Oren ‘accedes a key tenet of anti-Zionism’ (per Frum)

US Politics
on 113 Comments

Michael Oren writes in his TNR piece, "Deep Denial [of the Holocaust]":

Many factors contributed to the Holocaust–European anti-Semitism, mass murder technologies, and Allied indifference–but none more elemental than the Jews’ inability to defend themselves. Israel and its citizen Defense Forces represent the most palpable means for redressing that incapacity.
Accordingly, denying the Holocaust not only deprives Israel of its raison d’être, but, more nefariously still, it invalidates the Jews’ need to defend themselves.

Asks a friend: Wasn’t President Obama lambasted right after his Cairo speech for
saying something quite similar to the second paragraph above?  But when Oren says it, it’s somehow different?  Am I missing something? David Frum said it: the Holocaust has nothing to do with the foundation of Israel.

In rebuking Holocaust denial, Mr Obama himself denied something: the millennial Jewish connection to the land of Israel. Yes, the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history of persecution. But a homeland that was merely a place of refuge could have been located anywhere…[unpersuasive religious statements follow]… :This resettlement was legally recognised in the treaties and commitments that followed the first world war, not the second.  By emphasising the Holocaust as the proximate justification for Israel’s creation, Mr Obama perhaps inadvertently acceded to a key tenet of anti-Zionism. Here for example is the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad…

And where’s the ADL regarding this statement from Oren (also in TNR)?

"The Goldstone Report goes further than Ahmadinejad and the Holocaust deniers by stripping the Jews not only of the ability and the need but of the right to defend themselves. If a country can be pummeled by thousands of rockets and still not be justified in protecting its inhabitants, then at issue is not the methods by which that country survives but whether it can survive at all. But more insidiously, the report does not only hamstring Israel; it portrays the Jews as the deliberate murderers of innocents–as Nazis. And a Nazi state not only lacks the need and right to defend itself; it must rather be destroyed.

The ADL criticized Sen. Durbin — and many others — for mentioning the Holocaust and the Nazis to score political points.  Abe Foxman stated,

All politicians, regardless of party affiliation or political persuasion, must realize that there is a point when inapt comparisons to the Holocaust become odious, especially when used to make a political point or advance a certain agenda.  While there is no taboo against invoking the lessons and memory of the Holocaust, inappropriate comparisons to the Nazis only serve to trivialize genocide and insult the memory of the six million.

But when Michael Oren tries to score cheap political points he’s actually invoking "the lessons and memory of the Holocaust" because the ADL happens to agree?  Or is it just that they like Oren and can’t bring themselves to call him out because they think it would undercut their own arguments against Goldstone’s report?  Sure seems like a double standard to me.

113 Responses

  1. Richard Witty
    October 11, 2009, 3:10 pm

    Why are you posting out of context now as well Phil?

    • Chaos4700
      October 11, 2009, 3:16 pm

      You know, if you’re having reading comprehension issues, Witty, it might help for your image to the rest of the community if you didn’t hang a lampshade on them. Just a recommendation.

    • Don
      October 11, 2009, 7:15 pm

      How does “context” impact on logic, or the lack thereof?

      The issue (or problem) as stated is simple enough…

      A (Barack Obama) asserts…
      B (Israel’s raison d’être is the Holocaust) and he is accused of…
      C (historical ignorance) and…
      D (being an anti-Zionist, or” enemy of the Jews”…((inadvertently acceded to a key tenet of anti-Zionism)).

      But when…
      A1 ( Michael Oren) asserts …
      B (Israel’s raison d’être is the Holocaust), he is NOT accused of…
      C and D.

      The only difference I can perceive is that Michael Oren is Jewish, and Barack Obama is not Jewish.

      What other context are you referring to?

      If anything, Anonymous seriously understates the case. He fails to mention that just a few weeks ago, the Prime Minister of Israel addressed the UN, and unless I am mistaken, made quite a point of “waving historical Holocaust documents” as he spoke, emphasizing, at least indirectly, point B (Israel’s raison d’être is the Holocaust).

      And Israel supporters wonder why Israel is losing in the “court” of world opinion? This sort of reasoning would earn a failing grade in a 7th grade introductory algebra class.

      It is possible to make some very valid arguments in “Israel’s favor”.

      Dan Fleshler does this routinely at Realistic Dove.

      But twisted logic, or inherently contradictory logic, undermines, so to speak, Israel’s case. And it seems to be routine; I could easily provide many other examples.

    • Don
      October 11, 2009, 7:28 pm

      And another point, Richard. You ask why people post “Anonymously”.

      My previous post is the answer. It is the very real possibility of being publicly, and falsely, accused of antisemitism. When I made this point at Realistic Dove, you accused me of being a “whiner”. Truly impressive response. (I am now not only a whiner, I am a whiner who suffers from “moral poverty”. (via your delightful characterization of me two days ago).

      You apparently do not understand the very serious implications of this “false accusation” (and I am not suggesting that the world is suffering any acute shortage of genuine anti semites).

      But to falsely accuse, on a routine basis, is to “trivialize”. I would recommend you read The Magna Zionist’s remarks on the topic.

      • Mooser
        October 13, 2009, 1:24 am

        Don, compared to Phil Weiss, you’re doing pretty good, if your self image has to depend of Witty’s estimation. When Phil posted from Gaza, Witty had no trouble determining, and saying, that Phil had been brainwashed or bought by the Gazans!
        There is simply no peak of ludicrous self-righteous omniscience which a ziocaine-powered mind cannot scale!

  2. Richard Witty
    October 11, 2009, 3:15 pm

    What do you think Oren IS saying?

    Why do you think that is flawed?

    What alternative perspective would you recommend?

    • potsherd
      October 11, 2009, 7:59 pm

      I don’t believe you have the moral authority here, Witty, to play Socrates.

      • Richard Witty
        October 13, 2009, 4:32 am

        I’m not playing Socrates.

        I think in terms of questions. Not in terms of predetermined answers.

        To questions, you risk getting to a conclusion that differs from what you intuited (prejudiced).

        If you want to get to truth, questions are the right approach, not propaganda.

  3. Richard Witty
    October 11, 2009, 3:17 pm

    Are you the same “anonymous” as posted earlier?

    Are you the same “anonymous” that replies as “anonymous”?

    Or, are you some other anonymous?

    • Chaos4700
      October 11, 2009, 3:21 pm

      …And now personal attacks. Wow, you’re in a mood today, Witty.

      • yonira
        October 11, 2009, 4:10 pm

        How is that personal attack? He merely asked a question. And you have the nerve to first question his ability to comprehend something, personally attacking him, then you blame call his questions about Anonymous’ identity a personal attack.

        Give it up man……

      • Chaos4700
        October 11, 2009, 4:22 pm

        Yeah, this isn’t the first time Witty has gone after people who choose to be anonymous. He likes to accuse them of cowardice.

        But of course, like Witty, you’re going after people and not the actual content or word. Rather typical — I suppose it’s a sign of the continued weakness of your position and arguments.

    • Nolan
      October 11, 2009, 9:56 pm

      Yitkhak Shamir was a member of Lekhi who supported Nazi Germany at first and even lobbied against the immigration of Jews to Palestine.

    • Taxi
      October 12, 2009, 9:12 am

      Anonymous, or Anon, as affectionately known,

      Happens to be the most famous poet in the western hemisphere


      • Mooser
        October 13, 2009, 1:26 am

        And he wasn’t bad at proverbs, neither. Got a whole section is Bartletts devoted to him. Almost as much as that Shakespeare guy.

  4. VR
    October 11, 2009, 3:24 pm

    It is like putting on and taking off a pair of shoes, or matching them with clothing. Sometimes the shoes go well with the clothing and sometimes they do not, all depends on the context of who is saying it for what purpose. In other words, it is OK when we use it as an example of the need for self-defense or because the “Jewish people” need a home of their own, but not when the “outsiders” use it. It is totally spurious reasoning for convenience, similar to how a chameleon changes its color and all for a defense of the indefensible massacres brought against the Palestinians (or any other neighbor in the region).

  5. William Burns
    October 11, 2009, 3:46 pm

    Twenty million Soviet citizens died in the war, and it wasn’t because the USSR lacked the ability to defend itself. Oh, and by the way, speaking of people who lack the ability to defend themselves, how are the Palestinians doing?

  6. MRW
    October 11, 2009, 3:50 pm

    The Goldstone Report goes further than Ahmadinejad and the Holocaust deniers by stripping the Jews not only of the ability and the need but of the right to defend themselves.

    What a profoundly Lizard Brain comment. An incredible limbic excess that defies the logic employed by people with real thinking power at their service. This hyperbole is what an insular closed society, an inbred society, could only come up with a straight face. Absolute hogwash. Oren is a hyperventilating idiot.

  7. MRW
    October 11, 2009, 3:55 pm

    If this is true, then why did Jews work so hard to make Holocaust denial a crime in Europe post-WWII? Doesn’t make sense.

    Many factors contributed to the Holocaust–European anti-Semitism, mass murder technologies, and Allied indifference–but none more elemental than the Jews’ inability to defend themselves.

  8. US_Objector
    October 11, 2009, 3:56 pm

    Reading the article, I was struck by the fact that Oren stated that Hamas sent 7,000 rockets to Sredot, but failed to mention the 1,400 Palestinian lives lost, as chronicled in the Goldstone Report. A hundred eyes for an eye. Our best friend in the region.

    • Eva Smagacz
      October 12, 2009, 6:30 am

      Between 2007 and Gaza Massacre start at the end of 2009, Gaza send 2700 home made quassam rockets to Israel, while at the same time Israel send 14600 state of the art military artillery shells to Gaza (according to their own sources).

      • yonira
        October 12, 2009, 7:08 am

        I guess why not just stop sending rockets, unless 14,600 shells are exactly what you are want to get sympathy. Meshaal thanks Allah for ever Israeli shell that is sent into Gaza, its easy for him to do from Damascus.

      • Chaos4700
        October 13, 2009, 1:32 am

        Stop sending rockets? You mean like how Hamas did stop sending rockets, during the cease fire? And Israel responded by not merely enforcing the total blockade, but going into Gaza multiple times and killing more of its citizens?

  9. potsherd
    October 11, 2009, 4:11 pm

    Oren is simply reiterating the standard Israeli double standard.

    Israel has forfeited the right to defend itself by repeated abuse and violation. It ought to be disarmed.

    • olive
      October 11, 2009, 9:59 pm

      It ought to be dismantled entirely. Ethnic cleansing should never be rewarded with international recognition.

      • potsherd
        October 11, 2009, 10:12 pm

        It should not have been recognized. The recognition was conditional, and Israel refused to fulfill the conditions.

      • Mooser
        October 13, 2009, 1:31 am

        The recognition was conditional, and Israel refused to fulfill the conditions.

        So true, and now that you mention it, that provides a perfectly reasonable and quite ethical pretext for American Jews (those of good will, anyway) to divorce themselves from supporting it as much as possible. Why, it’s almost a mitzvah, I would say!

  10. Citizen
    October 11, 2009, 4:32 pm

    The question is simple. Does “never again” apply to all human groups, or only to the Jews? If the latter, Witty’s is a fitting morality and ethic. If not, Witty is a hypocrite.
    Furthermore, he’s worse than than a hypocrite if one realizes that the Palestinians as a group
    were totally innocent of any enmeshment in European politics and history, including especially the
    rational the Nazis gave for their own posture dating back to the outcome for Germany of WW1.

  11. radii
    October 11, 2009, 5:56 pm

    Yeah, israel was defending itself when it drove an IDF tank over the frail little body of Rachel Corrie (wearing and orange reflective vest, standing on an embankment, and shouting through a megaphone) on its way to demolish Palestinian homes.

    Foxman’s exceptionalism says it all “While there is no taboo against invoking the lessons and memory of the Holocaust, inappropriate comparisons to the Nazis only serve to trivialize genocide and insult the memory of the six million”

    Most historians put the number at 12 million human lives … but it is only “the” six million Foxman and zionists care about

  12. Rehmat
    October 11, 2009, 6:49 pm

    Holocaust is a ‘Cash Cow’ for the Zionist entity. Its rulers and its supporters are not much concerned about the plight or death of European Jewish majority – because Zionist Jews were part of the problem – from actively involved in the genocide (Irgun and 130,000 German Jews) to lobbying western governments (Britain, the US and Canada) to deny immigration to the Jews who wanted to escape the Nazi persecution. The reason being that the Jews become a pawn in the Zionist game to populate Palestine at the expense of native Muslim, Christians and Jews..

    Zionist Myths No More
    link to rehmat1.wordpress.com

  13. yonira
    October 11, 2009, 9:29 pm

    Rehmat I read the article on the Mahsud being a Mossad collaborator and that Western governments were trying to break up Pakistan.

    That is twisted, and above you are claiming that Irgun killed 130k Jews and lobbied to deny immigration to Jews to escape the Nazis?

    I’d really like to see one shred of evidence for your claims. I understand you are trying to get much needed traffic to your blog, but those are some really outrageous claims.

    • Chaos4700
      October 11, 2009, 9:34 pm

      Pot. Kettle. Black.

      Hey, some of what Rehmat posts is out there and I’m reticent to believe all of it, but the fact is Irgun did kill no small number of Jews themselves. You can try to cast doubt on that if you like but you’re not going to be able to disguise Jew-on-Jew — or perhaps more accurately, Zionist-on-Jew — violence with a mere ad hominem.

      • wondering jew
        October 12, 2009, 6:47 am

        How many Jews did the Irgun kill? I guess one would have to include the Jews killed in the bombing of the King David Hotel. But how many fits your definition of no small number. I am reticent to log onto Rehmat’s web site (my tolerance for nausea is not strong enough today) to confirm that he claims that the Irgun killed 130,000 Jews, but I would doubt whether the number tops 100, but I may be wrong. I do know that Begin refused to begin a civil war after Ben Gurion’s forces shelled the Altalena. But how would you define “no small number”?

      • Chaos4700
        October 13, 2009, 1:34 am

        That’s not actually what Rehmat’s article says. You and Yonira — as is typical for Zionists — are deliberately misdirecting and fabricating. And of course you are doing it in the most vicious and uncivil way possible. No wonder more and more Jews are embarrassed by Zionists. You guys are the rudest people on the face of the planet.

      • Richard Witty
        October 13, 2009, 9:38 am

        So, what did the article say?

        Why end at condemnation, rather than information?

  14. syvanen
    October 11, 2009, 9:50 pm

    This first paragraph in Oren’s piece should cause some very real concern, especially for Europeans. Many factors contributed to the Holocaust–European anti-Semitism … then goes on to say Accordingly, denying the Holocaust not only deprives Israel of its raison d’être, but, more nefariously still, it invalidates the Jews’ need to defend themselves.

    He talks about the need for a powerful IDF to defend Jews against against antisemitism. The danger here is extreme. First Israel’s concept of defense. It is clear that they see defence as aggressive war against any perceived enemies. 1967 or course, but also the invasion of Lebanon in 1982 (the Sabra and Chatilla massacres for example), the 2006 invasion against Lebanon again, and the Gaza attack last winter. They obviously are operating in the preemptive mode.

    Now we come to today. Criticism of Israeli policies is equated with antisemitism, at least inside Israel. Therefore European critism of Israeli policies must by definition mean European antisemitism. Then it logically follows that Israel has the right to “defend” itself against this threat.

    So that leads to the next step in this chain of reasoning (given that the earlier steps are now accepted by both the Zionists themselves and their American backers). Well Israel is a powerful military power, but there is no way that they could challenge Europe with their army and airforce using conventional explosive weapons. However we IDF does have the military might to cause some serious military hurt to any antisemitic (read critism of Israel) resurgence within Europe since they are armed with 200 or more nuclear weapons. Not only that but the Israelis have been arming themselves with submarines that can deliver those weapons. (this could turn out to be one one histories great ironies, those submarines are being supplied by Germany — imagine that, the first European country to receive that attack could be Germany itself).

    This may sound far fetched, but given the craziness emanating from Israel these days rational people should give it some thought.

    • olive
      October 11, 2009, 10:04 pm

      Israel will never go to war with its Western Sugar daddies. I don’t think we should lose sight of the fact that Israel is ultimately a tool of the West, not the other way around. Here’s why:

      “There are people (Muslims) who control spacious territories teeming with manifest and hidden resources. They dominate the intersections of world routes. Their lands were the cradles of human civilizations and religions. These people have one faith, one language, one history and the same aspirations. No natural barriers can isolate these people from one another … if, per chance, this nation were to be unified into one state, it would then take the fate of the world into its hands and would separate Europe from the rest of the world. Taking these considerations seriously, a foreign body should be planted in the heart of this nation to prevent the convergence of its wings in such a way that it could exhaust its powers in never-ending wars. It could also serve as a springboard for the West to gain its coveted objects.”

      – British Prime Minister Henry Bannerman, Campbell-Bannerman Report, 1907

      • syvanen
        October 11, 2009, 10:13 pm

        Olive hope you are right about this. But this implies some kind of rational thought percolating inside Zionist minds. Might be true but consider the possibility that the Mossada mentality has taken root. I really have no idea, but I do sit back and worry about the alternatives.

      • olive
        October 11, 2009, 11:15 pm

        Yeah, I can see why some people would worry about the “Samson option”. However, if the Israelis were given the option to live peacefully and with dignity under Muslim rule like what happened for the past 1400 years, i think they would reconsider pressing the nuclear button. And if they do consider using nukes, they should be reminded that the Muslims have those weapons as well and there are 1.7 Billion Muslims who can absorb any crazy Israeli “Massada’ effort but only around 7 million Israelis who will exist only in the history books if they try anything so foolish.

        Btw, here is an eloquent British speaker talking about the I/P conflict, its origins, and the Islamic solution to the conflict. An interesting watch.

        link to youtube.com

      • Colin Murray
        October 12, 2009, 4:08 pm

        Olive, you are drawing very broad conclusions from misanalysis of a single piece of data.The Campbell-Bannerman report isn’t a serious piece of scholarship, nor do I think it was meant to be by those who paid for it. It is not so different than the ‘tailored’ intelligence that got us into the Iraq War. Like any more aged document, its utility in painting a broader canvas of understanding of historical events is predicated upon its evaluation within the context of the ignorance, prejudices, and motivations of both its authors and their intended audience.

        These people have one faith …
        Muslims can be Sunni or Shiite.

        … one language, …
        Although Arabic is widely spoken there are regional variations which were probably more pronounced in Bannerman’s day before the homogenizing advent of audio mass media. The writer neglects to mention the MANY other languages spoken my Muslim people, including Turkish, Dari, Malay, Persian, Pashto, Kurdish, Baluchi, Hausi, and Somali.

        … one history…
        I don’t think I need to beat on this piece of cretinous stupidity.

        … and the same aspirations.
        This is a rather vague assertion. I’ve no doubt that Muslims share with each other many of the same aspirations, and that they share them with just about everyone else on the planet. Most people want physical security for themselves and their families, access to education, clean food and water, reliable sanitation, garbage pickup, etc. Religious and spiritual desires, including structures in social relations, are more varied, but I see nothing to indicate that variation is less pronounced among Muslims than among Christians, Jews, or anyone else. Muslims do not have a monopoly on extremism. We American Christians have our share of wackos, and the Israelis have their ‘separate but unequal’ Haredim.

        … if, per chance, this nation were to be unified into one state, it would then take the fate of the world into its hands and would separate Europe from the rest of the world.
        translation: “The greatest threat to European imperial hegemony, however unlikely, is Arab political unification. We’ve got a great racket going, and they are the only ones who might upturn the table.”

        It turned out that the First World War was what rotted out the legs of the table, weakening colonial powers enough for subject peoples to eventually win independence (of a sort). C-B was with an excess of hubris looking in the wrong direction. European empires cut their own throats. The Arabs never unified, and ‘the Muslims’ certainly didn’t.

        Taking these considerations seriously, a foreign body should be planted in the heart of this nation to prevent the convergence of its wings in such a way that it could exhaust its powers in never-ending wars. It could also serve as a springboard for the West to gain its coveted objects.
        However geopolitically valid it may have been 100 years ago, it is certainly nonsense now. C-G’s task was to find the best way to rob subject peoples. Today they are no longer prostrate, and the task of his contemporary counterparts is too entice them to sell us their resources at the best price we can get. How has Israel done that? The Arab Oil Embargo of 1973? Also, given the high level of British antisemitism at the time, we can almost certainly add this postscript to C-B’s spiel: “Plus, if we support Zionism we can convince our Jews to leave Great Britain.”


        Israel will never go to war with its Western Sugar daddies.

        The term ‘Western sugar daddies’ is an invalid abstraction of the relations that Israel has with the United States and Europe. First, the phrase incorrectly implies that the West has some coherent policy towards Israel. Second, sugar daddies traditionally get some lovin’ for their gifts and money. The benefits of Israeli relations with the West are in the aggregate almost entirely one-sided. The West needs (not merely wants) Arab oil, and while we may want Israeli goods and services, we need nothing that Israel has to offer. The Israeli Lobby in America buys support for Israel, and European positions are influenced in large measure by both American pressure and guilt for the Holocaust. One-sided American support for Israel complicates relations with the states upon whose trade the survival of our way of life depends.

        How could it possibly be in Israel’s interest to go to war against Western powers? Israel will almost certainly never go to war with the West, not because the West are sugar daddies getting what they want, but because it would be squashed like a bug and gain nothing. There is no point in starting a war that you know you won’t win, unless you are inclined to Van Crevaldian armageddon fantasies.

        Israeli survival depends upon non-hostile relations with the West, especially Europe. Softare sales alone cannot sustain a nation. Israeli seaborne trade with partners outward of the Mediterranean periphery must pass through either the Straights of Gibraltar or the Suez canal. (I classify Black Sea as periphery.) Relations with Europe are even more important for Israel in the long term than with the United States. Relations with us, irrespective of desire, are ‘good’ right now simply because they can be, due to the success of the Lobby, not because they need to be. Israel will never go to war against the West because the West can do without Israel, but Israel cannot do without the West.

        I don’t think we should lose sight of the fact that Israel is ultimately a tool of the West, not the other way around.
        Israel could, in the context of the C-B report, be described as a tool of the West if it served the purpose of preventing an Arab mega-state from toppling European empire. However, Israel exists and there is no Arab mega-state, but there is no European empire in need of protection. Moreover, Israel makes no substantive contributions toward Western political or economic objectives. How does this make Israel a tool of the West, not in Campbell-Bannerman’s misplaced imperial caution from more than a century ago, but in the reality of 2009?

      • olive
        October 12, 2009, 4:50 pm

        Colin, perhaps I should have been more clear. This quote from the Campbell-Bannerman was merely posted to show that the West already had plans to insert some kind of European colonial outpost in the Muslim world decades before the Zionists started using anarchonistic arguments about the Holocaust to justify their actions. I also posted it to show that even if the Israel Lobby was dissolved today, that America would still support Israel on the fundemental issues. Even Ron Paul, Walt, and Mearsheimer, who are certainly no slaves of the lobby, support Israel’s existence and military strength. The fact that this report may or may not be a serious piece of scholarship does not detract from the fact of the clear motivations of Western policy makers at the time to inject some kind of neo-crusader state in the Holy Land.

        Ypu said some pretty interesting things but i would like to adress a few of your points, God willing.

        You: Muslims can be Sunni or Shiite.

        Me: Indeed. But they are still Muslims whose geopolitical interests are the same , even if they may differ on certain points of Law and Belief. Besides, the Sunni/Shiite split is not the same as the Catholic/Protestant split. Sunnis make up 80-90% of the worlds Muslims, while the catholic/protestant split is more of an even divide.

        You: “Although Arabic is widely spoken there are regional variations which were probably more pronounced in Bannerman’s day before the homogenizing advent of audio mass media. The writer neglects to mention the MANY other languages spoken my Muslim people, including Turkish, Dari, Malay, Persian, Pashto, Kurdish, Baluchi, Hausi, and Somali.”

        Me: True, although we must not forget that Arabic still remains the undisputed language of Islamic scholarship and the classical textbooks of Islamic
        jurisprudence hold that knowledge of Arabic is communally obligatory. But, I agree with you that the C-B report is exagerating a lot in this regard.

        You: “The Arabs never unified, and ‘the Muslims’ certainly didn’t.”

        Me: The Muslims, and by extension, the Arabs , were part of a multi-ethnic Caliphate that was only dissolved by the British in 1924.

        You: “Israel could, in the context of the C-B report, be described as a tool of the West if it served the purpose of preventing an Arab mega-state from toppling European empire. However, Israel exists and there is no Arab mega-state, but there is no European empire in need of protection. Moreover, Israel makes no substantive contributions toward Western political or economic objectives. How does this make Israel a tool of the West, not in Campbell-Bannerman’s misplaced imperial caution from more than a century ago, but in the reality of 2009? ”

        Me: As I said, at the time that the report was written, the Ottoman Caliphate was still in existence even if considerably weakened. It seems that this report foresaw the downfall of the Ottomans and was proposing for ways to make sure that the Caliphate would not rise again. One way to do this was to plant a military base/colony in its heart. Although Israel does not export the West anything useful in 2009, American nationalists like Mearsheimer, Walt, and Paul still see Israel as ultimately a useful (if not irritating and rabid) attack dog to make sure that the Muslims in the region are too busy shivering in fear to unify and control ther own political and ecoomic destinies.

    • wondering jew
      October 12, 2009, 6:54 am

      Sylvan- your opposition to pre emptive wars is understandable, but the examples you cite are historically inept or inapt.

      The 1967 war began because of Nasser’s actions. The 1956 war ended with the Great Powers demanding that Israel withdraw from the Sinai and Israel did so. Israel received guarantees that a UN force would remain in the Sinai between Israel and Egypt on Egyptian soil and that free passage would be allowed through the straits of Tiran. Nasser voided both of these. The great powers were not able to back up their guarantee. Weeks were provided for the great powers to get Nasser to back down. He did not. It was not a pre emptive war. It was a war in reaction to belligerent acts.

      The 2006 war against Lebanon began when Hezbollah attacked Israeli forces which were located in Israeli territory after Israel had withdrawn from Lebanon and the withdrawal had been confirmed by the United Nations. This was not a pre emptive war. This was a war that a militia located on Lebanese soil began.

      If you are opposed to pre emptive wars, you should limit yourself to truly pre emptive wars, not to wars that began with belligerent acts by the enemy and not to wars that were begun by militias on the enemy soil.

      • potsherd
        October 12, 2009, 9:10 am

        WJ – your account of the 1967 war is entirely one-sided and ignores the “belligerent acts” committed by Israel as provocation, particularly against Syria. There were constant provocations and “belligerent acts” on both sides. Egypt’s actions were provocative and involved preparation for war, but such preparations can be defensive as well as aggressive. The fact remains that it was Israel that cast the first blow, and that makes the war pre-emptive – putting the best possible face on it.

      • Citizen
        October 12, 2009, 9:12 am

        Here’s some background on what led up to Israel’s strike on Egypt in the 1967
        war. The details clearly back up WJ’s comment, but rather than indicate the Israel strike was not an act of preemptive war, it justifies why Israel did engage in a preemptive war. I have not double checked the article’s factual assertations:
        link to palestinefacts.org

      • Citizen
        October 12, 2009, 9:37 am

        After more research, I see that WJ left out a lot in his/her comment regarding the events that led up to what Israel itself called its “preemptive war.” A too short summary might include that
        the Six Day War had a very clear cause: Israel attacked Arab armies that stood in a defensive position. Israel attacked first. Never forget this. To be sure, Israel claimed Arab armies were going to attack and Israel launched a “preemptive war.” But “preemptive war” is a euphemism for war of aggression, and the opportunity Israel saw in launching the war was to take more land for Israel. The proximate causes of the Six Day War are many, among them Israel’s destruction of the collectively built Headwater Diversion Plan to supply water to Jordan and Syria was a key event (for obvious reasons, water is a key source of struggle in the region). Cross-border attacks into Jordanian-controlled West Bank by Israel and attacks on Jordanian military, even though Jordan was making good-faith efforts to stifle guerilla action against Israel, prompted UN Resolution 228 condemning Israel’s actions against Jordan. The on-going struggle with Syria regarding Zionist colonization into the so-called “disputed” territories. A Dutch officer-diplomat eye-witness at the applicable borders at the time has recently said Jordan and Syria never intended to attack Israel. And so forth. This is what caused Arab armies to mobilize for defensive action, which Israel used as a pretext for launching a war of aggression, allowing it to seize more territory. By the war’s end, Israel seized the Gaza Strip, the Sinai Peninsula, the West Bank (including East Jerusalem), and the Golan Heights. Israel continues to control most of this territory, and has annexed some of it to its state, which is illegal under international law.

      • potsherd
        October 12, 2009, 9:38 am

        Cit – that is an Israeli propaganda site, I would not trust it to be objective.

        The primary area of conflict leading up to the war was with Syria, where there was artillery fire and the shooting down of military aircraft for some time. It was Egypt’s alliance with Syria that caused it to prepare for war, so as not to lose its position of leadership in the Arab world.

        The main point is that there were “belligerent acts” going on constantly at the time, but Israel went hysterical in 1967 in a manner that very much resembles today’s irrational hysteria over Iran, and escalated a situation of low-level mutual provocation to overt war in an act of naked aggression masked as defense.

        This is why Israel can not be allowed the excuse of “defending itself” any more than you would allow a paranoid schizophrenic to carry a gun on the streets.

      • wondering jew
        October 12, 2009, 9:46 am

        Citizen- The area of the Sinai peninsula which was returned to Egypt as a result of the peace treaty of 1979 is larger than Gaza, the West Bank and the Golan Heights combined. So even though when enumerated Gaza and the West Bank and the Golan Heights equals three and Sinai only equals one, most of the territory taken in that war was returned.

      • wondering jew
        October 12, 2009, 9:54 am

        potsherd- terms like hysterical and paranoid schizophrenic should not be used unless you have a medical degree.

        There is much to suggest that Israeli actions taken towards Syria provoked an atmosphere of crisis leading up to the months before May of 67. But it is a matter of historical record that the Soviet ambassador announced that Israeli troops were massed for an attack on Syria and this was totally false. Soviet brinksmanship was key in provoking the war and into goading Nasser into action.

      • potsherd
        October 12, 2009, 10:07 am

        WJ – “hysterical” is no longer primarily a clinical term.

        Your point about the Soviets is very much worth noting. Such events in the 60s and 70s can’t really properly be understood without the context of the Cold War.

      • tree
        October 12, 2009, 1:22 pm

        The 1967 war began because of Nasser’s actions. The 1956 war ended with the Great Powers demanding that Israel withdraw from the Sinai and Israel did so. Israel received guarantees that a UN force would remain in the Sinai between Israel and Egypt on Egyptian soil and that free passage would be allowed through the straits of Tiran.

        Your own historical examples are incorrect and incomplete. The 1956 war ended with the US and the Soviet Union demanding that France, Britain and Israel, who had all colluded on an invasion of Egypt, withdraw from Egyptian territory. Britain and France did so right away, Israel was a harder nut to crack, so to speak, as it took several months to get them to leave. The US had to promise Israel that it would consider a closing of the Straits of Tiran to peaceful shipping an appropriate casus belli for Israel. The UN made no such statement, and in fact reiterated that the Straits were still considered Egyptian territory (they are less than 12 miles wide and Egypt thus considered them at the time to be part of her territorial waters at the time) until such time as international water rights were negotiated. This was in line with UN principles that territorial rights can not be acquired by war. This position did not change between the two wars, although Egypt did allow Israeli ships to pass through the Straits during that time.

        As for the UN troops along the border on the Egyptian side, Israel had no say over there position there. They were there at the request and with the acquiescence of Egypt. Sovereign countries do NOT have the right to insist on UN troops on their neighbor’s soil. That is why there were no UN troops on the Israeli side, because Israel refused to allow them to be there, and Egypt had no right to demand that they be there. Nasser asked for the UN troops at Sharm-el-Sheik to be removed, as was his right as the sovereign leader of Egypt, and the UN decided to remove all troops, including those along the border with Israel. This was not the request of Egypt. Israel protested, but could have asked for the UN troops to be redeployed on the Israeli side, but it refused to do so.

        Egypt announced it was closing the Straits of Tiran to any ships carrying goods to the Israeli port of Eilat, after Israel threatened Syria, and violated Syrian airspace by shooting down two Syrian jets over the Syrian capital of Damascus. Nasser stated that it was his right to do so, and was willing to have that right adjudicated on an expedited basis at the World Court. Egyptian diplomats were in Washington negotiating with the US which was attempting to solve the issue by diplomacy when Israel attacked the Egyptian air force on the ground.

        One of early precursors to the war is little mentioned but I suggest that anyone who claims that Israel was merely engaged in a pre-emptive attack should look up the Samu incident.

        If this action (Samu) was taken against Israel instead of by Israel, or for that matter if this action had been taken by any other country against its neighbor, it would have been taken as a serious act of war. But because it was Israel that did this and not any other country, people in the US still believe the tripe that Israel’s attack on Egypt was merely a pre-emptive act of self-defense, and most know nothing of this major attack on Jordanian civilians, or the following attacks on Syria. Israel was hoping to provoke a war, and when it couldn’t do so, it started one by itself.

      • Citizen
        October 12, 2009, 1:36 pm

        I guess WJ is not going to respond to my last comment, and certainly not to Tree’s.

      • potsherd
        October 12, 2009, 1:44 pm

        Cit – WJ may not have seen your reply. This dysfunctional software makes it impossible to follow any extended discussion.

      • potsherd
        October 12, 2009, 1:53 pm

        Geographic/politically, the Gulf of Aqaba is unique in being such a narrow waterway with four different states able to claim part of it as territorial waters. As such, established law concerned international waterways did not at first apply.

        After the Brit/French/Israeli assault on Egypt, iirc, the UN did designate the Strait of Tiran as an international waterway, but Egypt, in whose territory it lies, did not sign this agreement and maintained its claim.

      • wondering jew
        October 12, 2009, 10:04 pm

        The current discussion of the issue of pre emptive attacks (current meaning in 2009 rather than on this blog) are concerned specifically with the war against Iraq launched in 2003 and the proposed attack against Iran because of its nuclear program. Each conflict has its unique aspects. Still those opposed to these wars wish to underline the need to avoid an escalation to an out and out shooting war no matter what the tensions were on the eve of the decision to attack.

        To attribute the tensions that led to the Six Day war only to the Egyptian actions and to omit Syrian Israeli tensions and Jordanian Israeli tensions was to offer an incomplete picture of the situation. To which I plead guilty.

        I have read here and elsewhere the claim that the diplomats were on the verge of solving the tensions between Egypt and Israel when Israel decided to attack. My impression was that the diplomatic missions were not very promising, but the nature of diplomatic missions is their secret nature and I do not know what they would have produced. Or in what time frame they would have produced something.

        Levi Eshkol, prime minister of Israel, was under various sorts of pressure at the time. He had spent three weeks allowing diplomacy to accomplish something and it had yielded nothing. He had asked America to assert Israel’s right of passage through the Straits of Tiran and LBJ responded that America was too busy fighting a war in Vietnam. The Israeli reserves had been called up and Moshe Dayan had been appointed Minister of Defense.

        A number of questions need to be answered: Would it have been possible to deactivate the reserves before a diplomatic solution was found? Was it necessary to call up the reserves in the first place? If the calling up of the reserves was a real necessity and if the reserves could not be deactivated without reaching a diplomatic solution, then clearly the pressure on Eshkol to go to war was certainly irresistible. You can label it a pre emptive war, but there comes a point when the level of tensions are such that there is no other choice.

        The wars against Iraq in 2003 and against Lebanon in 1982 and the proposed war against Iran currently are all instances of far less provocation and tension than the 1967 war.

        (The war against Lebanon in 2006 on the other hand was started by Lebanese nationals (Hezbollah) form Lebanese territory. That was not a pre emptive war by any definition.)

      • Chaos4700
        October 13, 2009, 1:37 am

        Really? Because depending on who you ask, the IDF soldiers were captured in Lebanese territory.

        And who exactly were the IDF bombing when they attacked whole neighborhoods in Beirut? Or the capital’s power plant? Spread cluster bombs across the southern countryside? Attacked the UN outpost? Have an answer for that, WJ?

  15. Brewer
    October 11, 2009, 10:47 pm

    As a New Zealander I find Oren’s comment about “Allied indifference” offensive in the extreme.
    Between 22 and 25 million allied servicemen were killed in WWII.
    My country contributed nearly 1 percent of its population – about one in five of its young men to the KIA toll in the conflict.
    Zionism contributed Yitzak Shamir and the Jewish National Military Organisation – with its offer of collaboration with Germany:
    link to en.wikipedia.org

    If such a disgusting slander were leveled at Oren’s people the cries of “anti-Semitism” and “hate speech” would be deafening.

    • syvanen
      October 11, 2009, 11:33 pm

      Brewer I have heard this term “allied indifference” for years without really thinking about it. But I agree with you, it really is offensive. My father and uncles fought in that war and I really have trouble understanding what they could have done otherwise. Also thinking about what the US could have done to stop the holocaust it seems quite clear given the military realities inside Europe between 1941 and 1945 there is little that we could have done to stop what was going on. This is just another Zionist guilt trip line to convince the rest of us to support Israel in whatever atrocity they may be carrying out today

      • Citizen
        October 12, 2009, 5:50 am

        FDR thought the best way to help the Jews was to win the war ASAP.

        Bombing the camps and tracks to them would have diverted scarce resources needed to
        stop the German war effort, and would have been used by Goebbels as propaganda
        against the Allies. Further, it would have demolished the criminal evidence. In short,
        the cost weighed too much more than the benefit (sending a message “the world knows what you are doing and you will be criminally charged accordingly”)
        link to haysvillelibrary.wordpress.com

      • wondering jew
        October 12, 2009, 7:06 am

        Allied indifference- There certainly was Allied indifference before the outbreak of the war when German Jews needed places of refuge.

        And certainly if one consideration of FDR’s regarding the reason he couldn’t announce how an extermination was taking place in Europe was so as not to give Goebel’s a propaganda coup in his desire to call the war a War for the Jews, this is not necessarily indifference, but it is a reason that an independent Jewish war machine is necessary when the Allied war machine which included FDR’s bully pulpit could not be used because of the anti Jewish sentiments on the home front in the US or elsewhere.

        I think dependable historians have concluded that bombing the train tracks at Auschwitz might not have been effective, but certainly announcements to the world that extermination was taking place could have made a difference for example to Hungarian Jews who were not shipped off until the summer of 44. And to warn the Nazis of the consequences of their actions. Or to threaten consequences as the war was taking place.

        Indifference might be too harsh a term, but certainly Jan Karski who brought the news to the world should be listened to. His assessment of the lack of action by the Allies was that because the Jews did not have a state of their own, the Allies treated them commensurate with their powerlessness.

      • Citizen
        October 12, 2009, 9:50 am

        Following an order by Hitler to round up the Jews of Hungary, Roosevelt issued his most detailed and scathing public condemnation of the Nazi policies:

        “‘In one of the blackest crimes of all history – begun by the Nazis in the day of peace and multiplied by them a hundred times in time of war – the wholesale systematic murder of the Jews of Europe goes on unabated every hour. As a result of the events of the last few days, hundreds of thousands of Jews, who while living under persecution have at least found a haven from death in Hungary and the Balkans, are now threatened with annihilation as Hitler’s forces descend more heavily upon these lands. That these innocent people, who have already survived a decade of Hitler’s fury, should perish on the very eve of triumph over the barbarism which their persecution symbolizes, would be a major tragedy.”

        Roosevelt had already publically declared that Hitler and his henchmen would be made to answer for their crimes. Now he promised that the reach of Allied justice would extend to those who collaborated with the Nazis. He further called on all Germans to help save the Jews or be seen as collaboraters.

      • Citizen
        October 12, 2009, 10:04 am

        Roosevelt kept his door open to the representatives of the Jewish cause. In the summer of 1943, Jan Karski, a member of the Polish underground who had personally observed the extermination program in action, carried his eyewitness account to Roosevelt. Just what Karski told the president is unclear. Karski relayed a message from the Jews of Poland that if the Allies didn’t do something to stop the killing, the Jewish community there would ‘cease to exist.’ But, according to his later recollection of the meeting, he kept to himself what he had seen with his own eyes. Whatever Karski’s words to Roosevelt, the president’s reply was succinct: ‘Tell your nation we shall win the war.’ Morgenthau thought this insufficient and told FDR so and on 1-16-44 gave FDR a new report detailing the massacres. FDR listened to Morgenthau’s summary and scanned the report. He waved aside Morgenthau’s assertion that anti-Semitism at the State Department accounted for the lack of interest there in the Jewish troubles, but he accepted Morgenthau’s suggestion that responsibility for refugee affairs be moved from State to a special board answerable to the president. The War Refugee Board was assigned to take ‘”all measures within its power to rescue the victims of enemy oppression who are in imminent danger of death and otherwise to afford such victims all possible relief and assistance consistent with the successful prosecution of the war.” And FDR next made the public speech I already gave in my earlier comment.

      • tree
        October 12, 2009, 3:20 pm

        Allied indifference- There certainly was Allied indifference before the outbreak of the war when German Jews needed places of refuge.

        Two-thirds of the German Jewish population (over 400,000 out of approximately 600,000) escaped Germany for other countries prior to the outbreak of WWII. That means that during the height of the worldwide depression, many countries opened their borders to refugees. This is not a sign of indifference.

        Some 50,000 or so went to Palestine, but they were required by the Jewish Agency to sign commitments to work the land in Palestine for 2 years in return for an immigration certificate.

        Speaking of indifference, this is from Tom Segev’s “The Seventh Million”:

        The Jewish Agency, of course, agreed with the need to create a Jewish majority in Palestine -but through selective immigration, not mass evauation. The labor Zionists who dominated the agency believed that a new society needed to be created, entirely different from the one that characterized Jewish existence in the Exile. They proposed returning the Jewish people to agricultural labor. Urban lie was, in their eyes, a symptom of social and moral degeneration; returning to the land would give birth to the “new man” they hoped to create in Palestine. In parceling out the immigration certificates, they therefore gave preference to those who could play a role in their program for building the country. They preferred healthy young Zionists, ideally with agricultural training, or at least a willingness to work on the land. They did not ignore the tribulations of the Jews of Europe, and from time to time they told one another that permits should also be given to peole in need who might not advance the Zionist enterprise, but when it came to atally choosing the immigrants, their chief consideration was how to best meet the needs of the new society.


        At one point it was decided that candidates above the age of thirty-five would receive immigration certificates “only if there is no reason to believe that they might become a burden here.” Accordingly, they had to have a profession. “Anyone who was a merhant,” the decision stated, “or of a similar employment, will not reieve a ertificate under any circumstances, except in the case of veteran Zionists.” This was in 1935. “In days of plenty it was possible to handle this material,” explained Yitzhak Gruenbaum. “In the days of shortages and unemployment, this material will cause us many problems… We must be allowed to choose from among the refgees those worthy of immigration and not accept them all.”

        German Jews who were given Immigration permits “merely as refugees” were also considered “undesirable human material” by Eliahu Dobkin, a Mapai member of the Jewish Agency exeutive. “I understand very well the special situation in which the overseas institutions dealing with the German refugees find themselves, but I would like to believe that you wold agree with me that we must approach this question not from a philanthropic point of view but from the point of view of the country’s needs,” Dobkin wrote to one of his colleagues. “My opinion is that from among the refugees we must bring only those who meet this condition.” Leaders of the German immigrants in Palestine agreed. ” As I see it, 90 percent of them are not indispensable here,” one of them wrote to another.

        Could the Allied countries have done more for the refugees? Certainly. Do the Zionist agencies and their political offspring, the state of Israel, have any moral leg to stand on in criticizing the Allies, given their own indifference to those European Jews who weren’t seen as a boon to their national project in Palestine, and also their own callous use of the refugees after WWII? No.

        See Yosef Grodzinsky’s “In the Shadow of the Holocaust: The Struggle between Jews and Zionists in the Aftermath of World War II” for a detailed look at how insensitive the Zionists were to the needs of the survivors of the Holocaust, unless of course those needs could be used to advance their bid for statehood.

      • potsherd
        October 12, 2009, 3:34 pm

        They proposed returning the Jewish people to agricultural labor. Urban life was, in their eyes, a symptom of social and moral degeneration; returning to the land would give birth to the “new man” they hoped to create in Palestine.

        And we see how well that has turned out. The kibbutzim have mostly been privatized and the land sold off, and the agricultural labor is primarily now done by 3rd-world immigrants, rarely Jews, who seem to consider themselves above that sort of thing. The “new man” is now epitomized by the brutal thugs in the IDF.

      • Mooser
        October 13, 2009, 1:41 am

        “There certainly was Allied indifference before the outbreak of the war when German Jews needed places of refuge”

        Considering the Zionists role in this, are you sure you want to bring this up. You are much better off letting it alone. Something about a “single cow in Palestine” is playing at the edges of my memory.

    • America First
      October 12, 2009, 7:21 am

      Indifference implies that the world has an obligation to the Jews.

      • wondering jew
        October 12, 2009, 7:58 am

        Indifference implies no obligation. Indifference implies feeling no obligation.

        As in I walked down the street and i saw a child get run over by a car and i felt indifferent.

        But the consequences of the allied indifference is that the Jews have to defend themselves. What is unclear about that?

      • America First
        October 12, 2009, 8:09 am

        What’s wrong is that Jews don’t defend themselves, they suck the gentile world into their sordid affairs with their constant whines of persecution.

      • Donald
        October 12, 2009, 8:44 am

        America First, what are you blathering about? Sordid affairs? You mean the attempted extermination of an entire group of people? To you the victims are sordid? Well, that tells us what your interest is in this blog.

      • Chaos4700
        October 12, 2009, 8:46 am

        Let’s be careful here, America First. The entirety of the Jewish people are not represented by the Zionists.

      • potsherd
        October 12, 2009, 9:13 am

        AF – your comments are not only offensive, they are dumb.

      • America First
        October 12, 2009, 10:54 am

        If Jews could get along with their neighbors they wouldn’t have these problems and nor would we.

      • Chaos4700
        October 12, 2009, 11:00 am

        America First? There are plenty of Jews living next to their neighbors in the US, in Europe and — hey! — even in Iran without any problems.

        If you’re not going to make a distinction between fanatics (e.g. Zionists) and normal, moderate people who make up the majority, then you are descending into bigotry. And (I don’t say this lightly) anti-Semitism.

      • America First
        October 12, 2009, 11:15 am

        Having an entire US government agency to run interference for them is not what I’d call “without any problems”:

        Office To Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism
        The Office of the Special Envoy To Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism (SEAS) advocates U.S. policy on anti-Semitism both in the U.S. and internationally. Anti-Semitism is discrimination against or hatred toward Jews. SEAS develops and implements policies and projects to support efforts to combat anti-Semitism.

        SEAS was established by the Global Anti-Semitism Review Act of 2004, and is a part of the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (DRL). DRL produces the State Department’s annual reports on Human Rights Practices and International Religious Freedom, and SEAS provides input on anti-Semitism for these reports.

        Led by the Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism, DRL/SEAS welcomes information on anti-Semitic incidents, including personal and property attacks; government policies, including judicial/prosecutorial decisions and educational programs on the issue; and press and mass media reports.

        link to state.gov

      • Chaos4700
        October 12, 2009, 11:18 am

        AF, I’m not necessarily arguing with the evidence you bring up. I’m telling you to take a closer look at who you are laying the blame on when you say “them.” I can see just how badly the US government has been hijacked by the Zionist special interest lobby — among others — and how much damage its doing to our country. But it’s wrong to blame “the Jews” as a whole for that. That’s like blaming “the Catholics” as a whole for the priest child abuse scandal coverups.

      • Mooser
        October 13, 2009, 1:50 am

        “If Jews could get along with their neighbors they wouldn’t have these problems and nor would we.”

        Oh come on, America Fust-cless, you can trust us! We’re all friends here. Who was she? I know it hurts and all when you bung a good man’s love at a girl’s dainty little size 4s and she drop-kicks it out of the stadium, but there are other fish in the sea. Or was it some kind of a business deal, a shyster lawyer, a crokked stockbroker, and you had to sell the condo? Anyway, you poor schlamazel, what did a Jew, or Jews, do to you? I can see what it’s done to ya’ and it’s not pretty, but you know, I think you could be helped. But you need to start telling the truth about it before anyone can help you. So tell us, what did the Jews do to you?

    • MRW
      October 12, 2009, 7:48 am

      I completely agree with you, Brewer. Canada was in the war two or three years before the US, and lost 10% of its male population by the end of the war. I think their memorial day is called Memorial Day. It is always sombre, I’m told. Old men still cry at the local memorials. They show up with their hats from the war, and talk in hushed tones. There’s no indifference, even now.

      The Zionists did more than offer to collaborate. They wrote and signed The Transfer Agreement with Hitler which gave him the money to wage war, while one of them made a separate deal with Germany to force the German Jews going to Palestine to liquidate all their holdings before they left, then have Germany deposit the funds in a German bank for the Zionist. The Zionist running this scam gave the emigrant 10% once he got to Palestine, and the Zionist pocketed the remaining 90%.

      • wondering jew
        October 12, 2009, 8:02 am

        mrw- The transfer agreement gave Hitler “the money to wage war.”

        How much money did Hitler make off of the transfer agreement?

        And can you find one historian who feels that the transfer agreement was the key to the breaking of the boycott of Germany? I haven’t read Edwin Black’s book, so I truly don’t know the answers to these questions.

      • MRW
        October 12, 2009, 8:21 am

        Hitler got $6,000,000 for 60,000 Jews to go to Palestine in 1939/40. That gave him the dough to start the war; otherwise, he was dead broke. The Zionists, one faction of them, broke the worldwide boycott, which was working. They broke the boycott because they wanted workers for the orange groves. The boycott was driving the Germans insane: the people were beginning to despise Hitler for it, especially with the aftermath of WWI and their currency plight. The Zionist money saved Hitler’s bacon, and paid for his army.

        Edwin Black’s book is exhaustive about this; and extremely footnoted. But you can’t read the current version: the ‘Abe Foxman’ sanitized version with the extra author. You need to read the original 1984 version with the photographs, the one that caused the JDL to take a contract out on him; but they’re ditching these from every public library. Good luck finding one.

    • MRW
      October 12, 2009, 8:05 am

      Wondering Jews: Allied indifference- There certainly was Allied indifference before the outbreak of the war when German Jews needed places of refuge.

      Incorrectamundo. There was not allied indifference before the war. A few leading Zionists in the US convinced FDR and the Canadian Prime Minister to not allow them in so that they would go to Palestine. Some Zionist leaders here were vociferously against this, and wanted them to be able to immigrate. The former won out. It was not known during the war what was really going on; people, in general, only knew that Jews were targeted. The horror came out afterward. NYC was particularly sensitive to the situation with the Jews of Europe, because they were instrumental in getting the worldwide boycott going in 1933, with many, many mass demonstrations between 1933 and 1939.

      • wondering jew
        October 12, 2009, 8:45 am

        mrw: “It was not known during the war what was really going on.” Untrue – the leaders of the countries knew. Read Walter Laqueur’s “The Terrible Secret.” It was published in the New York Times, but not on the front page. (That’s why when people cite the Sulzberger opposition to Zionism, they must keep in mind that the Sulzberger’s didn’t really give a damn about the Jews at the time, they were concerned with fitting in.) In November of 1942 Jan Karski arrived in London and he brought the news of what was happening to all the Allied leaders. The people of the world might not have known. But the leaders knew.

        Also the opposition to the intake of the St. Louis (a ship full of refugees that went from port to port seeking somewhere for its Jewish passengers to disembark, eventually returned to Germany) for example was not based on the Zionist leaders, it was based on the US congress. There was still a depression and the world was not interested in taking in people who might deprive them of jobs and cost them money. If the Zionists played a role in the limits on immigration it was miniscule. It was the people of America who didn’t want immigration.

      • MRW
        October 12, 2009, 9:03 am

        WJ– the intake of the St. Louis … for example was not based on the Zionist leaders, it was based on the US congress.

        Not according to Edwin Black. Don’t forget Zionists had power in the Congress then, and there were warring factions of Zionists. Some were Palestine or bust; others backed Rabbi Wise.

      • potsherd
        October 12, 2009, 9:20 am

        I would like to see evidence for the Zionist influence on Congress in the 1930s, when Zionism was considered a socialist movement, and Jewish activists were suspect as Reds.

      • MRW
        October 12, 2009, 9:31 am

        Perhaps some US Zionists were considered socialist within the New York pantheon. But dont forget, potsherd, that British-based Chaim Weiszman was running a faction of Zionism that fought with Rabbi Wise’s organization in the US, and Untermyer another. Whatever the Upper West Side Zionist socialist hoi polloi were doing politically and locally, it was the world Zionist leaders who were pulling the strings, and they were in England and Germany.

      • MRW
        October 12, 2009, 9:31 am

        And Switzerland.

      • potsherd
        October 12, 2009, 10:01 am

        MRW – I’m sure that they pulled the strings that they pulled, but I wonder how many of those strings were attached to the US Congress.

        The effectiveness of the German boycott is something that I have cited earlier as evidence that a similar movement directed at Israel would be a powerful force.

      • tree
        October 12, 2009, 1:43 pm

        Also the opposition to the intake of the St. Louis (a ship full of refugees that went from port to port seeking somewhere for its Jewish passengers to disembark, eventually returned to Germany)

        Two points here are necessary. Number one, the St. Louis did NOT return to Germany with its passengers. Four European countries- Britain, France, Belgium and the Netherlands- each took a share of the passengers . No passengers were forced to return to Germany, although the empty ship did eventually return there. Because of the ensuing world war, approximately a quarter to a third of the passengers eventually became victims of the war, but they were not victims of “allied indifference”.

        Point two, as Tom Segev revealed in his book “The Seventh Million”, the Jewish Agency in Palestine was asked to take in the refugees. The Jewish Agency had control over who was allotted immigration certificates to Palestine. Britain issued the permits but the JA had ultimate control over who they went to. The JA refused to use those certificates to help the St. Louis passengers. At the time, not all certificates issued were being otherwise used, as there was just as much illegal immigration being encouraged and organized by the Zionists as there was legal immigration. So, yes, the US deserves approbation for not doing more for the St. Louis passengers (although the US was involved in negotiating the reception of the refugees in the aforementioned countries) but that approbation is highly hypocritical coming from the same Zionists that refused to help the passengers themselves.

      • tree
        October 12, 2009, 3:38 pm

        One more paragraph from Segev’s “The Seventh Million”:

        There had been about nine million Jews in Europe on the eve of the war; about six million were killed, leaving three million alive. Most of the were saved by Germany’s defeat in the war. Some were spared thanks to help they received from various governments and organizations such as the Joint Distribution Committee and from thousands of good-hearted people in almost every country- the “righteous gentiles.” There were dramatic rescue operations such as the flight across the Pyrenees from France to Spain and the convoys of Jews that sailed from Denmark to Sweden. Only a few survivors owed their lives to the efforts of the Zionist movement.

      • Mooser
        October 13, 2009, 1:55 am

        “that the Sulzberger’s didn’t really give a damn about the Jews at the time, they were concerned with fitting in.”

        You really ought to quit while you’re behind macher. As I remember, Sulzberger was very concerned about the persecuted and displaced Jews, and said the Zionists were holding them “hostage to statehood” Israel’s statehood.

        Wondering, you really need to figure out the difference between Zionist propaganda and what actually happened. They are not the same. But I would be the last person to ever say that the Zionists did anything to much worse than the things which were part of the European Colonial efforts in general. I’m no amti-Semite , no sir!

  16. Call Me Ishmael
    October 11, 2009, 11:08 pm

    “While there is no taboo against invoking the lessons and memory of the Holocaust, inappropriate comparisons to the Nazis only serve to trivialize genocide and insult the memory of the six million.” (A. Foxman)

    When did mentioning the Nazis or WWII become the same thing as mentioning the Jewish Holocaust? Don’t Jews realize that approximately 70 million people lost their lives directly as a result of the war started by the Nazis, and that many millions of these were deliberately murdered (or is Mr. Foxman the only ignorant one)?

    • MRW
      October 12, 2009, 8:32 am

      Yeah, you want to tell him to STFU. He acts like only Jews went through the war.

    • Todd
      October 12, 2009, 10:33 am

      I once saw a documentary that claimed around 1 million non-Jewish Germans died in concentration camps or at the hands of the Nazis, which would be a little over 1% of the pre-war population. If non-Jewish victims were counted as a group, rather than separately as Poles, Germans, Ukranians, etc., would the picture of the Holocaust change at all?

      I’ve read Mein Kampf and the minutes of the Wansee Conference, and if the translations that I’ve come across are thorough and correct, I’ve yet to see a declaration of war directed solely at Jews. Yes, the Nazis had plans for Jews, but they had plans for Poles/Slavs, Gypsies and other groups views as undesirables.

      What was the true scope and scale of the Holocaust? As far as I know, the Nazis had plans for every group that occupied space intended for German settlement. Were Jews the worst or only intended victims? It’s clear that Jews were the easiest large group to victimized early on since they were scattered as minorities in other nations, but that’s not the same as being the only victims, or the only intended victims.

      • Chaos4700
        October 12, 2009, 10:47 am

        As someone with Polish (as well as German) roots, with friends who have Polish/Slavic/German roots… not to mention, artists and homosexuals… I do find it rather frustrating that the Holocaust is consistently parsed as solely an assault on the Jews. Don’t get me wrong, it was an assault on the Jews, but they were by no means the exclusive target.

        The impact of the Holocaust on the Jewish population of Europe needs to be recognized, but certainly not at the exclusion of other groups that have suffered — and rather relevantly, continue to suffer, such as the Roma. And it frustrates me that when a Zionist is confronted with that, they’re response generally falls along the lines of, “So what?”

      • Citizen
        October 12, 2009, 11:05 am

        Yeah, well, the Gypsies have no state. The fact that AIPAC and Israel rarely mention them at all as another birth group targeted equally by the Nazis simply indicates
        that the Jews as a whole, in terms of their most influential diaspora organizations and the activities of the state of Israel only wish full humanitarian values be applied in their behalf. The rest are not worthy, especially if they detract from the exclusivity
        of special victimhood.

      • Chaos4700
        October 12, 2009, 11:10 am

        Well, and it’s wrong and it’s unfortunate and I do believe the attitudes of the Zionist power bloc contradict those of the vast majority of Jews — that’s what my heart wants to believe and its what my personal experience suggests.

        I also understand in part where that attitude comes from. Some of those Poles and Slavs who slaved and died alongside Jews in those camps were, in decades prior to Nazi occupation, responsible of pogroms and persecution against Jews as well. It doesn’t justify the attitude at all, by any means, but I do understand that the resentment and disregard toward other groups who suffered in the Holocaust doesn’t stem entirely from profit motives.

      • potsherd
        October 12, 2009, 11:31 am

        I’ve always assumed that the term “Holocaust” is Jew-specific, that it refers explicitly to the attempted extermination of Jews by the Nazis. I’ve never supposed it meant all the many millions more victims of the war, or even the victims of the concentration camps.

        It apparently acquired this meaning during the 1950s, according to the OED, which adds, interestingly, that it also applies transformatively to the similar fate of other groups. It adds “The term is in common use among Jews, but seems to be relatively rare otherwise, except among specialists.”

      • MRW
        October 12, 2009, 5:41 pm

        worldwar-2.net lists the following casualties for Germany It’s in a table located here link to worldwar-2.net:

        Status: Independent
        Type of Government: Dictatorship
        Religion: Christian

        [Total] Population: 73,000,000 (1938)
        Germans – 70,990,000
        Poles – 1,000,000
        Jews – 707,000
        Russians – 200,000
        Danes – 30,000
        Gypsies – 28,000
        Wends – 20,000
        Frisians – 15,000
        Lithuanians – 10,000

        Alignment (1939 – 1945):
        Axis Partner
        1st Sep 1939 – 8th May 1945

        Casualties (1939 – 1945):
        Soldiers (Axis) – 3,350,000 Killed
        Civilians – 3,043,000 Killed
        Jews – 205,500 Killed
        Gypsies – 20,000 Killed

        The American Jewish Committee listed the total population of Jews in Germany in 1938 as 279,000 (may have been 249,000, can’t remember.)

      • wondering jew
        October 12, 2009, 10:34 pm

        Anyone who denies that Jew hatred and the extermination of the Jews was central to the Nazi ideology is denying history. Hitler stood in front of the Reichstag and declared that if they (world Jewry) drag Germany into another war they would suffer annihilation.

        Nazi racial ideology targeted other groups as well, but the centrality of Jew hatred is not denied by any credible historian.

        Gypsies in particularly suffered large (percentage-wise) losses of their population and Nazi plans for the Poles might have led to similar losses if the Nazis had not been defeated. But in terms of exterminationist ideology the Jews were the primary targets.

        If a Roma would complain that the Jews are hogging the victim mantle, they might have some claim. But for a Pole to make that claim is just preposterous. And for a humanist to make that claim is primarily an attempt to attack the Jews.

        Analogy: a white murderer goes to a bar where half the people are black and half the people are white and he kills all the blacks and one third of the whites and the blacks call him a racist. Would a white person say, Hey, you’re ignoring the third of the whites that he killed. (Some would, but it would be stupid.)

      • Chaos4700
        October 13, 2009, 1:38 am

        “Anyone who denies that Jew hatred and the extermination of the Jews was central to the Nazi ideology is denying history”

        WJ? While you’re off in the corner beating up on that straw man… we’re all standing over here. In reality.

      • Mooser
        October 13, 2009, 1:59 am

        Wondering Jew is leaning hard on No.3 “You Suck” with a No. 4 “The Whole World Sucks” ready when needed.

  17. Sin Nombre
    October 12, 2009, 4:38 am

    Anonymous has clearly put his finger on one double standard here but there’s another that bothers me as well.

    After all even the “Frumistas” who de-emphasize the Holocaust as a justification for Israel have to admit that the (ultimately successful) arguments of the pre-WWII Zionists such as those leading to the Balfour declaration and etc. were still very largely based on the idea of jewish self-defense from historic European anti-semitism/a refuge from same/a token of understanding due to same or whatever.

    So on the one hand boy oh boy does it ever keep the head spinning: Criticize Israel and you are accused of denying “the jews” the right of self-defense. Talk about Israel in terms of what “the jews” are doing and wham, you are being “anti-semitic.”

    Not that the latter can’t be a valid thing with some people, but both Oren and Frum go farther too and are essentially endorsing the idea that when it comes to looking at ethnic groups and etc. whatever they do can be excused if they feel it involves their “self-defense.” Except of course that is exactly what some people want to say of the German people in supporting Hitler: That it was in essence defensive in light of the undeniable threats being made against them by the heavily jewish Soviet Bolsheviks (and especially by Trotsky) and made to seem all the more possible by the existence of the heavily jewish German Bolsheviks too like Rosa Luxemburg.

    In short, there’s a difference between explaining and excusing and regardless of whether it’s Oren or Frum they are both eliding that difference, and not to the benefit of their cause either.

  18. Citizen
    October 12, 2009, 10:20 am

    Anyway one looks at the root of the I-P conflict, one cannot escape the fact that the
    carving up of former Ottoman Empire territory into states gave all residents thereof
    a sovereign state–except the Palestinian arabs (whether Muslim, Christian or Jewish, the latter at most 10% of the Mandate population at the time). Why? The Balfour Declaration given to Lord Rothschild. Now, what, 9 decades later, they still have no
    sovereign state to call home. I have a problem with that. Excuse me. Will somebody please address this?

    • Mooser
      October 13, 2009, 2:06 am

      I believe that “not prejudicing the interest of the native Arab residents” or some such language was part of the Balfour Letter (Declaration?) The Zionists immediately and successfully exceeded their allottment. Any chance of an equitable and peaceful arrangement was lost.

      link to lawrenceofcyberia.blogs.com

  19. potsherd
    October 12, 2009, 10:33 am

    The blame must be spread widely. The UN should have insisted on the founding of such a state, but they failed to. Israel and King Hussein entered into a tacit agreement transfering the WB to Jordan, which wanted the land for itself. Israel was always implacably against the concept of a Palestinian state and did everything to prevent it, so as to avoid limiting its own expansion.

    It rather reminds one of the Hitler-Stalin pact to divide Poland.

    • Chaos4700
      October 12, 2009, 10:42 am

      And then of course, Israel — in a pattern repeated throughout all of its history — went back on its arrangements with Jordan, took the land by military force and has been ethnically cleansing it ever since.

      From what I’ve heard, the current ruler of Jordan isn’t nearly as foolish as his father was.

      • potsherd
        October 12, 2009, 11:36 am

        iirc, Israel warned Jordan to stay out of the war, but Jordan felt it could not break with its Arab alliances.

        The relationship between Jordan and Israel in the pre-1967 years is quite fascinating, part complicity and part hostility. They shared a common interest in repressing the Palestinian population.

      • Chaos4700
        October 12, 2009, 11:42 am

        They did. I continue to find it intriguing that Israel lays completely at Jordan the foot of the blame for it’s part in the 1967 war. The logic goes something like, “well, it’s Jordan’s fault for honoring it’s treaty alliance. They should have violated that treaty and sided with the rogue nation that was responsible for multiple incursions into its neighbors’ borders prior to the war.”

        Like I said, the current King of Jordan, at least by the accounts I have access to, is nowhere near the dupe that his father was.

      • potsherd
        October 12, 2009, 1:39 pm

        Israel lies all blame for all things on anyone but itself.

      • olive
        October 12, 2009, 3:17 pm

        He may not be as foolish but he is just as much a puupet of the West and an even bigger crook of his people. You won’t believe how much his own citizens despise him.

      • Chaos4700
        October 12, 2009, 6:13 pm

        I’ve heard mixed things. At least one of my friends, a Palestinian with Jordanian citizenship, appreciates some of the positive changes that have taken place under the new king — though I wouldn’t characterize him as a glowing, gushing supporter either.

        That said? Jordan does have a ways to go, and I can understand that the monarchy still elicits its share of unpopularity, not only for historical but for contemporary reasons.

      • potsherd
        October 12, 2009, 6:43 pm

        I noticed in the Israel press that an Arab Israeli, on a business visit to Jordan, was arrested for dissing the king. Against the law. None of the Arab states are liberal as we, here, would understand the term.

      • Chaos4700
        October 12, 2009, 9:01 pm

        I understand and I don’t want to sound like I’m whitewashing things, granted.

    • Citizen
      October 12, 2009, 1:43 pm

      But the current King of Jordan accepts his annual check from Uncle Sam largely Christian dick to suck Israel’s cut dick, same as Egypt.

      • Chaos4700
        October 12, 2009, 6:11 pm

        A very flowery metaphor, but there is definitely truth to that.

        One wonders how the shape of the world will change once the dollar loses its power and prominence.

Leave a Reply