The Origins of Zionism

 


by Dr. Abraham Weizfeld Ph.D.
2017-07-04

 

Few other states claim to be “Nation-States” nowadays as the Zionist State claims to be. Instead of prizing homogeneous populations, it is considered better today for a State to boast of its multicultural diversity and its commitment to equality of rights for its citizens. However, the “Nation-State” concept was admired for a long time as a political ideal. Indeed, when it was invented during the European Reformation, it was a progressive solution to a serious set of conflicts. Wars of religion had raged for decades, as Protestants sought national independence for particular territories from the Holy Roman Empire. Civil wars raged on by each religious faction seeking dominion over the other. Finally, in 1648 the “Treaties of Westphalia” were conceived, creating a basis for national self-determination. Henceforth each territory would be sovereign and its ruler would decide its official religion. Political interference in the affairs of a different sovereign territory was prohibited. These treaties established the rule that states were to be entities within clear geographical borders, each with a population that should preferably be religiously homogeneous—a principle that grew into the “Nation-State” notion that each People should have its own state.

The Nation-State notion would become idealized by the German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, even though he denied that the German provinces, when unified, should be considered the German Nation-State, since only Prussia was “racially pure” enough to be considered a Nation. In this manner the Nation-State reflects a racialist concept in which each Nation or People should exclusively inhabit its own distinct State. This exclusivist doctrine was accepted by many liberals in the belief that it was somehow conducive to democratization by giving “self-determination” to each Nation. But the doctrine also has xenophobic and racist implications. Its exclusivism has resulted in many wars for control of territory, and has had grievous consequences for national minorities. In Europe they were either ghettoized or initially, forced to assimilate and then subsequently expelled or annihilated, as in the Holocaust of the Jewish and Roma Peoples.

Under such conditions of life and death, national minorities diverged into two different responses. One was the struggle for integration by acquiring civil rights—both individual and collective rights. Two such tendencies existed for either assimilation or collective defence.

Alternatively, there was a second political tendency for a given national minority—to attempt to replicate the prevailing Nation-State model by acquiring its own separatist entity. In the case of the Jewish People, this approach became codified as the theory of Zionism with the ‘Separation Principle’ of the Russian Zionist Jabotinsky. And that is how the Apartheid Separation Wall was built.

While all the various Jewish political tendencies sought to achieve ‘self-determination’, the Zionist movement were intent on building a ‘Nation-State’ on the European model as an outpost of the Occident. This was the notion of civilization, as if human history originated in the ‘West’. The Zionist concept of self-determination was particular because it was building a ‘Nation-State’ in the Land where an indigenous Nation lived already. Nonetheless the Zionist movement took the slogan from the Territorialists – ‘A Land without a People for a People without a Land’ to order to justify the capture of Palestine.

The problem with Zionist self-determination is that it denies the self-determination of the Palestinian People-Nation and so Zionism contradicts the right of self-determination even while it is claiming to uphold it for one Nation, but not for the other Nation in this case. This contradiction nullifies the ideology of Zionism as rational thought and contradicts the legal norms for self-determination which cannot deny the very same right to another People. This is why the Zionist State has been condemned so often by the United Nations General Assembly and not because it is being singled out.

The problem with Zionism itself is not that it is Jewish but that it is seeking to impose a State that is only Jewish. This is much the same as the right-wing populist currents such as the Christian fundamentalists of Trump who want a Nation-State that is only Christian Europeans. The same Nation-State concept is used by the Front National rightists in France as well to oppose the Arab presence in France. Each national political-culture has a similar current that represents about a third of the general public today. In the Zionist State however the far Right-wing populist current is still strong enough to form the coalition government presently in power.

It may also be observed that while the Zionist military campaign of Occupation began in 1947, other wars have followed. Another Occidental Crusade to remodel the Arab countries into the various spheres of influence outlined by the Sykes-Picot secret treaty has created the various Arab Nation-States today. This importation of the European model into the Western Orient Arab countries has met with continual disasters and opposition. This Christian and Zionist Crusade is being countered by the Arab Spring revolutions which are feed by the historic victory of the Algerian revolution in 1962 and the continuation of Palestinian resistance since 1947.

In this manner the Palestinian struggle for national liberation is at the core of the world geo-political impasse, which is plagued by both political and economic crises. The attempts to overcome such crises by subordinating others to better their condition are historic failures. The failure of the Nation-States is evident even to Europe which has attempted to build a Confederation on an equal footing. Meanwhile the Zionist State still imposes its Nation-State on the Palestinian, Druze, Bedouin and Mizrahi Arab Peoples as if this were still the 17th Century.

Dr. abraham Weizfeld
PhD UQÀM, MA York U., BSc UdeW
saalaha@fokus.name
514 284 66 42
Montréal

Nation, Society and the State :
the reconciliation of Palestinian and Jewish Nationhood

http://www.archipel.uqam.ca/7308/1/D2843.pdf

http://bookstore.authorhouse.com/Products/SKU-000425888/NATION–SOCIETY–AND–THE-STATE.aspx

PALESTINIENS ET JUIFS UNIS (PAJU) DÉNONCE L’ATTAQUE CONTRE LE CENTRE ISLAMIQUE DE QUÉBEC

img_0007

 

Montréal, le 31 janvier 2017

Palestiniens et Juifs unis (PAJU) dénonce la culture d’islamophobie qui prévaut chez certains élus et médias dont le résultat a été la démonisation des musulmans au Québec et au Canada. Cette « culture » islamophobe, laquelle relève du projet identitaire de la droite politique raciste, qui divise la société dans deux camps : nous et les autres, empoisonne notre société depuis quelques années déjà. Notons le faux débat entourant la charte (Drainville) des valeurs dont le véritable objectif fut de diviser la population en ciblant surtout les musulmans pour fins électorales.

Dans une telle atmosphère de crainte et de haine, fabriquée de toute pièce par ces élus et médias auxquels on fait référence ci-haut, il n’est pas surprenant qu’un tel acte haineux ait été commis contre des concitoyens de confession musulmane au Centre islamique de Québec le 29 janvier 2017, une date dont nous nous en souviendrons fort longtemps. À PAJU, nous notons cette même désinformation et même la suppression des faits par rapport à la situation des Palestiniens, leurs conditions de vie ahurissantes liées à l’occupation illégale de leurs territoires par Israël, et leurs réclamations légitimes pour leur autodétermination et leur souveraineté nationale.

L’élection de Donald Trump aux États-Unis et la politique et rhétorique racistes et surtout antimusulmanes qui caractérise les diktats unilatéraux du président Trump, ne fait que verser l’huile sur le feu. On observe avec alarme la montée du fascisme en Europe et aux États-Unis et celle de groupuscules fascistes et racistes ici au Québec, ce qui rappelle les années trente et l’établissement de gouvernements fascistes en Europe. À cette époque-là, on ciblait les juifs; aujourd’hui on cible les musulmans. Les fondements conceptuels sont les mêmes.

Face à cette menace, face à cette nouvelle « Grande Noirceur », il est de notre devoir en tant que société pluraliste, de rester unis dans notre diversité, et de promouvoir les principes de justice, de tolérance et de pluralisme qui sont, eux, le fondement de notre véritable « charte des valeurs. »

-30-

Info: (514) 582-1642

http://www.pajumontreal.org

Israël ou la religion de la sécurité

par Gideon Levy

gideon-levy-la-religion-de-la-securite

 

On considère souvent Israël comme l’un des États les plus religieux du monde ; il l’est encore plus qu’on ne l’imagine. Ici, religion et État ne font qu’un. L’orthodoxie juive accompagne les citoyens de la naissance à la mort, qu’ils soient croyants, agnostiques ou athées. Mais, comme si cela ne suffisait pas, un second dogme encadre la vie des Israéliens : celui de la sécurité. À chaque étape de leur vie, il leur impose ses règles implacables.

Cette religion-là repose sur la croyance qu’Israël vivrait sous une menace perpétuelle — conviction qui repose sur une certaine lecture de la réalité, mais qui se nourrit également de mythes méticuleusement entretenus. Nos gouvernants orchestrent ainsi des campagnes de peur. Ils exagèrent les dangers réels, en inventent d’autres et alimentent l’idée que nous serions victimes de persécutions constantes. Et cela dure depuis la création de l’État.

Pendant la guerre de 1948, au lendemain de la Shoah, une telle attitude se justifiait sans doute : les Israéliens ne se percevaient-ils pas tel David face à Goliath ? Mais, depuis, le pays s’est hissé au rang de puissance régionale solide. Notre armée compte parmi les plus puissantes de la planète et dispose d’un arsenal technologique sophistiqué. La croyance demeure néanmoins : Israël lutterait pour sa « survie », même s’il se mesure à des organisations dont les membres marchent quasiment pieds nus, comme le Hamas ; même si, à part l’Iran, aucun État puissant ne l’a placé dans sa ligne de mire ; et même si ce sont nos troupes qui mènent des opérations d’occupation. La recette n’est pas neuve, ni propre à notre pays : réelle ou fictive, la menace extérieure justifie l’« union nationale » et l’emprise de l’État sur la population.

Selon le centre de recherche IHS Jane’s, Israël affichait en 2015 le seizième budget de défense du monde : 15,6 milliards de dollars. Cela représente 6,2 % du produit intérieur brut (PIB), ce qui place le pays au deuxième rang mondial, derrière l’Arabie saoudite. La part du budget de la défense dans le PIB israélien est deux à six fois plus élevée que dans les autres nations industrialisées. Et, en dépit de l’érosion de sa part dans les dépenses de l’État, le montant n’a cessé de croître en valeur absolue. Alors que le pays ne se situe qu’au 98e rang pour la population, avec seulement huit millions d’habitants, le Global Firepower Index (1) place l’armée israélienne au seizième rang en termes de puissance de feu, avec un char d’assaut pour 1 930 citoyens (contre 5 948 en Corée du Nord et 157 337 en France) et un avion de chasse pour 11 800 citoyens (contre 23 904 aux États-Unis et 51 914 en France).

La bagatelle de quatorze sous-marins

De telles dépenses, plus importantes proportionnellement que celles des États-Unis, de la Russie ou de la France, s’effectuent au détriment d’autres secteurs : l’éducation, la santé, le logement, les transports ou l’accueil des migrants. Mais cette préférence budgétaire ne fait l’objet d’aucun débat public, même lorsque des milliers de citoyens descendent dans la rue pour s’insurger contre le montant des loyers — comme pendant l’été 2011, lors de la plus grande protestation sociale de notre histoire (2). Le pays dispose de la bagatelle de quatorze sous-marins ; cinq ne suffiraient-ils pas — mettons dix, pour les inquiets ? L’argent englouti pour construire un seul de ces engins — 1,4 milliard d’euros — permettrait de réhabiliter des quartiers entiers. Mais, si les Israéliens se plaignent du coût de la vie et de la dégradation des services sociaux, ils acceptent le budget de la défense et la rhétorique sécuritaire du pouvoir sans broncher. La foi se discute-t-elle ?

Il est inquiétant de voir certains pays européens, dont la France, prendre le même chemin. S’engager sur une pente aussi glissante peut conduire à justifier toutes les atteintes à la démocratie. Les Israéliens en ont fait l’expérience : la « sécurité » fait oublier l’injustice. Elle blanchit le crime et teinte d’un vernis de légitimité les pratiques les plus discriminatoires. Dirigeants politiques, généraux, juges, intellectuels, journalistes : tous le savent, mais chacun ajoute son silence à celui de la majorité.

Quand on pénètre en voiture dans l’aéroport Ben-Gourion, il faut ouvrir la fenêtre pour saluer l’agent de sécurité armé. Tout dépend alors de la façon dont vous parlez l’hébreu : si le garde croit déceler un accent arabe, il arrête la voiture. Ainsi les Juifs s’imprègnent-ils d’un sentiment de supériorité ; les Palestiniens, de leur infériorité ou de leur dangerosité. Car, c’est bien connu, tout citoyen arabe d’Israël est un colis suspect, une bombe à retardement.

Nul ne niera que le terrorisme existe. Mais on évoque trop peu les effets pervers qu’induisent les mesures prises pour y répondre. Les contrôles interminables tracassent jour après jour des citoyens rendus dociles par la peur d’un attentat. Insidieusement se façonnent des stéréotypes, s’exacerbent des préjugés qui cristallisent en racisme. Cela contribue à détruire notre pays de l’intérieur. En ira-t-il ainsi, désormais, aux États-Unis et en Europe ? Est-ce vraiment nécessaire ? N’y a-t-il pas d’autres moyens, plus justes et plus mesurés, de lutter contre le danger ?

Au nom de la sécurité, Israël occupe depuis plus de cinquante ans des territoires palestiniens, à l’encontre du droit international. Nous sommes ainsi devenus une des rares puissances coloniales du XXIe siècle. Quand M. Shimon Pérès, futur Prix Nobel de la paix, autorisa en 1975 l’implantation d’une des plus grandes colonies, celle d’Ofra, il souligna combien il était important de conserver l’antenne de télécommunications dressée dans les territoires occupés. Mais la colonie a été construite sur des terres privées volées à des Palestiniens sous l’égide de l’État. Les gardiens temporaires sont rapidement devenus des colons ; leur camp, une banlieue des territoires. La suite, jalonnée de crimes sanglants, appartient à l’histoire. Aujourd’hui, dans Gaza, plus de deux millions de personnes sont enfermées dans ce qui constitue la plus grande prison du monde.

Comme l’ensemble des institutions, l’appareil judiciaire se prosterne devant le Moloch moderne. La Cour suprême, généralement capable de punir les injustices qui sont portées devant elle, valide l’inacceptable lorsqu’il prend prétexte d’exigences sécuritaires : destructions de maisons, expulsions, etc. Pendant la longue histoire de l’occupation, la Cour a trop rarement manifesté son opposition. Il aura fallu de longues années avant qu’elle ait le courage de critiquer les assassinats ciblés et la torture. Et elle s’obstine encore à légitimer les arrestations sans comparution devant un juge, appelées « détentions administratives ». Depuis des années, des milliers de personnes ont été embastillées sans jugement. Comme elles ne sont pas plus autorisées que leurs avocats à connaître les chefs d’accusation, elles n’ont aucun moyen de se défendre. L’état d’urgence, en vigueur depuis l’époque du mandat britannique — même si le mandat s’est achevé depuis longtemps —, autorise un tel scandale. L’état d’urgence n’a plus lieu d’être, mais ses dispositions demeurent.

Au mépris du droit international

Quant aux tribunaux militaires, ils condamnent des Palestiniens dans des mascarades de procès politiques. Au nom de la sécurité, on détruit les maisons des « terroristes » (3) et l’on procède à des châtiments collectifs interdits par le droit international. On impose quotidiennement à des milliers de personnes des contrôles arbitraires, des arrestations et des descentes nocturnes de l’armée. On empêche les uns de travailler ou de se déplacer ; on en met d’autres à mort, dès lors qu’une recrue redoute une menace. Ce fut le cas pour une enfant de 10 ans qui tenait une paire de ciseaux à la main. Abattue pour « protéger » des soldats qu’elle s’apprêtait sans doute à découper…

Rappelons que les citoyens arabes de « la seule démocratie du Proche-Orient » ont vécu sous administration militaire depuis les premières années de l’État jusqu’au milieu des années 1960. Puis vinrent cinquante années d’occupation, cinquante années d’arrestations au nom d’impératifs de « sécurité » — ce maître mot alibi évitant à Israël la qualification d’État non démocratique…

Pour l’instant, les Arabes sont les principales victimes de cette situation. Après des années de lutte contre le terrorisme, le nombre de morts palestiniens est cent fois plus élevé que celui des morts israéliens. Mais, alors que la démocratie se fragilise, les attaques contre la liberté d’expression et les droits civils (4) touchent désormais tout le monde. La religion sécuritaire étend son emprise : aujourd’hui dans les territoires occupés, demain à Tel-Aviv ; aujourd’hui au détriment des Arabes, demain des Juifs.

Dans le monde entier, les Israéliens sont perçus comme le fer de lance de la lutte contre le terrorisme. Nos entreprises conseillent des gouvernements, exportant non seulement des armes, mais aussi des savoir-faire. Mais, si les États veulent apprendre d’Israël, ils doivent aussi tirer la leçon de ce qu’il ne faut pas faire. Notamment, qu’on ne peut pas tout se permettre au nom de la sécurité. Risquer de perdre la démocratie constitue peut-être un danger plus grand que le terrorisme.

Gideon Levy

Écrivain et journaliste au quotidien Haaretz (Tel-Aviv).
Source: http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/2016/10/LEVY/56434

Collaboration sioniste avec les Nazis

Palestiniens et Juifs unis (PAJU) no. 797 le 20 mai 2016

image003

Note de PAJU : Dans les années sombres (années de guerres ou de luttes pour l’indépendance récentes), les choix, les regroupements de la société et la violence vus aujourd’hui comme honteux et embarrassants ont existé. Dans maints pays, les séquelles de ces évènements n’ont pas une influence déterminante sur les comportements politiques ou les agissements de la société. L’historien Lenni Brenner suggère que ces séquelles ont plus d’importance pour l’État d’Israël. Cette analyse contribuerait-elle à expliquer certains aspects de la politique israélienne?

Recension par Sara Powell

Aussi difficile que ce soit, le lecteur se doit de confronter des conclusions assurément troublantes. Le plus choquant est qu’avant l’Holocauste, les sionistes aient été capables de s’aligner avec les nazis : fondamentalement, ces deux groupes voyaient la question de la race comme une ligne de division importante et, de plus, ne souhaitaient aucun changement à cette position. David Yisraeli, membre du Stern Gang, a écrit ce qui suit en 1940 en tant que proposition pour Hitler. Ce fut livré à deux diplomates allemands au Liban.

« L’établissement de l’État juif sur une base nationale et totalitaire, lié à un traité avec le Reich allemand, aurait pour résultat de maintenir et de renforcer la position de l’Allemagne dans le Proche Orient. » De telles vues n’étaient évidemment pas réservées ni aux nazis ni aux sionistes. Les idées scientifiques et philosophiques du jour considéraient cette différentiation légitime : la différence raciale (de fait la suprématie raciale) était déjà en vigueur dans le monde entier.

Autre conclusion choquante que doivent confronter les lecteurs : les sionistes se sont inspirés des nazis pour leurs tactiques et leurs politiques et, même aujourd’hui, ils les utilisent pour avancer la cause sioniste. Bien que vraisemblablement connu des lecteurs de ce livre, également troublant est la dissimilation des rôles pour le moins douteux des responsables israéliens actuels, y compris les récents premiers ministres et les groupes terroristes Irgoun et Stern Gang juste avant, pendant, et après l’Holocauste. De même, la soumission de nombre d’officiels américains à la pression sioniste est une constante connue mais néanmoins choquante.

Référence :51 Documents: Zionist Collaboration With the Nazis, edited by
Lenni Brenner. Barricade Books. Fort Lee, New Jersey. 2002.
Distribué par PAJU (Palestiniens et Juifs unis)

http://WWW.PAJUMONTREAL.ORG

Bruce Katz, co-president of PAJU: « Netanyahu causing Israeli society to implode »

IMG_0523

 

Press TV has interviewed Bruce Katz, co-president of Palestinian and Jewish Unity in Montreal, about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reiterating his controversial remarks on the occupied Golan Heights despite criticism.

The following is a rough transcription of the interview.

Press TV: Netanyahu has now repeated this statement twice. How do you feel about it?

Katz: First, the rhetoric that he uses is a rhetoric that he considers necessary to keep his coalition partners on board. He is also playing to Israeli public opinion because the whole question of the Golan Heights is a red herring for any Israeli politician who would dare to say that he will be willing to negotiate a settlement concerning the Golan Heights, but he also does not feel the necessity to come to terms with Syria because the state of Syria is actually in turmoil, in large part due to the fact that Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and other players in the region have been involved in fomenting what is now a civil war in Syria.

But as for this rhetoric, the usual theatrics of victimization whereas terror comes from the victims but the oppressor is scot-free and has unblemished hands, of course that is the usual Israeli rhetoric and especially from this extreme right coalition whereas it’s Netanyahu who was one of the prime fomenters of terror and terrorist tactics in the region.

As for talking about being there forever, excuse me if I find that to be an exceptionally arrogant statement. From a religious point of view only God is forever. Perhaps Netanyahu thinks of himself as God’s elder brother, that is not the case however, and it should be noted that at some point he will no longer be in power hopefully and hopefully that is in the short-term not in the long-term and it will be a future Israeli regime that will have to come to terms with the question of the Golan Heights and will have to settle it through political and diplomatic channels.

I would say this in terms of Netanyahu and his extreme right coalition at the rate that Netanyahu and these other members of his fascist coalition are causing Israeli society to implode forever and [that] will only be a question of another ten years or so.

Press TV: I am wondering Netanyahu and many of his supporters when they talk about Golan Heights say it is important for Israel to keep it because of security reasons but I am wondering isn’t it ironic because it is Israel in fact which has carried out attacks within Syria during this crisis?

Katz: That is exactly the case. At any rate they keep talking about security. The only security that Israel will ever have will come through a negotiated peace and this particular regime, through its hatemongering and warmongering, is not interested in peace.

Netanyahu has never been interested in peace. People only have to look at his track record to understand that he can only remain in power as long as he keeps his people in fear and as long as he uses the idea of an external enemy that can never and that there will never be any peace prospects for Israel, there is only military intervention.

So really as I have said before this man is the second Simon bar Kokhba of Israel and the only place he can take Israel is on its continuing path of self-destruction and implosion. They have to affect the regime change in Tel Aviv before any type of progressive thinking can be affected or expressed in Tel Aviv. There is no other way for it. Netanyahu is one-way trip to the abyss for Israeli society.

 

Source: http://presstv.ir/Detail/2016/04/22/462045/Israel-Netanyahu-Golan-Heights-negotiation-Syria/

51 Documents – Zionist Collaboration With The Nazis By Lenni Brenner

Couverture du livre Zionist collaboration with the Nazis

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. 

******************************************************

 

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: http://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 Rezso Kasztner. Five of the six and 43 of the 51 are complete. The rest are extensive excerpts from important reports. There are four first-time full translations of articles from German, Hebrew, Italian and Russian. 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 a 1995 American Jewish Committee survey, 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

 

Source: http://rense.com/general36/colb.htm

The Iron Wall by Lenni Brenner

Zionist Revisionism from Jabotinsky to Shamir

(1984)

Couverture sur The Iron Wall by Lenni Brenner

Extract from : «The WZO leaders said as little as they could about Germany in as much as they knew that negotiations were proceeding to work out a trade agreement with Hitler. Jabotinsky brought forth a motion to support the embryonic anti-Nazi boycott, but it had no chance of success. The delegates were totally put off by the fascist character of Revisionism. During the Congress, Jewish Telegraphic Agency dispatches told of the police discovering Jabotinsky’s letter to Achimeir denouncing him for his pro-Nazi articles. [24] The vast majority of the delegates believed that the Biryonim had murdered the Political Secretary of their movement and the letter could only serve to reinforce their opinion. They could only think that their own Hitler was denouncing the WZO leaders for being pro-Nazi. The resolution calling for action against the Hitlerites was soundly defeated, 240 to 43. [25] (In fact the Nazis announced, during the Congress, that a trade agreement had been reached with the WZO’s Anglo-Palestine Bank.)

Relations between the Revisionists and the WZO could not have been worse than they were in the period immediately after the 1933 Congress. The existential reality of Palestinian Zionism, that it had to constantly grow just to hope to keep pace with the Arab birth-rate, coupled with the fact that their finances were exhausted in the midst of the Depression, made it inevitable that the “practicals” of the WZO leadership would seek to profitably collaborate with Hitler. Jabotinsky did not know it but, at the very time the Congress was meeting, the Jewish expert of the SS, Baron Leopold von Mildenstein, was the guest of the WZO in Palestine. Nor did he know that, in December of that year, Weizmann would ask the Nazis for permission to come to Berlin to negotiate for the further development of the Ha’avara (Transfer) trade pact into the full-scale liquidation bank envisioned by Arlosoroff. [26] But Jabotinsky himself was negotiating, via the Unione Revisionisti, for a Betar school in Italy. Given his own developing relations with Mussolini, the cynical might think that Jabotinsky would have collaborated with Hitler if he had the responsibility for running the Yishuv. Such would only be speculation and, in fact, he had his principles, even concerning when it was proper to collaborate with anti-Semites. They had to play by the rules, and allow the Jews to protect themselves from pogromists. Hitler, who would never allow that, was clearly an implacable enemy of the Jews. Of course the Revisionists were not the only ones who denounced the Transfer, the Jewish Communist press always covered Zionist Congresses and reported the above-ground aspects of Zionist relations with the Fascists and the Nazis. The Socialist International denounced it and there was immense opposition within the WZO, particularly in Poland, where the Jewish masses instinctively knew that any compromise with Hitler could only weaken them vis-à-vis their own anti-Semites; and the US, where the bulk of the Zionist ranks and some of the leadership were infected with the reforming spirit generated by Roosevelt’s Triumph.»

 

 

 

 

Table of Contents

 


Appendix 1
Vladimir Jabotinsky: The Iron Wall
(1923)


Appendix 2
Stern Gang: Grundzüge des Vorschlages der Irgun Zewai Leumi
betreffend der Lösung der jüdischen Frage Europas
und der aktiven Teilnahme der N.M.O. am Kriege
an der Seite Deutschlands
(1941)

(The original German version of the infamous proposal for collaboration between the Stern Gang and the Nazis)
(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
)

Appendix 3
Drew Middleton: South Africa Needs More Arms, Israeli Says
(New York Times, 14 December 1981)

****************************************************

1. Jabotinsky: the Early Years

 

Odessa

Odessa was and is beautiful: located on a high plateau, it looks across its bay into the Black Sea. Taken from the Turks only in 1792, Tsarist Russia’s southernmost port was ice-free except for five weeks each winter, and it soon became the empire’s thriving grain exporter, its character a cosmopolitan extension of the Mediterranean trade lanes.

There were no Jews in Russia until the late 18th Century. In 1471, two Jewish merchants in the retinue of a Kievan noble had “corrupted to Judaism” two prominent clergymen of Novgorod. A heresy, known as the Judaizers, began to spread among the Russian Orthodox monks, using passages from the Old Testament as the basis of a critique of the established social order. Eventually, in 1504, their leaders were burnt at the stake and the sect disappeared; but the Holy Synod always remembered the deviants and from thence forward Jewish merchants were forbidden entry to the “Russian earth”. It was only in the 18th Century, with the conquest of vast territories from the moribund Polish and Turkish empires, that the regime in St Petersburg was confronted with an internal Jewish population.

There were only five Jews in Odessa in 1792 when the Turks were finally driven completely out of the Ukraine. Despite intense distrust of the Jews and their religion, St Petersburg realized immediately that the scattered Jewish merchants were vital to the economy of their new acquisitions. Indeed, Jews were encouraged to migrate down from the former Polish lands into the sparsely populated Euxine hinterland. By the last quarter of the 19th Century, Odessa held the second largest Jewish community, after Warsaw, in the empire; the town was already 25% Jewish by 1880. Most shops were Jewish-owned, and the centrepiece of Odessa’s prosperity, the grain trade, was in Jewish hands. Although most migrants spoke only Yiddish on arrival, Russian rapidly became their home language. Odessa Jewry was by far the most modernist Jewish community in the so-called Pale of Settlement, the area to which the Autocrats of All the Russias confined the vast bulk of their over five million Jewish subjects.

Parents and Schooling

Vladimir Yevgenievich was born on 5 October 1880, the third child and the second son of Yona and Khava Jabotinsky. Yona, orYevgenni, to use the Russian version of his name, was a high bureaucrat in the semi-official Russian Company of Navigation and Commerce, in charge of wheat procurement along the Dniepr river; Khava was the daughter of a wealthy Chassidic merchant. The Jabotinskys were well-off and contented at the time of Vladimir’s birth, but in 1884 disaster hit the family. Yevgenni became seriously ill and had to go to Berlin for treatment. The family followed and Vladimir Yevgenievich was enrolled in kindergarten and soon speaking German. He remembered little of Germany in later years beyond encountering Kaiser Wilhelm I in the Bad Ems gardens, and exchanging salutes, Eventually the Jabotinskys ran out of money and could no longer afford the expensive specialists – who immediately got rid of them, telling them to consult doctors in Russia – and they returned to the Ukraine, where Yevgenni died in 1886.

The widow soon set up a small stationery store across from their local synagogue. Her brother, a wealthy businessman, helped financially and, while reduced in circumstances, Khava gave her son violin lessons – almost obligatory for Jewish boys of his day and class – and sent him off to a private preparatory school. His first encounter with anti-Semitism was when he was eight, and it took his mother a year before she could place him in a government school – Jewish students fell under a numerus clausus and several schools turned him down before his family was able to place him. But anti-Semitism was not a preoccupation of the Odessa authorities; Vladimir’s childhood was placid and to the end of his life he looked back at Odessa with the deepest feeling of fondness.

 

 

Languages

Khava was from Berdishev, a Ukrainian city so Jewish many of the goyim (gentiles) spoke Yiddish, and she had difficulty with Russian. German was her cultural language; she had only learnt Russian to speak to the servants her husband had provided for her. Later, Jabotinsky could not recall if she and Yevgenni spoke Yiddish to each other, but they spoke only Russian to their children. Although his gentile nurse knew Yiddish, common among servants, she was forbidden to speak to him in it, but Jabotinsky soon picked up the language. Later, in his teens abroad in school, he wrote to his mother in Yiddish, but he insisted he never spoke it either at home or in the street. Khava sent him to learn Hebrew from a tutor when he was six. He learned a smattering of grammar and they translated the Bible but he was not very interested and, at 13, as with millions of Jewish boys then and since, he gave it up as a dead language. Apart from some poetry, he had no interest in Jewish culture-he found it sad, musty and uninteresting.

It was at the onset of his Hebrew lessons, he later recalled, that he had his first “Zionist” thoughts, asking his mother “Will we Jews, too, some day have a state of our own?” In the way of mothers everywhere, who know everything a seven-year-old needs to know, Khava replied, tenderly: “Of course we will, you little fool!” Jabotinsky never again doubted this self-evident truth; from that day he “did not ask any more: this was enough for me”. [1]

Russian was his language: to the end of his life, in 1940, 25 years after he last saw his native land, he thought in Russian when alone. He had learnt the alphabet from his sister Tamar when the family returned from Germany. As he grew up, literature became his passion. Though not a good student, he learned to recite much of Puskin and Lermonlov by heart. He and his friends started their own newspaper; at nine he found a Spanish grammar and started teaching himself.

A first contact with English came via his sister’s school lessons; French from a cousin; Latin and Greek he studied in school but they bored him – he never look to dead languages. Between his twelfth and fourteenth years he taught himself Esperanto, even writing poetry in the new international language. His interest in languages attracted the attention of some of his Polish schoolfriends and soon he was reading Adam Mickiewicz’s epic Pan Tadeusz.

 

Early Career

His literary career began when he was ten years old with some poetry; by 13 he was translating the Song of Songs and other poems from the Hebrew. He did a youthful translation of Poe’s Raven which later, in an improved version, became a standard of the anthologies. By 16 he was submitting articles to the local newspapers. In 1898 he decided to go abroad to complete his education, and he convinced the local Odessky Listok to take him on as a foreign correspondent. They stipulated that he could write only from European capitals where they did not already have one of their own men. He chose Berne and enrolled in the law school there.

One of the very first things Jabotinsky did in Berne was to declare himself a complete vegetarian; this lasted exactly two weeks – he was constantly hungry and socially isolated. He soon spoke politically for the first time; Nachman Syrkin, a pioneer Socialist-Zionist, had come to lecture and in the discussion period the Zionists and Marxists were soon engaged in lively debate. The 17-year-old Vladimir Yevgenievieh startled the squabbling Russian student colony: he confessed himself unfamiliar with socialist ideas and was not prepared to declare himself on the question, but he knew for certain that he was a Zionist as:

the Jewish people is a very bad people; its neighbours hate it, and rightly so. Its end in exile is a general “St Bartholomew’s Night”, and its only salvation lies in a general immigration to the Land of Israel. [2]

His words infuriated the Marxists, who were determined to defeat the Tsarists and other anti-Semites. But Jabotinsky was simply repeating what he had heard in his youth.

The “Odessa Committee”, the Society for the Support of Jewish Agriculturalists and Artisans in Palestine and Syria, had been authorized by the Winter Palace in 1890, and even before the First World Zionist Congress in 1897 had over 4,000 members. It was to be years before Jabotinsky joined the movement. Palestine was still only a romantic image. He had a poem, Gorod Mica (City of Peace), published in 1898 in Voskhod (Sunrise), a St Petersburg Jewish magazine. His old Bedouin sheikh told how of old, God had promised that, after centuries of exile without honour, the Jews would return to Zion.

 

Italy

Jabotinsky did not stay very long in Switzerland: he never was a routine student, law had no appeal and he disliked German. By the autumn of 1898 his paper let him move on to Rome. It was an unusual place for a Russian student to go, as they were notorious for being gregarious and garrulous, always clustering together. There was no colony in Italy but, unlike so many others, Jabotinsky was not then political, and felt little compulsion to convert the company. He also enjoyed learning new languages; he had already studied Latin and he started to learn Italian six months before he left for Rome.

The city was cheap and, if one knew the language, cheaper still – one did not have to pay “alla Inglese”. It is no exaggeration to say that he fell in love with Italy: within six months he was Vladimiro Giabotinsky, fluent in the language on all levels. He immersed himself in Dante but did not neglect the popular dialects he encountered and, even years later, he could precisely reproduce 12 of them. No Italian, he said, ever thought he was from his own home province, but they were always astounded to discover that he was not Italian.

Giabotinsky found the University of Rome stimulating: he attended the lectures of Antonio Labriola, Italy’s first Marxist academician, and was soon converted to socialism, although he never joined any organization. Nor was his freshly minted socialism incompatible with his Zionism – neither was a practical consideration for him. He believed in them only in the sense that he had his opinions on literature. He was still very much the literary gent and he felt no urge to involve himself in Italian affairs. His scant organizational contact with the local labour movement consisted of writing a few articles for the socialist daily Avanti, defending Russian students from an attack in a rightist sheet which had called them hooligans and troublemakers.

For millenia Jews have known, as if by instinct, never to walk under the Arcus Titi, with its triumphal has-relief of captive Judeans carrying as spoils the seven-branched sacred candelabrum or menorah, taken from the destroyed Temple of Jerusalem in AD 70. Vladimir looked alit, of course, but it made little impression on him – like the old ghetto quarter on the Tiber, it was from the dead past. Except for a handful of die-bards who identified Jewish emancipation with the overthrow of the temporal power of the Papacy, there was no anti-Semitism in Italy. On the contrary, Italians were proud that it had been the people of Rome, led in 1848 by the legendary republican Angelo Brunetti Ciceruacchio who had torn down the ancient ghetto walls. There was no discrimination, social or legal, against the 40,000 Jews of Italy. One, Luigi Luzzali, rose to be prime minister only a few years later, in 1910. The Jewish question was not central to Jabotinsky’s existence when he left Russia and it virtually disappeared from his consciousness in Italy. He wrote later that he did not recall hearing the word “ebreo” once in his three-year stay in his new “spiritual fatherland”. To the last days of his life he was a student of the Risorgimento. Italian nationalism, and particularly the great Garibaldi, became – as he understood them – the image which guided him in his later Zionist life’s work.

 

Return to Odessa

Jabotinsky was never poor in his youth. Khava’s people were substantial business folk and his journalism – mostly light feuilletons – permitted him to visit Khava each year until his Italianate period finally ended with a voyage via Venice and Constantinople, in the summer of 1901, to register for the draft. He returned with a favourite pen name, “Altalena”. He had thought it meant elevator, but it meant swing. When he realized his mistake he rather liked the image – he really knew himself well enough to see that he was not yet “stable or constant”. He was still tacking and weaving. Jabotinsky soon became totally devoted to his intense version of Zionism, but “Altalena”, “swing”, became his lifetime tribute to his carefree student days.

The government decided it could dispense with his services and he settled down in Odessa. He visited Italy later, several times, on Zionist concerns, and he watched from afar as Mussolini eventually look over, but he never understood, or really even wanted to understand, why the more or less liberal order there collapsed.

 

A Psychoanalytic Interpretation

The psychoanalytic interpretation of a politician, particularly from the meagre literature about his childhood, is tricky at best. But there was nothing ambiguous about Jabotinsky’s oral fixation. Khava surrounded her family with prayers, and his childhood story is an endless litany of “he learned this language, read this book, wrote that poem”. We are further told that he hated mathematics and was always undisciplined as a student: the infallible signs of oral fixation. Such types become preoccupied with those aspects of culture which their unconscious identifies with the mouth. Orally fixated individuals tend tube poor at mathematics and lack a strong sense of order. His brief vegetarianism was, again, an obvious symptom of orality. He had other stigmata of the fixation: he collected curses from many languages and loved swearing contests; he became hopelessly addicted to detective stories and westerns. Later, in his thirties, political requirements – he was to become Zionism’s foremost exponent of militarism – converted him into an absurd martinet, even in civilian life clicking his heels and bowing from the waist upon introduction. [3] Such exaggerated personal mannerisms, so latterly acquired, frequently occur in intellectuals when finally, ideologically – i.e. verbally – they grasp the need for severe discipline.

Whether Jabotinsky could have been anything but a Zionist, given his family and class background, is a moot question, but it can be said categorically that for him to have been anything other than a writer and linguist was simply an impossibility. The word was central to his character, not only in his childhood, but throughout his entire life. Jabotinsky at 60 was still the Vladimir of six.

Jabotinsky, years later, answered a follower’s detailed questionnaire on his private life, particularly his youthful memories. He did not recall his father with clarity, the older Jabotinsky was often out of the house on grain purchasing trips when Vladimir was a child at home, and his illness naturally distracted his attention from his young son. But obviously the death of a father when a boy is six years old is bound to have an effect psychologically. A boy will – unconsciously – wish for the death of the father so that he can “take care of mummy”. In his teens Vladimir rejected the Jewish religion, never praying or following the ritual commandments of the faith with the one great exception that, to please his mother, he always recited the kaddish, the prayer for the dead, on the anniversary of his father’s death. Perhaps his punctiliousness in this regard was a hypostatis, via reaction-formation, of his infantile Oedipal death-wish towards his father.

In general, Vladimir was markedly devoted to Khava as well, always writing, visiting her frequently, often from great distances, even celebrating her birthday in her absence. Biographer Joseph Schechtman stresses that, after the death of her older son Milla, when Vladimir was two, she transferred her favouritism to him rather than to Tamar, his older sister. This is not at all strange in Orthodox Jewish homes where sons are religiously paramount. As with all Zionists, Eretz Yisrael was “the land of our forefathers”, but for this paragon of devoted sons, his Zionism could only be personally fulfilled when he brought his mother to Palestine after World War I, while he still remained abroad, working for the movement. The ultra-right everywhere proclaims filial piety to be a cardinal virtue and on that score Jabotinsky was a caricature of the authoritarian profile.

 

Notes

1. Joseph Sehechtman, Rebel and Statesman, p.47.

2. Joseph Nedava, Jabotinsky and the Bund, Soviet Jewish Affairs, vol.III, no.1,(1973), p.40.

3. Pierre Van Paassen, Vladimir Jabotinsky: A Reminiscence, Midstream, Winter 1958, p.55.

Source : http://www.marxists.de/middleast/ironwall/index.htm