Archive | February 8th, 2017

Large-scale Offensive by Ukrainian Armed Forces against Donbass: Propaganda vs. Reality


Media coverage of the recent escalation in the Donbass region in eastern Ukraine has once again shown that mainstream media provides a slanted view on the military situation in the region. It is especially interesting to observe how various mainstream outlets and so-called “NGOs” blamed militia of the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) for an alleged usage of human shields in artillery duels. However, all these reports just hide how things really work on the ground.

The recent escalation began in late January starting with a large-scale offensive by Ukrainian Armed Forces in the industrial area of Avdeevka, south of the DPR capital of Donetsk. Meanwhile, artillery strikes dramatically intensified along the entire contact line.

This video is based on a military analysis by Denis Seleznev; Voiceover by Harold Hoover

The escalation deeply affected Donetsk, Makeevka, and Yasinovataya which compose a de-facto, united, highly populated, urban, complex with industrial infrastructure.

A Soviet-made 82mm mortar, widely used by both sides in the conflict, has a maximum firing range of 3km. A 120mm mortar has a firing range of 5km. D-30 122mm howitzers and 2S1 Gvozdika self-propelled howitzers have a firing range of about 15km. 2S3 Akatsiya self-propelled howitzers have a firing range of about 18km, and BM-21 Grad military rocket launcher systems have a firing range of between 30 and 40 km in case of the usage of modern rockets.

If DPR and Ukrainian artillery units want to hit each other they are pushed to deploy these weapons much closer to the contact line. In case of a real combat in the area of Donetsk, and especially in case of a counter-battery fire, DPR forces are pushed to operate from areas located close to the urban complex. Furthermore, artillery units have to maneuver on a constant basis in order to avoid artillery strikes by the enemy.

In turn, Ukrainian Armed Forces have many more options to deploy artillery and other combat systems in non-populated areas but they don’t do this because in this case they will not be able to blame DPR units for shelling some residential areas.

It’s obvious that both sides implement a kind of military censorship hiding on an official level. However, this allows the mainstream media and think tanks to highlight some facts while hiding others in order to create a wide range of media forgeries, manipulating public opinion over the conflict.

Posted in UkraineComments Off on Large-scale Offensive by Ukrainian Armed Forces against Donbass: Propaganda vs. Reality

Towards the Defeat of the Islamic State: Syrian Forces Physically Cut Off Last ISIS-Daesh Supply Line To Al-Bab

Syria army takes control of Rima Farms in Yabroud, kills many militants

The Syrian army’s Tiger Forces and the National Defense Forces (NDF), supported by the Russian Aerospace Forces, have retaken the village of Ma`zulah, the Hawarah Hill, Abu Jabbar, and Birat al-Bab from ISIS terrorists in the area southeast of al-Bab in the province of Aleppo.

The army and the NDF physically cut off the only ISIS supply line to al-Bab and de-facto closed the pocket with about 2,500 terrorists. If ISIS is not able to make a successful counter-attack soon, the fate of its forces in the area is predetermined.

Posted in SyriaComments Off on Towards the Defeat of the Islamic State: Syrian Forces Physically Cut Off Last ISIS-Daesh Supply Line To Al-Bab

PROOF that Russia and Iran Want War!

russia iran

The following graphics prove that Russia and Iran want war:

Credit: Azizonomics

25Credit: Iblagh

Credit: Al Jazeera and Google

These bad people are putting their countries closer and closer to our military bases:

Posted in USA, Iran, RussiaComments Off on PROOF that Russia and Iran Want War!

The Media is Ignoring Leaked US-Government Documents on Syria


Discussing western reporting of the Syrian war, veteran Middle East correspondent Patrick Cockburn recently noted ”fabricated news and one-sided reporting have taken over the news agenda to a degree probably not seen since the First World War”.

Professor Piers Robinson, Chair in Politics, Society and Political Journalism at the University of Sheffield, concurs, arguing

“We must now seriously entertain the possibility that the war in Syria has involved similar, if not greater, levels of manipulation and propaganda than that which occurred in the case of the 2003 Iraq War”.

An incredibly complex and confusing conflict with hundreds of opposition groups and multiple external actors often keen to hide many of their actions, how can journalists and the public get an accurate understanding of what is happening in Syria?

As governments routinely use their public statements to deceive the public, traditionally leaked government documents have been seen as the gold standard of journalistic sources – a unique opportunity to see what those in power are really thinking and doing behind closed doors.

“Policy-makers are usually frank about their real goals in the secret record”, notes British historian Mark Curtis in his book Unpeople: Britain’s Secret Human Rights Abuses.

When it comes to Syria there have been a number of US government documents leaked about US policy in the region. However, though these disclosures were reported by the media at the time, they have been quickly forgotten and have not contributed to the dominant narrative that has built up about the conflict.

As Professor Peter Kuznick noted about the American history he highlighted in The Untold History of the United States documentary series he co-wrote with director Oliver Stone, “the truth is that many of our ‘secrets’ have been hidden on the front page of The New York Times.”

For example, liberal journalists and commentators have repeatedly stated the US has, as Paul Mason wrote in the Guardian last year, “stood aloof from the Syrian conflict”. The leaked audio recording of a meeting between President Obama’s second Secretary of State John Kerry, and Syrian opposition figures last year shows the opposite to be true.

Challenged about the level of US support to the insurgency, Kerry turns to his aide and says: “I think we’ve been putting an extraordinary amount of arms in, haven’t we?” The aide agrees, noting “the armed groups in Syria get a lot of support”.

Amazingly, before noting the US had sent an “extraordinary amount of arms” to the rebels, Kerry tells the activists “we can always throw a lot of weapons in but I don’t think they are going to be good for you” because “everyone ups the ante” leading to “you all [getting] destroyed”.

This explanation of the logic of escalation is repeated later in the meeting by Kerry’s aide, who notes “when you pump more weapons into a situation like Syria it doesn’t end well for Syrians because there is always somebody else willing to pump more weapons in for the other side”.

A classified 2012 Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) report, published by the right-wing watchdog Judicial Watch, provides important context to Kerry’s remarks. In the heavily redacted document the DIA – the intelligence arm of the US Department of Defense – notes “the Salafist, the Muslim Brotherhood, and AQI (al-Qaida in Iraq) are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria” and “The West, Gulf countries and Turkey support the opposition”.

Speaking at a 2013 Jewish United Fund Advance & Major Gifts Dinner – the transcript of which was published by Wikileaks – former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton confirmed that US ally Saudi Arabia “and others are shipping large amounts of weapons – and pretty indiscriminately – not at all targeted toward the people that we think would be the more moderate, least likely, to cause problems in the future”.

It gets worse. Discussing the crisis, the DIA report notes “There is the possibility of [the opposition] establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist Principality in Eastern Syria… and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime.”

This appalling revelation was seemingly confirmed by General Michael T Flynn, the Director of the DIA from 2012-14 (and now National Security Advisor to President Trump), in a 2015 interview with Al-Jazeera’s Mehdi Hasan – and also, it seems, by Kerry when he told the Syrian activists:

“The reason Russia came in [to the conflict] is because ISIL [the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant] was getting stronger. Daesh [another name for ISIL] was threatening the possibility of going to Damascus and so forth… And we know that this was growing. We were watching. We saw that Daesh was growing in strength. And we thought Assad was threatened. We thought, however, we could probably manage – you know, that Assad might then negotiate, but instead of negotiating he got Putin to support him.”

In summary, the leaked information wholly contradicts the popular picture of western benevolent intentions let down by President Obama’s ineffective leadership and inaction.

Instead the evidence shows the US has been sending an “extraordinary amount” of weapons to the armed insurgents in Syria in the full knowledge that Salafists, the Muslim Brotherhood, and al-Qaeda in Iraq were the “major forces” driving the insurgency. They did this understanding that sending in weapons would escalate the fighting and not “end well for Syrians”.

Furthermore, the US has long known that its regional ally Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states have been supporting extremists in Syria. And, most shocking of all if true, both Kerry and the DIA report seem to show the US allowed forerunners to IS to expand and threaten the Syrian government as this corresponded with the US’s geo-strategic objectives.

More broadly, by highlighting how the US welcomed the growth of IS in Syria, the leaks fatally undermine the entire rationale of the “War on Terror” the West has supposedly been fighting since 2001. These are, in short, bombshells that should be front page news, with lengthy investigative follow ups and hundreds of op-eds outraged at the lies and hypocrisy of western governments.

Instead, the disclosures have disappeared down the memory hole, with the huge gap between the importance of the revelations and the lack of coverage indicating a frighteningly efficient propaganda system.

It is worth noting however, that as an observer and newsreader – rather than seasoned expert – there may well be important context or information of which I am unaware, which provides a different take on the leaked material. This would lessen its importance and, therefore, justify the media having largely ignored it.

Of course, the best way of confirming the accuracy and importance of the leaks is for the media to do its job and thoroughly investigate the disclosures, to devote significant resources and manpower to the story, and to ask awkward and searching questions of established power.

I’m not holding my breath.

Posted in USA, SyriaComments Off on The Media is Ignoring Leaked US-Government Documents on Syria

As Naziyahu and Theresa May Chat, a Large Nest of Israeli Spies in London Exposed


Nazi’s in London ‘Shoah’

The Israeli Embassy has seventeen Israeli “technical and administrative staff” granted visas by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The normal number for an Embassy that size would be about two. I spoke to two similar size non-EU Embassies this morning, one has two and one zero. I recall I dealt with an angry Foreign Minister during my own FCO career incensed his much larger High Commission had been refused by the FCO an increase from three to four technical and administrative staff.

Shai Masot, the Israeli “diplomat” who had been subverting Britain’s internal democracy with large sums of cash and plans to concoct scandal against a pro-Palestinian British minister, did not appear in the official diplomatic list.

I queried this with the FCO, and was asked to put my request in writing. A full three weeks later and after dozens of phone calls, they reluctantly revealed that Masot was on the “technical and administrative staff” of the Israeli Embassy.

This is plainly a nonsense. Masot, as an ex-Major in the Israeli Navy and senior officer in the Ministry of Strategic Affairs, is plainly senior to many who are on the Diplomatic List, which includes typists and personal assistants. There are six attaches – support staff – already on the List.

Masot was plainly not carrying out technical and administrative duties. The term is a formal one from the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, and it is plain from the convention that technical and administrative staff are in official status lower than the diplomatic staff. The majority of support activities are carried out in all Embassies by locally engaged staff already resident in the host country, but a very small number of technical and administrative staff may be allowed visas for work in particularly secure areas. They may be an IT and communications technician, possibly a cleaner in the most sensitive physical areas, and perhaps property management.

These staff do not interact with politicians of the host state or attend high level meetings beside the Ambassador. The level at which Shai Masot was operating was appropriate to a Counsellor or First Secretary in an Embassy. Masot’s formal rank as an officer in his cover job in the Ministry of Strategic Affairs would entitle him to that rank in the Embassy if this were a normal appointment.

The Al Jazeera documentaries plainly revealed that Masot was working as an intelligence officer, acquiring and financing “agents of influence”. It is simply impossible that the FCO would normally grant seventeen technical and administrative visas to support sixteen diplomats, when six of the sixteen are already support staff. The only possible explanation, confirmed absolutely by Masot’s behaviour, is that the FCO has knowingly connived at settling a large nest of Israeli spies in London. I fairly put this to the FCO and they refused to comment.

I asked my questions on 10 January. On 12 January the FCO asked me to put them in writing. On 2 February they finally replied to the first three questions, but refused to comment on questions 4 or 5 about involvement of the intelligence services in Masot’s appointment.

On 2 February I sent these follow-up questions to the FCO by email:

FCO Media Department have replied that they refuse to give me any further information on the subject, and that I should proceed through a Freedom of Information request so the FCO can assess properly whether the release of any further information is in the national interest.

What is it they are always saying to us: if you have got nothing to fear, you have got nothing to hide?

I am confident I know what they are hiding, and that is FCO complicity in a large nest of Israeli spies seeking to influence policy and opinion in the UK in a pro-Israeli direction. That is why the government reaction to one of those spies being caught on camera plotting a scandal against an FCO minister, and giving £1 million to anti-Corbyn MPs, was so astonishingly muted. It is also worth noting that while the media could not completely ignore the fantastic al Jazeera documentaries that exposed the scandal, it was a matter of a brief article and no follow up digging.

This was not just a curiosity, it reveals a deep-seated problem for our democracy. I intend to continue picking at it.

Posted in ZIO-NAZI, UKComments Off on As Naziyahu and Theresa May Chat, a Large Nest of Israeli Spies in London Exposed

Belgian Parliamentarian: Mainstream Media Lying About Syria


Belgian politician Filip Dewinter, who was the head of the Belgian parliamentarian delegation which visited Syrian Aleppo on Monday, told Sputnik that the mainstream media is distorting the truth about Syria. After visiting a hospital, he learned that it is actually due to Western sanctions that the hospitals are short of medicine and equipment.

“The main stop during out visit was the al Jamia hospital where we met with the chief doctor,” Filip Dewinter told Sputnik.

“He told us about the shortages of medicine and functioning equipment. Most of the equipment is not working simply because it’s impossible to buy any spare parts due to the imposed anti-Syrian sanctions. They can’t buy medicine and expendable materials because the European Union has blocked access to them,” the parliamentarian explained.

A delegation of Belgian MPs visit the temporary refugee shelter in Jibreen, Aleppo. Photo: Courtesy of The Russian Center for Reconciliation of Opposing Sides in the Syrian Arab Republic

Filip Dewinter also said that during their visit they had “political meetings” with President Assad and Minister of Foreign Affairs Walid Muallem.

“From our mainstream media we were told that Bashar Assad has had a heart attack and is suffering from heart diseases. Our meeting lasted for more than an hour and a half. He was feeling well and looked healthy and cheerful. Now I know for sure that it was fake news,” the politician told Sputnik.

He said that he discussed a number of topics with the Syrian president, including the sanctions imposed by EU, the ever changing position of President Erdogan, the meeting in Astana and future negotiations in Geneva.

They also spoke about the military operation on the ground, especially after the victory in Aleppo and about foreign mercenaries fighting in the country.

There are about 650 Belgians who have been recruited by Daesh. Filip Dewinter said he discussed with Bashar Assad how to deal with this problem in cooperation with the Belgian government.

Parliamentarians from Belgium’s Parti Populaire and Vlaams Belang parties arrived in Syria for a working visit on Thursday. On Monday, the lawmakers visited the Jibreen refugee camp in Aleppo as well as Russia’s Hmeimim airbase.

The politician added that the Syrian government was Europe’s ally in establishing peace across the Middle East as well as ensuring security inside the European Union. He thanked Russia for its involvement into the conflict and provision of humanitarian aid to the local residents.

Posted in SyriaComments Off on Belgian Parliamentarian: Mainstream Media Lying About Syria

Nazi Jewish Settlers Clear Path to Annexation with New Land Law

Israel’s Settlers Clear Path to Annexation with New Land Law
Israeli security forces gather at the Amona outpost, northeast of Ramallah, as they prepare to evict Jewish occupants. Jack Guez / AFP

The Israeli parliament passed the legalisation law on Monday night – a piece of legislation every bit as suspect as its title suggests. The law widens the powers of Israeli officials to seize the final fragments of Palestinian land in the West Bank that were supposed to be off-limits.

Palestinian leaders warned that the law hammered the last nail in the coffin of a two-state solution. Government ministers gleefully agreed. For them, this is the extension of Israeli law into the West Bank and the first step towards its formal annexation.

The legalisation law – also commonly translated from Hebrew as the regulation or validation law – was the right’s forceful response to the eviction last week of a few dozen families from a settlement “outpost” called Amona. It was a rare and brief setback for the settlers, provoked by a court ruling that took three years to enforce.

The evacuation of 40 families was transformed into an expensive piece of political theatre, costing $40 million. It was choreographed as a national trauma to ensure such an event is never repeated.

The uniforms worn by police at demolitions of Palestinian homes – guns, batons, black body armour and visors – were stored away. Instead officers, in friendly blue sweatshirts and baseball caps, handled the Jewish lawbreakers with kid gloves, even as they faced a hail of stones, bleach and bottles. By the end, dozens of officers needed hospital treatment.

As the clashes unfolded, Naftali Bennett, the education minister and leader of the settler party Jewish Home, called Amona’s families “heroes”. Prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu empathised: “We all understand the extent of their pain.”

The settlers have been promised an enlarged replacement settlement, and will be richly compensated. In a more general reparation, plans have been unveiled for thousands of extra settler homes in the West Bank.

But the main prize for Bennett and the far right was the legalisation law itself. It reverses a restriction imposed in the 1970s – and later violated by dozens of “outposts” like Amona – designed to prevent a free-for-all by the settlers.

International law is clear that an occupying power can take land only for military needs. Israel committed a war crime in transferring more than 600,000 Jewish civilians into the occupied territories.

Successive governments ignored their legal obligations by pretending the territories were disputed, not occupied. But to end the Israeli courts’ discomfort, officials agreed to forbid settlers from building on land privately owned by Palestinians.

It was not much of a constraint. Under Ottoman, British and Jordanian rule, plenty of Palestinian land had never been formally registered. Ownership derived chiefly from usage. Much of the rest was common land.

Israel seized these vast tracts that lacked title deeds, or that belonged to those expelled from the West Bank by the 1967 war, and declared them “state land” – to be treated effectively as part of Israel and reserved exclusively for Jewish settlement. But even this giant land grab was not enough.

The settlers’ territorial hunger led to dozens of settlement outposts being built across the West Bank, often on private Palestinian land. Despite the fact they violated Israeli law, the outposts immediately received state services, from electricity and water to buses and schools.

Very belatedly, the courts drew a line in Amona and demanded that the land be returned to its Palestinian owners. The legalisation law overrules the judges, allowing private lands stolen from Palestinians to be laundered as Israeli state property.

Israel’s attorney general has refused to defend the law. Will the supreme court accept it? Possibly. The aim of the “traumatic” scenes at Amona was to depict the court as the villain of this drama for ordering the evictions.

Nonetheless, there could be silver linings to the legalisation law.

In practice, there has never been a serious limit on theft of Palestinian land. But now Israeli government support for the plunder will be explicit in law. It will be impossible to blame the outposts on “rogue” settlers, or claim that Israel is trying to safeguard Palestinian property rights.

Dan Meridor, a former government minister from Netanyahu’s Likud party, called the law “evil and dangerous”. Israel, he pointed out, can have jurisdiction over private Palestinian land only if Palestinians vote for Israel’s parliament – in short, this is annexation by other means. It shuts the door on any kind of Palestinian state.

Over time, he added, it will bring unintended consequences. Rather than make the outposts legal, it will highlight the criminal nature of all settlements, including those in East Jerusalem and the so-called “settlement blocs” – areas previous US administrations had hinted they might accept for annexation to Israel in a future peace deal.

The other major danger was noted by opposition leader Isaac Herzog. “The train departing from here has only one stop – at The Hague,” he said, in reference to the home of the International Criminal Court.

If ICC prosecutors take their duties seriously, the legalisation law significantly raises the pressure on them to put Israeli officials – even Netanyahu – on trial for complicity in the war crime of establishing and nurturing the settlements.

Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Nazi Jewish Settlers Clear Path to Annexation with New Land Law

Things Will Get Worse Until the U.S. Stops Lying About Crimea


Unless the U.S. government’s lies about Crimea — the ‘Russia seized Crimea’ narratives — become acknowledged to be lies, war between the U.S. and Russia can only continue to become increasingly likely, because the world is sliding toward World War III based upon these lies, and will therefore inevitably continue that slide until these lies are publicly repudiated by the U.S. government, which is their sole source. The liar on this is clearly the U.S. and not Russia: the U.S. is the entire source for the alleged cause for war between the U.S. and Russia. 

The preparations for war between the U.S. and Russia continue naturally apace until the United States publicly acknowledges that Russia had not ‘seized’ Crimea — acknowledges that the cause for all of these war-preparations by the U.S. and its NATO and other allies against Russia is fake, a U.S. lie, and that Russia is purely America’s victim in this entire matter and acting in a 100% defensive way against America’s aggressions in this matter.

Anyone who is closed-minded to the possibility that the U.S. is lying and that Russia is telling the truth about the relationship between the two countries, would therefore be simply wasting time to read here, because the solid documentation that will be provided here will prove that that’s not only a possibility; it is the fact, and those widespread false beliefs will, indeed, be disproven here. Proving that, is the purpose of this article. Therefore, a warning is needed beforehand, for any reader who is closed-minded about that possibility — any such person would be wasting time to read this article. Here it is:

(WARNING: The following article asserts many things that are propagandized almost universally in The West to be false, and in each such instance the documentation of the assertion’s being true is provided in a link, so that any reader who doesn’t already know its truth can easily come to know that he/she had previously been deceived about that particular matter — the reader can come to know this just by clicking onto the link. This article depends upon its links, which are rooted in the most-reliable evidence on the given topic — far more reliable than any of the ‘evidence’ that’s cited by defenders of The West’s position, lies on these matters. The links are provided so that a reader can easily connect to the actual evidence, and decide on one’s own, whom the liars are, and are not. It all depends upon the evidence. Any reader who doesn’t want to know the evidence, would be just wasting time to read here.)


Obama-Trump economic sanctions against Russia are based upon the lies that are to be exposed as lies, in the links here. So too are the NATO movements of U.S. troops and missiles right up to Russia’s very borders — ready to invade Russia — based especially upon the lie of ‘Russian aggression in Crimea’. All of the thrust for WW III is based upon U.S. President Barack Obama’s vicious lie against Russia: his saying that the transfer of Crimea from Ukraine to Russia was not (which it actually was) an example of the U.N.-and-U.S. universally recognized right of self-determination of peoples (such as the U.S. recognizes to apply both in Catalonia and in Scotland, but not in Crimea) but was instead an alleged ‘conquest’ of Crimea by Russia. (As that link there documents, Obama’s allegation that it was ‘Putin’s conquest’ of Crimea is false, and he knew it to be false; he was well informed that the people of Crimea overwhelmingly wanted their land to be restored to Russia, and to be protected by Russia, so as not to be invaded by the Ukrainian government’s troops and weapons, after a bloody U.S. coup by Obama had — less than a month earlier — overthrown the democratically elected President of Ukraine, for whom 75% of Crimeans had voted. Obama’s own agents were behind that coup; they were doing his bidding. The aggressor here is entirely the U.S., not Russia, despite Obama’s lies.)

All U.S.-government-sponsored and other Western polling of Crimeans, both prior to the 16 March 2014 plebiscite in Crimea, and after it, showed that far more Crimeans wanted Crimea to be again a part of Russia as it had been until the Soviet dictator in 1954 arbitrarily transferred Crimea from Russia to Ukraine. U.S. President Barack Obama was actually insisting that Nikita Khrushchev’s diktat on this matter must stand permanently — that the people of Crimea should never be able to choose their own government, but must become ruled by Obama’s coup-installed regime in Ukraine, no matter about that new government’s intense hostility toward those peopleAnd Obama instituted the economic sanctions against Russia on this basis — U.S. as the aggressor, calling Russia the ‘aggressor’, Obama’s lying basis for ‘the new Cold War’. It’s a serious lie — no mere ‘fib’.

In other words: the renewal of the Cold War (and an increasingly hot war by the U.S. against Russia’s ally Syria, and elsewhere) this time against Russia (no longer against the Soviet Union and its communism and its Warsaw Pact military alliance, none of which even existed after 1991) is based upon Barack Obama’s refusal to allow democracy for the people of Crimea. The build-up toward WW III is that simple — a vicious U.S. lie, directed against Russia.

And that’s not the only instance where the U.S. government blocks democracy in order to conquer Russia by grabbing Russian-allied nations (first Ukraine, and then, increasingly, Syria). Twice in one day, U.N. Secretary General Ban ki-Moon said that Obama’s demand that Syria’s current President, the Russia-friendly Bashar al-Assad, must be prevented from being even on the ballot in Syria’s next election for President, is unacceptable, and that (as Ban said) «The future of Assad must be determined by the Syrian people».

Why is the West allowed to dictate to Crimeans, and to Syrians, that they cannot choose their own government?

This is the new, anti-democratic, United States government. This is the reality.

Lawrence J. Korb, who was U.S. Assistant Secretary of Defense during 1981-1985, quit the Cold War against Russia when the Soviet Union and its communism and Warsaw Pact all ended in 1991, and he wrote on 26 February 2016, headlining «Don’t Fall for Obama’s $3 Billion Arms Buildup at Russia’s Door». He was on the correct side about this, against the Obama-initiated thrust toward WW III, but he understated the evilness, by saying:

There is no Russian resurgence. Washington is playing on your Cold War fears to get you to pay for something the U.S. does not need and can’t afford. In one of the key justifications for the new $600 billion defense spending request, the Department of Defense has fallen back on a tried-and-true Cold War boogeyman: the threat of Russian aggression against allies in Europe. While there is no ignoring the Russian annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the Russo-Georgian war in 2008, to interpret these events as some kind of Russian ‘resurgence’ is to grossly inflate the danger Russia poses to NATO and the United States.

Neither in Ukraine nor in Georgia was the U.S. guiltless — to the exact contrary: the U.S. had sparked both of those conflicts on Russia’s borders. And Russia is not grabbing territory on America’s borders; the U.S. is grabbing territory on Russia’s. (Is Russia trying to overturn and replace U.S.-allied governments on America’s borders — Mexico and Canada? Of course not. But the U.S. tries to do it to Russia — and then blames Russia for what are actually appropriate responses to such U.S. aggressions.) Korb went on to say:

Though Crimea has been a historic lynchpin of Russian grand strategy for centuries, its open use of military force and political manipulation there in the midst of the Ukrainian Revolution drew an immediate response in the form of sanctions from the West. Russia is paying a massive economic and diplomatic cost for its aggression against Ukraine.

He ignored there that it was no ‘Revolution’; it was instead a U.S. coup in Ukraine, which overthrew the democratically elected government there and installed an illegal one, which was composed of fascists, who went on to do fascist things.

These euphemisms — the lies calling a coup a ‘Revolution’, and pretending that the breakaway of Crimea from Ukraine wasn’t a direct consequence of that bloody and illegal U.S. coup on Russia’s border — are what the buildup toward WW III is built upon; and, so, it must end now, or else civilization will.

Furthermore, Korb’s implicit assumption there, that post-Soviet (post-Empire) Russia, is no different from the USSR, but all just the same «Russian grand strategy for centuries», is no conclusion that he supports with any evidence, but is instead his purely unsupported assumption, which would severely weaken his case if it were true. It happens to be a false assumption. A person doesn’t become influential in governing circles in The West without buying into certain historical and cultural falsehoods; and Korb would not be cited at all here if he had not been such an influential person.

Similarly, his reference there to Russia’s ‘aggression against Ukraine’ is also a falsehood, which fits into the narrative that ‘Russia seized Crimea’, but repeating such lies is the price of admission into, or retention in, such governing circles. Whether the inclusion of such falsehoods is consciously intended or not, it increases the chances that an article in The West will be published. It’s part of the cultural mythology (such as produces almost all wars).

And, similarly, the rest of America’s Establishment trumpet such dangerous lies to the world. That too must stop, but since the U.S. press are mere stenographers for the U.S. government, the only way that it will stop, is if the U.S. government’s lies stop first.

Donald Trump, now as America’s new President, continues Obama’s lies. He was different back on 1 August 2016 when Politico headlined «Trump: Taking back Crimea would trigger World War III», and they showed video of him campaigning in Columbus Ohio saying (at 57:50-59:00 in this video) that as President he would drop the Crimea matter, because «I mean, do you want to go back? Do you want to have World War Three to get it back?»

So, he was elected on the basis of his conveying to voters that as President he would simply end Obama’s anti-Russia sanctions and NATO threats, not continue those punishments and invasion-dangers against Russians unless and until the Russian government forces Crimeans to become ruled again by Ukraine’s government (now even worse than before — Obama’s government). But once ensconced into office, Trump promptly changed his tune, in his actual follow-through, as the now-President: His agent at the U.N., America’s U.N. id at the U.N. on February 2nd:

I must condemn the aggressive actions of Russia… The United States stands with the people of Ukraine, who have suffered for nearly three years under Russian occupation and military intervention. Until Russia and the separatists it supports respect Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, this crisis will continue. … The United States continues to condemn and call for an immediate end to the Russian occupation of Crimea. Crimea is a part of Ukraine. Our Crimea-related sanctions will remain in place until Russia returns control over the peninsula to Ukraine.

In other words: Trump’s answer to «Do you want to have World War Three to get it back?» is: Yes. He actually does. (Unless he quickly renounces what she said.)

Trump’s commitment there to continue Obama’s vicious lies against Russia, instead of acknowledging that they were and are lies (which acknowledgment must be done if WW III is to be avoided), is extraordinarily dangerous. It is a commitment to WW III, because Russia is in the right here, and will never knuckle under to America’s attempts to coerce Russia to do something shameful, just because the U.S. government demands it.

A matter of fundamental principle is involved here, and the U.S. government is on the evil side of it —  even under the new President, who had promised otherwise. That’s a fact, just as much as such a statement as that «Genocide is evil» is a statement of fact, not merely an assertion of ‘opinion’. The U.S. government is on the evil side of the most important matter imaginable — potentially, WW III. (That’s what it will be unless Trump reverses himself yet again, this time with finality, by publicly acknowledging that Obama’s allegations that Russia stole Crimea were lies. That Obama’s whole basis for ‘the new Cold War’ was actually bogus. That the real aggressor in the entire matter was America.)

Anyone who seeks further background on the historical roots of this evil, is invited here to see the following three terrific documentaries that present the essential origins of it:

Those three documentaries provide the fundamental, the most crucial, history behind Obama’s escalation toward war against Russia. However, one of the essential elements of that historical background is absent from those documentaries, and it’s filled in by this article, which covers the post-1991 history — the portion of the operation that Obama was working so hard to culminate. (Another aspect that’s missing from the three documentaries is the connection to ‘terrorism’ or jihadism, and that’s covered in the links to this — and especially to this, which latter focuses on the royal Sauds’ funding of Al Qaeda.)

The basic excuse for this evil is — as the fake-compassionate (and fake-democratic, and fake anti-invasion) Obama phrased it — «There’s no formula in which this ends up being good for Russia. The annexation of Crimea is a cost, not a benefit, to Russia. The days in which conquest of land somehow was a formula for great nation status is over». He had imposed these costs upon Russia, and then he possessed the nerve there to blame Russia for doing what it needed to do, and was ethically required to do, to respond to Obama’s aggression against Russia (by way of Obama’s prior seizure of Ukraine).

If Donald Trump continues Obama’s course on this, instead of publicly acknowledges that it was founded upon the lies that Crimea’s becoming again a part of Russia constituted ‘conquest of land’, then we’re still heading toward World War III, and doing it on the basis of American lies.

The only way to put a stop to it — other than putting a stop to civilization if not to perhaps all animate life on Earth — is for the U.S. government to acknowledge Obama’s lies about Crimea and Russia, as having been Obama’s lies. It means separation from the prior Administration, on the most important issue of all; and this will require Trump to say publicly that Obama was lying about Ukraine and Crimea and Russia.

Trump thus faces a stark choice here. Either he will declare that Obama was lying about these matters, or else there will be war between the U.S. and Russia. It’s his choice.

He’s no longer just a lying and prevaricating candidate, like he was before. He is now the actual President. If he continues imposing the policy of his predecessor, it will be the end of us all. It’s his choice to make; none of his advisors can make it for him.

Posted in USA, RussiaComments Off on Things Will Get Worse Until the U.S. Stops Lying About Crimea

Trump’s assault on human kindness, cooperation and the environment

Trump and envionmental degradation

By Graham Peebles

An undercurrent of fury is bubbling beneath the prevailing gloom that is the election of Donald Trump as president of the United States.

Trump’s presidency may prove to be the final straw in the decades-long assault on social and economic justice, cooperation and solidarity which began during the reign of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan.

It could usher in an unstoppable popular uprising that unites people in common cause against the abhorrent ideals that are causing despair and anger among millions worldwide, a global campaign based on, and calling for unity, tolerance, cooperation and social responsibility.

People power

Since the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 popular protests of unprecedented scale and scope have swept across the world. Countries in every region of the world have experienced demonstrations of one kind or another. Common themes connect these peaceful campaigns: social injustice, economic inequality, political bias and environmental concerns.

Huge protests have been directed not only at governments and their policies, but also at large corporations such as oil companies and arms manufacturers.

The guiding principles for peaceful popular protests were laid out in the non-violent approach championed by Mahatma Gandhi: civil disobedience, creative public protest and non-cooperation – not against people but against their actions; not against officials but against the system they administer.

The roots of non-cooperation lie in the yearning for justice and the desire to combat the hatred and bigotry of the likes of Trump. As the reactionary, materialistic forces of the world attempt to assert themselves with increasing fury, and the political left drowns in a state of vacillation and disarray, groups of people are uniting to challenge the ascendancy of nationalism, bigotry and isolation – divisive ideals embodied by Trump whose election has emboldened far right groups all over the world.

Reckless actions

Trump came to power on a wave of deep anger, a sense of betrayal and suffering born of poverty and exclusion. As the US journalist Chris Hedges says, Trump told the people what they wanted to hear but is now “ramping up neo-liberalism… it’s going to be a naked kleptocracy, which is not what people voted for”.

There was a naïve hope that the responsibility of office would silence much of Trump’s toxic campaign rhetoric, but after just over two weeks in the White House it is clear that he has every intention of honouring his poisonous campaign pledges.

Among the many Trump policies of concern, his vile immigration policies and his approach to all things environmental are particularly alarming. Through a raft of executive orders, which are intended for use in times of emergency, he has banned nationals from seven, mainly Muslim countries from entering the US, including refugees fleeing war-torn Syria. Not only is this measure appalling, and probably illegal under international law, but it is the kind of action that is likely to increase, not decrease, the risk of terrorist attacks in the US and elsewhere in the West.

Trump’s economic and energy plans, coupled with his ignorance of the facts concerning the environment, threaten to have a calamitous impact on climate change and the natural world more broadly. He has surrounded himself with “sceptics” and climate change deniers, threatened to withdraw from the Paris Agreement on Climate Change, and after four days as president took actions that will greatly increase greenhouse gases and therefore intensify climate change.

Trump resurrected the Keystone XL pipeline which, according to Friends of the Earth (FoE), could “devastate ecosystems, pollute water sources and jeopardize public health”. If completed, the pipeline will transport tar sands oil – one of the world’s dirtiest fuels – 2,000 miles from Alberta, Canada, to the Gulf Coast of Texas and into the US oil pipeline network. During the production of tar sands oil “levels of carbon dioxide emissions are three to four times higher than those of conventional oil”, FoE says.

The pipeline would carry 830,000 barrels of dirty tar sands oil into the US every day, resulting “in climate-damaging emissions equal to adding more than 5.6 million new cars to US roads”.

In addition to this atrocious, irresponsible decision, Trump also “expedited another pipeline in the Dakotas that had become a major flashpoint for Native Americans”, the New York Times reported, and signed a directive ordering an end to protracted environmental reviews. Objections to the Dakota Access Pipelines, which would carry “450,000 barrels of fracked oil per day from North Dakota to Illinois”, were outlines in a letter signed by 37 environmental groups (including Greenpeace and FoE), sent to Barack Obama, when he was president.

Despite these environmentally destructive actions, Trump recently told automobile company executives – without a hint of irony – “I am, to a large extent, an environmentalist, I believe in it.”

Inter-related environmental crises are the greatest threat to humanity, the planet and the sub-human kingdoms, and now 62 million Americans have elected a president who fails to recognise the risks. His triumph, together with the wider successes of the Republicans, place total control of the government – the Executive, Congress and the Supreme Court – in the hands of the Republican Party which, because of its stance on environmental issues, Noam Chomsky says, “has become the most dangerous organisation in world history”.

The responsibility is ours

The answers to the numerous inter-related issues facing humanity – many of which find fertile ground in the new US presidency – are not to be found in the ways of competition and the darkness of suspicion and separation, but lie in the fertile grounds of cooperation, sharing and unity.

Solutions are, and will increasingly come from, the people, not from the current crop of politicians who are inadequate to the task, lack the imagination needed, are ideologically blinded and habitually turn to the past to meet the challenges of the present, which inevitably exacerbate the problems.

Humanity is at a crossroads, with fundamental choices to make: the likes of Trump – and he is far from alone in his perverse views – embody one way, and the millions who have marched, petitioned, demonstrated and cried out represent another, more positive and humane path. They are the vast majority and express the aspirations of people around the world for a new, fairer, saner way of living: a world in which our lives cease to be determined by market forces and a derelict, unjust economic model.

If Trump and his acolytes are to be cast aside, as they must be, we must act. The protests against his policies must be maintained and expanded, the outrage felt by people throughout the world harnessed and an unstoppable momentum for real change built.

If our collective will is to live in a world at peace, in which sharing, tolerance and cooperation prevail, we must express these ideals in our own lives and relentlessly stand up to those who work in opposition to them.

The election of Trump as president – brought about in large measure by voters’ legitimate anger at the economic injustices millions of Americans have been subjected to – is a clarion call to action: coordinated, peaceful protest, creatively presented and consistently undertaken.

Posted in USA, HealthComments Off on Trump’s assault on human kindness, cooperation and the environment

Zionism – a racist and anti-semitic ideology ‘1’




Since September 2015, the Zionist establishment and their imperialist patrons have launched a veritable campaign against what they claim is a phenomenal rise in anti-semitism. This campaign has been joined by the Blairite wing of the Labour Party who are out to get rid of Jeremy Corbyn, the moderately left-wing social democratic leader of the Labour Party. Judging by the screaming headlines in the imperialist print media, and the air time given on radio and television to this question, one could be forgiven for thinking that we were back in fascist Germany of 1935 and the Jews were at risk of losing their lives and possessions.

The Labour Party, the supporters of Corbyn in particular, according to the leading lights of this campaign, are guilty of being soft on anti-semitism. Here is a random bouquet of the headlines on this question:

  • Labour’s ‘Mayor’ savages Corbyn: Party star Khan damns leader over anti-semitism (Daily Mail, 20 September 2015).
  • Jeremy Corbyn – impotent as he fails to halt Labour’s anti-semitism (The Telegraph, 16 March 2016).
  • ‘Most Jews can’t trust Labour’: Jeremy Corbyn under fire from senior Jewish figure (Evening Standard, 17 March 2016).
  • Labour and the left have an anti-semitic problem (Jonathan Freedland, The Guardian, 18 March 2016).
  • Lord Levy ‘may quit’ Labour over party failure to condemn anti-semitism (The Express, 20 March 2016).

Naz Shah, a female Muslim Member of Parliament representing the Bradford West constituency, has been savaged for posting a tongue-in-cheek map of Israel superimposed on a map of the United States with the caption ‘problem solved’. This was three years ago and she had merely re-posted it from the website of Norman Finkelstein, renowned anti-Zionist Jewish author. The cowardly Labour leadership’s response was to suspend Ms Shah from her Party, while she was obliged to offer profuse and humiliating apologies.

Ken Livingstone, former Mayor of London, was viciously attacked for suggesting that Hitler was a Zionist. While the loose use of language by Livingstone leaves a lot to be desired, there is no question that the substance of the argument was on his side, namely, the ideological affinity between Nazism and Zionism – it being the common premise of both these ideologies that Jews were a separate people who did not belong to Germany (in this case). Blairite John Mann MP having arranged with journalists to witness his histrionics, shouted ‘Holocaust denier’ and ‘disgusting anti-semite’ at Livingstone. Even the allegedly left-wing shadow chancellor, McDonnell, demanded that Livingstone apologise. Be it said to Livingstone’s credit that he stood his ground, refusing to buckle under the barrage of accusations hurled at him. Livingstone, too, was suspended from the Labour Party.

Lenni Brenner, the famous Jewish author of Zionism in the age of dictators (Croom Helm, London, 1983), has established beyond doubt in his book the ideological affinity between Nazism and Zionism, an ideological affinity which was to be the basis of the perfidious Zionist-Nazi collaboration. At the time of its appearance, The Times published a review of Brenner’s book in which Edward Mortimer, the reviewer, described the book as “crisp and carefully documented”. Now, however, The Times is leading the charge against Livingstone and Corbyn and anyone else who dares to offend, even if ever so mildly, the Zionist fraternity and its patrons.

The charge about a rise in anti-semitism, especially among the left, is spurious and baseless. It is used by careerists to promote themselves and to pre-empt any criticism of the truly fascistic state of Israel, created through the expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians and their continued slaughter, oppression and expropriation ever since.

After announcing his intention to contest the London Mayoral election, Labour’s Sadiq Khan launched a frontal attack on Corbyn for his supposed links to “terrorist groups” and his support for “extremist” Palestinian groups which, he argued, could inspire attacks on Jews in Britain. He repeated subsequent accusations of anti-semitism against the Oxford University Labour Club for no greater sin than that of giving support to the Israeli Apartheid week.

Norman Finkelstein, in an interview at the height of this latest controversy, made this perceptive observation: “These campaigns occur at regular intervals, correlating with Israel’s periodic massacres and consequent isolation …” (‘Five Prominent Intellectuals Question the “Anti-Zionism Is Anti-Semitic” Argument’, Telesur Global Research, 11 May 2016).

Following the last major Zionist war on Gaza, which killed over 2,000 Palestinians, a quarter of them children, and in which tens of thousands of residential properties were destroyed and whole families wiped out, the Zionists received a bad press. Even the imperialist propaganda organs were obliged to give a modicum of coverage to the victims of the Zionists’ fascist Blitzkrieg. Since then, the BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) Campaign has gathered traction; people are more aware of Zionist atrocities and Palestinian suffering; no longer do the Zionists enjoy favourable opinion among ordinary people even in the imperialist countries.

In the circumstances, various “dull-witted creeps”, to use the apt words of Finkelstein, personified by Jonathan Freedland, a “Blairite hack who regularly plays the anti-semitic card”, initiate campaigns for the sole purpose of diverting attention away from the real suffering of the Palestinian people, which, inter alia, have the effect of poisoning relations between Jews and Muslims. Such campaigns, be it said in passing, have the effect of besmirching the victims of the Nazi Holocaust.

The fact is that, according to reliable opinion polls, while a mere 7% of the British public are prejudiced against Jews, a whopping 60% are also prejudiced against Muslims, and a similar proportion against the Roma. Everywhere, remarks Finkelstein correctly, Jews are prospering as never before – proof enough of them not being victims of an allegedly monumental anti-semitic campaign:

It is long past time that these anti-semitism mongers crawled back into their sewers – but not before apologising to Naz Shah, and begging her forgiveness” (Finkelstein in an interview with Jamie Stern-Weiner, 3 May 2016, in Blog, Featured, News).

It is unlikely that the Zionists and their supporters will take Finkelstein’s sane advice. In fact, the more isolated they become, the more truculent their behaviour, and the more extreme their demands. The President of the Board of Jewish Deputies in Britain, Jonathan Arkush, absurdly asserts that “there is a problem of anti-semitism on the far left, which now eclipses anti-semitism that we have always seen coming from the far right”. This was in the middle of March 2016. A few days later, he demanded that “Israel should be included in the definition of anti-Semitism by Europe” and that any hatred of Israel should be characterised as a manifestation of anti-semitism.

The anti-semitism mongers not only invent anti-semitism in places where it has little presence, they completely overlook the barely-disguised fascism of the Zionist rulers of Israel. On 8 March, the then Israeli foreign minister (he has since been given the defence portfolio), talking about the “disloyalty” of Palestinian citizens of Israel, said: “Whoever is with us should get everything. Those who are against us, there’s nothing to be done – we need to pick up an axe and cut off his head. Otherwise we won’t survive”. The imperialist propaganda machine failed even to notice, let alone condemn, Liebermann’s blood-curdling, inflammatory and downright fascistic utterance, as did certified creeps such as Freedland.

The only course open to anti-Zionists is to expose Zionism for what it really is, namely, a racist and anti-semitic (yes, anti-semitic) ideology and a reactionary tool in the hands of imperialism.

It is in furtherance of this course that LALKAR has resolved to publish two or three articles by way of this exposure. The first of these articles, printed in this issue, concentrates on the racism of this ideology and its affinity to Nazism on the Jewish question.

Informed readers are, in all likelihood, only too well aware of this fact, but there are others who know next to nothing about it. It is to be hoped that our articles will get a wide circulation and thus further the cause of fighting against this pernicious ideology, which is as harmful to the masses of Jews people as it is to the masses of Palestinian people and humanity at large.



Zionism not co-extensive with Judaism

Zionism is not now, nor was it ever, co-extensive with either Judaism or the Jewish people. The vast majority of Hitler’s Jewish victims were not Zionists.

The majority of Polish Jews repudiated Zionism on the eve of the Holocaust and in September 1939 abhorred the politics of Menachem Begin, one of the leaders of the self-styled ‘Zionist Revisionist’ movement in Warsaw.

There cannot be the slightest confusion between the struggle against Zionism and hostility to either Jews or Judaism.

In 1895 Theodor Herzl, the founder of Zionism, published Jewish State. This book laid the basis for the Zionist movement.

Believing anti-semitism to be unbeatable and natural, Zionism never fought it. Instead it sought accommodation with it – and pragmatic utilisation of it for the purpose of obtaining a Jewish state.

Overcome by his own pessimism, Herzl completely misunderstood the Dreyfus case in which a French military officer of Jewish origin, Alfred Dreyfus, was wrongly charged with treason. The secrecy of his trial and Dreyfus’s courageous insistence on his innocence, made a lot of people believe that injustice had been done. As a result, there was a deluge of Gentile support for him. The French intelligentsia rallied to his side, as did the working-class movement. Eventually Dreyfus was vindicated, the right-wing of French society and the Church were discredited, and the army top brass besmirched. Anti-semitism in France was driven into irrelevance until the conquest of France by Hitler’s army.

And yet Herzl, a prominent Viennese journalist, could see the Dreyfus affair only as a defeat, and never as a rallying cry in the fight against anti-semitism. He was incapable of understanding the significance of the wave of Gentile sympathy for the Jewish victim. He did not see fit to organise a single demonstration in defence of Dreyfus. Following the victory of the struggle in defence of Dreyfus, French Jewry quite rightly saw Zionism as irrelevant. For this, Herzl savaged them in his diary, revealing in the course of doing so his diehard anti-socialist, reactionary views”

They [the Jews] seek protection from the socialists and the destroyers of the present civil order … Truly they are not Jews any more. To be sure, they are not Frenchmen either. They will probably become leaders of European anarchism” (Raphael Pattar, Ed., The Complete Diaries of Theodor Herzl, Vol II, pp.672-673).

The views expressed by Herzl in his Der Judenstaat (‘The Jewish state’) had in fact already been expressed by two Russian Jews, Perez Smolenskin (in 1873) and Leo Pinsker (1882). Herzl’s particular contribution was the building of an organisation, the World Zionist Organisation, which held its first Congress in 1897 in Basle, Switzerland, to negotiate with imperialism for the creation of a Jewish national state. He negotiated for it unsuccessfully with the ultra-reactionary Sultan Abdul Hamid II of Turkey, with Wilhelm II, the German Kaiser, with the Tsarist regime through Count Sergei Witte (Finance Minister) and the Minister of the Interior, Vyachaslav Von Plevhe, responsible for organising pogroms in Russia.

Herzl’s proposals were always tailored to please the ears of the particular autocrat or representative of a particular imperialism with whom he happened to be having an audience. In every case “…he presented his project in a manner best calculated to appeal to his listener: to the Sultan he promised Jewish capital; to the Kaiser he undertook that the Jewish territory would be an outpost of Berlin; to Chamberlain, the British colonial secretary, he held out the prospect of the Jewish territory becoming a colony of the British Empire” (Avi Shlaim, ‘The Iron Wall).

The Zionist leadership, beginning with Herzl, was clear about two things. First, that their project could only succeed with the backing of a dominant great power; second, that its goal could only be achieved by bypassing the Palestinians, not through any understanding with them. As the dominant great power in the Middle East changed several times during the 20th century, Zionism suitably shifted its allegiance in pursuit of its reactionary aim of a Jewish homeland in Palestine.

Zionism held great attraction for the imperialist, reactionary and anti-semitic regimes. Being a reactionary nationalist movement, it held out the prospect of weaning Jewish workers away from democratic and revolutionary movements, while promising to help them get rid of their Jewish population through emigration. Zionism saw revolutionary Marxism as an assimilationist enemy which obliged them to make an alliance against it with their fellow separatists of the anti-semitic right-wing nationalist movements in Eastern Europe. The essentials of Zionist doctrine on anti-semitism were clearly set down well in advance of the Holocaust: anti-semitism was inevitable and could not be fought; the solution was the emigration of unwanted Jews to a Jewish state still to be created.

Balfour Declaration

In view of the above, it is not surprising that British imperialism, perceiving the reactionary essence of Zionism and the prospect it held for acting as a tool of British policy in the Middle East should it manage to entrench itself in Palestine. And who should be history’s chosen instrument for providing substance to what at the time was a hare-brained Zionist dream? None other than the anti-semitic Arthur Balfour, the British foreign secretary! Hence the 1917 infamous Balfour Declaration favouring “…the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people” and the promise by the British government to use its “best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object”.

The Balfour Declaration was a boon for the Zionists – not for Jewry. The Declaration was a price London was prepared to pay to get the American Jewry to use its influence to bring the US into the war, and to keep Russian Jewry loyal to the allies. In addition, a future Jewish state was to act as the outpost for British imperialism against the rising tide of the national liberation movement of the Arab people.

The World Zionist Organisation’s leaders understood that the British government’s priority was the crushing of the Bolsheviks, and that they had to be on their best behaviour in their activities in the turbulent east European arena.

Churchill saw the struggle unfolding “between the Zionist and Bolshevik Jews as little less that a struggle for the soul of the Jewish people” (‘Zionism versus Bolshevism’, Illustrated Sunday Herald, 8 February 1920).

Zionism was willing to cooperate with Britain in spite of British involvement with the White Russian pogromists.

Herzl’s successor, Chaim Weizmann appeared at the Versailles Conference on 23 February 1919, where he pronounced the traditional line on Jewry shared by both anti-semites and Zionists. It was not the Jews who really had problems, it was the Jews who were the problem.

Zionism offered itself to the assembled capitalist powers as an anti-revolutionary movement. Zionism, he declared, would “transform Jewish energy into a constructive force instead of being dissipated in destructive tendencies” (Leonard Stein, The Balfour Declaration, Simon and Shuster, 1961, p.348).

Weizmann completely shared the anti-communist mindset of his British patrons. He never changed his opinion. Even in Trial and Error, his autobiography, he still sounded like a high Tory, writing of a “time when the horrors of the Bolshevik revolution were fresh in everyone’s mind” (emphasis added, quoted by Lenni Brenner, Zionism in the age of the dictators, Croom Helm, London, 1983), p.12).

Only on the basis of an alliance with the working class and socialists could Jewish rights be obtained and safeguarded. This is precisely what the Zionists were fiercely opposed to.

The Bolsheviks gave the Jews complete equality and even set up schools and, eventually, courts in Yiddish, but they were absolutely opposed to Zionism, as indeed to all nationalism.

Bolshevism opposed Zionism as pro-British and as fundamentally anti-Arab. So the Zionists turned to the local nationalists. In Ukraine, they turned to Simon Petliura’s Rada (Council) which, like the Zionists, recruited on strictly ethnic lines – no Russians, no Poles, no Jews. The Zionists made every effort to rally Jewish support everywhere for the anti-Bolshevik Rada.

Churchill lost his gamble as, following anti-Jewish pogroms after the first Ukrainian defeat at the hands of the Red Army in January 1919, the Jewish masses deserted the Zionists.

The ideological affinity between Zionism and anti-semitism, the Zionist hostility to assimilation and Marxism, could not but incline it towards an alliance with anti-semitic nationalists and imperialism. It was not for nothing that Balfour facilitated Zionism’s entrenchment in Palestine. But for the support of the British during the early years of the Mandate, the Palestinians would have had not the slightest difficulty pushing Zionism out.

World Zionist Organisation’s policies were continued under Weizmann during the Hitler years.

Blut and Boden

Herzl was not devout. He had no special concern for Palestine – the Kenyan Highlands would do just as well for a Jewish state. He had no interest in Hebrew. With Weizmann, however, cosmopolitan Zionism died an early death. The German university graduates who took over the Zionist movement after Herzl’s death developed the racist ideology of Jewish separatism. They agreed with the German anti-semites: the Jews were not part of the German Volk. Jews and Germans should not mix sexually for the sake of their own unique Blut and, not being of the Teutonic Blut, they perforce had to have their own Boden: Palestine.

Even Einstein subscribed to the Zionist race conceptions and thus reinforced racism, lending it the prestige of his reputation. Though sounding profound, his contri-butions to the discussion are based on the same nonsense:

Nations with a racial difference appear to have instincts which work against their fusion. The assimilation of the Jews to the European nations … could not eradicate the feeling of lack of kinship between them and those among whom they lived. In the last resort, the instinctive feeling of kinship is referable to the law of conservation of energy. For this reason it cannot be eradicated by any amount of well meant pressure” (cited by Lenni Brenner, op.cit., p.21).

Zionists believed that because they lacked their own Boden, the Jews were Untermenschen and, therefore, for their ‘hosts’, little more than leeches – the world pest.

If one believes in the validity of racial exclusiveness, it is difficult to object to anyone else’s racism; if it is impossible for any people to be healthy except in their own homeland, then one cannot object to anyone else excluding ‘aliens’ from their territory.

Zionist Blud und Boden provided an excellent rationale for not fighting anti-semitism on its home ground; it was no fault of the anti-semites, it was because of the Jews’ own misfortune of being in exile.

By this logic, the loss of Palestine was the root cause of anti-semitism; therefore in the regaining of Palestine lay the only solution to the Jewish question. In view of this, is it is difficult to understand the gullible reader of a Nazi newspaper who concluded that what was said by the Nazis, and agreed to by the Zionists – had to be right?

Any Jewish movement that prattled about the naturalness of anti-semitism”, observed Lenni Brenner, “would, just as ‘naturally’ seek to come to terms with the Nazis when they came to power” (ibid.).

German Zionism, through the Zionist Federation of Germany (ZVfD), turned away from the society in which Jews lived. There were only two Zionist tasks: (i) instilling nationalist consciousness in as many Jews as would listen, and (ii) training youths for occupations useful in the economic development of Palestine. Everything else was useless.

In 1925, the most fervent expounder of complete abstentionism, Jacob Klatzin, co-editor of Encyclopedia Judaica, vividly expressed the ramifications of the Zionist approach to anti-semitism thus:

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 the anti-Semites, who want to reduce our rights, we should establish societies for the defense against our friends who desire to defend our rights” (Jacob Agus, The meaning of Jewish History, Ram’s Horn Books, Abelard-Schuman, 1963).

Instead of uniting with the anti-Nazi working class on a programme of militant resistance, the Zionist Federation of Germany leadership in 1932, when Hitler was gaining strength by the day, chose to organise anti-communist meetings to warn Jewish youth against ‘red assimilation”.

On 18 March 1912, Weizmann brazenly told a Berlin audience that “each country can absorb only a limited number of Jews, if she doesn’t want disorders in her stomach. Germany already had too many Jews” (quoted by Benyamin Matuvo, ‘The Zionist wish and the Nazi deed’, Issues, Winter 1966/7).

With views like these, he and his fellow Zionists could hardly be expected to mobilise world Jewry against anti-semitism and the Nazis. Not one demonstration against Hitler was organised in America by the Zionists before Hitler came to power. Nahum Goldmann was unwilling to work with the assimilationists.

The German Zionists agreed with two fundamental elements in Nazi ideology – that Jews would never be part of the German Volk and, therefore, did not belong on German soil. Further ideological affinity between them was based on (i) anti-communism; (ii) Common Volkist racism; and (iii) mutual conviction that Germany could never be the homeland of its Jews. Because of this ideological affinity between Zionism and Nazism, the Zionist Federation of Germany, believing that it could induce the Nazis to support them, solicited the patronage of Hitler repeatedly after 1933.

In early March 1933, Julius Streicher, the editor of Der Steurmer, declared that as of 1 April, all Jewish stores and professionals would be boycotted. In response, Rabbi Stephen Wise had planned a counter-demonstration to be held in New York on 27 March if the Nazis went ahead with their boycott. This worried Hitler’s capitalist backers as Jews were prominent throughout the retail trade in America and Europe; any retaliation by them against German companies would prove very hurtful. So they urged Hitler to call of the anti-Jewish boycott. As the Nazis could not do that without losing face, they resorted to using the Zionists to head off Rabbi Wise. Thus, Herman Goering called in the Zionist leaders. He told them that the foreign press was lying about atrocities against Jews; unless the lies stopped he could not guarantee the safety of German Jewry. Above all, the New York rally had to be cancelled. Following this meeting, a delegation of three arrived in London on 27 March to make contact with the world Jewry, where it met 40 Jewish leaders at a meeting chaired by Nahum Sokolov who was at the time president of the World Zionist Organisation. The delegation saw two tasks before it: (1) to promote Palestine as “the logical place of refuge” for Jews and (2) to head off all anti-Nazi actions abroad. The Zionist leadership saw to it that no anti-Nazi action took place in New York or anywhere else.

On 21 June 1933, the Zionist Federation of Germany sent a memorandum to the Nazi Party which was nothing short of treason to the Jews of Germany. In it the German Zionists “offered calculated collaboration between Zionism and Nazism, hallowed by the goal of a Jewish state: we shall wage no battle against thee, only against those who would resist thee” (Brenner, op.cit., p.49).

All this was taking place in complete secrecy behind the backs of the Jewish people, who knew nothing about the disgraceful machinations of the Zionist leaders acting allegedly in the name of the Jewish masses. But, kept in ignorance as they were, the Jewish masses could not miss what was appearing in the Rundschau (the organ of the Zionist Union of Germany) in which assimilationist Jewry was attacked with gay abandon.

Its editor, Robert Weltsch, took the occasion of the 1 April boycott to lay into the Jews of Germany in an editorial: “Wear the yellow badge with pride”. It blamed the Jews for their misfortunes, saying, inter alia: “..Because the Jews do not display their Jewishness with pride, because they wanted to shirk the Jewish question, they must share the blame for the degradation of the Jewry” (Davydowicz L, A Holocaust reader, Behrman House, New Jersey, p. 148).

Just at the time when the Nazis were busy throwing communists, socialists and trade unionists into concentration camps, Weltsch attacked left-wing Jewish journalists as “Jewish buffoons” (Ibid. p.149).

Be it said in passing that, although the left-wing press had been under attack from day one of the Nazis assuming power, the Zionist press was still legal.

With the ascent of the Nazis to power, racism was triumphant in Germany and the Zionist Federation of Germany ran with the winner. Rundschau of 4 August 1933 literally went mad, urging that “Jews should not merely accept silently the dictates of their new masters; they, too, had to realise that race separation was wholly to the good” (quoted in Brenner, p. 51).

Continuing it said: “Race is undoubtedly a very important, yes, decisive momentum. Out of ‘blood and soil’ really is determined the meaning of a people and their achievements”. Jews would have to make good for “the lost generations when Jewish racial consciousness was largely neglected”.

To prove that the “Jewish renaissance movement” had always been racist, the Rundschau reprinted two pre-1914 articles under the title ‘Voices of Blood’, which asserted with delirious joy how “the modern Jew … recognises his Jewishness through an inner experience which teachers him the special language of his blood in a mystical manner” (quoted in Brenner, pp.52-52).

The charitable interpretation of such kind of nonsense is that it allowed the gentry peddling it to “reconcile themselves to the existence of anti-semitism in Germany without fighting it” (ibid. p.52).

The most fervent propagandist of the Zionist Federation of Germany’s racism was Joachim Prinz who had been a social-democratic voter before 1933. He became rabidly Volkist in the first years of the Third Reich. The violent hostility towards Jews sprinkling the pages of his book Wir Juden could have been easily inserted into the Nazi propaganda. To him the Jew was made up of “misplacement, of queerness, of exhibitionism, inferiority, arrogance, self-deceit, sophisticated love of truth, hate, sickly, patriotism and rootless cosmopolitanism, a psychological arsenal of rare abundance” (cited by Kopel Pinson, ‘The Jewish spirit in Nazi Germany’, Menorah Journal, Autumn 1936).

Prinz firmly, not to say foolishly, believed that an accommodation between Nazis and Jews was possible on the basis of a Zionist-Nazi accord: “A state which is constructed on the principle of the purity of nation and race can only have respect for those Jews who see themselves in the same way” (Benyamin Matuvo, ‘The Zionist wish and the Nazi Deed’, Issues, Winter 1966-67, p.12).

After Prinz went to the US, he gave up his bizarre notions, for they made no sense in the prevailing conditions in America.

Even the Nuremberg laws of 15 September 1935 failed to shift the German Zionist belief in an ultimate modus vivendi with the Nazis.

The Rundschau published a statement by the head of the Nazis’ press association, A I Brandt, which informed, to the surprise of the world at large, that the laws were “both beneficial and regenerative for Judaism as well. By giving the Jewish minority an opportunity to lead its own life and assuring governmental support for this independent existence, Germany is helping Judaism to strengthen its national character and is making a contribution towards improving relations between the two peoples” (Abraham Margaliot, ‘The reaction of the Jewish public in Germany to the Nuremberg laws’, Yad Vashen Studies, Vol XII, p.86).

The Zionist Federation of Germany was obsessed with trying to unite the segregated Jewish institutions to inculcate a Jewish national spirit. The harder the Nazis pressed on the Jews, the greater became the Zionist conviction that a deal with the Nazis was possible. Their reasoning was that the greater the exclusion of Jews from every aspect of German life, the greater the need of the Nazis for Zionism with the aid of which to get rid of the Jews.

Although Zionist hopes for an agreement with the Nazis vanished in the face of ever-augmenting intimidation and terror, yet there was no attempt at anti-Nazi resistance on the part of the leaders of the Zionist Federation of Germany. Throughout the entire pre-war years there was only the tiniest of Zionist involvement in the anti-Nazi underground. Instead, the Zionist leaders vociferously attacked the underground KPD (Communist Party of Germany) which was the leadership of the anti-Nazi resistance

Ideological jackals of Nazism

The World Zionist leaders gave their approval to the general line of their German affiliate. Before the Nazis came to power, German Zionism was no more than an isolated bourgeois cult. Then, all of a sudden, this small group saw itself as destined by history to negotiate secretly with the Nazi regime in opposition to the vast mass of humanity and the vast mass of Jewry alike who wanted to organise resistance to the Hitlerites – all in the hope of gaining support of the deadly enemy of the Jews and general humanity alike, for the building of their state in Palestine. Mere cowardice on the part of the Zionist leadership of the Zionist Federation of Germany does not go far enough to explain the pro-Hitler evolution of Zionist racism, nor does it explain the World Zionist Organisation’s endorsement of their stance. The Zionists did not fight Hitler’s rise to power, “not out of any … cowardice, but out of their deepest conviction, which they had inherited from Herzl, that anti-semitism could not be fought. Given their failure to resist during Weimar, and given their race theories, it was inevitable that they would end up as the ideological ‘jackals of Nazism’ (Lenni Brenner, op.cit., p.55).

The World Zionist Organisation saw Hitler’s victory in the same light as the Zionist Federation of Germany – not as a defeat for all Jews, but as positive proof of the bankruptcy of assimilationism. Their own hour was at hand … Hitler’s victory was a flail to drive stiff-necked Jews back to their own kind and their own land.

Emil Ludwig, the world-famous author and then a recent convert to Zionism, in an interview given to a fellow Zionist on his [Ludwig’s] visit to America, expressed the general attitude of the Zionist movement: “Hitler will be forgotten in a few years, but he will have a beautiful monument in Palestine,” adding that the “coming of the Nazis was rather a welcome thing. So many of our German Jews were hovering between two coasts; so many of them were riding the treacherous current between the Scylla of assimilation and the Charybdis of a nodding acquaintance with Jewish things. Thousands who seemed to be completely lost to Judaism were brought back to the fold by Hitler, and for that I am personally very grateful to him” (Quoted by Meyer Steinglas in ‘Emil Ludwig before the judge’, American Jewish Times, April 1936, p.35).

Ludwig’s views were exactly the same as those of such veterans as the much-acclaimed Chaim Nachman Bialik, at the time considered as the Poet Laureate of Zionism. Because of his reputation, his statements enjoyed wide circulation, among the Zionists as well as their left-wing enemies. Hitlerism, he held, had saved German Jews from annihilation through assimilation. Like many of the Zionists, Bialik thought of the Jews as something of a superior race: “I, too, like Hitler, believe in the power of the blood idea” (Chaim Bialik, ‘The present hour’, Young Zionist, London, May 1934).

By 1934 Zionism claimed a worldwide membership of over a million.

The Ha’avara

In early May, 1935, Chaim Arlosoroff, the political secretary of the Jewish Agency, reached a preliminary understanding with the Nazi authorities to allow Zionist émigrés to transfer some of their wealth out of Germany into Palestine in the form of farm machinery. On the Nazi side, the motivation was to weaken and defeat, through dissension within world Jewry, any resolution boycotting German goods at the then-impending Jewish Conference in London and, into the bargain, push a few thousand Jews out of Germany. This coincided with the Zionists’ aims of getting German Jews, especially the young and sturdy, to Palestine and to acquire funds for the project of building a Jewish state in Palestine.

Arlosoroff visited Berlin again in June, returning to Tel Aviv on 14 June, where, two nights later, he was assassinated for his dealings with the Nazis. That, however, did nothing to retard the World Zionist Organisation’s accommodation with the vile Nazi regime, which announced the conclusion of the Zionist-Nazi Pact on 18 June – just in time for the 18th Zionist Congress in Prague.

In view of the Jewish hostility to this notorious Pact, known as the ‘Ha’avara’ or Transfer Agreement, the World Zionist Organisation leadership tried to protect itself by resort to outright lying to the effect that the executive of the World Zionist Organisation had played no part in the negotiations leading to this agreement with the Nazi government. Literally nobody believed this barefaced lie.

The controversy over this agreement continued until 1935 among recriminations. All the same, the Ha’avara grew to become a sizeable banking and trading house with 137 specialists in the Jerusalem office at the peak of its activities. It was used by the Nazis as an instrument for weakening the boycott movement through damaging the considerable political and economic strength of the Jewish community by using dissension within its ranks – a notorious scheme with which the Zionist leadership went along willingly – even enthusiastically.

Moshe Beilenson, who in 1922 had been a member of a delegation that pledged Italian Zionism’s loyalty to Mussolini, presented a spirited theoretical defence of the Zionist Nazi Pact, saying that “…verily, the Eighteenth Congress [of the World Zionist Organisation] had the courage to destroy the assimilationist tradition and appeals to others .. For generations we have fought by means of protests. Now we have another weapon in our hand, a strong, trusty and sure weapon: the visa to Palestine” (Moshe Beilenson, ‘The new Jewish statesmanship’, Labour Palestine, February 1934, pp.8-10).

Thus it is clear that to the Zionists the land of Israel had assumed greater significance than the urgent needs for survival of the Jewish people. To them, emigration to Palestine had become the sole means for the survival of the Jewish people. The millions of Jews around the world, the real Jewish people, were reduced to no more than a pool out of which they would pluck out some young Jews to build their state. Jews elsewhere, in their perverse thinking, would either be driven out, as in Germany, or assimilated, as in France. It is hardly to be surprised at that with such a warped perspective on the question of survival of the Jewish people, the Zionists were increasingly driven to seek cooperation with the Nazis in an effort to bring about the realisation of their vision.

Writing on 3 July 1935 to Arthur Ruppin, director of the Colonisation Department in Palestine, in the context of the then-impending Lucerne Congress of the World Zionist Organisation, Chaim Weizmann advised that the German question be not discussed at it, for such a discussion would prove “…dangerous to the only positive thing we have in Germany, the intensified Zionist movement … We, being a Zionist organisation, should concern ourselves with the constructive solution to the German question through the transfer of the Jewish youth from Germany to Palestine, rather than the question of equal rights of Jews in Germany” (Chaim Weizmann ‘To Arthur Ruppin’, 3 July 1935, in Barnett Litvinoff, Letters and Papers of Chaim Weizmann Letters Vol XVI, Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, 1982, p.464).

Lewis Namier, an erstwhile political secretary of the World Zionist Organisation, and a major historian of the British aristocracy, had prefaced Ruppin’s book. Knowledgeable Zionists, including Nahum Goldman, quite correctly saw him as an intense Jewish anti-semite. Such was his devotion to the gentry that he despised Jews as the epitome of capitalism, of vulgar trade: “Not everyone”, he wrote, “who feels uncomfortable with regard to us must be called an anti-semite, nor is there anything necessarily and inherently wicked in anti-semitism” (Introduction to Arthur Ruppin’s book, Jews in the modern world, Macmillan, New York, 1934, p.xiii).

Doubtless the most glaring example of the World Zionist Organisation leadership’s unwillingness to offer resistance to the Nazis was the following statement by Weizmann: “The only dignified and really effective reply to all that is being inflicted upon the Jews of Germany is the edifice erected by our great and beautiful work in the Land of Israel … Something is being created that will transform the woe we all suffer into songs and legends for our grandchildren” (Barnett Litvinoff, Weizmann – the last of the patriarchs, Hodder & Stoughton, London, 1976, p.82).

The presidium of the Lucerne Congress successfully manoeuvred to keep all serious discussion of resistance to the Nazi regime off the floor of the Congress. Even the leading American Zionists, such as Rabbi Stephen Wise and Abba Hillel Silver, who had talked a lot about boycotting German goods but done nothing in practice to organise it, capitulated to Weizmann and endorsed the Ha’avara. As a result, after the Lucerne Congress there no longer were any differences between them and the leadership of the World Zionist Organisation.

Large sections of world Jewry were incensed at the decisions taken in Lucerne. London’s World Jewry, the best Zionist magazine in the English language at that time, fiercely condemned their own World Congress thus: “Dr Weizmann went as far as to state that the only dignified reply the Jews could give was a renewed effort for the upbuilding of Palestine. How terrifying the proclamation of the Congress President must have sounded in the ears of Herren Hitler, Streicher and Goebbels!” (‘Kiddush Hashem’, World Jewry, 6 September 1935, p.1).

Going further, the Zionist leadership had secretly organised the extension of the Ha’avara system to other countries: through the creation of the International Trade and Investment Agency (INTRIA) Bank In London, it proposed to organise the sale of German goods directly to Britain. The Nazi regime had the satisfaction of this further demoralisation of the forces advocating the boycott, for it was the chief beneficiary of the Ha’avara. Not only did it help the Nazis to get rid of some Jews but, more importantly, it was of tremendous value, providing as it did the perfect rationale for all those who wanted the trade with Nazi Germany to continue. In Britain, Sir Oswald Mosely’s newspaper, the Blackshirt, could barely contain its delirious joy:

Can you beat that! We are cutting off our nose to spite our face and refuse to trade with Germany in order to defend the poor Jews. The Jews themselves, in their own country, are to continue making profitable dealings with Germany themselves. Fascists can’t better counter the malicious propaganda to destroy friendly relations with Germany than by using this fact” (‘Blackshirts peeved at Reich-Zion trade’, Jewish Daily Bulletin, 6 February 1935, p.5).

Basis for Zionist-Nazi collaboration

While the World Zionist Organisation’s bourgeois leadership was busy making deals with the Nazis, thousands of Germans, many Jews among them, were heroically fighting in Spain against Hitler’s Condor Legion and Franco’s fascist army. All that the Ha’avara did was to demoralise the Jews and non-Jews alike and undermine the forces willing and ready to resist the Nazis. It effectively removed the million-strong Zionist movement from the front line of the anti-Nazi resistance, for the World Zionist Organisation, instead of resisting the Hitlerite fascists, sought to collaborate with them.

After the war and the Holocaust, a contrite Nahum Goldmann, tortured by his own shameful role during the Hitler years, wrote of a dramatic meeting with the Czech foreign minister, Edward Benes, in 1935. Goldmann’s graphic account of Benes’ waring to the Jews says everything that needs to be said on the Ha’avara and the totally shameful failure, or rather the unwillingness, of the World Zionist Organisation to offer and organise resistance to the Nazis:

’Don’t you understand’, he shouted, ‘that by reacting with nothing but half-hearted gestures, by failing to arouse world public opinion, and take vigorous action against the Germans, the Jews are endangering their future and their human rights all over the world:’ I knew Benes was right … in this context success was irrelevant. What matters in a situation of this sort is a people’s moral stance, its readiness to fight back instead of helplessly allowing itself to be massacred” (Autobiography, Holt Rinehart and Winston, New York, 1969, p.148).

The dominant ideologist on the Jewish question was the Baltic German refugee, Alfred Rosenberg, who had developed his theories while still in his native Latvia. He, correctly, was of the opinion that Zionist ideology served wonderfully as a justification for depriving Germany’s Jews of their rights and that, perhaps, there was the possibility of future use of the movement for the promotion of Jewish emigration. Hitler began to touch on these themes in his speeches: on 6 July 1920 he stated that Palestine was the proper place for the Jews where alone they could hope to get their rights.

For Hitler the validity of Zionism only lay in its confirmation that Jews could never be Germans. No better proof could be adduced of “Zionism’s classic role as an outrider to anti-semitism” than Hitler’s own statements on the subject is his Mein Kampf.

By 1939 the SS had become the most pro-Zionist element in the Nazi Party. To commemorate Baron Von Mildenstein’s expedition to Palestine, Goebbels had a medal struck: on one side the swastika, on the other the Zionist star.

Even the Nuremberg laws of September 1935, the finishing touches of Germany’s pre-2nd World War anti-Jewish legislation, which the Nazis defended as an expression of their pro-Zionism, had the tacit approval of the wiser heads amongst the Jews themselves. All the speakers at the World Zionist Congress in Lucerne had reiterated that the Jewry of the world were to be correctly seen as a separate people unto themselves regardless of where they lived. Well then, wrote Alfred Berndt in a commentary in the Rundschau of the new restrictions: all Hitler had done was to meet “the demands of the International Jewish Congress by making the Jews who live in Germany a national minority”.

Under the Nuremberg laws, only two flags were permitted in the Third Reich – the swastika and the blue and white Zionist banner. This greatly excited the Zionist Federation of Germany which hoped that this was a sign that Hitler was moving closer to an accommodation with them. In fact it was nothing short of a burning humiliation for the Jewish people.

Heinrich Himmler was Reichsführer of the SS – in 1934 his staff presented him with a ‘Situation report – Jewish question’ which stated that the overwhelming majority of the Jews regarded themselves as Germans and were determined to remain in the country. Since at the time, for fear of international repercussions, in order to overcome that resistance, force could not be employed, the Nazis, in order to overcome their resistance, resorted to the device of installing a distinctive Jewish identity among them by systematically promoting Jewish schools, Hebrew, Jewish art and music, etc., the hope being that it would induce the mass of Jews to abandon their homeland. Since this formula was far from being effective, the Nazi policy was to give added support to the Zionists with a view to persuading the Jews to join the Zionist movement as a means of averting worse troubles. All Jews, Zionists included, were to be persecuted as Jews; however, within that set up it was possible to relax the pressure. Thus, on 28 January 1935, the Bavarian Gestapo sent a circular to the regular police that from then on “members of the Zionist organisations are, in view of their activities directed towards emigration to Palestine, not to be treated with the same strictness which is necessary towards the members of the German-Jewish organisation’s [assimila-tionists]” (Kurt Grossman, ‘Zionists and non-Zionists under Nazi rule in the 1930s’, Herzl Yearbook, Vol VI, Herzl Press, New York, 1966, p.340).

The pro-Zionist Nazi policy did not bring about the desired outcome, for the World Zionist Organisation had little interest in the vast majority of German Jews, as these were not Zionists, spoke no Hebrew, were not young enough and were not possessed of the right ‘trades’.

In November 1938 the Nazis finally closed down the Zionist Federation of Germany’s headquarters after Kristalnacht. For their dreadful conduct the Zionists could not even assert that they had been deceived by Hitler, for his race theories and views had been there in plain German since 1926. The Zionists ignored the elephant in the room, namely, that Hitler and his party hated all Jews. The Zionists chose to ignore this fact, for they “…were simply reactionaries who … chose to emphasise the points of similarity between themselves and Hitler. They convinced themselves that because they, too, were racists, against mixed marriage, and believed that Jews were aliens in Germany; because they, too, were opposed to the left, that these similarities would be enough to make Adolf Hitler see them as the only ‘honest partners’ for a diplomatic détente” (Brenner, op.cit., p.89).

Instead of accusing everyone at the slightest opportunity of being anti-semitic, the Zionists should look into their own ideology and the entire course of the development of the Zionist movement.

We shall be returning to other aspects of Zionism in future articles.

Posted in ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Zionism – a racist and anti-semitic ideology ‘1’

Shoah’s pages


February 2017
« Jan   Mar »