Archive | June 3rd, 2017

Collaboration that haunts Zionism

Tony Greenstein reviews: Paul Bogdanor, ‘Kasztner’s crimes’, Routledge, 2016, pp335, £61.59

Zionists persuaded people to take trains to Auschwitz

For years the Zionist movement defended Rudolf Kasztner – the leader of Zionism in Hungary during the Nazi occupation – against charges of collaboration with the Nazis. Yad Vashem, the holocaust propaganda museum in Jerusalem, gave its stamp of approval to the efforts to rehabilitate him. Tommy Lapid, chairman of its board of directors, is on record as saying: “There was no man in the history of the holocaust who saved more Jews and was subjected to more injustice than Israel Kasztner.”1

At first sight it is somewhat strange that Paul Bogdanor – who combines anti-communism and Zionism in equal measure – has written a book which accepts that Kasztner was a Nazi collaborator who deceived Hungary’s Jews into boarding the deportation trains to Auschwitz with false information about being ‘resettled’ in a fictitious placed called Kenyermeze. Why then this about-turn?

Bogdanor claims that he initially set out to clear Kasztner. He was “tired of seeing Kasztner’s name come up repeatedly in anti-Zionist propaganda”. Bogdanor now argues that “the anti-Zionist claim that ‘Kasztner was part of a Zionist conspiracy with the Nazis to exterminate the Jews of Europe’ is nonsense”. He was “not acting on behalf of the Zionist movement: he betrayed it”.2

In the above quotation we can see where Bogdanor is coming from. No anti-Zionist has ever alleged that there was a Zionist conspiracy with the Nazis to exterminate Europe’s Jews – this kind of falsehood is Bogdanor’s trademark. It is a straw man. The Zionist movement did, however, collaborate with the Nazis.

When I accused Bogdanor of being a columnist for David Horowitz’s Frontpage Mag,3 he denied this, despite being listed as a columnist.4 He also contributed an article, ‘Chomsky’s war against Israel’,to The Anti-Chomsky reader,5 edited by Horowitz, which is not surprising, since Frontpage Mag published Bogdanor’s article, ‘The top 100 Chomsky lies’. Bogdanor has an obsession with Jewish anti-Zionists – myself included.6

The reason why anything that Bogdanor writes should be treated with the utmost caution is his political and intellectual dishonesty. Bogdanor would defend the slaughter of the innocents if he thought that King Herod was a Zionist.

An example of Bogdanor’s method is his criticism of Lenni Brenner, whom Ken Livingstone relied on when he said that Hitler supported Zionism. Bogdanor criticised Brenner’s use of an interview with Adolf Eichmann by Wilhelm Sassen, a Dutch Nazi journalist.7 Bogdanor described this interview as a “transparently worthless source”.8 Of course, just because a quotation is from a Nazi war criminal does not make it invalid, especially given that the interviews were conducted freely, long before his kidnapping.9 Otherwise one must eschew all Nazi sources: eg, The Goebbels diaries.

Bogdanor asked if I was unaware that “Nazi mass murderers – and Eichmann above all – were pathological liars”.10 In reply I asked whether it is a principle that one never quotes or cites what Nazi murderers say? Perhaps one should not quote Nazi documents too? Sometimes even liars tell the truth. Or maybe Bogdanor is an exception to the rule?11 His response was: “Just as citing a Nazi sympathiser comes naturally to one who treats Adolf Eichmann as a truth-teller, so reliance on Stalinists is only to be expected from a writer for the Communist Party of Great Britain.”12 Imagine my surprise when Bogdanor’s book came out and there was a reference in the footnotes to Eichmann’s interview for Life magazine!13

Bogdanor is obviously unaware that the Sassen interview with Eichmann was used extensively by the Israeli prosecution in the Eichmann trial. Eichmann’s defence was that he was just following orders. The prosecution quoted from his interview: “I thought my orders through and participated in their implementation because I was an idealist.”14Eichmann was then cross-examined using the “efficient weapon of the memoir that Eichmann dictated to Sassen”.15Presumably the prosecutor in the Eichmann trial was unaware that he was quoting from a “transparently worthless source”.

The Eichmann trial, which was held in Israel in 1961, was, according to Israeli historian and journalist Tom Segev, meant to “expunge the historical guilt that had been attached to the Mapai [Israeli Labour Party] leadership since the Kasztner trial”.16

Kasztner in the dock

Ever since Kasztner had come to live in Palestine in early 1947, rumours had followed him. An inquiry in 1946 by the Jewish Agency, at the Zionist Congress in Basel, dismissed complaints brought by Moshe Krausz, who headed the Palestine Office in Budapest, for “lack of evidence”.17

Bogdanor says the Labour Zionists “felt compelled to issue a statement praising Kasztner’s ‘tremendous work during the war’” (p264). It is difficult to see why Mapai felt under any such compulsion unless they felt that a failure to defend Kasztner would also rebound on their own record during the holocaust. Nor does Bogdanor explain why “the Jewish Agency had unceremoniously fired Krausz from his post” (p270).

Kasztner, a senior official in Mapai, brought a libel action, at the insistence of the state, against Malchiel Gruenwald, a Hungarian Jew who had published a newsletter alleging that Kasztner was guilty of collaboration with the Nazis.

The first comprehensive account of what became known as the Kasztner trial was Perfidy by the Hollywood producer and screenwriter, Ben Hecht. Hecht was a supporter of the dissident Zionists, Peter Bergson and Shmuel Merlin of the Emergency Committee to Save the Jews of Europe. Bergson and Merlin had incurred the wrath of the US Zionist leadership under Stephen Wise and Nahum Goldman because they insisted on rescuing Jews, whatever the destination, whereas it was a cardinal principle for the Zionist movement that rescue should be centred on Palestine only.

When Hecht’s book came out he was demonised. My copy includes a ‘review’ article, ‘Ben Hecht’s Kampf’, by Shlomo Katz published in Midstream magazine. Hecht was subject to the same personal attacks and denigration as Hannah Arendt, whose Eichmann in Jerusalem – a book based on her reports of the Eichmann trial for the New Yorker – had touched on exactly those subjects that the trial had been designed to avoid.18Arendt described how

… the campaign (was) conducted with all the well-known means of image-making and opinion-manipulation … [it was] as though the pieces written against the book (and more frequently against its author) “came out of a mimeographing machine” (Mary McCarthy) … the clamour centred on the ‘image’ of a book which was never written, and touched upon subjects that often had not only not been mentioned by me, but had never occurred to me before.

The evidence accumulated against Kasztner, despite repeated attempts to exonerate him: for example, Gaylen Ross’s film Killing Kasztner: the Jew who dealt with the Nazis19 or Motti Lerner’s Kasztner,as well as Yechiam Weitz’s The man who was murdered twice and Anna Porter’s semi-fictional Kasztner’s train.

The holocaust historians at Yad Vashem, Israel’s official “World Holocaust Memorial Center”, led by Yehuda Bauer, have for years tried to exonerate Kasztner. Bauer wrote that

it seems to me there are not many people who [like Kasztner] saved many Jews in the holocaust. There are certainly not many who saved for sure 1,684 Jews and contributed to the rescue of tens or hundreds of thousands.20

The trial began on January 1 1954, presided over by Benjamin Halevi of the Jerusalem district court: On June 21 Halevi found that “when Kasztner received this present [a train out of Hungary for Kasztner’s friends and the Zionist/Jewish elite] from the Nazis, he had sold his soul to the German Satan.”21Halevi went on:

Eichmann did not want a second Warsaw. For this reason, the Nazis exerted themselves to mislead and bribe the Jewish leaders …The Nazi patronage of Kasztner, and their agreement to let him save 600 prominent Jews, were part of the plan to exterminate the Jews … The opportunity of rescuing prominent people appealed to him greatly. He considered the rescue of the most important Jews as a great personal success and a success for Zionism.22

On May 2 1944, 13 days before the trains started for Auschwitz, Kasztner had reached an agreement with Hermann Krumey, Eichmann’s deputy in Hungary:

Kasztner possessed at that moment the first news about the preparation of the gas chambers in Auschwitz for Hungary’s Jews … [he could] warn the leaders and the masses about the real danger of the imminent total deportation facing Hungary’s Jews, and immunise them against Nazi deceptions … The other way opened for Kasztner by Krumey was the method of rescuing Jews by the Nazis themselves, with their help, according to agreement with the heads of the SS …23


On April 24 Rudolf Vrba and Alfred Rosenberg, two Jewish escapees from Auschwitz, reached Slovakia. They described to the Jewish Council Auschwitz’s purpose (which previously had been thought of only as a labour camp) and provided details of the gas chambers and crematoria, as well as an estimate of the numbers of those killed. On or around April 29 Kasztner was given a copy of their report – known as The Auschwitz Protocols – and one was sent to his counterpart in Switzerland, Nathan Schwalb. Both Kasztner and Schwalb took a decision to suppress them:

… Kasztner understood very well … that the Prominents as a whole and his friends in Kluj in particular would not be rescued from the holocaust if the mass heard a hint about the real purpose of the operation: to save the leaders from the holocaust prepared for the people.The association with the heads of the SS, on which Kasztner placed the entire fate of the rescue, forced him to withhold his information about the extermination plans from the majority of Hungary’s Jews (p145).24

Once Kasztner had agreed to be a partner of Eichmann, there was no way out: “Kasztner didn’t want to destroy by his left hand what he built with his right …”25

Kasztner took no steps, as leader of the Jewish Agency Rescue Committee (Vaada),26 to warn other Jewish communities, despite having access to a telephone and permits with which to travel.27The evidence given by survivors of the Hungarian holocaust was that Kasztner and his friends went out of their way to deceive the Jews as to the destination of the trains. They were told they were going to be resettled in Kenyermeze.

Hecht quotes Levi Blum, who told of a 1948 celebration for Kasztner in Tel Aviv, given by those on the train, and how he confronted Kasztner:

I yelled at Kasztner, “You were a Quisling! You were a murderer! … I know that you, Kasztner, are to blame for the Jews of Hungary going to Auschwitz. You knew what the Germans were doing to them. And you kept your mouth shut.” Kasztner didn’t answer me. I asked him, “Why did you distribute postcards from Jews supposed to be in Kenyermeze?”28

Elie Wiesel, the Zionist activist, was deported with his family to Auschwitz. Their non-Jewish servant infiltrated the ghetto and begged them to come with her to a shelter she had prepared: “… we would surely have accepted her offer, had we known that ‘destination unknown’ meant Birkenau” (pp109-10). Kasztner did not merely suppress the Auschwitz Protocols. He, Vaada and the Jewish Council actively deceived Jews as to their destination. Both the Jewish leaders and the Zionists collaborated in the destruction of the Hungarian Jewish community.

Back to the aftermath of the 1954 trial. The Mapai (Labour Zionist) government submitted an immediate appeal to the supreme court against Halevi’s verdict. Kasztner’s representative, attorney general Chaim Cohen, outlined the basis for the appeal:

If in Kasztner’s opinion, rightly or wrongly, he believed that one million Jews were hopelessly doomed, he was allowed not to inform them of their fate; and to concentrate on the saving of the few … He was entitled to make a deal with the Nazis for the saving of a few hundreds and entitled not to warn the millions. In fact, if that’s how he saw it, rightly or wrongly, that was his duty.… But what does all this have to do with collaboration? … It has always been our Zionist tradition to select the few out of the many in arranging the immigration to Palestine. Are we therefore to be called traitors?29

In January 1958 the supreme court cleared Kasztner by a majority of four to one. Shimon Agranat gave the leading opinion for the majority. Kasztner “had the right to keep silent”, said Agranat, and his decision to include a high number of Zionists on the train was “perfectly rational”.30

The supreme court did not challenge the facts found by the lower court. Rather it disagreed with the verdict on political grounds. All five judges upheld Halevi’s verdict on the “criminal and perjurious way” in which Kasztner after the war had saved Nazi war criminal Kurt Becher,31 the personal representative of Himmler in Hungary.

Kasztner was extremely proud that he had rescued the “prominent Jews”.32 There was no doubt that he was aware of the fate of those who were being deported. He boasted that he was the best informed about the perilous situation of the Jews at that time: “We had, as early as 1942, a complete picture of what had happened in the east to the Jews deported to Auschwitz and the other extermination camps.”33

Chaim Cohen said:

The man Kasztner does not stand here as a private individual. He was a recognised representative, official or non-official, of the Jewish National Institutes in Palestine and of the Zionist Executive; and I come here in this court to defend the representative of our national institutions.34

Bogdanor never explains why, if Kasztner was a lone individual, he was defended so avidly by the Zionist institutions, including its supreme court.

Bogdanor’s motives

When Bogdanor says that his original intention was to write a book exonerating Kasztner we can believe him. The evidence is so damning against Kasztner that the first question to ask is why, for over 60 years, has the Zionist movement defended a war criminal who, Bogdanor admits, was a Nazi agent?

At the Nuremburg trials Kasztner had not merely given evidence on behalf of Kurt Becher of the Waffen SS, but also on behalf of SS general Hans Juttner and Herman Krumey – Eichmann’s deputy in Hungary, who organised the mechanics of the deportations. Kasztner even tried to save Dieter Wisliceny, the butcher of Slovakian and Salonikan Jewry, from the gallows in Czechoslovakia in 1948.

Bogdanor pretends that Kasztner gave this testimony as a private individual. In fact he represented both the Jewish Agency and the World Jewish Congress. Shoshana Barri concludes in her painstaking dissertation: “It is clear, however, that the Agency did know of the testimony’s existence, since Kasztner’s intervention on behalf of Becher at Nuremburg is mentioned in his July 1948 letter to Kaplan.”35 Kasztner emphasised in his Nuremburg statement of August 4 1947 that “he was testifying not only on his own behalf, but on behalf of the Jewish Agency and the World Jewish Congress”.36

Bogdanor argues, citing an interview in Ha’aretz of December 2 1994 (conducted by Gideon Raphael, who helped found Israel’s foreign ministry), that both he and Eliahu Dobkin of the Jewish Agency had strongly objected to Kasztner testifying on behalf of the Jewish Agency. Dobkin, who was a signatory to Israel’s Declaration of Independence, denied at the trial that he had even heard of Becher. Raphael in the same interview accepted that Dobkin’s testimony at the Kasztner trial – ie, that he had never heard of Becher – was a lie. Barri refers to archival material of the Jewish Agency, which suggests that they knew of Kasztner’s testimony on behalf of Becher.

Bogdanor asks why Kasztner changed his testimony between September 1945 – when he gave an affidavit condemning Becher, Krumey and company as cold-blooded killers – and January 1946, when he called them rescuers. Why did he again change his mind when he wrote a 300-page report for the Jewish Agency in the summer of 1946, before giving his testimony at Nuremburg in 1947? Bogdanor suggests that Kasztner was coming under pressure from holocaust survivors arriving in Israel, who alleged that he was a collaborator. According to Bogdanor, the way to clear his name was to show that these Nazi war criminals had actually been going around with Kasztner saving Jews from extermination. In other words the best way for Kasztner to prove he was not a collaborator was by testifying in favour of Nazi war criminals!

What this crackpot theory demonstrates is that Bogdanor will go to any lengths in order not to reach the most obvious answers. The reason that the Zionist leadership in Israel had no objection to Kasztner’s testimony was because they knew that they too were equally guilty (pp254-59). After the war the Israeli state employed Nazi war criminals like Walter Rauff, the inventor of the gas truck. Clearly there was no principled objection to Kasztner’s testifying on behalf of Nazi war criminals.37

What is remarkable about Bogdanor’s book is that it contains very little that was not already known. The primary evidence against Kasztner came from the survivors of the Hungarian holocaust, who testified that they had been deliberately fed misinformation to persuade them that they should board the trains. Bogdanor tries to exonerate the Zionist movement by pretending that, but for Kasztner, the Zionist resistance and Hehalutz youth movement would have led an uprising and that the deportations would have been foiled. Randolf Braham, the historian of the Hungarian holocaust, quotes Gyula Kádár, the former head of the Hungarian military intelligence service, as saying that “If [Hungary] had had as many ‘resistance fighters’ before March 19 1944 as it had in May 1945 and later, Hitler would not have risked the occupation of the country.”38According to Edmund Veesenmayer, Hitler’s plenipotentiary in Hungary, “a day in Yugoslavia was more dangerous than a year in Hungary”.39

Braham writes that ‘Like the claims of many other rescuers, the post-war accounts by their leaders are also sometimes self-serving and shrouded in myths…. One cannot possibly determine the exact number of Jews who were actually rescued by the Halutzim. Their rescue and relief operations, however relatively modest, were real. The myths lie in the leaders’ basically self-aggrandizing post-war accounts that exaggerate both the scope and accomplishments of these operations.’

Braham specifically mentions Professor Yehudah Bauer’s reliance on ‘self-serving testimonies’ that Joszef Meir, of the left-Zionist Ha-Shomer ha-Za’ir, was involved “in sabotage and the derailing of trains” commenting caustically that ‘No corroboration for this claim has been found to date.’40Approximately 1,500 Hungarian Jews escaped across the Hungarian-Romanian border, the majority of whom “managed to save themselves without the aid of any rescue groups”.41Braham quotes Gyula Kádár: “Had Hungary had as many mass rescuers during the German occupation period as were identified or self-proclaimed after the war, most of the Jews of Hungary would have survived the holocaust.” Braham concludes that “there is a potential danger that the myths of rescue, if left unchallenged, may acquire a life of their own, threatening the integrity of the historical record of the holocaust.”

The problem with Bogdanor’s account of the Kasztner affair is that he has no integrity. His only concern is to exculpate a Zionist movement that even the most assiduous and devoted of Zionist historians – such as Shabtai Teveth, Ben Gurion’s official biographer – raise serious questions about. Teveth titled the chapter on the holocaust in his biography of Ben Gurion ‘Disaster means strength’, writing that “the war and the holocaust were not in his power to control, but he again resolved to extract the greatest possible benefit from the catastrophe”. Teveth concluded: “If there was a line in Ben Gurion’s mind between the beneficial disaster and an all-destroying catastrophe, it must have been a very fine one.”42 Such subtleties entirely pass Bogdanor by.

Vaada, which was formed in January 1943, allegedly gave assistance to refugees from Poland, Vienna and other Nazi-occupied countries. One suspects that it mainly confined its assistance to Zionists. In his first chapter, ‘The underground’, Bogdanor leads us to believe that there was a veritable rescue organisation that saved up to 25,000 Jews. In fact most Jews who escaped to Hungary from Slovakia and other countries did so without any help from Vaada.

Rudolph Vrba gives us an insight into how Vaada operated, when he described how he fled as a boy of 17 across the border from Slovakia to Hungary. In Budapest he went to the headquarters of the Zionist organisation. After having told his story,

a stern-faced man in his middle-30s responded: “You are in Budapest illegally. Is that what you are trying to say?” “Yes.” “Don’t you know you are breaking the law?” I nodded, wondering how a man with such a thick skull could hold down what seemed like a responsible position. “And you expect to get work here without documents?” “With false documents.”

At this point Vrba remarks that, if he had torn up the Talmud and jumped on it,

I do not think I could have shocked him more … he roared: “Don’t you realise that it’s my duty to hand you over to the police?” Now it was my turn to gape. A Zionist handing a Jew over to fascist police? I thought I must be going mad. “Get out of here! Get out as fast as a bad wind!” I left, utterly bewildered. It was nearly three years before I realised just what [the National Hungarian Jewish Relief Action] and the men inside it represented.

Vrba was forced to make his way back to Slovakia. Caught at the border, he ended up in Majdanek concentration camp and then Auschwitz.43

Time and again in his book Bogdanor betrays his primary motivation – to exonerate the Zionist movement at Kasztner’s expense. When he mentions the leaders of the Central Jewish Council he describes these bourgeois worthies – led by Samu Stern, a friend of Hungarian regentMiklós Horthy – as “anti-Zionist personalities”. They were nothing of the kind. Their distinguishing feature was that they were bourgeois politically. As even Bogdanor mentions, Abwehr (Nazi intelligence) agents “offered Kasztner’s committee control over the official Judenrat” (p19).

Bogdanor cites Alex Weissberg when accepting that “in the few days that followed the German invasion we became the leaders of Hungarian Jewry. Even Samu Stern deferred to their decisions” (p24). Bogdanor cites the testimony of Kasztner at the trial: “The Judenrat body handling the provincial towns was a Zionist body” (p101). Vaada had immunity passes and were able to use their own cars, had telephones and did not have to wear the yellow star.

Representative of Zionism

What then can be said in favour of Bogdanor’s book? There can be little doubt now as to the role of Kasztner in betraying and deceiving the Jews of Hungary – not least in his home town of Cluj (Kolosvar), which was only two-three miles from the Romanian border. In falsely claiming that it was impossible to cross because the Nazis had increased their patrols, Kasztner actively helped send the Jews of that region to their death. It is a fact that most of those who attempted to cross that border actually succeeded.

Bogdanor’s recounting of the testimony of the Hungarian holocaust survivors in the Kasztner trial and how they were tricked into getting onto the trains is revealing (pp89-94), although most of this too is in Perfidy. But his suggestion that Kasztner acted as a lone wolf is unsustainable. He was one of a number of members of Vaada and all but one survived the holocaust (pp52-56). The suggestion that “the Jewish Agency was being deceived by Kasztner” has no foundation. By his own account, the Jewish Agency ‘Rescue Committee’ had been transformed into “a client body of the most dangerous Nazis” in the SS (p59). Even Bogdanor is forced to admit, regarding Palestine, that there was a “disastrous aversion of the Labour Zionists to publicity in matters of rescue” (note 16, p85).44However, he never asks why this was the case.

Repeatedly the Jewish Agency executive in Jerusalem refused to take the Nazi threat to Hungarian Jewry seriously. Vanya Pomerantz, a member of the agency’s Istanbul mission, informed them on May 25 1944 that 12,000 Jews a day would be deported, beginning the following week (in fact the deportations had already begun). Yitzhak Gruenbaum was alone in describing the Nazi ‘offer’ as a “satanic provocation”.45Bogdanor says that at their meeting of June 11 (and also May 25) Gruenbaum’s colleagues, including Ben Gurion, were “confused” because of Nazi deception.

Given that over five million Jews had already been murdered by the Nazis, it was obvious that the Jews of Hungary were in mortal danger. It was not ‘confusion’, but indifference, that led the Jewish Agency executive initially to reject even a call on the Allies to bomb Auschwitz or the railway lines leading to the camp. They had a more important priority: building their racist state. The fact that it was the Swiss, not the Palestinian, press that broke the news of the deportations, which led to Horthy putting an end to them, speaks volumes. The Jewish Agency was content with private, routine pleas to the Allies. It undertook no propaganda campaign to put pressure on the Horthy regime.

It took the Czech government in exile and the Swiss press, at the end of June, in tandem with Pope Pius XII, King Gustav of Sweden and the American bombing of Budapest on July 2 1944, to halt the deportations to Auschwitz. Despite the Zionist axiom that Jews can only rely on other Jews, it is a fact that it was non-Jews, not the Zionists, who saved a quarter of a million Hungarian Jews. It was the Swedish count, Folke Bernadotte, who was responsible for negotiating with Himmler for the rescue of over 30,000 concentration camps inmates; and Swedish diplomat Raoul Wallenberg who was responsible for rescuing thousands of Jews in Budapest. Bernadotte’s reward was to be murdered by pro-Nazi Zionist terrorists of the Stern Gang, with the knowledge and support of the Labour Zionist Haganah, in Jerusalem in September 1948 (pp130-31). Wallenberg died at the hands of the Stalinist criminals in Russia.

Bogdanor accepts that Kasztner had been “recruited as a collaborator by the Nazis” (p71), but this is, of course, exactly what anti-Zionists have maintained for years! And his conclusion – that Kasztner claimed false credit regarding the Jews sent to Strasshoff in Vienna (some 12,000-16,000 of whom survived, because the Nazis needed labour to dig anti-tank ditches) – is well known. I also agree with his conclusion regarding the Nazi offer of one million Jews in exchange for 10,000 trucks to be used against the Russians in the east – the so-called ‘Blood for Trucks’ deal.46 It was clearly meant to distract from the deportations.

What is abundantly clear from Bogdanor’s book is that the Zionist movement did indeed collaborate with the Nazis during the war and obstructed the rescue attempts of others. This continues to haunt the Zionist movement today, Bogdanor notwithstanding.


1. Ha’aretz July 23 2007:


3. ‘Why Ken Livingstone got it right over Nazi support for Zionism’, June 17 2016:



6. ‘Tony Greenstein and the Nazi apologists’:

7. Reprinted on the Nizkor site, which is dedicated to rebutting holocaust denial:



10. ‘Tony Greenstein’s house of cards’:

11. ‘Paul Bogdanor and the Zionist three-card trick – why Ken Livingstone was right’ (part 2):

12. ‘Tony Greenstein’s sleight of hand‘:

13. Bogdanor, p27, note 1.

14. S Minerbi The Eichmann trial diary New York 2011, p144.

15. Ibid p152.

16. T Segev The seventh million New York 1993, p328.

17. Ibid p258.

18. New Yorker February 16 1963 and subsequent issues:


20. ‘Israel Kasztner vs Hannah Szenes: who was really the hero during the holocaust?’:

21. B Hecht Perfidy New London 1997, p180.

22. Ibid pp179-80.

23. Part of Akiva Orr’s contribution to Jim Allen’s book, Perdition: a play in two acts (London 1987), pp88-89.

24. Ibid pp91-92. In fact that information was sent to Schwalb almost immediately. See F Baron, ‘The “myth” and reality of rescue from the holocaust: the Karski-Koestler and Vrba-Wetzler reports’ The Yearbook of the Research Centre for German and Austrian Exile Studies No2 (2000), pp171-208.

25. A Orr, p90.

26. Porter confirms that Kasztner’s job was co-funded by the US-based Joint Distribution Committee, a non-Zionist Jewish charity, along with the Jewish Agency. The latter had sought to set up a Relief and Rescue Committee in Budapest, only to find that one had already been established (A Porter Kasztner’s train London 2009, p61). Akiva Orr describes Kasztner’s Relief Committee as “affiliated” to the Jewish Agency Relief Committee in Palestine (in J Allen Perdition: a play in two acts London 1987, p81). Krausz was a member of the religious Zionist Mizrahi, whereas the Jewish Agency was controlled by Mapai. Randolf Braham says: “The Rescue Committee of Budapest was established early in 1942, under the auspices of the Rescue Department of the Jewish Agency for Palestine” (Patterns of Jewish leadership in Nazi Europe 1933-1945 p281, Jerusalem 1979).

27. B Hecht Perfidy New London 1997, pp113-15.

28. Ibid p109-10.

29. B Hecht Perfidy New London 1997, p195.

30. Lob p280.

31. B Hecht Perfidy New London 1997, p247.

32. H Arendt Eichmann in Jerusalem Old Saybrook 2011, p132; RL Braham The politics of genocide – holocaust in Hungary Hilberg 1981, p134.

33. RL Braham The politics of genocide – holocaust in Hungary Hilberg 1981, p881.

34. B Hecht Perfidy New London 1997, p268, note 159.

35. Kaplan was the Jewish Agency treasurer, as well as being Israel’s first finance minister and deputy prime minister.

36. S Barri (Ishoni), ‘The question of Kasztner’s testimonies on behalf of Nazi war criminals’ Journal of Israeli History 18: 2, 144 (1997).


38. RL Braham, ‘Rescue operations in Hungary: myths and realities’ East European Quarterly Vol 38, summer 2004, p173.

39. Ibid p990.

40. Ibid pp37-39.

41. Bauer estimates that up to 5,000 escaped – Y Bauer Jews for sale? Yale 1996, p160.

42. S Teveth The burning ground 1886-1948 Boston 1987, pp854, 851.

43. R Vrba I cannot forgive London 1964, pp27-28.

44. Citing Shabtai Beit-Zvi’s Post-Ugandan Zionism on trial Tel Aviv 1991.

45. S Beit-Zvi Post-Ugandan Zionism on trial Tel Aviv 1991, p316 – citing Jewish Agency minutes of May 25 1944.

46. See ‘Zionist-Nazi collaboration and the holocaust: a historical aberration? Lenni Brenner revisited’ Holy Land Studies 13.2 (2014), pp187-212.

Posted in ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Collaboration that haunts Zionism

1967 SIX-DAY WAR: 50 Years Later


We will continue to update this section of commentary and analysis from a variety of sources.

Hassam, 11, in front of Israel’s concrete apartheid wall after school in Bethlehem’s Aida refugee camp, March 23, 2006. The wall, ruled illegal by the International Court of Justice in 2004, blocks access between Bethlehem and Israel, and separates Jerusalem from the West Bank. (Photo by Paula Bronstein/Getty Images)

Title Created Date
The Washington Post: The lonely journey of a Palestinian cancer patient May 28 2017
The Washington Post: The $1.4 billion bet on a new Palestinian future May 28 2017
The Washington Post: A Palestinian’s daily commute through an Israeli checkpoint May 28 2017
Jonathan Cook: 50 Years of Shame Apr 17 2017
Gideon Levy: Israel’s Nakba Apr 15 2017

Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZI, Human RightsComments Off on 1967 SIX-DAY WAR: 50 Years Later

1967 SIX-DAY WAR: The Golan Heights

Posted in ZIO-NAZI, SyriaComments Off on 1967 SIX-DAY WAR: The Golan Heights

USS Liberty: 1967 SIX-DAY WAR

Surviving USS Liberty crewmembers following Israel’s June 8, 1967 attack on their unarmed ship in international waters. (

Title Created Date
Assault on the Liberty Apr 1982
USS Liberty: Questions Persist May 1985
The USS Liberty: The Scandal That Refuses to Die Dec 1985
Book Review: Assault on the Liberty Apr 1986
The USS Liberty: A Demon That Won’t Go Away Jun 1986
Why the USS Liberty Story Has Been Suppressed Jun 1988
USS Liberty 22nd Anniversary Jun 1989
The USS Liberty Heroes Honored Sep 1989
USS Liberty Memorial Library Enjoys Busy First Year Jun 1990
USS Liberty Revisited: New Information, Still No Investigation Jun 1990
Israel’s Attack on the USS Liberty: Cracks in the 25-Year Cover-Up Jun 1992
A Minnesota Town’s Veterans Honor Crew of USS Liberty Dec 1992
The Assault on the USS Liberty Still Covered Up After 26 Years Jun 1993
The USS Liberty Makes Waves in Minnesota Sep 1993
In Memoriam: USS Liberty Survivor Thomas R. Reilly, Jr. 1947-1993 Jun 1994
Remembering the USS Liberty: The Secret War Against the Jews—A Litany of Lies Jun 1995
The USS Liberty: Dissenting History vs. Official History Jul 1995
Anniversary of a 30-Year Investigation: USS Liberty: Periscope Photography May Finally Reveal Truth Jun 1997
Even as USS Liberty’s Heroic Captain Receives New Honor, Coverup of Israeli Attack on His Ship Continues Mar 1998
The Liberty Incident Jun 1999
The Israeli Attack on the USS Liberty, June 8, 1967, And the 32-Year Cover-up That Has Followed Dec 1999
History Channel’s “Cover Up: Attack on the USS Liberty” Gives Crew Chance to Tell Their Story Oct 2001
Refusal to Investigate Israel’s 1967 Attack on USS Liberty a “No-Brainer”: One Legislator’s Story Jan 2002
Loss of Liberty & Umm Kulthum: A Voice Like Egypt Mar 2002
The USS Liberty: Still Covered Up After 35 Years Jun 2002
While Facts of Liberty Attack Are Clear, Questions of Motive, Cover-Up Remain Aug 2002
Death on the USS Liberty: Questions Remain After 35 Years Jan 2003
Navy Captain, Other Officials Call for Investigation of Israel’s Attack on USS Liberty Jul 2003
National Security Agency Documents on Attack on USS Liberty Prove What? Sep 2003
Mohamed Mabrook Wonders What Happened to “Liberty and Justice for All” Nov 2003
Cristol Claim of 13 Investigations Into Israel’s Attack on USS Liberty a Travesty Dec 2003
Those Not Invited to Speak Steal the Show at State Department Liberty Discussion Mar 2004
Attack on the Liberty: Lifting the “Fog of War” Jun 2004
Bulletin Board: Sabeel Events, Study Tour, Music Seminar, USS Liberty Reunion, Film Award, Death Mar 2005
USS Liberty: 38 Years and Counting May 2005
USS Liberty Veterans Present Pentagon With Report on Israeli War Crimes Aug 2005
Washington’s Fateful Cover-Up of Israel’s Attack on the USS Liberty Aug 2005
USS Liberty and the NSA: One Deceit Too Many? May 2006
Arab-American Activism: An Arab-American Agenda for Security, Liberty and Peace Dec 2006
Four Decades of Twisting Facts About Israel’s Attack on the USS Liberty May 2007
USS Liberty Ceremony at Navy Memorial Aug 2007
USS Liberty Crew Waits 40 Years For Investigation Aug 2007
Waging Peace: Ray McGovern on the USS Liberty Dec 2008
The Attack on the Liberty: The Untold Story of Israel’s Deadly 1967 Attack on a U.S. Spy Ship Jul 2009
USS Liberty Crew Tries To Give Obama a Jacket Aug 2009
What He Said: Liberty Author Responds to Washington Post Readers Sep 2009
USS Liberty Memorial Unveiled in Rochester Aug 2010
What Happened to the USS Liberty? Aug 2010
John M. Hrankowski (1946-2011): A USS Liberty Hero Dies Without Seeing Justice May 2011
Poignant and Proud USS Liberty Memorial Aug 2011
Sailing 8,000 Miles to Hold a Memorial Service for USS Liberty Fallen, Survivors Nov 2011
USS Liberty Survivors Deserve a “Welcome Home” May 2012
Remembering the USS Liberty Jul 2012
Iowa Veterans For Peace Screen USS Liberty Documentary Aug 2012
USS Liberty Archive May 2013
Attacks on USS Liberty vs. Benghazi May 2013
Friendless Fire Article for Liberty Article in this issue Jul 2013
USS Liberty Survivors Mourn at the Tomb of the Unknowns Aug 2013
In Memoriam: Rear Admiral Merlin Staring (1919-2013) Worked to Expose USS Liberty Cover-up Sep 2013
Liberty Incident Author Jay Cristol Still Won’t Let Survivors Tell Their Story Jun 2014
Waging Peace: USS Liberty Survivors Gather at Navy Memorial Aug 2014
Al Jazeera Airing Documentary on USS Liberty Oct 2014
Behind the USS Liberty Cover-up Jan 2015
Remarks on the Anniversary of Israel’s 1967 Attack on the USS Liberty Aug 2015
USS Liberty Memorial: The Truth Has Yet to Be Told Aug 2015
Human Rights: USS Liberty Servicemen Honored in Day of the Dead Observance Jan 2016
No “Explanation” Disproves Israel’s Guilt in 1967 Attack on USS Liberty Jun 2016
49 Years On, Still No “Explanation” for USS Liberty Attack Jun 2016
Liberty Survivors Say U.S. Still Plays Down Israel’s Attack on Ship Jun 2016
50 Years Later: Will the Crew of the USS Liberty Ever Receive Justice? May 2017

Posted in USA, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on USS Liberty: 1967 SIX-DAY WAR


Six Days in June

An Israeli soldier watches Palestinian refugees crossing the war-torn Allenby Bridge to reach the east bank of the Jordan River, June 22, 1967. In the Six-Day War, which it launched on June 5, Israel suffered around 700 fatalities, while estimates of the numbers of Arabs killed range from just over 11,000 to 21,000, with the Egyptians paying the heaviest price. Some 350,000 Palestinians fled the newly occupied regions to take up residence in neighboring states, from which most have never been able to return, and are still living in refugee camps. (AFP/Getty Images)

The War that Changed the Issue
When Israelis Resumed the 1948 War in 1967, My Palestinian Grandmother Refused to Flee Again
The Nakba Continues: Proof Found That in 1967 Israel Destroyed Centuries-Old Jerusalem Mosque

Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on 1967 SIX-DAY WAR

Washington Report Special Resource on the 1967 Six-Day War and Its Aftermath


This month marks the 50th anniversary of the 1967 Six-Day War in which Israel seized control of all of Palestine. In observance of this devastating anniversary, the Washington Report has compiled 35 years worth of articles it has published about the Six-Day War.

The articles are organized into five categories (see below): A Pre-Planned War of Choice; Six Days in June; USS Liberty; the Golan Heights; and 50 Years Later…

We invite you to take advantage of this invaluable resource and share it with others who want to know the full story behind Israel’s decision to attack an Arab neighbor, its deliberate killing of 34 American sailors and wounding of 171 more, and the consequences of those decisions for Palestinians, Syrians, Americans and Israelis alike. The Six-Day War was a major turning point in the history of the Middle East, and its reverberations continue today.

AET’s Middle East Books and More is offering limited quantities of Donald Neff’s classic book on the Six-Day War, Warriors for Jerusalem, and Liberty survivor Ernest A. Gallo’s Liberty Injustices. Also available are:

Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Washington Report Special Resource on the 1967 Six-Day War and Its Aftermath

How Nazi regime moves in Jerusalem are scotching Trump’s “ultimate deal”

How Israeli moves in Jerusalem are scotching Trump’s “ultimate deal”
Trump at the Western Wall

By Jonathan Cook in Nazareth

A decision by Donald Trump on 1 June could prove fateful for the immediate future of Jerusalem, the wider Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the region.

He must decide whether to renew a presidential waiver, signed by his predecessor, Barack Obama, that expires on that day. The six-month waiver delays implementing a law passed by Congress in 1995 that requires the US to recognise occupied Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and relocate its embassy there from Tel Aviv.

Coup de grâce to “two-state solution”

It is a law every president for the past 22 years has baulked at. It would pre-empt the Oslo accords and negate Washington’s assumed role as “honest broker”. Carrying out Congress’s wish would deny the Palestinians East Jerusalem, the only credible capital of a future Palestinian state.

But equally significantly, the law would recognise Israel’s efforts to claim sovereignty over the Old City’s holy places, especially the incendiary site of Al-Aqsa mosque. That could provoke a conflagration both locally, among Palestinians, and more generally in the Middle East.

Trump’s key advisers are reported to be bitterly divided. Some, such as Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, warn that, if the president fails to approve the deferral, his claims to be crafting the “ultimate deal” to bring peace to the region will be doomed from the outset.

Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and his allies, including in the US Congress, are doing their best to put pressure on Trump in the opposite direction.

On 28 May, Netanyahu staged a provocative stunt, holding his weekly cabinet meeting in a tunnel under Al-Aqsa mosque compound to announce measures to bring millions more Jewish visitors to the occupied Old City, including a new cable car to the edge of the mosque.

It was Netanyahu’s decision to open the Western Wall Tunnel in 1996, when he first became prime minister, that brought the Oslo process into almost terminal crisis at an early stage. Three days of clashes killed more than 100 Palestinians and 17 Israeli soldiers.

Celebrating the occupation

On 6 June, meanwhile, the US Congress and Israel’s parliament in Jerusalem are due to celebrate the 50th anniversary of Israel’s illegal occupation of the city in a ceremony conducted via video link.

The Jerusalem Post reported on 29 May that either Trump or Vice-President Mike Pence are due to participate, in what could be interpreted as the first tacit recognition by the White House of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.

Christian evangelicals paid for dozens of billboards across Jerusalem reminding Trump that he won the election only because of their votes – and that they expect the US embassy to be moved to Jerusalem.

That would be a continuation of Trump’s break with official US policy towards Jerusalem during his visit to the region last week. He became the first sitting president to visit the Jewish prayer plaza at the Western Wall, below Al-Aqsa. It was unclear whether his advisers had explained that where he stood had been a Palestinian neighbourhood 50 years ago, before it was ethnically cleansed.

Trump stuffed a note into the wall, in what observers hoped was a plea for divine help in solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

But the Western Wall visit was more probably an effort to placate his core supporters. Christian evangelicals paid for dozens of billboards across Jerusalem reminding Trump that he won the election only because of their votes – and that they expect the US embassy to be moved to Jerusalem.

Netanyahu’s gross mendacity

The day after Trump’s departure, Netanyahu exploited the president’s attendance at the wall to further damage prospects for peacemaking. He made a provocative speech to mark “Jerusalem Day”, Israel’s annual show of strength in East Jerusalem.

He claimed that Trump had disproved the “lies” promoted by the United Nations cultural body, UNESCO, when it voted this month to re-state that Jerusalem is occupied.

In truth, it was Netanyahu who indulged in gross mendacity, claiming that East Jerusalem had been “desolate” and “neglected” before its occupation. Israel had “redeemed” the city, he said, while Al-Aqsa mosque would “always remain under Israeli sovereignty”.

Those expecting miracles of Trump are going to be disappointed. His commitment to pressuring Netanyahu is weak, while the Israeli prime minister’s commitment to making concessions is non-existent.

His supporters tried to give that claim concrete expression by staging the largest-ever march through the Old City on Jerusalem Day. Palestinians were forced into hiding or fled early as police allowed 60,000 Jewish ultra-nationalists to besiege the heart of East Jerusalem.

In a sign of the power balance in Israel, a small group of 50 left-wing Jews – many from the US – linked arms to try to block the march at the Old City’s entrance. Footage showed police brutally arresting them, grabbing them in chokeholds and breaking one woman’s arm.

Jerusalem is the most intractable of the final-status issues set out in the Oslo process. Those expecting miracles of Trump are going to be disappointed. His commitment to pressuring Netanyahu is weak, while the Israeli prime minister’s commitment to making concessions is non-existent.

Whether Trump signs the waiver or not on 1 June, all indications are that the US president – faced with domestic pressures and an intransigent Israeli government – is going nowhere with his “ultimate deal”.

The only real question to be decided on 1 June is whether Trump prefers to take the fast or protracted route to failure.

Posted in USA, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on How Nazi regime moves in Jerusalem are scotching Trump’s “ultimate deal”

World’s Second Largest Greenhouse Gas Emitter Pulls Out of Climate Accord



World’s second largest greenhouse gas emitter will remove itself from global treaty as Trump claims accord ‘will harm’ American jobs. ‘A reassertion of America’s Sovereignty’.

(Editorial) Our Disgraceful Exit From the Paris Accord. Here’s what Trump’s decision on the climate change pact says to the world: America cares little about science, its allies and competitiveness.

Critics lament Trump climate move.

Deal cannot be renegotiated: EU leaders.

U.S. and global leaders react to Trump’s exit from Paris climate change pact.

World leaders accuse Trump of turning his back on the planet.

World leaders condemned Trump’s decision to pull out of the Paris agreement on climate change.

Trudeau tells Trump Canada is disappointed by withdrawal from Paris climate deal.

Is Trump abandoning US global leadership?

Can China be a world leader on climate change?

Musk to quit Trump advisory councils.

Goldman’s Blankfein criticizes U.S decision to leave Paris climate deal.

Apple CEO says he pleaded with Trump to stay in the Paris climate accord, “but it wasn’t enough.”

Obama slams Trump for leaving Paris climate agreement. ‘Trump rejects future’.

Trump makes Europe (feel) great again.

UN climate negotiator slams White House for having “no idea” how Paris Agreement works.

Washington, California, New York band together to form climate alliance.

US mayors, governors vow to stick with Paris accord.

All photos are from the author.

Posted in USA, HealthComments Off on World’s Second Largest Greenhouse Gas Emitter Pulls Out of Climate Accord

Boycott U.S. Firms Till Trump Signs to 195-Nation Paris Climate Agreement



U.S. President Donald Trump announced, on Thursday, June 1st, that “We’re getting out” of the global agreement on limiting the amount of greenhouse gases pouring into the Earth’s atmosphere. Trump’s predecessor, Barack Obama, had described the agreement (which he had signed), by saying of it: “I believe the Paris agreement can be a turning point for our planet. It’s the biggest single step the world has ever taken toward combating global climate change.” Trump doesn’t place a high priority on the issue, and he says that to adhere to the agreement would hurt America’s economy, which he obviously cares about much more than he does about the planet’s climate. 

According to the vast majority of climate-scientists, there will be no way to avoid this planet’s climate-burnout unless the promises of the Paris Climate Agreement are kept. It therefore needs the support of the world’s second-biggest national emitter of greenhouse gases; it needs U.S. President Trump’s support. The world’s biggest emitter, China, is unwavering in its commitment to the agreement. So too is virtually the entire planet — except the U.S.

In 1992, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was approved by the U.S. Senate, and as a consequence of that, no new legislation is required in order for the U.S. to participate in this Agreement, which has since become a part of that Framework Agreement. 

The only other gigantic national contributor to global warming gases (20.09% of the total), China, signed the Agreement on 22 April 2016, and is not threatening at all to back out. The United States, the second-biggest emitter, accounts for 17.89% of the total, and likewise signed on that date. But President Trump is withdrawing the U.S. That, however, could lead ultimately to the collapse of the participation of the other 194 countries, maybe even of China’s participation — unravel and destroy the entire global effort to save this planet (from its humans, who thus are obligated to do what we can to reverse our destruction of the planet). 

Any intelligent person knows that abandoning this agreement wouldn’t merely be an insult to those other 194 nations; it would also be an insult to our planet. Our grandchildren should hate us if we do that. Unless this nation quickly reverses the course that Trump has chosen, they will hate us for it.

Therefore, I propose a global boycott against the U.S. aristocracy, the U.S. billionaires who control U.S.-based international corporations (the people who control the U.S. government). The way to do this would be for an international conference to be held, under U.N. auspices, in order to determine which U.S.-based international corporations are to be boycotted in the first phase, which will be be added in the second phase if need be, etc.; until the U.S. government complies with its global obligation and rejoins the Paris Agreement and is monitored strictly for its compliance with that commitment. If the U.S. then vetoes such a resolution at the U.N. Security Council — since this matter has already been officially recognized by the U.S. government as being crucial to international security — then yet an additional phase of the boycott should kick in, until the U.S. aristocracy buckles.

The alternative to such a boycott will be planetary burnout. Which of the two alternatives is preferable? Is the answer to this question not clear?

In any event, the alleged reason why Trump decided to end U.S. cooperation with the rest of the world on this, was:

“Compliance with the terms of the Paris Accord and the onerous energy restrictions it has placed on the United States could cost America as much as 2.7 million lost jobs by 2025 according to the National Economic Research Associates.  This includes 440,000 fewer manufacturing jobs.”

The appropriate way for the planet to respond to that concern would be to continue the boycott of the products of U.S. headquartered international firms until at least that number, 440,000, of U.S. manufacturing jobs, would be hit by it.

Trump announces US withdrawal from Paris Climate Accord (Source: Fox News)

However, that ‘440,000 fewer manufacturing jobs’ was the estimate of NERA, which gets its money from the coal, and liquified natural gas, and nuclear, and other established energy-creation industries — all of the dying ones, none of the ones that are becoming increasingly cost-effective, which are the types that would be soaring if the Paris agreement doesn’t break apart. NERA is no scientific information-source; it’s a propaganda-source. Desmog blog reported:

“NERA” is shorthand for National Economic Research Associates, an economic consulting firm SourceWatch identifies as the entity that published a June 2011 report on behalf of coal industry front group American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE). ACCCE’s report concluded, “clean-air rules proposed by the Obama administration would cost utilities $17.8 billion annually and raise electricity rates 11.5 percent on average in 2016.”

That report went so far to say that Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations of the coal-generated electricity sector would amount to some 1.5 million lost jobs over the next four years.

NERA was founded by Irwin Stelzer, senior fellow and director of the right-wing Hudson Institute’s Center for Economic Policy. In Oct. 2004, The Guardian described Stelzer as the “right-hand man of Rupert Murdoch,” the CEO of News Corp., which owns Fox News. 

According to NERA’s website, the late Alfred E. Kahn, the “father of deregulation,” advised NERA’s 1961 foundation

In 2010, NERA published a letter to the New York Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to protest the prospective closure of the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plants.

A NERA report from earlier this year provided the basis for the popular King Coal refrain that the EPA’s Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) Rule would cost the U.S. tens of billions of dollars and “kill” 180,000-215,000 jobs.

These figures were picked up and cited by climate change denier U.S. Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) in June when he spoke out against President Barack Obama’s mythological “war on coal,” as well as by the Republican Policy Committee in a May policy paper titled, “Obama’s War on Coal.” 

So, that provides a good indication, as to which types of U.S. international companies would especially need to be included in the first phase of the international boycott. Basically, it’s the type that pay Republican politicians more than Democratic politicians.

What other approach than an international boycott, can be effective in order to force such an extremely corrupt nation to do what it must do, for the entire world — to join the rest of the world, in salvaging the entire planet?

Posted in USAComments Off on Boycott U.S. Firms Till Trump Signs to 195-Nation Paris Climate Agreement

The Plot to Scapegoat Russia

Book Review of Dan Kovalik’s Book

The Cold War we are familiar with ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union. In his new book “The Plot to Scapegoat Russia,” lawyer and human rights activist Dan Kovalik writes about a new Cold War against Russia – and about the peace that never came. He discusses the role of the Democratic Party and the CIA, but his book centers on exploring the cause of why hostilities are back.

The real motivations of revived confrontation are hardly the stuff of day-to-day news, and so the author relies upon the historical record for discovering the origins of a new Cold War. Along the way he explains why the old Cold War was waged.

He regards the commonly – accepted explanation as a pretext: “the Cold War, at least from the vantage point of the US, had little to do with fighting ‘Communism,’ and more to do with making the world safe for corporate plunder.”Implicitly this proposition serves to account for other U. S. wars and interventions.

Without elaborating, Kovalik casts the CIA as the lead plotter in these intrusions. It has the right skills, he suggests, because it is “a nefarious, criminal organization which often misleads the Ameri­can public and government into wars and misadventures,” In his own book, “The Devil’s Chessboard,” David Talbottraced the Cold War machinations of former CIA head Allen Dulles’ and thus was well qualified to provide an introduction for the present volume.

According to Talbot,

“Russia (long with China) is the only country capable of even marginally standing in the way of Washington’s vast imperial ventures.”

These two themes – the real reason for why the United States fights wars and the CIA’s role in such wars – set the tone for the history Kovalik recounts in his highly recommended book.

Image result for dan kovalik

Author, Dan Kovalik

Readers hungry to know about the “plot” advertised in the book’s title will need patience. At the point Kovalik is discussing the current U. S. – Russia confrontation, he has already conducted a tour over time and across the world that surveyed U. S. interventions and foreign meddling. Having identified patterns of U. S. aggression, he presents a scenario that clarifies U. S. motivations for abusing Russia.

This book offers materialso encompassing as to belie its small size. Kovalik’s writing is clear, evocative, and readable. Along the way, he recalls those causes and the outrage that fired up activists who were his contemporaries. That’s a side benefit.

In college Kovalik learned about CIA machinations in Central America. Revelations from former agents Philip Agee, Ray McGovern, and John Stockman astonished him. His first trip to Nicaragua exposed him to a harvest of killings and terror. He learned first-hand about the role of Contra paramilitaries, recruited and paid for by the CIA. At one point he was comforting a father burying his son, killed by the Contras, along with 50,000 other Nicaraguans.

The author recalls the four churchwomen and six Jesuit priests murdered by U. S. – trained soldiers in El Salvador, U. S. support for soldiers and paramilitaries who killed and displaced populations in Colombia, and the CIA’s Operation Condor by which South American client states murderedpolitical enemies. He recounts U. S – instigated coups in Iran, 1953; Guatemala, 1954; and Chile, 1973. Along the way he mentions U.S. war in Vietnam, occupation and war in Korea, nuclear bombs dropped on Japan, nuclear testing and dying in the Marshall Islands, and the CIA’srecruitment of the anti-Soviet Mujahideen in Afghan­istan.

This was the justification: keeping “the world safe from the threat of Soviet totalitarianism.” Then the Soviet Union was no more and the search was on for a new pretext. Having turned to “humanitarian intervention,” the Clinton administration soon was assisting the Paul Kagame regime in Rwanda and other African nations as they assaulted the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

“US mining interests” were satisfied, Kovalik says, but “nearly six million people” people died.

Clinton’s government intervened in Haiti and participated in the destruction of Yugoslavia, Europe’s last socialist state.Supposed humanitarian motivations were behind the United States role in delivering Libya into chaos. For the author, U. S. pretensions and brutality stand in contrast to the relatively benign nature of Russian misdeeds.

More recently, in Kovalik’s telling, the U. S. government settled upon the rationalization of  “American exceptionalism.” This is

“the belief that the US is a uniquely benign actor in the world, spreading peace and democracy.”

Thus terror was exported to Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, and Yemen, where Saudi Arabia acted as a U. S. proxy. The list includes the 2009 military coup in Honduras facilitated by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

For the author,

“The US’s outsized military exists not only to ensure the US’s quite unjust share of the world’s riches, but also to ensure that those riches are not shared with the poor huddled masses in this country.”

Good relations with Russia would be

“simply bad for business, in particular the business of war which so profoundly undergirds the US economy … As of 2015, the US had at least 800 military bases in over 70 nations, while Britain, France and Russia had only 30 military bases combined.”


“under Obama alone, the US had Special Forces deployed in about 138 countries.”

Having surveyed decades worth of U.S. interventions abroad, military and otherwise, Kovalik turns to Russia. In the early 1990s that fledgling capitalist state was in crisis, he reports. Life expectancy had plummeted, the poverty rate was 75 percent, and investments in the economy were down 80 percent. National pride was in the cellar, the more so after the United States backed away from Secretary of State Baker’s 1991 promise that NATO would never move east, after the United States attacked Russia’s ally Serbia, and after the United States attacked Iraq in 2003 and Libya in 2011 without consulting Russia.

He regards Russia’s approach to Ukraine as defensible while reminding readers that Russia offered to cooperate with the United States in ending war in Syria. And U. S. claims about lack of democracy in Russia seem strained, especially when, as Kovalik insists, the United States abuses peoples the world over and itself suffers from a “severe democracy deficit.”

He argues that the Obama administration, particularly Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, was obsessed with Russia and that Democrats currently are fueling hostilities, backed by a compliant media. He discusses WikiLeaks revelations about the Democratic Party and hacking attributed to the Russians.

He also suggests, without offering specifics, that the CIA is involved. Kovalik doesn’t comment on possible interaction between Trump campaign personnel and Russian officials.

US Army training in Iraq in support of the ‘Global War on Terrorism’

But prior to his discussion of confrontation with Russia, Kovalik had devoted considerable attention to why and how the United States harasses other countries. The reader, therefore, already knows never to expect U.S. imperialism to give Russia a break and knows why that is so.

Kovalik’s treatment of the Soviet Union is an essential part of his narrative. For one thing, many of the U. S. military interventions he reports on wouldn’t have occurred if the Soviet Union still existed. But basically,

“the Soviet Union, did wield sizable polit­ical and ideological influence in the world for some time, due to the appeal of its socialist message as well as its critical role in winning [World War] II.”

Kovalik acknowledges “periods of great repression.” He adds, however, that

“the Russian Revolution and the USSR … delivered on many of their promises, and against great odds. …. In any case, the goals of the Russian Revolution—equality, worker control of the economy, universal health care and social security— were laudable ones.”


“One of the reasons that the West continues to dance on the grave of the Soviet Union, and to emphasize the worst parts of that society and downplay its achievements, is to make sure that, as the world-wide economy worsens, and as the suffering of work­ing people around the world deepens, they don’t get any notions in their head to organize some new socialist revolution with such ideals.”

Ultimately, Kovalik sides with Martin Luther King, who remarked that,

‘The US is on the wrong side of the world-wide revolution’–

and with Daniel Ellsberg’s clarification:

‘The US is not on the wrong side; it is the wrong side.’”

*     *     *

Excerpt from the book:

An in-depth look at the decades-long effort to escalate hostilities with Russia and what it portends for the future.

Since 1945, the US has justified numerous wars, interventions, and military build-ups based on the pretext of the Russian Red Menace, even after the Soviet Union collapsed at the end of 1991 and Russia stopped being Red. In fact, the two biggest post-war American conflicts, the Korean and Vietnam wars, were not, as has been frequently claimed, about stopping Soviet aggression or even influence, but about maintaining old colonial relationships. Similarly, many lesser interventions and conflicts, such as those in Latin America, were also based upon an alleged Soviet threat, which was greatly overblown or nonexistent. And now the specter of a Russian Menace has been raised again in the wake of Donald Trump’s election.

The Plot to Scapegoat Russia examines the recent proliferation of stories, usually sourced from American state actors, blaming and manipulating the threat of Russia, and the long history of which this episode is but the latest chapter. It will show readers two key things: (1) the ways in which the United States has needlessly provoked Russia, especially after the collapse of the USSR, thereby squandering hopes for peace and cooperation; and (2) how Americans have lost out from this missed opportunity, and from decades of conflicts based upon false premises. These revelations, amongst other, make The Plot to Scapegoat Russia one of the timeliest reads of 2017.

Author: Dan Kovalik

Print ISBN:  978-1-5107-3032-8

Ebook ISBN: 978-1-5107-3033-5

Year: 2017

Click to order

Posted in USA, Education, RussiaComments Off on The Plot to Scapegoat Russia

Shoah’s pages