To Home Page
























Our home - San Diego

 

ACTIONS

EVENTS

CALENDAR

BUY ISRAELI PRODUCTS

THE PROBLEM OF JEWISH
SELF-DEFENSE

An HIR series

Historical and Investigative Research - 17 Jan 2006
by Francisco Gil-White
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/leaders1.htm
 

copyright  2006 www.hirhome.com

¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
1   How the mainstream Jewish
leadership failed the Jewish
people in World War II

________________________________________________________

“I would rather have my fellow Jews die in Germany…”[1]

Said on the eve of the Nazi genocide by “Reform Rabbi Stephen Wise, the undisputed leader of organized American Jewry”[19], and “probably the most influential and well-respected American Jew of his generation”[24a], in reply to British prime minister Neville Chamberlain’s suggestion that Jewish refugees from Hitler might settle in Tanganyika.

Stephen Wise got his wish.

________________________________________________________

Introduction

As George Santayana famously said, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” For the Jewish people, this means repeating Catastrophe. Therefore, if you are a member of the Jewish community, which has been subjected to genocidal attacks for over 2000 years, the rational thing is to expect another such attack and prepare for it, the better to mount an effective self-defense and, ideally, to prevent the next mass killing altogether. You should study the past and remember it, so that you can recognize the signs that herald a new genocide and identify them when they recur. Unfortunately, however, the Jews are ill-equipped and ill-disposed to do this: they find it difficult to think rationally about their self defense. Jewish author Kenneth Levin has recently made the latest addition to a large literature that tries to understand this general problem.[1a]

An example of what I mean is that most Jews are unable to recognize the signs indicating that their own mainstream leaders are taking them down the path to destruction, just as mainstream Jewish leaders did the same prior to and during World War II. Don't misunderstand me: it was the German Nazis who were killing the Jews, and this was obviously not the fault of the Jewish people or of its leaders. But equally obviously, the Jewish leadership prior to and during World War II had an obligation to defend the Jewish people, and it must be held accountable for how it reacted before the threat of Jewish extinction. But Jewish leaders have not been held accountable. Stephen Wise, quoted above, is -- absurdly -- considered a hero by modern Jews, and “in the Jewish world, schools and museums and streets are named after Wise.”[1b] And yet Wise's role, as I will document below, was to use his position of supreme authority in the American Jewish community to sabotage the most successful effort to rescue the desperate European Jews, making it easier for the German Nazis to murder in cold blood between 5 and 6 million innocent people, destroying a beautiful, irreplaceable culture.

So why the Jewish celebration of Stephen Wise?

One main reason is that most ordinary Jews are unaware of what Wise and Co. did prior to and during WWII to sabotage the defense of the Jewish people. It is irrational that Jews should not know this history well, but it is true that some special institutional difficulties exist: the same mainstream leaders who betrayed the Jewish people in WWII created the mainstream Jewish organizations that hold sway over the Jewish people today. Stephen Wise himself was "president of both the American Jewish Congress and the World Jewish Congress [which organizations he created], and a key figure, often chief officer, of perhaps a dozen other organizations and institutes."[1c] In consequence, the people running these dominant organizations today have been careful not to expose the performance of their predecessors, in whose steps they are eagerly following, once again endangering the Jewish people in circumstances very similar to those that announced the German Nazi Final Solution. The connections between the past and current leadership are clear.

The present article is concerned with what happened in WWII. Its sequel, Part 2, will examine how today's mainstream Jewish leaders in the Diaspora are condemning the Jews to repeat a horrific history. Part 3 will do the same for today's Israeli leaders. Part 4 will close the series by seeking to provide a satisfying theory to explain why the Jews in general find reasoning about their self-defense so difficult, and why their leadership tends so easily to betray the unfortunate Jewish people. The point of this exercise is to prevent another Catastrophe, for the Jewish people is once again in mortal danger.

 

 

Rabbi Stephen Wise

 

A few words about antisemitism
_______________________________

The topic of this article is delicate, and the interest in this issue is easily misinterpreted. So I begin with a few clarifications.

In a related article, I defined antisemitism as follows:

“Antisemitism is a way of looking at the world, a perspective, and it impairs reasoning by insisting on the following sequence: first, suspend in the air the anti-Jewish conclusion; then build in a helter-skelter rush to the ground a scaffolding of ‘premises’; finally, never heed how ridiculous the crookedly resulting, upside-down staircase becomes.”[2]

For example, first, decide to apologize for those who carried out the German Nazi Final Solution; then, find a way to do it, no matter how ridiculous. One such ridiculous maneuver, as Louis Rapoport explains, is that “Enemies of the Jewish people lap up any evidence that some Jews...may have prevented other Jews from being saved from the Nazi exterminators.”[3] Why do the antisemites imagine this works for them? Because they employ it to produce the pseudo-argument that, since some of the people who facilitated the extermination of the European Jews in World War II were Jewish, “they were doing it to themselves,” and hence, who are the Jews to complain about the gentiles who murdered Jews in World War II?

What is the problem with this 'argument'?

Well, just imagine somebody saying, about the suffering of the Chinese people during the Cultural Revolution, that since the leaders of this outrage were Chinese, “they were doing it to themselves.” They were? Of course not. In this case everybody can see that a majority of the Chinese were being made to suffer by a few Chinese: nobody was doing anything to him or herself. But we live in antisemitic cultures, and in consequence this sort of thing is obvious only so long as we are not talking about Jews, so I am going out of my way here to make certain things perfectly clear.

First, the ordinary Jews who perished in the death camps are the same victims regardless of who murdered them. What does this mean? That doing justice to these victims requires laying the blame at the feet of any and all who played a role in their deaths. The Jewish identity of some who functioned as indirect executioners can only compound the tragedy of the victims; what it cannot logically do is excuse these Jewish leaders, much less excuse the non-Jews who directly set the death machinery in motion and kept it running.

This article addresses the question of why some in the mainstream Jewish leadership during World War II actively discouraged and sabotaged the defense of the Jewish people. Not because it will excuse the gentile criminals responsible for the Nazi Final Solution, but because we cannot allow another such Catastrophe to take place, and the only way to prevent history from repeating itself is to understand it. The Jewish people will be attacked again: this is guaranteed, for it happens virtually every century, and as I write antisemitism is enjoying a dramatic renaissance all over the world while the Jewish state is quickly ceding territory to antisemitic terrorists pledged to the destruction of the Jewish people. So the question is not whether another genocide will be attempted -- it is being attempted as we speak. The question, rather, is simply whether the Jews will be able and willing to defend themselves effectively this time. Certainly, they will not defend themselves effectively if they allow their mainstream leadership, once again, to cooperate with their executioners. So it matters greatly whether ordinary Jews understand what happened in WWII, and this is the point of doing the present investigation and making it public.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



 

 

 

 

 



The only
way to prevent
history from
repeating itself
is to
understand
it.

Did mainstream American Jewish leaders help defend the Jews from genocide in World War II?
_______________________________________

Long before October 1943 everybody knew that the Jewish people was being exterminated in Nazi-occupied Europe.

“From the summer of 1941, reports were reaching the West regularly, through diplomatic and other channels, of large-scale massacres of Jews in areas of eastern Europe under Nazi control. In May, 1942, a message transmitted to the West through the Polish Government-in-Exile in London contained a compilation, by the Jewish Bund in Poland, of confirmed massacres. The Bund estimated that 700,000 Jews had already been killed and surmised that the Nazis had embarked on a campaign to annihilate all the Jews of Europe.”[3a]

A January 1943 headline in the New York Times announced, “Liquidation Day Set For France’s Jews,”[4] and another in February blared “Total Nazi Executions Are Put at 3,400,000; Poland With 2,500,000 Victims, Tops List,” followed by the explanation, in the body of the article, that in Poland “1,000,000 Jews were said to have been killed or permitted to die in concentration camps.”[5] This was, of course, precisely what Adolf Hitler had promised he would do in Mein Kampf and in his speeches: annihilate the European Jewish population. And yet, the Allies were doing worse than nothing to help stop the genocide.[6]

In October of 1943, as related in an article published by the David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies, there was an effort in the United States to change that.

“The date was October 6, 1943, three days before Yom Kippur, and more than four hundred rabbis had come to plead for U.S. government action to save Jews from Hitler.

The march was the brainchild of 33-year-old Hillel Kook of Jerusalem, nephew of Abraham Isaac Kook, the first chief rabbi of British Mandatory Palestine. Kook, who used the pseudonym Peter Bergson, traveled to the United States in 1940 to lobby for U.S. support for Jewish immigration to Palestine and the creation of a Jewish state. After news of the Nazi genocide reached the United States in late 1942 and early 1943, Bergson established the Emergency Committee to Save the Jewish People of Europe, a political action committee that sought U.S. action to rescue Jewish refugees.

Bergson understood the need for dramatic tactics to publicize his cause. To alert the American public about the Nazi massacres, the Bergson group sponsored a theatrical pageant called ‘We Will Never Die,’ authored by Academy Award-winning screenwriter Ben Hecht, which was viewed by more than 40,000 people at Madison Square Garden and then in other cities around the country. The Bergson activists also sponsored more than two hundred newspaper advertisements urging the United States government to rescue the refugees.”[7]

The identification of an absurdity is something that should make any rational person stop, for it is evidence that something important remains to be properly understood. But I have not shown you one yet -- so far this all makes sense. If the European Jews were being exterminated, it was perfectly natural for Jews who were in safety to try to do something about it. Jewish unity was equally to be expected, and in fact the Bergson effort brought together “an interesting array of hasidic rabbis side by side with rabbis known as mitnagdim, the traditional theological critics of Hasidism.” In other words, important differences were set aside in the Bergson effort because the Jewish people was being exterminated in Europe and unity was more important. The above does not contain absurdities: the Bergson effort made perfect sense.

No, the absurdity is here, in the article’s next sentence:

“Bergson’s hard-hitting approach rattled some mainstream American Jewish leaders, who feared that loud protests might provoke antisemitism.”

Ponder that. What could be the most extreme consequence of antisemitism? Why, an anti-Jewish genocide. So what could “some mainstream American Jewish leaders” fear might happen? The Jewish people was already being exterminated.

There is a joke told of two Jews, right before they are killed:

“Sam and Irving are facing the firing squad. The executioner comes forward to place the blindfold on them. Sam disdainfully and proudly refuses, tearing the thing from his face. Irving turns to him and pleads: ‘Please Sam, don’t make trouble!’”

The structure of this joke is identical to what happened when Peter Bergson tried to pressure the US government to save Jewish lives in Europe, causing “some mainstream American Jewish leaders” to say to his protesting rabbis: “Please, don’t make trouble.” The joke makes fun of a pathology of reasoning but the extermination of the Jewish people is not funny; if we do not want more exterminations of the Jewish people, we must understand this pathology of reasoning.

There is a promise in the above joke, and in that promise is locked a hope of mine. The joke is Jewish not only because it depicts Jews but because it is told by Jews (it is quite famous, and I heard it first from a Jewish friend). This is important, because by telling this joke Jews demonstrate that they are -- at some level -- aware that a certain pathology of reasoning makes their self-defense difficult.[7a] I have reason to hope, therefore, that a more careful reflection may be possible for the Jewish people before it is too late again. But we must move to a level of analysis considerably more sophisticated than the passing joke. And then there must be action.

Let us now return to the Wyman Institute piece and look the full absurdity in the face:

“Bergson’s hard-hitting approach rattled some mainstream American Jewish leaders, who feared that loud protests might provoke antisemitism. …Yet there were also pockets of sympathy for the Bergson group within the Jewish leadership.”

Given that the death factories from Auschwitz to Jasenovac were at that very minute busy murdering millions of innocent Jews, and billowing with smoke, where would you expect to find mere “pockets of sympathy” for those protesting this outrage? In a mostly antisemitic population. But the population in question here is “the Jewish leadership.”

“[the Bergson march] was to be the only rally in Washington on the rescue issue during the entire period of the Holocaust [but t]he idea of Jews marching through streets of the nation’s capital, promoting specifically Jewish requests such as rescue, especially during wartime, was anathema to mainstream Jewish leaders.”

The above does not make one little bit of sense. Why is the idea of rescue odious “especially during wartime”? Are people supposed to be rescued in peacetime? And why is “the only rally [!] in Washington on the rescue issue during the entire period of the Holocaust” a “specifically Jewish request”? It isn’t. This was a crime against humanity.

You see, the problem is not merely that the reaction of the Jewish leadership was absurd, but that the author chronicling this reaction writes absurdly. After all, given that the Jewish people was already being exterminated, the right thing to do here was obvious. So how could the request for rescue be “anathema” to mainstream Jewish leaders? What in the world were they for, as Jewish leaders, if they could not find it in themselves to oppose an anti-Jewish genocide?

It is significant that the author, Rafael Medoff, directs the David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies, and also that he is one of the few people to do significant research on the Bergson effort. If he finds it difficult to write in a sensible manner, then it is unlikely that the majority of the Jewish people can learn from their own history. An institute of Holocaust studies should straightforwardly refute the arguments that supported the reasoning of Bergson's opponents, and which contributed to the deaths of millions. This is what I am doing here. My task is not difficult, because the issue is very clear, and the facts speak very loudly.

 


 

Hillel Kook
( alias Peter Bergson )

a kind of prince... a ladies man, a bon vivant... very bright and ambitious, with British manners and a great name -- Kook

Eliahu Amikam, quoted in Rapoport (1999:22)

 





Ben Hecht

Ben Hecht was Bergson's most important recruit... one of the most talented people anywhere...a formidable playwright

Louis Rapoport (1999:53)

Why Peter Bergson was obviously right and the “mainstream American Jewish leaders” who opposed him, obviously wrong.
_____________________

The Americans whom Peter Bergson tried to mobilize had a relatively good ideology: they were learning to think in the universalist terms of human rights, democracy, and tolerance. The proof: these same ordinary Americans, led by the descendants of slaves, both African and Jewish, would soon learn to hold hands across a phony ‘racial’ barrier, producing the Civil Rights movement that transformed the United States despite determined resistance from the US ruling elite. Since the US ruling elite was already antisemitic (see below), the way to defend the Jews in World War II was obviously to mobilize these ordinary Americans against the policies of the US government, controlled by the US ruling elite.

“...in American society, the rabid, hard-core anti-Semites incapable of recognizing Jews as fellow human beings were distinctly in the minority. For much of the country, anti-Jewish sentiment was not so impervious to issues of human suffering and human decency. ...American Jews...compromise[d] appeals for rescue to a degree that underestimated the surrounding society's capacity to respond positively.”[7b]

But Peter Bergson judged the compassion and decency of Americans correctly, and he did his best to mobilize them. In order to do so, as we've seen above, Bergson resorted to “dramatic tactics” including a “theatrical pageant...which was viewed by more than 40,000 people at Madison Square Garden and then in other cities around the country,” in addition to sponsoring “more than two hundred newspaper advertisements urging the United States government to rescue the refugees.” The point of this strategy was to make democracy work: to make it impossible for the US ruling elite to ignore the wishes of ordinary Americans, now made conscious of the plight of the European Jews, and mobilized for their defense. In this way, the Bergson group hoped to force the US government to do something to help the European Jews who yet lived (at that time, about 4 million).

There is no question that this was an uphill battle, because “rabid, hard-core anti-Semites incapable of recognizing Jews as fellow human beings,” though rare among ordinary US citizens, were in choking abundance in the halls of power. To see the justice of this claim, the following list of well-documented facts will more than suffice (skeptics are encouraged to consult the footnotes, which will send you to the hyperlinked documentation):

1) before the war, the US ruling elite assisted the rise of the Nazi party and ideology in Germany[8];

2) during the war, this elite, which controlled the US government, not only refused to do anything to help Hitler’s victims (which is why the Bergson effort became necessary), but in fact assisted Hitler’s Final Solution in various ways[9];

3) after the war ended, the US ruling elite deployed the Marshall Plan to assist the fascist countries that had plunged the world into war and murdered so many millions of people in cold blood (not only Jews, but also more than 20 million Russians, millions of Poles, hundreds of thousands of Serbs and Roma, and on and on…);

4) in addition, after the war the US ruling elite absorbed in secret tens of thousands of Nazi war criminals who were used to create what became US Intelligence, covertly sponsoring the rise to power of disguised fascists in post-war Europe[10]; and finally

5) the US ruling elite assisted the 1948 British effort to destroy the new state of Israel, which involved (among other things) sending captured Nazi officers to lead the Arab armies that publicly pledged themselves to exterminate the Israeli Jews.[11]

It is the last point that deserves our closest attention here.

Although the US voted in 1947 in favor of partitioning the former British Mandate for ‘Palestine’ into an Arab and a Jewish state, it did so only because the Soviet Union had loudly endorsed this project, placing US president Harry Truman in an impossible position.[12] So Truman ordered his ambassador at the UN to vote in favor of partition, over the objections of the entire US Department of State. This very lukewarm US ‘support’ for the state of Israel would not last long. When the Arab armies -- led by the German Nazi war criminals whom the obliging British government sent -- attempted to exterminate the Israeli Jews the next year, the US government did a 180-degree turn and announced that it no longer recognized the state of Israel, moreover slapping an arms embargo on the Israelis to sabotage their defense.[12]

The US citizenry didn’t like that.

According to the New York City police, 250,000 US citizens exploded onto the streets of New York in a massive protest against the policies of their own and the British government. They came from 100 cities and 14 states, and they marched and rallied to defend the Jewish people. This was a protest the likes of which the city of New York had not seen before, and hasn’t since. And the effect was to force the US government to back down, because no such display of popular will can be ignored.[13]

From how ordinary Americans dramatically defended the Jews in 1948 it is obvious that speaking against an ongoing attempt to exterminate the Jewish people does not produce antisemitism in ordinary Americans. Why? Because an ongoing attempt to exterminate the Jewish people is precisely what the war of 1948 was. I remind you, however, that according to Rafael Medoff, the worry of “mainstream American Jewish leaders” in October 1943 was that the Bergson effort would supposedly provoke antisemitism! If the “mainstream American Jewish leaders” really believed that, then they suffered from an extreme pathology of reasoning, because a) the European Jews were already being exterminated, b) the US ruling elite was already antisemitic and moreover cooperating with the Final Solution, and c) the workers -- Bergson’s target -- could clearly be mobilized to defend the Jews, as was dramatically demonstrated just a few years later, in 1948.

And Bergson gave his own demonstration at the time, which is the most important point here:

“In 1944, around 500,000 Americans, most of them gentiles [i.e. non-Jews], joined the ‘Bergson Group’s’ struggle for rescuing Jews and the establishment of a Jewish State in free Palestine.”[14a]

Should we be surprised that Bergson got this many Americans to join his pressure group? No. Kenneth Levin writes that, at the time, “a Gallup poll revealed that 70 percent of Americans supported temporary havens on American territory” for the desperate European Jews. And yet, Levin says, the “major American Jewish organizations did not aggressively lobby for their establishment, largely, still, out of fears of an anti-Semitic backlash.”[14b] But this is absurd. Why would there be an antisemitic backlash if what 70% of Americans wanted done was in fact done, and when this was the obvious and compassionate thing to do? But it was not ordinary Americans, as we shall see below, that these mainstream Jewish leaders were afraid of upsetting.

Despite active opposition from mainstream Jewish leaders, this is what Peter Bergson's mostly non-Jewish pressure group achieved:

“In 1943 [the Bergson group] convinced Congress to kill recommendations of State Department Arabist Harold Hoskins which would have ruled Palestine off limits to further Jewish immigration. In January 1944 they motivated Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau [Jewish] to press Roosevelt to create a War Refugee Board and recommended Ira Hirschmann, the man responsible for saving thousands of lives, to work in the Balkans.”[14]

As Louis Rapoport, who has produced the most extensive documentation of the Bergson effort, correctly says,

“The record of their achievements refutes those who claim that ‘nothing could be done.’ Something was done, and a great deal more could have been achieved had the establishment Zionist and Jewish organizations not concentrated so much of their efforts on destroying the ‘Bergson group’. . .”[15]

It is important to understand the enormity of Peter Bergson's achievement. The American non-Jews he was trying to mobilize were simultaneously witnessing the spectacle of a propaganda campaign, by mainstream Jewish leaders, against Peter Bergson. This is the sort of thing that naturally destroyed the morale of many US citizens and made them think, “Well, if the Jews are not defending themselves, why should I?” And yet despite all this Bergson succeeded in mobilizing enough gentile (non-Jewish) US citizens to change certain official policies, and he managed to create an official rescue effort, however limited, that saved perhaps 200,000 lives. Just imagine if he had been supported rather than opposed by the mainstream Jewish leadership!

Peter Bergson was right: The Jews were not helpless, and what they needed to do was defend themselves.

Here is an example of what might have been: If the mainstream American Jewish leadership had rallied behind Bergson, and mobilized their considerable organizational resources, even bigger crowds of gentiles would have joined to defend the Jewish people, and then the US government might have been convinced to bomb the death camps and/or the railroads leading to the death camps, which would have seriously inconvenienced the effort to extinguish the European Jewish population. As it happens, the US and Britain refused to do this, despite the fact that it was very easy for them to do, and despite the repeated desperate pleas, so the extermination of the Jewish people continued apace until the very, very end of the war, in 1945.[15a]

Among Jewish leaders Peter Bergson was in the minority. In order to understand the formidable forces that Jewish patriots such as Bergson were taking on, I next ask the following relevant questions:

1) How passionate were “mainstream American Jewish leaders” in their opposition to Peter Bergson?

2) Why did the “mainstream American Jewish leaders” oppose themselves to Peter Bergson and to other rescue efforts on behalf of the European Jews?

3) How similar to “mainstream American Jewish leaders” were mainstream Jewish leaders elsewhere?

 

 

 

 

 

 

The way to
defend
the Jews in World War II was obviously to mobilize
ordinary Americans against the
policies of the US
government.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Harry Truman















 

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Henry Morgenthau

How passionate were “mainstream American Jewish leaders” in their opposition to Peter Bergson?
____________________________________________

They were passionate all right.

“During the era, Zionist leaders like Rabbi [Stephen] Wise and Nahum Goldmann told the State Department that Kook/Bergson was as big a threat as Hitler to the well-being of American Jewry.”[16]

Adolf Hitler was carrying out the systematic extermination of an entire people and culture: the Eastern Jewish ‘Yiddish’ universe, a world full of complex humor, advanced political and religious ideas, rich literature, and lots of kind-hearted, peaceful people. Example: Peter Bergson’s brother, from a family of Lithuanian Jews, would not cry revenge after surviving an entirely unprovoked racist attack; instead he would become a doctor, saving lives explicitly in order to thank God for his narrow escape.[17] The Eastern Jews were not an abstraction. They were individuals, who laughed and joked around and got drunk and danced, who thought, invented, and wrote, who kissed their children or parents goodnight, who wondered whether their loves would be returned, who got together once a week to celebrate, and pray, and who said ‘Peace’ to each other every time they greeted or parted company. This people was taken away from us. It was a part of us -- a good part -- and it was destroyed, which is why we call it a ‘crime against humanity,’ because it was a sin against us. And the man committing the crime that cannot really be named, gouging out this piece of us forever -- that man was Adolf Hitler. But the mainstream Jewish leaders Rabbi Stephen Wise and Nahum Goldmann told the US State Department that Peter Bergson, who wanted to save as many of these people as he could, was like Adolf Hitler. It is unclear from this alone whether they spoke out of insanity or hypocrisy, but it certainly establishes that Stephen Wise and Nahum Goldmann felt a white-hot hatred for Peter Bergson.

Enlightenment begins with the honest absorption of this simple fact.

More enlightenment comes from extending the insight to see if it is consistent with other things that happen also to be true. For example, we may consider that Bergson was the political leader of the Irgun, a Jewish underground army in British Mandate ‘Palestine.’ The ideology of the Irgun was that all Jews were equal, and that the Irgun should represent and defend them all.

“The Irgunists felt that they were saving the Jewish family, and it did not matter at that point in history if an uncle was never going to milk a cow on the kibbutz, or that he was lazy or drank too much. He had every right to get out of the cauldron of Europe and to be brought to Palestine. They could not tell him that ‘your credentials aren’t good enough to be a New Jew; go back to Poland.’ Yet that was the openly stated position of many mainstream Zionists -- even after the war had begun...”[18]

There had been pogroms (i.e. unprovoked, anti-Jewish racist attacks, involving pillage and murder) everywhere in Eastern Europe, and the annihilation of the Jewish people was being promised by Adolf Hitler in his speeches if war broke out, and then it did begin when the war broke out. So the Irgun believed that you could not pick and choose: every Jew had a right to live in safety. This was the ideology of the Irgun, of which Peter Bergson was the political leader.

By contrast,

“Reform Rabbi Stephen Wise, the undisputed leader of organized American Jewry, called [Vladimir Zeev] Jabotinsky a ‘traitor’ for preaching evacuation of over a million eastern Jews. ...Furthermore, Wise claimed, the Jabotinsky movement was guilty of bringing unselected, ‘unsuitable’ Jews to Palestine. As the United Palestine Appeal’s director Henry Montor [an ally of Wise] wrote, ‘No responsible person has ever said that Palestine could hold all the millions of Jews who need shelter.’ Montor condemned those who ignored the ‘need’ for selecting Jews ‘worthy’ of settling in Palestine: ‘I think it is fair to point out that many who have been brought into Palestine by the Revisionists [sic] have been prostitutes and criminals.”[19]

Lots of consistency here.

First, Stephen Wise, who felt a white-hot hatred for Bergson, also hated Jabotinsky, and Jabotinsky, it turns out, had the same ideology as Bergson’s Irgun: he considered that all Jews were equal, and therefore all deserved to live in safety. Since Wise and Co. slandered supposedly low-quality Jews unworthy of a state as “prostitutes and criminals,” we have an irony, because Wise and Co. were the ones accusing Jabotinsky’s Revisionists, who believed that all Jews were equal, of supposedly being ‘fascists’ -- kind of like how Wise and Co. compared Peter Bergson to Adolf Hitler.

“Labor Zionist activist Marie Syrkin denounced Revisionism as comparable to 'German or Italian fascism,' and Stephen Wise's son James, editor of the monthly journal Opinion, criticized what he considered the 'fascist tendencies' of the Revisionist movement. ...Stephen Wise denounced [Revisionism as]...'Fascism in Yiddish or Hebrew.' [Yet] Jabotinsky in fact denounced totalitarianism and championed liberal democracy...”[19a]

Also not coincidentally, Jabotinsky’s Revisionist Party was loosely allied with the Irgun, and Bergson and Jabotinsky had a very good relationship.

Neither is it coincidence that Peter Bergson, on his mother’s side, was a prince of the relatively small Lubavitch movement, which interestingly is a form of Orthodox Judaism that nevertheless has always advocated the national union of all Jews (reform, atheist, whatever), without distinction or prejudice.[20] These days, one can more easily find Jewish patriots in the Lubavitch movement than elsewhere.

Finally, it is not coincidence that the opponents of Peter Bergson’s Irgun, in British Mandate ‘Palestine’ as in the US, were the mainstream Jewish leaders; the Irgun was relatively small.

This does not exhaust the consistencies, for it turns out that Rabbi Stephen Wise opposed saving Jewish lives in many different contexts, despite the fact that he was, among Jewish leaders, the first to have confirmation, in 1942, that the European Jews would be exterminated.[24a]

For example, before the situation became hopeless, “when British prime minister [Neville] Chamberlain suggested that Jewish refugees from Hitler go to the former German colony of Tanganyika” Stephen Wise had a “scornful rejoinder”: “I would rather have my fellow Jews die in Germany than live in lands which bear the imprint of yesterday’s occupation by Germany.”[21] I can hardly imagine anything more absurd: Wise expressed his supposed opposition to Nazi Germany by proudly offering the German Jews up for Hitler to slaughter! Needless to say, he was not thereby offering himself. Louis Rapoport quotes the above statement by Wise, and on the same page writes, “it is inconceivable and clearly slanderous to say that American Jewish leaders were opposed to saving European Jews.” But I doubt that Rapoport would be ruling out this interpretation if it had been a gentile thus replying to Chamberlain, which underscores the sheer extremity of Wise’s position, however interpreted.

In the summer of 1939, as immigration opportunities everywhere were being denied to the desperate Jews of Europe on the eve of war, the S.S. Saint Louis, a Hamburg-American Line ship, sailed for American shores full of Jewish passengers who had, with great difficulty, legally obtained visas for the United States. This ship was turned away by the US authorities, partly thanks to Stephen Wise.

“A few American journalists and clergymen called it one of the most shameful episodes in the history of the so-called ‘haven for the oppressed,’ the United States. ...It appears in retrospect that the St. Louis was a test case for the Nazis. It confirmed their theory that the democracies were unconcerned about the fate of the Jews, and it therefore advanced the prospects for a ‘Final Solution’ to the ‘Jewish problem.’ The American Joint Distribution Committee...did finally succeed in finding refuge in various European countries for the passengers of that ship, but most of them would eventually perish in Hitler’s death camps.

Organized American Jews, led by Rabbi Wise, had not only let down the St. Louis passengers, but they also failed to press for passage of the Wagner bill, which had called for the admission of 20,000 ‘German’ refugee children. The term ‘German’ was used instead of ‘Jewish’ in the draft of the bill because of the prevailing aversion to bringing Jews to America, led, among others, by the anti-Semitic ‘tobacco senator’ Robert Reynolds of North Carolina. ...The cautious attitude of American Jewish leaders guaranteed that the bill would be defeated when it came before Congress that fateful May.”[22]

After the war broke out, Peter Bergson’s Irgun demonstrated that they could save lives but the mainstream Jewish leaders were more interested in opposing them.

“...an Irgun ship guided by Jabotinsky’s son, Eri, brought over 2000 refugees down the Danube route to Palestine, underscoring the fact that even with war raging, it was still possible to get Jews out, even from territories under Nazi control… Since the day after the war broke out six months earlier, the Irgun had sent fourteen barely seaworthy ships out of Europe; but the mainstream Zionist movement continued to attack their efforts.”[23]

There seems to have been nothing Stephen Wise would shrink from when it came to attacking Peter Bergson. He was, for example, friends with Edgar Hoover, and starting in April 25, 1941, he began asking for interviews with FBI agents. Rapoport asks, “Did Stephen Wise provide the FBI with information on Peter Bergson?” We cannot know, because to this day the information on this remains classified, but this is not a wild hypothesis, given that a) Wise was telling the State Department that Bergson was like Hitler, b) he was opposing Bergson in every way, and c) he considered Bergson a threat to his political position, which depended on his relationship with people such as Hoover and Roosevelt (see below). What we do know is that the FBI was not acting speedily enough to please Wise, because he complained about it.[24]

It is true that, in public, Stephen Wise denounced Hitler's genocide, but so did Roosevelt, and talk is cheap. So the question is:

Why so much opposition to Peter Bergson, who after all meant to save Jewish lives?


 

 

Nahum Goldmann








 




 

Adolf Hitler

 

 

 

 

 



 

 

 





 


 

 


 

Vladimir Zeev
Jabotinsky
 

For Hillel Kook and his friends...
Jabotinsky was a larger-than-life figure, ‘the greatest Jew since Moses’...


Louis Rapoport (1999:24)

Why did the “mainstream American Jewish leaders” oppose themselves to Peter Bergson and to other rescue efforts on behalf of the European Jews?
______________________________________

Louis Rapoport says that, in the United States, “The Jewish leaders feared that they would be suspected of ‘double loyalty’” if they defended the Jews.[24b] Double loyalty? Madness. The Jewish people was being exterminated; compassion by Jewish leaders towards Hitler's Jewish victims cannot be construed as ‘double loyalty.’ The refusal of these leaders to act, and their sabotage of those who did defend the European Jews, was disloyalty to the Jewish people, and loyalty to the antisemites. Indeed, on the same page Rapoport says:

“[Rabbi Stephen] Wise, faced by the fierce opposition of the Jew-hating American right, was determined to keep a low profile, and he urged other Jewish leaders to do the same.”

Moral cowardice. Even if these Jewish leaders were right that they would have been accused of ‘double loyalty’ for defending their European brethren, the right thing to do was still to fight to save Hitler's victims with all their energies. This is morally obvious.

But in any case Peter Bergson was demonstrating that, even at face value, Wise's supposed argument for abandoning the European Jews was an utter fallacy. For that very minute, after witnessing an assertive defense of the European Jews by a Jewish leader in the United States, a great many ordinary US citizens were finding their consciences stirred, and they developed an ardent desire to join the fight: as we saw above, 500,000 US citizens, mostly non-Jews, joined Bergson's pressure movement and forced the US government to take action, however belatedly and reluctantly. And US citizens would again demonstrate their basic goodness in 1948 when 250,000 of them marched in New York in passionate defense of the Jews (see above). A third demonstration was given during the Civil Rights movement. This should not be surprising; quite unlike the US ruling elite, ordinary working- and middle-class Americans tend to have, comparatively speaking, a very good ideology -- they are some of the best people in the world.

It does not appear, at any rate, that Stephen Wise and Co. were considering the views of ordinary US citizens at all. Louis Rapoport explains:

“. . .the established Jewish organizations were fossilized and often led by self-righteous, unenlightened men concerned mainly with the prestige of office.”[25]

In other words, Wise and other mainstream Jewish leaders were worried that they had something to lose if they rocked the boat. Wise’s position of power and influence in the Jewish community depended on keeping the antisemitic gentiles who ran the United States happy. Louis Rapoport gives a picture of Wise as totally subservient to Roosevelt, who treated Wise with contempt:

“President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, whom Wise called ‘Boss’ or ‘Chief,’ regarded the rabbi as pompous and a pest, and once wrote to him, ‘...you care more for personal publicity than for good government.’ FDR delighted in teasing ‘Stevey,’ who acted like an awed courtier whenever he visited the White House. But the results of this absurd relationship would help compound the tragedy of the Jews of Europe. Even his admirers concede that Wise’s loyalty to Roosevelt ‘blinded his judgment,’ and his reliance on FDR would have ‘terrible results.’”[26]

Naturally it would have terrible results, because the immigration policy of the US, with Roosevelt’s personal and explicit authority, was designed not merely to deny entry to desperate Jews, but to make sure they ended up trapped in Europe, where Hitler would find them.[27] Loyalty to Roosevelt meant loyalty to this.

Though loyalty to Roosevelt and other antisemites running the US government was enough to produce opposition to Peter Bergson in the mainstream Jewish leaders, they had other reasons too.

“[Nahum] Goldmann [Stephen Wise’s Richelieu, according to Rapoport], a sworn enemy of Jabotinsky and the nationalistic Jewish movement, wanted total control of world Jewry concentrated in his hands, and said so unabashedly. The World Jewish Congress, which he had set up with Wise, was ‘the single address’ in his mind.”[28]

The Revisionist/Irgun attempts to rescue Jews would naturally raise the prestige of the Revisionist/Irgun movement in the Diaspora, and would populate the future state of Israel with Jews who had a reason to thank the Revisionist/Irgun movement, which would undermine the political position of mainstream Zionists such as Rabbi Stephen Wise and Nahum Goldmann. Louis Rapoport makes explicit reference to this issue as well:

“For years, Rabbi Wise was engaged in a bitter struggle for power with the more activist Zionists led by Rabbi Abba Hillel Silver and Emanuel Neumann, whose militancy would be constantly spurred by the growing appeal of the Bergson group.”[29]

One clear expression of how Stephen Wise cared only about his own power is as follows:

“In the United States, Rabbi Stephen Wise issued a statement to the press in November 1939, condemning ‘the activities of independent organizations seeking to duplicate or parallel the work of the Jewish Agency.’ Wise ignored the fact that at that time the Jewish Agency’s own activities were extremely limited.”[30]

War had already broken out (Hitler invaded Poland on 1 September 1939), and some people not under Stephen Wise’s authority were trying desperately to save as many Jewish lives as they could. Wise really didn’t like that. The extent to which he didn’t may be measured by the colossal absurdity of his statement: if the Jewish Agency had been busy saving Jewish lives, how could it be a bad thing to duplicate its activities? This would have meant more Jewish lives saved! And yet, the Jewish Agency (represented for several years in New York by Wise’s ally and Bergson’s enemy Nahum Goldmann) was mostly not saving Jewish lives. Obviously, what really mattered to Stephen Wise was making sure that no Jewish political activity took place except under the aegis of his own organizations, the better to concentrate his power. The reason he called those groups that were saving Jewish lives “independent organizations” is that they were independent of his authority.

I have focused on Stephen Wise because he was so important, but the problem was a general one: most Jews in positions of power in the US allied with the antisemites, not with the Jews, and even Jews in power who did act for rescue did so belatedly and timidly. For example, Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau, who was instrumental in the creation of the War Refugee Board that saved some 200,000 Jewish lives, nevertheless cannot be called an enthusiastic Jewish patriot.

"...it is noteworthy that even Morgenthau, although aware for much of the previous year of State Department obstructionism and although obviously concerned for the fate of Europe's Jews, hesitated to confront the president. He acted only after months of urging by key figures on his staff (Josiah DuBois, Randolph Paul, John Pehle, Ansel Luxford) and by Oscar Cox of the Lend-Lease Administration, all of them non-Jews, and only after being presented by his staff with their 'Report to the Secretary on the Acquiescence of This Government in the Murder of the Jews.'"[30a]

And yet Morgenthau was a vast improvement over most other Jews in positions of power in the United States.

"Samuel Rosenman, special counsel to the president and an advisor on Jewish matters, worked consistently against the president's taking steps that would have abetted rescue. When the Bergson group organized a delegation of Orthodox rabbis to visit Washington and lobby Congress and the administration for intervention, Rosenman tried to block the visit and then encouraged Roosevelt in his decision not to meet with the rabbis. When the WRB [the War Refugee Board, which Bergson's pressure group finally forced the Roosevelt administration to create] pressed the White House for a more explicit statement threatening war-crimes prosecutions against those involved in the slaughter of the Jews, Rosenman worked to quash the effort and subsequently to water down the statement, placing less emphasis on crimes against the Jews. (The statement he diluted had been approved by three Cabinet departments and had even gained State Department support). Rosenman also fought Morgenthau on the creation of the WRB."[30b]

The situation in Congress was not better:

"Of Jews in Congress at the time, [historian] David Wyman writes, 'Only Emmanuel Celler persistently urged government rescue actions... Sol Bloom [as Wyman documents] sided with the State Department throughout.' Bloom was chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and in a particularly good position to exert some pressure to promote rescue. But he appears to have been most concerned with overcoming whatever prejudice there might be toward him as a Jew, especially in the State Department, by demonstrating his capacity to rise above 'particularlist' issues like the fate of European Jewry."[30c]

These Jewish leaders were careful not to upset the antisemites who had allowed them to rise to positions of power, and moreover they “feared that the Bergson group’s growing popularity might usurp their own positions of prominence in the Jewish community.”[31]

It is important to state without mincing any words what these mainstream American Jewish leaders achieved while nursing their own egos and advancing their criminally narrow personal political interests: they gave Adolf Hitler courage.

As James Carroll says,

“As late as 1938, in a furious public rebuttal by Hitler to the world leaders who had denounced the Kristallnacht pogroms, his decidedly unfinal solution to the Jewish problem was still ‘Jews out!,’ not ‘Jews dead!’ His proposal, at that point, was...the expulsion of all Jews from the lands controlled by the Reich. Jews were offered immediate exit visas -- but exit to where? The same world leaders, notably Neville Chamberlain and Franklin D. Roosevelt, who had denounced the anti-Jewish violence of the Nazis declined to receive Jews as refugees... Crucial to [the Final Solution] building to a point of no return was Hitler’s discovery (late) of the political indifference of the democracies to the fate of the Jews...”[32]

Of course, most members of the ruling elites in the US and Britain were not really indifferent -- they were antisemitic. Still, Jews would have been received in these countries if there had been internal pressure to rescue the Jewish people, precisely because they were democracies, however imperfect (Peter Bergson’s objective would be, precisely, to generate such internal pressure). But the turning away of the St. Louis, which returned to Europe in June 1939, only two months before Adolf Hitler invaded Poland, demonstrated that even Jews with legally obtained visas would not be received in the US. This ‘victory’ of Rabbi Stephen Wise over his Jewish opponents “confirmed [the Nazis in] their theory that the democracies were unconcerned about the fate of the Jews, and it therefore advanced the prospects for a ‘Final Solution’ to the ‘Jewish problem.’”

A rocket scientist is not required to conclude this: You do not gain compassion from a racist murderer if you don’t defend yourself, and moreover encourage bystanders not to defend you. What you achieve with this is that you encourage the racist murderer.






























Compassion
by Jewish leaders towards Hitler’s Jewish victims cannot be construed as ‘double loyalty.’




 

 

 

 

 

Franklin Delano
Roosevelt

FDR delighted in teasing ‘Stevey,’ who acted like an awed courtier whenever he visited the White House.

Louis Rapoport (1999:61)



 

 

Rabbi Abba Hillel Silver

How similar to “mainstream American Jewish leaders” were mainstream Jewish leaders elsewhere?
____________________________________________

I am sorry to report that there are plenty of examples of mainstream Jewish leaders elsewhere behaving much in the same way that mainstream American Jewish leaders did. I will focus on the case of the Jewish leadership in Britain for the following reasons:

1) like the US, Britain never became Nazi-occupied;

2) like the US, Britain was a democracy;

3) although the British leadership, like the American leadership, was mostly antisemitic, and though the British Foreign Office, like the US State Department, did its very best to sabotage the rescue of Jews, a clear opportunity to save thousands of Jewish lives was sabotaged by the mainstream Jewish leaders in London; and

5) this has now been well documented.

Above James Carroll says that, before the Nazis settled on the Final Solution, “Jews were offered immediate exit visas -- but exit to where?” Recently, historian Frank Shapiro has produced ground-breaking research that has answered this question: Northern Rhodesia (modern Zambia, with its capital in Lusaka). The refutation of the common belief that ‘there was no place to go’ has come late because the relevant documents in Britain were kept classified for more than fifty years. He writes:

“Throughout the world a politically brutal and inhumane picture had emerged: The free western countries were swiftly closing their gates to any form of mass Jewish immigration... Palestine, which was the natural and legitimate solution -- as defined under international law in the terms of the mandate granted to Britain by the League of Nations -- was now put strictly out of bounds. When war broke out in September 1939, it was too late to seek a negotiated solution for these millions of people. By then the Jews were well and truly locked within the graveyard of Europe. Their fate had been sealed.”

But there was a place Jews could go to:

“The mosaic of evidence confirms that vast numbers of Jewish refugees could have been saved and allowed to settle in Northern Rhodesia.”[33]

The main players pushing to make possible a large-scale settlement plan for Jewish refugees in Northern Rhodesia, a protectorate of the British Crown, were 1) Reverend Cohen of the Bulawayo Hebrew Congregation in Southern Rhodesia, 2) J.E. (Chirupula) Stephenson, a gentile and prominent British colonist in Rhodesia, whom Shapiro considers a saint, and who with remarkable energy did absolutely everything in his power to save Jewish lives, and 3) the Colonial Secretary Malcolm McDonald, who -- apparently in an effort to distract from the fact that he wasn't letting any Jewish refugees enter British Mandate 'Palestine' -- was ready to act on the Northern Rhodesian scheme even if it meant upsetting both the Governor of Rhodesia (a subordinate of McDonald’s) and a faction of British colonists in Rhodesia who were antisemites. (As it turns out, however, most of the prominent Northern Rhodesian colonists who initially opposed mass Jewish immigration ended up in support when the situation of the European Jews became desperate.[34])

[INSERTED NOTE (4 April 2006): Malcolm McDonald was responsible for the British White Paper of 1939, which was a dramatically anti-Jewish measure that prevented desperate Jews from taking refuge in the most obvious place: British Mandate Palestine, where the Jews had an internationally recognized right under the League of Nations to create a national home.[34a] So this needs to be kept in mind when McDonald's enthusiasm for the Rhodesian scheme is evaluated. It is likely that McDonald was merely trying to produce a political appearance of concern, there to counter the (deserved!) appearance of British callousness toward the Jews. In any case, the desire to produce this political appearance could have been exploited by Jewish leaders in Britain to save Jewish lives. -- FGW]

There were ups and downs, plans were proposed, revised, then aborted, then new plans proposed, and so forth. However, as the situation in Europe became ever more desperate, a plan for mass settlement of Jewish refugees in Northern Rhodesia was eventually very seriously contemplated thanks mainly to Cohen, Stephenson, and McDonald, and then it was approved. This would have allowed perhaps as many as 3000 Jews to take refuge in Northern Rhodesia, which was much less than what was obviously possible, and consequently much less than what Reverend Cohen and ‘Chirupula’ Stephenson had been passionately advocating, but still better than what was being offered anywhere else.

But the mainstream Jewish leadership in Britain discouraged Malcolm McDonald, and kept the Northern Rhodesia option secret from the desperate European Jews.

Frank Shapiro explains who was in charge:

“Until the 1930s, the lay leadership of Britain’s Jewish community remained the prerogative of an exclusive cadre of personalities of well established, anglicized [Jewish] families, such as Anthony de Rothschild, Neville Laski, Sir Robert Waley Cohen, Sir Osmond D’Avigdor-Goldsmid, Lord Bearsted, Sir Herbert Samuel, and Simon Marks, who provided traditional, paternalistic-style guidance.

. . .[After offering to defray all costs of asylum seekers, freeing the British government of all responsibility,] control over the category of refugees admitted became the responsibility of the voluntary organizations which became centralized in the Emigration (Planning) Committee of the Council of German Jewry, whose chairman was Anthony de Rothschild and Professor Bentwich its director. This committee was to be the primary organization dealing with Jewish refugee settlement in Britain’s overseas colonies [because they were not being admitted into Britain!].”[35]

On June 10, 1939, a Mission headed by Sir James Dunnett and appointed to study the feasibility of a mass settlement scheme for Jewish refugees in Northern Rhodesia completed its inquiries. The Mission concluded with the most ambitious official recommendation, which was quite modest compared to what was in fact possible, but at any rate much better than nothing: 440 families (Eastern European Jewish families were large, so these might have been as many as 3000 people).

“It would have been expected that with the publication of the Mission’s findings favoring the settlement of some four hundred refugee families, Rothschild’s Emigration (Planning) Committee would have immediately struck while the iron was hot and malleable, and transported the agreed-upon quota into Northern Rhodesia as fast as possible. Unfortunately, this was not to be. The idea of the report’s findings bothered Anthony de Rothschild, who expressed the wish to keep the findings under wraps for the time being.”[36]

For the time being. This was June 1939, and the invasion of Poland, which began the World War and sealed the fate of Europe’s Jews when Hitler overran the continent, was only two and a half months away.

Colonial Secretary Malcolm McDonald was prepared to order the Governor of Northern Rhodesia, his subordinate, to accept the refugees, overriding any local opposition. In a statement prepared for McDonald’s confrontation with Sir John Maybin, the Governor, and quoted by Shapiro, the London bureaucrats expressed that:

“HMG [Her Majesty’s Government] would in all probability find themselves compelled to overrule the views of the Governor and of his Legislative Council, assuming that those views continued to be unfavorable to large-scale settlement.”[37]

But the body supposedly created to save Jewish lives, and presided by the mainstream Jewish leader Anthony de Rothschild, would not give its endorsement.

However, the Emigration (Planning) Committee jettisoned the Mission’s plan and had no intention of implementing it. In their discussion on the Mission’s findings, rather than working out a concrete settlement plan, the members of Rothschild’s committee deliberated how to hide the positive intentions; how to keep the report hushed up, and what the likely reactions would be to any publication.”[38] [emphasis original]

And they worried they might be attacked for this, which reveals consciousness of guilt:

“One of the leading Emigration (Planning) Committee members, Lord Hailey, . . .was particularly worried about how to deal with the potential accusations against the Emigration (Planning) Committee if they did not publish the report.”[39]

The method of procrastination became the assertion that other schemes (schemes that, needless to say, came to nothing) should be considered first. Naturally, this gave Malcolm McDonald’s Colonial Office the cover it needed to do nothing, and so

“. . .the Colonial Office went along with Rothschild’s Committee’s rejection and took the view now taken by the Committee, namely that all considerations of the Mission’s Report were to be shelved until information regarding British Guiana was forthcoming.”[40]

Your capacity for shock has not yet been exhausted. Faced with the disaster of the hushing of the Mission’s Report,

“At the end of July 1939, ‘Chirupula’ Stephenson wrote directly to Rothschild offering a business deal regarding his own [Rhodesian] farm as a means to rehabilitate the refugees. Wishing to retire, he offered the Emigration (Planning) Committee his farm for sale, whereby he would become Life Director in an ensuing established limited company. According to Stephenson, the farm comprising some 12,500 acres could support 1,250 men and women growing crops for export. His message was passed on to the Emigration (Planning) Committee and almost three weeks passed before Stephenson received an answer: ‘the Committee decided that for the time being no measures will be taken in regard to refugee settlement in Northern Rhodesia.’”

For the time being. The invasion of Poland would happen in another week.

Perhaps the most amazing thing about this story lies in a point that Frank Shapiro goes out of his way to document and impress upon the reader: although there was a lot of official back and forth about the mass settlement scheme, while this was going on, not one Jew who tried to enter Northern Rhodesia, with or without a visa, was denied entry. Every Jew who found out about this made it in. But the Emigration (Planning) Committee, which body knew this perfectly well, did not publicize this fact either.

The documents relevant to this case remained classified for more than fifty years: more evidence of consciousness of guilt.

Is the current Jewish leadership different? The next piece in this series will document that it is not. But casting here just a brief glance into the future, notice one deadly connection between the past and the present. As we've seen above, “the Emigration (Planning) Committee,” which body prevented at least 3000 Jewish lives from finding save haven in Northern Rhodesia, “[was] headed by such eminent personalities as...Lord [Herbert] Samuel...” This Herbert Samuel had been the High Commissioner for Palestine, and he presided over the elevation of Hajj Amin al Husseini as Mufti of Jerusalem, after Hajj Amin demonstrated that he could organize anti-Jewish terrorist riots in British Mandate 'Palestine'! Hajj Amin al Husseini went on to organize bigger anti-Jewish terrorist riots with the budget and authority that Herbert Samuel gave him, and when the World War exploded he became one of the main leaders of Adolf Hitler's Final Solution in Europe. Later, he also mentored Yasser Arafat, and grandfathered Fatah, Arafat's organization.[41] This would be the same Yasser Arafat and the same Fatah that current mainstream Jewish leaders have labored energetically to empower inside the Jewish state.















 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Modern Zambia
( formerly, Northern
Rhodesia )

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 























































 

 

 

  

Not one
Jew who tried to enter Northern Rhodesia, with or without a visa, was denied entry
.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Herbert Samuel

   

________________________________________________________

Footnotes and Further Reading
________________________________________________________

[1] This quote is reported, I should note, by an admirer of Stephen Wise. It will be found here:

Urofsky, M. I. 1982. A voice that spoke for justice: The life and times of Stephen S. Wise. Albany: State University of New York Press. (p.304)

[1a] Levin, K. 2005. The Oslo syndrome: Delusions of a people under siege. Hanover, NH: Smith and Kraus. (p.119)

[1b] Rapoport, Louis. 1999. Shake heaven and earth: Peter Bergson and the struggle to rescue the Jews of Europe, Gefen, Jerusalem and New York. (p.221)

[1c] The Oslo syndrome (p.119)

[2] “Can Israel survive if it does not defend itself?: The Jewish people must come to grips with their radical opposition to self-defense”; Historical and Investigative Research; 13 Sep 2005; by Francisco Gil-White
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/defense.htm

[3] Rapoport, Louis. 1999. Shake heaven and earth: Peter Bergson and the struggle to rescue the Jews of Europe, Gefen, Jerusalem and New York. (p.vii)

[3a] Levin, K. 2005. The Oslo syndrome: Delusions of a people under siege. Hanover, NH: Smith and Kraus. (pp.118-119)

[4] LIQUIDATION DAY SET FOR FRANCE'S JEWS; Whole Problem Is to Be Put Into German Hands by Feb. 15, Relief Groups Hear SEVERAL METHODS USED Internment and Deportation Are Employed, as Is Assignment to Dangerous Work; By DANIEL T. BRIGHAM; By Telephone to THE NEW YORK TIMES.. New York Times (1857-Current file). New York, N.Y.: Jan 27, 1943. p. 10 (1 page)

[5] Total Nazi Executions Are Put at 3,400,000; Poland, With 2,500,000 Victims, Tops List; New York Times (1857-Current file). New York, N.Y.: Feb 28, 1943. p. 12 (1 page)

[6] No US visas for European Jews trying to escape the Nazi slaughter; From “Is the US an Ally of Israel?: A Chronological Look at the Evidence”; Historical and Investigative Research; by Francisco Gil-White.
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hirally.htm#visa

The allies refused to sabotage the Final Solution by military means; From “Is the US an Ally of Israel?: A Chronological Look at the Evidence”; Historical and Investigative Research; by Francisco Gil-White.
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hirally.htm#sabotage

[7] “The Day the Rabbis Marched”; David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies; October 06, 2005; by Rafael Medoff.  (Dr. Medoff is director of The David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies.)
http://www.wymaninstitute.org/special/rabbimarch/pg02.php

[7a] I have examined this pathology of reasoning in the following piece:

“Can Israel survive if it does not defend itself?: The Jewish people must come to grips with their radical opposition to self-defense”; Historical and Investigative Research; 13 Sep 2005; by Francisco Gil-White
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/defense.htm

[7b] Levin, K. 2005. The Oslo syndrome: Delusions of a people under siege. Hanover, NH: Smith and Kraus. (p.137)

[8] In the 1930s, the US Establishment helped sponsor the rise of the German Nazi movement; From “Is the US an Ally of Israel?: A Chronological Look at the Evidence”; Historical and Investigative Research; by Francisco Gil-White.
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hirally.htm#1930

[9] No US visas for European Jews trying to escape the Nazi slaughter; From “Is the US an Ally of Israel?: A Chronological Look at the Evidence”; Historical and Investigative Research; by Francisco Gil-White.
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hirally.htm#visa

The allies refused to sabotage the Final Solution by military means; From “Is the US an Ally of Israel?: A Chronological Look at the Evidence”; Historical and Investigative Research; by Francisco Gil-White.
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hirally.htm#sabotage

[10] The following three pieces contain discussion, making reference to the relevant documentation, of how US Intelligence absorbed and sponsored Nazi war criminals after 1945:

1) After 1945, the US created US Intelligence by recruiting tens of thousands of Nazi war criminals; From “Is the US an Ally of Israel?: A Chronological Look at the Evidence”; Historical and Investigative Research; by Francisco Gil-White.
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hirally.htm#1945

2) “A skeptical look at the Ford Foundation: Does its Nazi past matter?”; Historical and Investigative Research; 18 Sep 2005; by Francisco Gil-White.
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/ford.htm

3) In 1985 Bettino Craxi and Giulio Andreotti (respectively, the Italian prime minister and foreign minister) committed political suicide for the sake of pushing the PLO. The US was behind them; From “Is the US an Ally of Israel?: A Chronological Look at the Evidence”; Historical and Investigative Research; by Francisco Gil-White.
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hirally2.htm#craxi

The following piece documents the power that US Intelligence was given in 1947 to corrupt the press and the entire political process, making US citizens essentially powerless to control their own government:

"DID THE NATIONAL SECURITY ACT OF 1947 DESTROY FREEDOM OF THE PRESS?: The red pill..."; Historical and Investigative Research; 31 December 2005; by Francisco Gil-White
http://www.hirhome.com/national-security.htm

[11] “The British Record on Partition”; Reprinted from The Nation, May 8, 1948; Comments by Jared Israel, Emperor's Clothes.
pdf: http://www.tenc.net/history/pdf.htm
text: http://emperors-clothes.com/history/br.htm

[12] In 1947-48, forced by external circumstances, the US government gave lukewarm support to the creation of the State of Israel. But then it reversed itself and implemented anti-Israel policies; From “Is the US an Ally of Israel?: A Chronological Look at the Evidence”; Historical and Investigative Research; by Francisco Gil-White.
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hirally.htm#1947

[13] To read an analysis of all this, consult:

In 1947-48, forced by external circumstances, the US government gave lukewarm support to the creation of the State of Israel. But then it reversed itself and implemented anti-Israel policies; From “Is the US an Ally of Israel?: A Chronological Look at the Evidence”; Historical and Investigative Research; by Francisco Gil-White.
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hirally.htm#1947

To see a photo of the demonstration, in the original NYT article that reported on it, visit:

100,000 JAM RALLY IN JEWISH PROTEST; New York Times (1857-Current file); Apr 5, 1948; ProQuest Historical Newspapers The New York Times; pg. 1
http://www.tenc.net/gilwhite/apr.pdf

NOTE: The NYT headline diminishes the size of the crowd to 100,000, but the body of the article reports that the NYC police estimated the crowd at around 250,000.

[14] Friedman, Saul S., 1937- Shake Heaven and Earth: Peter Bergson and the Struggle to Rescue the Jews of Europe,  and:  America Views the Holocaust, 1933-1945: A Brief Documentary History (review); American Jewish History - Volume 88, Number 1, March 2000, pp. 141-145

[14a] HOLOCAUST: THE AMERICAN JEWISH CONSPIRACY OF SILENCE: The Rise and Fall of the American Jewish Commission on the Holocaust; The Forgotten Heritage: The Struggle of the Irgun's Delegation to the United States (1939-1945) Against the Silence of America (The Story of the Bergson-Hecht Group); The Jewish Post of New York; May/June 1996; by GAD NAHSHON.
http://www.jewishpost.com/jp0204/jpn0204b.htm

[14b] Levin, K. 2005. The Oslo syndrome: Delusions of a people under siege. Hanover, NH: Smith and Kraus. (p.137)

[15] Rapoport, Louis. 1999. Shake heaven and earth: Peter Bergson and the struggle to rescue the Jews of Europe, Gefen, Jerusalem and New York. (p.viii)

[15a] The allies refused to sabotage the Final Solution
by military means; from From “
Is the US an Ally of Israel: A chronological look at the evidence”; Historical and Investigative Research; by Francisco Gil-White.
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hirally.htm#sabotage

[16] Rapoport, Louis. 1999. Shake heaven and earth: Peter Bergson and the struggle to rescue the Jews of Europe, Gefen, Jerusalem and New York. (p.xi)

[17] “Two of Hillel’s [Bergson’s] brother’s were injured in different pogroms [anti-Jewish racist attacks]. In the worst pogrom, when Rabbi Dov Kook and his sons, Rafael and Herzl, were out of town, Girgoriev’s men invaded and ransacked the Kook’s home. Rebecca fled with her youngest, four-year-old Hillel [who would later be Peter Bergson]…, and her four girls; Batya, Sonia, Tzila, and Nehama. Fifteen-year-old Nahum, who stayed behind, was shot in the chest, the bullets penetrating his lungs. The pogromchiks left him for dead. Rebecca and her children hid in the cellar in the courtyard, where other Jewish mothers were sheltering their children, trembling in fear. Hillel’s mother warned her little boy not to cry out, or she would have to clasp her hand over his mought, as another young mother was doing to her child. They stayed in the cellar for hourse. When they emerged, the found Nahum at death’s door and the streets of the town literally flowing with blood. The experience was indelibly branded into Hillel Kook’s soul: His earliest memories were of Jews being shot, or cut down with swords or axes. Nahum was brought by cart to the hospital, where the doctors said there was no hope for him. But somehow, he survived. In offering thanks to God for what was considered a miraculous recovery, he took a vow to become a doctor. This was pleasing to Rebecca, who wanted two of her sons to become rabbis, and the other two to become physicians.”

SOURCE: Rapoport, Louis. 1999. Shake heaven and earth: Peter Bergson and the struggle to rescue the Jews of Europe, Gefen, Jerusalem and New York. (p.15).

[18] Shake Heaven and Earth (p.32)

[19] Shake Heaven and Earth (p.32)

[19a] Wyman, D. S., and R. Medoff. 2002. A race against death: Peter Bergson, America, and the Holocaust. New York: The New Press. (p.19)

[20] Shake Heaven and Earth (p.14)

[21] Urofsky, M. I. 1982. A voice that spoke for justice: The life and times of Stephen S. Wise. Albany: State University of New York Press. (p.304)

[22] Shake Heaven and Earth (pp.33-34)

[23] Shake Heaven and Earth (p.39)

[24] Shake Heaven and Earth (p.62)

[24a] On August 28, 1942, Rabbi Stephen Wise received an alarming cable from London. It read in part: "IN FUHRER'S HEADQUARTERS PLAN DISCUSSED AND UNDER CONSIDERATION THAT ALL JEWS IN COUNTRIES OCCUPIED OR CONTROLLED [BY] GERMANY...SHOULD AFTER DEPORTATION AND CONCENTRATION IN EAST AT ONE BLOW BE EXTERMINATED." The message had originally been sent by Gerhart Riegner, the World Jewish Congress representative in Switzerland. It came to Wise because, as a leading figure in more than a dozen Jewish organizations, he was probably the most influential and well-respected American Jew of his generation.

SOURCE: "America and the Holocaust"; People & Events: Rabbi Stephen Wise (1874-1949); PBS (Public Broadcasting Service).
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/holocaust/
peopleevents/pandeAMEX101.html

[24b] Rapoport, Louis. 1999. Shake heaven and earth: Peter Bergson and the struggle to rescue the Jews of Europe, Gefen, Jerusalem and New York. (p.34)

[25] Shake Heaven and Earth (p.41)

[26] Shake Heaven and Earth (p.61)

[27] No US visas for European Jews trying to escape the Nazi slaughter; From “Is the US an Ally of Israel?: A Chronological Look at the Evidence”; Historical and Investigative Research; by Francisco Gil-White.
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hirally.htm#visa

[28] Shake Heaven and Earth (p.62)

[29] Shake Heaven and Earth (p.44)

[30] Shake Heaven and Earth (p.39)

[30a] Levin, K. 2005. The Oslo syndrome: Delusions of a people under siege. Hanover, NH: Smith and Kraus. (p.138)

[30b] The Oslo syndrome (p.138)

[30c] The Oslo syndrome (pp.138-139)

[31] “The Day the Rabbis Marched”; David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies; October 06, 2005; by Rafael Medoff.  (Dr. Medoff is director of The David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies.)
http://www.wymaninstitute.org/special/rabbimarch/pg02.php

[32] Carroll, J. 2001. Constantine's Sword: The Church and the Jews. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. (p.522)

[33] Shapiro, Frank. 2002. Haven in Africa, Jerusalem and New York, Gefen (p.1-3)

[34] Haven in Africa (pp.90-91)

[34a] BRITISH MANDATE; MCDONALD WHITE PAPER |
What was the McDonald White Paper of 1939? | Palestine Facts.

http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_mandate_whitepaper_1939.php

[35] Haven in Africa (pp.33-34)

[36] Haven in Africa (p.111)

[37] Haven in Africa (p.117)

[38] Haven in Africa (p.117)

[39] Haven in Africa (p.117)

[40] Haven in Africa (p.119)

[41] You will find the most complete documentation on this here:

“HOW DID THE ‘PALESTINIAN MOVEMENT’ EMERGE? The British sponsored it. Then the German Nazis, and the US.”; Historical and Investigative Research; 13 June 2006; by Francisco Gil-White.
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/pal_mov4.htm

Some of this material was originally published here:

“Anti-Semitism, Misinformation, And The Whitewashing Of The Palestinian Leadership”; Israel National News; May 26, '03 / 24 Iyar 5763; by Francisco J. Gil-White
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/article.php3?id=2405


 
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
2   How mainstream Diaspora Jewish
leaders are failing the Jewish people
today

________________________________________________________


“Edgar Bronfman, President of the World Jewish Congress, ...suggested the [Jewish] settlements [in the West Bank and Gaza] were the key obstacle to peace and echoed [Hebrew University] professor [Ze’ev] Sternhell in advising the Palestinians that they would be wise to focus their terror attacks on settlers.”

SOURCE: Levin, K. 2005. The Oslo syndrome: Delusions of a people under siege. Hanover, NH: Smith and Kraus. (p.493)

Hertzberg   Bronfman   Foxman   AIPAC   Others

________________________________________________________

Introduction

The simplest way to explain why the European Jews were exterminated in World War II is like this: at the time, the conditions were just right to produce an extermination of the European Jews. But this explanation is too simple to be useful, so we must specify, at least minimally, what those conditions were that produced the Shoah (Holocaust). I believe the main conditions are five:

 

1) A group with an antisemitic and genocidal ideology, the German Nazis, controlled a great many resources, whereas the Jews were in a weak position relative to this power.

2) A great many people came to believe, absurdly, as a result of massive propaganda, that they were in mortal danger from ‘the Jews,’ and that they therefore needed to defend themselves from ‘the Jews.’ Many ordinary people, in consequence, either did not oppose, or else cooperated with, the Nazi power directly in charge of the Final Solution.

3) The democracies also did not oppose, or else they cooperated with, the progress of antisemitism and then the Final Solution.

4) Incredibly, many mainstream Jewish leaders preached to the Jews that they should not defend themselves, and they also sabotaged the efforts of those Jews who did mount a defense (see Part 1).

5) Incredibly, many ordinary Jews chose to ignore the obvious signs that they would be exterminated, heeding their leaders’ calls not to defend themselves, or else choosing to defend themselves when it was much too late.

Between five and six million Jews perished in one of the worst human disasters in recorded history because the above five conditions simultaneously manifested themselves.

Now, one may legitimately complain that the above is not very satisfying. One should want to know, after all, why the above five conditions came about -- at least if one is interested in making sense of history. However, the minimal and very general explanation of the Shoah contained in the above five conditions has a virtue: it provides a simple checklist by which we can predict that another such massive Catastrophe is about to take place. In other words, if we are agreed that the above five conditions are broadly responsible for many millions of Jews dying in the mid-twentieth century, then we are entitled to expect that millions of Jews will again perish if and when the above five conditions recur. And so, if we are neither antisemites, nor imbeciles, nor moral cowards, we can work to prevent the next Catastrophe if we see that the above five conditions are once again being brought about.

HIR has published much material supporting the view that the first three conditions are manifesting themselves today (consult the footnote).[1] The present series on the problem of Jewish self-defense is concerned with documenting that conditions four and five are also manifesting themselves.

I have divided Jewish leaders into the following four useful categories:

 

Part 1. Diaspora Jewish organizations during WWII

Part 2. Diaspora Jewish leaders today.

Part 3. Israeli leaders today.

Part 4. Israeli leaders in WWII (coming...)

Beyond this, in Parts 5 and 6, I will examine the problems ordinary Jews have with self-defense, and the reasons why they allow themselves, with disastrous results, to be led by such people.

________________________________________________________

| A | Jewish leaders in the Diaspora
________________________________________________________

Jewish leaders in the Diaspora are not better today than they were in World War II. A full documentation of their activities would keep us here forever, so I will focus on a number of prominent examples that will be sufficient to make my case.

 


Arthur Hertzberg
_______________

In Part 1 we have seen that Reform Rabbi Stephen Wise -- the most important American Jewish leader of his day -- was terribly destructive to the effort to rescue the desperate European Jews. As we also saw, most Jews are completely ignorant of this history, which helps explain what otherwise would be a colossal absurdity: the fact that they celebrate the memory of Stephen Wise and name synagogues and streets after him.

 

But why so much ignorance about something so important? Here is a clue:

 

“At one time or another, and often simultaneously, Stephen Wise was president or chairman of a bewildering number of organizations, among them: the American Jewish Congress, which he founded; the Zionist Organization of America; the United Palestine Appeal; the World Jewish Congress, which he co-founded with Nahum Goldmann; and the American Jewish Conference, an umbrella group of dozens of US Jewish and Zionist organizations.”[2]

In other words, the organizations that are dominant in the Jewish mainstream today -- the ones that, by educating the new generations of Jews about what happened in World War II, might be helping protect the Jewish people from the next massive attack -- were created by Stephen Wise and his colleagues. What follows? That these organizations will prefer that their shameful past not be properly understood, and hence will not educate the Jewish people.

 

Consider what happened in 1981. In that year, there was an effort to change the dangerous and absurd state of Jewish ignorance about the role of the American Jewish leadership in sabotaging the defense of the Jews during WWII. A semi-official commission would study this chapter in history and inform the public. Holocaust survivor Jack Eisner is who came up with this idea, and he was going to provide the financing, but in the end he didn’t because, according to him, the people involved in the commission were going to “whitewash the truth” rather than make it transparent.

 

Should this be surprising? I don’t think so.

 

“Among the members [of the proposed commission] were Hon. Elizabeth Holtzman, Rabbi Arthur Hertzberg, Hon. Philip Klutznick, Mrs. Charlotte Jacobson, Dr. Bruno Bettleheim, Dr. Martin Peretz, Judge Simon Rifkind, Rabbi Arthur Schneier, Rabbi Marc Tannenbaum and Mr. Sol Chaikin.”[3]

I will not indict every member of the above proposed commission; for example, Martin Peretz is an opponent of the Oslo Process and a critic of the current Jewish leadership: he at least sounds like a Jewish patriot.[4] But someone like Rabbi Arthur Hertzberg does give cause for concern. You see, this mainstream Jewish leader has been “president of both the American Jewish Policy Foundation and the American Jewish Congress, [and] vice president of the World Jewish Congress.”[5] In other words, he has been a leader of the very organizations that were created by Stephen Wise and Nahum Goldmann.

Given that institutions survive the passage of time when the people in them recruit ideological bedfellows as replacements, it is not unreasonable to expect that Arthur Hertzberg will turn out to be like Wise and Goldmann, particularly when Hertzberg is given to bemoaning in print the supposed “scarcity of men such as Stephen Wise.”[6] With this in the background we may put on the table a hypothesis to explain why Jack Eisner protested that the commission he was to fund, and which contained Arthur Hertzberg, would “whitewash the truth” rather than expose it: Jack Eisner realized that Arthur Hertzberg would attempt a cover up.

 

I shall now support this hypothesis by taking a closer look at Arthur Hertzberg.

In 1979 Arthur Hertzberg came out with a book titled Being Jewish in America (1979). Julius Weinberg, who read it and reviewed it, understood the author’s political position to be as follows:

“Hertzberg proposes that the Jewish community of this country [the United States] should have an equal voice in the political decisions to be made by the state of Israel -- including Israel’s foreign policy.”[7]

And Hertzberg’s paternalistic attitude, Weinberg wryly observed, extended not merely to Israelis but to all Jews, for in Hertzberg’s opinion Jews are “no longer to be trusted to know what is in their own best interests, but are in need of enlightened mentors to guide their ideas and actions.” And who might these “enlightened mentors” be? Why, the leaders of the World Jewish Congress, including Hertzberg’s own exalted self.

 

The above pretensions were precisely those of Goldmann and Wise, Hertzberg’s forerunners in the World Jewish Congress. As we saw in Part 1,

 

“[Nahum] Goldmann wanted total control of world Jewry concentrated in his hands, and said so unabashedly. The World Jewish Congress, which he had set up with [Stephen] Wise, was ‘the single address’ in his mind.”[8]

In other words, Nahum Goldmann wanted the World Jewish Congress, a Diaspora organization, to decide matters for Jews everywhere, including Israel. So in his megalomaniac pretensions and general contempt for Jews, Hertzberg is just like his predecessors.

But this is not where the similarities end.

As we saw in Part 1, Goldmann and Wise did not defend the persecuted Jews; instead, they sabotaged Peter Bergson (Hillel Kook), who was defending the persecuted Jews. So Goldmann and Wise were interested only in their own power. Arthur Hertzberg has likewise continued this World Jewish Congress tradition of criminal disregard for the security of the Jewish people, advancing his “equal voice” in the service of sabotaging the defense of Israel.

Consider that for Hertzberg, as Julius Weinberg explains, “it is Israel rather than the Arab countries surrounding it that has to prove its benign intentions to the world.” Isn’t that remarkable? These would be the same Arab countries that have launched wars against Israel with the proudly and publicly announced purpose of exterminating the Israeli Jews.[9] So why does Hertzberg tell us that the Israelis are the ones who have to prove their benign intentions to the world? They haven’t attacked anybody, let alone called for exterminating anyone.

 

That was 1979, but Hertzberg has been consistent. On 19 September, 2003, The Jerusalem Post reported,

 

“In America, historian of Zionism Rabbi Arthur Hertzberg, like philanthropists Edgar Bronfman and Marvin Lender, has also chosen sides by appealing to President George W. Bush to put sanctions on Israel and to view Israel and the PA [the ‘Palestinian Authority,’ run by the PLO] as equivalents.”[10]

Hertzberg “has...chosen sides”: he sides with the PLO. Rather passionately, I might add: he wants US sanctions on Israel. And Hertzberg’s statements, mind you, were made right as the PLO was murdering scores of innocent Israelis at the height of the Second Intifada.

 

Now, when we see Rabbi Arthur Hertzberg lobbying for the Jewish state to be considered equivalent to an organization, the PLO, whose controlling core Al Fatah was created by a leader of Adolf Hitler’s Final Solution with the purpose of continuing the extermination of the Jewish people,[11] how shall we characterize this? Would the word antisemitism be too strong? (But one can find Rabbi Hertzberg introduced as “a man of impeccable liberal credentials,” so this is how you earn your ‘liberal credentials’ these days: attacking the Jews.[12])

Of course, Hertzberg sells his position as supposed compassion for the West Bank and Gaza Arabs (i.e. the so-called ‘Palestinians’), and various sources will echo this: for example, Wikipedia refers to his “outspoken criticism of the policies of Israel toward the Palestinians.”[13] But this is absurd. It is the PLO that has been oppressing the West Bank and Gaza Arabs, not Israel.[14] The serious problems for these Arabs began when, partly as a result of pressure coming from Hertzberg’s World Jewish Congress (more on this below), the PLO was imposed on the Arabs as ‘government.’ Since then, not only has the PLO been murdering innocent Israeli civilians, but it has also been murdering innocent West Bank and Gaza Arabs, sometimes executing them merely for selling land to a Jew, or for opposing the killings of Jews, when it is not murdering them for opposing the PLO on other grounds.[15] The Arabs in the West Bank and Gaza were treated infinitely better when the Israeli government was directly administering these territories,[16] so genuine compassion for these Arabs would require Hertzberg to be a vocal opponent of the PLO, not Israel.

What is the political effect of this spectacle -- of Rabbi Arthur Hertzberg on the world stage behaving as if he has a rather special animosity against the Jewish state? Well, considering that the man has been “president of both the American Jewish Policy Foundation and the American Jewish Congress, [and] vice president of the World Jewish Congress,” the effect on ordinary people (Jewish and non-Jewish alike), who are poorly informed, is to make them think: “Gee, if a leader of something calling itself the ‘World Jewish Congress’ says that Israel is the bad guy, then it must be -- because, how can Israel be the good guy if even the Jewish leadership attacks it?” As we saw in Part 1, in World War II Rabbi Stephen Wise had a similar effect on many people who otherwise would have defended the Jews: he confused and demoralized them. It is impossible to know exactly how many lives were lost this way, but given that Peter Bergson’s movement managed to save some 200,000 people despite Wise’s repeated acts of sabotage, as we saw in Part 1, the cost could be a few million.

More consistency: Since Rabbi Stephen Wise was the enemy of Peter Bergson (Hillel Kook), who was a founder of the Irgun Tzvai Leumi Jewish army, and who did his utmost to save Jewish lives in Europe while Wise sabotaged his every move, perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised that Arthur Hertzberg was an enemy of the late Israeli prime minister Menachem Begin, a former leader of the Irgun, and like Bergson a Jewish patriot.[17]

When you put all this together, it is kind of obvious, isn’t it, that Arthur Hertzberg will not want the actions of Stephen Wise examined or publicized because, if this happens, a lot of people might notice that Arthur Hertzberg, Stephen Wise’s heir, is behaving very much like Stephen Wise, who betrayed the Jewish people when they most needed him. So this seems quite sufficient to explain the fact that Jack Eisner, who was to fund Arthur Hertzberg’s work reporting on Stephen Wise’s role, should have complained that Hertzberg’s commission was going to “whitewash the truth” (by the way, some of the other members of the proposed commission were also cause for concern[18]). And because Eisner’s effort fell apart, what we have on the response of American Jewish leaders to the Shoah is just the belated work, in the last few years, of a couple of historians.[19]


 

 

 

 


 

 

 

Rabbi Arthur Hertzberg

Hertzberg proposes that the Jewish community of this country [the United States] should have an equal voice in the political decisions to be made by the state of Israel -- including Israel’s foreign policy.

Julius Weinberg (1979)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

What is the political effect of this spectacle -- of Rabbi Arthur Hertzberg on the world stage behaving as if he has a rather special animosity against the Jewish state?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Menachem Begin

Edgar Bronfman, Sr.
__________________

The same year, 1981, that Arthur Hertzberg was sabotaging the effort to understand what Wise and Co. did during World War II, Edgar Bronfman, president of the World Jewish Congress (so, Hertzberg’s boss), was working very hard to endorse US President Ronald Reagan’s radically anti-Israel policies, which had for goal the creation of a PLO state in the West Bank.[20] In 1982, Bronfman was at it again, using his perch as president of the World Jewish Congress to endorse Ronald Reagan’s plan for Middle East ‘peace.’ Reagan was using Bronfman as a ‘Jewish diplomat,’ as if all Jews were the same and the World Jewish Congress spoke for them all, including citizens of Israel. American newspapers dutifully carried the headline “Jewish Leader OKs Reagan Peace Plan.”[21]

But Bronfman did not speak for the Israeli Jews:

 

“the Israeli government. . .unanimously and totally rejected the American initiative.”[22]

The Israeli prime minister at the time was Menachem Begin, the former leader of the Irgun’s military wing.

 

So there are no surprises here. Edgar Bronfman, like Stephen Wise and Nahum Goldmann before him, has been busy giving cover to the US government for its anti-Jewish policies. His support for Reagan’s anti-Israeli policies in the early 80s was extreme.[23]

Bronfman did the same in the mid-80s, when again as president of the World Jewish Congress, he acted as an informal diplomat for Shimon Peres, at the time Israel’s prime minister. The diplomacy Bronfman conducted (mind you, Bronfman is not an Israeli citizen) was meant to do an end-run around Yitzhak Shamir from the opposition party, who was the actual foreign minister. And the point of this diplomacy, according to some reports, was to give away the strategic Golan Heights to the Syrians![24] At the same time, Peres sent leaders of the American Jewish Congress, another organization founded by Stephen Wise, to be his private diplomats to Arab leaders with whom he wanted to legitimize the PLO as a political player.[25] Peres and Bronfman finally achieved their goals with the so-called Oslo ‘Peace’ Process, which empowered the PLO inside the Jewish state.

It apparently has not bothered Edgar Bronfman that Al Fatah, the controlling core of the PLO, was grandfathered by Hajj Amin al Husseini, responsible for one terrorist wave after another against innocent Jews in British Mandate ‘Palestine,’ and later one of the main architects of Adolf Hitler’s Final Solution in Europe. Hajj Amin also mentored Yasser Arafat.[26]

And Bronfman, like Hertzberg, has been consistent throughout. In the year 2003,

 

“Edgar Bronfman, President of the World Jewish Congress, ...suggested the [Jewish] settlements [in the West Bank and Gaza] were the key obstacle to peace and echoed [Hebrew University] professor [Ze’ev] Sternhell in advising the Palestinians that they would be wise to focus their terror attacks on settlers.”[27]

When we see Edgar Bronfman advocating the murder of innocent Jews in order to advance the political goals of the PLO, an antisemitic terrorist organization with genocidal goals, and which traces its origin to Adolf Hitler’s Final Solution, how shall we characterize this? Is the word antisemitism too strong?

 

This time, at least, “Jewish outrage forced [Bronfman] to apologize.”[28] Jewish outrage of this sort is healthy -- more of it may yet save the Jewish people.

 

 

Edgar Bronfman

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Abraham Foxman
________________

If you go to the website of the famous Anti-Defamation League (ADL), you will see a quotation from the ADL Charter of 1913 that states:

 

“The immediate object of the [Anti-Defamation] League is to stop, by appeals to reason and conscience and, if necessary, by appeals to law, the defamation of the Jewish people.”[29]

The leader of the ADL is a man by name Abraham Foxman. It is more than a bit surprising, given that the ADL mission is supposedly to defend the Jews from antisemitism, that it should be so easy to find Abraham Foxman defending antisemites, and in particular antisemites who attack Israel.

 

For example, in October 2003 there was a bit of an eruption in the US House of Representatives when it was revealed that the Ford Foundation was financing openly antisemitic groups among the West Bank and Gaza Arabs.[30] An organization that is supposed to protect the Jews from antisemitism should have been spearheading the demands for a federal investigation into the Ford Foundation, but what the ADL’s Abraham Foxman did instead was protest these demands:

 

“Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League told the Forward that it is too soon to call for a congressional investigation: ‘This is an institution that’s been around for a long time. They’ve established a credible reputation...’”[31]

The Ford Foundation has indeed “been around for a long time,” as it was created by Henry Ford in 1936. This is the same Henry Ford who popularized Nazi propaganda all over the world with his Dearborn Independent, an antisemitic publication that sought to convince Westerners that ‘the Jews’ in secret controlled everything with the purpose of destroying non-Jews, causing such a hysteria in the Western World that it made Adolf Hitler’s genocide possible. Henry Ford was such a big Nazi that Hitler not only gave him the highest decoration conferred by the Nazi state on foreigners, but in addition kept a life-size portrait of Ford in his office and was fond of saying that the American automaker was his inspiration. These and other facts about Henry Ford, plus the fact that the Ford Foundation has been advancing Nazi-like policies and attacking Jews throughout its entire history, are trivial to document, and HIR has produced one such documentation here:

 

A SKEPTICAL LOOK AT THE FORD FOUNDATION: Does its Nazi past matter?; Historical and Investigative Research; 18 September 2005; by Francisco Gil-White
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/ford.htm

But instead of making this public, Abraham Foxman, the leader of the ADL, jumps to the Ford Foundation’s defense the minute somebody calls for an investigation, and tells everybody that we shouldn’t be investigating them because “they’ve established a credible reputation.” Isn’t this behavior inconsistent with the avowed purpose of the ADL, which is to fight antisemitism?

 

The above defense of the Ford Foundation is not out of character for Abraham Foxman. It is not difficult to find this man apologizing for, and giving cover to, the PLO. For example, when Arafat was caught calling for jihad after the so-called Oslo ‘peace’ process had already begun, Abraham Foxman covered for him by supporting Arafat’s oxymoronic expression “jihad for peace,” helping confuse the Western public.

 

“Speaking to an Anti-Defamation League delegation in Gaza, Arafat said his use of the word ‘jihad’ in his speeches not only meant a holy war involving fighting, but also can be used in terms of peace.

‘We asked the chairman to engage as much as possible in words of understanding and reconciliation,’ said ADL National Director Abraham Foxman.

‘The chairman talked in terms of the jihad for peace so that the word jihad as we know it can be converted into the jihad of peace.’”[32]

Jihad means ‘Holy War’ -- the slaughter of infidels, as historian Bat Ye’or has documented in detail.[33] But if anybody is suspicious that a Jewish historian may have distorted the meaning of ‘jihad,’ then we can ask the King of Saudi Arabia what the modern meaning of ‘jihad’ may be. This will be quite relevant to Yasser Arafat’s own use of the word because Saudi Arabia has been a major sponsor of the PLO. As reported in the British daily The Evening Standard:

 

“In 1980, King Fahd of Saudi Arabia gave a clear definition: ‘What is meant by jihad is a united, comprehensive, integrated Arab-Islamic confrontation in which we place all our resources and our spiritual, cultural, political, material and military potential in a long and untiring ‘Holy War’ against Israel, of course, who else?’”[34]

If Abraham Foxman’s excuse here will be that he doesn’t know this elementary thing -- the meaning of the word ‘jihad’ for Muslim enemies of the Jewish state -- then he should be fired, because it is the job of the leader of the ADL to know such things. If he does know this, then how shall we characterize the fact that Foxman apologizes for the anti-Jewish terrorist Yasser Arafat when he calls for “a long and untiring ‘Holy War’ against Israel”? Would antisemitism be too strong a word?

 

The ADL has been quite consistent in helping clean up the image of the PLO. As Kenneth Levin points out,

 

“Yasser Arafat, from his entry into the territories [of the West Bank and Gaza] in 1994, orchestrated a campaign of defamation and vilification against Israelis and Jews. He promoted in PA schoolbooks and media, over which he always maintained tight control, denigration of Jewish belief, classic anti-Semitic caricatures of Jews, claims of Jewish perfidy and godlessness, blood libels against Jews, assertions that Jews have no historical connection with the land of Israel, denial of any Jewish religious ties to the Temple Mount, denial of the Holocaust, and much else in the same vein. Yet the ADL’s response was ambiguous at best. In the fall of 1998 it published a report on anti-Semitic statements proffered by the Palestinian Authority over the previous year, and at various times it would put out press releases urging Arafat to change his ways. For example, one such release in November, 1998, called upon Arafat to remove anti-Semitism from official PA airwaves. Yet Arafat’s anti-Jewish campaign did not keep the head of the ADL, Abraham Foxman, from leading American Jewish delegations in pilgrimages to the PA chairman or proffering Arafat ‘gifts of Jewish art.’”[35]

And I must add what Kenneth Levin left out: Yasser Arafat also broadcast, on Palestinian Authority Television, sermons by mullahs who screamed at the viewing Arabs: “blessings to whoever put a belt of explosives on his body or on his sons’ and plunged into the midst of the Jews crying: ‘Allah Akbar, praise to Allah!’”[36] But Abraham Foxman is apparently not overly troubled by this, and this naturally has an effect on the public: when one of the most visible Jews supposedly in charge of fighting antisemitism is found apologizing for the PLO, what poorly informed people conclude is that the PLO must be kosher. This is especially true given that, for example, Abraham Foxman goes out of his way to pronounce the PLO’s textbooks kosher (acceptable to Jews):

 

“At a meeting in Ramallah in September 2000, Foxman presented Arafat with a letter regarding recently introduced PA school texts...prais[ing] them for excluding ‘the anti-Israel and anti-Semitic passages prevalent in previous textbooks and curricular material.’ But, in fact, ...the new books denigrate Jews and Judaism and continue to teach that all of Israel rightly belongs to the Arabs.”[37]

As if all this were not enough, Abraham Foxman can also be found apologizing for the Vatican’s antisemitism.[38] Unbelievable.

 

 

Abraham Foxman

This is an institution [Ford Foundation] that's been around for a long time. They've established a credible reputation...

Abraham Foxman

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

How shall we characterize the fact that Foxman apologizes for the anti-Jewish terrorist Yasser Arafat when he calls for jihad?

 

 

  

AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee)
___________________________________________

AIPAC is the most visible component of what people call the ‘Jewish lobby’ in the United States. A Google search on the ‘Jewish lobby’ or on AIPAC will quickly convince you that quite a lot of people believe this lobby to be terribly powerful, and to have great influence on what US foreign policy becomes. The same people matter-of-factly assume that what the ‘Jewish lobby’ does is produce pro-Israel US foreign policy. This is false. AIPAC in fact promotes pro-PLO US foreign policy, as the following HIR investigation has shown:

 

“WHAT IS AIPAC FOR? Does the so-called ‘Jewish Lobby’ produce pro-Israeli US foreign policy, or the opposite?”; Historical and Investigative Research; 5 May 2005; by Francisco Gil-White
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/aipac.htm

In fact, the AIPAC leadership took such a strong pro-PLO turn when the Oslo process was jump-started that many rank-and-file members and contributors became disillusioned. As Kenneth Levin explains,

 

“...while some in the professional echelon of the organization seemed not only to embrace the Oslo agenda [the purpose of which was to bring the terrorist PLO inside the Jewish state] but to do so with conviction and aplomb, there were members of the lay leadership, the highest level of AIPAC’s financial supporters, who were unhappy with the organization’s stance, and many longtime contributors were so put off by AIPAC’s pro-Oslo activities that they withdrew their support.”[39]

What kinds of people will work with “conviction and aplomb” to assist the goals of an organization, the PLO, whose controlling core, Al Fatah, was created by a leader of the Final Solution to continue the extermination of the Jewish people? Wouldn’t such people have to be antisemites? But these are the leaders of AIPAC.

 

The leaders of AIPAC cannot claim ignorance of what the PLO really is, because AIPAC boasts loudly that the millions of dollars that concerned Jews have contributed over the years are supposedly spent doing all sorts of very careful research on the Arab-Israeli conflict,[40] and because the origins of the PLO are not difficult to document.[41]

 

 

 

The leaders
of
AIPAC
cannot claim
ignorance of what
the PLO
really is.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The broad picture
________________

I think I have given enough focused examples, but I nevertheless want to make it clear that the above American Jewish leaders just considered are in no way exceptions. Rather, they are the norm. So I will here give you a quick panoramic view, relying on Kenneth Levin, who, in his book The Oslo Syndrome, has already surveyed this landscape.

Kenneth Levin begins his chapter entitled ‘American Jews and Oslo’ with the following quotation plus explanation:

 

Arafat is not going to be happy with that.

Sara Ehrman, board member of Americans for Peace Now, complaining that dovish American Jewish leaders had failed to press Secretary of State Madeleine Albright to treat Israel, led at the time by Ehud Barak, more harshly in order to extract additional Oslo-related concessions. (August 1999)”[42]

So, the Jewish leaders of Americans for Peace Now were worried that Yasser Arafat would be unhappy with American Jewish leaders for not obtaining sufficient political benefits for Yasser Arafat -- an antisemitic terrorist pledged to the destruction of the Jewish state. This beggars description, and yet it is standard for this American Jewish organization. In its earlier incarnation, which was called American Friends for Peace Now, “the group had published an ad in The New York Times essentially characterizing Israel as the impediment to Middle East Peace,” so the organization engages in anti-Israeli propaganda.[43] And what is standard for Americans for Peace Now is also the approach of many other American Jewish organizations. In fact,

 

“Leadership of both Americans for Peace Now and its predecessor organization overlapped with the leadership of such groups as the Jewish Peace Lobby and CONAME [Committee on New Alternatives in the Middle East, founded by Noam Chomsky] (which had lobbied against US arms shipments to Israel during the Yom Kippur War)”[44]

I hope you are doing a double take: an American Jewish organization, CONAME, led by the well-known Jewish intellectual Noam Chomsky, opposed US assistance to Israel in the Yom Kippur war. This was a war of aggression by the Arab states against Israel: “The War began with a surprise joint attack by Egypt and Syria.”[45] And yet Noam Chomsky’s CONAME apparently didn’t think the Israelis had a right to defend themselves.

In addition,

 

“Gail Pressberg, for a time president of APN [Americans for Peace Now] and then director of APN’s Center for Israeli Peace and Security, had a long history of involvement with anti-Israel organizations and events, including some marked by frank antisemitism, and in her earlier career had not notably demonstrated any concern for Israel’s security. Pressberg’s Israel-related activities have been documented by Rael Jean Isaac. In the late 1970s, as director of the American Friends Service Committee’s Middle East ‘Peace Education’ program, Pressberg had organized anti-Israel conferences and called for a halt to US arms shipments to Israel. Pressberg had also signed ads making wildly untrue and defamatory claims about Israeli actions in Lebanon, opposing relocation of the US Embassy to Jerusalem, and demanding Israel’s return to its pre-1967 borders. From the 1970s onward, she was a consistent promoter and apologist for the PLO. When, in September, 1986, terrorists killed twenty-one Turkish Jews at a Sabbath prayer in their Istanbul synagogue, Pressberg characterized the slaughter as due to ‘the humiliation and dispossession felt by the Palestinians’ and used the occasion to urge again US negotiations with the PLO.”[46]

How shall we characterize a person who apologizes for the slaughter of innocent Jews in Turkey, followed by an argument that this slaughter should produce a reward for an antisemitic terrorist organization pledged to the destruction of the Jewish state? Would antisemite be too strong a word?

 

But there is more.

 

“The Jewish Peace Lobby after 1993 consistently argued that Israel would have to offer the Palestinians more and that peace would ensue once Israel had made concessions along the lines the Lobby demanded, including the division of Jerusalem. It persisted in lobbying Congress for support for its stances.

Leaders of the New Israel Fund continued to direct most of the Fund’s resources to groups in Israel advocating Arab views and opposing and challenging [Israeli] government positions. In 1997 the Smithsonian Institution planned a lecture series on ‘Israel at 50’ and agreed to have the New Israel Fund formulate the program. The scheduled list of speakers consisted overwhelmingly of critics of Israel, such as Azmi Bishara, an Arab member of the Knesset who had recently paid homage at the grave of an Islamic Jihad murderer of Israelis...”[47]

And more:

 

“[the] Israel Policy Forum (IPF), [was] created in 1993 at the behest of Israel’s Labor-Meretz coalition government [Shimon Peres’ outfit] and placed under the leadership of a former APN [Americans for Peace Now] president, Jonathan Jacoby, who had earlier in his career signed a New York Times ad accusing Israel of ‘state terrorism.’

One of IPF’s early efforts, intended to convey to the American public and American leaders an impression of wide American Jewish enthusiasm for Oslo, was its sponsorship of a poll that ostensibly showed 87 percent of American Jews supporting the ‘peace process.’ The poll was grossly skewed in the framing of its questions, as, for example, in its asking: ‘As you may be aware, Israel agreed to recognize the PLO as the official representative of the Palestinian people after the PLO renounced terrorism, removed the clauses from its charter which called for the destruction of Israel, and formally recognized Israel’s right to exist. Do you approve or disapprove of the Israeli government’s decision to recognize the PLO as the official representative of the Palestinian people?’ Not surprisingly, 82 percent approved. The poll did not ask, for example: ‘Do you trust the PLO’s renunciation of terror?’ Also, it was, of course, dishonest in its assertion that the PLO charter had been changed.”[48]

Another American Jewish group, project Nishma,

 

“lobbied Congress in support of the [pro-PLO] Labor-Meretz agenda and sought to depict that agenda as enjoying wide American Jewish grassroots backing, with the skeptics among American Jews being a minority. Once more, those who challenged Labor-Meretz policies were smeared as opponents of peace. In 1997, Project Nishma merged with Israel Policy Forum.”[49]

Then there is the Center for Middle East Peace and Economic Cooperation, founded in 1989 by American Jewish entrepreneur Daniel S. Abraham.

 

“In December, 1996, during the premiership of Benjamin Netanyahu, the Center held a conference that was billed as a ‘Retrospective on the Peace Process’ but proved to be mainly, according to media reports, a sustained attack on the Netanyahu government. Guest speakers included PA [Palestinian Authority] general secretary Ahmed Abdul Rahman, former Secretary of State James Baker [who earlier had forced Israel to accept the PLO inside the Jewish state[50]], and columnist Thomas Friedman [a major critic of Israel, and Jewish]. Rahman excoriated Israel and its policies and insisted there were no Palestinian violations of Oslo. On the issue of Arafat’s agreement in several of the Oslo accords to change the Palestinian charter and its calls for Israel’s destruction, Rahman said, ‘We don’t want a new charter.’ Baker urged greater pressure on Netanyahu and suggested the United States had to get tougher on Israel. Friedman similarly advocated the administration forcing Israel to be more forthcoming and praised Baker and former Secretary of State Kissinger for having aggressively pressed Israel while they were in office.

Most of the other speakers as well focused their remarks on criticizing the Netanyahu government or Israel in general. Interestingly, the speaker apparently most willing to address Arab shortcomings vis-à-vis peacemaking was the Jordanian ambassador.

...the Center’s founder, S. Daniel Abraham, a frequent visitor to the [Syrian capital of] Damascus, became something of an apologist for [Syrian dictator and antisemite] Hafez al-Assad. In an interview in July, 1997, Abraham declared that Assad ‘wants to make peace with Israel...’ [and]...went on to observe, ‘Not all dictators are terrible people, and not all dictatorships are terrible forms in which to live.’ He added that most Jews in Syria live freely and ‘there was no anti-Semitism to speak of’; this after the great majority of Syrian Jews had fled the country and Secretary of State Warren Christopher had some months earlier protested ‘an anti-Semitic article published in the semi-official Syrian Times.’ A 1999 ad by the Center proclaimed, ‘President Assad has scrupulously kept all of his commitments in earlier disengagement accords with Israel. He possesses both the will and the ability to make peace with Israel and implement it throughout Syria.’ In contrast to his warm feelings for Assad, Abraham is reported to have asked President Clinton, ‘Do you really think Netanyahu wants peace.’”[51]

How shall we characterize Daniel S. Abraham. Is antisemite too strong a word?

 

I shall stop my review of American Jewish leaders here. As overwhelming as the above may seem, I have given you nothing more than a light taste. The pattern is clear.

 

How about Jewish leaders elsewhere in the Diaspora? They are not as important as American Jewish leaders, but they tend to behave similarly. As an example, we may consider the famous French Jewish philosopher Bernard Henri Lévy, who worked overtime to clean up the image of Alija Izetbegovic, an Islamist terrorist and antisemite who apparently allied with the Nazis during WWII, and who revived the Nazi SS Handzar division during the civil wars in Bosnia, in the 1990s, when he led a campaign of terror and genocide against the Bosnian Serbs, and against any Bosnian Muslims who did not agree with him. HIR has documented the activities of Bernard Henri Lévy in the following piece.

 

“WHAT REALLY HAPPENED IN BOSNIA?: Painting fascists as victims, and their victims as fascists: The mainstream media turned Bosnia upside down.” Historical and Investigative Research; 19 Aug 2005; by Francisco Gil-White
http://www.hirhome.com/yugo/ihralija2.htm

And the following piece documents how the leaders of some American Jewish organizations falsely accused the Serbs and defended Izetbegovic.

“WHAT REALLY HAPPENED IN BOSNIA?: Who started the war in Bosnia? And who committed genocide? Was it the Bosnian Serbs, as NATO and the mass media alleged, or the Bosnian Muslim followers of Alija Izetbegovic?” Historical and Investigative Research; 19 Aug 2005; by Francisco Gil-White
http://www.hirhome.com/yugo/ihralija3.htm

Now, nobody defended the Jews more bravely in WWII than the Serbs,[52] so some Serbs have come to believe that, in the civil wars that took place in Yugoslavia in the 1990s, they were betrayed by ‘the Jews.’ This is false. Most Jews -- due to the unfortunately dismal state of education about the Holocaust in the Jewish community -- are not even cognizant of what happened in Yugoslavia during WWII. And those Jews who demonized the Serbs in the 1990s were primarily some prominent leaders in the Jewish community, such as Bernard Henri Lévy -- i.e. not ‘the Jews.’

Those Jews who defended the Bosnian Islamists against the Serbs, were -- absurdly -- defending the legacy of Hajj Amin al Husseini, who created the SS Handzar division and organized the mass slaughters of Serbs, Jews, and Roma (Gypsies) in WWII Yugoslavia, and who also mentored Yasser Arafat, moreover creating Al Fatah, Arafat’s organization, and the controlling core in the PLO.[11] Not coincidentally, those Jews who have promoted anti-Serb propaganda tend to be precisely the same Jews who defend Hajj Amin's heirs, the antisemitic PLO terrorists, against the Jewish state. Bernard Henri Lévy is a case in point. He accuses that criticism of Israel is too strong, but, all the same, in a trip to Israel, pretending that the suffering of the West Bank and Gaza Arabs is the fault of Israel rather than of the PLO, he declared:

"And if there is indifference here [in Israel] to the Palestinian suffering, it means Israeli society has problems with its memory. This is to be a terrible Jew."[52a]

But the one defending Nazis in Bosnia is Bernard Henri Lévy, so he is the one with memory problems.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sara Ehrman

Arafat is not going to
be happy
with that

 


 

Noam Chomsky

 

 

 

 

Gail Pressberg

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Daniel S. Abraham

 

Thomas Friedman

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Bernard Henri Lévy

The only hope, [Lévy] said, was in the birth of modern, secular Islam, which is what he had found and admired in Bosnia.

Vanity Fair ( 2003 )

 

________________________________________________________

| B | Jewish officials in the US government
________________________________________________________

Jewish officials in the US government are hardly better than Jewish leaders in non-governmental Diaspora Jewish organizations. Much more could be written than what I will here present, but what follows is more than enough because I have chosen to focus on those US officials responsible for crafting US policy towards the Jewish state.

In the year 1994, The Jerusalem Post wrote:

 

“...the trio that implements Middle East policy at the State Department [are] State Department planning director Dennis Ross, …and his two chief assistants, Dr. Daniel Kurtzer and Aaron Miller...”[53]

Ross, Kurtzer, and Miller -- all three of them are Jews. This is the sort of thing that people with a certain kind of ideology will love to point out. For example, Alfred Lilienthal, who expressed his passionate opposition to the idea of a Jewish state in 1949,[54] immediately after the German Nazis, and then also a number of allied Arab states, had attempted to exterminate the Jews,[55] also makes the following complaint: “it is simply ridiculous that all American officials involved with U.S. mediation in Middle East peace are Jewish.”[56] (Alfred Lilienthal, by the way, says he is Jewish).

But the only question that matters is whether staffing such State Department positions with Jews in fact results in an unduly pro-Israel US foreign policy.

To answer this question, consider that it was in the year 1994 that the The Jerusalem Post made the above observation about Ross, Kurtzer, and Miller. Well, it was also the year 1994 when -- thanks to US government threats against Israel about what would happen if the Israelis did not accept this -- the PLO was brought to govern the West Bank and Gaza Arabs.[57] When the US began this remarkable bully diplomacy to force the PLO on the Israelis (which process was, in true Orwellian fashion, subsequently baptized the ‘Oslo Peace Process’), the terrorist PLO was actually languishing in Tunisian exile and had been essentially defeated back in 1982.[59] It was US pressure that allowed this organization to rise again from the ashes and nestle itself inside the Jewish state, from which position it has been easily murdering quite a few innocent Israelis, while extorting and murdering many innocents in the Arab population which it rules.[60] We are speaking, as mentioned before, of an organization whose controlling core, Al Fatah, traces its roots to Adolf Hitler’s Final Solution.[58]

The Jewish US officials in charge of forcing the PLO on Israel had to know precisely what they were doing because they have the resources of a vast intelligence service, and because documenting what the real intentions of the PLO were was not exactly difficult.

 

“In 1974, when much of the world was promoting Arab-Israeli negotiations in the wake of the Yom Kippur War, Yasser Arafat, leader of Fatah and of the PLO, formulated what he called the ‘Plan of Phases.’ The plan declared that the Palestinian Arabs would seek to acquire territory by negotiations and would then use that territory as a launching pad for military pursuit of Israel’s annihilation. With this agenda as backdrop, Arafat offered to enter into negotiations with Israel.”[61]

Consistent with this, in 1994, when the Oslo ‘Peace’ Process was being jump started, Yasser Arafat explained to a Muslim audience what the point of Oslo would be: jihad.

 

“A tape-recording has surfaced of PLO leader Yasser Arafat speaking to Moslem followers… Mr Arafat was exhorting his followers to prosecute a ‘jihad ... to liberate Jerusalem’. Mr Arafat does not deny the tape’s authenticity… [His followers] would have taken it to mean that the peace process was just a stratagem: a Trojan Horse which should now be exploited with maximum violence.”[62]

And again consistent with this, shortly before he died in 2001, Yasser Arafat’s right-hand man Faisal Husseini himself used the expression ‘Trojan Horse’ to characterize the ‘peace’ process.:

 

“...Faisal Husseini, the top PLO official in Jerusalem...[was] quoted as likening the Oslo accords to a ‘Trojan horse.’ ...the weekly Al-Arabi quotes Husseini as calling the Oslo accords ‘just a temporary procedure, or just a step towards something bigger…the liberation of all historical Palestine from the (Jordan) river to the (Mediterranean) sea, even if this means that the conflict will last for another thousand years or for many generations.’”[63]

Finally, there is the fact that Mahmoud Abbas, the new PLO chief, appears to be the very intellectual force behind Arafat’s ‘Plan of Phases’ as (a) he authored an entire study concerning how the Israelis could be prepared for slaughter by promising them peace,[64] (b) the media refers to him as the “architect” of Oslo,[65] and c) it is in fact his signature, and not Yasser Arafat’s, on the Oslo agreement.[66] Since this is the current leader of the PLO, we have perfect consistency: the PLO has always and only meant to destroy Israel.

So, we can point to the fact that, in the year 1994, the three people making US foreign policy in the Middle East -- Dennis Ross, Daniel Kurtzer, and Aaron Miller -- are Jewish, as if this amounted to an analysis of US foreign policy; or...we can point to the fact that in 1994, US foreign policy in the Middle East is in fact to twist Israel’s arm in order (a) to revive the PLO (a defeated Nazi organization that desires land only as a platform towards the destruction of Israel), and (b) to give the PLO both proximity to its Jewish targets and power inside the Jewish state by making it the ‘government’ over the Arab population of the West Bank and Gaza.

 

Or..., as I am required to do, given the topic of this article, I can point to both the Jewish identity of those crafting this policy, and to the policy itself, remarking that once again we have powerful Jews attacking the Jewish people. There really is a pattern, here. And -- I remind you -- Ross, Kurtzer, and Miller did everything they did knowingly, because if anybody has the motivation and means to discover the true intentions of the PLO it is the Middle East specialists at the top of the world superpower’s foreign ministry.

And how shall we describe the behavior of Dennis Ross, Daniel Kurtzer, and Aaron Miller? Would antisemitism be too strong a word?

In the case of Aaron Miller, there is also Seeds of Peace to consider. This is an organization that claims to be training the next generation of peacemaking leaders on both the Israeli and Arab sides by bringing teenagers of these populations to its camp in Maine, USA, and teaching them to dialogue with each other. The US government funds Seeds of Peace and, along with the Establishment media, goes quite out of its way to promote Seeds of Peace as a supposedly benevolent force. Kenneth Levin takes a different view:

 

“As reported in the Jerusalem Post in January, 2000, ‘A recent film called ‘Peace of Mind,’ produced by Seeds of Peace and intended for theater and television screenings around the world, casts doubt on the organization’s motives. It is so tilted in favor of Palestinian arguments, so unquestioningly sympathetic to Palestinian grievances, that it becomes a propaganda instrument rather than an ode to young friendship.

The film, in explicating the Arab-Israeli conflict as background to the students’ encounters at the camp, presents a doctored and bogus past and a similarly distorted present. While the film states that it was produced by the Arab and Israeli campers, three of the four Israeli students featured in it wrote to Seeds of Peace to protest its bias and to assert that ‘we did not make the movie, as the movie claims... The movie was only shot in part by us, and most of our footage, including its most significant statements from our point of view, were discarded.’

The mind set of the camnp’s organizers was further revealed in an incident recounted by the father of one of the camp’s Israeli students in a letter to the Jerusalem Post. ‘One morning, the camp assembly was told by the founder, John Wallach, that that morning a Palestinian had run down two Israelis and killed them and that he was subsequently killed. He asked for a moment of silence for the Israelis and the Palestinian. The Jewish campers immediately objected and refused to stand for the Palestinian. Apparently no one could explain to Mr. Wallach [who said he was Jewish until the day he died] that there is no moral equivalence between terrorists and their victims.’”[67]

HIR has documented that the main purpose of Seeds of Peace is to empower violent antisemites on the Arab side, dressing them up in the convenient camouflage of ‘peace.’

 

“WHAT IS SEEDS OF PEACE?: Does this US Intelligence operation groom young Arab leaders who want peace with Israel, or who wish to destroy Israel?”; Historical and Investigative Research; 21 September 2005; by Francisco Gil-White
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/seeds.htm

The current President of Seeds of Peace is...Aaron Miller, the same man who helped craft the entire Oslo ‘Peace’ Process that is now destroying Israel.

The behavior of Jews today who have important positions in the US government is a repeat of what we saw, in Part 1, was the behavior of most Jewish US government officials during WWII: they sabotage the defense of the Jewish people.

 

 

 

Dennis Ross

 

 

 

Daniel Kurtzer

 

 

 

Aaron David Miller

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

...once again we have powerful Jews attacking the Jewish people. There really is a pattern, here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

________________________________________________________

Footnotes and Further Reading
________________________________________________________

[1] Condition 1 states: “A group with an antisemitic and genocidal ideology, the German Nazis, controlled a great many resources, whereas the Jews were in a weak position relative to this power.”

It does not require a special demonstration to say that Israel is surrounded by Muslim states whose populations and governments would like to see the Jewish state destroyed, and which have frequently called for the genocide of the Jewish people. Just recently, the president of Iran said that Israel should be “wiped off the map,” as the Ayatollah Khomeini also did before him. Against this, however, is the belief of many people that tiny Israel is actually a very strong country, and stronger even than the combined forces of the Muslim world, which has a population of more than 1.3 billion people, growing at lightning speed. If we grant this widely held yet absurd premise it will appear that the Jews are not in a weak position relative to their enemies, and therefore that condition 1 has not yet recurred. But, regardless, we will all agree that tiny Israel cannot very well be stronger than the combined Muslim world and the United States of America. It therefore matters that HIR has documented that behind the Muslim forces that wish to destroy the state of Israel is the government of the United States. I am not referring just to the obvious case of Saudi Arabia, which country the US has armed more than any other in the world, as documented here:

THE ARMING OF SAUDI ARABIA; Transcript of FRONTLINE PBS Show #1112; Air Date: February 16, 1993
http://emperors-clothes.com/news/arming-i.htm

I am also talking about cases that are less obvious to people, and which suggest a general US policy to sponsor antisemitic Islamist terrorism. For example, the following book -- which conveniently hyperlinks to every period briefly considered -- documents in some detail that US foreign policy (note the word ‘foreign’) has been consistently antisemitic, and dramatically pro-PLO.

“IS THE US AN ALLY OF ISRAEL? A chronological look at the evidence”; Historical and Investigative Research; by Francisco Gil-White
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hirally.htm

For example, it was the US that forced Israel to accept the PLO inside the Jewish state, and also the US Intelligence that trained the PLO as they were taking power over the West Bank and Gaza Arabs, even though PLO officials were explaining in public that they would go on killing Jews, and any Arabs who disagreed (to read about all this, consult the hyperlinks for the years 1991 and 1994 in the above piece).

And the following series on Bush Jr.’s war on Iraq documents, also in some detail, that the US ruling elite always takes steps that will strengthen the Iranian Islamists, even as they claim in public to oppose them.

“BUSH JR.'S WAR ON IRAQ: A general introduction”; Historical and Investigative Research; 1 December 2005; by Francisco Gil-White
http://www.hirhome.com/iraniraq/iraq-general-intro.htm

This includes arming the Iranian Islamists to the teeth, as the US ruling elite did secretly and illegally during the Iran-Iraq war (the ‘Iran-Contra’ scandal), documented in a section of the piece below:

"WHY BUSH SR.'S 1991 GULF WAR? To Protect Iranian Islamism: Like father, like son: this is also the purpose of Bush Jr.'s war"; Historical and Investigative Research; 20 December 2005; by Francisco Gil-White
http://www.hirhome.com/iraniraq/gulfwar.htm#prelude

Why might US foreign policy be designed to assist the powers that wish to destroy Israel? This could have something to do with the fact that US foreign policy is controlled by US Intelligence, and with the fact that US Intelligence was created by absorbing in secret tens of thousands of Nazi war criminals after World War II. To learn more about this, read:

“Did the National Security Act of 1947 destroy freedom of the press?: The red pill...”; Historical and Investigative Research; 3 January 2006; by Francisco Gil-White
http://www.hirhome.com/national-security.htm

Condition 2 states: “A great many people came to believe, absurdly, as a result of massive propaganda, that they were in mortal danger from ‘the Jews,’ and that they therefore needed to defend themselves from ‘the Jews.’ Many ordinary people, in consequence, either did not oppose, or else cooperated with, the Nazi power directly in charge of the Final Solution.”

In World War II the above was achieved with a propaganda that went by the name Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, a Tsarist hoax that accused ‘the Jews’ of controlling everything in secret with the purpose of destroying non-Jews. The Nazis, with the help of Henry Ford, popularized this hoax all over the Western world, making a lot of people very afraid of the Jews. This exact same propaganda, just as before, is being widely reproduced all over the world today by professional antisemites, in both the Muslim and Western worlds. In addition, very slightly modified versions of it are being pushed by the mainstream Western media. HIR has produced a detailed investigation of how this works:

“THE MODERN ‘PROTOCOLS OF ZION’: How the mass media now promotes the same lies that caused the death of more than 5 million Jews in WWII”; Historical and Investigative Research; 25 August 2005; by Francisco Gil-White
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/mprot1.htm

Condition 3 states: “The democracies also did not oppose, or else they cooperated with, the progress of antisemitism and then the Final Solution.”

In World War II, the United States and Britain had policies that were designed to assist the Final Solution, even as US and British officials deplored the outcome in public. You may read about this here:
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hirally.htm#1939

Today, the United States is once again assisting the forces that wish to destroy the Jews, for which consult:

“IS THE US AN ALLY OF ISRAEL? A chronological look at the evidence”; Historical and Investigative Research; by Francisco Gil-White
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hirally.htm

[2] Rapoport, Louis. 1999. Shake heaven and earth: Peter Bergson and the struggle to rescue the Jews of Europe, Gefen, Jerusalem and New York. (p.60)

[3] HOLOCAUST THE AMERICAN JEWISH CONSPIRACY OF SILENCE: The Rise and Fall of the American Jewish Commission on the Holocaust; The Forgotten Heritage: The Struggle of the Irgun's Delegation to the United States (1939-1945) Against the Silence of America (The Story of the Bergson-Hecht Group); Teh Jewish Post of New York; May/June 1996; by GAD NAHSHON.

http://www.jewishpost.com/jp0204/jpn0204b.htm

[4] The Jerusalem Post; September 12, 2003, Friday; SECTION: FEATURES; Pg. 3B; LENGTH: 395 words; HEADLINE: The road to hell; BYLINE: Ruth Wisse; HIGHLIGHT: The writer is Martin Peretz professor of Yiddish literature at Harvard University.

BODY (Full Text):

I would much rather praise Israel's noble achievements than talk about its mistakes, but, alas, no one can shield the Israelis from the consequences of the Oslo Accords.

When Israel recognized the world's then-leading terrorist as the legitimate leader of the Palestinian people and pledged to arm his "police force" to prevent further attacks upon its citizens, it became the first country ever to arm its professed enemy with the expectation of gaining security. That Yitzhak Rabin thought such an action was "reversible" if it didn't work, only magnifies the folly of his government's actions.

Many Israelis assure me that by now "everyone" recognizes the error of Oslo. Yet those who express their disappointment in Yasser Arafat usually frame this admission in a glow of innocence, as though they expected to be praised for having paved their road to hell with good intentions. They proudly recount how much they were prepared to risk for peace, as if a gambler should be congratulated rather than treated for his desperation.

They boast that at Camp David, in the summer of 2000, Ehud Barak promised Arafat everything that he had wanted even though none of the obligations of Oslo had been fulfilled! These Israelis want to show off their readiness for compromise and accommodation, as if stupidity should be rewarded for being imprudent.

Consider the immaturity of this approach. Does a general expect to be rewarded for leading his troops into the enemy's trap? Does a CEO claim a bonus for having lost the controlling share of his company in negotiations with a cannier rival? Would physicians count on public approbation for handing out scalpels to a killer?

Arafat and the PLO made monkeys of those who negotiated the Oslo charade; they scored the first real Arab victory against Israel since 1948. Unless Israelis face up to the enormity of this debacle, they are likely to keep swallowing the same hook, line and sinker.

In a country where commissions of inquiry are routinely struck to investigate failures of omission as well as commission, no independent inquiry has yet been launched to identify the origins and the process of Oslo. I have a feeling that this is because so many Israelis still do not recognize that an unmonitored agreement with a professional terrorist had to result in increased violence against them.

[6] Review of Being Jewish in America, by Arthur Hertzberg; Commentary Magazine; Vol. 68, No. 2 (August 1979); by Julius Weinberg

[7] Review of Being Jewish in America, by Arthur Hertzberg; Commentary Magazine; Vol. 68, No. 2 (August 1979); by Julius Weinberg

[8] Rapoport, Louis. 1999. Shake heaven and earth: Peter Bergson and the struggle to rescue the Jews of Europe, Gefen, Jerusalem and New York. (p.62)

[9] The state of Israel was legally authorized by a UN vote in 1947. An Arab state in the other half of what had been British Mandate ‘Palestine’ was also authorized by the same vote, but the Arabs didn't want an Arab state in ‘Palestine’; what they wanted was to prevent the existence of any Jewish state. So they rejected the -- perfectly legal -- UN vote and launched a combined Arab attack against Israel in 1948. Azzam Pasha, Secretary General of the Arab League, announced publicly, and proudly, what the war would be about:

“This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades.”

Mind you, the Holocaust had just ended. To read more about this, and see the documentation, visit:

“Forced by external circumstances, the US government gave lukewarm support to the creation of the State of Israel in 1947. But then it reversed itself and implemented policies designed to destroy Israel.”; from “Is the US an Ally of Israel?: A Chronological Look at the Evidence”; Historical and Investigative Research; by Francisco Gil-White
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hirally.htm#1947

For another example, Nasser announced his genocidal intent right before the 1967 Six Day War. To read about this, visit:

 “Although Israel suffered terrorist attacks from its Arab neighbors during the years 1964-1967, when they staged a full-scale military provocation, the US refused to help.” from “Is the US an Ally of Israel?: A Chronological Look at the Evidence”; Historical and Investigative Research; by Francisco Gil-White
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hirally.htm#1967

[10] The land of delusion,  The Jerusalem Post, September 19, 2003, Friday, NEWS; Pg. 1A, 1151 words, Caroline B. Glick

[11] In this footnote I address two points: 1) that the PLO means to exterminate the Jewish people; and 2) that the controlling core of the PLO, Al Fatah, was created a leader of Adolf Hitler’s Final Solution.

The claim that the PLO means to exterminate the Israeli Jews is supported by the PLO’s own constitution, for this is what the PLO happens to announce as its intention:

Article 9…says that “armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine.”

Article 15 says it is “a national duty to repulse the Zionist imperialist invasion from the great Arab homeland and to purge the Zionist presence from Palestine.”

Article 22 declares that “the liberation of Palestine will liquidate the Zionist and imperialist presence and bring about the stabilization of peace in the Middle East.”

TRANSLATION: The Associated Press, December 15, 1998, Tuesday, AM cycle, International News, 1070 words, Clinton meets with Netanyahu, Arafat, appeals for progress, By TERENCE HUNT, AP White House Correspondent, EREZ CROSSING, Gaza Strip. [Emphasis added]

Historian Howard Sachar explains the following about Al Fatah, Yasser Arafat’s and Mahmoud Abbas’ organization, which is the core component of the PLO, calling all the shots:

“...the Fatah (Arab Liberation Movement) [was] organized...by veterans of the Mufti’s former Arab Higher Committee.”

SOURCE: Sachar, Howard Morley - A history of Israel : from the rise of Zionism to our time / Howard M. Sachar. 1982, c1979. (p.619)

Who was “the Mufti” -- the man behind the creation of Al Fatah?

That would be Hajj Amin al Husseini, who was given bureaucratic authority and a large budget by the British when they made him Mufti of Jerusalem in 1920, after Hajj Amin demonstrated that he could organize large-scale terrorist attacks against innocent Jews in British Mandate ‘Palestine.’ He used this power to organize another terrorist riot in 1921 (after which the British expanded his budget and bureaucratic authority), and then a much larger attack in 1929, followed by an even bigger attack in 1936-37 (this last one was called the ‘Arab Revolt’ and was organized with weapons provided by the Nazis). Each time, Hajj Amin’s attacks were against civilians, and they included, for example, such things as torturing Jewish children to death. In 1941 Hajj Amin met Hitler in Berlin. Hitler promised to conquer the Middle East and exterminate all the Jews living there, after which Hajj Amin would be installed as the local leader. Hajj Amin, for his part, immediately became one of the supreme leaders of the Final Solution in Europe, organizing large SS divisions in Bosnia composed of tens of thousands of Bosnian Muslim volunteers who carried out large-scale exterminations of Serbs, Jews, and Roma (Gypsies) in Yugoslavia. He also played an important role in getting hundreds of thousands of Hungarian Jews sent to Auschwitz, and in speeding up the operation of the death camps. Yasser Arafat proudly explained to his Arab audiences that Hajj Amin was his mentor and hero.

To read more on Hajj Amin's role, read:

“HOW DID THE ‘PALESTINIAN MOVEMENT’ EMERGE? The British sponsored it. Then the German Nazis, and the US.”; Historical and Investigative Research; 13 June 2006; by Francisco Gil-White.
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/pal_mov4.htm

Some of this material was originally published here:

“Anti-Semitism, Misinformation, And The Whitewashing Of The Palestinian Leadership”; Israel National News; May 26, '03 / 24 Iyar 5763; by Francisco J. Gil-White
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/article.php3?id=2405

[12] Levin, K. 2005. The Oslo syndrome: Delusions of a people under siege. Hanover, NH: Smith and Kraus. (pp.165-66)

[14] I will deal here with both points:

1) Israel's treatment of the West Bank and Gaza Arabs; and

2) the PLO's treatment of the same.

1) First, Israel's administration of the West Bank and Gaza followed a war provoked by the Arab states in 1967 that had the publicly announced purpose of exterminating the Israelis. For years prior to the 1967 war, there were terrorists attacks against Israeli civilians from the Jordanian and Syrian borders, while Nasser promised an impending Arab genocide of the Jews in Israel.

"…Syria used the Golan Heights, which tower 3,000 feet above the Galilee, to shell Israeli farms and villages. Syria's attacks grew more frequent in 1965 and 1966, while Nasser's rhetoric became increasingly bellicose: 'We shall not enter Palestine with its soil covered in sand,' he said on March 8, 1965. 'We shall enter it with its soil saturated in blood.'"

SOURCE: Howard Sachar, A History of Israel: From the Rise of Zionism to Our Time, (NY: Alfred A. Knopf, 1979), p. 616.

Despite that, Israel's administration of these territories was quite benign. This is Newsweek, writing ten years later in 1977:

"Arab living standards [in the West Bank] have jumped more than 50 per cent in the past ten years, and employment has nearly doubled, largely because of the $250 million annual trade that has grown up between the West Bank and Israel. The Israelis have also kept the Jordan River bridges open, allowing 1 million Arabs a year to cross and to keep their markets in Jordan for such products as olive oil, soap and farm produce. The Israelis also allow the Arabs to elect their own officials, even though the winners are often radical activists. Still, the Arabs say they have never been more unhappy. . ." Source: Newsweek, June 13, 1977, UNITED STATES EDITION, INTERNATIONAL; Pg. 55, 849 words, The West Bank Today, Milan J. Kubic

So the Israelis installed a benign regime on the West Bank despite the fact that this was the population of one of its attackers in 1967, Jordan, in a war that was pledged to destroy Israel through genocide. But this enemy population was nevertheless allowed freedom of the press, the freedom to elect its own leaders, however radical, border crossings with Jordan, and the ability to take jobs in Israel. Can anybody imagine another country doing that, under the circumstances? Me neither.

2) The problems for the West Bank and Gaza Arabs began when the PLO organized the First Intifada, which, contrary to popular perception, involved much real violence by Arabs against Israelis who never provoked them.

The 'First Intifada' of 1987-1988 was a US-PLO strategy used to represent the Arabs in West Bank and Gaza as supposedly oppressed 'underdogs'; From “Is the US an Ally of Israel: A chronological look at the evidence”; Historical and Investigative Research; by Francisco Gil-White.
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hirally2.htm#1987

The following piece discusses the PLO treatment of the West Bank and Gaza Arabs under the heading "Why doesn’t Fadi El-Salameen complain that Abbas’s Fatah oppresses the West Bank and Gaza Arabs?":

"What is Seeds of Peace?: Does this US Intelligence operation groom young Arab leaders who want peace with Israel, or who wish to destroy Israel?"; Historical and Investigative Research, 21 September 2005; by Francisco Gil-White
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/seeds.htm#oppression

[15] To read about how the PLO murders Arabs who oppose the killing of Jews, visit:

In 1994 Yasser Arafat was given a Nobel Peace Prize, and the CIA trained the PLO, even though Arafat's henchmen were saying in public, this very year, that they would use their training to oppress Arabs and kill Jews; from “IS THE US AN ALLY OF ISRAEL: A Chronological look at the evidence”; Historical and Investigative Research; by Francisco Gil-White
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hirally2.htm#1994

Here below is a report from Agence France Presse on the fact that murdering Arabs for selling land to Jews is PLO policy:

 “An Arab-Israeli paper reported Thursday that Palestinian nationalist leaders, including the grandfather of the PLO’s current top official in Jerusalem [Hajj Amin al Husseini, who was great uncle (not grandfather) to Faisal Husseini], sold land to Jews in the years before Israel’s founding.

The weekly Fasl al-Maqal, owned by Arab-Israeli parliament deputy Azmi Beshara and based in the predominantly Arab city of Nazareth in north Israel, ran a list of 54 leading Palestinians who sold land to Jews from 1918-1945.

It comes amid widespread controversy over a Palestinian Authority campaign against Arabs who sell land to Jews, mostly in the occupied territories but also in Israel proper. [Palestinian] Authority officials early this month announced that Palestinians who sell land in the West Bank, Gaza Strip or east Jerusalem to Jewish settlers face the death penalty. They have also said sales of Arab-owned land inside Israel will be punished...”

SOURCE: Agence France Presse, May 29, 1997, International news, 840 words, Historical Palestinian leaders sold land to Jews: report, NAZARETH, Israel, May 29

To read more about how, before the founding of the State of Israel, small landowning Arabs were terrorized by the big landowners (the same ones who created what is called the ‘Palestinian National movement’ -- in particular, Hajj Amin al Husseini), so that these big landowners could buy the land of the small Arab landowners at bargain prices and then resell the same land at exorbitant prices to the same immigrant Jews whom the big Arab landowners hypocritically denounced, visit:
http://emperors-clothes.com/letters/vilkelis.htm

Today’s West Bank Arabs are likewise between a rock and a hard place. Selling land to Jews is economically attractive because they pay well, and because keeping the land is a risk given that the armed thugs which the Palestinian Authority calls its policemen are fond of confiscating land:

“The 70-person [Gaza Security and Protections] unit was formed more than a year ago to crack down on militant groups, including Hamas and Islamic Jihad, and to track and arrest high-profile criminals in Gaza. Instead, some members of the unit were accused of turning into criminals themselves, confiscating land, smuggling weapons and intimidating the general public with threats of violence.”
SOURCE: Associated Press Online, November 27, 2004 Saturday, INTERNATIONAL NEWS, 991 words, Palestinian Security Unit to Be Disbanded, IBRAHIM BARZAK; Associated Press Writer, GAZA CITY, Gaza Strip.

[16] Israel's administration of the West Bank and Gaza followed a war provoked by the Arab states in 1967. Despite that, Israel's administration of these territories was quite benign. This is Newsweek, writing ten years later in 1977:

"Arab living standards [in the West Bank] have jumped more than 50 per cent in the past ten years, and employment has nearly doubled, largely because of the $250 million annual trade that has grown up between the West Bank and Israel. The Israelis have also kept the Jordan River bridges open, allowing 1 million Arabs a year to cross and to keep their markets in Jordan for such products as olive oil, soap and farm produce. The Israelis also allow the Arabs to elect their own officials, even though the winners are often radical activists. Still, the Arabs say they have never been more unhappy. . ."

SOURCE: Newsweek, June 13, 1977, UNITED STATES EDITION, INTERNATIONAL; Pg. 55, 849 words, The West Bank Today, Milan J. Kubic

[18] Phillip Klutznick, like Hertzberg, has served at the top of the anti-Israel World Jewish Congress, as president, and he has been an advisor to the same US presidents whose policies have been endangering the State of Israel.

“He was the national president of B’nai B’rith from 1953 to 1959, and later served as president of the World Jewish Congress… Klutznick’s knowledge was sought at the highest levels. He served as an envoy to the United Nations for presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy and Carter, and also advised presidents Truman, Johnson and Ford. He was Carter’s Secretary of Commerce from 1979 to 1981.”

SOURCE: Philip M. Klutznick, Omaha World Herald (Nebraska), November 28, 1999, Sunday, SUNRISE EDITION, Pg. 22, 374 words, Nancy Evans.

The late Bruno Bettleheim was accused of having been a “pathological liar,” including about his experiences as a Holocaust survivor, and the fact that he was a scientific fraud (his phony theories of autism brought tragedy to many lives) is consistent with such accusations.

“Beyond the controversy regarding Bettelheim’s psychological theories, controversy has been raging regarding his own history and personality. After Bettelheim’s suicide, allegations surfaced that Bettelheim had a dark side. Three ex-patients questioned his work, characterizing him as a cruel tyrant and critics, such as Richard Pollak, allege that he was a pathological liar who invented much of what his official biography tells of his life before reaching the United States. Critics also claim that he often spanked his patients despite the fact that he rejected spanking as ‘brutal.’ Treatments based on his autism theories failed to help children, and his reported rates of cure (around 85%) were found to be fraudulent.”

SOURCE: Bruno Bettelheim | From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

[19] See:

Rapoport, Louis. 1999. Shake heaven and earth: Peter Bergson and the struggle to rescue the Jews of Europe, Gefen, Jerusalem and New York.

Wyman, D. S., and R. Medoff. 2002. A race against death: Peter Bergson, America, and the Holocaust. New York: The New Press.

Levin, K. 2005. The Oslo syndrome: Delusions of a people under siege. Hanover, NH: Smith and Kraus.

[20] In 1981 the US pushed for a PLO state in the West Bank against Israeli objections; From “IS THE US AN ALLY OF ISRAEL: A chronological look at the evidence”; Historical and Investigative Research; by Francisco Gil-White.
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hirally2.htm#1981

[21] Jewish leader OKs Reagan peace plan, Christian Science Monitor (Boston, MA), September 23, 1982, Thursday, Midwestern Edition, Pg. 12, 428 words, By Daniel Southerland, Staff correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor, Washington

[22] The Washington Post, September 6, 1982, Monday, Final Edition, First Section; World News; A1, 807 words, Israel Rebuffs Reagan, Approves 3 Settlements, By Edward Walsh, Washington Post Foreign Service, JERUSALEM, Sept. 5, 1982

[23] US president Ronald Reagan was exerting “pressure on Mr Begin to agree to a Palestinian autonomy agreement.” The better to exert pressure, the Reagan administration “indefinitely postpone[ed] Mr Begin’s next trip to Washington and disown[ed] Israel’s demand for monitoring stations in southern Lebanon after the main body of its forces leaves the country.” In addition, “The Reagan Administration is also quietly delaying seeking Congressional approval for delivery of Israel’s next batch of F-16 jet fighters.” And not only that: “Leaked reports in Washington that the Administration is considering the drastic step of cutting off military aid to Israel so long as its forces remain in Lebanon have not been totally denied.” Edgar Bronfman was helping Reagan out: “Earlier this week. Mr Edgar Bronfman, head of the World Jewish Congress, the largest international Jewish organization, distanced himself from the official Israeli line and said that Israel would have to make political concessions to secure peace.”

SOURCE: Time runs short for Reagan's Middle East peace plan, Financial Times (London,England), February 3, 1983, Thursday, SECTION I; American News; Pg. 4, 1019 words, Reginald Dale.

To read more about how Edgar Bronfman loudly supported the anti-Israel policies of the Reagan administration, consult the following two pieces:

In 1981, the US pushed for a PLO state in the West Bank against Israeli objections; From “IS THE US AN ALLY OF ISRAEL: A chronological look at the evidence”; Historical and Investigative Research; by Francisco Gil-White.
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hirally2.htm#1981

In 1982-1983 the US military rushed into Lebanon to protect the PLO from the Israelis; From “IS THE US AN ALLY OF ISRAEL: A chronological look at the evidence”; Historical and Investigative Research; by Francisco Gil-White.
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hirally2.htm#1982

[24] In 1985, Shimon Peres acted as a US agent, against Israeli interests; From “Is the US an Ally of Israel: A chronological look at the evidence”; Historical and Investigative Research; by Francisco Gil-White.
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hirally2.htm#peres

[25] See above footnote.

[26] In this footnote I address two points: 1) that the PLO means to exterminate the Jewish people; and 2) that the controlling core of the PLO, Al Fatah, was created by a leader of Adolf Hitler’s Final Solution.

The claim that the PLO means to exterminate the Israeli Jews is supported by the PLO’s own constitution, for this is what the PLO happens to announce as its intention:

Article 9…says that “armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine.”

Article 15 says it is “a national duty to repulse the Zionist imperialist invasion from the great Arab homeland and to purge the Zionist presence from Palestine.”

Article 22 declares that “the liberation of Palestine will liquidate the Zionist and imperialist presence and bring about the stabilization of peace in the Middle East.”

TRANSLATION: The Associated Press, December 15, 1998, Tuesday, AM cycle, International News, 1070 words, Clinton meets with Netanyahu, Arafat, appeals for progress, By TERENCE HUNT, AP White House Correspondent, EREZ CROSSING, Gaza Strip. [Emphasis added]

Historian Howard Sachar explains the following about Al Fatah, Yasser Arafat’s and Mahmoud Abbas’ organization, which is the core component of the PLO, calling all the shots:

“...the Fatah (Arab Liberation Movement) [was] organized...by veterans of the Mufti’s former Arab Higher Committee.”

SOURCE: Sachar, Howard Morley - A history of Israel : from the rise of Zionism to our time / Howard M. Sachar. 1982, c1979. (p.619)

Who was “the Mufti” -- the man behind the creation of Al Fatah?

That would be Hajj Amin al Husseini, who was given bureaucratic authority and a large budget by the British when they made him Mufti of Jerusalem in 1920, after Hajj Amin demonstrated that he could organize large-scale terrorist attacks against innocent Jews in British Mandate ‘Palestine.’ He used this power to organize another terrorist riot in 1921 (after which the British expanded his budget and bureaucratic authority), and then a much larger attack in 1929, followed by an even bigger attack in 1936-37 (this last one was called the ‘Arab Revolt’ and was organized with weapons provided by the Nazis). Each time, Hajj Amin’s attacks were against civilians, and they included, for example, such things as torturing Jewish children to death. In 1941 Hajj Amin met Hitler in Berlin. Hitler promised to conquer the Middle East and exterminate all the Jews living there, after which Hajj Amin would be installed as the local leader. Hajj Amin, for his part, immediately became one of the supreme leaders of the Final Solution in Europe, organizing large SS divisions in Bosnia composed of tens of thousands of Bosnian Muslim volunteers who carried out large-scale exterminations of Serbs, Jews, and Roma (gypsies) in Yugoslavia. He also played an important role in getting hundreds of thousands of Hungarian Jews sent to Auschwitz, and in speeding up the operation of the death camps. Yasser Arafat proudly explained to his Arab audiences that Hajj Amin was his mentor and hero.

To read more about Hajj Amin al Husseini, visit:

“HOW DID THE ‘PALESTINIAN MOVEMENT’ EMERGE? The British sponsored it. Then the German Nazis, and the US.”; Historical and Investigative Research; 13 June 2006; by Francisco Gil-White.
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/pal_mov4.htm

Some of this material was originally published here:

“Anti-Semitism, Misinformation, And The Whitewashing Of The Palestinian Leadership”; Israel National News; May 26, '03 / 24 Iyar 5763; by Francisco J. Gil-White
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/article.php3?id=2405

[27] Levin, K. 2005. The Oslo syndrome: Delusions of a people under siege. Hanover, NH: Smith and Kraus. (p.493)

[28] "TWO AND half years ago I publicly reprimanded Edgar Bronfman the president of the World Jewish Congress when on the eve of a meeting between President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Ariel Sharon he co-signed a letter with former secretary of state Lawrence Eagleburger calling on the president to reject Israel's intention to build a separation wall. Without consulting any of his WJC colleagues Bronfman also took it upon himself to urge the president to exert pressure on Israel and apply "the same straightforwardness in his meeting with Prime Minister Sharon" as he had with the Palestinian leadership.

A few days later Bronfman went further and commented that had the Palestinians concentrated exclusively on killing Jews over the Green Line avoiding attacking Jews inside Israel proper they would have achieved a Palestinian state and enjoy the support of the entire world. Jewish outrage forced him to apologize."

SOURCE: When Seymour met Condi,  The Jerusalem Post, November 24, 2005, Thursday, OPINION; Pg. 16, 1141 words, Isi Leibler

And what did Bronfman say, exactly? According to one source, this:

"if the Palestinian suicide bombers only went to the settlements the whole world would have had a case against Israel and there would be a two-state solution by now."

SOURCE: Letters to the Editor, The Jerusalem Post, August 19, 2003, Tuesday, OPINION; Pg. 6, 1492 words, Barry Lynn, Ralph Haglund, Endre Mozes, Martin Schwartz, Andrea Simantov, Stephen Leavitt, Larry Derfner Reponds, Paul M. Katz, Greer Fay Cashman Responds

And according to another source, this:

"If the Palestinian suicide bombers only went to the settlements and told the whole world they were wrong, then the whole world would have had a case against Israel and there would be a two-state solution by now. Instead, they sent him into Israel proper, which is ghastly."

SOURCE: WJC heads in feud over Israel criticism, The Jerusalem Post, August 15, 2003, Friday, NEWS; Pg. 6A, 718 words, Melissa Radler And Michael Freund

In other words, it is ghastly to kill people in what Bronfman calls 'Israel proper'. Put ripping to shreds innocent civilians is not ghastly if these civilians are Jewish settlers in the West Bank and Gaza.

[30] "A recent investigative report on the Ford Foundation's funding of Palestinian groups is triggering calls for a federal investigation...

Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a Democrat from New York, and the American Jewish Congress are urging a federal probe into the alleged financial ties between what might be the country's most prestigious foundation and anti-Israel Palestinian groups...

The calls come in reaction to an investigative report published in last week's Forward, alleging that the foundation had backed Palestinian groups accused of fomenting the anti-Israel agitation and blatant antisemitism two years ago at the U.N. World Conference Against Racism in Durban, South Africa...

...'The Ford Foundation, at best, used poor judgment in its decision to fund Palestinian organizations that promote extremist anti-Israel and antisemitic agendas,' [Representative Henry] Waxman said. 'They may have also violated U.S. law, if these groups are found to have links with Palestinian terrorist organizations. I hope there will be a full investigation...'"

SOURCE: "Probe Demanded of Ford Foundation Funding"; By NACHA CATTAN, FORWARD STAFF; OCTOBER 24, 2003.
http://www.forward.com/issues/2003/03.10.24/news11.ford.html

[31] "Probe Demanded of Ford Foundation Funding"; By NACHA CATTAN, FORWARD STAFF; OCTOBER 24, 2003.
http://www.forward.com/issues/2003/03.10.24/news11.ford.html

[32] Arafat to ADL: I’ll urge PNC to alter Charter, The Jerusalem Post, November 19, 1995, Sunday, NEWS; Pg. 2, 296 words, Elli Wohlgelernter

[33] To understand better the meaning of jihad, consult:

Bat Ye'or (2002) Jews and Christians under Islam: Dhimmitude and Marcionism. Published in French as Juifs et chrétiens sous l’islam, Dhimmitude et marcionisme [Commentaire, N°97, Printemps 2002]
http://www.dhimmitude.org/archive/by_dhimmitude_marcionism_en.pdf

French original:
http://www.dhimmitude.org/archive/commmentaire_spring2002.htm

[34] SOURCE: Evening Standard (London) May 19, 1994; SECTION: Pg. 9; LENGTH: 907 words; HEADLINE: A NEW KIND OF JIHAD

[35] Levin, K. 2005. The Oslo syndrome: Delusions of a people under siege. Hanover, NH: Smith and Kraus. (pp.459-60)

[36] At the following address:
http://www.memri.org/video/index.html

you will find a collection of televised Friday sermons, with translation, put together by the Middle East Media Research. Look for the heading:  “Palestinian Authority Sermons 2000-2003.” The quotation in the text, conveniently, is the first in the collection.

[37] Levin, K. 2005. The Oslo syndrome: Delusions of a people under siege. Hanover, NH: Smith and Kraus. (p.460)

[38] Truth vs. Hype: The policies of the Vatican under John Paul II regarding Jews and the Holocaust, Yugoslavia and El Salvador; "Part 1: Did the Pope Really Reject Church Antisemitism? Mr. Foxman's Mistake"; by Jared Israel; 21 April 2005.
http://emperors-clothes.com/vatican/pope-1.htm

[39] Levin, K. 2005. The Oslo syndrome: Delusions of a people under siege. Hanover, NH: Smith and Kraus. (p.457)

[40] From the AIPAC website:

“Activists work closely with AIPAC’s professional staff, people drawn from the top echelons of government, diplomacy, academia and politics. AIPAC lobbyists meet every member of Congress and cover every hearing on Capitol Hill that touches on the U.S.-Israel relationship. AIPAC policy experts each day review hundreds of periodicals, journals, speeches and reports and meet regularly with the most innovative foreign policy thinkers in order to track and analyze events and trends. Professionals in AIPAC’s regional offices reach out to activists in hundreds of communities each year from Missoula, Montana, to Miami, Florida. Whether meeting in a neighbor’s living room, attending a ballroom gala or participating in an AIPAC conference in Washington, AIPAC activists receive the most up-to-date analyses of Middle East issues and American politics. For more than two decades, AIPAC’s Political Leadership Development Program has educated and trained young leaders in pro-Israel advocacy, and encouraged them to become politically active. Students involved with AIPAC learn how to effectively advocate for a strong U.S.-Israel relationship, bring their Members of Congress to campus, promote voter registration, work on political campaigns, and build relationships with other student leaders.”
SOURCE:
http://www.aipac.org/documents/whoweare.html

[41] You will find the most complete documentation on this here:

“HOW DID THE ‘PALESTINIAN MOVEMENT’ EMERGE? The British sponsored it. Then the German Nazis, and the US.”; Historical and Investigative Research; 13 June 2006; by Francisco Gil-White.
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/pal_mov4.htm

Some of this material was originally published here:

“Anti-Semitism, Misinformation, And The Whitewashing Of The Palestinian Leadership”; Israel National News; May 26, '03 / 24 Iyar 5763; by Francisco J. Gil-White
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/article.php3?id=2405

[42] Levin, K. 2005. The Oslo syndrome: Delusions of a people under siege. Hanover, NH: Smith and Kraus. (p.448)

[43] The Oslo syndrome. (p.450)

[44] The Oslo syndrome. (p.450)

On CONAME’s founding:

“…the Committee on New Alternatives in the Middle East (CONAME), among whose founders, in 1970, were anti-Zionists such as Noam Chomsky. During the 1973 war, CONAME lobbied against U.S. resupply of Israel. The following year, the same year Yasser Arafat promulgated his Plan of Phases for Israel’s annihilation, the organization distributed an article by one of its financial backers praising Arafat for his ‘moderation and pragmatism’ and offering justifications for the PLO’s recent massacre of more than twenty Israeli schoolchildren at Ma’a lot.”

SOURCE: The Oslo syndrome. (p.450)

[45] Yom Kippur War | From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yom_Kippur_War

[46] The Oslo syndrome. (p.450)

[47] The Oslo syndrome. (p.449)

[48] The Oslo syndrome. (p.452)

[49] The Oslo syndrome. (pp.452-53)

[50] “In 1991, Bush Sr.’s administration forced Israel to participate in the Oslo process, which brought the PLO into the West Bank and Gaza”; from “IS THE US AN ALLY OF ISRAEL?: A Chronological Look at the Evidence”; Historical and Investigative Research; by Francisco Gil-White.
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hirally2.htm#1991

[51] The Oslo syndrome. (p.453)

[52] The following is from the book "Serbs Chose War" (by Ruth Mitchell, Garden City Publishers, New York, 1943, pp. 260-264.)

“Source: Letter written by a Jewish physician, a professor in the Department of Medicine in the University of Belgrade, to a friend in London on his escape from Yugoslavia in 1942. As the writer is a Jew, for the sake of relatives who remain in Yugoslavia his name cannot be used.”

TEXT OF THE LETTER:

“In Yugoslavia there were 85,000 Jews, including Jewish émigrés from Germany, Austria, Poland and Czechoslovakia. Thanks to the Serbs, the Yugoslav Jews had succeeded in saving and rescuing many of their compatriots from Germany and German-occupied countries. Service rendered and assistance given to Jews by Yugoslav consular officials in Austria and Czechoslovakia has specially to be recognized. Of the total number of Jews in Yugoslavia about 7,500 were refugees.

After the [Nazi invasion in 1941]...the Jews came under the rule of various regimes, including Pavelich's 'Independent Croatian State'.

The 'solution' of the Jewish question in the Independent Croatia devolved upon the Croatian Ustashis. [This was the clerical-fascist regime set up in Croatia with Nazi approval.] In Serbia, however, the Jewish problem was not dealt with by the Serbs themselves. This the Germans reserved for themselves. There are special reasons for this. When they occupied Serbia, the Germans did not find any anti-Semitic feeling in the country. They could not persuade either the local population or the local authorities to take any anti-Semitic measures.

The fact that Nedich [the Serbian quisling government, installed after the Nazi invasion] twice demanded from the German commanding officer in Serbia and the Banat that he and his government should be given the right to settle the Jewish problem, against whom no drastic measures should and could be taken in Serbia, shows the feeling of the Serbian people toward the Jews. The following reasons were given by Nedich to the Germans for this demand. If the Germans wanted the Serbs to calm down, it would be of first importance to stop the terrible persecution of the Serbian Jews. The Serbian people could not and would not accept such treatment 'of their compatriots of the Jewish religion.' The Serbs consider Jews as their brothers, only of a different religion. The answer which Nedich received from the Germans regarding this demand was 'that the Serbs have not attained a culture to the degree necessary to enable them to deal with the Jews. We ourselves shall settle the Jewish question in Serbia.'

With regard to anti-Semitism, Yugoslavia can be divided into two parts, i.e., districts where this feeling was latent, and Serbia, where, it can be said without any exaggeration, anti-Semitic feeling has never had any root.

During Yugoslavia's twenty-three years of existence, Serbia has always professed the free democratic tradition existing in the former Kingdom of Serbia. There in the nineteenth century, and later in the twentieth, the Jews always had full civic rights and complete equality with their Serbian compatriots. This equality was not only granted in various constitutions of the Kingdom of Serbia and later of the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, but it was also a true expression of the relationship between the Orthodox Serbs and the Jews in their everyday contact. This friendly and amicable relationship also existed in the economic, financial, and political life in Serbia. The small group of Jews living in Serbia gave their contribution towards the cultural and political life in Serbia's struggle for the formation of a state of South Slavs. The Jews had in Serbia members of Parliament. In Serbia's struggle for liberation, the Jews gave their contribution. Several were awarded the Karadgeorge Star for bravery in the battlefield - equivalent to the British V.C.

About a year before Yugoslavia was attacked by Germany, by pressure from the Reich and in their attempt to suit their policy to the dictators, the Tsvetkovich-Machek Government passed the first anti-Semitic measure in Yugoslavia. The Government was not unanimous on this point. Dr. Koroshets, leader of the Slovenes, upheld the measure as Minister of Education. Serbian cabinet ministers, however, including the Minister of War, refused to apply the act. The application of it was confined to the Ministry of Education, under the Slovene, Dr. Koroshets, and the Ministry of Trade and Industry, under the Croat[ian], Dr. Andres.

In all the schools and universities, numerous restrictions were applied by circular, but in Serbia, Serb teachers and professors succeeded in avoiding or sabotaging the regulations.

In this regard Serbia completely differed from Croatia under Dr. Machek and the district governor or Ban, Shubashich. In Croatia anti-Semitism was inherited from Austria-Hungary. Anti-Semitic centers had always existed. Dr. Shubashitch's Croatia had even prepared elaborate laws and regulations just before the war broke out in Yugoslavia in 1941. A large part of the industries in Jewish hands in Croatia was to be confiscated and nationalized. Anti-Semitism was particularly stressed in Croatia by the right wing of Dr. Machek's Croatian Peasant Party.

This report could be divided into two parts - the first beginning with the entry of German troops into Belgrade in April 1941 to the beginning of August 1941; the second from the middle of August 1941 until the closing down of the office of the 'Jewish section' late in 1942. The section was closed because there were no longer any Jews in occupied Serbia. During the first stage the Jews were tortured, persecuted, maltreated, taken for forced labor. Well-known Jews and Serbs were taken to German concentration camps. Women of the intelligentsia class were forced to clean latrines in the German barracks, to clean floors and sweep streets under the supervision of the S.S. troops. They were made to clean the windows of high houses from the outside, and several of them lost their lives through falling down. Jewish girls were violated and taken to 'Militar-Medi'. Already during the first stage the Jews were deprived of all their property and most of them were evicted from their homes.

In the second period male Jews were sent to concentration camps. But quite a number of men and young Jews succeeded in escaping to the villages, where they lived with Serbian peasant families. A number later joined the guerrillas. A considerable number of youths from the Jewish Zionist organization, which co-operated with the Serbian organizations for the preparation of resistance, actively helped the guerrilla fighters. Many collected hospital material for the guerrillas or posted anti-German posters in Belgrade streets. The name of Almozmo, a schoolboy of ten, the son of a well-known Belgrade dispensing chemist in Peter Street, should be mentioned. He threw bombs at two armored German cars and a tank in Grobljanska Street in Belgrade and blew them up. His elder brother, a medical student, is still fighting in Bosnia, in spite of the order that the mayor and members of the rural councils would be shot if such cases were discovered in their villages.

Some forty of my relatives were shot in Belgrade by the Germans. I am, however, very proud to say that today two small relatives of mine, one of five and one of seven years of age, whose parents were shot by the Gestapo, are being hidden by two Serbian mothers.

No German measures in Belgrade were able to upset the friendly relations between the Serbs and Jews. During the forced-labor period Serbs talked to their Jewish friends in the streets even in front of the German soldiers and police. During the period well over 300,000 Serbs were massacred by the Croat Ustashi in Bosnia, Herzegovina, and Lika and some 60,000 shot by the Germans in Serbia, during the period when Serbian students and peasants were hung in the main square in Belgrade, the Serbs of the capital had sufficient courage to protest publicly their indignation at the treatment of the Jews.

When Jewish women were transported in lorries to the concentration camps, Serb shopkeepers in the streets through which these processions passed closed their shops and their houses, thus expressing not only their protest, but also emphasizing the fact that the entire population of Serbia, yesterday and today, does not and cannot participate in the extermination of their Jewish neighbors.

The example of the Serbian people with regard to the Jews is unique in Europe, particularly in the southern part of the continent. In spite of intensive German propaganda in writing and through the wireless, the Serbs remained unaffected. When we consider what happened to the Jews in neighboring countries, in the "Independent State of Croatia," Hungary, Rumania, and Bulgaria, the Serbian example shines out.

Today there are no more Jews left in Serbia, except some children hidden by the Serbs and those fighting along with the Serbs in the forests. I saved my own life thanks to my Serbian friends. I was saved from certain death. Serbian peasants and my other friends also saved from death my only son, who was on several occasions sought by the Gestapo in Belgrade.

It is my desire as a Jew and as a Serb that in free democratic countries where Jews are still enjoying full freedom and equality they should show gratitude to the Serbian people, pointing out their noble acts, their humane feelings, and their high civic consciousness and culture....

I cannot conclude this report without mentioning how the Serbian Orthodox Church, the Patriarch Gavrilo, and his clergy tried to save Serbian Jews and Gypsies. Up to the present day the Germans have massacred I70,000 Gypsies, men, women, and children, in Serbia and the Banat. Serbian Orthodox priests and the Serbian peasantry risked their lives not only to save ordinary Jews and their children but also to save those Gypsies and their children. Today the chief rabbi of Yugoslav Jews lives in America. He was saved from the Gestapo, being smuggled out from Serbia from monastery to monastery by the Serbian clergy. He was handed over by one Serbian church to another, by one Serbian priest to another until he was passed on to Bulgarian territory. There, with the assistance of the Orthodox Bulgarian clergy, some of whom were his personal friends, he arrived at the Turkish frontier."

[52a] "On anti-Semitism, suicide bombers and a sick Israel: A conversation with French philosopher, columnist and writer Bernard-Henri Levy"; Haaretz; 26/05/2003; by Anat Cygielman.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=296863

[53] GETTING EVEN,  The Jerusalem Post, January 14, 1994, Friday, FEATURES; Pg. 18, 4545 words, Steve Rodan

[54] Alfred Lilienthal says he is "an American of Jewish faith," and yet "in 1949, his article, Israel's Flag Is Not Mine, published in the Reader's Digest, caused great controversy because of its anti-Zionist position." This was a strange year in which to be an anti-Zionist, if you were a Jew, because the year before the combined Arab states had attempted the extermination of the Israeli Jews.

SOURCE: http://www.alfredlilienthal.com/

[55] Azzam Pasha, Secretary General of the Arab League, announced:

"This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades."

SOURCE: Howard M Sachar, A History of Israel: From the Rise of Zionism to Our Time, (New York: Knopf, 1979), p. 333

To learn a little more about the context of this war, visit:

“In 1947-48, forced by external circumstances, the US government gave lukewarm support to the creation of the State of Israel. But then it reversed itself and implemented policies designed to destroy Israel”; from “IS THE US AN ALLY OF ISRAEL?: A Chronological Look at the Evidence”; Historical and Investigative Research; by Francisco Gil-White.
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hirally.htm#1947

[56] “Whether It’s Jerusalem or Nantucket, You Can’t Go Home Again”; By Dr. Alfred M. Lilienthal; WASHINGTON REPORT On Middle East Affairs; DECEMBER 1997, Pages 34, 93.

[57] The key threats took place in 1991, when George Bush Sr. and James Baker threatened the Israelis for 8 months that they would lose all US financial aid, and moreover that the US would decide the future of the Middle East with the Arabs, unless the Israelis agreed to participate in a diplomatic process to bring the PLO into Israel. To learn about this, read:

In 1991, Bush Sr.’s administration forced Israel to participate in the Oslo process, which brought the PLO into the West Bank and Gaza; from “IS THE US AN ALLY OF ISRAEL?: A Chronological Look at the Evidence”; Historical and Investigative Research; by Francisco Gil-White.
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hirally2.htm#1991

[58] In this footnote I address two points: 1) that the PLO means to exterminate the Jewish people; and 2) that the controlling core of the PLO, Al Fatah, was created a leader of Adolf Hitler’s Final Solution.

The claim that the PLO means to exterminate the Israeli Jews is supported by the PLO’s own constitution, for this is what the PLO happens to announce as its intention:

Article 9…says that “armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine.”

Article 15 says it is “a national duty to repulse the Zionist imperialist invasion from the great Arab homeland and to purge the Zionist presence from Palestine.”

Article 22 declares that “the liberation of Palestine will liquidate the Zionist and imperialist presence and bring about the stabilization of peace in the Middle East.”

TRANSLATION: The Associated Press, December 15, 1998, Tuesday, AM cycle, International News, 1070 words, Clinton meets with Netanyahu, Arafat, appeals for progress, By TERENCE HUNT, AP White House Correspondent, EREZ CROSSING, Gaza Strip. [Emphasis added]

Historian Howard Sachar explains the following about Al Fatah, Yasser Arafat’s and Mahmoud Abbas’ organization, which is the core component of the PLO, calling all the shots:

“...the Fatah (Arab Liberation Movement) [was] organized...by veterans of the Mufti’s former Arab Higher Committee.”

SOURCE: Sachar, Howard Morley - A history of Israel : from the rise of Zionism to our time / Howard M. Sachar. 1982, c1979. (p.619)

Who was “the Mufti” -- the man behind the creation of Al Fatah?

That would be Hajj Amin al Husseini, who was given bureaucratic authority and a large budget by the British when they made him Mufti of Jerusalem in 1920, after Hajj Amin demonstrated that he could organize large-scale terrorist attacks against innocent Jews in British Mandate ‘Palestine.’ He used this power to organize another terrorist riot in 1921 (after which the British expanded his budget and bureaucratic authority), and then a much larger attack in 1929, followed by an even bigger attack in 1936-37 (this last one was called the ‘Arab Revolt’ and was organized with weapons provided by the Nazis). Each time, Hajj Amin’s attacks were against civilians, and they included, for example, such things as torturing Jewish children to death. In 1941 Hajj Amin met Hitler in Berlin. Hitler promised to conquer the Middle East and exterminate all the Jews living there, after which Hajj Amin would be installed as the local leader. Hajj Amin, for his part, immediately became one of the supreme leaders of the Final Solution in Europe, organizing large SS divisions in Bosnia composed of tens of thousands of Bosnian Muslim volunteers who carried out large-scale exterminations of Serbs, Jews, and Roma (gypsies) in Yugoslavia. He also played an important role in getting hundreds of thousands of Hungarian Jews sent to Auschwitz, and in speeding up the operation of the death camps. Yasser Arafat proudly explained to his Arab audiences that Hajj Amin was his mentor and hero.

To read more about Hajj Amin al Husseini, visit:

“HOW DID THE ‘PALESTINIAN MOVEMENT’ EMERGE? The British sponsored it. Then the German Nazis, and the US.”; Historical and Investigative Research; 13 June 2006; by Francisco Gil-White.
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/pal_mov4.htm

Some of this material was originally published here:

“Anti-Semitism, Misinformation, And The Whitewashing Of The Palestinian Leadership”; Israel National News; May 26, '03 / 24 Iyar 5763; by Francisco J. Gil-White
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/article.php3?id=2405

[59]  In 1982-1983, the US military rushed into Lebanon to protect the PLO from the Israelis; from “IS THE US AN ALLY OF ISRAEL?: A Chronological Look at the Evidence”; Historical and Investigative Research; by Francisco Gil-White.
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hirally2.htm#1982

[60] The following piece contains much material on the PLO oppression of the Arabs:

“In 1994, Yasser Arafat was given a Nobel Peace Prize, and the CIA trained the PLO, even though Arafat's henchmen were saying in public, this very year, that they would use their training to oppress Arabs and kill Jews”; from “IS THE US AN ALLY OF ISRAEL?: A Chronological Look at the Evidence”; Historical and Investigative Research; by Francisco Gil-White.
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hirally2.htm#1994

[61] Levin, K. 2005. The Oslo syndrome: Delusions of a people under siege. Hanover, NH: Smith and Kraus. (p.161)

[62] Source: Evening Standard (London) May 19, 1994; SECTION: Pg. 9; LENGTH: 907 words; HEADLINE: A NEW KIND OF JIHAD

[63] The Baltimore Sun, July 11, 2001 Wednesday,  FINAL EDITION,  Pg. 1A, 1574 words,  Israelis taking darker view of Palestinian intentions; Many see existence of Jewish state at risk, Mark Matthews.

[64] In 2005 Mahmoud Abbas, the one who invented the strategy of talking 'peace' the better to slaughter Israelis, acquired complete control over Gaza. The US ruling elite loves Mahmoud Abbas; from “IS THE US AN ALLY OF ISRAEL?: A Chronological Look at the Evidence”; Historical and Investigative Research; by Francisco Gil-White.
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hirally2.htm#2005

[65] In the quote below The Guardian says that the Oslo process was created by Mahmoud Abbas. But notice also that The Guardian obligingly calls Mahmoud Abbas an “arch-moderate.”

“Oslo could, perhaps, have worked. But its architect, the arch-moderate Abu Mazen, warned from the outset that it would lead ‘either to a Palestine state or the liquidation of the Palestine cause.’”

SOURCE: THE AXE IS SHARPENED FOR ARAFAT; He once carried the hopes of his people. Now Yasser Arafat faces their bitterness as the peace process stalls and allegations of corruption, incompetence and even collaboration dog him. In the first of three articles, DAVID HIRST looks atthe slow collapse of the latest Palestinian dream of freedom., The Guardian (London), April 15, 1995, THE GUARDIAN FEATURES PAGE; Pg. 21, 3747 words, David Hirst

[66] “…at 11 a.m., before some 3,000 guests on the South Lawn, including former presidents Jimmy Carter and George Bush, [Shimon] Peres and PLO Executive Committee member Mahmoud Abbas are to sign an agreement between Israel and the PLO conferring limited self-rule on the Palestinians living in Gaza and the West Bank.”

SOURCE: Old Foes Meet Today At Israel-PLO Signing; White House Ceremony to Open New Era, The Washington Post, September 13, 1993, Monday, Final Edition, FIRST SECTION; PAGE A1, 1289 words, Thomas W. Lippman, Washington Post Staff Writer

[67] Levin, K. 2005. The Oslo syndrome: Delusions of a people under siege. Hanover, NH: Smith and Kraus. (p.456)
 


 
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
3   What is the problem with the Israeli
ruling elite? Is it stupidity? Or is it
something else?

________________________________________________________


“…The [Israeli] government’s policy of hiding incriminating information about [the PLO's Yasser] Arafat from the public was dramatically if indirectly illustrated by an episode in 1994 [the year that the Oslo 'peace' process was jump-started] when Shimon Peres, conversing with Arafat at the Erez checkpoint and apparently unaware that his comments were being recorded by a French filmmaker, threatened to reveal to the media Arafat’s flouting of his Oslo obligations. Peres did not go into detail about Arafat’s violations but did regard them as serious enough that their revelation would be a ‘catastrophe’ for Arafat and would, among its consequences, ‘kill the Palestinian story in the American Congress.’”

SOURCE: Levin, K. 2005. The Oslo syndrome: Delusions of a people under siege. Hanover, NH: Smith and Kraus. (p.xi)

________________________________________________________

Table of Contents
( hyperlinked
< )

< Introduction

< The Oslo process, from the point of view of the PLO

< Did Israeli leaders understand that the PLO always meant to exterminate the Israeli Jews?

< Shimon Peres

< Other Israeli leaders

< The Israeli ruling elite has covered up the German Nazi origins of the PLO

< Final remarks
________________________________________________________

Introduction

There appears to be a growing consensus among friends of Israel, especially in the wake of Israel’s war with Hezbollah, that Israeli leaders have been radically endangering the security of the Jewish state with their ‘peace’ policies. Within this consensus, however, there is a controversy as to why. One hypothesis says that Israeli leaders, for many years, have been uniformly and dramatically stupid. This view is popular among Jewish patriots, who (a) seem to find it natural that pathological stupidity should be abundant among Jewish leaders, and (b) possess Buddhist patience as they wait for their mentally challenged leaders to come to their senses. An alternative hypothesis says that the mental powers of Israeli leaders are fine -- simply, they are corrupt traitors.

No hypothesis is correct just because we like it, or because it agrees with our prejudices, or because the alternative is too scary. A scientist must provisionally accept or reject a hypothesis on the basis of the current balance of material evidence that either supports or undermines it. What I will do below is contribute a brief analysis of evidence speaking to this particular controversy: Are Israeli leaders idiots or traitors?

Since, in the last 20 years, the most important policies relevant to Israeli security have been those connected with the Oslo so-called ‘peace’ process and its offshoots (‘Road Map,’ ‘Disengagement,’ ‘Convergence’), the most important issues to consider are the following:

1) What has the PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization) been trying to achieve through Oslo?;

2) How aware have Israeli leaders been of the PLO’s intentions?; and

3) What have Israeli leaders done with their knowledge of PLO intentions?

Once the evidence has been examined, we will see that the answers to the above questions are the following:

1) The PLO has always and to this day meant to exterminate the Israeli Jews;

2) Israeli leaders have always been perfectly aware of this; and

3) Israeli leaders have sought to convince the Israeli public otherwise, covering up for the PLO and representing it as a ‘partner for peace.’ The point of this has been to convince Israelis to accept the PLO inside the Jewish state as the government of the Arab population living in the West Bank and Gaza.

This does not support the ‘stupidity’ hypothesis.

If the ‘treason’ hypothesis is correct, then it will mean that a pattern witnessed in World War II -- when many mainstream Jewish leaders betrayed their fellow Jews even as the European Jewish population was being exterminated -- is repeating itself (see Part 1).[1] If ordinary Jews do not now quickly defend themselves from their current leadership, millions of innocent Jews will die again.

Time has run out.

Is it possible for one country A to cause another country B to assist its own enemies and commit commit suicide? Yes, so long as certain conditions obtain.

By "committing suicide" I mean that since the people who compose the organs of state feel duty-bound to carry out the orders of their superiors, what is needed, mechanically, is for country A to corrupt the political leadership and the media of country B. If this is attained, then country A, through the corrupted political leaders and media in country B, can cause the organs of state in country B to assist the enemies of country B.

A scenario where this would be maximally easy is one where country B is very small and has lots of enemies, whereas country A is very large – at the limit, a superpower (e.g. the United States). A superpower will certainly have the wherewithal to corrupt the leadership and the media of a small country, in which case it can make that leadership surrender Gaza and the West Bank to terrorists who never stop firing at its civilians, and whose ideology is the total extermination of those civilians.


T.B.N. Nansit

 

The Oslo process, from the point of view of the PLO
_____________________________________________

In The Oslo Syndrome, historian Kenneth Levin writes:

“Shortly after signing the Declaration of Principles and the famous handshake between [PLO leader Yasser] Arafat and [Israeli prime minister] Yitzhak Rabin on the White House lawn, Arafat was declaring to his Palestinian constituency over Jordanian television that Oslo was to be understood in terms of the [PLO’s] Palestine National Council’s 1974 decision. This was a reference to the so-called Plan of Phases, according to which the Palestine Liberation Organization [PLO] would acquire whatever territory it could by negotiations, then use that land as a base for pursuing its ultimate goal of Israel’s annihilation.”[2]

The words “Israel’s annihilation” are not synonymous with negotiation to obtain a PLO state; their meaning is closer to the murder of every Jew now living in Israel. And in fact the PLO constitution calls for the extermination of the Jewish people.[3] So Yasser Arafat’s so-called Plan of Phases -- his entire approach to the Oslo accords -- looks like a ‘Trojan Horse’ strategy.

The expression ‘Trojan Horse’ is taken from the ancient Greek work The Iliad. In this story, a large coalition of Greeks attack the city of Troy just because the wife of a Greek king had eloped with a Trojan prince. After ten whole years of unremitting bloodshed, the Greeks get tired of not being able to pierce Troy’s defenses, so they invent a ruse: they build a huge wooden horse and leave it on the beach as an apparent gift to the victorious Trojan defenders, then pretend to leave in their ships. In reality, the Greeks have parked their ships in a nearby bay, where they wait for Odysseus, Achilles, and a few other Greek soldiers squirreled inside the hollow horse to let them in while Troy sleeps. As planned, after the hopelessly gullible Trojans bring into their city the wooden horse, the Greeks inside it creep out under cover of dark, murder the guards, open the city gates to their brethren, and then every Trojan man, woman, and child is slaughtered. The city is burned to the ground.

Now compare: In 1948, after the Arabs rejected a legal UN vote to create an Arab and a Jewish state in what had been British Mandate ‘Palestine,’ the Arabs announced that, rather than live peacefully side by side, they much preferred to exterminate the Jews in the Middle East. Azzam Pasha, Secretary General of the Arab League, proudly announced:

“This will be a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades.”[4]

This was, mind you, immediately after the Holocaust.

And this was only the first of many genocidal attacks launched by the Arab neighbors of Israel (see here for a review).[5] Each attack was launched because the previous one had failed to annihilate Israel, so after a while the repeated failure started to wear on the Arabs, just as the Greeks had also become annoyed at their inability to destroy Troy. Thus, after many years of failed genocidal attacks launched with conventional armies against Israel’s borders, the Arabs decided, after the defeat they suffered in the 1973 Yom Kippur war, to do like the Greeks and employ a ruse to get the genocidal soldiers inside Israel’s walls: this ruse was Yasser Arafat’s 1974 ‘Plan of Phases.’

The idea was simple: like the Greeks, appear to concede defeat, and make a gift in exchange for an invitation into the Jewish state. The gift was the promise of peace. Once inside, however, the PLO would use its power over the Arab population living there to indoctrinate it into the most hateful and violent anti-Jewish ideology, proceeding thereafter with the mass killing.[6] This Plan of Phases, thanks to US pressure, became the Oslo ‘peace’ process.[7]

In 2001, a top PLO official candidly explained the strategy to the Arab press by making an explicit comparison to The Iliad:

“...Faisal Husseini, the top PLO official in Jerusalem...[was] quoted as likening the Oslo accords to a ‘Trojan horse.’ ...the weekly Al-Arabi quotes Husseini as calling the Oslo accords ‘just a temporary procedure, or just a step towards something bigger…the liberation of all historical Palestine from the (Jordan) river to the (Mediterranean) sea, even if this means that the conflict will last for another thousand years or for many generations.’”[8]

But Faisal Husseini’s recent explanation was not really needed. As mentioned above, Arafat made his Plan of Phases known to his fellow Arabs in 1974, long before the PLO was brought into the Jewish state. And, as we learn above, Arafat repeated the PLO's intent to his followers in 1993, over Jordanian television, and immediately after the White House ceremony in which Oslo was agreed to: the Oslo process, Arafat explained, would be his Plan of Phases.

 


 

Yitzhak Rabin

Oslo handshake
( White House lawn )

Yasser Arafat

 

 

 

 

 

The idea was
simple:
promise peace in exchange for an invitation into the Jewish state to govern the Arab population living there. Then,
kill the Jews.

 

Did Israeli leaders understand that the PLO always meant to exterminate the Israeli Jews?
____________________________

It is true that Arafat did not loudly explain his Plan of Phases to the Western press, but to his Arab audiences. However, Israel has an intelligence service naturally equipped with speakers of Arabic who monitor the statements Israel’s Arab enemies make in their native language. This means that, of course, Israeli leaders had to know about Arafat’s Plan of Phases as soon as it was promulgated. They also had to know what Arafat was saying on Jordanian television even as he was ‘agreeing’ to Oslo.

But even should anybody argue that Israel’s famed intelligence service is in fact so pathetically inept that nobody in it ever thought to monitor what the antisemitic Arabs say in Arabic, this will not work as an excuse because Arafat’s intentions occasionally did surface in the Western press, in English. For example, there is Faisal Husseini’s statement above, which appeared in the Western press. Less recently, right as the Oslo ‘peace’ process -- meant to bring the PLO into Israel -- was getting under way (1994), the Evening Standard (London) reported on a speech by Arafat in which he straightforwardly explained his ‘Trojan Horse’ view of the Oslo process to his followers.[9] So Israeli leaders obviously knew what the PLO’s intentions were. And yet they never informed the Israeli public, defending instead the claim that the PLO had changed, and that by inviting the PLO into the Jewish state they were supposedly protecting the security of ordinary Israelis!

Not only that. My reader should keep foremost in his or her mind that, in bringing the PLO into the Jewish state, Israeli leaders revived the PLO. How so? They revived it because this antisemitic terrorist organization had already been defeated, and was languishing far away from Israel, in Tunisian exile, when Oslo began.[10] This point is crucial.

Now, I have found that many -- perhaps most -- Jewish patriots, when they are confronted with the above, feel a quite insistent -- even passionate -- urge to interpret all this as stupidity on the part of Israeli politicians. In my view this kind of innocence reveals that Jews suffer from pathologies of reasoning that impair their ability to think clearly about their self defense, and which make it easier for antisemites to kill large numbers of Jews. In order to defend the Jewish people we must therefore expose these pathologies of reasoning. One way to do this is to put the geopolitical problems that Jews face in personal terms. Why? Because the fog of propaganda that surrounds the geopolitical problem is absent in the problem's translation to the personal level, so it is easier to think about.

Thus, consider the following thought experiment. John Doe knows (crucial point) that a criminal has promised to murder John’s family as soon as he can get into John’s home. But what does John do? He gives said criminal the house keys. After his family has been murdered, what will happen to John? Naturally, he will either be quickly convicted for conspiring to murder his wife and children, or else he will be quickly declared insane. What is certain is that no court will accept the argument that John -- in earnest stupidity -- believed this was the best way to protect his family. Why? Because nobody, quite simply, is that stupid.

The only way to argue that Israeli leaders somehow meant well when they brought the PLO -- an organization pledged to murder every Jew -- to become the government over the Arabs in the Jewish state, is therefore to insist that Israeli leaders didn’t understand what the PLO meant to do. I have already shown above that this cannot be defended, given how dramatic and consistent Arafat’s very public explanations of his intentions. But this point cannot be emphasized too much, so consider the following:

“Allusions to the [‘Trojan Horse’] Plan of Phases became a staple in Arafat’s addresses in Arabic, with more than a dozen such references within a few weeks of the White House ceremony [the ceremony that officially inaugurated the Oslo process!]. So also were Arafat’s comparisons of Oslo to Mohammed’s dealings with the Quraysh, a tribe on the Arabian peninsula. Mohammed negotiated a treaty with the Quraysh in 628, but two years later, when his forces had grown stronger, he attacked and defeated them. Likewise featured in Arafat’s speeches during this time were calls to Jihad, or holy war, against Israel.

Arafat’s arrival in the territories, in July, 1994, and his assumption of control over Palestinian schools and an expanded Palestinian media system were marked by the promoting of these and related themes in Palestinian school curricula and media. Palestinian children were taught that all of ‘Palestine’ from the Jordan to the Mediterranean -- that is, the West Bank, Gaza, and all of Israel -- belongs to them and is holy Islamic land. Jews have no historic connections to the land and no legal claim to any of it but are merely evil usurpers. Palestinian children were also to learn that it is not only their right but their obligation to dedicate themselves to Israel’s destruction. Arafat-controlled Palestinian television, including children’s television, and other Palestinian media outlets promoted the same claims and the same agenda.”[11]

To get a sense for how extreme the Jew-killing propaganda of the PLO, consider only that Friday sermons transmitted by Palestinian Authority TV will do such things as shame Arabs who have not yet strapped a bomb around their own child and sent him to go blow himself up in the middle of Jewish men, women, and children.[12]

If you live in the West it is of course relatively difficult to become aware of this, as it hardly ever surfaces in the Western press, but the Israeli government and media, naturally, have always known precisely what is going on in the PLO’s media. So what have they done with this information? They have covered it up, lest the Israeli public and Diaspora Jews oppose the Oslo process that has progressively empowered the PLO inside the Jewish state.

“The Labor-Meretz coalition government was typically silent on the anti-Israel indoctrination. At the same time, the Israeli media...enthusiastically supportive of the Oslo accords, supported this silence by suppressing coverage of Arafat’s incitement-laden speeches and of the prominence of the same themes in Palestinian schools and media. Indeed, a kind of underground system evolved to monitor hate-mongering in Palestinian school texts and media in the absence of coverage by the Israeli government and mainstream Israeli news outlets.”[13]

A cover up suggests malice, not stupidity.

Also, against the view that the Israeli ruling elite is stupid, there is the additional problem that, immediately after Yasser Arafat was brought from Tunis and installed in the West Bank and Gaza, terrorism against innocent Israelis quintupled.[14] Since Arafat’s promise had been that, if brought into Israel, terrorism would end (for which promise he was given the Nobel Peace Prize![15]), the automatic sharp rise in terrorism against innocent Israelis should have put an immediate end to the Oslo process. After all, this is what Israeli leaders Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres had famously and explicitly promised the Israelis: that if terrorism did not go away, the Oslo process would swiftly die.

But rather than abort the Oslo process when the violence increased five-fold upon Arafat’s arrival, the Israeli and Western governments and media protested that the ‘other’ terrorist organizations, Hamas and Islamic Jihad, supposedly not allied with Arafat, were to blame for this violence. (In fact, HIR has shown that Hamas and Islamic Jihad have always worked in close cooperation with the PLO to kill Jews and any Arabs opposed to such killings[16]). In the face of ongoing terrorism, the Israeli and Western governments and media accused anybody opposed to more Oslo concessions to the PLO of supposedly playing right into the terrorist attempt to ‘ruin the peace process.’ In this way anybody critical of Oslo was loudly equated by the Israeli government and media with the Hamas and Islamic Jihad terrorists as an ‘enemy of peace,’ whereas the PLO itself was consistently represented as the supposed ‘partner for peace.’ With this cover story, the Israeli government and media defended the rush to give the PLO more and more power as a strategy, supposedly, to give Arafat the tools to control the violence. A sharp increase in terrorism thus became the ‘rationale’ to push for giving Arafat more power more quickly!

In The Oslo Syndrome, historian Kenneth Levin writes:

“The Israeli government’s response to the ongoing violence, and to Arafat’s failure to fulfill his Oslo obligations vis-à-vis terrorism and his, instead, lending support to the terrorist organizations, was muted at best and frequently even protective of Arafat ...The Peace Movement’s supporters in the government, the dominant voices in [Israeli prime minister Yitzhak] Rabin’s coalition, had an answer to such questions: more Israeli concessions. …the more terror, the more the government urged a speeding of the ‘peace process.’”[17]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In bringing
the PLO into the Jewish state,
Israeli leaders revived
the PLO.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anybody critical of Oslo was loudly equated by the Israeli government and media with the Hamas and Islamic Jihad terrorists as an ‘enemy of peace.’

 

Shimon Peres
_____________

To deepen our understanding of the Israeli ruling elite, it is useful to take a close look at one Israeli politician in particular: Shimon Peres.

Kenneth Levin writes:

 “…The government’s policy of hiding incriminating information about Arafat from the public was dramatically if indirectly illustrated by an episode in 1994 [the year that the Oslo process was jump-started] when Shimon Peres, conversing with Arafat at the Erez checkpoint and apparently unaware that his comments were being recorded by a French filmmaker, threatened to reveal to the media Arafat’s flouting of his Oslo obligations. Peres did not go into detail about Arafat’s violations but did regard them as serious enough that their revelation would be a ‘catastrophe’ for Arafat and would, among its consequences, ‘kill the Palestinian story in the American Congress.’”[18]

This is evidence that Shimon Peres -- in full knowledge of the facts -- has been covering up Arafat’s terrorism. It is not evidence of stupidity.

Who is this Shimon Peres? He is the great architect of the Oslo process.

It is illuminating briefly to review his career because you will see that a certain pattern emerges (I will help out by using italics). Since 1969, Shimon Peres has been a top minister in key positions in the Israeli government, almost uninterruptedly. In 1969 he was appointed Minister of Absorption and in 1970 Minister of Transportation and Communications. In 1974, after a period as Information Minister, he was appointed Minister of Defense (by Yitzhak Rabin). In 1977 he succeeded Rabin as Prime Minister and Labor party leader after the latter resigned. Later that year, Peres led the Labor Party to its first ever electoral defeat when Menachem Begin won the premiership for Likud. Peres led his Labor party to another defeat in 1981, but since his party won more seats than any other in 1984, a coalition government resulted with Peres as prime minister and Yitzhak Shamir of Likud as foreign minister. After two years, they traded places, so Peres became foreign minister in 1986. Peres led his party to another defeat in 1988. But once again there was a coalition government, and Peres served as Vice Premier and Minister of Finance. He left the government in 1990 and was again defeated at the polls in 1992, this time in the Labor primary elections, by Yitzhak Rabin, but Peres became Rabin’s foreign minister when the latter became prime minister, and then succeeded him as prime minister after Rabin’s assassination in 1995. Peres was defeated in the next election by Benjamin Netanyahu in 1996. In 1997 Ehud Barak replaced Peres as Labor party leader, and upon becoming prime minister, Barak appointed Peres to the post of minister for regional development. In 2000 Peres lost his bid to be elected Israeli President (ceremonial head of state) to Moshe Katsav from Likud. When Ariel Sharon became prime minister in 2001, Peres was appointed his foreign minister. He left office briefly in 2003 but then became Sharon’s foreign minister again in 2004.

As HIR has shown, Shimon Peres was already working hard at undermining the security of the Jewish state in the 1980s,[20] and as we see above, he has had sufficient power in Israel’s government all these years to push through the Oslo process that brought the PLO into the Jewish state -- quite despite the fact that “Peres has never won a national election.”[19] Something is clearly rotten behind the scenes.

How does Shimon Peres feel about his fellow Israelis?

“Shimon Peres...declared with regard to public attitudes and government policy, ‘A leader must be like a bus driver...He cannot turn his head all the time to see how the passengers feel.’”[21]

Shimon Peres’ metaphor of leadership is ill-chosen, for a bus driver can hardly take his passengers wherever he thinks they should go when a majority of these are complaining that they paid for a ticket to a different destination. Never elected to office, Shimon Peres obviously thinks like an autocrat: only his views matter. In light of his preferred policies, perhaps Peres should have said that he is a train conductor (rushing his unwilling passengers to what he insists will be a ‘work’ camp).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Shimon Peres

A leader must be like a bus driver... He cannot turn his head all the time to see how the passengers feel.

 

Other Israeli leaders
__________________

It is important to point out that the corruption in the Israeli leadership is hardly limited to Shimon Peres and his Labor party.

It was, after all, Yitzhak Shamir from Likud who, under threat from the United States, first assented to the Madrid so-called ‘peace’ talks that became the platform for the Oslo process.[22]

After this, Yitzhak Rabin from Labor, steered by the true controller, his foreign minister Shimon Peres, famously brought the PLO into Israel.

But a majority of Israeli Jews then reacted rationally to the increased terrorism that followed the entrance of the PLO into Israel and chose Benjamin Netanyahu -- on a platform that breathed fire against the Oslo accords -- over Shimon Peres in the election that followed Yitzhak Rabin’s assassination. But despite that, when Benjamin Netanyahu became prime minister, he turned around and, under US pressure, pushed forward the Oslo process with even more energy than his predecessors.[23]

When Ehud Barak -- like Shimon Peres, a Laborite -- was elected afterwards, he rushed to give Arafat and the Syrians everything they wanted, but Arafat, and the Syrian Assad, rejected the offers because their entire political careers are built on the promise of destroying Israel, so they find it easier to stay in power by refusing any diplomatic moves that might create the impression they have recognized the state of Israel.[24]

Under a barrage of Arafat-sponsored terrorism, a majority of Israeli Jews once again reacted rationally and elected Ariel Sharon on his promises to oppose Oslo. Like Yitzhak Shamir and Benjamin Netanyahu, Sharon was from Likud. But likewise -- under US pressure -- Sharon turned around and embraced Oslo policies more fiercely than anybody, cleansing the Jews out of Gaza (and parts of the West Bank), and giving away this territory to the terrorists, asking in exchange for...nothing at all![25] Sharon’s heir, Ehud Olmert, from the party that Ariel Sharon recently founded, Kadima, was likewise rushing to cleanse remaining Jews from the West Bank (thus completing the total capitulation of Israel to its terrorist enemies) when the war with Hezbollah interrupted him.

Obviously, then, the problem is hardly limited to Shimon Peres and the Labor party. Every Israeli government since the early 1990s has advanced the PLO’s agenda against the interests -- and against the wishes, expressed at the polls -- of ordinary Israelis.


 


Yitzhak Shamir

Benjamin Netanyahu

Ehud Barak

Ariel Sharon

The Israeli ruling elite has covered up the German Nazi origins of the PLO
________________

In all this, I have not mentioned yet the most dramatic piece of information kept from the Israeli public by the Israeli ruling elite. I saved the worst for last.

It turns out that Al Fatah, the controlling core of the PLO, was created by Hajj Amin al Husseini, who was as important as Adolf Eichman as an architect of Adolf Hitler’s German Nazi extermination of the European Jews (before that, Hajj Amin had been murdering very large numbers of innocent Jews with terrorist attacks in British Mandate ‘Palestine,’ and it is precisely this expertise that made him so attractive to the German Nazis).[26] Again, Israel has an intelligence service, and it spends millions of shekels a year on it, and Israeli spies are supposed to be investigating the background of the PLO, so it is inconceivable that in all these years they could not document something that I was able to document in two weeks (consult the above footnote).

But suppose that -- still -- you wanted desperately to believe the hypothesis that Israeli leaders were not aware of this easily documented fact, and thus unwittingly brought the continuation of the Holocaust into the Jewish state in total innocence. Even under this hypothesis, it is still impossible to believe that the Israeli government has been innocent of Al Fatah’s Nazi background since 26 May 2003. Why? Because on that day Israel National News (Arutz Sheva) published my first article documenting the Nazi history of Al Fatah,[27] and the Israeli government keeps very close tabs on what Israel National News publishes.

To get a sense for how closely the Israeli government monitors Israel National News, consider only that, for publishing the truth that defends Israel, this media company has been viciously -- and I do mean viciously -- persecuted by the Israeli government. To the point that its radio component, Israel National Radio, had to put its equipment on a ship and broadcast from outside Israel’s territorial waters because it was barred from doing so inside Israel. I know this sounds absurd, but it is true, and you may read about that here:

“On the importance of Israel National Radio (Arutz Sheva)”; Historical and Investigative Research; 30 June 2006; by Francisco Gil-White.
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/inr_interview.htm

It is obvious, therefore, that since May 2003, the Israeli government cannot claim to be unaware that the PLO is a continuation of Adolf Hitler’s Final Solution, particularly given that a scandal erupted when I was fired from the University of Pennsylvania for publishing this very documentation in Israel National News, and given that this scandal was covered in the Philadelphia Inquirer, FOX TV, and Israel National News, among other places.[28] This kind of thing happened to many European academics who defended the Jews in the prelude to WWII, and it has been happening to many pro-Jewish academics today (the canary in the coal mine has expired, and the explosion is coming).[29]

No matter. Ariel Sharon pushed through his Unilateral Disengagement from Gaza after I published the documentation on Al Fatah’s Nazi background in Israel and was fired from the University of Pennsylvania for doing so. (By the way, most Israelis are entirely unaware that their country is being turned over to an extension of the German Nazi Final Solution, and that the ground is quickly being prepared for the next great genocide of the Jewish people; if you are an Israeli, or have friends in Israel, one thing you can do is share this information.)

Now, once the corruption of the Israeli elites is understood, it is no longer surprising that an article attacking Israel and defending her terrorist enemies (with blatant fabrications of history) should have been published -- in the middle of Israel’s defensive war against the genocidal Hezbollah! -- in a major Israeli newspaper (see here).[30] Particularly when you consider that the newspaper in question, Ha’aretz, is the “newspaper of Israel’s elites and the most ideologically driven of the nation’s nongovernmental media.”[31] And especially when you consider that the author of this Ha’aretz article, Gideon Levy, is the former personal aide and spokesperson for Shimon Peres, chief architect of Oslo.[32]

Neither is it surprising, once this context is understood, that the current Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, who failed to defend the Israelis in this latest war between Israel and Hezbollah, has now said that “Israel would be willing to discuss the disputed Shebaa Farms if Lebanon disarms Hizbullah.”[33] What is Shebaa Farms? It is a territory in the Golan Heights (lost by Syria after it launched a genocidal war against Israel in 1967[34]) that never belonged to Lebanon, and in fact the UN has already ruled on this question.[35] Moreover, a publicly available Pentagon study concluded that Israel will commit suicide if it returns Golan Heights territory to its genocidal enemies.[36] If Ehud Olmert gives Shebaa Farms to Lebanon, he is really giving it to Hezbollah’s and Lebanon’s master, Syria, and what he is giving Syria is a weapon it can use in its next genocidal war against Israel. So Olmert is rewarding Syria for using Hezbollah to murder innocent Israelis. Of course, it should go without saying that Lebanon -- a country that does not exist (for it is really an extension of Syria) -- will not disarm Hezbollah; but it is a safe bet that, if he can, Olmert will pretend this did happen so that he can give away -- through ‘Lebanon’ -- a piece of the strategic Golan Heights to the antisemitic and genocidal Syrian regime.

Ehud Olmert hardly behaves like the prime minister of Israel -- he behaves like Syria’s hired gun.

But we’ve been here before: former Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak offered the Syrians not only the Golan Heights, but even territory in the Galilee that had always been Israeli! The only reason this didn’t happen is that the Syrian ruler Hafez Assad refused Barak’s offer because any deal with Israel would have made him immediately unpopular with his genocidal Syrian subjects.[24] And Barak’s policies toward Syria, mind you, were not significantly different from those of Likud’s Netanyahu right before him, who himself “largely followed his immediate [Labor] predecessors’ policies, seeking to reach accommodation with Syria based on Israel’s essentially ceding the entire Golan Heights,” and who likewise “followed his Labor predecessors in allowing Syria -- for the sake of keeping illusory possibilities of an agreement ‘alive’ -- to continue to prosecute its proxy war against Israeli forces in Lebanon [through Hezbollah] at no cost.”[37]

Ehud Olmert will naturally not stop at giving away Shebaa Farms. As reported on 9 September,

“Israel’s foreign minister said yesterday it was time the Jewish state talked to the Palestinians, adding no conditions should be put on meeting President Mahmoud Abbas.”[38]

No conditions should be put on meeting President Mahmoud Abbas, of Al Fatah, whose organization was created by the top co-architect of the German Nazi Final Solution, and is therefore constitutionally pledged to exterminate the Israeli Jews.[39] Is this Israel’s foreign minister, or the PLO’s foreign minister?

Really: Who is Ehud Olmert working for? The question is sharpened when you consider that:

“[The Israeli] ambassador to Germany Shimon Stein is pleased that Germany has agreed to consider Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s request that it send peace-keeping troops to Lebanon.”[38]

Isn’t this perfectly consistent with everything else that Ehud Olmert does? It is. Especially when you take into account that, in 1956, the US installed in West Germany as the German BND -- the German equivalent of the CIA -- a group of Nazi war criminals that the US had been protecting (and using).[40] (The CIA itself had earlier been created by absorbing tens of thousands of Nazi war criminals, as documented in 1988 by historian Christopher Simpson.[41])



 

 

Hajj Amin al Husseini

Adolf Hitler

 

 

 

 

 

 

Since May 2003,
the Israeli government cannot claim to be unaware that the PLO is a continuation of Adolf Hitler’s
Final Solution

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ehud Olmert

Israel would be willing to discuss the disputed Shebaa Farms if Lebanon disarms Hizbullah.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mahmoud Abbas
( a.k.a. Abu Mazen )

Final remarks
____________

The above evidence supports the hypothesis that many in the Israeli ruling elite have been corrupted by the forces that wish to destroy the Jewish people. If so, this would hardly be the first time, and therefore if the hypothesis appears surprising this merely betrays ignorance of history. The phenomenon of “renegade” Jews (as the First and Second Books of Maccabees call them) allying with the powerful antisemitic enemies of the Jewish movement is one of the most stable, recurrent features of Western History.

In the ancient Mediterranean, plenty of ‘Hellenizing’ (pro-Greek) Jews in the Jewish ruling elite allied with the Seleucid Greeks who attempted to obliterate Judaism in the land of Judah, and who committed one mass slaughter of innocent Jews after another, in addition to sundry cruelties a great deal worse than murder.[42] Then there were Jews -- once again Hellenizing Jews in the ruling elite -- who allied with the Roman effort to exterminate the Jewish people in the first and second centuries (the most famous case is that of ‘historian’ Flavius Josephus, from a rich, priestly Jewish family, who assisted the Roman generals Vespasian and Titus in the genocidal ‘First Jewish War,’ and then wrote much propaganda to excuse the Roman outrage.)[43] More recently we have the example of the mainstream Jewish leaders during WWII in the United States and Britain, who tended to be ‘assimilated’ Jews toward the secular end of Jewish piety and practice, and who were well-connected with the antisemitic power structures in their home countries. These well-placed Jewish leaders -- during the Holocaust -- allied with the powerful antisemites whom they had befriended, and worked to sabotage the efforts of Hillel Kook (alias Peter Bergson) and his mostly Orthodox Jewish and righteous Gentile (i.e. non-Jewish) allies, who were trying to rescue the desperate European Jewish population (see Part 1).[44] And even more recently we have the astonishing attacks against the Jewish state by all manner of prominent mainstream Jewish leaders in the Diaspora (see Part 2).[45] In this context, why should we be surprised that the largely and fiercely secular Israeli ruling elite is betraying ordinary Israelis? But we are surprised because we do not study history, and so, as George Santayana famously said, we are condemned to repeat it.

Anybody who insists, however, despite all the above, that what really propels current Israeli leaders is not treason but the most astonishing stupidity ever witnessed, will still have to reach the same conclusion regarding what, in practical terms, is necessary for the survival of the Jewish state. Why? Because this kind of stupidity is criminal, and will result in another anti-Jewish genocide, so the Israeli ruling elite must be kicked out of power.

The next question is: Why don’t ordinary Israelis and Diaspora Jews effectively defend themselves from their own leaders?

HIR will soon attempt to answer this question.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Flavius Josephus

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Notify me of new HIR pieces!

HIR mailing list

________________________________________________________

Footnotes and Further Reading
________________________________________________________

[1] “How the mainstream Jewish leadership failed the Jewish people in World War II”;  Historical and Investigative Research; 17 January 2006; by Francisco Gil-White; from THE PROBLEM OF JEWISH SELF-DEFENSE.
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/leaders1.htm

[2] Levin, K. 2005. The Oslo syndrome: Delusions of a people under siege. Hanover, NH: Smith and Kraus. (p.ix)

[3] The 1968 PLO Charter states the objectives of the PLO as follows. Article 9 says that “armed struggle is the only way to liberate Palestine.” That’s worth chewing on for a second, because the PLO could have written the same thing like this: “it is required that Palestine be liberated in the act of killing people.” Killing which people? This is relatively obvious. Article 15 of the PLO Charter states that it is “a national duty to repulse the Zionist imperialist invasion from the great Arab homeland and to purge the Zionist presence from Palestine,” and article 22 declares that “the liberation of Palestine will liquidate the Zionist and imperialist presence.” In other words, the PLO, which organization asserts that ‘Palestine’ may be ‘liberated’ only in the act of killing people, explains that its goal is purging and liquidating -- that is to say, exterminating -- “Zionists.”

SOURCE: The PLO Charter articles were translated by: The Associated Press, December 15, 1998, Tuesday, AM cycle, International News, 1070 words, Clinton meets with Netanyahu, Arafat, appeals for progress, By TERENCE HUNT, AP White House Correspondent, EREZ CROSSING, Gaza Strip.

[4] Howard M Sachar, A History of Israel (New York: Knopf, 1979) p. 333

[5] “WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE MEDIA? (Part 2): Why does the Israeli media also attack the Israelis?”; Historical and Investigative Research; 20 August 2006; by Francisco Gil-White.
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hezbollah7_2.htm

[6] “In 1974, when much of the world was promoting Arab-Israeli negotiations in the wake of the Yom Kippur War, Yasser Arafat, leader of Fatah and of the PLO, formulated what he called the ‘Plan of Phases.’ The plan declared that the Palestinian Arabs would seek to acquire territory by negotiations and would then use that territory as a launching pad for military pursuit of Israel’s annihilation. With this agenda as backdrop, Arafat offered to enter into negotiations with Israel.”

SOURCE: Levin, K. 2005. The Oslo syndrome: Delusions of a people under siege. Hanover, NH: Smith and Kraus. (p.161)

[7] 1991 -- Bush Sr.'s administration forced Israel to participate in the Oslo process, which brought the PLO into the West Bank and Gaza; from “IS THE US AN ALLY OF ISRAEL: A Chronological look at the evidence”; Historical and Investigative Research; by Francisco Gil-White.
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hirally2.htm#1991

[8] The Baltimore Sun, July 11, 2001 Wednesday,  FINAL EDITION,  Pg. 1A, 1574 words,  Israelis taking darker view of Palestinian intentions; Many see existence of Jewish state at risk, Mark Matthews.

[9] “A tape-recording has surfaced of PLO leader Yasser Arafat speaking to Moslem followers in a Johannesburg mosque… Mr Arafat was exhorting his followers to prosecute a ‘jihad ... to liberate Jerusalem’. Mr Arafat does not deny the tape’s authenticity, but now says he meant ‘jihad’ in a metaphorical sense. A verbal jihad. A jihad of ideas. Nothing to do with violence. Mr Arafat’s effrontery adds insult to injury. In 1980, King Fahd of Saudi Arabia gave a clear definition: ‘What is meant by jihad is a united, comprehensive, integrated Arab-Islamic confrontation in which we place all our resources and our spiritual, cultural, political, material and military potential in a long and untiring ‘Holy War’ against Israel, of course, who else?’ So even if Mr Arafat really did mean ‘jihad’ in this novel, non-violent sense, his legions of followers would not have picked up the sophisticated nuance. They would have taken it to mean that the peace process was just a stratagem: a Trojan Horse which should now be exploited with maximum violence. At best, Mr Arafat was irresponsible. At worst, deeply dishonest.”

SOURCE: Evening Standard (London) May 19, 1994; SECTION: Pg. 9; LENGTH: 907 words; HEADLINE: A NEW KIND OF JIHAD

[10] Before 1982 the PLO was using its bases in southern Lebanon to murder Israeli civilians in the Galilee. In 1982 Israel launched an invasion of Lebanon, under prime minister Menachem Begin, that chased the PLO out of Lebanon and forced it to seek asylum in Tunis. The PLO would have been utterly destroyed if not for the intervention of the United States, which exerted very strong pressure on Israel to allow the PLO to survive, and then provided a military escort for the PLO so that it could take refuge safely in Tunis. But though the PLO managed to survive thanks to the US (and France), it was still defeated, because from Tunis it was almost impossible for the PLO to murder Israelis. To read about all this, visit:

1982-1983  --  The US military rushed into Lebanon to protect the PLO from the Israelis; from “IS THE US AN ALLY OF ISRAEL: A Chronological look at the evidence”; Historical and Investigative Research; by Francisco Gil-White.
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hirally2.htm#1982

[11] Levin, K. 2005. The Oslo syndrome: Delusions of a people under siege. Hanover, NH: Smith and Kraus. (p.x)

[12] Here is an example of what the Palestinian Authority drills into the heads of West Bank and Gaza Arabs, every Friday, when it broadcasts the Islamic sermons of the mullahs on Palestinian Authority TV:

“Oh beloved, we must be certain that victory will come! Shame and remorse on whoever refrained from raids [against the enemy] or refrained from preaching to himself [to raid]!; shame and remorse on whoever refrained from raising his children on Jihad [holy war]!; shame and remorse on whoever hated his Muslim brother while loving one of the infidels!; shame and remorse on whoever hid behind excuses that have no basis with Allah! Blessings to whoever waged Jihad for the sake of Allah!; blessings to whoever raided for the sake of Allah!; blessings to whoever put a belt of explosives on his body or on his sons’ and plunged into the midst of the Jews crying: ‘Allah Akbar, praise to Allah!’”

MEMRI TV (Middle East Media Research Institute) took the video off its website. We will post it on HIR as soon as we receive it from them, so that you can see the mullah saying this. In the meantime, you may consult other sources for similar documentation. For example,

“A story in the Philadelphia Inquirer in September, 1997, reported the following PA [Palestinian Authority] broadcast segment: ‘A schoolgirl, perhaps 8 years old and all nervous giggles, stands before a television camera and sings in a squeaky voice?: ‘I am a daughter of Palestine…Koran in my right hand, in my left -- a knife.’ A slightly older girl with her ponytail wrapped in a checkered kaffiyeh gives an emotional recitation of a poem for Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat: ‘I am finished practicing on the submachine gun of return…We swear to take vengeful blood from our enemies for our killed and wounded. We will board a bustling boat with will take us to Jaffa [an Israeli city].’ The girl approaches Arafat, who plants congratulatory kisses on her cheeks.”

SOURCE: Levin, K. 2005. The Oslo syndrome: Delusions of a people under siege. Hanover, NH: Smith and Kraus. (p.407); Kenneth Levin is citing the following article: Barbara Demick, “Broadcasts’ Warlike Tone Angers Israelis / Listening to a PLO Network,” The Philadelphia Inquirer, September 7, 1997.

[13] Levin, K. 2005. The Oslo syndrome: Delusions of a people under siege. Hanover, NH: Smith and Kraus. (p.x)

[14] “...in the fifteen months between Arafat’s establishment in Gaza and the signing of the next accord, Oslo II (September 28, 1995) another ninety people were killed in Palestinian attacks. By way of comparison, Palestinian terror had taken about 400 lives in the twenty-six years from the 1967 war and Israel’s entry into the territories to the inception of Oslo.”

SOURCE: Levin, K. 2005. The Oslo syndrome: Delusions of a people under siege. Hanover, NH: Smith and Kraus. (p.346)

For greater ease of comparison, this means that after Arafat’s PLO was brought inside Israel, the rate of terrorist murders against Israelis by ‘Palestinians’ was equal to 72 people per year. By contrast, before the PLO was brought in, the rate had been around 15 people per year. The Oslo process therefore immediately quintupled the ‘Palestinian’ terrorism against the Israelis.

[15]   1994 -- Yasser Arafat was given a Nobel Peace Prize, and the CIA trained the PLO, even though Arafat's henchmen were saying in public, this very year, that they would use their training to oppress Arabs and kill Jews; from “IS THE US AN ALLY OF ISRAEL: A Chronological look at the evidence”; Historical and Investigative Research; by Francisco Gil-White.
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/hirally2.htm#1994