The Controversy of Zion

[rodin]

(6) By far the greatest obstacle to the Zionist ambition cam e from factual reporting in the press of what was happening in Palestine and from editorial comment adverse to Zionism. At any time up to the 1914-1918 war the American and British governments, before they went too far, would have had to reckon with public opinion, accurately informed by the newspapers. The corruption of the press (foretold by the Protocols) began with the censorship introduced during the First World War; the rise of the directing power behind the scenes had been shown by the cases of Colonel Repington, Mr. H.A. Gwynne and Mr. Robert

295

Wilton in 1917-1918; experienced correspondents were driven to resign or to write books because their reports were ignored, burked, or suppressed; an editor who published the faithful report without submission to the censorship was prosecuted.

In 1919-1922 the censorship was ending and the newspapers naturally reverted, in the main, to the earlier practice of true reporting and impartial comment on the facts reported. This re-established the former check on governmental policies, and if it had continued would undoubtedly have thwarted the Zionist project, which could not be maintained if it were open to public scrutiny. Therefore the entire future for the Zionists, at this crucial moment when "the Mandate" still was not "ratified", turned on the suppression of adverse newspaper information and comment. At that very juncture an event occurred which produced that result. By reason of this great effect on the future, and by its own singular nature, the event (denoted in the heading to the present chapter) deserves relation in detail here.

At that stage in the affair England was of paramount importance to. the conspirators (I have shown that Dr. Weizmann and Mr. House both used this word) and in England the energetic Lord Northcliffe was a powerful man. The former Alfred Harmsworth, bulky and wearing a dank Napoleonic forelock, owned the two most widely read daily newspapers, various other journals and periodicals, and in addition was majority proprietor of the most influential newspaper in the world, at that time, The Times of London. Thus he had direct access to millions of people each day and, despite his business acumen, he was by nature a great newspaper editor, courageous, combative and patriotic. He was sometimes right and sometimes wrong in the causes he launched or espoused, but he was independent and unpurchasable. Re somewhat resembled Mr. Randolph Hearst and Colone1 Robert McCormick in America, which is to say that he would do many things to increase the circulation of his newspapers, but only within the limits of national interest; he would not peddle blasphemy, obscenity, libel or sedition. Re could not be cowed and was a force in the land.

Lord Northcliffe made himself the adversary of the conspiracy from Russia in two ways. In May 1920 he caused to be printed in The Times the article, previously mentioned, on the Protocols. It was headed, "The Jewish Peril, A Disturbing Pamphlet, Call for Enquiry". It concluded, "An impartial investigation of these would-be documents and of their history is most desirable . . . are we to dismiss the whole matter without inquiry and to let the influence of such a book as this work unchecked?"

Then in 1922 Lord Northcliffe visited Palestine, accompanied by a journalist, Mr. J.M.N. Jeffries (whose subsequent book, Palestine: The Reality, remains the classic work of reference for that period). This was. a combination of a different sort from that formed by the editors of The Times and Manchester Guardian, who wrote their leading article s about Palestine in England and in consultation with

296

the Zionist chieftain, Dr. Weizmann. Lord Northcliffe, on the spot, reached the same conclusion as all other impartial investigators, and wrote, "In my opinion we, without sufficient thought, guaranteed Palestine as a home for the Jews despite the fact that 700,000 Arab Moslems live there and own it . . . The Jews seemed to be under the impression that all England was devoted to the one cause of Zionism, enthusiastic for it in fact; and I told them that this was not so and to be careful that they do not tire out our people by secret importation of arms to fight 700,000 Arabs. . . There will be trouble in Palestine. . . people dare not tell the Jews the truth here. They have had some from me".

By stating this truth, Lord Northcliffe offended twice; he had already entered the forbidden room by demanding "inquiry" into the origins of the Protocols. Moreover, he was able to publish this truth in the mass-circulation newspapers owned by him, so that he became, to the conspirators, a dangerous man. He encountered one obstacle in the shape of Mr. Wickham Steed, who was editor of The Times and whose championship of Zionism Dr. Weizmann records.

In this contest Lord Northcliffe had an Achilles heel. He particularly wanted to get the truth about Palestine into The Times, but he was not sole proprietor of that paper, only chief proprietor. Thus his own newspapers published his series of articles about Palestine but The Times, in fact, refused to do so. Mr. Wickham Steed" though he had made such large proposals about the future of Palestine, declined to go there, and denied publicity to the anti-Zionist case.

These facts, and all that now follows, are related (again, with surprising candour) in the Official History of The Times (1952). It records that Mr. Wickham Steed "evaded" visiting Palestine when Lord Northcliffe requested him to go there; it also records Mr, Wickham Steed's "inaction" following Lord Northcliffe's telegraphed wish "for a leading article attacking Balfour's attitude towards Zionism".

In what follows the reader' s attention is particularly directed to dates.

In May 1920 Lord Northcliffe had caused publication of the article about the Protocols in The Times. Early in 1922 he visited Palestine and produced the series of article s above mentioned. On February 26, 1922 he left Palestine, after his request, which was ignored, to. the editor of The Times. He was incensed against the incompliant editor and had a message, strongly critical of his editorial policy, read to an editorial conference which met on March 2, 1922. Lord Northcliffe wished that Mr. Wickham Steed should resign and was astonished that he remained after this open rebuke. The editor, instead of resigning, decided "to secure a lawyer's opinion on the degree of provocation necessary to constitute unlawful dismissal". For this purpose he consulted Lord Northcliffe's own special legal adviser (March 7, .1922), who informed Mr. Wickham Steed that Lord Northcliffe was "abnormal", "incapable of business" and, judging from his appearance, "unlikely to live long" and advised the editor to continue in his post! The editor then went to Pau, in France, to see Lord Northcliffe, in his turn

297

decided that Lord Northcliffe was "abnormal" (March 31, 1922), and informed a director of The Times that Lord Northcliffe was "going mad".

The suggestion of madness thus was put out by an editor whom Lord Northcliffe desired to remove and the impressions of others therefore are obviously relevant. On May 3, 1922 Lord Northcliffe attended a farewell luncheon in London for a retiring editor of one of his papers and "was in fine form". On May 11, 1922 he made "an excellent and effective speech" to the Empire Press Union and "most people who had thought him 'abnormal' believed they were mistaken". A few days later Lord Northcliffe telegraphed instruction s to the Managing Director of The Times to arrange for the editor's resignation. This Managing Director saw nothing "abnormal" in such an instruction and was not "in the least anxious about Northcliffe's health ". Another director, who then saw him, "considered him to have quite as good a life risk as his own"; he "noticed nothing unusual in Northcliffe's manner or appearance" (May 24, 1922).

On June 8,1922 Lord Northcliffe, from Boulogne, asked Mr. Wickham Steed to meet him in Paris; they met there on June 11, 1922, and Lord Northcliffe told his visitor that he, Lord Northcliffe, would assume the editorship of The Times. On June 12,1922 the whole party left for Evian-les-Bains, a doctor being secreted on the train, as far as the Swiss frontier, by Mr. Wickham Steed. Arrived in Switzerland "a brilliant French nerve specialist" (unnamed) was summoned and in the evening certified Lord Northcliffe insane. On the strength of this Mr. Wickham Steed cabled instructions to The Times to disregard and not to publish anything received from Lord Northcliffe, and on June 13, 1922 he left, never to see Lord Northcliffe again. On June 18, 1922 Lord Northcliffe returned to London and was in fact removed from all control of, and even communication with his undertakings (especially The Times; his telephone was cut). The manager had police posted at the door to prevent him entering the office of The Times if he were able to reach it. All this, according to the Official History, was on the strength of certification in a foreign country (Switzerland) by an unnamed (French) doctor. On August 14, 1922 Lord Northcliffe died; the cause of death stated was ulcerative endocarditis, and his age was fifty-seven. He was buried, after a service at Westminster Abbey, amid a great array of mourning editors.

[rodin]

at last a British government felt forced to admit the fiasco and in 1930 the Passfield White Paper undertook to suspend Zionist immigration and to curtail the authority of the Jewish Agency. The "set" policy was "changed"! Dr. Weizmann, his authority reinforced by the recruitment of the "non-Zionists", struck at once. He gave audience to the British prime minister, then Mr. Ramsay Macdonald, who behaved like a man held up by a gun; he not only revoked the White Paper but humbly asked Dr. Weizmann whom he should appoint as the next High Commissioner in Palestine.

.... What these politicians feared, none can confidently say; their memoirs are uniformly silent on this central mystery and their capitulations are unique in history. Mr. Macdonald's surrender re-established the principle that "policy" in this matter was "set" and immutable, and during the ensuing twenty years this became the paramount principle of all British and American state policy. The politicians of both countries evidently held Dr. Weizmann to be the emissary of a power which they dared not disobey; their demeanour resembled the African Native's rolling-eyed fear of the witchdoctor.

Mr. Macdonald's submission restored the situation in London to its former shape, but in Palestine the "national home", an artificial growth forcibly implanted in a hostile soil, continued to wither. In ten years the Jewish population increased by less than a hundred thousand immigrants. In 1927 three thousand more emigrants departed than immigrants came. A small revival followed in 1928, but the average yearly exodus from Palestine, up to 1932, was almost a third of the immigration.

The Zionist adventure was in collapse, as all qualified parties had foretold. Left alone, the Jews of the world clearly would never in any substantial numbers go to Palestine; if events took their natural course the Arab population evidently would increase its preponderance.

Nothing was to take its natural course. At that very moment the mysterious Hitler arose in Germany (and at the same instant Mr. Roosevelt in America) and the Second World War loomed up ahead.

[Thermate911]

As a Christian alternative to Douglas Reed's work, here's W.G.Carr's 1958 take on Zionism and much more:-
http://www.yamaguchy.netfirms.com/7897401/carr/pawns_index.html

Extract from 'Pawns in the Game'...

[Wakeymedia]

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion -

1st sinister Jew - "Hey guys; what d'ya say we take over the world dressed in dark cloaks with regular sinister laughter throughout?"

2nd sinister Jew - "Yo! Great idea! But wait - shouldn't we like put it all in a book . . . and make it a really cheesy one like some third rate Penny Dreadful?"

3rd sinister Jew - "Super! A Book outlining our plans . . . erm, mind you - didn't we ought do all this in secret? All this doesn't sit too well with publishing . . . OK, OK already! Publish it - oi vey! It was just a thought."

There are some very gullible pricks in this world.

[Andrew.]

[Thermate911]

@Wakey & Andrew - have neither of you read Bakunin, let alone Carr or Reed? Why not delve into Shlomo Zand's latest to get the true Torah Jew perspective? Voices of reason seem to be drowned out - do you never wonder why?

@Wakey - your post becomes you not. Try something more positive and accurate, please? Otherwise we will never apprehend the true criminals - they will defeat us first.

[Thermate911]

@Wakey & Andrew - have neither of you read Weishaupt or Bakunin, let alone Carr or Reed? Why not delve into Shlomo Zand's latest to get the true Torah Jew perspective? Voices of reason seem to be drowned out - do you never wonder why?

@Wakey - your post becomes you not. Try something more positive and accurate, please? Otherwise we will never apprehend the true criminals - they will defeat us first.

[TonyGosling]

They were much more likely a forgery by the Czarist secret police
Even if they WERE genuine minutes they have
1. been tainted by Hitler embracing them as 'evidence' to kill all Jews
2. This is a Zionist document not a Jewish document

[Andrew.]

[Wakeymedia]

Thermate911 - thankyou for your tips about what, and how, I should write.

I think you probably know what you can do with your tips.

So - what, precisely, do you mean by "Try something more positive and accurate, please?" ?

Do elucidate; what I mean by that is say what you actually mean. Especially the "accurate" bit.

[Thermate911]

[Truthseeker_34]

Lord Palmerston
"Palmerston's agencies was the Order of Zion, a highly specialized dirty tricks operation founded by London-based Hofjuden ("Court Jew") familes, whose close ties to the British oligarchy traced back to the founding of the Bank of England..."
Dope, Inc. p26

"Control over the Order of Zion rested in the British Board of Deputies, founded in 1763 and still in action..."
Dope, Inc. p26

"the Order of Zion and Palmerston's Scottish Rite of Freemasonry were indistinguishable."
Dope, Inc. p29

Sir Moses Montefiore (British Board of Deputies 1835)

Committee of 300
By Dr. John Coleman

Zionism is British Intelligence



Peace

Truthseeker_34







"They must find it difficult, those who have taken authority as truth, rather than truth as authority." Gerald Massey
________________________

http://thewakeupcall.org.uk/

[Disco_Destroyer]

Zionists operated the concentration camps and helped murder millions of innocent Jews


Link


More true history exposed. The word Nazi is a combination between the National Socialist Party and the Zionist Party. Na Zi The same people are running Israel now and trying to start a war with Iran.
Please see my previous upload where it was infact Adolf Hitler who infact founded Israel-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KKgNToLrYk

I PAID HITLER — Fritz Thyssen — Farrar & Rinehart

It has often been rumored that Hitler is partly Jewish. Thyssen gives plausible reasons for believing that, if Hitler does have Jewish blood, it comes from a distinguished family: "According to the published records, Hitler's grandmother had an illegitimate son, and this son was to become the father of Germany's present leader. But an inquiry once ordered by the late Austrian chancellor, Engelbert Dollfuss, disclosed that the Fuhrer's grandmother became pregnant during her employment as a servant in a Viennese family. . . . And the family . . . was none other than that of Baron Rothschild."

Of course, no matter where she was employed, any plowboy might have fathered Hitler's grandmother's son. But Thyssen says that Hitler's spies told him of the existence of the document, that it was probably a factor in Dollfuss' assassination, that Hitler later wrested it from Schuschnigg. Thyssen also heard that a copy of it was "in the hands of the British Secret Service."

Another eye-opener is evidence that Adolf Hitler was not only Jewish, but the great grandson of a Rothschild. During World War II, A Psychological Analysis of Adolph Hitler: His Life and Legend was published by Walter Langer of the U.S. Office of Strategic Services (OSS) as an attempt to screen the wealth of contradictory, conflicting and unreliable material concerning Hitler into strata which will be helpful to the policy-makers and those who wish to frame a counter-propaganda. Or, to use Langers words, how did a crazy paperhanger manage in the course of a relatively few years, to talk his way into the highest political offices, hoodwink the experienced leaders of the major powers, turn millions of highly civilized people into barbarians, order the extermination of a large segment of the population, build and control the mightiest war machine ever known, and plunge the world into historys most devastating war? (Background) The only explanation can be that Hitler had family connections in high places:

http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/documents/osssection4pt1.htm

One commentary elaborated on the OSS report:

Alois, Hitler's father, was born in 1837 in the period when Salomon Mayer was the only Rothschild who lived at the Vienna mansion. Even his wife did not live there because their marriage was so bad that she stayed in Frankfurt. Their son, Anselm Salomon spent most of his working life in Paris and Frankfurt away from Vienna and his father.

Father Salomon Mayer, living alone at the Vienna mansion where Hitlers grandmother worked, is the prime, most obvious candidate. And Hermann von Goldschmidt, the son of Salomon Mayer's senior clerk, wrote a book, published in 1917, which said of Salomon:

by the 1840s he had developed a somewhat reckless enthusiasm for young girls..' and

He had a lecherous passion for very young girls, his adventures with whom had to be hushed up by the police.

And Hitler's grandmother, a young girl working under the same roof would not have been the subject of Salomons desire? And this same girl became pregnant while working there? And her grandson becomes the Chancellor of Germany, funded by the Rothschilds, and he started the Second World War which was so vital to the Rothschild-Illuminati agenda? And the Illuminati are obsessed with putting their bloodlines into power on all 'sides' in a conflict? And the Rothschilds are one of their most key bloodlines? And it is all a co-incidence? - 563

http://watch.pair.com/mystery-babylon.html

Reuploaded from RaisingKundalini's channel-
http://www.youtube.com/user/RaisingKundalini

[TonyGosling]

Unconditional support for Israel 'is dangerous', say leading European Jews
Tags:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/02/european-jews-criticise-is rael

More than 3,000 European Jews, including prominent intellectuals, have signed a petition speaking out against Israeli settlement policies and warning that systematic support for the Israeli government is dangerous.

The petition's signatories include French philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy and Daniel Cohn-Bendit, a Greens leader in the European Parliament.
Webmaster's Commentary:

This is a very courageous stand for this group to take, understanding the very real - and probably very public - personal and professional destruction these people will probably experience at the hands of the current Israeli regime.

But at the end of the day, as the world is generally terrified to criticize any policy of the Israeli government, we will see a very quickened pace of annexation of East Jerusalem and the West Bank, followed by a forced expulsion of any Palestinian left standing to Gaza.

[outsider]

The Birth of Israel
A Tale of Lies, Deceit, and Terrorism

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25429.htm

[Disco_Destroyer]

http://www.ety.com/HRP/bookreviews/twohundredyears.htm

200 Years Together

The Jews in the Soviet Union
by Alexander Solzhenitsyn


"Our history is one of tragedies and catastrophes", writes Svetlana Alekseyevicha thirteen years after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago appeared in the West thirty years ago. The Main Directorate of Camps (Glawnoje Uprawlenije Lagerei = GULag), which lasted for half a century, was one of the saddest catastrophes in the two thousand year history of Russia. Looking back today, one can say with good reason that Solzhenitsyn's reportage on the bloodiest crimes against humanity in modern times belongs among the spiritual turning points that represented the beginning of the end of the Red Imperium.

Solzhenitsyn's chronicle from hell prompts the question of why today the historical reality of the Gulag is much less widely and passionately remembered than is the persecution of the Jews under National Socialism. There can be no rational answer to this. The reproach is that a work like the Gulag Archipelago exceeds the powers of imagination and that - based on the laws of classical aesthetics - it ought not be produced at all because it inundates the reader with unrelieved pictures of disgust and revulsion. But then, by the same logic, a play like Macbeth might also be considered too off-putting. In his third volume Solzhenitsyn depicts the slaughter of five thousand women and children in the Kingir slave labor camp in June 1954 (only thirteen years after Babi Yar).

The opinion that the Gulag, unlike the killing of the Jews, has yet to find a Hollywood director of the caliber of Steven Spielberg to film it, is negated by the fact that Russia, herself, has highly talented, even brilliant film producers, dramaturges, and screenplay writers whose work can easily stand comparison with that in the West. The showing of the play I Will Repay by Serge Kuznetsov in the Maly Theater in Moscow, for example, always plays to a full house - standing room only for months on end! The play recreates the last tragic moments of the Tsar's family. For Russia's Orthodox, but also for Russian revisionist historians, 16 July 1918 was the ultimate ejaculation of Gulag thinking. The role of the Bolshevik Jews is handled directly in this stage play as when Botkin, the Tsar's physician, says to one of his guards:

‘The time will come when everyone will believe that the Jews were responsible for this and you will be the victims of the revenge.’

For the lyricist Stanislav Kunyayev, chief editor of the literary magazine Nash Sovremennik, the murder of the Romanovs was the product of "depraved intellects and a satanic will". Kunyayev is one of a group of seventy leading Russian intellectuals who have signed their names to a letter, in which they hold Communist Jews responsible for the murder of the Tsar, the Bolshevik putsch, and the mass murders that followed it. In the case of Kunyayev it is clear why the filming of the Gulag era would be unthinkable in a Western country for the time being. Or, to put it differently: Why the Jew Steven Spielberg shies away like Belshazzar from the handwriting on the wall. It is not just the sheer magnitude of the crimes that block Spielberg's undertaking a film of the Gulag, it is much more the taboo question of the unspoken complicity of secularized Jews in a unique breach of civilized behavior that resulted in the execution chambers in Lefortovo, the stone quarries of the White Sea Canal project, and the gold mines of Kolyma.

In Germany, the land of the Adornos and Friedmans, the dreadful accusation of anti-Semitism is held in the ready for anyone who wants to use it at anytime; it is omnipresent and inexpensive, and packs a deadly explosive force socially and professionally. The left-liberal review in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung of 26 June 2003 published an allegedly lost story of the Bolshevik writer, Isaak Babel, who was shot In January 1941 in a Bolshevik forced labor camp. The previously unknown story, Esfir's Ring, aesthetically and morally without any reference to Russian literature, eulogizes the death of the Jewish secret policeman, Esfir Rubenblum, "Commissar of the Special Department of the Kiev Cheka", who died "a hero's death in the struggle against enemies of the revolution". Original quotations of Isaak Babel were written a few years before the ‘hero's death’ of the Civil War Chekist Babel.

This world-famous Bolshevik (the evaluation of Frank Schirrmacher, chief editor of the Frankfurter) confirms in one of his last contributions the Jewish leadership in the execution squads of the secret police in the Lenin period. Dr. Schirrmacher found no reason to go into Babel's Chekist past. In Germany the deadly threat of the anti-Semitism shibboleth prevents an objective discussion of the anthropological roots of the theme Solzhenitsyn has illuminated.

On the occasion of his receiving the left-wing German Ludwig-Börne-Prize for outstanding performances in literature, the American-Jewish scholar George Steiner said in his thank-you speech:

‘In my opinion there can be no higher honor, no higher nobility, than to belong to a people who has never engaged in persecution. Since my childhood I have been proud not to have that arrogance. I belong to the highest race because it does not persecute others. We are the only ones; we never had the power to do so. Alleluia!’
(Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 31 May 2003)

Never persecuted others? Never held power?

‘The Jewish commissar with the leather jacket and Mauser pistol, often speaking broken Russian, is the typical image of revolutionary power.’

This statement comes from Sonya Margolina, who is proud to be "the daughter of a Jewish Bolshevik". Margolina today lives in Berlin. Her book Das Ende der Lügen: Rußland und die Juden im 20. Jahrhundert (Siedler, Berlin 1992), from which the above passage is cited, follows it with these words:

‘The tragedy of Jewry is that there was no political option to escape the vengeance for the historical sin of the Jews, namely, their enthusiastic cooperation with the Communist regime. The victory of the Soviet regime saved them for a while, but vengeance still lurked ahead.’

Source:- http://www.vho.org/tr/2004/3/Strauss342-351.html

[Thermate911]

I'm posting this as some increased exposure of/for that most curious phenomenon, "Brother Nathanael Kapner":-

[Wakeymedia]

I just stubbed my toe on the kitchen table leg. It really hurt, like "really". The Jews were behind it, they orchestrated the whole thing. IT WAS THE JEWS I TELL YOU!!!

[GodSaveTheTeam]

[Wakeymedia]

GodSaveTheTeam wrote:

[item8]

[Thermate911]

Well said, item8.

@Wakeymedia - perhaps you didn't catch the grand irony of Brother Nathanael's ancestry?

From his home page at http://www.realzionistnews.com/:-

[TonyGosling]

European link to Jewish maternal ancestry
By Melissa Hogenboom
Science reporter, BBC News
9 October 2013
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24442352

Plymouth Synagogue, the oldest Ashkenazi Synagogue still in regular use in the English-speaking world
Image caption
The debate continues among geneticists on the origins of Ashkenazi Jews
A new genetics study has challenged previous theories about the maternal ancestry of Ashkenazi Jews.
The study suggests that most female ancestors came from southern and western Europe, not the Middle East as some authors assume.
The new work in Nature Communications indicates that Jewish groups could have absorbed European converts about 2,000 years ago.
However, others working in the field are not convinced by the findings.
"The origins of the [Ashkenazi Jews] is one of the big questions that people have pursued again and again and never really come to a conclusive view on," said Martin Richards from the University of Huddersfield, UK, one of the authors on the new paper.
The team studied mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), the genetic information in the cell's "batteries", which is passed on only via women. It can be used to probe a population's maternal history.
Tracing mitochondrial DNA

DNA
Mitochondrial DNA is passed down, almost unchanged, from a mother to her children and allows any person's genetic profile to be traced back to a common ancestor
By studying the mutations, or changes, in mtDNA sequences, researchers are able to probe the maternal histories of different human populations
It has enabled them to build a "family tree" of maternal ancestry, and group different mtDNA lineages together based on shared mutation
DNA: the 'smartest' molecule in existence?
The researchers used mtDNA lineages from Europe, the Caucasus and the Middle East. Their conclusions were that Ashkenazi maternal lines were most closely related to those from southern and western Europe.
"This suggests that, even though Jewish men may indeed have migrated into Europe from [the Levant] around 2,000 years ago, they seem to have married European women," explained Prof Richards.
He added that women could have been among early European converts to Judaism.
"The great majority of Ashkenazi maternal lineages were not brought from the Levant, as commonly supposed, nor recruited in the Caucasus, as sometimes suggested, but assimilated within Europe.
"It's a very exciting time for the prehistory of Europe. There will be work coming out in the next few years that will really give us a good picture of what happened over the last 30,000-40,000 years."
Ashkenazi Jews are thought to have migrated from the Levant to Italy in the first or second centuries, and then moved to western and then eastern Europe, where populations expanded in number during the 13th Century.
This new study makes the suggestion that more than 80% of Ashkenazi Jews can trace their ultimate maternal ancestry to prehistoric Europe. But studies looking at the Y chromosome (which is passed down from father to son only) have shown that the male line of descent does trace back to the Middle East.
Harry Ostrer at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Yeshiva University in New York, US, told BBC News the latest study was an "interesting paper".
He added: "It's not terribly surprising that there are mitochondrial genomes that coalesce to a long time ago in Europe because that is representative of the first founding event of Ashkenazi Jewry in Europe.
"The genetic, historical and the archaeological records are pretty clear. What we see in the genomes of contemporary Ashkenazi Jews is that they are the descendants of people who have gone through a 'bottleneck' of moving from western to eastern Europe."
As for the debate over geographic origins, Prof Ostrer said there was a belief that most of Jewish history happened in the Levant region but, in his view, "it didn't necessarily; it was happening all over the western world".
However, Karl Skorecki, at the Technion - Israel Institute of Technology in Haifa, said that in his view the new work contained serious flaws at the level of phylogenetic analysis - the study of where a lineage sits on a family tree.
"While Costa et al have re-opened the question of the maternal origins of Ashkenazi Jewry, the phylogenetic analysis in the manuscript does not 'settle' the question," he told BBC News.
Doron Behar, a geneticist at Gene by Gene in Houston, US, was also unconvinced by the findings, but said he would prefer "to first address this issue in a scientific journal".
Another point to note, according to David Goldstein at Duke University in North Carolina, US, was that "the genetic composition of populations changes from generation to generation".
He said that the paper "could be right but we have no way of really knowing" because of these changes - what researchers call "genetic drift".
"It really is the fundamental framework for analysing the data that is at issue here. A framework that ignores real population genetics just doesn't work," Prof Goldstein added.

The Origin of European Jews and the Zionist Movement

Link

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9EyA6DbeKIU
Sheikh Imran Hosein explains the origin of Zionism and European Jews. This hidden history has come to light in the last three to five decades during the publication of the book called The Thirteenth Tribe written by Arthur Koestler. Koestler defuses anti-Semitism by undermining the identification of European Jews with the Jews of the Bible.

The Lost Tribes of Israel Where are they? | Ancient History Channel Documentary

Link

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqsMjTWAKwg

[Whitehall_Bin_Men]

The Daily 99.99998271%
Saturday, April 30, 2016
Anti-Semitism Allegations and the Sound of Silence
http://daily99998271.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/anti-semitism-allegations- and-sound-of.html

"Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake" - Napoleon Bonaparte

Former London Mayor Ken Livingstone has been suspended from the UK's Labour Party for 'bringing the party into disrepute' after making comments deemed by observers to be anti-Semitic. Livingstone has denied that he or his comments were anti-Semitic, alleging instead that there is a concerted smear campaign against a number of public figures who oppose and/or criticise the policies and actions of the Israeli government, commonly with regard to its treatment of the inhabitants of Gaza.

Livingstone, in a series of interviews given last week, made his views clear [Emphasis mine]:

She’s [Naz Shah] a deep critic of Israel and its policies. Her remarks were over-the-top but she’s not antisemitic. I’ve been in the Labour party for 47 years; I’ve never heard anyone say anything antisemitic. I’ve heard a lot of criticism of the state of Israel and its abuse of Palestinians but I’ve never heard anyone say anything antisemitic.

It’s completely over the top but it’s not antisemitism. Let’s remember when Hitler won his election in 1932, his policy then was that Jews should be moved to Israel. He was supporting Zionism – this before he went mad and ended up killing six million Jews.


Link

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bgkj4mZJNQ

The simple fact in all of this is that Naz made these comments at a time when there was another brutal Israeli attack on the Palestinians; and there’s one stark fact that virtually no one in the British media ever reports, in almost all these conflicts the death toll is usually between 60 and 100 Palestinians killed for every Israeli. Now, any other country doing that would be accused of war crimes but it’s like we have a double standard about the policies of the Israeli government.

...

After Jeremy became leader I was having a chat with Michael and he said he was very worried because one of his friends who was Jewish had come to him and said ‘the election of Jeremy Corbyn is exactly the same as the first step to the rise of Adolf Hitler to power’. Frankly, there’s been an attempt to smear Jeremy Corbyn and his associates as antisemitic from the moment he became leader. The simple fact is we have the right to criticise what is one of the most brutal regimes going in the way it treats the Palestinians.

...

You’ve managed to dig out virtually every antisemitic comment that Labour members have made out of half a million people. I’ve never met any of these people. There’s not a problem. You’re talking about a handful of people in a party of half a million people. Jeremy Corbyn has moved rapidly to deal with them.

...

I’d simply say to John Mann go back and check. Is what I say true, or is it not? The BBC, you’ve got a huge team of researchers, it will take just an hour or two to go back and confirm. I was asked a question, I answered it. I have never in 45 years since I won my first election, I have never lied. I have always answered the question.

He was a monster from start to finish but it’s simply the historical fact. His policy was originally to send all of Germany’s Jews to Israel and there were private meetings between the Zionist movement and Hitler’s government which were kept confidential, they only became apparent after the war, when they were having a dialogue to do this.

What John Mann just said isn’t true – I’ve not said that Hitler was a Zionist, what I said was his policy in ‘32 was to deport Germany’s Jews to Israel. I condemn that. I never said it, what I said was that was his policy.

It is clear from his own words that Livingstone is not anti-Semitic; that instead it is his belief that any attempt by high-profile figures to criticise Israeli policy is systematically smeared by a highly organized, rapid-response network, a network whose existence and misleading/dishonest methodology is beyond doubt, as demonstrated in a detailed, forensic analysis by Asa Winstanley:

[] An investigation by The Electronic Intifada has found that some of the most prominent stories about anti-Semitism in the party are falsified. The Electronic Intifada can reveal that a key player in Labour’s “anti-Semitism crisis” covered up his involvement in the Israel lobby. Most Labour members so accused are in reality being attacked for expressing opinions in favor of Palestinian human rights and particularly for supporting the boycott of Israel. Labour activists, many of them Jews, have told The Electronic Intifada that false accusations of anti-Semitism are being used as a weapon against Corbyn by the party’s right-wing. Corbyn has been active in the Palestine solidarity movement for more than three decades. In an interview with The Electronic Intifada last year, he endorsed key elements of the Palestinian call for a boycott of Israel. For example, he urged an end to weapons trading with Israel.

...

Charley Allan, a Jewish member of the party, and a Morning Star columnist, has described the current atmosphere in the press and Labour Party as a “witch hunt.” It has reached such an absurd volume that any usage of the word “Zionist” is deemed to be anti-Semitic – although tellingly not when used by self-described Zionists. Where real instances of anti-Jewish bigotry have come to light, the leadership and party machine have taken robust action.

One of many examples provided:

An “anti-Semitism scandal” erupted in the Oxford University Labour Club – an association of student supporters of the party. In a public Facebook posting Alex Chalmers, the co-chair of the club, resigned his position over what he claimed was anti-Semitic behavior in “a large proportion” of the student Labour club “and the student left in Oxford more generally.” But as evidence he cited the club’s decision, in a majority vote, to endorse Oxford’s Israeli Apartheid Week, an annual awareness-raising exercise by student groups which support Palestinian rights. This connection was clearly designed to smear Palestine solidarity activists as anti-Semites – a standard tactic of the Israel lobby. In fact, the similarity was no coincidence. The Electronic Intifada can reveal for the first time evidence that Chalmers himself has been part of the UK’s Israel lobby. Chalmers has worked for BICOM, the Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre. Funded by the billionaire Poju Zabludowicz, BICOM is a leading pro-Israel group in London.

[Note: See original article for sources and further details of this and several other cases]

As for the historical case cited by Livingstone, Robert Mackey at the Intercept explains:

So what was Livingstone talking about? He appears to have been using “Hitler” as shorthand for the Nazi government and referring to a real instance of cooperation between Germany and the Zionist movement that began in 1933 — an episode Livingstone discussed at length in his 2011 memoir, “You Can’t Say That.” Just months after Hitler came to power, in 1933, the Zionist-led Jewish Agency in British-administered Palestine did strike an agreement with the Nazis to facilitate the emigration of about 20,000 German Jews to Palestine over the next decade. As the Israeli historian Tom Segev described it in his book, “The Seventh Million[]”[:]

The haavara (“transfer”) agreement — the Hebrew term was used in the Nazi documents as well — was based on the complementary interests of the German government and the the Zionist movement: the Nazis wanted the Jews out of Germany; the Zionists wanted them to come to Palestine.

Segev notes that the agreement, which remained in force until the middle of World War II, was a point of contention between the Zionist leadership in Tel Aviv and Jewish leaders in the United States, who still hoped in 1933 that an international economic and diplomatic boycott of Germany could “force the Nazis to halt their persecution, so that Jews could continue to live in Germany.”

Livingstone may well have made the error of oversimplification, but for any impartial observer it is obvious he is simply referring to the Haavara agreement - the existence of which is historical fact. It is a common pitfall for anyone who speaks with unprepared comments to say something that will ruffle feathers and be misinterpreted. It is also fertile ground for cynical propagandists - their dishonest methods long established and proven - to exploit for their own agendas:

But when he was asked why Shah’s use of the meme about Hitler was not anti-Semitic, Livingstone veered off-topic, into an over-simplified and misleading account of German history that enraged many of his own colleagues. “Let’s remember, when Hitler won his election in 1932, his policy then was that Jews should be moved to Israel — he was supporting Zionism,” Livingstone claimed. “This was before he went mad and ended up killing six million Jews.”

Within minutes, as Livingstone’s comments were reported in shorthand as “Hitler was a Zionist,” senior members of his party, including Sadiq Khan, Labour’s candidate in next week’s London mayoral election, called for him to be expelled for what sounded like an absurd attempt to smear Israel by numbering history’s most infamous anti-Semite among the ranks of its supporters.

All this despite Livingstone explicitly stating [full quote above] that "I’ve not said that Hitler was a Zionist".

It is long-established practice in the field of propaganda to lift words out of context to smear opponents, as has been done to Livingstone here, or to falsely assign a rare instance of bad behaviour to a broad group that are guilty only by association. This case is no different. Vladimir Putin was recently smeared in this way as a tax cheat because a childhood friend was mentioned in the [now mysteriously absent] Panama Papers, despite the fact that his name appeared nowhere in the documents. Allies of Jeremy Corbyn in the Labour Party are victims of a similarly clumsy campaign.

The key to deciphering whether mass condemnation in the media is bogus or not lies in the kind of truth-seeking journalism that (often unpaid) writers and bloggers produce. The highest quality independent sites and writers put the corporate media to shame, writing detailed analyses that contain numerous links for readers to follow for verification of claims.

However, the first signs of a dishonest or cynical campaign can be found in the calibre of its chief proponents. Iraq War supporter and apologist, Oliver Kamm, who writes for The Times as a columnist and once wrote 'George W Bush made the world a safer place' has enthusiastically jumped on the Livingstone smear bandwagon. [Kamm's 'credibility' is summed up in conclusive fashion by Edward S. Herman and David Peterson here.] Fellow Times columnist David Aaronovitch, who also supported the Iraq debacle, has enthusiastically joined the fray. James Kirkup - The Telegraph's Executive Editor (Politics) - described Livingstone as a 'cockroach', seemingly content in a senior position at a national newspaper of record to use the dehumanizing language of genocide to describe a person he disagrees with.

A whole coterie of corporate media writers along with public officials have lined up to pile on the condemnation. More than anything, the episode has been an instructive illustration of Glenn Greenwald's famous description of UK media journalists: "I've never encountered any group more driven by group-think and rank-closing cohesion than British journalists."

The real disgrace here is not Livingstone at all but the absolute silence of these same critics when Israel is accused of actual war crimes by credible human rights groups like Amnesty International while the US supplies it with arms:

The USA is by far the largest exporter of military equipment to Israel. According to data made public by the US government, its arms transfers to Israel from January to May 2014 included nearly $27million for “rocket launchers”, $9.3 million worth in “parts of guided missiles” and nearly $762,000 for “bombs, grenades and munitions of war”.

Since 2012, the USA has exported $276 million worth of basic weapons and munitions to Israel, a figure that excludes exports of military transport equipment and high technologies.

The news on 30 July that the USA had allowed the resupply of munitions to Israel came the same day the US government condemned the shelling of a UN school in Gaza which killed at least 20 people, including children and UN humanitarian workers.

“It is deeply cynical for the White House to condemn the deaths and injuries of Palestinians, including children, and humanitarian workers, when it knows full well that the Israeli military responsible for such attacks are armed to the teeth with weapons and equipment bankrolled by US taxpayers,” said Brian Wood.

The UK also plays its part:

The Government has been accused of failing to regulate arms sales to Israel following evidence that weapons containing British-made components are being used in the bombardment of Gaza.

Documents shown to The Independent reveal that arms export licences worth £42m have been granted to 130 British defence manufacturers since 2010 to sell military equipment to Israel. These range from weapons control and targeting systems to ammunition, drones and armoured vehicles.

Among the manufacturers given permission to make sales were two UK companies supplying components for the Hermes drone, described by the Israeli air force as the “backbone” of its targeting and reconnaissance missions. One of the two companies also supplies components for Israel’s main battle tank.

...

Israel is one of the biggest customers for British exports of so-called “dual-use” equipment capable of both civilian and military deployment in a trade worth more than £7bn last year.

But documents obtained by the Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) under the Freedom of Information Act reveal for the first time the full extent of sales of military-only equipment, along with the names of the companies granted export licences by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS). Of the £42m of so-called “military list” exports approved since 2010, some £10m has been licensed in the last 12 months.

The data reveals that dozens of highly specialised UK defence companies have secured deals with Israeli partners and the Israeli military, ranging from bulletproof garments to naval gun parts and small arms ammunition. The sales are entirely lawful and form part of Britain’s £12bn annual arms export trade.

But evidence exists that British-made components feature in weapons being deployed during Operation Protective Edge. The Israeli military has been criticised for what some see as heavy-handed tactics during its assault on Gaza. Some 1,460 Palestinians, mostly civilians, have died, alongside 63 Israelis, including three civilians.

The lesson is simple: the moral crusaders that spend days loudly condemning Livingstone for an ill-advised [in the insane modern media soundbite environment] comment that he later clarified in a way that made it clear that he was absolutely not being anti-Semitic utter nary a squeak when Israel bombs schools or murders children on a beach; remain silent in the face of the documented day-to-day atrocities of the Israeli government and its soldiers with Western-supplied equipment in Gaza, including the killings of pregnant women and children.

Misconstrued comments by a lifelong anti-racist: one, murdered children: nil. That there in a nutshell is the moral standing of Livingstone's critics. And if you're still assigning them credibility, it might be time to seek analysis elsewhere.

Written by Simon Wood

Twitter: @simonwood11

[TonyGosling]

The intellectual other side really is rather dire
http://www.labourteachers.org.uk/historical-truth-johndavidblake/

Now the real stuff
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn. ‘We are seeing the abuse of antisemitism in the service of a particularly dirty proxy war being fought out within the Labour party and against it,’ writes Naomi Wayne.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/29/labour-antisemitism-an d-where-jeremy-corbyn-goes-from-here
We are Jewish members and supporters of the Labour party and of Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership, who wish to put our perspective on the “antisemitism” controversy that has been widely debated in the last few weeks (Labour’s antisemitism crisis as Livingstone suspended, 29 April). We do not accept that antisemitism is “rife” in the Labour party. Of the examples that have been repeated in the media, many have been reported inaccurately, some are trivial, and a very few may be genuine examples of antisemitism. The tiny number of cases of real antisemitism need to be dealt with, but we are proud that the Labour party historically has been in the forefront of the fight against all forms of racism. We, personally, have not experienced any antisemitic prejudice in our dealings with Labour party colleagues.
We believe these accusations are part of a wider campaign against the Labour leadership, and they have been timed particularly to do damage to the Labour party and its prospects in elections in the coming week. As Jews, we are appalled that a serious issue is being used in this cynical and manipulative way, diverting attention from much more widespread examples of Islamophobia and xenophobia in the Conservative and other parties. We dissociate ourselves from the misleading attacks on Labour from some members of the Jewish community. We urge others, who may be confused or worried by recent publicity, to be sure that the Labour party, under its present progressive leadership, is a place where Jews are welcomed in a spirit of equality and solidarity.
Kate Adams, Julia Bard, Labina Basit, Shereen Benjamin, Rica Bird, Jenny Bloom, Alice Bondi, Elizabeth Carola, Ron Cohen, Judith Cravitz, Dave Curtis, Miriam E David, Sue Dellett, Ivor Dembina, Professor Stephen Deutsch, Merave Devere, Shlomit Ferguson, Mark Findlay, Hava Fleming, Dr William Fleming, Roisin Francis, Kenneth Fryde, Lynda Gilbert, Clare Glasman, Alex J Goldhill, Adam Goodkin, Stuart Goodman, Tony Graham, Tony Greenstein, Michele Hanson, Rosamine Hayeem, Abe Hayeem, Jane Henriques, Lorraine Hershon, Becka Seglow Hudson, Selma James, Saul Jamuels, Riva Joffe, Michael Kalmanovitz, David Kaye, Richard Kuper, Pam Laurance, Leah Levane, Rachel Lever, Sue Lukes, Eli Machover, Beryl Maizels, Miriam Margolyes, Stephen Marks, Helen Marks, Karen Merkel, Charles Shaar Murray, Professor Mica Nava, Diana Neslen, Bracha Newman, Rabbi Jeffrey Newman, Susan Pashkoff, Rina Picciotto, Caroline Raine, Roland Rance, Frances Rifkin, Dr Brian Robinson, Denise Robson, Jeff Daniel Rollin, David Rosenberg, Jonathan Rosenhead, Stephen Sands, Dr Ian Saville, Amanda Sebastyen, Glyn Secker, Elizabeth Segal, Lynne Segal, Ray Sirotkin, Steve Tiller, Ray Sirotkin, Inbar Tamari, Tirza Waisel, Sam Weinstein, Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi, Benjamin Young, Gill Yudkin, Professor John Yudkin,

Jewish DNA - Genetic Research and The Origins of the Jewish People

Link

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRtc0XaA5k0

NATURE COMMUNICATIONS | ARTICLE OPEN
A substantial prehistoric European ancestry amongst Ashkenazi maternal lineages
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131008/ncomms3543/full/ncomms3543.ht ml
Marta D. Costa, Joana B. Pereira, Maria Pala, Verónica Fernandes, Anna Olivieri, Alessandro Achilli, Ugo A. Perego, Sergei Rychkov, Oksana Naumova, Jiři Hatina, Scott R. Woodward, Ken Khong Eng, Vincent Macaulay, Martin Carr, Pedro Soares, Luísa Pereira & Martin B. Richards
Nature Communications 4, Article number: 2543 doi:10.1038/ncomms3543
Received 11 July 2013 Accepted 04 September 2013 Published 08 October 2013
The origins of Ashkenazi Jews remain highly controversial. Like Judaism, mitochondrial DNA is passed along the maternal line. Its variation in the Ashkenazim is highly distinctive, with four major and numerous minor founders. However, due to their rarity in the general population, these founders have been difficult to trace to a source. Here we show that all four major founders, ~40% of Ashkenazi mtDNA variation, have ancestry in prehistoric Europe, rather than the Near East or Caucasus. Furthermore, most of the remaining minor founders share a similar deep European ancestry. Thus the great majority of Ashkenazi maternal lineages were not brought from the Levant, as commonly supposed, nor recruited in the Caucasus, as sometimes suggested, but assimilated within Europe. These results point to a significant role for the conversion of women in the formation of Ashkenazi communities, and provide the foundation for a detailed reconstruction of Ashkenazi genealogical history....


• It’s magic dust, this antisemitism stuff. The moment the accusation is hurled, all normal standards go out the window and conviction is guaranteed. Investigation? Evidence-gathering? Not needed. Instead, innuendo, generalisation, weasel words and guilt by association morphed via endless repetition and recycling into “proof”. So far there is absolutely no evidence of antisemitism in the Oxford Labour students group. But evidence there is that a handful of Labour members around the country said some nasty things, well before Corbyn was elected – and have been dealt with decisively.
Naz Shah made some very stupid statements during the bombing of Gaza – before she had even thought of a political career. She is now an example to every politician in the way she has responded to the current storm. A comprehensive and dignified apology. A promise to learn for the future. And a no-fuss resignation. Who else has behaved with such decency? (Certainly not Ken Livingstone, whose crass and irrelevant intervention wiped out, at a stroke, all memories of his decades-long record of anti-racist campaigning.)
Let’s be upfront. We are seeing the abuse of antisemitism in the service of a particularly dirty proxy war being fought out within the Labour party and against it. For the first time, the Labour party has a leader who stands up for the Palestinians, a people who have been hounded and humiliated in an illegal occupation lasting nearly half a century. Antisemitism is a vicious form of racism whose roots in British society go back centuries. Using it in this fashion is a betrayal of everyone who has actually been its victim.
Naomi Wayne
(Not a Labour party member), London

• As an east London Jew and a member of the Labour party for over 40 years, I can say that I have never seen or experienced any antisemitism. Even though I am a strong critic of Israel’s actions against the Palestinians, I found Ken Livingstone’s remarks unhelpful and inflammatory, although I don’t believe he is an antisemite. I applaud Jeremy Corbyn’s actions and will continue to support his leadership. His commitment to changing the tired old political agenda and his fight for equality for all sorts of minority groups is what really matters.
Rosina Purnell
Hornchurch, Essex

[TonyGosling]

Labour councilors suspended over ‘anti-Israel’ social media posts
Published time: 2 May, 2016 13:32
https://www.rt.com/uk/341592-labour-councillors-anti-semitism/
Two Labour councilors have been suspended over posts criticizing Israel, including likening human rights abuses of Palestinians by the Jewish state to the treatment of Jews by Nazi Germany, as well as blaming Israel for the US Sandy Hook shootings.
Trends
Viral

Nottingham City councilor Ilyas Aziz had shared the controversial Facebook posts back in 2014, which were discovered by political website Guido Fawkes.

READ MORE: ‘Hitler supported Zionism’ claim gets Ken Livingstone suspended from Labour

One post read: “Jews and Muslims lived together in the Middle East, in peace pre-1948. Perhaps it would have been wiser to create Israel in America, it’s big enough. They could relocate even now.”


Local Blackburn councilor Salim Mulla was reportedly suspended 30 minutes after Aziz for Facebook posts from last year where he shared a conspiracy theory video claiming Israel was responsible for the Sandy Hook atrocity and said it is playing a “Zionism game”.

READ MORE: New McCarthyism: Is London's 'anti-Semitic' scandal a move against Jeremy Corbyn?

The latest suspensions come a day after Labour party leader Jeremy Corbyn said the party is “united” against anti-Semitism.

“We stand absolutely against anti-Semitism in any form,” Corbyn said during a May Day rally.

Read more
Naseem Labour MP Naz Shah, who backed relocating Israel to US, resigns as Shadow Chancellor’s aide
“We stand united as a Labour movement, recognizing our faith and diversity, our ethnic diversity and from that diversity comes our strength.”

Labour has been in crisis mode of late over accusations of anti-Semitism in the party. Last week, Bradford West MP Naz Shah was suspended for suggesting Israelis should relocate to America in a Facebook post, also from 2014.

Former London Mayor Ken Livingstone was then subsequently suspended for stating Hitler supported Zionism during a BBC interview in defence of Shah.

Attempting to clarify his comments in another BBC interview, Livingstone said there was a difference between criticizing Jews as a people and criticizing policies of the Israeli government.

“I've heard a lot of people being critical of Israel, but if I was to denounce the South African government, you wouldn't say I was racist - and one of my worries is this confusion with anti-Semitism and criticising the Israeli government policy undermines the importance of tackling real anti-Semitism," he said.



Labour suspends two councillors over Israel Facebook posts in latest antisemitism row
'Ilyas Aziz has been suspended from the Labour Party pending an investigation'
Ashley Cowburn @ashcowburn 24 minutes ago
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-antisemitism-row- suspends-councillor-ilyas-aziz-facebook-posts-israel-us-jeremy-corbyn- a7009771.html

Jeremy Corbyn insisted the party is "united" in opposing anti-Semitism PA
Labour has acted swiftly to suspend two councillors after social media posts emerged of them suggesting Israel should be relocated to the United States and describing “Zionist Jews” as a “disgrace to humanity”.

Ilyas Aziz, a Nottingham City councillor, has been suspended pending an investigation in the latest row over controversial comments to hit the party. Mr Aziz also appeared to liken the actions of Israel against the Palestinians to those of the Nazis against the Jews.

Shortly after a second councillor for Blackburn, Salim Mulla, became the second elected politician on Monday to be suspended after controversial comments emerged on his Facebook feed.


READ MORE
Labour antisemitism claims dismissed as 'smear' as party fights back
In a post, from 2014, Mr Mulla shared footage allegedly showing footage of a Palestinian boy being arrested with a comment from the councillor saying: "Apartheid at its best. Zionist Jews are a disgrace to humanity."

A Labour spokeswoman confirmed that both councillors have been supsended pending investigation.

It comes after Jeremy Corbyn insisted the party is "united" in opposing antisemitism in the wake of a turbulent week which has also seen the suspension of MP Naz Shah and former London mayor Ken Livingstone.

"Ilyas Aziz has been suspended from the Labour Party pending an investigation," A Labour spokeswoman said.

Among Facebook posts from Mr Aziz's account highlighted on the Guido Fawkes website was a comment saying: "Jews and Muslims lived together in the Middle East, in peace pre 1948. Perhaps it would have been wiser to create Israel in America it's big enough. They could relocate even now."

ilyas-aziz.jpeg
Screengrab of Ilyas Aziz's Facebook page
On Sunday Diane Abbott, the shadow International Development Secretary and one of Mr Corbyn’s closest allies in Westminster, dismissed claims that the Labour Party has a problem with antisemitism as “smears”.

"It's something of a smear against ordinary party members, it is, it is a smear to say the Labour party has a problem with antisemitism,” Ms Abbott said on the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show.



OK
Diane Abbott: Smear against Labour
Len McCluskey, General Secretary of Unite and Labour's biggest donor, added that Mr Corbyn was the victim of "a cynical attempt to manipulate antisemitism for political aims".

"The idea that there is an antisemitic crisis within the Labour Party is absolutely offensive but it is being used in order to challenge Jeremy Corbyn," he told Pienaar's Politics on BBC Radio 5 Live.

"Once the mood music of antisemitism dies down, then next week and the week after there will be another subject. It is an issue that comes up because somebody says something stupid and then immediately it becomes a crisis."

The row had been "got up by the right-wing press aided and abetted by Labour MPs" and party grandees who "get out of their wheelchair and toss a few hand grenades in", the union chief added.

According to Press Association, after his suspension had been announced, Mr Aziz said: “I have no comment at all.”

[TonyGosling]

The American Jewish scholar behind Labour’s ‘antisemitism’ scandal breaks his silence
JAMIE STERN-WEINER and NORMAN FINKELSTEIN 3 May 2016
Norman G. Finkelstein talks Naz Shah MP, Ken Livingstone, and the Labour ‘antisemitism’ controversy.
https://www.opendemocracy.net/uk/jamie-stern-weiner-norman-finkelstein  /american-jewish-scholar-behind-labour-s-antisemitism-scanda

Norman Finkelstein, (image: Youtube)

Norman Finkelstein is no stranger to controversy. The American Jewish scholar is one of the world’s leading experts on the Israel-Palestine conflict and the political legacy of the Nazi holocaust. Apart from his parents, every member of Finkelstein’s family, on both sides, was exterminated in the Nazi holocaust. His 2000 book The Holocaust Industry, which was serialised in the Guardian, became an international best-seller and touched off a firestorm of debate. But Finkelstein’s most recent political intervention came about by accident.

What are your thoughts on the Labour 'antisemitism' scandal? Tell us in the comments below.

Last month, Naz Shah MP became one of the most high-profile cases to date in the ‘antisemitism’ scandal still shaking the Labour leadership. Shah was suspended from the Labour party for, among other things, reposting an image on Facebook that was alleged to be antisemitic. The image depicted a map of the United States with Israel superimposed, and suggested resolving the Israel-Palestine conflict by relocating Israel into the United States. It has been reported that Shah got the image from Finkelstein’s website. I spoke with Finkelstein about why he posted the image, and what he thinks of allegations that the Labour party has a ‘Jewish problem’.

Did you create the controversial image that Naz Shah reposted?

I’m not adept enough with computers to compose any image. But I did post the map on my website in 2014. An email correspondent must have sent it. It was, and still is, funny. Were it not for the current political context, nobody would have noticed Shah’s reposting of it either. Otherwise, you’d have to be humourless. These sorts of jokes are a commonplace in the U.S. So, we have this joke: Why doesn’t Israel become the 51st state? Answer: Because then, it would only have two senators. As crazy as the discourse on Israel is in America, at least we still have a sense of humour. It’s inconceivable that any politician in the U.S. would be crucified for posting such a map.

Shah’s posting of that image has been presented as an endorsement by her of a ‘chilling “transportation” policy’, while John Mann MP has compared her to Eichmann.

Frankly, I find that obscene. It’s doubtful these Holocaust-mongers have a clue what the deportations were, or of the horrors that attended them. I remember my late mother describing her deportation. She was in the Warsaw Ghetto. The survivors of the Ghetto Uprising, about 30,000 Jews, were deported to Maijdanek concentration camp. They were herded into railroad cars. My mother was sitting in the railroad car next to a woman who had her child. And the woman – I know it will shock you – the woman suffocated her infant child to death in front of my mother. She suffocated her child, rather than take her to where they were going. That’s what it meant to be deported. To compare that to someone posting a light-hearted, innocuous cartoon making a little joke about how Israel is in thrall to the U.S., or vice versa…it’s sick. What are they doing? Don’t they have any respect for the dead? All these desiccated Labour apparatchiks, dragging the Nazi holocaust through the mud for the sake of their petty jostling for power and position. Have they no shame?

What about when people use Nazi analogies to criticise the policies of the State of Israel? Isn’t that also a political abuse of the Nazi holocaust?

It’s not a simple question. First, if you’re Jewish, the instinctive analogy to reach for, when it comes to hate or hunger, war or genocide, is the Nazi holocaust, because we see it as the ultimate horror. In my home growing up, whenever an incident involving racial discrimination or bigotry was in the news, my mother would compare it to her experience before or during the Nazi holocaust.

My mother had been enrolled in the Mathematics faculty of Warsaw University, I guess in 1937-38. Jews were forced to stand in a segregated section of the lecture hall, and the antisemites would physically attack them. (You might recall the scene in Julia, when Vanessa Redgrave loses her leg trying to defend Jews under assault in the university.) I remember once asking my mother, ‘How did you do in your studies?’ She replied, ‘What are you talking about? How could you study under those conditions?’.

When she saw the segregation of African-Americans, whether at a lunch counter or in the school system, that was, for her, like the prologue to the Nazi holocaust. Whereas many Jews now say, Never compare (Elie Wiesel’s refrain, ‘It’s bad, but it’s not The Holocaust’), my mother’s credo was, Always compare. She gladly and generously made the imaginative leap to those who were suffering, wrapping and shielding them in the embrace of her own suffering.

For my mother, the Nazi holocaust was a chapter in the long history of the horror of war. It was not itself a war – she was emphatic that it was an extermination, not a war – but it was a unique chapter within the war. So for her, war was the ultimate horror. When she saw Vietnamese being bombed during the Vietnam War, it was the Nazi holocaust. It was the bombing, the death, the horror, the terror, that she herself had passed through. When she saw the distended bellies of starving children in Biafra, it was also the Nazi holocaust, because she remembered her own pangs of hunger in the Warsaw Ghetto.

If you’re Jewish, it’s just normal that the Nazi holocaust is a ubiquitous, instinctual touchstone. Some Jews say this or that horror is not the Nazi holocaust, others say it is. But the reference point of the Nazi holocaust is a constant.

What about when people who aren’t Jewish invoke the analogy?

Once the Nazi holocaust became the cultural referent, then, if you wanted to touch a nerve regarding Palestinian suffering, you had to make the analogy with the Nazis, because that was the only thing that resonated for Jews. If you compared the Palestinians to Native Americans, nobody would give a darn. In 1982, when I and a handful of other Jews took to the streets of New York to protest Israel’s invasion of Lebanon (up to 18,000 Lebanese and Palestinians were killed, overwhelmingly civilians), I held a sign saying, ‘This son of survivors of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, Auschwitz, Maijdenek will not be silent: Israeli Nazis – Stop the Holocaust in Lebanon!’. (After my mother died, I found a picture of me holding that sign in a drawer among her keepsakes). I remember, as the cars drove past, one of the guys protesting with me kept saying, ‘hold the sign higher!’ (And I kept replying, ‘easy for you to say!’).

If you invoked that analogy, it shook Jews, it jolted them enough, that at least you got their attention. I don’t think it’s necessary anymore, because Israel’s crimes against the Palestinians now have an integrity of their own. They no longer have to be juxtaposed to, or against, the Nazi holocaust. Today, the Nazi analogy is gratuitous and a distraction.

Is it antisemitic?

No, it’s just a weak historical analogy – but, if coming from a Jew, a generous moral one.

Last week, Ken Livingstone took to the airwaves to defend Naz Shah, but what he said wound up getting him suspended from the Labour party. His most incendiary remark contended that Hitler at one point supported Zionism. This was condemned as antisemitic, and Labour MP John Mann accused Livingstone of being a ‘Nazi apologist’. What do you make of these accusations?

Livingstone maybe wasn’t precise enough, and lacked nuance. But he does know something about that dark chapter in history. It has been speculated that Hitler’s thinking on how to solve the ‘Jewish Question’ (as it was called back then) evolved, as circumstances changed and new possibilities opened up. Hitler wasn’t wholly hostile to the Zionist project at the outset. That’s why so many German Jews managed to survive after Hitler came to power by emigrating to Palestine. But, then, Hitler came to fear that a Jewish state might strengthen the hand of ‘international Jewry’, so he suspended contact with the Zionists. Later, Hitler perhaps contemplated a ‘territorial solution’ for the Jews. The Nazis considered many ‘resettlement’ schemes – the Jews wouldn’t have physically survived most of them in the long run – before they embarked on an outright exterminatory process. Livingstone is more or less accurate about this – or, as accurate as might be expected from a politician speaking off the cuff.

He’s also accurate that a degree of ideological affinity existed between the Nazis and Zionists. On one critical question, which raged in the U.K. during the period when the Balfour Declaration (1917) was being cobbled together, antisemites and Zionists agreed: could a Jew be an Englishman? Ironically, in light of the current hysteria in the UK, the most vociferous and vehement opponents of the Balfour Declaration were not the Arabs, about whom almost nobody gave a darn, but the upper reaches of British Jewry.

Eminent British Jews published open letters to newspapers like the Times opposing British backing for a Jewish home in Palestine. They understood such a declaration – and Zionism – as implying that a Jew belonged to a distinct nation, and that the Jewish nation should have its own separate state, which they feared would effectively disqualify Jews from bona fide membership in the British nation. What distinguished the Zionists from the liberal Jewish aristocracy was their point of departure: as Theodor Herzl put it at the beginning of The Jewish State, ‘the Jewish question is no more a social than a religious one . . . It is a national question’. Whereas the Anglo-Jewish aristocracy insisted Judaism was merely a religion, the Zionists were emphatic that the Jews constituted a nation. And on this – back then, salient – point, the Zionists and Nazis agreed.

John Mann, when he accosted Livingstone in front of the cameras, asked rhetorically whether Livingstone had read Mein Kampf. If you do read Mein Kampf, which I suspect none of the interlocutors in this debate has done (I used to teach it, before the ‘Zionists’ drove me out of academia – joke!), you see that Hitler is emphatic that Jews are not a religion, but a nation. He says that the big Jewish lie is that they claim to be a religion; whereas in fact, he says, they’re a race (at that time, ‘race’ was used interchangeably with ‘nation’). And on page 56 of the standard English edition of Mein Kampf, he says that the only Jews honest enough to acknowledge this reality are the Zionists. Now, to be clear, Hitler didn’t just think that Jews were a distinct race. He also thought that they were a Satanic race, and ultimately, that they were a Satanic race that had to be exterminated. Still, on the first, not trivial, premise, he and the Zionists were in agreement.

As a practical matter, the Zionists and Nazis could therefore find a degree of common ground around the emigration/expulsion of Jews to Palestine. It was a paradox that, against the emphatic protestations of liberal Jews, including sections of the Anglo-Jewish establishment, antisemites and Zionists back then effectively shared the same slogan: Jews to Palestine. It was why, for example, the Nazis forbade German Jews to raise the swastika flag, but expressly permitted them to hoist the Zionist flag. It was as if to say, the Zionists are right: Jews can’t be Germans, they belong in Palestine. Hannah Arendt wrote scathingly about this in Eichmann in Jerusalem, which is one of the reasons she caught hell from the Jewish/Zionist establishment.

Even if there was a factual basis for Livingstone’s remarks, to bring the issue up at that moment – wasn’t he just baiting Jews?

I can understand his motivation, because I’m of roughly his generation. If he was ‘baiting’, it was a reflexive throwback to the factional polemics in the 1970s-80s. Israel marketed Zionists as the only Jews who had resisted the Nazis. The propaganda image projected back then was, the only resistance to the Nazis came from the Zionists, and the natural corollary was, the only force protecting Jews now is Israel. Every other Jew was either a coward, ‘going like sheep to slaughter’, or a collaborator. Those who dissented from Israeli policy back then, in order to undercut this Zionist propaganda, and to strike a nerve with them, would recall this unsavoury chapter in Zionism’s history. Some pamphlets and books appeared – such as Lenni Brenner’s Zionism in the Age of the Dictators (1983) – to document this ‘perfidious Zionist-Nazi collaboration’. Livingstone’s recent comments were born of the same reflex that motivated us back then. These certifiable creeps who went after Naz Shah got under his skin, and so he wanted to get under their skin. That’s how we used to fight this political battle: by dredging up those sordid chapters in Zionist history.

Livingstone based himself on Brenner’s book. Let’s say, for argument’s sake, that perhaps Brenner’s book contains factual errors, it’s more of a party pamphlet than a scholarly tome, and it’s not exactly weighed down with copious documentation. Still, the fact of the matter is, when Brenner’s book was published, it garnered positive reviews in the respectable British press. The Times, which is today leading the charge against Livingstone and the elected Labour leadership, back then published a review praising Brenner’s book as ‘crisp and carefully documented’. The reviewer, the eminent editorialist Edward Mortimer, observed that ‘Brenner is able to cite numerous cases where Zionists collaborated with anti-Semitic regimes, including Hitler’s’. So, it’s a tribute to Ken Livingstone that at age 70 he remembered a book he read more than 30 years ago, that got a good review in the Times when it first appeared. If the Times is upset at Livingstone’s remarks, it has only itself to blame. I myself only read Brenner’s book after the Times review.

Let’s zoom out a bit. You’ve written a great deal about how antisemitism accusations have been used to discredit and distract from criticism of Israel. Should we see the current campaign against Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Left more generally as the latest episode in that history?

These campaigns occur at regular intervals, correlating with Israel’s periodic massacres and consequent political isolation. If you search your nearest library catalogue for ‘new antisemitism’, you’ll come up with titles from the 1970s proclaiming a ‘new antisemitism’, titles from the 1980s proclaiming a ‘new antisemitism’, titles from the 1990s proclaiming a ‘new antisemitism’, and then a huge uptick, including from British writers, during the so-called Second Intifada from 2001. Let’s not forget, just last year there was a hysteria in the UK over antisemitism. A couple of ridiculous polls purported to find that nearly half of Britons held an antisemitic belief and that most British Jews feared for their future in the UK. Although these polls were dismissed by specialists, they triggered the usual media feeding frenzy, as the Telegraph, the Guardian and the Independent hyperventilated about this ‘rampant’ ‘new antisemitism’. It was exposed as complete nonsense when, in April 2015, a reputable poll by Pew found that the level of antisemitism in the UK had remained stable, at an underwhelming seven percent.

This farce happened only last year. One would have imagined that its mongers would be hiding in shame, and that we would enjoy at least a brief respite from the theatrics. But lo and behold, in the blink of an eye, right in the wake of the Pew poll showing that antisemitism in the UK is marginal, the hysteria has started up all over again. The reality is, there is probably more prejudice in the UK against fat people than there is prejudice against Jews.

Ask yourself a simple, but serious, question. You go for a job interview. Which trait is most likely to work against you: if you’re ugly, if you’re fat, if you’re short, or if you’re Jewish? It’s perhaps a sad commentary on our society’s values, but the trait most likely to elicit a rejection letter is if you’re ugly. Then fat; then short. The factor least likely to work against you is, if you’re Jewish. On the contrary, aren’t Jews smart and ambitious? Pew found antisemitism levels at seven percent. Is that grounds for a national hysteria? A May 2015 YouGov poll found that 40 percent of UK adults don’t like Muslims and nearly 60 percent don’t like Roma. Imagine what it’s like to apply for a job if you’re a Roma! So where is your order of moral priorities?

Many of those involved in last year’s ‘antisemitism’ hysterics are also participants in the current campaign against Corbyn.

The question you have to ask yourself is, why? Why has this issue been resurrected with a vengeance, so soon after its previous outing was disposed of as a farce? Is it because of a handful of allegedly antisemitic social media postings from Labour members? Is it because of the tongue-in-cheek map posted by Naz Shah? That’s not believable. The only plausible answer is, it’s political. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the factual situation; instead, a few suspect cases of antisemitism – some real, some contrived – are being exploited for an ulterior political motive. As one senior Labour MP said the other day, it’s transparently a smear campaign.

The ‘antisemitism’ accusations are being driven by the Conservatives ahead of the local and Mayoral elections. But they’re also being exploited by the Labour Right to undermine Corbyn’s leadership, and by pro-Israel groups to discredit the Palestine solidarity movement.

You can see this overlap between the Labour Right and pro-Israel groups personified in individuals like Jonathan Freedland, a Blairite hack who also regularly plays the antisemitism card. He’s combined these two hobbies to attack Corbyn. Incidentally, when my book, The Holocaust Industry, came out in 2000, Freedland wrote that I was 'closer to the people who created the Holocaust than to those who suffered in it'. Although he appears to be, oh, so politically correct now, he didn’t find it inappropriate to suggest that I resembled the Nazis who gassed my family.

We appeared on a television program together. Before the program, he approached me to shake my hand. When I refused, he reacted in stunned silence. Why wouldn’t I shake his hand? He couldn’t comprehend it. It tells you something about these dull-witted creeps. The smears, the slanders – for them, it’s all in a day’s work. Why should anyone get agitated? Later, on the program, it was pointed out that the Guardian, where he worked, had serialised The Holocaust Industry across two issues. He was asked by the presenter, if my book was the equivalent of Mein Kampf, would he resign from the paper? Of course not. Didn’t the presenter get that it’s all a game?

Compare the American scene. Our Corbyn is Bernie Sanders. In all the primaries in the US, Bernie has been sweeping the Arab and Muslim vote. It’s been a wondrous moment: the first Jewish presidential candidate in American history has forged a principled alliance with Arabs and Muslims. Meanwhile, what are the Blairite-Israel lobby creeps up to in the UK? They’re fanning the embers of hate and creating new discord between Jews and Muslims by going after Naz Shah, a Muslim woman who has attained public office. They’re making her pass through these rituals of public self-degradation, as she is forced to apologise once, twice, three times over for a tongue-in-cheek cartoon reposted from my website. And it’s not yet over! Because now they say she’s on a ‘journey’. Of course, what they mean is, ‘she’s on a journey of self-revelation, and epiphany, to understanding the inner antisemite at the core of her being’. But do you know on what journey she’s really on? She’s on a journey to becoming an antisemite. Because of these people; because they fill any sane, normal person with revulsion.

Here is this Muslim woman MP who is trying to integrate Muslims into British political life, and to set by her own person an example both to British society at large and to the Muslim community writ small. She is, by all accounts from her constituents, a respected and honourable person. You can only imagine how proud her parents, her siblings, must be. How proud the Muslim community must be. We’re always told how Muslim women are oppressed, repressed and depressed, and now you have this Muslim woman who has attained office. But now she’s being crucified, her career wrecked, her life ruined, her future in tatters, branded an ‘antisemite’ and a closet Nazi, and inflicted with these rituals of self-abasement. It’s not hard to imagine what her Muslim constituents must think now about Jews. These power hungry creeps are creating new hate by their petty machinations. As Donald Trump likes to say – it’s disgusting.

Labour has now set up an inquiry that is supposed to produce a workable definition of ‘antisemitism’ – which is to say, to achieve the impossible. It’s been tried countless times before, and it’s always proven futile. The only beneficiaries of such a mandate will be academic ‘specialists’ on antisemitism, who will receive hefty consultancy fees (I can already see Richard Evans at the head of the queue), and Israel, which will no longer be in the spotlight. I understand the short-term political rationale. But at some point, you have to say, ‘enough already’. Jews are prospering as never before in the UK. The polls show that the number of, so to speak, hard-core antisemites is miniscule. It’s time to put a stop to this periodic charade, because it ends up besmirching the victims of the Nazi holocaust, diverting from the real suffering of the Palestinian people, and poisoning relations between the Jewish and Muslim communities. You just had an antisemitism hysteria last year, and it was a farce. And now again? Another inquiry? Another investigation? No.

In order to put an end to this, there has to be a decisive repudiation of this political blackmail. Bernie Sanders was brutally pressured to back down on his claim that Israel had used disproportionate force during its 2014 assault on Gaza. He wouldn’t budge, he wouldn’t retreat. He showed real backbone. Corbyn should take heart and inspiration from Bernie’s example. He has to say: no more reports, no more investigations, we’re not going there any more. The game is up. It’s long past time that these antisemitism-mongers crawled back into their sewer – but not before humbly apologising to Naz Shah, and begging her forgiveness.



CLARIFICATION: Readers have expressed shock at the scandalous remarks attributed to Jonathan Freedland. Finkelstein decided to amend the paragraph so as to quote Freedland word-for-word. Readers will now perhaps be even more shocked.

[Whitehall_Bin_Men]

the facts don't matter when propaganda is your game

News UK Politics
Ken Livingstone fired from LBC show after Hitler comments trigger anti-Semitism row
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ken-livngstone-fired-fro m-lbc-show-after-hitler-comments-trigger-anti-semitism-row-a7053781.ht ml

The former Mayor of London is currently suspended from the Labour party for saying Hitler supported sending Jewish people to Israel
Caroline Mortimer @cjmortimer Saturday 28 May 2016

Ken Livingstone has been sacked from his LBC radio show following his claim that Hitler supported Zionism.

LBC’s owner, Global Radio, said the former Mayor of London would not be returning to his Saturday morning slot after his controversial comments last month.

“Let's remember when Hitler won his election in 1932, his policy then was that Jews should be moved to Israel. He was supporting Zionism before he went mad and ended up killing six million Jews," the former London mayor said.

[Thomas Tol]

the facts don't matter when propaganda is your game

Nordhausen - Epitome of the Big Lie:

Images of Nordhausen are used all over the major media - from Encyclopedia.com, NBC, ABC, and "Holocaust" books written as proof of a deliberate German extermination policy going according to plan. However, almost every prisoner in this imagery was blown up or strafed by British warplanes!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Vs1eR7hsT8

[TonyGosling]

51 Documents
by Lenni Brenner December 23, 2002
http://www.counterpunch.org/2002/12/23/51-documents/

In 1983, Croom Helm Ltd. published my 1st book, Zionism in the Age of the Dictators. American writers don’t expect favorable reviews from the London Times, but editorialist Edward Mortimer declared that “Brenner is able to cite numerous cases where Zionists collaborated with anti-Semitic regimes, including Hitler’s.”

Still less could a Trotskyist dream of a review from Izvestia, the Soviet government gazette, but they hailed it. “During the world war, Brenner points out, Zionism showed its real meaning: for the sake of its ambitions, it sacrificed the blood of millions of Jews.”

Louis Rapoport, a failed Berkeley radical, denounced the book in the Jerusalem Post as “leftist babble.” Nevertheless, he conceded, there were “very real charges that will continue to haunt” Zionism “until they are dealt with honestly.”

In 1987, Jim Allen, the celebrated British movie/TV writer, based Perdition, a stage play, on the book. When intense pressure on the Royal Court Theatre canceled production, we debated Sir Martin Gilbert, the Churchill family’s private historian, and Stephen Roth, head of the British Zionist Federation, nationwide, prime-time on ITV. The London Review of Books said the Zionist scheme “made it one of the most famous plays of the decade.” Indeed, unless the Queen was sick on the crapper, every politically or theatrically interested person in Britain watched us win, thanks to director Ken Loach’s strategic instructions.

Extraordinary world interest wasn’t matched in America’s media. Alex Cockburn championed the book in the Village Voice and in the Nation. But the Voice refused to review it. The Nation sent it out to someone, but, sorry, “he never sent in the review.”

Walter Laqueur had to bark in the Zionist New Republic after their Perdition debacle: “Some of Brenner’s book is invented, some is exaggerated or drawn out of context.” Yet even he admits that “German Zionists did not fully understand the meaning of Hitler when he came to power in 1933. Some of their comments and declarations make embarrassing reading 50 years later.”

Despite Zionism’s best efforts, over 5,000 copies sold in 18 years before being put on the web: www.marxists.de/middleast/brenner/index.htm Then Lyle Stuart of Barricade Books discovered that a friend, a Zionist propagandist, had never read the complete proposal of the “Stern Gang,” 1940s Zionist terrorists, to go to war on Hitler’s side. 51 Documents was born. Now Americans and others can read the evidence and judge for themselves.

There are six selections re Zionism’s relationship to anti-Semitism and racism prior to Hitler. The 51 documents, including 35 letters, memos, articles, and reports by Zionists, are from the Hitler era and after. Seven are by Nazis, most notably Eichmann’s memoir, written in Argentina, on Hungarian collaborator RA<

Zionism convicts itself. On June 21, 1933, the German Zionist Federation sent a secret memorandum to the Nazis:

“Zionism has no illusions about the difficulty of the Jewish condition, which consists above all in an abnormal occupational pattern and in the fault of an intellectual and moral posture not rooted in one’s own tradition. Zionism recognized decades ago that as a result of the assimilationist trend, symptoms of deterioration were bound to appear, which it seeks to overcome by carrying out its challenge to transform Jewish life completely.

“It is our opinion that an answer to the Jewish question truly satisfying to the national state can be brought about only with the collaboration of the Jewish movement that aims at a social, cultural and moral renewal of Jewry–indeed, that such a national renewal must first create the decisive social and spiritual premises for all solutions.

“Zionism believes that a rebirth of national life, such as is occurring in German life through adhesion to Christian and national values, must also take place in the Jewish national group. For the Jew, too, origin, religion, community of fate and group consciousness must be of decisive significance in the shaping of his life. This means that the egotistic individualism which arose in the liberal era must be overcome by public spiritedness and by willingness to accept responsibility.”

By 1936, the Post ran a news flash, “German Zionists Seek Recognition”:

“A bold demand that the German Zionist Federation be given recognition by the Government as the only instrument for the exclusive control of German Jewish life was made by the Executive of that body in a proclamation today. All German Jewish organizations, it was declared, should be dominated by the Zionist spirit.”

Zionist factions competed for the honor of allying to Hitler. By 1940-41, the “Stern Gang,” among them Yitzhak Shamir, later Prime Minister of Israel, presented the Nazis with the “Fundamental Features of the Proposal of the National Military Organization in Palestine (Irgun Zvai Leumi) Concerning the Solution of the Jewish Question in Europe and the Participation of the NMO in the War on the Side of Germany.”

Avraham Stern and his followers announced that

“The NMO, which is well-acquainted with the goodwill of the German Reich government and its authorities towards Zionist activity inside Germany and towards Zionist emigration plans, is of the opinion that:

1. Common interests could exist between the establishment of a new order in Europe in conformity with the German concept, and the true national aspirations of the Jewish people as they are embodied by the NMO.

2. Cooperation between the new Germany and a renewed folkish-national Hebraium would be possible and,

3. The establishment of the historic Jewish state on a national and totalitarian basis, bound by a treaty with the German Reich, would be in the interest of a maintained and strengthened future German position of power in the Near East.

Proceeding from these considerations, the NMO in Palestine, under the condition the above-mentioned national aspirations of the Israeli freedom movement are recognized on the side of the German Reich, offers to actively take part in the war on Germany’s side.”

They hanged people all over Europe after WW II for notes to the Nazis like these. But these treasons against the Jews were virtually unknown in the run up to the creation of the Zionist state in May 1948. Ninety percent of America’s Jews suddenly became emotional pro-Zionists. With Democrats, Republicans and even the Communist-organized Progressive Party competing for Jewish votes in the November Presidential election, Harry Truman’s monetary aid bought arms from pro-Soviet Czechoslovakia, and an Israel was born, run by the German Zionists’ cothinkers in Jerusalem.

Jews and other Americans still know little of Zionism’s sordid past. But today only programed fanatics can come away pro-Zionist after reading plain facts. Indeed, according to the American Jewish Identity Survey (2001), less than 22% of all Jews declare themselves Zionist.

Opposition to Zionism also grows among liberal educated gentiles, every time their declared enemy, Pat Robertson, howls in favor of Orthodox Israel.

For complex historical reasons, the Vietnam anti-war movement and anti-apartheid campaign emphasized demonstrations over sustained education. Even in victory, little was left behind in the way of attention to foreign affairs among the broad masses. Even after 9/11, the ultimate attention getter, US public knowledge about the Arab world, Islam, the oil industry, Zionism, and Washington’s involvement with them, is minimal. But the present anti-Iraq war movement has no choice but to systematically educate itself and the public. The issues are too complex for anything less. Ignorance or illusions about any of the players, here or there, means certain death for X number of Arabs, Israelis, Kurds, Muslims and Americans.

51 Documents can play a major role in making serious study a priority concern for an anti-war movement that will stay solidly in place until the present bipartisan power structure is destroyed and replaced.

A check to me, for $22.00 + $1.84 media mail postage, gets a signed book back, anywhere in the US. Folks in other countries, and people wanting rates for bulk orders, should also write

LENNI BRENNER Park West Finance Station POB 20598 NY, NY 10025

LENNI BRENNER can be reached at: BrennerL21@aol.com