With Its Funding Sources Hidden and Half its Copies Given Away, the Jewish Chronicle is a Propaganda Sheet not a Newspaper

Karen Glaser, its Features Editor, began with an Attack on her Boyfriend for ‘anti-Semitism’ & then Doubled Down with a Stream of ‘Anti-Semitism’ Trivia

The ‘JC’ claims to be the world’s oldest Jewish newspaper but today it’s not possible to call it a newspaper in any meaningful sense. It is a propaganda sheet serving Zionist and Israeli interests. Alan Rusbridger, former Editor of the Guardian asked, Who really funds the Jewish Chronicle? It is a question yet to be answered.

What we do know is that in April 2020 the paper was rescued from liquidation by a consortium that was headed by Sir Robbie Gibb, who is a government-appointed BBC director. In his declaration of interest Gibb states that he has a 100% holding of Jewish Chronicle Media.

The problem is that Gibb doesn’t have that money. He is a front-man for person or persons unknown who gifted £3.5 million to the JC. Other members of this consortium included the ex-Labour MP John Woodcock (Lord Walney) who was suspended by Labour for sexually harassing an 18 year old assistant. Others included Zionist operative Jonathan Sacerdoti and John Ware who produced the anti-Corbyn Is Labour Anti-Semitic programme which has been assailed ever since it was broadcast in July 2019 for its dishonesty and downright lies.

Others included chief Islamaphobe and former Charity Commission chairman William Shawcross, who as a director of the Henry Jackson Society, expressed the view that:

 “Europe and Islam is one of the greatest, most terrifying problems of our future. I think all European countries have vastly, very quickly growing Islamic populations.”

 Others included Jonathan Kandel, Robert Swerling of EMK Capital and Tom Boltman, head of strategic initiatives at Kovrr. Why you might ask should anyone invest in a sinking ship? Rats usually leave sinking ships, they don’t join them. What is it about the JC that enables the normal laws of capitalism  to be suspended?

It’s not even as if the Jewish Chronicle has a large circulation. Once upon a time the paper had a circulation of over 50,000.  As late as 2008 it had a paid readership of 32,875. Under the editorships of Stephen Pollard and now Jake Wallis-Simpson it has collapsed to 12,192, of which 5,990 are given away free!

Alan Rusbridger alluded to the reason namely that the JC’s purpose is to ensure that people are ‘swayed by its coverage and arguments, especially in relation to Israel.’  Rusbridger asked what if anonymous foreign backers were to pump money into The Telegraph.

There would, rightly, be a parliamentary hue and cry about their background and motives.

One person who Rusbridger named as a possible backer was ‘right-wing American billionaire, Paul E Singer.’ who has been described as “a longtime supporter of hawkish pro-Israel causes” and is a major funder of the conservative thinktank Foundation for Defense of Democracies, whose positions “have closely tracked those of the Likud party and its leader, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu”.

These are not the kind of stories that make it into the Jewish Chronicle - their Jewish readership has to be kept ignorant and uninformed

That is presumably why Karen Glaser, who was previously at the anti-Corbyn New Statesman jumped ship to the JC where she was promoted to chief propagandist and editor of the JC2 supplement.

While she was at the NS I alighted on what I called ‘the most trivial, trite and superficial article that the New Statesman has ever run’. (see below) It was about how she disposed of her Corbyn supporting boyfriend for ‘anti-Semitism’. As I wrote, it should have been called ‘How Karen Glaser’s ex-boyfriend had a very very narrow escape!’

No doubt she was head hunted by the JC, impressed at how she had managed to invent out of nothing yet another fake ‘anti-Semitism’ story. Clearly they have been richly rewarded.

In her present job she has written articles such as Why are the Jews overlooking their natural allies? No it’s not the Left and those who fought genuine anti-Semitism in the 1930s and under Nazi occupation in Europe. She was referring to Muslims asking why it is that ‘we neglect more friendly communities’. Muslims are unfriendly.  Why? Because they support the Palestinians.

Other delightful articles from the pen of Ms Glaser include the heavy weight intellectual thesis ‘What fuels antisemitism? A lot is sheer envy’. Ah yes. All that anti-Semitism was just ‘sheer envy’. All those learned scholars who spent years analysing the subject were barking up the wrong tree. The highly cerebral Glaser has discovered the secret of anti-Semitism at last.

And then there is the sad, tear-jerking story of how ‘I’ve been rejected by a Gen Z friend thanks to TikTok and my editor’. Glaser describes how on November 9 she got a text from W saying she was sorry, but our relationship was over. She was “watching an interview your Jake Wallis Simons is giving” on television and,

“truly I don’t know how this is the side you’re on. I am so disappointed and upset and so many other emotions, but I can’t be friends with anyone who defends Israel.”

My first instinct was to congratulate Glaser on her choice of friends. If only she could emulate them.  But no, it was all self-pity. Glaser wrote:

Ever since October 7, W has been posting endless streams of extreme antisemitic propaganda on her social media platforms. Only she doesn’t realise they are antisemitic because the vicious lies she is spreading are about Israel. She believes there is a bright, clear line between hating the Jews and hating the Jews’ nation state.

It seems that W possesses something that Glaser doesn’t, viz. a modicum of intelligence. To most people there is no connection between hating Jews and hating the actions of a racist, apartheid, genocide loving state. But no, Glaser explains that ‘it’s a popular view among the privileged and educated, two things that W is not.’

Yet even Glaser concedes that ‘W is exceptionally bright so I recommended she read my editor’s book.’ This is a reference to the most turgid book of the year, Jake Wallis-Simpson’s  Israelphobia a book that the Right in this country just loves.

It is no surprise that Spiked the neo-liberal journal of the former Revolutionary Communist Party and its reviewer Daniel Ben Ami loves it. Funded by the far-right oil billionaire Koch brothers of New York it could hardly do any other. 40 years ago I knew Ben-Ami when he was an anti-Zionist before his he and the RCP decided to join the capitalists they had purportedly opposed!

Then there is The Spectator, a right-wing weekly that used to have some integrity. Tanya Gold, of whom I once wrote that she‘is to Journalism what Harold Shipman was to Care of the Elderly’ asked in her ‘review’ Is Israelophobia the latest form of anti-Semitism? What she should really be asking is whether there is such a thing as ‘Israelophobia’.

But these cloned ‘journalists’ monsters, who call are really just scribes for the ruling class, are incapable of original thought or asking the simplest of questions. For them it isn’t the existence of apartheid, occupation and discrimination that is the problem, it is their critics.

It is like someone in the 1930s suggesting that opposition to Nazism stemmed, not from what they did but anti-German sentiments. In fact that was the position of the Anglo-German Fellowship, which was made up of Tory MPs, Peers and corporate affiliates like Price Waterhouse, Unilever, Dunlop, Thomas Cook and the Midland Bank (HSBC) and Lazard Brothers.

All the same arguments about critics of Hitler’s Germany apply to Israel but there is almost no one on the Right, with the possible exception of Peter Hitchens and Peter Osborne, who retain any intellectual integrity and are able to point out the obvious.

The Spectator used to be the house journal of people like Sir Ian Gilmour, its editor from 1954-9 and one of the most cerebral Foreign Office Ministers, who with his brother David penned a searing critique of a revisionist Zionist history of Palestine by Joan Peters.

People like Tanya Gold and Karen Glaser are incapable of admitting that thousands of Jews support the Palestinians for the very same reason that they oppose anti-Semitism. Instead they prefer to sing from a stale ruling class narrative that conflates hostility to Zionism with hostility to Jews as Jews. As Goebbels once remarked, if you repeat a lie long enough then people will believe it.

Until 1945 most Jews in Britain were not Zionists. When Zionism first appeared in Britain at the end of the 19^th century it was opposed by all wings of the Jewish community from the Chief Rabbi and the Board of Deputies to the Jewish Chronicle. Most Jews saw it as a form of Jewish anti-Semitism.

In the 1900 General Election Jewish refugees from Russia were demonised in the same way as the Boat People are today. The Tories, who today pretend they are concerned about anti-Semitism, were then opposed to ‘Alien immigration’ i.e. Jewish refugees. In the East End the Tories stood virulently anti-Semitic candidates, one of whom David Hope-Kydd referred to Jewish immigrants as ‘the very scum of the unhealthiest of the Continental nations.’

Notwithstanding this the English Zionist Federation supported them. In 1905 Arthur Balfour of the Balfour Declaration introduced, as Prime Minister, the Aliens Act directed against Jewish immigrants.  In 1917 when Lloyd George’s Cabinet approved the Balfour Declaration the only member to vote against it was its only Jewish member, Sir Edwin Montagu, who accused his fellow cabinet members of anti-Semitism.

Below I reprint an earlier blog on Karen Glaser when she took a swipe against a guy who had the misfortune to end up in bed with her!

Tony Greenstein

Is this the most trivial, trite and superficial article that the New Statesman has ever run?

Or How Karen Glaser’s ex-boyfriend had a very very narrow escape! 

 On her blog we learn that Karen Glaser is ‘an experienced journalist’ whose ‘journalism has been syndicated internationally.’ This perhaps tells us more about the standards of journalism today than the quality of Ms Glaser’s output.  Karen tells us that she writes on relationships and Jewish matters and that she has been a columnist for the Jewish Chronicle, which is not encouraging given the decline in the latter’s circulation and its role as a Zionist megaphone. She boasts that the guests on her Guardian podcasts have included David Aaronovitch and Melanie Phillips, which hardly gives us much confidence in her claim to be a left-wing British Jew. But perhaps she means a ‘left-wing’ Zionist which is an entirely different thing. In short Karen is just the kind of tame establishment journalist that The Staggers loves to indulge.

The New Statesman, which used to consider itself on the left, has been second only to the Guardian in its venomous attacks on Jeremy Corbyn and its indulgence of his Zionist critics (for example the abysmal article by the Jewish Labour Movement’s Mike Katz and Adam Langleben on why they supported the IHRA). My attention was drawn to what must count as just the most trivial article I have yet read of the anti-Corbyn genre. Ms Glaser’s Why I kicked my boyfriend out at 2am over anti-Semitism in the Labour party. It is the Zionist equivalent of Freddie Starr Ate My Hamster and bears about the same relationship to the truth.

The New Statesman's Bizarre anti-Corbyn Story

Apparently this tragic lonely heart had been in a relationship with ‘Sean’ for some 9 months before discovering his ‘anti-Semitism’. He is you understand a Corbynite and these people are nothing if not clever and devious.  Presumably he hid his anti-Semitism under the bed sheets for all of the 9 months until Karen had her epiphany.  Or perhaps he pretended he was a Tory? We have Karen’s assurance that Tories are never anti-Semitic so it’s no wonder that Karen was fooled by this dastardly swine.

Apparently Sean ‘gestured in exaggerated fashion’ to her many possessions. “Well, your life looks OK to me,” which is proof that she had been sharing her most intimate secrets with Himmler’s bastard offspring. How dare the upstart suggest that Karen’s life is a bed of roses when anyone can see that it consists of tears and strife, toil and trouble to say nothing of public self-humiliation. She had clearly been in bed with an anti-Semite if not a fully fledge Nazi. It is one of life's wonders that Karen is not suffering from PTSD.

When told that she seemed to be comfortably off Karen, sharp as a button, responded instantly that “Lots of Jews had nice apartments in 1930s Berlin,” and we all know what happened to Germany’s Jews. What an insensitive soul she had shacked up with not to realise that Corbyn’s Gestapo was about to nationalise her flat whilst putting her in ‘protective detention’ along with all those other Jewish capitalists.

Karen you understand was doing her best not to appear to be the ‘hyperbolic Jew of anti-Semitic ridicule.’  Rest assured Karen, only an anti-Semite could possibly suggest that you were exaggerating your pain, being hyperbolic or behaving like a typical JAP (Jewish American Princess).  After all, everyone knows that Momentum’s uniform includes regulation jackboots for the day when Fuhrer Corbyn takes control. 

Karen Glaser - A Journalist Whose Talents Lie in Fiction Writing

Karen tells us, in one of those romantic moments that we all treasure, that ‘I really liked’ Sean.  After this public drubbing you wonder what exactly it was that she liked about him, apart from having the patience of a saint or two. You get the feeling that it might have been preferable to have had a relationship with a tarantula rather than take the risk of being Karen’s consort.

And when Sean told Karen ‘that Labour’s anti-Semitism had been massively overstated, that it was essentially a tawdry attempt to smear Corbyn’ you could have heard a pin drop. Its akin to taking communion and drinking the blood of Christ naked or even worse, eating a ham sandwich in an Orthodox synagogue (which the Jewish anarchists used to do!).

However Karen, a woman with a permanently shimmering halo,‘took a deep breath and answered him properly.’ as one should of course though one suspects that she must have considered reaching for the rolling pin.  Our Jewish heroine ‘explained to my lover that this is no laughing matter’.

Here we have an existentialist clash of love and life. When the jackboots are on the doorstep, the last thing you want is for your lover to question your fears of an imminent demise.  Karen was, in essence, a budding Jamal Khashoggi.

Karen patiently explained ‘that there is a consensus across Anglo-Jewry that there is a serious problem of anti-Semitism in Labour’.  And where there is a consensus there is eternal life and truth. Clearly this ingrate, who one assumes isn’t even Jewish, was incapable of demonstrating even the slightest empathy with Karen’t horrible predicament.

At this point I feel duty bound to point out that Israel was founded in order to stop the Karens, Beckys and Sarahs of this world bedding down with shegetzes. For those who are unacquainted with these things let me explain that the shegetz like its female counterpart, the shiksa, is derived from the Yiddish word sheketz, which roughly translated means an abomination, an unclean thing, a detested thing.  Rabbi Jack Abramowitz described it as "simply indefensible", "inherently condescending, racist and misogynistic". Nonetheless non-Jewish boyfriends are inherently risky.

This is the real racism not fake anti-Semitism

However I digress. Karen is nothing if not broadminded and despite being a Zionist had no objection to having a shegetz for a partner. One can only hope that she has learnt her lesson and that in future she keeps it in the tribe. If she were in Israel she would be known as a trollope and worse. Miscegenation is taken seriously in the Holy Land because it isn’t so much a question of religion but racial purity whereas in the diaspora these things are only too common.  50%+ of American Jews 'marry out'.

Karen whose patience is one of the most loveable things about her, tried to explain to this non-Jewish parvenu that ‘if Tory politicians had done half the things to any other ethnic group that Corbyn has done to the Jews, leftists would be baying for blood.’

Now I know that the anti-Semites who read this blog will probably scoff and chuckle at this but Karen has a point. In fact a number of points. After all it is well known that when it comes to ‘other ethnic groups’ the Tories are a model of British tolerance and good manners. Indeed the party of the grisly May has never, as far as I am aware, ever advocated discrimination against anyone on the grounds of religion, race or sexual orientation. Enoch Powell is but a distant memory.

Yes I know that the Tory party are in alliance with a range of anti-Semitic parties (at least 3 – Swedish Democrats, Poland’s Law &; Justice and Latvia’s Fatherland and Freedom Parties) – in the European Conservative and Reform group in the European parliament.  Of course Tory MEPs voted to defend the anti-Semitic Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban in a vote of censure recently. But quite rightly Karen would have dismissed this as totally irrelevant.  She’s not talking old-fashioned anti-Semitism i.e. hatred of Jews she is talking Israel and hatred of Zionism.

Perhaps someone can supply the name of Jewish people killed by the Police in custody?

The Windrush scandal was merely a figment of someone’s imagination.  ‘Hostile environment’ policy? That’s just another name for global warming.  Stop and search? That’s just the Police being helpful to Black kids who’ve lost their way in life. Black deaths in custody?  Well everyone has got to die somewhere.  Clearly Karen has got a point.  If other ethnic groups had suffered  a fraction of what Jews have had to put with under Corbyn, that pound shop British Goebbels, then us leftists would have risen up.  It could well have turned into another Peterloo such would have been our anger.

And when Sean asked, ‘as Corbynistas always do’ what Corbyn had actually done, then Karen went through her ‘grim list’.  And for the doubting Thomases here let me assure you that the list is indeed Grimm as in Grimm’s Fairy Tales. 

All of these men according to Karen Glaser have 'hook noses'

Having been provoked, beyond endurance, by her non-Jewish lover, Karen let forth: There was his absurd claim that Hamas and Hezbollah ‘are dedicated to peace and justice’ when we all know that it was Hezbollah which invaded Israel in 1982 and again in 2006.  Indeed this terror group occupied a large swathe of land in Northern Israel for years with a puppet Zionist in charge.

As for Hamas, we all know what they are capable of.  They even send forth hundreds and thousands of demonstrators to the fence with Israel with strict instructions to get themselves killed, forcing the poor Israeli boys to do just that.  Because as we know ‘Hamas’s charter calls for the destruction of the Jews’ (it doesn’t!) and it would seem the destruction of the Palestinians too.

Then there is Corbyn’s defence of the blood libeller Raed Salah (again not true but what’s a lie between lovers?) to say nothing of his membership of Facebook groups ‘where deeply anti-Semitic posts are the norm’ (also not true) and ‘his siding with those behind the now infamous Nazi-style mural showing hook-nosed anti-Semitic caricatures, getting rich on the backs of the world’s poor.’ The latter refers to a mural of 6 bankers, 4 of whom were non-Jewish, none of whom had a hook nose. Why let a few facts come between lovers?

Of course there will be some cynics reading this who will be credulous at this point but I ask you to restrain your laughter.  This is a serious and difficult matter for Karen who ‘tried to explain to the man with whom I’d just shared my bed just how painful this all was.’ Anyone with an ounce of sensitivity will by now realise the difficulty poor Karen was in.  The conflict between her love and lust for Sean and her horror at his clear anti-Semitism posed a dilemma that no woman should have to undergo.

Karen however was nothing if not patient with her errant Sean.  She explained that in the past decade some 40,000 Jews had emigrated from France to Israel.  Of course, like all Zionist statistics this is somewhat misleading. After the murder of 4 Jews in the Hypercacher supermarket in 2015 Israel did its best to stimulate the emigration of Jews.  Netanyahu came over to Paris to tell the Jews there that their ‘real home’ was Israel but not only did they not come in the expected numbers but of those who did come ‘many of them are also returning to France in greater numbers’ according to Andy Semotiuk. Zionism’s answer to anti-Semitism has never been to fight it but to do what the anti-Semites want, which is to leave and set up their own racial state. According to Israel’s Central Bureau of Statistics, in 2014 there were 6,547 Jewish emigrants from France and in 2015, despite the Charlie Hebdo and Hypercacher murders the number rose only to 6,628. In 2016, the number dropped to 4,239 and in 2017 there were only 3,157. In the first five months of 2018 there were just 759 emigrants. In short there are lies, damned lies and Karen’s statistics. Why the Expected Wave of French Immigration to Israel Never Materialized

Karen, whose patience with her shegetz, was almost superhuman, explained to the anti-Semitic misfit that ‘mocking Jews when they call out anti-Semitism, is analogous to white people telling black people they are imagining their experiences of racism.’ Well put. Read from the crib sheet with perfection. The only problem is that Jews in Britain are White not Black.  Not only White but the most privileged section of the White community in terms of socio-economic status. It was noticeable that in all her examples of ‘anti-Semitism’ none of them actually related to anything that has actually disadvantaged British Jews.  They all related to Israel. Strange that.

Even worse poor Sean then blurted out that ‘Jews have money, don’t they?’ whilst hastening to reassure Karen that he wasn’t talking about her.

By this time, you will understand that Karen Glaser had just about had enough of Sean and quite understandably she exploded. Anti-Semitism in her boudoir was really too much. Since Jews don’t have saints, one almost wonders whether Pope Francis might help out and canonise the Blessed Karen Glaser.  I realise that you have to be dead before the process of beatification begins but I’m sure that Karen, halo intact, could be made an exception. She patiently told the miscreant that:

‘the point is that anti-Semitism is never about Jews and the actual lives they lead, and one of the central tropes of anti-Semitism is the pernicious association between Jews and money. It never, ever goes away. For many on the left this means that the Jews can never be oppressed or exploited but are, in fact, the source of others’ oppression and exploitation. That’s why Corbyn couldn’t see anything wrong with that vile mural. It matched his world view.

You will understand I am sure the magnitude of young Sean’s offence. Indeed I am surprised that Karen didn’t pick up her phone, dial 999 and report him for a hate crime.  I should imagine that 6 months in the clink might be the best cure (since being deprived of Karen’s nocturnal favours probably won’t be punishment enough).

Before m’lud pronounces sentence it is probably fair to quote a couple of Jewish experts who can be witness to Sean’s anti-Semitic crimes.

The first is William Rubinstein, a past President of the Jewish Historical Society. In his book The Right, Left and the Jews, (Croom Helm, 1982) Rubinstein writes that

the rise of Western Jewry to unparalleled affluence and high status has led to the near disappearance of a Jewish proletariat of any size : indeed the Jews may become the first ethnic group in history without a working class of any size.... it has made Marxism, and other radical doctrines, irrelevant to the socio-economic bases of Western Jewry, and increasingly unattractive to most Jews.

While there have been many wealthy and powerful Jewish individuals and dynasties throughout modern history, only since the 1950s has Western Jewry as a whole risen into the upper-middle class. And the Jewish proletariat transformed itself into a near-universal Jewish bourgeoisie.’ p. 51

Perhaps we should quickly pass on since it’s obvious that this Rubinstein fellow is also anti-Semitic. How about the much more reasonable Geoffrey Alderman, who is a right-wing columnist for the Jewish Chronicle?  In his book ‘The Jewish Community in British Politics, Clarendon Press 1983, Alderman writes (p. 137)

the tendency for British Jews to be found in the higher social classes is very evident. In 1961 over 40 per cent of Anglo-Jewry was located in the upper two social classes, whereas these categories accounted for less than 20 per cent of the general population. The electoral consequences of this trend become clear when it is remembered that , at the time of the 1964 general election which Labour won, three -quarters of the top two social classes supported the conservative party.

Hmm. Maybe not. So it seems that not only is Sean right about Jews being more prosperous than the average Gentile but we have also stumbled on the real reason why so few Jews vote Labour today. Nothing to do with that left-wing Adolf Corbyn.  It would seem that it’s no longer in their interest to do so, as just about anyone who has lived in a Jewish community will tell you. They are insufferably bourgeois.  It was not for nothing that in Thatcher’s constituency of Finchley Jews constituted one of her main support bases.

The ever patient Karen, who truth be told wanted to hang on to Sean if at all possible, then got on to the IHRA definition of anti-Semitism. I know what some of you malcontents are going to say. That people like Geoffrey Robertson QC have slagged it off as being not fit for purpose but as Karen explained the IHRA

‘was written in response to this hatred, a definition to help European police forces and prosecutors better understand it. That’s why the Labour Party’s refusal to adopt it in full for so long caused huge hurt and pain.’

And nothing defines our Karen so much as pain.  Her article oozes the stuff. The fact that the IHRA mentions Israel more than Jews is completely irrelevant. Its sole concern is anti-Semitism. After all it’s a Working Definition on Anti-Semitism and has been for the past 14 years. What further proof do you need of its relevance than the fact that all those Tories support it? There is barely an anti-Semite in the world, Orban, Trump, Netanyahu, who doesn’t support it.

Up piped our irrepressible Sean ‘“Britain has hate speech and anti-discrimination laws.  Why do Jews need additional protection?” A good question you might think but I beg you to understand that this last, flippant comment was what we in the trade call the straw that broke the camel’s back (if comparing a Jew to a camel isn’t anti-Semitic).

The legendary Robert Fisk of The Independent

You will now understand why Sean’s insolent and brazen refusal to emphathise with his erstwhile lover led to the breakdown of a beautiful relationship. One can only imagine the pained expression on Karen as she barked ‘I think it’s time for you to leave’.

As St. Karen of Golders Green explained to The Stagger’s readership

‘Corbynistas’ standard response to Jews is that they know their claims of anti-Semitism are false and that they make them to smear the Labour leader. Of course this doesn’t explain why this woman threw her (now ex) lover out of her freshly painted flat at 2.30 am.’

Never a truer word spoken in jest.  Karen is right. Sean’s impudence doesn’t explain why ‘this woman’ behaved as she did.  I can only presume it was a product of the fact that for all her wittering about ‘anti-Semitism’ she could not explain how it was that anti-Semitism had only risen since Jeremy Corbyn had become leader of the Labour Party and why Tory links with genuine anti-Semites never seemed to get a look in.  Or indeed why, if Labour was indeed anti-Semitic  it was the papers of the Right, like the Daily Mail, the paper that supported Hitler in the 1930’s and which opposed the immigration of Jewish refugees from Nazism, who were hottest on Corbyn’s ‘anti-Semitism’.

One of a rare breed - Robert Fisk - The Independent's Legenday Middle East correspondent

 There is only one moral one can draw from this story and it is an old one.  Hell has no fury like a woman scorned. Karen Glaser deserves to be scorned and treated with complete disdain and contempt for the dishonesty of this account, from beginning to end. If it did indeed occur then we can rest assured that it is a parody of the breakdown in her relationship with ‘Sean’.  I suspect, like the odyssey of the Children of Israel in the Sinai desert it is a comfortable myth which hides more than it reveals about Karen’s personal life.

It would of course be interesting to hear Sean’s account of this fairy tale but for the New Statesman to do that would be to break a habit of a lifetime.  It would mean conceding a right of reply to someone who had been abused and traduced. Even if his name has been changed there is no doubt that there will be people who know of Karen’s ex-partner and will think worse of him as a result.

However that is as nothing when one considers that Sean should count himself extremely fortunate to be free of this hectoring, bullying, self centred and superficial woman. That she is probably typical of British journalists and the staff on the New Statesman is indeed a cause for reflection if not concern. Pundits and commentators today are little more than prostitutes doing their proprietor’s bidding. Their opinions are for sale and any journalist with an independent streak is unlikely to gain and retain employment on most newspapers.

Patrick Cockburn - part of a journalistic dynasty 

I can think of just two, possibly three, journalists who retain any credibility or independence today.  Patrick Cockburn, the legendary Robert Fisk and John Pilger. The first two are employed by The Independent and Pilger has no regular paper.  Instead we have a succession of mediocrities flitting between The Guardian, New Statesman and BBC, none of whom challenges the neo-liberal view of the world that sees capitalism as a good thing and inevitable and which is incapable of marrying up things like poverty, global warming and climate change with the social and economic system that produces these phenomenon.

Perhaps I have wasted too much time on Karen Glaser, who is really just an insipid and insignificant reflection of other peoples’ thoughts. Someone who retails hasbara  as her own original thought and whose view of the world is coloured by her own perception of her ‘oppression’.  At the end of the day Karen Glaser’s article says as much about the editors at the New Statesman as it does about her.

Below is a letter I rushed off to the New Statesman. It will not of course be published. (it wasn’t!)

Tony Greenstein

Finally the Zionists Break Their Silence With a 'Review' by Marc Goldberg of ‘Zionism During the Holocaust’

Zionist War Criminal Goldberg’s Description of My Book as ‘Perhaps the Worst book I’ve Ever Read’ is Why You Should Read It!!

Marc Goldberg, proudly describes how he became a settler ‘in time to find himself fighting the Al Aqsa Intifada as an IDF Paratrooper’. He is a curious choice to review a book on Zionism and the Holocaust. Goldberg is Head of Investigations at the CST, a Mossad Project.

Britain's  racist Home Secretary Cruella Braverman is a Welcome Guest at the CST's Annual Dinner

Some idea of the nature of the CST’s purported anti-racism can be gauged by the fact that Home Secretary Cruella Braverman, was guest of honour at their most recent annual dinner.

The ‘review’ was commisioned by Fathom, the Internet Journal of BICOM, Israel’s main propaganda organisation in Britain,

I recently observed that the Zionists had avoided discussing my book whereas the Jewish Chronicle had devoted a whole page to an attack, by the Queen of Trivia Tanya Gold, on Asa Winstanley’s Weaponising Anti-Semitism.

I surmised that the reason for this was that the Zionists didn’t want to get into a debate on their record during the Holocaust. Judging by Goldberg’s ‘review’ I wasn’t far wrong.

As is to be expected, Goldberg barely touches on the content of my book. He prefers see it as one more anti-Semitic tome. Originality is not something which defenders of Zionism and Jewish supremacy are renowned for. Goldberg also writes for the Times of Israel and The Jewish Chronicle.

Fathom’s founding Editor Alan Johnson claimed it would be a ‘scholarly journal’ but amongst its ‘scholarly’ contributors are David Collier, the far right Zionist who refers to Palestinians in the third person and Luke Akehurst, the Labour witchhunter. Neither are renowned for their academic prowess.

Collier’s sole article was an attack on the BBC and Jeremy Bowen for having given ‘a masterclass in anti-Israel propaganda.’ The myth that the BBC is ‘anti-Israel’ is a favourite Zionist theme, completely at variance with the facts.

David Collier, far-Right Zionist with Tommy Robinson supporter Dr Brian, is welcome at Fathom

Fathom includes amongst its Advisor Editors Trevor Chinn, the multi-millionaire funder of Starmer and a variety of Zionist organisations as well as ex-Israeli Chief of Staff Brigadier General Michael Herzog and a former Director of Mossad, Efraim Halevy.

Fathom welcomes the Israeli military and security establishment as associate editors

Fathom says it welcomes articles on the ‘new’ antisemitism or antisemitic anti-Zionism’.  Its prejudices are self-evident. You will not find anything in Fathom that questions Zionism or why Israel has ended up with Judeo-Nazi Ministers like Ben-Gvir and Smotrich. Despite its pretensions Fathom is very much a propaganda journal.

Goldberg was part of the witchhunting against Black President of NUS

Despite its academic pretensions, Fathom is overladen with taken-for-granted Zionist clichés and assumptions. Goldberg’s review is consistent with this. This is not inevitable in a Zionist journal. The Journal of Israeli History really does carry scholarly articles and I cite it more than once in my book. But Fathom? It is afraid to pierce beneath the surface of Zionist propaganda for fear of what it may find.

Another military man on Fathom's Editorial Board

In its Introduction we are told that

‘Fathom’s highest quality editorship and insistence on careful fact-checking is fast propelling the journal into becoming essential reading for every person involved in policy and politics in the region and on the international scene.’

If the editors of Fathom believe this then they are suffering from a disconnect from reality that borders on a psychosis. There is no better example of falsifications than Goldberg who writes:

The author was only recently held by a British Court to be a ‘notorious antisemite’. In my opinion this book is antisemitic rubbish.

If you redefine anti-Semitism to mean anti-Zionism then I’m an anti-Semite. But Goldberg’s statement was a lie. Despite my pointing this out in their comments it’s still there. Is this fact checking?

Britain's  racist Home Secretary bunged the CST another £1 million this year

In 2017 I sued the Campaign Against Antisemitism for libel. Instead of defending their comment that I was a ‘notorious anti-Semite’ as factually true under s.2 Defamation Act 2013 they asserted that what they said was an honest opinion under s.3 even if it were untrue.

The Court agreed with the CAA that accusations of anti-Semitism are opinion and not fact. I therefore had to prove that the opinion of the CAA was dishonest, i.e. malicious, which is a high bar legally. At no stage did the Court offer an opinion of its own.

Nonetheless I have reason to be grateful to Goldberg. His description of my book as ‘perhaps the worst… I’ve ever read.’ is more valuable than all the academic recommendations on the back cover! 

Sir Trevor Chinn - Financier to a Host of Racist Individuals

Goldberg Avoids All The Difficult Questions

From February 1940 reports came into the Jewish Agency [JA] about how the Jewish population of Poland were being ‘mercilessly and cruelly annihilated’ yet no Palestinian Zionist body even discussed these reports. Why? Dina Porat, the Chief Historian at Yad Vashem admits that ‘these questions are hard to answer’ because ‘Ben-Gurion’s concentration on post-war goals shifted attention away from the present plight of Europe’s Jews.’

Dr Noah Lucas, a critical Zionist historian who I quote in my book

A serious historian, even a Zionist historian, would at least attempt to tackle such questions. Throughout my book I quote critical Zionist historians such as David Cesarani and Noah Lucas and it is a sign of the lack of commitment to scholarly inquiry that Fathom chose a propagandist rather than a historian to review my book.

Perhaps there is a Zionist equivalent to Godwin’s law? How long can a Zionist last out before attacking an opponent as anti-Semitic? Perhaps we should call it Goldberg’s Law. The beauty of attacking your opponents as anti-Semitic is that it saves you having to engage with their arguments.

The reason that Zionists resort to accusations of ‘anti-Semitism’ so readily is that it’s impossible to defend Israel’s actions. How do you defend evicting Palestinians from their homes to make way for messianic settlers? How do you defend demolishing the homes of Palestinian but not Jewish terrorists? How do you defend the right of hundreds of Jewish communities in Israel to legally bar Arabs?

Goldberg accuses me of ignoring ‘the work that the Zionist movement … did to fight Hitler’ and ignoring ‘the challenges faced by the Zionist movement ….’ He complains that my book

doesn’t consist of a full review of the work undertaken by the Zionist movement against the Nazis, offers little to nothing in the way of context.

Peter Bergson, dissident Zionist whose Emergency Committee campaigned to save Jewish refugees - the American Zionist leaders sought his deportation

The problem is that not only did the Zionist movement do virtually nothing but they obstructed the work of others. I paid tribute to the dissident Zionists led by Hillel Cook (Peter Bergson), who were responsible for the formation of the War Refugee Board. I also paid tribute to the Zionist fighters in the ghettoes who disobeyed the instructions from Palestine to cease fighting the Nazis.

Medal struck to commemorate when the head of the Gestapo's Jewish Section, Baron von Mildenstein, sampled the hospitality of the kibbutzim 

When the vast majority of Jews supported boycotting Nazi Germany, the Zionists opposed it before they negotiated a trading agreement, Ha'avara, with Hitler. How could they fight Hitler when they were straining to increase their trade with the Nazis?

The Conference Centre Where the Evian Conference Was Held

I described in detail the Zionist hostility to the face-saving Evian Conference, called by Roosevelt to discuss the plight of Jewish refugees, in July 1938. Citing Boaz Evron’s Jewish State or Israeli Nation, I quoted Menachem Ussishkin at a meeting of the Jewish Agency Executive [JAE] of 26 June 1938:

Mr Greenbaum is right in stating that there is a danger that the Jewish people also will take Eretz-Yisrael off its agenda, and this should be viewed by us as a terrible danger. .. All other emigration countries do not interest him… The greatest danger is that attempts will be made to find other territories for Jewish emigration. (my emphasis).

Chaim Weizmann - first President of the Israeli state

I quoted from a letter of 13 February 1938 to Stephen Wise, the US Zionist leader, from George Landauer. It was a letter written at the behest of Chaim Weizmann, the Zionist Organisation President.

Even if the Conference will not place countries other than Palestine in the front for Jewish immigration, there will certainly be public appeals which will tend to overshadow the importance of Palestine.... it may bind Jewish organizations to collect large sums of money for assisting Jewish refugees, and these collections are likely to interfere with our own campaigns

The consensus of the meeting was to ‘belittle the Conference as far as possible and to cause it to decide nothing….’

Despite hoping that the Evian Conference would come to nothing, the leaders of the Zionist movement afterwards cynically criticised it for its failures.

Goldberg has nothing to say about this or the opposition by the Zionists to rescue where it was not to Palestine. Goldberg says he finds ‘both ludicrous and false’ my suggestion that the Zionists obstructed rescue. However he saves us the opportunity to learn why.

Goldberg’s ‘review’ consists of a series of assertions, none of which he substantiates. He says ‘many of his quotes serve to obscure the meaning of the sources they’ve been taken from’ but there are no examples.

Goldberg alleges that ‘Greenstein has managed to omit every substantive act of resistance Zionists took against the Nazis’. His main example being Aliya Bet, the illegal immigration of Zionist pioneers, often with Gestapo connivance, into Palestine.

In fact I do mention it when I cited Dina Porat as saying that through this ‘we gave meaning to life, we raised the prestige of the Zionist movement.’ I commented that ‘The arrogance of this statement is breathtaking. In other words saving Jews to anywhere but Palestine was meaningless.’

6,000 people were estimated to have been rescued. Zionist prestige was for Porat the most important thing. The other example Goldberg gives of Zionist resistance to the Nazis is when 33 Haganah agents were parachuted into Europe in March 1944. Goldberg argued that:

this episode serves as an interesting insight into Zionism during the Holocaust. It shows that the Jewish Agency Executive succeeded in convincing the British to drop Jews from Palestine behind enemy lines to carry out operations that might help Jews.

32 agents at the fag end of the war were unlikely to bolster the existing, highly developed resistance in Nazi occupied Europe. I quoted Zionist historian Yechiam Weitz that

Their primary goal was in effect to influence the survivors to choose Palestine as their ultimate destination. This point is corroborated by testimonies from that period.’

Goldberg thinks my claim that the Kindertransport, in which 9,354 child refugees were brought to England ‘despite Zionist hostility’ ‘an odd thing to say’. Similarly my assertion that ‘the Zionist leaders instead demanded that the children be brought to Palestine, which the Colonial Office rejected.’ Goldberg claims that Chaim Weizmann had been one of the founders of the Central British Fund for German Jewry, which organised the Kindertransport and that both Weizmann and Lionel de Rothschilds ‘personally lobbied Chamberlain to allow the children to come to Britain.’

There were in fact 6 people on that particular delegation. Weizmann was one of 10 original founders of the CBF but he played little part in it. Those responsible for its founding were the anti-Zionist leadership of British Jews, Neville Laski and Leonard Montefiore in particular.

Goldberg accuses me of failing to mention Weizmann’s presence at the founding of the CBF. The CBF consisted of the traditional bourgeois leadership of British Jewry, which was anti-Zionist. Simon Marks and Weizmann had only been invited to join it in order to buy off Zionist hostility to their rescue activities.

The Zionists resented the fact that appeals for Jewish refugees were likely to displace their own appeals. The Zionists only agreed to cooperate because it was agreed that the first destination of refugees would be Palestine. Amy Gottlieb wrote:

‘there can be little doubt that this was the assurance that Simon Marks, Chaim Weizmann and other Zionists had demanded in return for their co-operation.’ (Men of Vision, p.29)

The anti-Zionist leaders had bought off Zionist opposition by agreeing to their demands. The idea that Weizmann lobbied Chamberlain for Jewish refugees to come to Britain beggars belief. I quoted Malcolm MacDonald, the Colonial Secretary, recalling:

I remember at the time that Weizmann’s attitude shocked me.  He insisted on the children going to Palestine. As far as he was concerned it was Palestine or nowhere. 

When MacDonald refused to guarantee that the children would go on to Palestine Weizmann told him that: ‘We shall fight you - and when I say fight I mean fight.’

Ben Gurion, Israel’s first Prime Minister was even more explicit:

If I knew that it would be possible to save all the children in Germany by bringing them over to England, and only half of them by transporting them to Eretz Yisrael, then I would opt for the second alternative. For we must weigh not only the life of these children, but also the history of the People of Israel.

Goldberg complains that in my account of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, I was more interested in attacking Zionism. That I sought to

‘undermine the significance of the Zionism to the fighters yet,… during the uprising in the ghetto ‘for two days both the Polish and Star of David flags flew, visible to thousands of Poles’ … Who raised that flag if the fighters were waning in their Zionist politics?

Goldberg failed to understand that I wasn’t suggesting that the Zionist ghetto fighters weren’t Zionists, rather that Zionism had nothing to do with their decision to resist. The Revisionist Zionists, who had staffed the Jewish police who carried out the roundups, also fought a separate struggle against the Nazis and it was they who flew the Star of David.

Subjectively the Zionist fighters in the Ghetto remained Zionists, but objectively their decision to fight owed nothing to Zionism and everything to do with the fact that they were organised and understood that the Nazis intended to murder them.

Dina Porat described how ‘there was panic in Palestine’ after the Warsaw Ghetto Revolt. Melech Neustadt of the JAE urged the Zionist youth movement leaders in Palestine to instruct their members in Poland to leave ‘and thereby stop the armed uprisings’. Why? Because they ‘would ultimately deprive the Yishuv of the cream of Europe’s potential pioneering force.’

Frumka Plotnika - fighter in Warsaw Ghetto - Refused Zionist Demands to go to Palestine

When a Zionist emissary arrived in Bedzin in July 1943 to persuade Frumka Plotnicka to leave, she replied ‘I have a responsibility for my brethren... I have lived with them and I will die with them.’ Zionist youth such as Zivia Lubetkin, refused on principle to leave. (160/161). Zionism saw the main fight as being against the Arabs, not the Nazis. Goldberg has nothing to say on this.

Goldberg questions my assertion that Jacobo Timerman, the Editor of La Opinion, ‘came under attack from the Zionist movement’.  It’s true that I cited an article in the Jewish Chronicle ‘Timerman Stirs Jewish Discord’ (14.8.81) by Jose Smilg, its correspondent in Buenos Aires, who alleged that it was Timerman’s fight for human rights which was ‘inspiring a rash of anti-Semitic articles in the Argentine press.’’

But I also gave a number of other examples such as

i.           Ma’ariv, the Israeli newspaper, withdrew from an agreement to publish Timerman’s book Prisoner Without A Name, Cell Without a Number.

ii.          I described how in the United States ‘Timerman was attacked by right-wing Zionists who believed he ‘asked for what he got’.

iii.        I described how when Timerman received the Golden Pen of Freedom Award the venue was shifted from the Knesset to the Hebrew University in order not to offend Argentine’s anti-Semitic regime.

iv.        I also described how, when Timmerman published ‘The Longest War’ opposing the Lebanon War, Israel’s Deputy Foreign Minister, Yehuda Ben-Meir, described his book as ‘a collection of calumnies and lies arising from his own self-hatred.’

v.         When Timerman died, on 11 November 1999 he received glowing obituaries internationally but Israeli papers ‘provided only terse reports.’

Argentina’s anti-Semitic regime, between 1976 and 1983 murdered up to 3,000 Jews without so much as a Zionist whisper.

Goldberg described my book as ‘almost unreadable’. I accept that it must have been traumatic to have to read nearly 500 pages in which all those myths one had been brought up with were consigned to the fire. Such an experience can cause cognitive dissonance.

Goldberg could not understand why I wrote that it was only the Nazis who bore responsibility for the organisation of the Holocaust, yet I also said that the Zionists bore a moral responsibility for having obstructed the rescue of many thousands of Jews. Goldberg sees a contradiction where there is none.

Goldberg is sure that I have contradicted myself when I write that everywhere in Europe Zionism was a distinct minority among Jews yet I assert that

The Judenrate were composed of the traditional leadership, over two thirds of whom (67.1 per cent) consisted of Zionist supporters of all factions.

Goldberg asks ‘how both these things can be true’ suggesting that I am ‘determined to prevent the facts from standing in the way’ of my beliefs? Or it could be that the Goldberg assumes that the Jewish leadership politically reflected those they presided over?

Zionist resistance fighter Chajka Klinger condemned the collaboration of the Judenrat with the Nazis

If Goldberg hadn’t found my book so difficult to read he would have seen that I cited a Zionist resistance fighter Hayke Klinger who, in a speech in Palestine in March 1944 said: (148)

And precisely because those who stood at the head of most of the communities were Zionists, the psychological effects on most of the Jewish masses vis-à-vis the Zionist idea was devastating, and the hatred towards Zionism grew day by day...

Most disturbing of all was that I included others in the Holocaust:

‘what was not part of the Holocaust? We are left in the dark as to where, for Greenstein, the Holocaust begins and ends.’

I referred to the murder of the Disabled, 3m Russian POWs and 1m Gypsies whereas Zionism considers the Holocaust a Jewish-only affair. According to Gerhard Riegner ‘Drawing universal lessons from the Holocaust meant the ‘plunder of [Jewish] moral capital.’ All other groups come under Genocide, not Holocaust.

Collier, a contributor to Fathom, with Jonathan Hoffman - linkman between far-right Zionists and fascist groups

Boycott & Ha’avara

Goldberg criticises my reliance on the statistics of Edwin Black, author of The Transfer Agreement, the definitive book on the subject of Ha’avara. Goldberg cites a critical article by Richard Levy in Commentary (September 1984) in which he says of Black that his ‘weakness as a historian emerges in his treatment of the politics of the anti-Nazi boycott movement.’  It is pertinent to note the comment of David Wyman, Emeritues Professor of History at Massachusetts University in a letter to Holocaust & Genocide Studies [Vol. 11, p.277]:

‘It is entirely to the point to note that Levy is a retired nuclear engineer who has no formal training as a historian.’

It is sometimes difficult to understand Goldberg’s reasoning. For example he criticises me for citing Black in respect of the popularity of the Nazi boycott in Latvia whilst not mentioning that the Nazis had reached an agreement with the Latvian government to prevent the boycott. Goldberg suffers from ‘excessive love of authority syndrome’. He assumes that the Nazis’ successful pressure on the Latvian government to outlaw the Boycott was popular. Why?

Goldberg’s Failure to Understand the importance of the Boycott or Ha’avara

When Hitler was ‘elected’ Chancellor on March 5 1933 Jews spontaneously reacted by boycotting Nazi Germany. Only the Zionist movement and the Jewish bourgeoisie opposed the Boycott. The Zionists because they wanted to take advantage of the Nazi regime to build their ‘Jewish’ state. I quoted Auschwitz survivor Elie Wiesel:

‘Surely, Jewish Palestine... needed money to finance its development, but this brazen pragmatism went against the political philosophy of a majority of world Jewry. There developed a growing perception that instead of supporting and strengthening the boycott, Palestine was, in fact, sabotaging it.

Wiesel was a fervent Zionist but even he felt obliged to speak out. The Zionist movement was not interested in saving Jews. Its sole concern was its settler-colonial project in Palestine.

I have also ‘overblown the importance of this footnote of Holocaust history’. Even worse I am implying that world Jewry was capable of organising the overthrow of the Nazi government, which Goldberg says is akin to Nazi propaganda, i.e. anti-Semitic!

Of course by themselves Jews was not able to overthrow the Nazi regime but the whole point of the Boycott campaign was to persuade non-Jews to join them. Large sections of the labour movement supported it because they understood that the principal enemy of the Nazis were German trade unions and working class organisations.

I wrote that ‘The Nazis were ‘astonished’, given the record of Polish anti-Semitism, that the advent of the Nazis had given birth to a widely supported Boycott movement.’ (p.111) Despite the Zionist slander that most Arabs were Nazi supporters, Egypt had an almost complete Boycott. To the Zionists working with non-Jews to oppose anti-Semitism was and is anathema.

Jewish hero, Auschwitz escapee and anti-Zionist Rudolf Vrba bitterly criticised Zionist collaboration with the Nazis

Goldberg seeks to play down the economic importance of Ha’avara. His suggestion that Ha’avara trade accounted for only 1/1000 of German exports to Palestine is nonsense. Palestine remained a relatively small market for Germany but for the Jewish economy it was very significant. The reason that Hitler authorised the continuation of Ha’avara in 1937 was not for economic but political reasons. Ha’avara ensured that the defeat of the Boycott. The Zionist movement played the part, as Jewish Labour Leader Boris Vladeck termed it of ‘the official scab agent against the boycott in the Near-East’. The Zionists were happy to scab on the Boycott.

Goldberg wondered ‘why the fears of German Jewry aren’t addressed by Greenstein.’ In fact I did address these so-called fears, which suggests that Goldberg hasn’t properly read my book.

Publicly German Jews opposed the Boycott. If they had supported it they would have been killed. It was these denials that Goldberg relies on. I quote (108-9) from a message to Stephen Wise which said ‘Do not believe the denials, nor the Jewish denials.’ Moshe Beilinson, for the Labor Zionist movement, admitted that all Germany’s Jews, including the Zionists, supported the boycott. What I wrote was:

The Boycott forced the Third Reich to vigilantly restrain anti-Jewish violence. Goering was desperate. ‘Germany simply could not afford further export reductions’ and without exports ‘there would be economic death.’

The Jewish Chronicle, (‘The Unclean Thing,’ 27.12.35.) a supporter of Zionism, nonetheless thundered:

We object to the transfer of their assets in the form of the products of German factories and German employment. We say that that is aiding and comforting one of the most savage oppressions, even in Jewish history…. It breaks the united Jewish boycott front, a front let it not be forgotten, with which non-Jewish sympathisers were also aligned.

The Mothers of the Disappeared - Abandoned by the Zionists

Argentina – A post-war example of Zionist collaboration

In 1994 a bomb exploded in the Jewish Community Centre in Buenos Aires. Almost immediately Israel and the United States blamed Iran and Hezbollah. Yet as Bill Brencick, chief of the political section in the US embassy from 1994 to 1997, acknowledged in a 2007 interview, suggestions of Iranian responsibility were based solely on a ‘wall of assumptions’ and that there was ‘no hard evidence’.

In 2014 a former police spy, Jose Alberto Perez, who had infiltrated the Jewish community in Buenos Aires on behalf of the Federal Police, revealed to two investigative journalists, Miriam Lewin and Horacio Lutzk, that he had been ordered to turn over blueprints to the community’s building to his police case officer “Laura”.  ‘Laura’ had ordered him to find out the involvement of the Jewish community in the ‘Andinia’ conspiracy theory which held that Marx, Einstein and Freud were at the centre of a Jewish conspiracy against Argentina.

The Military Intelligence Agency SIDE oversaw the investigation of the bombing. The SIDE Unit handling the investigation was riddled with the same anti-Semitic officers from the Cabildo group, who had tortured and murdered Jews during the rule of the Junta.

The anti-Semitic right in the Argentinian state was happy to go along with Israel and the United States but Perez was under no doubt that the bombing was carried out by dissident elements in the police and security establishment.

Goldberg denies my claim that Argentinian prosecutor Alberto Nisman committed suicide. ‘He was actually murdered.’ Goldberg prefers the version of events offered by the anti-Semitic Argentine state and Israel but there is considerable doubt as to whether  Nisman was murdered. An article in the Buenos Aires Times (17.1.00) refers to a 6 part documentary The Prosecutor, the President and the Spy which examines

the prosecutor's still unsolved death only days after he accused Fernández de Kirchner of colluding with Iran to allow the alleged authors of the bombing to go free.

The article refers to Pablo Duggan, author of the book Who Killed Nisman?, who states: 

"Nisman committed suicide. It's all proven in the file. This case should have been closed three years ago." 

The article tells how the series ‘which highlights the role played in the AMIA investigation by the intelligence services and the CIA – has caused a storm of reaction on Twitter.’ Its conclusion? The documentary tips the scales towards suicide.

The Argentinian state is riddled with anti-Semites, not the fake variety that Goldberg spends his time attacking. He is more than happy for Iran and Hezbollah to get the blame for the bombing. But given the confession of the police spy Perez and the record of the Argentinian state, it is highly likely that the perpetrators were home grown. Israel and its apologists like Goldberg want to exonerate genuine anti-Semites because they aren’t the real enemy.

Goldberg takes exception to my quote regarding the SS Intelligence Service that ‘Any attempt to foster anti-Jewish sentiment is strictly prohibited. Provoking the Arabs against Jewish immigrants only serves to harm the Reich.” Goldberg cites a 5 man Nazi commando group who were parachuted into Palestine with weapons and explosives in 1944. Their purpose was to instigate riots between Arabs and Jews.’

The only problem is that the quote from the SS was in a report dated January 1937. Of course 7 years later, when the Nazis were desperate, the idea of promoting Jewish-Arab riots was both appealing and elusive. In 1937 the Nazis were interested in Jewish emigration to Palestine. The last thing they wanted to encourage was Arab opposition. Hitler was opposed on principle to allying with indigenous peoples against their colonial masters. Not being a historian Goldberg telescopes 7 years into one.

Goldberg compares my observation that many Germans dismissed rumours of the murder of Jews as “atrocity propaganda” or refused to believe that such things could happen, with my statement:

‘What was unforgivable was that the Zionist leadership in Jerusalem refused to believe the evidence, even when it came from Jewish witnesses.’

Goldberg entirely misses the point. Ordinary Germans didn’t have any evidence of the systematic extermination of the Jews whereas the Zionists did have this evidence. Their offices in Geneva and Istanbul were in possession of reports of the killings very early on. ‘Exchange Jews’ who had been swapped with German prisoners returned to Palestine three times with detailed stories of what was happening yet the Zionists refused to believe them. They had other priorities.

I am also very critical of the British and US leaders who were also in possession of information about Auschwitz and chose to do nothing.

Goldberg doesn’t like the comparison between the Zionist movement, the Catholic Church and the USSR. The former had two billion adherents and the latter was a ‘large, powerful country.’ But the Catholic Church was also under attack. Hundreds, if not thousands, of its priests had been murdered in Poland. Yet despite this many of the Apostolic Nuncios had done all in their power to prevent the extermination of the Jews. In a number of countries the Church had sheltered Jews despite the risks. The Soviet Union had rescued up to 1.5 million Jews. No one expected the Zionist movement to match this but nor did one expect them to sabotage rescue attempts either.

Goldberg argues that I miss ‘the fact that Zionists were Jews who were caught up in and victims of the Holocaust the same as all other Jews.’ He deliberately conflates individual Zionists living under Nazi occupation with the Zionist leadership in the West and Palestine.

I pointed out in the final paragraph of p.61

To the Zionist leaders the Holocaust was a distraction. If saving Jews had been a priority, they would have established a central co-coordinating body to pull together all the various reports in order that they could identify where the destruction was taking place and where rescue was possible. The tiny Al-Domi group in Palestine suggested this but they were ignored.

Goldberg takes exception to what he calls my ‘Quote Mangling’ an example of which is where I write

‘In October 1941 David Ben-Gurion saw the catastrophe that was unfolding ‘as a source of strength and momentum’ which would accelerate the realisation of Zionism.’

Goldberg complains that ‘The quote isn’t from Ben-Gurion himself but from Shabtai Teveth’s biography of Ben-Gurion.’  That’s right. Which is why the footnote refers to Teveth’s book! But it is a devastating quotation coming as it did from Ben Gurion’s official biographer who went on to say that

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

Goldberg objected to my pointing out that the far-right Alternative for Germany, which is riddled with neo-Nazis ‘loves the Jewish state’ and wants to make BDS illegal, Goldberg finds one individual member of the AfD who went to an anti-Zionist conference in Tehran to disprove this!

Goldberg suggests that Nick Griffin of the BNP is a supporter of the Palestinians. Yet when Israel attacked Lebanon in 2006. Lee Barnes, their legal advisor wrote on the BNP site that:

As a Nationalist I can say that I support Israel 100 % in their dispute with Hezbollah. In fact, I hope they wipe Hezbollah off the Lebanese map and bomb them until they leave large greasy craters in the cities where their Islamic extremist cantons of terror once stood. The 21st Century is the Islamic Century. Unless we start to resist the threat of Islamic extremism then within 100 years the West will have become Eurabia.

Ruth Smeed of the Board of Deputies was quoted as saying that

the British National Party website is now one of the most Zionist on the web – it goes further than any of the mainstream parties in its support of Israel.’

Who was the BNP leader at that time?  Nick Griffin. And who was welcomed like a hero at the last pro-Israel demonstration outside the Israeli embassy in May 2001?  Tommy Robinson!

The vast majority of the far right combines both anti-Semitism and support for Israel and Zionism. Richard Spencer, the neo-Nazi founder of the alt-Right protested that he was a White Zionist.

Goldberg recommends that readers read Eichmann’s Jews by Doron Rabinovici. I cite Rabinovici’s book as ‘one long apologia for the Kultusgemeinde, the Vienna Judenrat’. Rabinovici wrote that:

It was not because the Jewish councils betrayed the Jewish community but because they attempted to act in their interests that the Jewish functionaries were condemned to see things from the perspective of the authorities. They had to think like Nazis in the interests of the Jews.

So ferreting out the hiding places of Jews avoiding deportation was in the interests of the Jews! The President of Israel’s Supreme Court,Yitzhak Olshan was dismissive of this argument:

no matter how the Judenrat acted, they served the Nazis… Even those who served the interests of the Jewish communities assisted the Nazis.

Goldberg sympathises with the Judenrat and those who collaborated with the Nazis. Like the Zionist historians, he understands the ‘dilemmas’ of the Judenrat who did the work of the Nazis and dismisses those, including the Zionist fighters in the ghettos, who had nothing but loathing for the Judenrat, as did most holocaust survivors. Goldberg is nothing if not an establishment Zionist.

Goldberg take exception to Ken Loach’s calling my book ‘essential reading’ and his claim that my ‘detailed reference to original sources cannot be ignored.’ Goldberg concludes: ‘Perhaps it cannot be ignored, but it should be.’ This is Fathom’s idea of a review.

Goldberg writes of the ‘wave of outrage’ that greeted Loach’s play Perdition a quarter of a century ago. The outrage was the Zionist lobby trying to prevent a play being shown in the Royal Court Theatre that they didn’t like. Perdition was about Hungary in 1944 when a pact between the leader of Hungarian Zionism, Rudolf Kasztner, with Eichmann resulted in a train for the Zionist elite out of Hungary and complicity in the deportation of a half a million Jews to Auschwitz.

Robert Wistrich of Tel Aviv University, an ardent Zionist wrote that it was ‘unwise’ to attack the play as anti-Semitic, adding that ‘the entire Jewish leadership of that generation – including the Zionists – failed the test of the times.’ Wistrich conceded that ‘the major priority of the Zionist movement at the time was indeed building Palestine’. He accepted that ‘a reasonable case’ could be made that Zionists did not fight anti-Semitism before 1939

with the appropriate vigour’ and further ‘that some Zionists wanted to develop a ‘special relationship’ with the Nazis…. To deny these points… is not only stupid but unnecessary.

Goldberg’s ‘review’ perpetuates this stupidity. His ‘review’ isn’t particularly sophisticated because the Zionist defence of their record during the holocaust comes up against the facts. All they can do is shout ‘anti-Semitism’ hoping it will drown them out.

For those who wish to see for themselves whether my book qualifies for the title of ‘worst book ever’ you can email me at tonygreenstein104@gmail.com to inquire about buying a copy!!

Tony Greenstein