World War II Could & Should Have Been Avoided, Zionists May Have Been Partly Responsible

In hindsight, there should be little or no doubt that World War II and the Holocaust could have, and should have, been prevented; although there are many people that will continue to deny this for the foreseeable future, or simply refuse to discuss it. But it's also true that future wars can still be prevented, and many millions more lives can be saved; and many other social problems can be solved as a result of teaching the public about the best research available so many social problems can be solved and wars prevented. This is why we should not decline to consider inconvenient facts or history.

This should be obvious to everyone; but the mainstream media declines to report the most educational material available in libraries, academic journals or studies or the alternative media.

Furthermore, most people would agree that accurately reporting history is in everyone's best interests, and that blaming the victims is outrageous. But, what if an accurate assessment of history does place some blame on the victims? In this case, I don't think that's what happened, although in other cases that may be tough to deal with. However, there is evidence that may show that some Zionists, that were never endangered by Hitler, might be partly responsible; and the best researcher that I know of is also a Jewish supporter of Israel, but, to the best of my knowledge Edwin Black hasn't reflected much bias in his book "The Transfer Agreement," which describes how Zionists negotiated to abandon a massive plan for a boycott agaisnt Germany in 1933, and even encourage business transactions in return for allowing some German Jews to migrate to Palestine, with some of their money, enabling both the eventual establishment of the state of Israel which happened fifteen years later, and the restoration of the German economy, which included rearmament within six years, which was necessary for them to start World War II, although whether this enabled the Holocaust of not requires a closer look, but it's a strong possibility. However, as I'll get to below, his 1999 edition replaced his Afterward with another one from Abraham Foxman, omitting an important claim, and Klaus Polkehn, who wrote a short paper eight years before Edwin Black's book includes some important information that is not in Black's book.

And I certainly do not intend to claim that any genocide could ever be justifiable, including the genocide against the Jews, Native Americans, Vietnamese, Cambodians, Rwandans, Palestinians, or even the Canaanites. This should mean that, regardless of why World War II happened, the genocide against the Jews should not be used as a genocide against the Palestinians. However, even if the Zionists may have enabled Hitler to stay in power, intentionally or not, it's important to consider why which has a long history, and it's also important to consider other possible ways World War II, the Holocaust, and any other wars, including future ones could be prevented.

In the Afterward of the first edition of his book Edwin Black seems to agree that World War II and the Holocaust could be prevented when he wrote, "Could the boycott really have overturned the Hitler regime? I believe the answer is that for a short period of time the anti-Nazi boycott did have an excellent chance of toppling the Third Reich." (p.380) But then he seems to contradict himself when he writes, "By undermining the boycott, are the Zionists responsible for the Hitler regime’s not being toppled, and by extension are they responsible for the Holocaust? This is an absurd distortion of the facts in my book, but many intelligent people have emotionally asked the question. The answer is, of course, no." This I can't completely agree with; however he then goes on to discuss other possible ways that could have prevented World War II and the Holocaust, which I would have to agree with, including the possibility that there wasn't massive amounts of racist Antisemitism, no Versailles Treaty, no World War I, no assassination of the Archduke of Austria-Hungary, and perhaps more.

The boycott of Germany was one of many ways World War II could have been prevented, and anyone familiar with history might realize the earlier people acted to prevent wars or other atrocities, the more likely they are to be successful, just like child psychologists all agree the earlier they prevent child abuse the more successful they will be in preventing the child to have emotional problems later in life, possibly even becoming violent him or herself later in life. Alice Miller, Philip Greven, John Toland and many other partly agree that this could have helped if someone prevented Hitler from being abused by his own father, including one incident where instead of beating him, his father ridiculed and humiliated him and called him "Toga boy;" although they also agree this would have been much more successful if all children were protected from abuse, since if Hitler hadn't been abused and risen to power full of hate, someone else could have taken his place, and the fewer abused children there were the fewer blind followers of a demagogue there would have been later in life.

One important factor to consider is Eugene Debs quote below from The Canton, Ohio Speech, Anti-War Speech June 16, 1918 below, which would also apply to the War mongers in Europe as well as Woodrow Wilson during World War I and much more; and going back at least 2,200 years or more it's worth considering an important quote about God from Epicurus, which could have prevented the racist Antisemitism before it began.

(Both these quotes were spoken by Eugene Debs, but at different times. The first was part of his Canton Ohio speech, I'm not sure when he made the second quote, but it's cited in "The Art of Selling War.")

There should be no doubt that religious beliefs were a major contributing factor of both World War II and the Holocaust, which is why the following quote from Epicurus could be so important:

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

Once people understand this it should be clear that "God," or an unknown advanced intelligence mistaken for "God," assuming either of them exist, was never as powerful as religious people chose to believe, or he had an undisclosed motive of some sort and wasn't looking out for the best interests of the human race. Either way a "God" like this clearly isn't a higher source of morality, which almost all religious people choose to believe, justifying their worship of him.

Once this is understood then it may become clear that there were many ways "God," assuming he exists, could have helped prevent the long hatred of Jews before it ever got started, even if he wasn't as powerful as people choose to believe, but was willing to communicate honestly, instead of alleged revelations, which religious people interpret in many conflicting and bizarre ways. It seems unlikely to many people that many Biblical stories, especially the oldest ones where records weren't well kept and there was much more that would now are considered supernatural, are true. However, many religious people believe they're true and they use them to base major decisions, so for the sake of argument I'll assume they're true. Then God could have done a better job explaining why Adam and Eve shouldn't "eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil," which seems to imply that they shouldn't know the difference between good and evil, which hardly seems rational, and an intelligent good Good could provide far better advice than that. God could have also done a much better job advising his worshipers throughout the Biblical times, and into current times, including coming up with a better way of teaching people to behave than drowning everyone but Noah, or teaching Korah by swallowing him up in the Earth, or he could have advised them in a way to avoid enslaving the Israelites in Egypt in the first place.

Going back to Genesis - Chapter 37 and several Chapters following this, God could have communicated honestly, whether the perceived dreams of Joseph or several other people were real revelations or not, and he could have provided advise that would have avoided enslaving them or enabled them to prepare for drought or famine. or if you go to the book of Exodus one Meme suggests God could have killed the Pharaoh instead of killing every first born child in Egypt, which is something no moral God would ever do. Or he could have stopped him even without killing him as indicated in Exodus 14:4 which says "I shall then make Pharaoh stubborn and he will set out in pursuit of them; and I shall win glory for myself at the expense of Pharaoh and his whole army, and then the Egyptians will know that I am Yahweh.' And the Israelites did this." If you accept this hypothetical than it should be clear that instead of making "Pharaoh stubborn," he could have made him compliant, and there would have been no need for atrocities. But, of course, that's not what the Bible says, instead after first killing off all the innocent first borns of Egypt, he eventually drown the Pharaoh's entire army, including the Pharaoh, himself. And Exodus 14:4 is an obvious example of entrapment, which no moral God would ever do, and there are many more examples of entrapment or other forms of indoctrination throughout the Bible.

This is all based on the assumption that the Bible is somewhat close to the truth, which isn't necessarily the case; however, most religious people are taught to accept it as divine truth, despite all it's flaws. If there is an advanced intelligence known as God, then there's no doubt that God could have done a much better job giving advise without supporting one tyrant after another, as history actually turned out. I wouldn't completely rule out the existence of some form of God, since some unsolved mysteries like ancient megaliths are difficult if not impossible to explain without the influence of some advanced intelligence that could have been mistaken for a benevolent God. One Biblical historian, Richard A. Gabriel, seemed to agree when he said, on the History Channels première of Bible Battles:

“How does one reconcile that with the idea that some people use the bible as a guide to their life? Well, one would either have to admit that history is wrong, and I don’t think that it is, or that God is a savage creature, in that the instruction of the bible is certainly full of enough violence to give rise to the question of what kind of a God, if there is one, would permit this?”

This comment was specifically a response to Bible Battles involving the killing of women and children, possibly including genocide, but it obviously applies to the whole Bible, and could easily be applied to history since Biblical times, whether that's what Professor Gabriel intended or not. There are many other people who considered serious problems with the Bible, including Victor Stenger, author of "God the Failed Hypothesis" who used a similar argument to Epicurus to rule out the Judo-Christian-Islamic version of God, although he didn't rule out other versions of God, possibly including one with an undisclosed motive; and Charlie Trimm, who appears to be a religious believer also comes up with a variation of Epicurus's quote which he presents to his student as described in this article God, Genocide and Biblical Interpretation with Charlie Trimm Sean McDowell, Scott Rae — August 11, 2022 which discusses his book The Destruction of the Canaanites: God, Genocide, and Biblical Interpretation by Charlie Trimm 2022. Charlie Trimm supposedly doesn't come to a final conclusion about how to rectify the problem that the Bible describes God committing genocide during the flood and later encourages his followers to commit genocide, which no rational person could justify today, but he sets certain parameters, similar to the Epicurus quote, but perhaps more complicated than it has to be, which you can find in the above article, and invites his student to decide for themselves which discretion to reject or accept, possibly coming up with a belief system enabling a benevolent God, which millions of religious people are trying to do.

The problem is that there's simply no way to patch together the "Good God" hypothesis, where he's also "All-Powerful," or even if he's not quite so powerful, but is an advanced intelligence that could help guide the human race and advise it on ways to improve their lives, avoid disasters, which I consider much more credible. But a moderately more powerful benevolent God, looking out for our best interests, simply wouldn't behave like the Biblical God, and if these things in the Bible were exaggerated or outright lies, then there should be no doubt that a benevolent God would communicate to correct the misunderstanding so that people are careful about using the Bible as a guide to their life, as Professor Gabriel might say.

Another important factor important to consider, which Edwin Black doesn't directly discuss much in his book "The Transfer Agreement," is that many people think that both the Holocaust and the restoration of Israel are fulfillment of prophecy, and they even want to bring it about, even though many of these alleged Biblical prophecies or prophecies from Nostradamus, Madam Blavatsky or many other alleged mystics, are quite horrendous, but they often end with the coming of a Messiah whether it's the second coming of Christ, Mohammad, or some other perceived Messiah. But, of course, if their assumptions about God can't possibly be true neither can their assumptions about a Messiah. If God isn't a credible source of morality neither would a Messiah sent by him.

Another insurmountable assumption about any Messiah sent by God is the assumption that this is a more effective solution to people's problems than learning how to think rationally and sort through facts for themselves, despite the fact that most improvements in the quality of life throughout the centuries didn't come when people blindly followed their leaders, but when they recognized flaws in their leaders and thought for themselves! Religious people are often very reluctant to rational people challenging their beliefs, even when they make good points, but they trust perceived Messiahs that cater to their false religious beliefs over and over again. If a Messiah really is telling the truth, as religious people choose to believe, then a real Messiah, assuming such a thing were possible, would correct the false religious beliefs of religious people; but then religious people would never accept such a person as a Messiah. They would only accept a Messiah who supports false beliefs, which means they would only accept false Messiahs that don't tell the truth.

But, of course, having a Messiah sent by a God that isn't trustworthy isn't nearly as effective as teaching people to think rationally and correct false beliefs, so, for all practical purposes, there can never be a real Messiah.

However, even though there's no rational way to patch the belief of an all-powerful and benevolent God together, that doesn't stop religious people from trying, even though it involves a highly irrational thought process, which is also part of what enabled World War II, the Holocaust, and irrational prejudices against both the Jews and the Palestinians. Ironically many Jews can't see that their bigotry is as irrational as the bigotry of the Nazis, especially those in Israel now; but fortunately there are many other Jews that do see this and they often try to defend the Palestinians. There's no doubt that before the Holocaust many Germans, or many other people from around the world, were led to believe many absurdities, including "The Protocols of Zion," which is perhaps the most well known, and there's little doubt that this partly enabled so many people to hate the Jews enough, for blatantly false claims. It's not nearly so well known that now there are a surprising number of Jews that believe absurdities about the Palestinians, including many literally calling for genocide, often including people within the Jewish government.

Unfortunately these racist attitudes get virtually no coverage in Western Media so most people don't know our government is financing racists committing atrocities against the Palestinians. A few examples of this include Eli Yishai who said "We must blow Gaza back to the Middle Ages destroying all the infrastructure including roads and water." Golda Meir, who on June 15, 1969 claimed, "There were no such thing as Palestinians... They do not exist." And more recently, Miri Regev who said "I am happy to be a Fascist!"

Voltaire once famously said “Anyone who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.” The Bible is clearly full of an enormous amount of absurdities, yet hundreds of millions if not billions of people worship one version or another of it, including Judo/Christian/ Islam, and they're often taught to worship this based on emotional upbringing and corporal punishment to children at a young age before they develop critical thinking skills. The same thought process that enables people to believe the absurdities in the Bible enables people to believe absurd claims like "The Protocols of Zion," similar prejudicial beliefs by Zionists against Palestinians, and many other bigoted beliefs. This includes the fact that many Zionists clearly recognize the absurd beliefs of Nazis are flawed, yet they can't recognize the fact that they often adopt almost identical prejudices against the Palestinians.

If religious beliefs really are based on a real God, of some sort, it clearly can't be a higher moral authority, and shouldn't be trust; and, assuming it's a relatively advanced and benevolent God, even if it wasn't All Powerful, as religious people believe, it would have understood understood this and advised on how to avoid many atrocities going back thousands of years, and out history would be far different than it is. The fact that God did no such thing, means that either he doesn't exist, or he has an ulterior motive, which would be difficult, if not impossible to figure out, without further information. If this God really does exist, then there's a chance that some of these perceived prophecies might be partially true, and the reason for them would be related to his unknown motive. If God doesn't exist, it's less likely for there by much to these prophecies, but there's still a chance that some of them are self-fulfilling, which may mean religious believers acted to bring them about, which is implied by some of our history, including some excerpts from Edwin Black's book, which refers to Jews who want to fulfill prophecy be restoring the state of Israel. And there's also a possibility of vaguely interpreted prophecy where believers search for ways to interpret them which most people might be skeptical of.

Furthermore, many of these people adopting these irrational prejudices, from a variety of religions, do so partly or entirely based on their religious beliefs, and they often claim it's God's will, or at least the perceived will of God; and if God does exist, and he doesn't try to point out the error of their ways, then he's giving them tacit approval for their beliefs, which means it may actually be God's will; although, obviously, if God doesn't exist, these beliefs are obviously false, but there's still a cult following supporting prejudicial beliefs.

Throughout most of my life I never seriously considered the possibility that Jews would even support Fascism, since they were victims of such an atrocity. Yet, as Miri Regev openly admitted there are Jewish Fascists, and this isn't isolated or new. As Edwin Black points out in The Transfer Agreement, there were Jewish people considered Fascist when Hitler first gained power as the following excerpt show

Revisionists, on the other hand, were heavily Fascist and profoundly influenced by Mussolini. Neither Vladimir Jabotinsky nor Benito Mussolini approved of Hitler’s twisted version of Fascism.Nonetheless, Jabotinsky’s legions were wrapped in many of the same fabrics. The paramilitary Betar youth corps trained in military camps and wore the same characteristic brown-colored shirts found in Germany. Revisionists claimed their brown was the color of the earth. But a German brown shirt and a Jewish brown shirt were practically indistinguishable when laid side by side. On one occasion, in mid-April 1933, a Betar parade through Tel Aviv was attacked by Labor Zionists who claimed the brown outfits were so reminiscent of Nazi uniforms (even though nothing resembling a swastika was displayed) that the March itself was a provocation to violence. 40 True to Fascist ideology, the fist and the shout were the preferred methods of achieving Revisionist goals. Labor Zionists, especially David Ben-Gurion, were fond of calling Jabotinsky the Jewish Hitler. 41 (Black 1984 p.143; most excerpts, except the Foxman Afterward are from the first edition of the Transfer Agreement)

Whether anyone agrees that Jabotinsky was a Fascist or not, Black's book clearly shows he opposed the Transfer Agreement, and even though David Ben-Gurion was not a leading negotiator for it, he did support it; however, Klaus Polkehn's article, which I'll get to below, seems to imply that Jabotinsky really was involved in the negotiations, but did a better job keeping it secret. Nevertheless, there were many other supporters of the Transfer Agreement, and Black provides plenty of evidence to show that Hitler might never have recovered his economy without help, some of which came from the Transfer agreement, including the following excerpt, and more to follow:

Above all of the Nazi dogma, revitalization of the German economy was the single indispensable feature of Hitler’s program. Without a strong economy, the Reich could not rearm and could never begin its conquest of Europe. The Nazis were justifiably convinced that if the National Socialist revolution brought more unemployment and economic chaos, the German masses would turn away from the sixty-day Reich. To the Nazis, it seemed that only the Jews and their boycott were now standing between Germany and greatness. No wonder Goering had said that Stephen Wise was one of Hitler’s “most dangerous enemies.”5 (Black 1984 p.47)

Throughout his book Black repeatedly points out how much trouble Germany's economy was in 1939, indicating that there's no way they could have recovered it and rearmed without some major changes, and heading off the Boycott, and as other excerpts will show, doing the reverse, and trying to give Germany business opportunities in Palestine and elsewhere, was a very important part of their recovery, which wouldn't have happened without the Transfer Agreement. However, in all fairness, there were other sources that helped Germany recover, including funding from Wall Street interests, which are reported by several sources including "Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler" by Antony C. Sutton, and "IBM and the Holocaust" also written by Edwin Black, and there are also some details about this in "The Transfer Agreement," although this book focuses much more on the Zionists than other forms of funding. His book also provides an enormous amount of evidence that class differences were also very important, with the hope that saving money as well as Middle class or wealthy Jews to help establish the State of Israel was a priority as this excerpt, and more after it will show:

The rise of Hitler was therefore seen by Zionists simply as the latest anti-Semitic episode. But this time things were different. In a macabre sense, things were ideal. The German Jews were not impoverished Russian peasants or lower-class Polish merchants with few valuables. These German Jews were solidly middle class. They possessed land, homes, furnishings, shares of stock. They were lawyers, doctors, engineers, scientists, artists, civil servants. They owned not storefronts, but department store chains. They owned not pawnshops, but major commercial banks. These men and women who had no place in the German Reich would find an indispensable place in the Jewish nation. From their dispossession would come repossession. Behold: Israel was waiting within the borders of the Third Reich. (Black 1984 p.72)

Black also indicates there are some religious beliefs going back decades, if not centuries, showing that Zionists had some plans to take advantage of pogroms or other disasters, which they considered inevitable, and believed that they must be allowed to happen to rally support for the restoration of Israel, which turn out to be partly true, as the following excerpts show:

.... [Theodor] Herzl specifies Palestine as the ideal home for the Jewish nation if acquired under formal international guarantees. Herzl denigrates gradual colonizing as mere “infiltration” sure once again to stimulate anti-Semitism. International supervision was prerequisite to any population transfer. 8

Transfer was itself to take place over several decades following acquisition of the land. First would come the “desperate,” fleeing oppression and pogroms. Retrained for labor in the Jewish homeland, they would cultivate the soil and build the physical infrastructure of the state. Second would come “the poor,” who would create vast labor pools and commercial demand. Then would come “the prosperous” to capitalize on the Jewish State’s trade. And finally “the wealthy” would arrive, to join the now well-established Jewish State. 9

Throughout Herzl states his anticipation that the multitudes of comfortable Jews throughout the world who are not victims of persecution will vigorously oppose Zionism. “Old prisoners do not willingly leave their cells,” he writes. .....

.... In an even more forceful passage, [Herzl] declares, “Whoever can, will, and must perish, let him perish. But the distinctive nationality of the Jews neither can, will, nor must be destroyed. … Whole branches of Judaism may wither and fall, but the trunk remains.” 11 (Black 1984 p.73-4)

During 1920, amid daily massacres on the Polish border and political uncertainty, eminent Zionist leader Max Nordau espoused a stark new concept called catastrophic Zionism ....

As the slaughter of Jews on the Polish-Russian border and the question of Jewish sovereignty in Palestine were tediously debated, Nordau proposed the immediate transfer of 600,000 pogrom-afflicted Jews to Palestine within a few months—without any real preparation. The assets of these 600,000 Jews would of course come with them. Nordau reportedly predicted that a third of those Jews would starve to death, a third would find Palestine unacceptable and immigrate. The remaining third would create a majority or near-majority in Palestine, and the Jewish State would quickly and finally be achieved. 19 ....

One who .... Although violently criticized in 1921 at the Twelfth Zionist Congress, Jabotinsky silenced his foes by dramatically declaring from the rostrum, “In working for Palestine, I would even ally myself with the devil.” The curses turned to cheers as the audience endorsed Jabotinsky’s rationale with a standing ovation. That ovation was the turning point for many who now come to believe not only that the decisive moment for Zionism would be some coming catastrophe, but also that the solution would require Zionist negotiations with the hand responsible. 21 (Black 1984 p.76-7)

Zionist leadership had, in fact, refused to oppose Nazi expulsion ideology from the outset. Within twenty-four hours of Hitler’s appointment, German Zionists finalized a recently discussed program called Youth Aliya. 22 Aliya is the Hebrew term for emigration to Israel; ... (Black 1984 p.78)

Both Theodor Herzl and his partner Max Nordau, who he founded the World Zionist Organization died before Hitler came to power, but they created a belief system adopted by many Zionists that prepared them to believe that in order to create a new Israeli State they would need to take advantage of Pogroms to rally enough Jews, and taught them to be prepared to sacrifice many Jews in the process. Ultimately, they became more concerned about recruiting middle class or wealthy people to help build Israel than Herzl predicted when he said they would have to start with the desperate and the poor, and due to Hitler's rise to power, it happened at a much faster pace, which apparently pleased many Zionists, although they tried to avoid admitting it. Many of these Zionists were far more concerned with restoring Israel than saving the Jews from Europe, as Black's book and Polkehn's article indicates, especially Polkehn's article.

British entry regulations limited all categories of Jews except those in possession of £1,000 [about $5,000]. The restriction ironically suited the German Zionists in Jerusalem because it was precisely those Jews with enough money to qualify whom they wanted. As one German Zionest warned the Jewish Agency, “There is a danger that German Jews with money will go to other countries and those lacking means will come here. We must work on this matter.” 8 (Black 1984 p.83)

These regulations helped ensure that only those with some finances could emigrate to Israel, without forcing the Zionists to openly support only wealthy people moving, although at times other evidence shows they were as concerned, if not more concerned with transferring the capital than the Jews. There will also be evidence to show that both the Nazis and some of the Zionists victimized those immigrating stealing a lot of their money so they arrived in Israel with much less money, and often had to work for low wages or on behalf of the Zionists one way or another.

Zionist leaders, during April 1933, sought to cooperate with the Nazi Reich to arrange the orderly exit of Jewish people and wealth from Germany. But during the very same weeks, Jewish groups throughout the world were struggling to resist and topple the Reich to keep Jews in Germany as citizens. Boycott and protest were everywhere. (Black 1984 p.104)

Initially there was an enormous amount of support for the boycott or other ways to resist the Nazis, but due to the Transfer Agreement, especially after it was finalized, they did the opposite, often turning Jews against each other as well as helping the Nazis recover their economy and rearm a decade before the Jews would restore the state of Israel.

In England, on April 9, the fear of Polish-style boycott violence prompted police in London and Manchester to insist all store owners, under pain of prosecution, remove “Boycott German Goods” window posters. The next afternoon, boycott suppression was excitedly debated in Parliament. Home Secretary Sir John Gilmour denied that the police were acting on express government orders. Just to make sure, Winston Churchill called for an official end to the suppression, to which the home secretary answered, “Certainly.” 7 Meanwhile, Britain’s Labour-dominated boycott movement continued to expand. By April 15, The Daily Herald, quoting industry sources, estimated the fur boycott alone would cost Germany $100 million annually. 8 (Black 1984 p.105)

In the case of Zionism, the State Department, and the Foreign Office, their hands-off policy was in pursuit of ideals. Zionists, of course, were seeking detente with an enemy to achieve Jewish nationalism. American and British diplomats were seeking an illusory peace by an ineffective strategy later to be labeled appeasement. But the American Jewish Committee’s antagonism to anti-Nazi activity defied even their own definition of Jewish defense. (Black 1984 p.107)

Winston Churchill was one of the few allies the Jews had, although there were more. But when the Zionists opposed the boycott, not surprisingly, it ensured that other allies of the Jews were much less likely to support the boycott, and clearly it wasn't just the Zionists enabling Hitler.

Matters worsened. Quickly, the leaders of Germany realized that the anti-Hitler boycott was threatening to kill the Third Reich in its infancy, either through utter bankruptcy or by promoting an imminent invasion of Germany by its neighbors. When the Nazis consolidated power in early March, Polish officials openly reinforced troop strength along the Polish Corridor. This was in response to der Fuhrer’s bellicose threats to seize the Versailles-created territorial bridge. 3 In late March, the anti-Nazi boycott helped push Poland from a heightened defensive posture to a near-hysterical readiness to invade Germany. (Black 1984 p.110)

A decision had to be made, and only Hitler could make it. An accommodation—a deal—with the Jews would be necessary. Their weapons of economic retaliation and political agitation were devastating Germany. If those weapons could be neutralized long enough for Germany to recover economically, to rearm its military, then all glories would be within reach of the Aryan people. (Black 1984 p.131-2)

The Jews of the world would now have to choose between fighting Hitler and building Palestine, preserving the old or securing the new.

Sam Cohen’s deal was, in fact, only the preliminary agreement. When discovered by the international Zionist hierarchy, it would be considered inadequate, delivering too little money and too narrow a variety of merchandise to Jewish Palestine. ...

The plan was not a rescue or a relief project. If it was, the Zionists would have labored for an agreement for Jews fleeing Germany without regard to where they sought refuge. Instead, Jews would be allowed to bring assets out of Germany to rebuild their lives, but only if they liquidated their European existence and rebuilt those lives in Palestine.

The correct word, then, for Mr. Sam Cohen’s deal, and the arrangements to follow, was not rescue. it was not relief. it was in fact transfer—the point between the philosophical spheres where Zionist and Nazi circles touched. (Black 1984 p.134)

Hostilities continued as Mapai forces hammered away at Revisionism, labeling it a Fascist misfit of Zionism, and harassing Jews who supported Jabotinsky. Jabotinsky himself was portrayed as the Jewish Hitler, commanding forces analogous—somehow even linked—to Nazi Storm troopers. And yet in truth, it was not the stalwarts of Jewish militancy, the Revisionists, who had constructed avenues of commercial and political detente with the Third Reich. It was the forces of Mapai. (Black 1984 p.158)

Intentionally or not, Hitler was able to use the Transfer Agreement to turn Jews against each other, and even though Black claims that Jabotinsky and the Revisionists weren't responsible for establishing financial ties, they ultimately didn't stop them, and, as I said Polkehn's article indicates they may have been involved in the negotiations as well.

.... It was almost as though Sam Cohen had become part of the German diplomatic and trade apparatus, selling German goods. Arranging for the emigration of German Jews, supplying foreign currency, stimulating German employment and breaking anti-Nazi boycotts. This, of course, was the desired appearance. But no matter how much Sam Cohen’s pro-Reich activities were deliberately over-accentuated to evoke Nazi cooperation, there existed one salient, inescapable common ground: The national aspirations of both Nazis and Zionists hinged on the successful removal of Jews from Germany to Palestine.

And yet there was one major problem. German Jews simply didn’t want to leave. (Black 1984 p.166)

Sam Cohen was perhaps the biggest negotiator for the Transfer Agreement, but there were others, and he wound up controlling the funds that were transferred, often taking a portion, whether it was to support Zionist causes or not, but the Jewish immigrants lost money to both the Nazis and the Zionists, and they never wanted to be Zionists. Polkehn's article will also show that less than 2% of German Jews were Zionists, and most Jews around the world didn't support Zionism either. This leaves little doubt that Israel almost certainly never would have been restored, so the Transfer Agreement enabling Hitler to arm also enabled oppression of Palestinians by the Jews after the establishment of Israel which goes on to this day.

Instead, the Nazis seized upon one aspect of Zionism they approved of: the condemnation of a Jewish presence in Germany and the desire to remove Jews to Palestine. On April 6, 1920, in Munich Hitler explained the Nazi willingness to embrace Zionism with these words: “To reach our goal, we must use every means at our disposal, even if we have to make a pact with the devil himself.” Ironically, Vladimir Jabotinsky had spoken essentially the same words several months before, when he declared to the Twelfth Zionist Congress: “In working for Palestine, I would even ally myself with the devil.” 31 p.172)

Racist beliefs from both sides of the conflict brought about this war; although there seems to be far more justification for the Jews, who were victims of much more oppression; but this agreement almost certainly made it far worse for most Jews, although it saved a much smaller number than were killed.

Once the global boycott became a reality, the slogan “Germany will crack this winter” could well become a prophecy. (Black 1984 p.189

.... Those depositors who would not leave Germany or who chose another destination would find their assets already transferred and invested in their name in Palestine.

Sitting atop this mammoth transaction would be Mr. Sam Cohen. For his contribution to the Zionist cause he would of course collect a suitable commission in the form of Hanotaiah’s profits. Undoubtedly, these profits could be reinvested in other worthy Zionist projects. ... (Black 1984 p.195)

The need to promote emigration became ever more compelling in mid-July as German Jewish refugees actually began returning to Germany. With capital punishment facing the dispenser of so-called atrocity stories, with Germany doing all it could to inhibit foreign journalists from reporting all but the most concretely verifiable incidents, many German Jews had wrongly presumed that the period of anti-Semitic violence in Nazi Germany had passed. The Reich interned most of these first returnees in a concentration camp. But when the repatriation began to reach into the hundreds, Germany feared she might actually regain many of the 30,000 Jews already frightened away. 14

Transfer was crucial to the Third Reich. Both sides knew it. (Black 1984 p.198-9)

... By the time they discovered the unattractiveness of Cohen’s transfer, their money would nonetheless become blocked marks in Hanotaiah’s special bank account. Only Cohen would have use of the money. When bad experiences became widely known, German Jerry would seek refuge anywhere but the Jewish national home. (Black 1984 p.229)

.... The German economy would have to be safe-guarded, stabilized, and if necessary reinforced. Hence, the Nazi party and the Zionist Organization shared a common stake in the recovery of Germany. If the Hitler economy fell, both sides would be ruined. (Black 1984 p.253)

Transfer may have been crucial to the Third Reich and the Zionists, but the lies they told were clearly endangering Jews who returned after believing them, in addition to weakening the resistance. And, of course, class conflicts were also a major issue, with the middle class being robbed by both the Nazis and Zionist.

In the minds of Zionists, Jewish life in Germany could not be saved, only transferred. Even if Hitler and the German economy were crushed, Jewish wealth in Germany would be crushed with it. The wealth had to be saved. Through the speedy liquidation and transfer of that wealth, the Jewish Homeland could be built, thus creating the refuge needed for mass transfer of the people. Zionism had declared from the moment of Herzl that antiSemitic regimes were not to be opposed. They were to be cooperated with in the transfer of Jews and their assets. (Black 1984 p.226)

This may have been partly true, but when some of the Jews returned as a result of their lies it added to the money lost, and most importantly, ultimately we now know that Jews from many other countries, especially Poland, would eventually be victimized, robbed and killed.

.... What we have not been successful with during 30 years, Hitler has accomplished for us overnight.” 12

.... However, the report added that while emigration would save the young, only an intensified international boycott would help the older generation survive in a hostile Reich. 13 p.253

An alliance with Germany based on trade quickly shifted the Zionist emphasis from the people caught in crisis to the money caught in crisis. By late July, transfer activists spoke increasingly of “saving the wealth” and “rescuing the capital” from Nazi Germany. The impact on the German Jews themselves seemed to be a subordinated issue. .... (Black 1984 p.257-8)

The same afternoon, as Jabotinsky was exhorting his followers to postpone their political grievances in favor of the war against Nazism, Labor leader David Ben-Gurion, speaking to the Mapai strategy conference, demanded his supporters do the opposite. ... (Black 1984 p.301)

.... Ironically, shortly thereafter, Dr. Rubbin saw to it that most drafts of his speech not already printed deleted any reference to the Transfer Agreement or Mr. Sam Cohen. 29 Dr. Ruppin apparently preferred history to believe he had never even mentioned the subject. (Black 1984 p.306)

The resolution ended with the sentence “In conjunction with our protests .... the determined will of the Jewish people to rebuild its National Home .... will represent the strongest proof of our national solidarity with the Jews of Germany.” 5

In other words, Hitler would be fought and the rights of the Jewish people would be preserved by one means and one means only: a Jewish State. (Black 1984 p.308)

... But Ben-Gurion drove home his ideological priorities when he told the Congress that Friday morning why halutzim should be taken first: “If this is a class war, we shall carry it on. But the problem between capital and labor cannot be decided at the Zionist Congress. .... The Zionist Congress is concerned only with the most rapid building up of Palestine.” Nor was Ben-Gurion interested in widening the halutz program to encompass those who were not true believers of the Mapai mold. In fact, he had every intention of keeping undesirable elements out, including the Revisionists. 11 The result would be a Jewish State cast in the image of Mapai. (Black 1984 p.312)

This adds to the evidence that many Zionists were counting on persecution to encourage non-Zionist Jews, who were a large majority outside of Palestine, to join their efforts. It also shows some indication that they wanted to keep this agreement as secret as possible, presumably because they understood that in addition to saving a relatively small number of Jews, they would also be enabling Hitler to recover the economy, which we now know resulted in his rearming, World War II, and the Holocaust. Zionists, of course, claim they didn't anticipate this; however, some of the writings from decades before the Transfer Agreement, and the arguments at that time, clearly indicated they knew something horrifying was possible, and that it was important to stop Hitler in the most effective and quickest way possible. They also acknowledged a possible class conflict, which was made worse by Zionists stealing from Jewish immigrants, but that it wasn't as important as establishing the State of Israel, which ultimately happened by enabling the invasion of many other countries and mass murder of many Jews outside of Germany!

... One might think that the whole affair was a bankruptcy sale and that the Jews of Palestine were endeavoring to salvage a few bargains for themselves. Palestinian Jewry should be showing the way to unified action and not be willing to victimize the rest of the world for a million crates of oranges.” 23 (Black 1984 p.320-1

Understanding full well that the JTA would distribute his remarks throughout the world, Rabbi Silver made the following declaration: “This is a test case. Always Palestine has asked the Jews of the world to sacrifice for Palestine. Now the time has come to ask, will Palestine make a commercial sacrifice for the fifteen million Jews of the world? We say to the Palestinian Jews, we won’t trade with the enemy and we won’t permit the Jews of Palestine to.” 24 (Black 1984 p.321)

... “[But] if it be proved to me that any Jew in or out of Palestine, or any other representative of any group of Jews, has been so base as to attempt to do business with Germany for the sake of profit and gain, I attest that life will not be bearable for any such man..... We are not rebuilding a Holy Land, out of which the Law and the Prophets came, in order to make a land of profits for some by their dealings with the German government.” 26 ....

Wise’s condemnation, indeed the condemnation of the Jewish world, was provoked by disclosures about the orange deal and the Transfer Agreement. But in fact they were just two of literally dozens of major commercial arrangements being negotiated between Palestine and Germany even as Wise spoke. There were breweries, bakeries, steelworks, cement factories, irrigation systems, printing presses, medical facilities, and a host of other state building enterprises. Wise and the other protesters didn’t understand what was happening, or how fast. (Black 1984 p.353)

... As such, leadership of the worldwide boycott was being consigned to Zionist officials and Zionist organizations. This was the fate of the international boycott so painstakingly nurtured by the Jews of the world. The boycott would be led by leaders who in fact opposed it. (Black 1984 p.361)

As Jewish existence was dismantling in Germany, however, it was reconstructing in Jewish Palestine. The Haavara brought in many of the fundamentals: coal, iron, cement, fertilizer, seed, hammers, saws, and cultivators. Haavara also brought in the capital: cash, loans, mortgages, deposits, and credits. All this produced an economic explosion in Jewish Palestine, requiring companies to be formed, investments to be made, and most of all, jobs to be filled. (Black 1984 p.373)

At some point, too many Jews came under German jurisdiction. They could not be efficiently transported, housed, and worked in labor camps. Efforts were made to send them to Palestine via underground rescue routes. The Gestapo, working with elite Zionist rescue units known as Mossad, dispatched Jews in trucks, rickety ships, and on foot via Turkey, Bulgaria, and Romania. When Britain would accept no more and the Zionist solution was no longer viable, a new solution was needed. In vast killing factories the Jews would be gassed and cremated. The names Auschwitz and Treblinka were added to the memory of man. This would be the Final Solution. (Black 1984 p.378)

Throughout his book Edwin Black makes it clear that for the Zionist, the top priority wasn't to stand up to Hitler in the most effective way possible, but to raise funds for the establishment of a Jewish State in Palestine and convert it into Israel. As Black said in his first Afterward, I can't guarantee Hitler could have been stopped if they remained unified in favor of a boycott in 1933, but there is a strong possibility this would have happened, and if their efforts were joined by others, which might have been the case, that would have been even more likely. Black also provides an enormous amount of evidence showing that there was also a class conflict going on within the Jewish community, and in addition to being robbed by the Nazis, working class Jews were also betrayed by Zionist Jews.

Also, in the first addition of this book, Edwin Black indicated he partly agreed with me in the Afterward, when, as I pointed out above, he wrote "Could the boycott really have overturned the Hitler regime? I believe the answer is that for a short period of time the anti-Nazi boycott did have an excellent chance of toppling the Third Reich." (p.380) After reading his book, I had no doubt this would have been a strong possibility, especially if some other efforts to stop Hitler were also taken, and clearly many other people that he discussed his book came to the same conclusion as me, and assumed that the Zionists were partly responsible for sabotaging efforts to stop Hitler because he went on to write: "By undermining the boycott, are the Zionists responsible for the Hitler regime’s not being toppled, and by extension are they responsible for the Holocaust? This is an absurd distortion of the facts in my book, but many intelligent people have emotionally asked the question. The answer is, of course, no." However, I can't agree that it's "an absurd distortion" of his book, since his book provided an enormous amount of evidence supporting this conclusion, and, ultimately, it also lead to massive amounts of oppression of the Palestinians in addition to helping restore Germany's economy enabling World War II and the Holocaust. For one reason or another, that Afterward was not reprinted in the 1999 edition of his book and it was replaced by an Afterward by Abraham Foxman who wrote:

The potential for the subsequent transfer agreements in other countries, such as Czechoslovakia and Hungary, boggles the mind. Had the other Haavara agreements been implemented in the other European countries, we can only imagine how many more hundreds of thousands of Jews could have been saved. Unfortunately, the war broke out before these transfer organizations could make any meaningful progress. (Black 1999 p.381 Abraham Foxman Afterward)

Abraham Foxman doesn't even seem to consider the strong possibility, if not guarantee, that the Transfer Agreement enabled Hitler to rearm and resulted in many more deaths than they saved, nor does he consider the possibility that additional agreements in other countries would have only provided them with more financing to start the War, or that the additional Transfer Agreements wouldn't be needed if the War didn't break out at all as a result of Nazis inability to restore their economy and rearm! Many Zionists clearly weren't willing to acknowledge many inconvenient facts any more than the Nazis were.

I have read dozens of follow up editions of many non-fiction books and don't recall any of them ever deleting portions of the original book, although in most cases, I don't check to see if that has happened, but it's not uncommon for follow up additions to reprint multiple introductions or afterwards, informing the reader when they were added. One exception which I have heard of, although I didn't read her book, Barbara Bush wrote a memoir which included a false accusation against Philip Agee and in the paperback version, after being sued for libel she changed it without informing her readers of the change or why it was made, as far as I know, or at least not directly, but she sent a letter to Philip Agee explaining this and it lead to him dropping his lawsuit and the explanation did become public, although in a much lower profile manner. Is it possible that he declined to repost the original Afterward because of pressure from Zionists? Israel and their allies have pressured sources to suppress criticism on numerous occasions, including some pointed out by "The Israel Lobby and U.S. foreign policy" John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, Norman Finkelstein's books or many other sources, although the mainstream media almost never reports on the most compelling criticism if Israel.

At about the time that he published the 1999 edition, Edwin Black also wrote COULD WE HAVE STOPPED HITLER? Could American Jews have acted sooner and done more to save European Jewry? This was retrieved from Wayback Machine. This article was taken down between March 31 2019 and May 22 2020 for some reason, but it was reposted here. He writes "The Transfer Agreement tore the Jewish world apart, turning leader against leader, threatening rebellion and even assassination." This was further described in the book, but once again he absolves the Zionists of responsibility, even though large portions of his book don't support this conclusion when he writes "Those who would condemn the Zionist decision to enter into a pact with Hitler have the luxury of hindsight. In 1933, the Zionists could not have foreseen the death trains, gas chambers, and crematoria. But they did understand that the end was now at hand for Jews in Europe. Nazism was unstoppable. The emphasis now became saving Jewish lives and establishing a Jewish State."

It is certainly true they couldn't have predicted all the atrocious details; however, he provided numerous sources showing they could have predicted something horrifying was coming and that they actually anticipated this to help reestablish the State of Israel including the writings of Theodor Herzl and his partner Max Nordau decades before Hitler rose to power and many other Zionists while Hitler was in power. There are also other sources, including David Ben-Gurian himself who once said,

If I knew that it was possible to save all the children of Germany by transporting them to England, and only half by transferring them to the Land of Israel, I would choose the latter, for before us lies not only the numbers of these children but the historical reckoning of the people of Israel.

As I pointed out before there's also evidence from Klaus Polkehn who wrote The Secret Contacts: Zionism and Nazi Germany, 1933-1941 which includes the following excerpts:

The Secret Contacts: Zionism and Nazi Germany, 1933-1941 Klaus Polkehn Journal of Palestine Studies Vol. 5, No. 3/4 (Spring - Summer, 1976), pp. 54-82

The attitude of the Zionists towards the encroaching menace of fascist domination in Germany was determined by some common ideological assumptions: the fascists as well as the Zionists believed in unscientific racial theories, and both met on the same ground in their beliefs in such mystical generalizations as "national character (Volkstumj and "race", both were chauvinistic and inclined towards "racial exclusiveness.' .... "The Zionist programme encompasses the conception of a homogeneous, indivisible Jewry on a national basis. The criterion for Jewry is hence not a confession of religion, but the all-embracing sense of belonging to a racial community that is bound together by tics of blood and history and which is determined to keep its national individuality." 10 ....

.... But the Zionists saw that only the anti-Semitic Hitler was likely to push the anti-Zionist German Jews into the arms of Zionism. p.57

...... Only the Zionists saw some benefit in this turn of events. (The British historian Christopher Sykes, certainly no anti-Zionist, gives as his opinion "that the Zionist leaders were determined at the very outset of the Nazi disaster to reap political advantage from the tragedy." 16 The first public expression of this came from the Berlin Rabbi, Dr. Joachim Prinz, who was a committed Zionist and who directly after January 30, 1933, described the Hitler takeover as the "beginning of the Jew's return to his Judaism." 18 In reference to the mounting fascist terror against the German Jews, Prinz wrote: *'No hiding place hides us any longer. Instead of assimilation, we wish for the recognition of the Jewish nation and the Jewish race." 17 p.58

The fascists rewarded the Zionists for their "restraint" and allowed the ZVFD to go on with its work unhindered. (This was at a time when all democratic and anti-fascist parties and organizations in Germany were subject to the most rigorous persecution, with their officials and members behind bars in prisons and concentration camps.) At the same lime, the fascists placed all kinds of obstacles in the path of the non-Zionist organizations. These hindrances struck at the CV above all, for prior to 1933, the fascists had already seen the CV as "their chief Jewish opponents," as is indicated by numerous examples from the Nazi press. 24 The CV had always charged the Zionists with showing little interest in the "struggle [against fascism] ... and that [Zionism | followed a policy of indifference [in the face of the encroaching fascist danger] because it did not feel itself involved." 25 p.60

After 1933, the fascists permitted the Zionists to continue with their propaganda. While all the newspapers in Germany were placed directly under the supervision of the Ministry of Propaganda (the newspapers published by the Communists or the Social Democratic Party or the trade unions and other progressive organizations were banned) the Zionist Judische Rundschau was allowed to appear unhindered. p.62

Only after the outbreak of the Palestinian Arab rebellion of 1936 did the first difference of opinion set in amongst the various fascist institutions about the usefulness of continuing the Haavara transfers. The Foreign Office now realized that the de facto support for Zionist policy would alienate Arabs against Hitlers Germany — a prospect that was not in the interest of the Nazi Reich. ...... He added (hat Germany need "not worry unduly about the sympathies of Palestinian Arabs regarding Germany, since what is required is not oven a question of an active Arab policy so much as the need to avoid the conspicuous promotion lent to the building of the Jewish national home." 47 [Walter] Döhle feared "that the Arab mood might turn around, and that wc might be accused of actively participating in the fight against them." 48 p.67-8

.... However, it is to be supposed that it was through these contacts that a meeting was arranged between the then Prussian Prime Minister Hermann Goering (later sentenced lo death by the Nuremberg International Tribunal as a war criminal) and the leaders of German Jewish organizations. ... p.70

The trip to Palestine undertaken by Eichmann and Hagen is only an episode in the history of collaboration between Zionism and Nazi Germany. But it was both a meaningful and revealing one that has become the subject of considerable falsification. Rather than admit the fact that the infamous and notorious murderer of the Jews, Adolf Eichmann, was at one time invited to Palestine by the Haganah, Zionist writers reversed the blame and claimed that the purpose of Eichmann's visit was to make contact with the Palestinian rebels, or even to conspire with the Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Am in Al-Husseini. The inventor of this story seems to be the well-known Zionist Simon Wiesenthal, who by 1947 was already making the claim that Eichmann had planted a network of agents in the Palestinian settlement of Sarona and had taken up "contact with the Grand Mufti." 74 p.73

When such myths are compared with the actual events, one reason why the Israeli government was so anxious about holding the trial of Eichmann in Israel and in no other place becomes clear; only in Israel could Zionist contacts with the Nazis be kept out of public view. 7 " Only there would there be enough pressure for Eichmann, on trial lor his life, to make false declarations before, the court. "It is true," said Eichmann during his trial, "that one of the purposes of my Palestine trip in 1937 was to lake up contact with Mufti Al-Husscini." 80 But the travel report of Eichmann and Hagen found in the secret archives of SS Chief Himmler paints a different picture. 81 This is the gist of the travel report: Eichmann and Hagen left Berlin on September 26, 1937, in the guise of editors of the Berliner Tageblatt, arriving in Haifa on October 2, 1937, on the ship Romania. As the British authorities refused to allow the two SS emissaries to disembark (pointing to the Arab revolt}, Eichmann and Hagen went on to Egypt. Here they met not Haj Arnin AI-Husseini. 82 but their old acquaintance, Feivel Polkes the Haganah officer. p.73-4

The travel report of Hagen and Eichmann contains an exact rendering of the conversations with Polkes which took place on October 10 and 11, 1937 in Cairo's Cafe Groppi. Polkes at once laid out the Zionist plans in complete frankness before the SS men (Polkes' statements as noted down by Eichmann and Hagen are not only interesting in connection with Zionist-fascist cooperation, but are also important as testimony to the expansionist policy of the Zionists): "The Zionist state must be established by all means and as soon as possible so that it attracts a stream of Jewish emigrants to Palestine. When the Jewish state is established according to the current proposals laid down in the Peel Paper," 3 and in line with England's partial promises, then the borders may be pushed further outwards according to one's wishes."

Polkes then praised the results of the anti-Semitic terror in Germany: "Nationalist Jewish circles expressed their great joy over the radical German policy towards the Jews, as this policy would increase the Jewish population in Palestine, so that one can reckon with a Jewish majority in Palestine over the Arabs in the foreseeable future." p.74

..... In the early summer of 1938 Eichmann had met another emissary of the Mossad, Bar-Gilead, in Vienna. The latter requested permission to establish training camps for emigrants so that they could be prepared for their work in Palestine. 87 After passing on this request to Berlin, Eichmann granted permission and supplied all the requirements for the establishment of training camps. By the end of 1938, around a thousand young Jews had been trained in these camps. 88

In the meantime, Ginsburg in Berlin was able, with the help of the Nazi authorities, to establish similar training camps. Jon and David Kimche wrote: "The Palestinian [Ginsburg], who had come to Berlin prepared for anything, had no pangs of conscience against supping with the devil and securing his own portion of the meal." 89

In her book Eichmann in Jerusalem, Hannah Arendt commented in reviewing the information of the Kimches:

...these Jews from Palestine spoke a language not totally different from that of Eichmann... they had been sent to Europe by the communal settlements in Palestine, and they were not interested in rescue operations — that was not their job. They wanted to select "suitable material" and their chief enemies... were not those who made life impossible for Jews in the old countries, Germany and Austria, but those who barred access to the new homeland; that enemy was definitely Britain, not Germany... they were probably among the first Jews to talk openly about mutual interests... 90 p.76

The Proposal for a War Alliance with Hitler

While- the majority group in the Zionist movement, the wing of the "Labour" party (Ben Gurion, etc.) and the "General Zionists" (Weizmann and the others), carefully camouflaged their contacts with the Fascists, and spoke in public against them, the right wing of Zionism, the Revisionist party (the forerunner of the terrorist Irgun Zvai Leumi and the later Herut party in Israel) had openly expressed its admiration on many occasions before 1933 for people like Hitler and Mussolini. An example of this is found in a trial held in Jerusalem in 1932 when the lawyer Cohen, a member of the Revisionist party, declared in defending the perpetrators of outrages in the university: "Yes, we entertain great respect for Hitler. Hitler has saved Germany. Without him it would have perished four years ago. And we would have gone along with Hitler if he had only given up his anti-Semitism." 91 p.76-7

Vladimir Jabotinsky, the then leader of the Revisionists, who maintained good relations with the fascist movement in Europe, 52 was also accused of attempting; to seek a close relationship with Hitler's Germany. There was now clearly a competition among the different Zionist factions to achieve private collaboration with the fascists while publicly denouncing each other's similar activity. (Reference should be made to the circumstances surrounding the assassination of Chaim Arlosoroff.) The Zionist paper Davar in July 1933 published an article by David Ren Gurion which contained a strong charge: "..Just after Hitler's accession to power in Germany, when the persecutions of Jews and Marxists were at their height, Mr. Vladimir Jabotinsky arrived in Berlin and in a public address incited against Marxists and Communists in Zionism and in Palestine. " 93 If that was the case, then it meant that Jabotinsky wanted to torpedo the Zionist-fascist negotiations in order to bring himself into the game as a negotiating partner with the Nazis. Nonetheless, Jabotinsky strove to refute Ben Gurion's charge by pointing out that he had spoken on Radio Warsaw on April 28, 1933 and demanded the setting up of a worldwide economic boycott of Germany, simultaneously with the establishment in Palestine of a Jewish state "as the only adequate answer to the Hitlerite menace." 94 There was an obvious allusion here to the Zionist majority's Haavara negotiations. But Jabotinsky could not dispute the fact that the Revisionist paper Hazit Haanu appearing in Palestine, "was allegedly treating this movement [the fascists] with a pronounced slant of sympathetic understanding. The editors of the paper... he was told, though aware of Hitler's rabid anti-Semitism, saw in National Socialism elements of a genuine movement of national liberation." 95 p.77-8

For fascist Germany, collaboration with the Zionist majority was undoubtedly more important than cooperation with the Revisionist "opposition." Nonetheless, even the Revisionists were allowed to continue their political activities in Germany. The members of the Revisionist youth organization "Brit Trumpeldor" (about whom Schechtmann mentions reports that it "was adapting itself to certain features of the Nazi regime") 96 was the only non-fascist organization in Germany to receive from the Nazis the permission to wear uniform. p.78

Conclusion

Whenever the story of fascist-Zionist cooperation is revealed, Zionist writers use the ready excuse that contact with the Nazis was only taken up with a view to saving the lives of Jewish citizens. Even though some of the above-mentioned facts contradict this argument, there are still two questions to be raised: Was there really no other way to save the European Jews? Was this the real motive of the Zionists as they dealt with the devil? p.80

There can be no question about the tact that the only possibility of preventing millions of Jews from being murdered (as well as preventing the Second World War, which cost the lives of millions) lay in overthrowing the fascist dictatorship when it was just at the beginning of its period of domination. But the Zionist leaders were uninterested in this — their sole objective was to increase the number of the Jewish population in Palestine. As they shared the anti-assimilationist views of Nazism concerning the Jewish race, the fascist dictatorship was no tragedy for them, but a confirmation of their position. As David Ben Gurion put it: "What Zionist propaganda for years could not do, disaster has done overnight." 97

The Zionist leaders not only did nothing against fascism; they even took action that sabotaged the anti-fascist front (through the prevention of an economic boycott by their Haavara agreement). In practice, they also rejected attempts to save the German Jews which did not have as their aim the settlement of the Jews in Palestine. The following example is from the Evian Conference: When after 1933 the majority of the capitalist countries refused to take in Jewish refugees from Germany, the American President, Roosevelt, called for a world conference on refugees to convene in the Swiss town of Evian. This conference took place between June 6-15, 1938, with 32 capitalist countries attending. The conference failed, since the participants refused to take in Jewish refugees. One would assume that the Zionist movement, which was also represented in Evian, would have attempted to exert pressure on the governments to lift the restrictions. But, on the contrary, the Zionist leaders tabled a motion at the beginning of the conference calling for the admission of 1.2 million Jews into Palestine. They were not interested in other solutions and, as Christopher Sykes later commented; 'They looked on the whole thing with indifferent hostility from the very beginning... the truth of the matter was that what was being attempted in Evian in no way conformed with the idea of Zionism." 98

Thus the Zionist leaders share the responsibility for the failure to rescue a greater number of European Jewry. One should in all justice remember that those Jews who survived the monstrous fascist domination owed their lives to the soldiers of the anti-Hitler bloc, and especially to those of the Soviet army, who underwent terrible sacrifices in defeating the fascist dictatorship. p.81

Zionist leaders falsify history when they claim today that no one during the years of fascism stood by the side of the persecuted Jews except the Zionists. Robert Weltsch, who himself had in the year 1933 taken up no clear stand against the fascists, advanced the thesis that no one at all in Germany had taken up the cause of the persecuted. 99

But the study of historic documents shows this to be incorrect. Apart from the many courageous acts of individuals to help the persecuted, the German Communist Party from the very first days of the fascist dictatorship condemned the anti-Semitic outrages as an integral ingredient of the regime in power. While the Zionist organization Hashomer Hazair in Germany was still declaring in 1982 "that participation of the Chaluzian youth 100 in the struggle of the German working class... was not the way to express our political engagement," 101 and while for the Hashomer Hazair "the resistance against the communists was of particular importance" 102 the German Communist Party was making the following declaration in reference to the Jewish pogrom of November 9, 1938: "The German working class stands in the forefront of the struggle against the persecution of the Jews. . . the liberation of Germany from the shame of the Jewish pogroms will coincide with the hour of liberating the German people from the brown tyranny." 103

The German communists called for the selling up of an anti-fascist popular front, but the Zionists were not interested. During the Nineteenth Zionist Congress in Lucerne in 1935 Chaim Wcizmann stated: "The only dignified answer to all that has been done to the Jews in Germany is a large and a beautiful and a just home in Eretz Israel - - a strong home." l04 p.81-2Complete text at Internet Archive

Klaus Polkehn didn't provide quite as much background as Edwin Black, but he was more inclined to implicate the Zionists as being partly responsible, and the details provided by Edwin Black often strengthen his conclusions, even though Black doesn't always agree with them, and it appears other sources also came to similar conclusions, possibly including Ralph Schoenman, Lenni Brenner and Mahmoud Abbas although I haven't completely read their books, two are listed below. One critic of Lenni Brenner, Paul Bogdanor, claims his book is mostly if not entirely a hoax, and is worth a good look to see if he has good points, or is just providing cover for Zionists, but, for what it's worth Brenner is Jewish. There are even more critics of Mahmoud Abbas who claim he's biased, which may be true, but most of the information on his book is not easily accessible, and may only be available in Arabic, which is unfortunate, since, credible or not, most people can't read it and sort through the truth or understand what conclusions Palestinians who read Arabic are drawing from it. It's virtually guaranteed that some of the conclusions drawn by Mahmoud Abbas are false, but not all of them.

Klaus Polkehn concludes that both the Nazis and Zionists "believed in unscientific racial theories" and there's no doubt that the Nazis do, but, based on the information given to most people in the United States, there may be an enormous amount of doubt about the Zionists, but mainstream media hardly covers most of their history at all. Most people in America aren't even aware of Wikipedia: United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379, which declared "that Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination." I provided a few quotes above that also support this conclusion and there are more below, but the vast majority of reporting about racist Zionists is ignored by mainstream media and only covered by alternative media or media from the Middle East, where they're much more likely to report on the problems of the occupation of Palestinians.

Polkehn and several other authors also conclude that Zionists were far more concerned with establishing a new State of Israel than protecting the majority of Jews, and while some of these critics go too far, there is a lot of truth to this, and Edwin Black adds to the evidence supporting this conclusion, even if he doesn't agree with it. They even allowed the Zionists rights that they wouldn't allow to other Jews. This is a tactic the Nazis were well known for, rewarding those that served their cause, even if it meant betraying other Jews. Polkehn also cites the Communist Party for doing more to save Jews than the Zionist, which may be partly true, but keep in mind he, and Lenni Brenner have ties to the Communist Party. But there is no doubt that Soviet Union did more to defeat the Nazis once the war was going, even though it wasn't based on concern for Jews. If there are doubts about some of these sources, they surely shouldn't include Hannah Arendt, although her input is modest compared to other claims.

There should be no doubt that the boycott, if it was carried out in a unified manner, might have prevented World War II and the Holocaust, or at least slowed down their rearment, possibly making the War much less serious. Furthermore, if the Boycott, alone, couldn't have prevented World War II, it certainly could have helped other efforts to prevent the escalation of violence, one way or another. This includes help, assuming they could get it, from financial institutions, which may have helped rearm Hitler instead. But, of course, they were far more concerned with standing up to the Communists, which according to several sources, is why they saw Hitler as the lesser evil.

As Eugene Debs said, "The master class has always declared the wars; the subject class has always fought the battles. The master class has had all to gain and nothing to lose, while the subject class has had nothing to gain and all to lose—especially their lives," (The Canton, Ohio Speech, Anti-War Speech June 16, 1918), which clearly shows allowing wealthy people to make all important decisions about wars, which routinely turn out to be based on lies, is a major contributing factor to war. Another major factor is the fact that a small fraction of the public controls well over 90% of national media, and when wealthy people rally for war they routinely marginalize critics, like when they threw Debs and many others in Jail during the first World War or when they stopped covering many critics of war, like Phil Donahue, who was fired from MSNBC in the run up to the Iraq War, which was, of course based on false claims of weapons of mass destruction that they knew didn't exist. They also stopped covering Scott Ritter and Mohamed El Baradei, who both were weapons inspectors and they told who ever would listen that the claims about weapons of mass destruction were false before the War, but if the media mentioned them at all, they smeared them.

Another major factor is that the media continues to withhold reporting on many events about modern Wars or conflicts that are still going on, which is available from alternative sources, most people aren't aware of, including the conflict in the occupied territories of Israel, which includes massive amounts of oppression of Palestinians that has been going on for over seventy years, yet the media is heavily biased in favor of the Zionists. As I said above there are many Zionists, admitting they're Fascists, racists, or that they literally support genocide of the Palestinians, yet these quotes aren't being reported in traditional media, so most people don't know what king of government or people our tax money is supporting. This includes Miri Regev, who said, "I am happy to be a Fascist!;" Eli Yishai who said "We must blow Gaza back to the Middle Ages destroying all the infrastructure including roads and water;" Gilad Sharon who said "There should be no electricity in Gaza, no gasoline or moving vehicles, nothing .... We need to flatten entire neighborhoods ... flatten all of Gaza."; "There are no innocents in Gaza. Mow them down ... kill the Gazans without thought or mercy." Michael Ben-Ari, Member of the Knesset); Gaza should be "bombed so hard the population has to flee into Egypt" (Israel Katz, present Minister of Transport); Gaza should be “wiped clean with bombs” (Avi Dichter, present Minister of Home Front Defence); Israeli soldiers must “learn from the Syrians how to slaughter the enemy” (prominent Israeli Rabbi Yaakov Yosef); and Ayelet Shaked who said "Mothers of all Palestinians should also be killed as they give birth to little snakes ... the entire Palestinian people is the enemy ..... including its elderly and its women, its cities and its villages, its property and its infrastructure," and much more.

There are also many quotes from David Ben-Gurion admitting that many Jews were thieves and rapists during invasions of Palestine to steal the land from Muslims. There's also a video of someone saying "I'm proud to be racist. and it's our right to be rascist," when talking about Sudanese Jews. Abby Martin also reported on Everyday Israelis Who Express Support for Genocide, if you look look at this video there's one person after another accusing the Arabs of being terrorists, or other false claims which actually apply to themselves. They're the ones terrorizing the Arabs and stealing their land, not the other way around, and if people didn't rely on mainstream media or Zionist media to get their news this would be obvious. Abby Martin's video includes a tape of a Jewish Israeli who opposes the racism, although he grew up with it, and may have previously supported it. This person claims they're trained from kindergarten to be soldiers and describes how they're taught to be rascist, which he no longer supports. He also describes how the Jewish people created a legal system to ban refugees from returning and to ensure that Jewish people could stay, which is an obvious rascist practice.

This isn't just claims made by Palestinians showing that Zionists are oppressing Palestinians and that they are racist, but this is also supported by claims by many Jewish people who really do oppose all forms of genocide, including several that specifically say Zionism is Racism, like the UN Resolution 3379, mentioned above. These Jews include Yoav Litvin, Mitchell Plitnick, Zvi Bar’el, whose articles are listed below, and many more, including Lenni Brenner, Ilan Pappé, Norman Finkelstein and John Mearsheimer, who may not have specifically claimed Zionism is, by definition, racism, but they all wrote extensively against Israeli oppression of Palestinians.

Not all Jews agree of course, but in one case where a Jew, or defender of Zionism, who only goes by the name David argues in Is Zionism a Form of Racism? 11/04/2021 that Zionism isn't racist, but the obviously false claims he uses to make this claim shows that he has no credibility. He claimed that "Israel has welcomed Ethiopian Jews, Indian Jews, North African Jews, Jewish Refugees from expelled from Arabic and other Moslim countries, European Jews – a diverse group of Jews – black, brown, oriental and white," which is clearly false as the videos I posted above show, where many Israelis claimed they wanted them out of Israel, with one even saying "I'm proud to be racist. and it's our right to be racist." He also claims that Arabs living in Israel have rights of citizenship and equality," which is also false, as some of the sources I already pointed out, and many other sources show. Furthermore he simply doesn't even mention massive amount of land being stolen from Palestinians or much more that doesn't fit his false claims.

And, of course, the vast majority of people involved choose to believe in the Benevolent God of Abraham, even though, as I pointed out above, there's no way such a God would withhold the advise to prevent many of these disasters. If there is such a God it can't possibly be as Benevolent as religious people choose to believe and it sounds more like Gorgan from the classic episode of Star Trek, And the Children Shall Lead who is actually an evil monster trying to control the universe and become a tyrant. If there is a real God of some sort, it's easy to determine that he can't be benevolent, but is the opposite possible, that he could be evil for the sake of evil? Technically we shouldn't rule this out, since we can't argue that an evil God wouldn't behave this way, but it seems highly unlikely that an advanced intelligence of some sort with many unexplained abilities, but not necessarily as many as described in the Bible, wouldn't find something better to do with his time than stage conflicts solely for amusement.

If this God does exist and has influenced religion it's virtually that it has some far-fetched undisclosed motive, however difficult it is to figure out, without additional information. Many religious people believe he arranged many Wars in the Bible and other Wars since then, and, if you accept the literal history of the Bible it seems to confirm this conclusion; if we don't accept the literal history of the Bible, then we still know God withheld advice that could prevent these wars, giving his tacit approval.

What could he gain by that?

Research? This seems more credible than amusement, but there are many more questions, assuming this is partly true. Are there other possibilities?

It's hard to say, but if people were willing to accept the obvious conclusion that either God doesn't exist or he's not a credible source of morality, then we could learn from the best research available and act to prevent more Wars based on lies or solve other social problems, including reduction of all violence. If you look into the history of all recent wars there's no doubt that they could be prevented if the truth was told to the public and the public held their leaders accountable. This would be even truer if good education was available to all not just the wealthy. And it also includes the War in Ukraine, which as I pointed out in Which Alternative Ukrainian Reality Is Real? is also based on lies, and that it never would have happened if not for the 2014 coup which is hardly reported in traditional media, but my article includes many credible sources more reliable than mainstream media.

The Zionist fallacy of ‘Jewish supremacy’ 01/09/2019 by Yoav Litvin

The hypocrisy behind Zionist cries of ‘antisemitism’ 12/19/2018 by Yoav Litvin

The new Israeli government is driving even moderates to say Zionism is racism 12/30/2022 by Mitchell Plitnick

"The Transfer Agreement: the untold story of the secret agreement between the Third Reich and Jewish Palestine" by Edwin Black 1984

"The Transfer Agreement: the untold story of the secret agreement between the Third Reich and Jewish Palestine" by Edwin Black 1999 With New Preface by Edward Chase and Afterward by Abraham Foxman. Original Afterward by Edwin Black, which makes some important points, is omitted from this edition.

Ralph Schoenman The Hidden History of Zionism (1988)

Lenni Brenner Zionism in the Age of the Dictators A Reappraisal (1983)

An Antisemitic Hoax: Lenni Brenner on Zionist ‘Collaboration’ With the Nazis June 2016 by Paul Bogdanor Rebuttal of "Lenni Brenner Zionism in the Age of the Dictators" that still confirms portions of the Transfer Agreement; but others defend it. Paul Bogdanor appears to be a defender of Israel

Livingstone’s Nonsense on Hitler Nonetheless Touches Raw Zionist Nerve 06/1/2023 Rebuttal of Former London Mayor Ken Livingstone that does not refute "Lenni Brenner Zionism in the Age of the Dictators" although he acknowledges it and that the author is an Anti-Zionist and Marxist

Wikipedia: Lenni Brenner "The Institute for Historical Review, a Holocaust denial platform, has cited, promoted, and sold Brenner's work.[28][29] Brenner has opposed his work being used by those on the far right, and those engaged in Holocaust denial.[28] Antisemitism scholar Kenneth S. Stern has described Brenner as antisemitic and anti-Zionist.[m] Brenner says that since he is Jewish, rather than being called an "anti-Semite", he is often called a "self-hating Jew".[n]" "Anti-Zionist activist Uri Davis positively reviewed both Zionism in the Age of the Dictators (1983) and The Iron Wall (1984) for Race and Class.[30] He said that both works contained invaluable information and documentation, but had uneven quality. In Davis's view, the former book was an important "work informed by the moral and the political insight of the author as an anti-Zionist scholar".[31] Davis found the thrust of the latter study, despite its impeccable documentation, somewhat weakened by passages of "pseudo-Freudian causal explanations" that Brenner wrote to supplement his political analysis. Secondly Davis says that Brenner makes "repeated irresponsible political statements verging on the nonsensensical", such as Brenner's notion that, were it not for the presence of the British army, the tiny Zionist yishuv would have been driven into the sea.[32]"

Wikipedia: The Other Side: The Secret Relationship Between Nazism and Zionism 1984 by Mahmoud Abbas

Mahmoud Abbas’ Dissertation 01/18/2023

Abbas' book reveals: The 'Nazi-Zionist plot' of the Holocaust 11/26/2014 In 1982 doctorate, Palestinian president not only doubts existence of gas chambers, number of Jews perished, he also accuses Zionist movement of secretly colluding with the Nazis and supporting the genocide of the Jews of Europe.

James Petras "The Power of Israel in the United States" 2006

Facts about the Haavara (Transfer) Agreement between Ben-Gurion & Hitler (1933 - late 39)

Sorry, You Can’t Be “Progressive Except Palestine” 07/27/2021 by Hadas Thier Review of Except for Palestine: The Limits of Progressive Politics by Marc Lamont Hill and Mitchell Plitnick (New Press, 2021).

Except for Palestine: The Limits of Progressive Politics Hardcover – February 16, 2021 by Marc Lamont Hill (Author), Mitchell Plitnick

Eugene Debs: The Canton, Ohio Speech, Anti-War Speech June 16, 1918

The Art of Selling War: Propaganda from Cato by Pierre Gilly 2020 p.137 “Let the capitalist do their own fighting and furnish their own corpses, and there will never be another war on the face of the earth.”

Nuremberg Diary - by Gustave Gilbert
Interview with Herman Goering

Gilbert recorded Goering's observations that the common people can always be manipulated into supporting and fighting wars by their political leaders:

We got around to the subject of war again and I said that, contrary to his attitude, I did not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and destruction.

"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."

"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."

"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country." Complete article

Israel’s Leaders: In Their Own Words Palestine Advocacy Project Exposes US-Backed Israeli Leaders’ Racist and Extremist Rhetoric

Israel’s apartheid against Palestinians: a cruel system of domination and a crime against humanity 02/01/2022

74 Top Benjamin Netanyahu Quotes That You Cannot Neglect

Top 10 Israeli Quotes

Exclusive: Netanyahu says don’t get ‘hung up’ on peace with Palestinians first 02/01/2023

Leaked wartime transcript exposes Israel’s leaders bitterly divided over how to fight Hamas in Gaza 01/24/2017

15 Quotes About Israel’s Slaughter Of Unarmed Gazan Protestors (Part II) 05/08/2018

Never again they said, but in Israel today the lesson is lost and the abused have become the abusers

Never again isn't just a slogan, it is a promise. 01/27/2022 Then and Now // Google: Israel "Never Again" unless we're the perpretrators

LETTER: Memorial a mistake 09/25/2018 David Ben Gurion “We must use terror, assassinations, intimidation, land confiscations and cutting of all social services to rid the Galilee of the Arab population." “We will expel the Arabs and take their place. In each attack, a decisive blow should be struck resulting in the destruction of homes and the expulsion of the population." “We must do everything to ensure they (the Palestinians) never do return… the old will die the young will forget”

Netanyahu Unaware of the Camera 'America can easily be moved' 09/29/2012 Netanyahu 'America Won't Get in Our Way..It's Easily Moved (Bibi orders the cameras to stop recording in the beginning but they keep rolling after 00:06) Mileikowsky later changed his name to Netanyahu is of polish origin. Footage recorded in 2011

The Grayzone: Killing Gaza: Documentary by Dan Cohen & Max Blumenthal shows life under Israel's bombs and siege 05/17/2021

Everyday Israelis Express Support for Genocide to Abby Martin 11/07/2017 On the streets of Jerusalem, Abby Martin interviews Jewish Israeli citizens from all walks of life. In several candid interviews, disturbing comments reveal commonly-held views about Palestinians and their future in the region.

1922: Hitler in Bavaria 02/10/2015 On Nov. 21, 1922, The New York Times gave its readers their first glimpse of Hitler, in a profile that got a lot of things right — its description of his ability to work a crowd into a fever pitch, ready then and there to stage a coup, presaged his unsuccessful beer hall putsch less than a year later. But the article also got one crucial point very wrong — despite what “several reliable, well-informed sources” told The Times in the third paragraph from the bottom, his anti-Semitism was every bit as genuine and violent as it sounded:

Snopes: Did a 1922 Article Advise Not to Worry About Hitler’s Anti-Semitism? 11/11/2016 True

New York Times in 1922: "Hitler's anti-Semitism was not so genuine" 02/11/2015 The Times wrote: "Several reliable, well-informed sources confirmed the idea that Hitler's anti-Semitism was not so genuine or violent as it sounded, and that he was merely using anti-Semitic propaganda as a bait to catch masses of followers and keep them aroused, enthusiastic, and in line for the time when his organization is perfected and sufficiently powerful to be employed effectively for political purposes."

"I'm proud to be racist..." This is how black people are treated in Apartheid Israel. (Via MintPress News) 05/1/2023 "You should all be in camps."

“May you be raped in your grave,” says new darling of Israel’s ruling Likud party 10/13/2013

The plight of Ethiopian Jews in Israel 05/25/2015

Facebook: Justice Now for Africans in Israel

How the Treaty of Versailles and German Guilt Led to World War II 06/29/2018

No, the 1919 Treaty of Versailles was not responsible for World War II 07/18/2017

Wikipedia: Treaty of Versailles

Is the Modern State of Israel the Fulfillment of Prophecy? - Ministry News 04/14/2021 By Dr. Michael Rydelnik

Does the State of Israel fulfil biblical prophecy? June 1, 2018 by Ian Paul

Ezekiel - Chapter 39 Cited in the above article by Ian Paul

PBS: Apocalypticism Explained | Apocalypse! FRONTLINE Signs of the end time

Bible Prophecy Revealed John Hagee

The Unfolding of Biblical Prophecies Sanford Aranoff Spring 1971

Why Did God Allow the Holocaust? - Chosen People Ministries

What is the theological connection between the Holocaust and the reestablishment of the State of Israel? 01/27/2021

The Holocaust Was Foretold

David Ben-Gurion and the Fulfillment of Bible Prophecy

Isaiah - Chapter 66 8 "Who ever heard of such a thing, who ever saw anything like this? Can a country be born in one day? Can a nation be brought forth all at once? For Zion, scarcely in labour, has brought forth her children!" Verse cited in above article about David Ben-Gurion

Israeli Deputy Prime Minister: We must blow Gaza back to the Middle Ages. 11/18/2012 Eli Yishai "We must blow Gaza back to the Middle Ages destroying all the infrastructure including roads and water."

Israel’s racist yearnings obstacle to global peace 12/03/2012 Golda Meir, who on June 15, 1969 claimed, "There were no such thing as Palestinians... They do not exist." .... Gilad Sharon "There should be no electricity in Gaza, no gasoline or moving vehicles, nothing .... We need to flatten entire neighborhoods ... flatten all of Gaza."; "There are no innocents in Gaza. Mow them down ... kill the Gazans without thought or mercy." Michael Ben-Ari, Member of the Knesset); Gaza should be "bombed so hard the population has to flee into Egypt" (Israel Katz, present Minister of Transport); Gaza should be “wiped clean with bombs” (Avi Dichter, present Minister of Home Front Defence); Israeli soldiers must “learn from the Syrians how to slaughter the enemy” (prominent Israeli Rabbi Yaakov Yosef).

'Mothers of all Palestinians should also be killed,' says Israeli politician 07/14/2014 Ayelet Shaked "Mothers of all Palestinians should also be killed as they give birth to little snakes ... the entire Palestinian people is the enemy ..... including its elderly and its women, its cities and its villages, its property and its infrastructure."

Opinion | Even Ben-Gurion Thought ‘Most Jews Are Thieves’ 10/04/2020 The concept of a state born in sin had never been so concrete: “Like locusts, the residents of Tiberias swarmed into the houses…”; “total and complete robbery…not a thread was left in [any house]”; and “soldiers wrapped in Persian rugs in the streets,” are a few of the descriptions of what happened in front of everyone, and was never told as it really was.

Israel founders were 'thieves', Israeli historian says 10/06/2020

Israeli minister said he could 'forgive instances of rape', 1948 documents reveal 01/06/2022

RE-EXPOSED: A horrific story of Israeli rape and murder in 1949 08/17/2015

Ben-Gurion in 1951: Only Death Penalty Will Deter Jews From Gratuitous Killing of Arabs 04/01/2016

Ben-Gurion's Dark Side 05/30/2013

Thomas Suarez "State of Terror: How Terrorism Created Modern Israel" 2016

David Ben-Gurion Quotes About Terrorism If I knew that it was possible to save all the children of Germany by transporting them to England, and only half by transferring them to the Land of Israel, I would choose the latter, for before us lies not only the numbers of these children but the historical reckoning of the people of Israel.

How we conveniently ignore the ‘terrorists’ among our allies 06/15/2021 Before they were prime minister, two Israelis were leaders of violent political movements that killed innocent people. ..... As leader of the Irgun group during World War II, Begin conducted a campaign of attacks, focused principally on British government and police targets, intended to drive the British out of Palestine — while Britain was busy waging a war against the Nazis.

Begin’s terrorist campaign continued after the war. His group’s most spectacular operation was the bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem in 1946, killing 91 persons and injuring 46. The list of victims went far beyond the British administrators who were the purported targets and included people of multiple nationalities not only in the hotel but in adjacent buildings and the street. .... Begin’s successor as prime minister, Yitzhak Shamir, had a similar history. He was co-leader of another Jewish terrorist group of the 1940s: Lehi, also known as the Stern Gang after its founder, which was considered even more extreme than the Irgun. Besides also participating in the Deir Yassin massacre, Shamir’s group specialized in assassinations, including the murder in Cairo in 1944 of the British minister of state responsible for the Middle East.

NYT: Ben-Gurion's Zionism 07/12/1987 ''The Jews could have only one destination -Eretz Yisrael. So in June 1938, shortly before Allied representatives met in Evian, France, to seek ways of rescuing Jews, Ben-Gurion frankly voiced his concern to colleagues in the Jewish Agency Executive. He did 'not know if the conference will open the gates of other countries. . . . But I am afraid [ it ] might cause tremendous harm to Eretz Yisrael and Zionism. . . . Our main task is to reduce the harm, the danger and the disaster . . . and the more we emphasize the terrible distress of the Jewish masses in Germany, Poland and Rumania, the more damage we shall cause.' So be silent, Ben-Gurion cautioned his comrades. . . . And in the silence . . . Evian failed.'' NORMAN G. FINKELSTEIN New York

How the Right-wing Already Won Israel's Culture War 06/27/2015 Miri Regev "I am happy to be a Fascist!"

“Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster... for when you gaze long into the abyss. The abyss gazes also into you.” ― Friedrich W. Nietzsche

Wikipedia: United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379, adopted on 10 November 1975 by a vote of 72 to 35 (with 32 abstentions), "determine[d] that Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination". It was revoked in 1991 with UN General Assembly Resolution 46/86.[1]

1931 Census of Palestine The total population of Palestine was given as 1,035,821, of whom 759,712 (73%) were Muslims, 174,610 (17%) Jews, 91,398 (9%) Christians and 10,101 others. The population of Jerusalem was given as 90,503, of whom19,294 were Muslims, 51,222 Jews, 19,335 Christians and 52 others (excluding neighborhoods such as Beit HaKerem and Isawiya, which were not formally part of the city at the time).

Wikipedia: Palestinian territories: Palestinians According to The Guardian (2008), the Palestinian territories have one of the fastest growing populations in the world, with numbers surging 30% in the past decade (2008). There were 3.76 million Palestinians in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, up from 2.89 million ten years earlier.[115] ...... According to the UN (2010), the Palestinian population was 4.4 million.[117]

Avi Shlaim says he has 'proof of Zionist involvement' in 1950s attack on Iraqi Jews 06/17/2023

Three Worlds: Memoirs of an Arab-Jew Kindle $17.99/£12.99 by Avi Shlaim

Fabricating Palestinian Responsibility for the Nazi Genocide 11/04/2015

The Eichmann Case and the Distortion of History by Eli M. Rosenbaum Spring 2012

The Secret Contacts: Zionism and Nazi Germany, 1933-1941 Klaus Polkehn Journal of Palestine Studies Vol. 5, No. 3/4 (Spring - Summer, 1976), pp. 54-82 (29 pages) On the occasion of the Sixteenth Convention of the Israeli Communist Party, a paper was submitted at the outset of the conference in which it was stated that “after Hitler’s taking of power in Germany, when all ......

The Secret Contacts: Zionism and Nazi Germany, 1933-1941 Klaus Polkehn Journal of Palestine Studies Vol. 5, No. 3/4 (Spring - Summer, 1976), pp. 54-82 (29 pages) Complete text at Internet Archive

The Electronic Intifada