor Moshe Machover, an Israeli anti-Zionist and socialist. After all  Machover had been expelled not only for his relationship with the CPGB and Labour Party Marxists but originally for his ‘apparently anti-Semitic’ article Anti-Zionism is not Anti-Semitism’. The AWL supported the basis on which the expulsion was proposed but not the expulsion itself without losing all credibility on the Left.  In their article the AWL have sought to try to reconcile these contradictions – how to oppose the witch hunt of which they are themselves a victim whilst retaining their ideological purity.  The result, is as one might expect, a complete ideological mish-mash.

Author: Dale Street

Had it not been distributed as a leaflet at this year’s Labour Party conference, Moshe Machover’s article “‘Anti-Zionism does not equal anti-Semitism’” would have been just another turgid and distasteful article which had found a natural home for itself in the pages of the Weekly Worker.

A longer version of the same article – entitled “Don’t Apologise – Attack” – had been published in Weekly Worker four months earlier. According to that article:

• Anyone who thought that a retweet by Naz Shah MP – which had suggested that Israel (and, presumably, its population) should be relocated to the USA – “was anything but a piece of satire should have their head examined.”

• Jackie Walker “has been suspended for saying that there was not only a Jewish holocaust but also a black African one too.” (Wrong: that was not the reason for her suspension.)

• There was nothing antisemitic about NUS President Malia Bouattia describing Birmingham University as “something of a Zionist outpost”.

• Ken Livingstone was “certainly inaccurate” in having said that Hitler supported Zionism until he went mad. At the same time, “the point he was making was basically correct”.
The inclusion of a shorter version of the article in a “Labour Party Marxists” bulletin distributed at Labour Party conference rescued it from obscurity.

Overnight, Machover’s article became a cause célèbre for left antisemites (and antisemites in general).

Zionism is essentialised. Machover unceasingly refers to “the Zionists … the Zionists … the Zionists.” Unlike any other nationalism, Zionism is portrayed as a uniformly negative monolith.

Legitimate complaints about antisemitic arguments and ways of thinking are dismissed as a Zionist concoction: “And so the Zionists and their allies decided to launch the ‘Anti-Zionism equals Anti-Semitism’ campaign.”

This “campaign” is an international (cosmopolitan) one: “The whole campaign of equating opposition to Zionism with antisemitism has been carefully orchestrated with the help of the Israeli government and the far right in the United States.”

Antisemitism is defined in such a way that its existence in the labour movement can simply be denied as being of no account:

“The handful of people of the left who propagate a version of the ‘Protocols of Zion’ carry no weight and are without any intellectual foundation.”

Unlike others who share his current politics, Machover does not define Zionism as a form of antisemitism. But he does portray collusion with antisemitism as inherent in Zionism: “You can also attack Zionism because of its collusion and collaboration with antisemitism, including up to a point with Nazi Germany.”

This brings Machover round to the trope of Zionist-Nazi collaboration: “Let us now turn to the Zionist-Nazi connection. … The Zionists made overtures to the Nazi regime, so how did the Nazis respond? … In other words, a friendly mention of Zionism, indicating an area of basic agreement it shared with Nazism.”

The “friendly mention of Zionism” cited by Machover is a quote from an article written in 1935 by Reinhard Heydrich, published in the Das Schwarze Korps, the in-house magazine of the Nazi SS:
“National socialism has no intention of attacking the Jewish people in any way. The government finds itself in complete agreement with the great spiritual movement within Jewry itself, so-called Zionism.”

Heydrich was a hardened antisemite from the early 1930s onwards. He was one of the architects of the Final Solution. Only a few months earlier he had made clear his attitude towards Jews in another article in Das Schwarze Korps:

“In order to preserve our people, we must be harsh in the face of our enemy, even at the cost of hurting an individual or being condemned as rabble-rousers by some probably well-meaning people. …

“If someone is our enemy, he is to be vanquished subjectively and without exception. If, for example, out of false compassion, every German should make an exception for ‘only one decent’ Jew or Freemason whom he knows, we would end up with 60 million such exceptions.”

Ten years before Heydrich’s article Hitler had already dismissed a Jewish state as “a central organisation for their (Jews’) world swindling … a haven for convicted scoundrels and a university for budding crooks.”

Thus, to illustrate the “basic agreement” which Zionism supposedly shared with the Nazis, Machover quotes an architect of the Holocaust, from an article in the magazine of the organisation which played a leading role in carrying out the Holocaust.

It is not about supporting the Palestinians. Machover says explicitly: that’s not enough. You must also demonise “the Zionists” as an evil essence running through history to link Jews today back to the taint of the Nazis.