The “Spirit” of “Dr.” Josef Mengele Alive and Well in Israel
The Spirit of “Dr.” Josef Mengele Alive and Well in Israel
From: “The Other Side of Deception” by Victor Ostrovsky (former Mossad), Harper Collins, N.Y. 1994—
” That was where I would come in as a military police officer; my job was to take the prisoners to a holding facility in Nes Ziyyona, a small town south of Tel Aviv. I’d always assumed that it was an interrogation facility for the Shaback. We all knew that a prisoner brought there would probably never get out alive, but the brainwashing we’d gone through in our short lifetimes had convinced us that it was them or us; there was no gray area…
It was Uri who enlightened me regarding the Nes Ziyyona facility. It was, he said, an ABC warfare laboratory–ABC standing for atomic, bacteriological, and chemical. It was where our top epidemiological scientists were developing various doomsday machines. Because we were so vulnerable and would not have a second chance should there be an all-out war in which this type of weapon would be needed, there was no room for error. The Palestinian infiltrators came in handy in this regard. As human guinea pigs, they could make sure the weapons the scientists were developing worked properly and could verify how fast they worked and make them even more efficient. What scares me today, looking back at that revelation, is not the fact that it was taking place but rather the calmness and understanding with which I accepted it…
Years later, I met Uri again. This time he was in the Mossad, a veteran ‘katsa’ in the Al department, and I was a rookie. He had come back from an assignment in South Africa. I was then a temporary desk man in the Dardasim department in liaison helping him prepare for a large shipment of medication to South Africa to accompany several Israeli doctors who were headed for some humanitarian work in Soweto, a black township outside Johannesburg. The doctors were to assist in treating patients at an outpatient clinic for the Baragwanath hospital in Soweto, a few blocks away from the houses of Winnie Mandela and bishop Desmond Tutu. The hospital and clinic were supported by a hospital in Baltimore, which served as a cut-out for the Mossad. Uri was on a cooling-off period from the United States.
‘What is the Mossad doing giving humanitarian assistance to blacks in Soweto?’ I remember asking him. There was no logic to it; no short-term political gain (which was the way the Mossad operated) or any visible monetary advantage.
‘Do you remember Nes Ziyyona?’ His question sent shivers up my spine. I nodded.
‘ This is very much the same. We’re testing both new infectious diseases and new medication that can’t be tested on humans in Israel, for several of the Israeli medicine manufacturers. This will tell them whether they’re on the right track, saving them millions in research.’
‘ What do you think about all of this?’ I had to ask.
‘ It’s not my job to think about it.’
The Ringworm Children: How the Israeli Government Irradiated 100,000 Israeli Kids
October 28 2005
By Barry Chamish
On August 14, at 9 PM, Israel’s Channel Ten television screened a documentary film which exposes the ugliest secret of Israel’s Labor party founders: the deliberate mass radiation poisoning of nearly all Sephardi youths of a generation.
“The Ringworm Children” (translated in Hebrew as “100,000 Rays”), directed by David Belhassen and Asher Hemias, recently won the prize for “best documentary” at the Haifa International film festival, and in the past year has made the rounds of Jewish and Israeli film festivals around the world. But it had yet to come to Israeli television screens. The subject is the mass irradiation of hundreds of thousands of young Israeli immigrants from Middle Eastern countries — Sephardim, as they are called today. The story goes like this:
In 1951, the director general of the Israeli Health Ministry, Dr. Chaim Sheba, flew to America and returned with seven x-ray machines, supplied to him by the American army.
They were to be used in a mass atomic experiment with an entire generation of Sephardi youths to be used as guinea pigs. Every Sephardi child was to be given 35,000 times the maximum dose of x-rays through his head. For doing so, the American government paid the Israeli government 300 million Israeli liras a year. The entire Health budget was 60 million liras. The money paid by the Americans is equivalent to billions of dollars today.
To fool the parents of the victims, the children were taken away on “school trips” and their parents were later told the x-rays were a treatment for the scourge of scalpal ringworm. 6,000 of the children died shortly after their doses were given, while many of the rest developed cancers that killed thousands over time and are still killing them now. While living, the victims suffered from disorders such as epilepsy, amnesia, Alzheimer’s disease, chronic headaches and psychosis.
That is the subject of the documentary in cold terms. It is another matter to see the victims on the screen.
To watch the Moroccan lady describe what getting 35,000 times the dose of allowable x-rays in her head feels like. “I screamed make the headache go away. Make the headache go away. Make the headache go away. But it never went away.”
To watch the bearded man walk hunched down the street. “I’m in my fifties and everyone thinks I’m in my seventies. I have to stoop when I walk so I won’t fall over. They took my youth away with those x-rays.”
To watch the old lady who administered the doses to thousands of children: “They brought them in lines. First their heads were shaved and smeared in burning gel. Then a ball was put between their legs and the children were ordered not to drop it, so they wouldn’t move. The children weren’t protected over the rest of their bodies. There were no lead vests for them. I was told I was doing good by helping to remove ringworm. If I knew what dangers the children were facing, I would never have cooperated. Never!”
Because the whole body was exposed to the rays, the genetic makeup of the children was often altered, affecting the next generation. We watch the woman with the distorted face explain, “All three of my children have the same cancers my family suffered. Are you going to tell me that’s a coincidence?”
The majority of the victims were Moroccan because they were the most numerous of the Sephardi immigrants. The generation that was poisoned became the country’s perpetual poor and criminal class. It didn’t make sense. The Moroccans who fled to France became prosperous and highly educated. The common explanation was that France got the rich, thus smart ones. The real explanation is that every French Moroccan child didn’t have his brain cells fried with gamma rays.
The film made it perfectly plain that this operation was no accident. The dangers of x-rays had been known for over forty years. We read the official guidelines for x-ray treatment in 1952. The maximum dose to be given a child in Israel was .5 rad. There was no mistake made. The children were deliberately poisoned.
David Deri makes the point that only Sephardi children received the x-rays: “I was in class and the men came to take us on a tour. They asked our names. The Ashkenazi children were told to return to their seats. The dark children were put on the bus.”
The film presents a historian who first gives a potted history of the eugenics movement. In a later sound bite, he declares that the ringworm operation was a eugenics program aimed at weeding out the perceived weak strains of society. The Moroccan lady is back on the screen. “It was a Holocaust, a Sephardi Holocaust. And what I want to know is why no one stood up to stop it.”
David Deri, on film and then as a panel member, relates the frustration he encountered when trying to find his childhood medical records. “All I wanted to know was what they did to me. I wanted to know who authorized it. I wanted to trace the chain of command. But the Health Ministry told me my records were missing.” Boaz Lev, the Health Ministry’s spokesman chimes in: “Almost all the records were burned in a fire.”
We are told that a US law in the late ’40s put a stop to the human radiation experiments conducted on prisoners, the mentally feeble and the like. The American atomic program needed a new source of human lab rats and the Israeli government supplied it. Here was the government cabinet at the time of the ringworm atrocities:
Prime Minister – David Ben Gurion; Finance Minister – Eliezer Kaplan; Settlement Minister – Levi Eshkol; Foreign Minister – Moshe Sharrett; Health Minister – Yosef Burg; Labor Minister – Golda Meir; Police Minister – Amos Ben Gurion.
The highest ranking non-cabinet post belonged to the Director General of the Defence Ministry, Shimon Peres.
That a program involving the equivalent of billions of dollars of American government funds should be unknown to the Prime Minister of cash-strapped Israel is ridiculous. Ben Gurion had to have been in on the horrors and undoubtedly chose his son to be Police Minister in case anyone interfered with them.
Finance Minister Eliezer Kaplan was rewarded for eternity with a hospital named after him near Rehovot. But he’s not alone in this honor. Chaim Sheba, who ran Ringworm Incorporated, had a whole medical complex named after him. Needless to say, if there is an ounce of decency in the local medical profession, those hospital names will have to change.
After the film ended, there was a panel discussion which included a Moroccan singer, David Edri, head of the Compensation Committee for Ringworm X-Ray Victims, and Boaz Lev, a spokesman for the Ministry Of Health.
TV host Dan Margalit tried to put a better face on what he’d witnessed. He explained meekly that “the state was poor. It was a matter of day to day survival.” Then he stopped. He knew there was no excusing the atrocities which the Sephardi children endured.
But it was the Moroccan singer who summed up the experience best. “It’s going to hurt, but the truth has to be told. If not, the wounds will never heal.”
There is one person alive who knows the truth: Shimon Peres. The only way to get to the truth and start the healing is to investigate him for his role in the mass poisoning of over 100,000 Sephardi children and youth.
But here is why that won’t happen. The film was aired at the same time as the highest-rated TV show of the year, the finale of Israel’s talent-hunt show: “A Star Is Born.” The next day, the newly-born star’s photo took up half the front pages. There was not a word about “The Ringworm Children” in any paper, nor on the Internet. Until now.
State of Israel Forced the Sterilization of Ethiopian Women: Israel Recognizes Its Medical Crimes
Post Categories: Africa
Tov Roy | Monday, January 28, 2013, 17:58 Beijing
Share on linkedinShare on facebookShare on twitterShare on emailShare on printShare on gmailShare on stumbleuponMore Sharing Services2Print
In which language should one speak to be understood? On January 27, 2013, Israel formally admitted having injected Ethiopian-Jewish women with venom against their will, so that they won’t get pregnant. Israel brought them to Israel in a propaganda-program aimed at showing the world that Jews are not racists, and then applied Nazi techniques to ensure that they won’t reproduce.
Several years ago, I published Israel’s Eugenics Program: Dr. Mengele Blues, which describes the frightening “Dor Yeshorim” (roughly “Straightening Generation”) Israeli eugenics program, who seeks to destroy embryos who do not fit the Zionist dream. Not surprisingly, the program originates directly in the work of Dr Epstein, a Jewish aide of Nazi Dr Mengele (see The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing And The Psychology Of Genocide).
Dr. Josef Mengele was a German SS officer and a physician in the Nazi concentration camp Auschwitz-Birkenau, where he supervised the selection of arriving prisoners. He continued his research on heredity in that camp, especially in the field of identical twins. Less prominent in Israeli textbooks is the fact that he recruited a Czech named Berthold Epstein, a Jewish pediatrician to help him.
The latter fully cooperated in non-consensual experiments on humans carried out in the camp. “Cooperated” is not the exact word to define his crimes. He proactively “proposed research on the treatment of noma” (page 296 in the linked book) and led non-consensual research on humans. Quietly, this became the basis for the Israeli “Dor Yeshorim” program, a clear example of that state crimes against humanity.
Yet, the arrogance of the Israeli doctors worked against them. For many years they kept injecting Depo-Provera every three months to Ethiopian women, against the women’s will. This venom is a long-acting hormonal contraceptive birth control drug, which has severe side effects, including irreversible bone-loss.
Oddly, the USA suffers of a related problem. Dorothy Roberts claims that black teenagers in the US using birth control use Depo-Provera at a far higher rate than white teenagers because they are disproportionately targeted for the least safe, cheapest contraceptives+. These Crypto-Nazi Israeli doctors didn’t realize that these women will eventually learn to speak Hebrew.
Afterwards, they began shouting. Last December, the Israeli Educational Television broadcast a research by Gal Gabai in a program called “Vacuum,” which exposed 35 testimonies of Ethiopian women who were violated in such a fashion by the Israeli doctors. “They threatened not to allow us into Israel,” Amawish Elena—one of the victims—described the first time she was poisoned by an Israeli doctor in Ethiopia.
Against all expectations—that network is notorious for its shallowness—the program was good. It was so good, that lawyer Sharona Elyahu from the Association for Civil Rights in Israel picked up the story and acted swiftly. She forced Professor Roni Gimzo—General Manager of Israel’s Ministry of Health—to react publicly in Haaretz on the abovementioned date. Until recently, the Ministry had refused to acknowledge the systematic violation of these women by the State.
Yet, before the interview, Mr. Gimzo sent a public letter to the relevant organizations in Israel ordering them to stop immediately the venom injections to Ethiopian women. His language showed no repentance: “Without stating a position or stating facts regarding the claims of this issue, I ask to guide all the doctors working with women…not to renew the use of Depo-Provera with Ethiopian women…” he wrote.
The broadcast showed that in the last decade, the fertility of Ethiopians in Israel has decreased in over 50%. Dr. Gimzo, Hitler is proud of you! “They told us that we shouldn’t have children, that those who have children suffer in their life… in Israel you will work for your food, it will be difficult for you, that is what they told us… we got the injection, we got it every three months. We didn’t want it. We said ‘no’ and opposed it. We said that we didn’t want it…” said one of the violated women to the Educational Television.
Becoming Evil: How Ordinary People Commit Genocide and Mass Killing
How many times does one need to repeat the truth until the feeble minds of the violating doctors understand the facts? Which language should one use? Hebrew, German? I won’t repeat the arguments presented in Israel’s Eugenics Program: Dr. Mengele Blues, except for reminding these eminent doctors that Ludwig van Beethoven would have been killed by them on the grounds that he had a tendency to become deaf.
However, these people listen only to their criminal music. The sad truth is that this is not an issue of language or the number of repetitions. Israel probably has a hundred times more doctors than a normal society needs.
Most of these salary-men state-workers desperately seek for ways to justify their salaries, honors, and pensions; essentially that was the way they justified their crimes to the women (“in Israel you will need to earn your food…”). The inevitable result is a Nazi-revival period characterized by the inflation of unjustifiable treatments. Mr. Gizmo, your beloved Fuhrer is so proud of you…
Mr. Tov Roy is one of the frequent contributors for The 4th Media
Zionism and Anti-Semitism—
From Tom Segev, “The Seventh Million: Israelis and the Holocaust” Hill and Wang, NY, 1993—
” On January 31, 1933, the day after Hitler became chancellor, the independent liberal daily ‘Haaretz’ decried this ‘hugely negative historical event’. Ten days later it ran a headline that read, ‘BLACK DAYS IN GERMANY.’ The paper followed the ongoing ‘anti-Semitic horror’, but during those first weeks it, like the British press, generally aimed at reassuring its readers: ‘One must suppose that Hitlerism will now renounce terrorist methods: government brings responsibility.’ the right-wing ‘Doar Hayom’ agreed: ‘There can be no doubt that Hitler the chancellor will be different from the Hitler of the public rallies.’ But from the start, ‘Davar’–the left-wing daily published by the Histadrut (Labor Federation)–was more pessimistic: ‘It was a bitter and ill-fated day when the New Vandal came to power’, the newspaper wrote the day after the change of government in Germany. It described Hitler as a man of hate and demagoguery who would ‘tear Jews out by their roots.’ ” (p 17)
News on the Haavara Agreement
“More than anything else, though, the rise of the Nazis was seen as confirming the historical prognosis of Zionist ideology. ‘Hapoel Hatsair’ described the nazi persecution of the Jews as ‘punishment for their having tried to integrate into German society instead of leaving for Palestine while it was still possible to do so.’ Now they would have to run in a panic ‘like mice in flight’, the paper said. ‘The Jews of Germany are being persecuted now not despite their efforts to be part of their country but because of those efforts.’ The holocaust would later be the primary argument fro the establishment of the State of Israel and for its wars of survival.” (p. 18)
“Ben-Gurion hoped that the Nazis victory would become ‘a fertile force’ for Zionism.” (p. 18)
“The ‘haavara’ (‘transfer’) agreement–the Hebrew term was used in the Nazi documents as well–was based on the complementary interests of the German government and the Zionist movement: the Nazis wanted the Jews out of Germany; the Zionists wanted them to come to Palestine. But there was no such mutuality of interests between the Zionists and German Jewry. Most German Jews would have preferred to stay in their country. The tension between the interests of the ‘yishuv’ [Jewish community in Palestine] (and, in time, the State of Israel) and those of world Jewry was to become a central motif in the story of the Israelis’ attitude to the Holocaust.” (p.20)
Edwin Black on Transfer Agreement Part 1
Transfer Agreement Part 2
“The revisionist right, by contrast, had long been sympathetic to Benito Mussolini’s Fascism and now and then even to Adolf Hitler’s Naziism–except, of course, his anti-Semitism. Betar, Jabotinsky’s youth movement, fostered classic Fascist ideas and forms. In 1928, Abba Ahimeir, a well-known Revisionist journalist, had a regular column, ‘From the Notebook of a Fascist’, in the newspaper ‘Doar Hayom’. In anticipation of Jabotinsky’s arrival in Palestine, he wrote an article titled ‘On the Arrival of Our Duce’ ” (p. 23)
“Four years later, in early 1932, Ahimeir was among those brought to trial for disrupting a public lecvture at Hebrew University. The incident and the resulting trial are worthy of note only because of a declaration by defense attorney Zvi Eliahu Cohen in response to a speech by the prosecutor comparing the disruption of the lecture with the Nazi disturbances in Germany. ‘The comment on the Nazis’, Cohen said, ‘went too far. Were it not for Hitler’s anti-Semitism, we would not oppose his ideology. Hitler saved Germany.’ This was not an unconsidered outburst; the Revisionist paper ‘Hazit Haam’ praised Cohen’s ‘brilliant speech.’ ” (p. 23)
“…[from Hazit Haam] ‘Social Democrats of all stripes believe that Hitler’s movement is an empty shell.’, the newspaper explained, but ‘we believe that there is both a shell and a kernel. The anti-Semitic shell is to be discarded, but not the anti-Marxist kernel. The Revisionists, the newspaper wrote, would fight the Nazis only to the extent that they were anti-Semites.” (p. 23)
“The haavara agreement was a central issue in the elections in the summer of 1933 for representatives to the Eighteenth Zionist Congress. The Revisionists rejected [in a turnabout] any contact with Nazi Germany. It was inconsistent with the honor of the Jewish people, they said; Jabotinsky declared it ‘ignoble, disgraceful and contemptible’. The Revisionist press now castigated the Zionist Organization and the Jewish Agency as ‘Hitler’s allies’, people ‘who have trampled roughshod on Jewish honor, on Jewish conscience, and on Jewish ethics…dark characters who have come to trade on the troubles of the Jews and on the land of Israel…low types who have accepted the role of Hitler’s agents in Palestine and in the entire Near East…traitors…deceivers who lust after Hitler’s government.’ ” (p. 24)
Transfer Agreement Part 3
“After reading the Nazi Party newspaper, Ben-Gurion wrote, it seemed to him that he was reading the words of Zeev Jabotinsky in Doar Hayom: ‘the same thing, the same style, and the same spirit.’ ” (p. 24)
“In his impassioned speech, Ben-Gurion called for the rescue of German Jewry, ‘a tribe of Israel’, and their transfer to Palestine, rather than action against Hitler. ‘ I do not believe that we can oust him and I am not interested in anything other than saving these 500,000 Jews,’ he said. Ben-Gurion saw the debate between rescue and boycott as a debate between Zionism and assimilation, between the nationalist interests of Jewish settlement in Palestine and the international war against anti-Semitism. The assumption imnplicit in his words was that the war against anti-Semitism was not a part of the Zionist mission.” (pp. 24-25)
“To make his point, Ben-Gurion used harsh language that would in time be employed by anti-Zionists: ‘If I knew that it was possible to save all the children in Germany by transporting them to England, but only half of them by transporting them to Palestine, I would choose the second–because we face not only the reckoning of those children, but the historical reckoning of the Jewish people.’ In the wake of the Kristallnacht pogroms, Ben-Gurion commented that the ‘human conscience’ might bring various countries to open their doors to Jewish refugees from Germany. He saw this as a threat and warned: ‘Zionism is in danger.’ ” (p 28)
“Nevertheless, the pragmatists were convinced that the boycott of Germany could not advance the interests of Palestine, that their ends could best be accomplished through contact with the Nazis. Thus the leaders sought to keep relations with Nazi Germany as normal as possible: Two months after Hitler came to power the Jewish Agency executive in Jerusalem had sent a telegram straight to the Fuhrer in Berlin, assuring him that the yishuv had not declared a boycott against his country; the telegram was sent at the request of German Jewry in the hope of halting their persecution, but it reflected the Jewish Agency’s inclination to maintain correct relations with the Nazi Government. Many years later, Menachem Begin revealed that the Zionist Organization had sent hitler a cable of condolence on the death of President Hindenburg.” (p. 29)
Transfer Agreement Part 4
Transfer Agreement Part 5
“Traveling on to Cairo, he [Eichmann] summoned a Jew from Jerusalem, one Fiebl Folkes. A report from Eichmann wrote of his trip and the record of his interrogation by the Israeli police decades later indicate[s] that Folkes was a member of the Haganah–the clandestine Jewish defense force–and a Nazi agent. On one occasion he even met with Eichmann in Berlin. The Nazis paid him for his information, mostly rather general political and economic evaluations. Among other things, Eichmann quoted Folkes to the effect that Zionist leaders were pleased by the persecution of German Jewry, since it would encourage immigration to Palestine.” (p. 30)
“Ironically the Revisionists also had fairly wide-ranging links with the Nazis. The Betar youth movement was active in Berlin and several other German cities. About half a year before the Nazis came to power, the movement’s leadership distributed a memorandum to its members that was both commonsensical and cautious. The Nazis should be treated politely and with reserve, the memorandum instructed. Whenever Betar members were in public, they should remain quiet and refrain from vocal debates and critical comments. Under no circumstances should anyone say anything that could be interpreted as an insult to the German people, to its institutions, or to its prevailing ideology.
The Nazis allowed Betar to continue its activities–meetings, conventions, summer camps hikes, sports, sailing, and agricultural training. Members were allowed to wear their uniforms, which included brown shirts, and they were allowed to publish mimeographed pamphlets, including Zionist articles in a nationalistic, para-Fascist tone, in the spirit of the times. The German Betar pamphlets focused on events in Palestine, and their exuberant nationalism targeted the British, the Arabs, and the Zionist left. The contained no references to the political situation in Germany. With this exception, they were similar to the nationalist German youth publications, including those published by the Nazis. Jabotinsky decried the influence Hitlerism was having on the members of Betar.” (pp. 32)
“In the second half of 1940, a few members of the Irgun Zvai Leumi (National Military Organization)–the anti-British terrorist group sponsored by the Revisionists and known by its acronym Etzel, and to the British simply as the Irgun–made contact with representatives of Fascist Italy, offering to cooperate against the British. Soon the Etzel split, and the group headed by Avraham “Yair” Stern formed itself into the Lehi (from the initials of its Hebrew name, Lohamei Herut Yisrael–Fighters for the Freedom of Israel), also known as the Stern Gang. A representative of this group met with a German foreign ministry official and offered to help Nazi Germany in its war against the British. The Germans understood that the group aimed to establish an independent state based on the totalitarian principles of the Fascist and Nazi regimes. Many years after he tried to forge this lik with Nazis, a former Lehi leader explained what had guided his men at the time: ‘Our obligation was to fight the enemy. We were justified in taking aid from the Nazi oppressor, who was in this case the enemy of our enemy–the British.’ ” (p. 33)
“The question was what to do with those refugees who were neither Zionist nor fit to help build the new society in Palestine. ‘Only God knows how the poor little land of Israel can take in this stream of people and emerge with a healthy social structure’, Chaim Weizmann wrote. The German Immigrants Association complained that the Jewish Agency’s representatives in Berlin were giving immigration certificates to invalids. ‘ The human material [direct quote and their words] coming from Germany is getting worse and worse’, the association charged after almost a year of Nazi rule. ‘They are not able and not willing to work, and they need social assistance.’ A year later the association sent to Berlin a list of names of people who should not have been sent. Henrietta Szold, who headed the Jewish Agency’s social-work division, also frequently protested about the sick and needy among the immigrants. From time to time Szold demanded that certain of such ‘cases’ be returned to Nazi Germany so that they would not be a burden on the yishuv.” (p. 43)
“In 1937 the Joint Distribution Committee, an American organization that assisted needy Jews, negotiated with the German authorities for the release of 120 Jewish prisoners from the Dachau concentration camp. ‘I am not so sure that from a political point of view it is desirable that all those released come to Palestine’, a Jewish Agency official wrote to one of his colleagues. Most were not Zionists; and there may even have been Communists among them.” (pp 43-44)
“Senator [Werner Senator of the Jewish Agency] who was active in bringing German Jews to Palestine, warned the Jewish Agency office in Berlin that if it did not improve the quality of the ‘human material’ it was sending, the agency was liable to cut back the number of certificates set aside for the German capital. The immigrants from Germany enjoyed all sorts of special benefits, Senator wrote. They received immigration certificates after only six months of agricultural training, while in other countries up to two years was required. Requests for family reunification from Germans with relatives in Palestine were also quickly approved. All this required special attention to the quality of immigrants, who should be true pioneers. Senator was not referring to occasional errors in judgment, he assured his colleagues; he was talking about a trend. More and more ‘ welfare cases’ were arriving from Germany, as well as too many ‘businessmen with children’ rather than single men and women. At one point it was decided that candidates above the age of thirty-five would receive immigration certificates ‘only if there is no reason to believe that they might become a burden here.’ Accordingly they had to have a profession. ‘Anyone who was a merchant’, the decision stated, or of similar employment, will not receive a certificate under any circumstances, except in the case of veteran Zionists.’ This was in 1935. ‘ In days of plenty, it was possible to handle this material [emphasis added]’ , explained Yitzhak Gruenbaum. ‘In days of shortages and unemployment, this material [emphasis added] will cause us many problems…We must be allowed to choose from among the refugees those worthy of immigration and not accept them all.’ ” (p. 44)
Footnote: “In 1939 the world press followed the drama of the St Louis, a boat carrying several hundred Jewish refugees from Germany. No country would give them asylum. The Joint Distribution Committee asked the Jewish Agency to allot the passengers several hundred immigration certificates from the quota. The Jewish Agency refused. In the end the refugees were allowed into Antwerp. [note where many were exterminated after the takeover of Belgium by the Nazis.]. (p. 44)
” German Jews who were given immigration permits ‘merely as refugees’ were also considered ‘undesirable human material’ by Eliahu Dobkin, a Mapai member of the Jewish Agency executive. ‘I understand very well the special situation in which the overseas institutions dealing with German refugees find themselves, but I would like to believe that you would agree with me that we must approach this question not from a philanthropic point of view but from the point of view of the country’s needs’, Dobkin wrote to one of his colleagues. ‘My opinion is that from among the refugees we must bring only those who meet this condition.’ Leaders of the German immigrants agreed. ‘As I see it, 90 percent of them are not indispensible here’, one of them wrote to another.” (pp 44-45)
“It was an incomparably cruel reality: every Jew who received an immigration certificate during those years lived in Palestine knowing that some other Jew who had not received that certificate had been murdered. This was the basis for the sense of guilt that would later trouble so many Israelis who escaped the Holocaust.” (p 45)
From Zionism in the Age of the Dictators by Lenni Brenner:
In June of 1895, the first entry into his new journal on Zionism, Theodor Hertzl wrote:
“In Paris, as I have said, I achieved a freer attitude toward anti-Semitism, which I now began to understand historically and to pardon. Above all, I recognized the emptiness and futility of trying to ‘combat’ anti-Semitism.”
To be a Good Zionist one must be Somewhat of an Anti-Semite:
Although blut was a recurrent theme in pre-Holocaust Zionist literature, it was not as central to its message as boden. As long as America’s shores remained open, Europe’s Jews asked: if anti-Semitism could not be fought on its home ground, why should they not just follow the crowd to America? The Zionist response was double-barrelled: anti-Semitism would accompany the Jews wherever they went and, what was more, it was the Jews who had created anti-Semitism by their own characteristics. The root cause of anti-Semitism, Zionists insisted, was the Jews’ exile existence. Jews lived parasitically off their ‘hosts’…
These tenets combined were known as ‘shelilat ha’galut (the Negation of the Diaspora), and were held by the entire spectrum of Zionists who varied only on matters of detail. They were argued vigorously in the Zionist press, where the distinctive quality of many articles was their hostility to the entire Jewish people. Anyone reading these pieces without knowing their source would have automatically assumed that they came from the Anti-Semitic press. The Weltanschauung of the youth organization Hashomer Hatzair (Young Watchmen), originally composed in 1917, but republished again as late as 1936, was typical of these effusions: The Jew is a caricature of a normal, natural human being, both pysically and spiritually. As an individual in society he revolts and throws off the harness of social obligations, knows no order nor discipline. (pp. 22-23)
Similarly, in 1935 an American Ben Frommer, a writer for the ultra-right Zionist-Revisionists, could declare of no less than 16 million of his fellow Jews that:
The fact is undeniable that the Jews collectively are unhealthy and neurotic. Those professional Jews who, wounded to the quick, igdignantly deny this truth are the greatest enemies of their race, for they thereby lead them to search for false solutions, or at most palliatives.” (p. 23)
In 1925 the most vehement protagonist of total abstentionism, Jcob Klatzkin, the co-editor of the massive “Encyclopedia Judaica”, laid down the full implications of the Zionist approach to anti-Semitism:
“If we do not admit the rightfulness of antisemitism, we deny the rightfulness of our own nationalism. If our people is deserving and willing to live its own national life, then it is an alien body thrust into the nations among whom it lives, an alien body that insists on its own distinctive identity, reducing the domain of their life. It is right therefore, that they should fight against us for their national integrity…Instead of establishing societies for defense against antisemites, who want to reduce our rights, we should establish societies for defense against our friends who desire to defend our rights.” (p. 30)
Books from Lenni Brenner for download free:
The Iron Wall: http://vho.org/aaargh/fran/livres3/Ironw.pdf
Zionism in the Ageof the Dictators
ZIONISM PROMOTES ANTI-SEMITISM: THE HISTORY OF ZIONISM & JUDAISM: HISTORICAL PROGRESSION OF ZIONISM
Post Categories: Afghanistan
True Torah Jews | Thursday, January 24, 2013, 15:30 Beijing
Share on linkedinShare on facebookShare on twitterShare on emailShare on printShare on gmailShare on stumbleuponMore Sharing Services2Print
ZIONISM PROMOTES ANTI-SEMITISM
Theodor Herzl (1860-1904), the founder of modern Zionism, recognized that anti-Semitism would further his cause, the creation of a separate state for Jews. To solve the Jewish Question, he maintained“we must, above all, make it an international political issue.”
Herzl wrote that Zionism offered the world a welcome “final solution of the Jewish question.” In his “Diaries”, page 19, Herzl stated “Anti-Semites will become our surest friends, anti-Semitic countries our allies.”
Zionist reliance on Anti-Semitism to further their goals continues to this day. Studies of immigration records reflect increased immigration to the Zionist state during times of increased anti-Semitism. Without a continued inflow of Jewish immigrants to the state of “Israel”, it is estimated that within a decade the Jewish population of the Zionist state will become the minority.
In order to maintain a Jewish majority in the state of “Israel”, its leaders promote anti-Semitism throughout the world to “encourage” Jews to leave their homelands and seek “refuge”.
Over the recent years there has been a dramatic rise in hate rhetoric and hate crimes targeted toward Jews:
In Turkey…horrifying suicide bombings at two synagogues left 25 people dead and hundreds more injured.
In Britain…Scotland Yard recently warned Britain’s Jewish Community that it faced imminent terrorist attacks after police spotted and questioned a group of “tourists” taking covert videotape of the Jewish community buildings in London.
In France…a caution was issued after an arson attack gutted a suburban Paris Jewish school–the latest incident in a frightening wave of French anti-Semitism.
BBC – UK: “In recent weeks, a poll for the European Commission suggesting that EU citizens see Israel as the biggest threat to world peace caused outrage among Israelis.”
Anti-Semitic acts are on the rise across Europe and beyond. From Antwerp and London to Berlin and Istanbul, Jews are living in fear.
On November 17, 2003 Zionist leader, Ariel Sharon, the Israeli prime minister, told Jews in Italy the best way to escape “a great wave of anti-Semitism” is to move and settle in the state of Israel. This has been the Zionist ideology from the beginning to the present time. “The best solution to anti-Semitism is immigration to Israel. It is the only place on Earth where Jews can live as Jews,” he said.
July 28, 2004: 200 French Jews emigrated to Israel following a wave of Anti-Semitism. They were personally greeted by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, who recently urged French Jews to flee to Israel to escape rising anti-Semitism.
On July 18, 2004, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon urged all French Jews to move to Israel immediately to escape anti-Semitism. He told a meeting of the American Jewish Association in Jerusalem that Jews around the world should relocate to Israel as early as possible. But for those living in France, he added, moving was a “must” because of rising violence against Jews there. ”
THE HISTORY OF ZIONISM & JUDAISM
This text is from an article called “An Open Letter” published in the Jewish magazine, “Hachoma”. We think it provides a good historical overview of the history of Zionism and why the Zionist ideology is opposed by religious Orthodox Jews.
The Jewish people, from its inception, has been unique by its identity as a religious entity. Through the centuries its religious character had been a premise agreed upon by Jews and non-Jews alike. Our faith demands as the fundamental condition for recognition as a Jew, belief and adherence to the word of G-d, as was revealed to our forefathers on Mount Sinai. This is in itself, according to the tenets of the Jewish religion, sufficient to fulfill the definition of a Jew. Our religious and traditional history bears no aspect of racism. Hence, one of non-Jewish origin is capable of being proselytized and attaining the same status as a born Jew. Conversely, one of Jewish birth who does not recognize his being bound to the Jewish Torah, is by Jewish law a heretic, and therefore forfeits his spiritual birthrights as a Jew.
The purpose of the Jew is to bear witness to the existence of G-d, through his adherence to the Torah. The Al-mighty granted the Jews the land of Israel as the particular setting which would serve as the most conducive atmosphere to their performance of their duties to G-d.
The Jews in ancient times were banished from the land of Israel because they had failed to fulfill their obligations to the Al-mighty. Every Jew acknowledges this in his prayers (Umipnei Chatoeinu Golinu Meiartzeinu). They accepted the penalty of exile and were at that time expressed sworn by the Al-mighty not to accelerate their redemption on their own, and especially not to rebel against the nations under whose rule they were found. To the contrary, every Jew is commanded to pray for the peace and well being of the government of which he is the subject.
Through all the years of exile, pious Jews as individuals were attracted to reside in the Holy Land because of its innate holy character and the opportunity it offered for the observance of various precepts bound in the land. Jews as a whole continue to pray that the Al-mighty return his Divine presence to the Land of Israel, by the coming of the Messiah, who will build His Temple, from whence will emanate Divine Wisdom and ultimate spiritual fulfillment of the entire human race.
Through the many years that Jews resided in the Holy Land for this purpose, they enjoyed tranquil and cordial relations with the non-Jewish population there.
The Zionist movement which was formed at the latter part of the last century, sought to endow the Jews with a nationalistic character which was heretofore strange to them. It sought to deprive them of their historically religious character and offered in substitution of faith in G-d and adherence to the Torah, and belief in their ultimate redemption by the coming of the Messiah, a nationalistic ideology and the possibility of establishing through political media, a Jewish national homeland.
During the period of the British Mandate, the Balfour Declaration, which recognized the eventual possibility of founding a Jewish national homeland, in Palestine, was affirmed to be the British government. The Jewish Agency, who then was the Chief representative of Zionist interests in the Holy Land, was entrusted with the issuance of visas to the Holy Land, thus resulting in an increased Zionist immigration from various parts of the world, which ultimately succeeded in superceding in numbers, the veteran Orthodox dwellers.
Orthodox Jewry all over the world and the Orthodox Community in the Holy Land in particular, immediately sensed in this stage of Zionist success, the threat of grave danger for the religious future of Jews. The Arab inhabitants began to exhibit open hostility to their Jewish neighbors. The British government failed to distinguish between the Orthodox community, who for generations in habited the Holy Land, and the newly arrived Zionist immigrants.
With the acquisition by the Zionist nationalists of the power to organize communities in Palestine, they formed the Vaad Haleumi Leknesset Yisroel (National Jewish Council Committee). This committee ignored the rights of the Orthodox veteran dwellers who did not recognize this validity of Jewish nationality, and whose identification as Jews was solely with their loyalty to their religious heritage. The religious inhabitants, on the other hand, shuddered at the prospects of spiritual disintegration of World Jewry, with the new rise to power of the Zionist nationalists.
The Orthodox inhabitants actively objected to being subject to the authority of the secularists. They appealed their cause to the League of Nations, who consequently granted them a “Right of exclusion” to the subjugation to the Vaad Haleumi, which rights provided that any Jew wishing not to be incorporated into the Vaad Haleumi, may remain lawfully independent if he so stated his wish in writing. Thousands of Jews did so.
Such was the case until November 1948, when the United Nations finally sanctioned the establishment of a Zionist State. We do not doubt that their success in finally realizing their goal was due in great measure to their having misled the world into viewing the Zionist cause as the Jewish cause. The formation of the Zionist state resulted in the automatic deprivation of the autonomy heretofore possessed by the Orthodox inhabitants of the Holy Land.
The Zionists grasped in the acquisition of their new powers, the opportunity to openly disassociate themselves from any identification with Jews as a religion. They systematically began to orient the minds of their generations according to the tenets of Zionist nationalism. Through the Ministry of Religions they employed part of the Rabbinate to assist them in their aims.
The religious Jews who by virtue of their faith, clearly contradicted Zionist nationalism, and who had lived peacefully with their Arab neighbors for generations, became unwillingly identified with the Zionist cause and their struggle with the Arabs. They requested the United Nations that Jerusalem be designated as a defacto international city. They appealed to the diplocatic corps assigned to Jerusalem — but to no avail. They were hence confronted with the choice of either becoming a part of the Zionist State, which diametrically opposed the interests of Jews as a religion, or abandoning the land of which their forefathers were the first Jewish settlers.
We find it of supreme importance to emphasize that we are fearful of the consequences of the Zionist rebellion against the Creator, as stated expressly in Jeremich, “For it is bad and bitter your renunciation of G-d…” We wish not to be affected by the behavior of this government who in the name of Israel, persist in their renunciation and utter disregard of religious Judaism such as is clearly attested by their laws expressly permitting wanton autopsies (Law of Anatomy and Pathology, 1953), forcible desecration of the Sabbath (Law of Emergency Labor Draft 1967: PPS 1, 19; 27, 36), profanation of Holy Sites by retaining non-religious custodians, desecration of Holy Cemetaries by Safed, Beth Shearim and elsewhere, and countless more examples, proof of which is readily available.
Insofar as all human being find necessary the protection of their rights as human beings, we hereby request all those that find it within their power, to aid us in reacquiring the rights we possessed prior to the formation of the Zionist State*, to remain lawfully independent of the Zionist authority.
* The Laws of Palestine — Robert Drayton — Volume 3, Page 213B — Chapter 126, Paragraph 17(4) — January 1, 1928.
Any person who desires his name to be struck off the register shall, within one month of the publication or the relevant portion thereof, give notice, either personally or by an agent duly authoised in writing, to the General Council (Vaad Leumi) which shall acknowledge the receipt of the notice and strike off his name accordingly; he may send a copy of such notice to the office of the district commissioner.
HISTORICAL PROGRESSION OF ZIONISM
18th century: The German Jewish philosopher Moses Mendelssohn initiates a Jewish secularism, which focused on Jewish national identity.
1862: The German Jew Moses Hess publishes the book Rome and Jerusalem where he called for a return of Jews to Palestine. He also said that Jews would never succeed by assimilating into European societies.
1881: Pogroms of Russia result in heavy emigration to USA. Some few Jews even emigrates to Palestine, as they are motivated by religious ideas of Palestine as Jewish homeland.
1893: Nathan Birnbaum introduces the term ‘Zionism’.
1896: The Austrian Jew Theodor Herzl publishes the book The Jewish State, where he declares that the cure for anti-semitism was the establishment of a Jewish state. As he saw it, the best place to establish this state was in Palestine, but this geography was no precondition.
1897: The 1st Zionist Congress is held in Basel in Switzerland. 200 delegates participates. The Basel Program is formulated, which calls for the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine, where Jews could live safely under public law. The World Zionist organization is also established, and establishes its head quarters in Vienna, Austria.
1903: Britain offers an area of 15,500 km² in Uganda in Africa, an area of virgin land to the Jews of the world, where a Jewish homeland could be established.
1905: 7th Zionist Congress refuses Britain’s Uganda proposal. Israel Zangwill forms the Jewish Territorial organization, which sought to find territory for a Jewish state, no matter where this would be. His organization got only few supporters. — After the Russian revolution is defeated, many young Jews emigrate from Russia.
1917: The Balfour Declaration, issued by the British foreign secretary, gives official British support to the work on establishing a Jewish homeland in Palestine.
1922: Britain gives The World Zionist organization the mandate to administer Jewish immigration and settlement in Palestine. This immigration and settlement was funded by American Jews.
1939: The British ‘White Paper’ gives the Arabs of Palestine de facto control over Jewish immigration.
1942: A call is issued from Zionist leaders for the establishment of a Jewish state in all of western Palestine, when World War II ends.
1948 May 14: The State of Israel is founded. The World Zionist organization continues to back Jewish immigration to Israel.
1970s: The World Zionist organization puts its muscles into helping Jews in the Soviet Union to emigrate to Israel.
1975 November 10: UN General Assembly passes Resolution 3379, in which Zionism is declared “racist”, with 72 votes to 35 (32 abstentions).
1991 December 16: UN General Assembly revokes Resolution 3379, with 111 votes to 25 (13 abstentions).
“Zionism” by Tore Kjeilen, article in the Encyclopaedia of the Orient, Oslo, Norway. Last modified Aug. 22, 2004.
ABOUT TRUE TORAH JEWS AGAINST ZIONISM
True Torah Jews is a non-profit organization founded by a group of Orthodox Jews dedicated to informing the world, and the American public and politicians in particular, that the ideology of Zionism is in total opposition to the teachings of traditional Judaism.
We can be contacted at:
For Yiddish speakers, news about our organization is available on our hotline:
718-989-6844 ext. 9
We are affiliated with the Central Rabbinical Congress of the United States and Canada. Established in 1952, the Central Rabbinical Congress is a worldwide organization representing over 150 Orthodox communities.
Central Rabbinical Congress
85 Division Ave.
Brooklyn, NY 11211
Zionism and Anti-Semitism: A Strange Alliance Through History
Jews and Israel
By Allan C. Brownfeld
Allan C. Brownfeld is a syndicated columnist and associate editor of the Lincoln Review, a journal published by the Lincoln Institute for Research and Education, and editor of Issues, the quarterly journal of the American Council for Judaism. This article is reprinted from the July-August 1998 issue of The Washington Report on Middle East Affairs (P.O. Box 53062, Washington, DC 20009).
It has, for many years, been a tactic of those who seek to silence open debate and discussion of US Middle East policy to accuse critics of Israel of “anti-Semitism.”
In a widely discussed article entitled “J’Accuse” (Commentary, September 1983), Norman Podhoretz charged America’s leading journalists, newspapers and television networks with “anti-Semitism” because of their reporting of the war in Lebanon and their criticism of Israel’s conduct. Among those so accused were Anthony Lewis of The New York Times, Nicholas von Hoffman, Joseph Harsch of The Christian Science Monitor, Rowland Evans, Robert Novak, Mary McGrory, Richard Cohen and Alfred Friendly of The Washington Post, and a host of others. These individuals and their news organizations were not criticized for bad reporting or poor journalistic standards; instead, they were the subject of the charge of anti-Semitism.
Podhoretz declared: “… The beginning of wisdom in thinking about this issue is to recognize that the vilification of Israel is the phenomenon to be addressed, not the Israeli behavior that provoked it … We are dealing here with an eruption of anti-Semitism.”
To understand Norman Podhoretz and others who have engaged in such charges, we must recognize that the term “anti-Semitism” has undergone major transformation. Until recently, those guilty of this offense were widely understood to be those who irrationally disliked Jews and Judaism. Today, however, the term is used in a far different way – one which threatens not only free speech but also threatens to trivialize anti-Semitism itself.
Anti-Semitism has been redefined to mean anything that opposes the policies and interests of Israel. The beginning of this redefinition may be said to date, in part, from the 1974 publication of the book The New Anti-Semitism by Arnold Forster and Benjamin R. Epstein, leaders of the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith. The nature of the “new” anti-Semitism, according to Forster and Epstein, is not necessarily hostility toward Jews as Jews, or toward Judaism, but, instead a critical attitude toward Israel and its policies.
Later, Nathan Perlmutter, when he was director of the Anti-Defamation League, stated that, “There has been a transformation of American anti-Semitism in recent times. The crude anti-Jewish bigotry once so commonplace in this country is today gauche … Poll after poll indicates that Jews are one of America’s most highly regarded groups.”
‘Semitically Neutral Postures’
Perlmutter, however, refused to declare victory over such bigotry. Instead, he redefined it. He declared:
The search for peace in the Middle East is littered with mine fields for Jewish interests … Jewish concerns that are confronted by the Semitically neutral postures of those who believe that if only Israel would yield this or that, the Middle East would become tranquil and the West’s highway to its strategic interests and profits in the Persian Gulf would be secure. But at what cost to Israel’s security? Israel’s security, plainly said, means more to Jews today than their standing in the opinion polls …
What Perlmutter did was to substitute the term “Jewish interests” for what are, in reality, “Israeli interests.” By changing the terms of the debate, he created a situation in which anyone who is critical of Israel becomes, ipso facto, “anti-Semitic.”
The tactic of using the term “anti-Semitism” as a weapon against dissenters is not new. Dorothy Thompson, the distinguished journalist who was one of the earliest enemies of Nazism, found herself criticizing the policies of Israel shortly after its creation. Despite her valiant crusade against Hitler, she, too, was subject to the charge of “anti-Semitism.” In a letter to The Jewish Newsletter (April 6, 1951) she wrote:
Really, I think continued emphasis should be put upon the extreme damage to the Jewish community of branding people like myself as anti-Semitic … The State of Israel has got to learn to live in the same atmosphere of free criticism which every other state in the world must endure … There are many subjects on which writers in this country are, because of these pressures, becoming craven and mealy-mouthed. But people don’t like to be craven and mealy-mouthed; every time one yields to such pressure one is filled with self-contempt and this self-contempt works itself out in a resentment of those who caused it.
A quarter-century later, columnist Carl Rowan (Washington Star, Feb. 5, 1975) reported:
When I wrote my recent column about what I perceive to be a subtle erosion of support for Israel in this town, I was under no illusion as to what the reaction would be. I was prepared for a barrage of letters to me and newspapers carrying my column accusing me of being “anti-Semitic” … The mail rolling in has met my worst expectations … This whining baseless name-calling is a certain way to turn friends into enemies.
What few Americans understand is that there has been a long historical alliance – from the end of the 19th century until today – between Zionism and real anti-Semites – from those who planned pogroms in Czarist Russia to Nazi Germany itself. The reason for the affinity many Zionist leaders felt for anti-Semites becomes clear as this history emerges.
When Theodor Herzl, the founder of modern political Zionism, served in Paris as a correspondent for a Vienna newspaper, he was in close contact with the leading anti-Semites of the day. In his biography of Herzl, The Labyrinth of Exile, Ernst Pawel reports that those who financed and edited La Libre Parole, a weekly dedicated “to the defense of Catholic France against atheists, republicans, Free Masons and Jews,” invited Herzl to their homes on a regular basis.
Alluding to such conservatives and their publications, Pawel writes that Herzl “found himself captivated” by these men and their ideas:
La France Juive [of Edouard Drumont] struck him as a brilliant performance and – much like [Eugen] Dühring’s notorious Jewish Question ten years later – it aroused powerful and contradictory emotions … On June 12, 1895, while in the midst of working on Der Judenstaat, [Herzl] noted in his diary, “much of my current conceptual freedom I owe to Drumont, because he is an artist.” The compliment seems extravagant, but Drumont repaid it the following year with a glowing review of Herzl’s book in La Parole Libre.
In the end, Pawel argues, “Paris changed Herzl, and French anti-Semites undermined the ironic complacency of the Jewish would-be non-Jew.” Yet Herzl was not entirely displeased with anti-Semitism. In a private letter to Moritz Benedikt, written in the final days of 1892, he writes: “I do not consider the anti-Semitic movement altogether harmful. It will inhibit the ostentatious flaunting of conspicuous wealth, curb the unscrupulous behavior of Jewish financiers, and contribute in many ways to the education of the Jews … In that respect we seem to be in agreement.”
Herzl’s book Der Judenstaat (“The Jewish State”), was widely disparaged by the leading Jews of the day, who viewed themselves as French, German, English or Austrian citizens and Jews by religion – with no interest in a separate Jewish state. Anti-Semites, on the other hand, eagerly greeted Herzl’s work. Herzl’s arguments, Pawel points out, were “all but indistinguishable from those used by the anti-Semites.” One of the first reviews appeared in the Westungarischer Grenzbote, an anti-Semitic journal published in Bratislava by Ivan von Simonyi, a member of the Hungarian Diet. He praised both the book and Herzl, and was so carried away with his enthusiasm that he paid Herzl a personal visit. Herzl wrote in his diary:
Menachem Begin speaking at a political rally in Israel, 1948. In front is the emblem of the “Herut” (“Freedom”) party, which he led. (This was the predecessor of today’s “Likud” party.) The emblem shows a map of “Eretz Israel, or “greater Israel,” which includes not only the West Bank, but all of Jordan to its border with Iraq. Behind, on the wall, is a portrait of Zionist leader Vladimir Jabotinsky. In the years before the founding of the Israeli state in 1948, Begin led the “Irgun Zvai Leumi,” a Zionist terrorist organization. Later, he served as Israel’s prime minister, 1977-1983.
My weird follower, the Bratislava anti-Semite Ivan von Simonyi came to see me. A hypermercurial, hyperloquacious sexagenerian with an uncanny sympathy for the Jews. Swings back and forth between perfectly rational talk and utter nonsense, believes in the blood libel and at the same time comes up with the most sensible modern ideas. Loves me.
After the barbaric Kishinev pogrom of April 1901, when hundreds of Jews were killed or wounded, Herzl came to Russia to barter with V. K. Plehve, the Russian interior minister who had incited the pogrom. Herzl told Jewish cultural leader Chaim Zhitlovsky: “I have an absolutely binding promise from Plehve that he will procure a charter for Palestine for us in 15 years at the outside. There is one condition, however, the revolutionaries must stop their struggle against the Russian government.”
Zhitlovsky, incensed at Herzl for dealing with a killer of Jews, and aware that Herzl had been outsmarted, persuaded him to abandon the idea. Still, the Zionist leaders in Russia agreed with the government that the real responsibility for the pogroms rested with the Jewish Bund, a socialist group urging democratic reforms in the Czarist regime. Zionists wanted Jews to remain aloof from Russian politics until it was time to leave for Palestine.
The head of the secret police in Moscow, S.V. Zubatov, was sympathetic to Zionism as a way to silence Jewish opponents of the repressive Czarist regime. In her book The Fate of the Jews, Roberta Strauss Feuerlicht reports that Zionism appealed greatly to police chief Zubatov, as it does to all anti-Semites, because it takes the Jewish problem elsewhere. Both Zubatov and the Zionists wanted to destroy the Bund, Zubatov to protect his country, and the Zionists to protect theirs. Zionism’s success is based on a Jewish misery index; the greater the misery, the greater the wish to emigrate. The last thing the Zionists wanted was to improve conditions in Russia. Zionists served Zubatov as police spies and subverters of the Bund …
In his book Jewish History, Jewish Religion, Israel Shahak points out that Close relations have always existed between Zionists and anti-Semites; exactly like some of the European conservatives, the Zionists thought they could ignore the “demonic” character of anti-Semitism and use the anti-Semites for their own purposes … Herzl allied himself with the notorious Count von Plehve, the anti-Semitic minister of Tsar Nicholas II; Jabotinsky made a pact with Petlyura, the reactionary Ukrainian leader whose forces massacred some 100,000 Jews in 1918–1921 … Perhaps the most shocking example of this type is the delight with which Zionist leaders in Germany welcomed Hitler’s rise to power, because they shared his belief in the primacy of “race” and his hostility to the assimilation of Jews among “Aryans.” They congratulated Hitler on his triumph over the common enemy – the forces of liberalism.
Dr. Joachim Prinz, a German Zionist rabbi who subsequently emigrated to the United States, where he became vice-chairman of the World Jewish Congress and a leader in the World Zionist Organization, published in 1934 a book Wir Juden (“We Jews”) to celebrate Hitler’s so-called German Revolution and the defeat of liberalism. He wrote:
The meaning of the German Revolution for the German nation will eventually be clear to those who have created it and formed its image. Its meaning for us must be set forth there: the fortunes of liberalism are lost. The only form of political life which has helped Jewish assimilation is sunk.
The victory of Nazism ruled out assimilation and inter-religious marriage as an option for Jews. “We are not unhappy about this ,” said Dr. Prinz. In the fact that Jews were being forced to identify themselves as Jews, he saw “the fulfillment of our desires.” Further, he states, We want assimilation to be replaced by a new law: the declaration of belonging to the Jewish nation and the Jewish race. A state built upon the principle of the purity of nation and race can only be honored and respected by a Jew who declares his belonging to his own kind. Having so declared himself, he will never be capable of faulty loyalty towards a state. The state cannot want other Jews but such as declare themselves as belonging to their nation…
Dr. Shahak compares Prinz’s early sympathy for Nazis with that of many who have embraced the Zionist vision, not fully understanding the possible implications: “Of course, Dr. Prinz, like many other early sympathizers and allies of Nazism, did not realize where that movement was leading …”
Zionist-Nazi Alliance Proposal
Still, as late as January 1941, the Zionist group LEHI, one of whose leaders, Yitzhak Shamir, was later to become a prime minister of Israel, approached the Nazis, using the name of its parent organization, the Irgun (NMO). The naval attaché in the German embassy in Turkey transmitted the LEHI proposal to his superiors in Germany. It read in part:
It is often stated in the speeches and utterances of the leading statesmen of National Socialist Germany that a New Order in Europe requires as a prerequisite the radical solution of the Jewish question through evacuation. The evacuation of the Jewish masses from Europe is a precondition for solving the Jewish question. This can only be made possible and complete through the settlement of these masses in the home of the Jewish people, Palestine, and through the establishment of a Jewish state in its historic boundaries.
The LEHI proposal continues: “The NMO … is well acquainted with the good will of the German Reich Government and its authorities towards Zionist activity inside Germany and towards Zionist emigration plans.” It goes on to state:
The establishment of the historical Jewish state on a national and totalitarian basis and bound by a treaty with the German Reich would be in the interests of strengthening the future German position of power in the Near East … The NMO in Palestine offers to take an active part in the war on Germany’s side … The cooperation of the Israeli freedom movement would also be in line with one of the recent speeches of the German Reich Chancellor, in which Herr Hitler stressed that any combination and any alliance would be entered into in order to isolate England and defeat it.
The Nazis rejected this proposal for an alliance because, it is reported, they considered Lehi’s military power “negligible.” [For more on this, see: M. Weber, “Zionism and the Third Reich” in the July–August 1993 Journal, pp. 29–37.]
Rabbi David J. Goldberg, in his book To the Promised Land: A History of Zionist Thought, discusses the life and thought of the leader of Zionist revisionism, Vladimir Jabotinsky, who was the great influence upon the life of Menachem Begin. “The basic tenets of Jabotinsky’s political philosophy,” writes Goldberg, are subservience to the overriding concept of the homeland: loyalty to a charismatic leader, and the subordination of the class conflict to national goals. It irked Jabotinsky when, over 20 years later, he was accused of imitating Mussolini and Hitler. His irritation was justified: he had anticipated them … Given that for Jabotinsky echoing Garibaldi “there is no value in the world higher than the nation and the fatherland,” it is not altogether surprising that he should have recommended an alliance with an anti-Semitic Ukrainian nationalist. In 1911, in an essay entitled “Schevenko’s Jubilee,” he had praised the xenophobic Ukrainian poet for his nationalist spirit, despite “explosions of wild fury against the Poles, the Jews and other neighbors,” and for proving that the Ukrainian soul has a “talent for independent cultural creativity, reaching into the highest and most sublime sphere.”
In a review of the book In Memory’s Kitchen: A Legacy From The Women of Terezin, Lore Dickstein, writing in The New York Times Book Review, notes that, “Anny Stern was one of the lucky ones. In 1939, after months of hassle with the Nazi bureaucracy, the occupying German army at her heels, she fled Czechoslovakia with her young son and emigrated to Palestine. At the time of Anny’s departure, Nazi policy encouraged emigration. ‘Are you a Zionist?’ Adolf Eichmann, Hitler’s specialist on Jewish affairs, asked her. ‘Ja wohl,’ she replied. ‘Good,’ he said, ‘I am a Zionist too. I want every Jew to leave for Palestine’.”
A ‘Close Relationship’
The point has been made by many commentators that Zionism has a close relationship with Nazism. Both ideologies think of Jews in an ethnic and nationalistic manner. In fact, Nazi theoretician Alfred Rosenberg frequently quoted from Zionist writers to prove his thesis that Jews could not be Germans.
In his study, The Meaning of Jewish History, Rabbi Jacob Agus provides this assessment:
In its extreme formulation, political Zionists agreed with resurgent anti-Semitism in the following propositions: 1. That the emancipation of the Jews in Europe was a mistake. 2. That the Jews can function in the lands of Europe only as a disruptive influence. 3. That all Jews of the world were one “folk” in spite of their diverse political allegiances. 4. That all Jews, unlike other peoples of Europe, were unique and unintegratible. 5. That anti-Semitism was the natural expression of the folk-feeling of European nations, hence, ineradicable.
Nazi theoretician Rosenberg, who was executed as a result of his conviction for war crimes at the Nuremberg trials, declared under direct examination that he had studied the writings of Jewish historians [IMT, vol. 11, pp. 451–452]. He continued:
It seemed to me that after an epoch of generous emancipation in the course of national movements of the 19th century, an important part of the Jewish nation found its way back to its own tradition and nature, and more and more consciously segregated itself from other nations. It was a problem which was discussed at many international congresses, and [Martin] Buber, in particular, one of the spiritual leaders of European Jewry, declared that the Jews should return to the soil of Asia, for only there could the roots of Jewish blood and Jewish national character be found.
Feyenwald, the Nazi, in 1941 reprinted the following statement by Simon Dubnow, a Zionist historian and author:
Assimilation is common treason against the banner and ideals of the Jewish people … One can never “become” a member of a national group, such as a family, tribe or a nation. One may attain rights and privileges of citizenship with a foreign nation, but one cannot appropriate for himself its nationality too. To be sure the emancipated Jew in France calls himself a Frenchman of the Jewish faith. Would that, however, mean that he became part of the French nation, confessing to the Jewish faith? Not at all … A Jew … even if he happened to be born in France and still lives there, in spite of these, he remains a member of the Jewish nation.
Alfred Rosenberg , Zionists have repeatedly stressed – and continue to do so – that, from their viewpoint, Jews are in “exile” outside of the “Jewish state.” Jacob Klatzkin, a leading Zionist writer, declared: “We are simply aliens, we are foreign people in your midst, and we emphasize, we wish to stay that way.” This Zionist perspective has been a minority view among Jews from the time of its formulation until today.
When the term “anti-Semitism” is casually used to silence those who are critical of the government of Israel and its policies, it should be noted that Zionism’s history of alliance with real anti-Semitism has been long-standing, and this has been so precisely because Zionism and anti-Semitism share a view of Jews which the vast majority of Jews in the United States and elsewhere in the world have always rejected.
This rarely discussed chapter of history deserves study, for it illuminates many truths relevant to the continuing debate, both with regard to Middle East policy and the real nature of Jews and Judaism.
“Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech; a thing terrible to public traitors.”
— Benjamin Franklin