Ian Stuart Donaldson Skrewdriver

Posts Tagged ‘Judaism’

Anti-whites like to say Diversity is “freedom”

Monday, September 17th, 2012

Anti-whites like to say Diversity is “freedom” for non-Whites to enter White living space and “mix in” with whomever they wish.

However, White people are not allowed to refuse this freedom, so it is your diversity we are FORCED to accept.

If Hitler made every male Jew live in a west African nation and every female Jew live in an east African nation and they were allowed to mate with whomever they chose within those nations, would it have been genocide? Duh, yea yuh.

NO to White geNOcide!

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook

‘Hitler’ shop sends India shockwave

Monday, September 3rd, 2012

“Hitler” covers the black store front in large white letters – a red swastika dotting the “i”. The name of the new men’s clothing store has caused a stir in India‘s Ahmedabad city.

Ignorance over Adolf Hitler’s dark history, or a tasteless shock-advertising scheme? That’s the question being asked after Rajesh Shah named his shop after the Nazi dictator, who took over Germany in the 1930s and then tried to conquer Europe.

The small Jewish community in Ahmedabad in western Gujarat state – numbering less than 500 – is up-in-arms and demanding he change the name. But Shah says to do so would bite into his profits.

“If the Jewish community wants the name to be changed, they should pay for it. I have spent too much on the logo … the brand,” Shah told Al Jazeera, refusing to divulge how much it would cost.

Unlike most countries in the world, in India it is not uncommon for the name Hitler to represent businesses, movies, TV programmes, and even people’s names – a strange reality to outside observers, but one that is accepted without much thought by ordinary Indians. The swastika, meanwhile, was used as a Hindu symbol long before the Nazis adopted it.

One academic, however, warns the growing use of the name Hitler and what it represents is a dangerous development.

“With the rise of right-wing parties in India, Hitler has made a huge comeback in India,” says professor AF Mathew who teaches sociology, cultural and cinema studies at the India Institute of Management Kozhikode. “This is a matter of great concern. Fascism is morally wrong and to see some neo-Nazi parties making waves in Europe and India is extremely worrying.”

Orna Sagiv, Israel’s consul general in Mumbai, told Al Jazeera she was “very surprised and shocked” to hear the clothes shop was named Hitler after it opened in August.

“We believe that in this case, the choice of the name ‘Hitler’ does not derive of anti-Semitism, but from pure ignorance. Nevertheless, it still strongly hurts the sentiments of the local Jewish community, as well as the feeling of Jews around the world and in Israel.”

A ‘catchy’ name

Jewish members from the city have approached Shah urging him to rename the store. So far he has refused.

“They call the German leader a monster. [But] no other people have complaints. I have not hurt any sentiments of the majority Hindu community,” Shah says. 

So why did Shah choose the German despot’s moniker? Because that was the name of the co-owner’s grandfather, he says.

“Frankly speaking, I did not know anything about Hitler before approving the name for the shop. My partner’s father gave us a suggestion that the shop be named after his father,” he says. “My partner’s grandfather was nicknamed Hitler after he acted the role in a college play.” 

Later Shah learned of the name’s significance, but decided to use it because it looked “catchy and different”.

“Customers … tell us that they came in seeing the shop name,” says Shah. “So far, business is good.” 

Esther David is a prominent Jewish-Indian writer, artist and sculptor who lives in Ahmedabad. “It comes as a shock that a name like this can be used for marketing purposes,” she told Al Jazeera. “There is a lack of sensitivity and maybe the social structure had rotted in such a way, that people do not realise the implications of using such a name for a shop.”

The clothing store is one of a handful of Indian businesses named after the Nazi dictator. Owners seem to have picked it more for shock value than as an embrace of or admiration for Nazism.

In 2006, a Mumbai restaurant owner called his café “Hitler’s Cross” and used the swastika as a logo. Eventually, he agreed to change it after protests by the Israeli embassy, Germany, and the US Anti-Defamation League.

“Hitler’s Den”, a pool parlour in Nagpur, also ruffled feathers in 2011. Owner Baljit Singh Osan said he was looking for something “different, something that had recall value”. He told Al Jazeera the name has attracted patrons and popularised his business.

Osan refused to change the name when the Jewish community protested. “I did not sympathise with the German dictator or his beliefs,” he says.

Professor Mathew says a sense of history has disappeared, and there’s a need to teach students what the Nazis and Hitler were responsible for, including the carnage of World War II and the extermination of six million Jews.

“There is a wrong notion among people that Hitler was a great leader,” Mathew told Al Jazeera. “The disappearance of history has resulted in such notions and given birth to right-wing ideologies in India.”

Historic and cultural ties to Hitler

Mohandas Gandhi, the father of the Indian nation and a symbol of peace, wrote a letter to Hitler on July 23, 1939 urging him not to wage war. The two men had a common enemy: the British Empire. Bollywood released the drama Gandhi to Hitler in 2011 that depicted India’s move away from British colonial rule.

A Punjabi romantic-comedy film, Hero Hitler in Love, was also released in 2011.  

The small screen has also employed the Führer’s name. A television series on Zee TV about a dictatorial woman was launched in 2011 called “Hitler Didi“, or “Hitler Sister”. It was renamed “General Didi” in the United States after the Anti-Defamation League in New York protested.

Curiously, Mein Kampf – in which Hitler set out his racist theories – continues to be a bestseller in India, where business students view the book as an important guide for management strategies. More than 10,000 copies were sold in six months in New Delhi alone in 2009.

There is even a member of India’s ruling-coalition from northeastern Meghalaya state named “Adolf Hitler”.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook

Brazliian Jewish Lawmaker Sues Over ‘Nazi’ Jibe

Friday, August 31st, 2012

A Jewish politician from Brazil said he would sue a colleague for suggesting he was a Nazi.

Isaac Tayah, president of the city council of Manaus, said he would file charges in a federal court for racism, libel and defamation, according to A Crtitica, a Brazilian news site.

Earlier this month, councilman Mario Frota published in his blog a photomontage of Tayah’s face on the body of Adolf Hitler wearing a Nazi uniform.

Frota told several newspaper that it was a “bad joke,” but Tayah said he would not let it go.

“I can’t just ignore this. Even of the trial goes on for 10 years, Frota will have to answer for this,” he told A Critica. If Frota wanted to make a joke, Tayah added, “he could have presented me as a ballerina. He wanted to create a polemic.”

The umbrella organization of Jewish communities of the Brazilian state of Amazonas – the capital of which is Manaus – expressed “solidarity” with Tayah.

“Comparing Jews to Nazism is offensive to the Jewish people and religion,” a recent statement by the organization, CIAM, read. It added Tayah was a “prominent member” of the Jewish community of Amazonas.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook

French chief rabbi receives death threats on Facebook

Sunday, June 24th, 2012

 French police said they were investigating death threats made against the country’s chief rabbi.

Polices said over the weekend that they are looking for people connected to a photomontage disseminated through Facebook which shows Rabbi Gilles Bernheim with a revolver pointing at his head. The picture shows Bernheim wearing a Star of David on his forehead.

A lighter labeled as containing Zyklon B – the compound used in Nazi gas chambers – is being held up to his nostrils.

“Don’t worry, Bernheim, I won’t deport you. I just want you to breathe in the content of this lighter,” a caption reads. The photomontage is signed by “Bakala LBD.”

Bakala LBD is the name of a Facebook user whose page offers profanities about Israel and maps that purport to depict the expansion of Jewish presence in Israel and th West Bank. It also offers photos of the French comedian known as Dieudonne, founder of the French Anti-Zionist Party. Dieudonne has been convicted several times of hate speech because of anti-Semitic statements.

CRIF, the umbrella organization representing French Jewish communities, condemned the threats.

“Anti-Semitism is not an atmosphere. It kills,” Ron Rafaeli of SPCJ, the security service of France’s Jewish communities, said last week at the European Parliament in Brussels.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook

Orthodox Jewish counselor on trial in sex abuse case

Monday, June 11th, 2012

The abuse went on for nearly three years before the schoolgirl told anyone that her spiritual adviser was molesting her while he was supposed to be mentoring her about her religion, authorities said.

But in Brooklyn’s ultra-Orthodox Jewish community, 53-year-old Nechemya Weberman has been embraced and defended as wrongly accused. The girl has been called a slut and a troublemaker, her family threatened and spat at on the street.

The rallying around Weberman, who goes on trial this month, and ostracizing of his accuser and her family reflects long-held beliefs in this insular community that problems should be dealt with from within and that elders have far more authority than the young. It also brought to light allegations that the district attorney was too cozy with powerful rabbis, a charge he vehemently denies.

“There are other people that claim misconduct and they can’t come out because they’re going to be re-victimized and ostracized by the community,” said Judy Genut, a friend of the accuser’s family who counsels troubled girls.

Brooklyn is home to about 250,000 ultra-Orthodox Jews, the largest community outside of Israel. Step onto a Williamsburg street and tall guys in skinny jeans and tattoos are mingling with a flush of men in dark coats and hats carrying prayer books and speaking Yiddish. The Hasidic Jews appear to outsiders as though they come from another time; embracing centuries-old traditions, they wear black clothes, tall hats, long beards and earlocks. Women wear long skirts and cover their heads after they marry.

They have their own ambulances and schools, called yeshivas, their own civilian police and rabbinical courts. Members are encouraged to first speak to a rabbi before going to secular authorities — and as a result, cases rarely make it to outside law enforcement.

The topic has been studied and reported in the Jewish media for years and has recently made headlines in New York papers.

“They think that anyone who turns over anyone to the outside authorities is committing a transgression to the community at large,” said Samuel Heilman, a professor of Jewish studies at Queens College.

The girl, now 17, was sent to Weberman at age 12 because she’d been asking theological questions and he had a reputation for helping people back on the spiritual path. He often counseled people, though he had no formal training. But during sessions, authorities say, he forced the girl to perform sex acts.

The girl started dressing immodestly, was deemed a troublemaker and removed from her school — one Weberman was affiliated with — and sent to another, family friends said. The allegations surfaced in 2011 when she told a guidance counselor there she’d been molested.

The Associated Press typically doesn’t identify people who say they are the victims of sexual assault.

Weberman has pleaded not guilty, and articles in Hasidic newspapers have proclaimed his innocence and begged the community for support. More than 1,000 men showed up for a fundraiser aiming to raise $500,000 for his legal fees and, if he’s convicted and jailed, money for his family.

“It’s very hard for the town to believe the things that he’s being accused of because he has a reputation of doing good and being good,” Genut said.

George Farkas, Weberman’s lawyer, said his client isn’t guilty but is damned regardless because the allegations will taint his reputation.

The family has said they would’ve preferred to handle the allegations within the community. But when accusations are managed from the inside, victims are rarely believed and abusers aren’t punished — in part because the word of an elder is respected over the word of a child, victims and advocates say.

Joel Engelman said he tried to work with yeshiva officials, finally confronting them at age 22 about a rabbi who abused him as a child. Engelman was given a lie detector test and encouraged to keep quiet about the allegations, and the rabbi was temporarily removed — long enough for Engelman to turn 23, making him too old under state law to file a complaint.

“It’s that they don’t want to believe that the rabbis that they’ve been raised to respect could be so cruel and could be so criminal,” said Engelman, now 26.

His mother, Pearl, herself an activist, said the community is overwhelmingly good and believes people must be educated about the crime to start standing up for the victims.

“I’m not an anarchist, I’m not a rebel,” said the 64-year-old mother of seven. “I love this community, and I want to change it for the better and make it safer for children.”

Outside law enforcement has also had a difficult time. Before 2009, only a handful of sex abuse cases were reported within the ultra-Orthodox community. Then, District Attorney Charles Hynes created a program called Kol Tzedek (Voice of Justice) aimed at helping more victims come forward about abuse, an underreported crime everywhere.

Part of the deal, along with a designated hotline and counseling, is that prosecutors don’t actively publicize the names of accused abusers. The cases are still tried in open court, where the names are public.

Before Kol Tzedek, Hynes said, he struggled to mount a successful prosecution. “As soon as we would give the name of a defendant … (rabbis and others) would engage this community in a relentless search for the victims,” he said. “And they’re very, very good at identifying the victims. And then the victims would be intimidated and threatened, and the case would fall apart.”

Since then, 100 of the total 5,389 cases in the borough have come from the ultra-Orthodox community, the district attorney’s office said. Hynes also started a task force to combat intimidation attempts — and has said rabbis have a duty to come forward if they have been told of abuse.

But victims’ rights advocates say Hynes has purposefully ignored some cases and hasn’t pushed as strongly for full prosecutions of others — bowing to powerful rabbis in exchange for political support, a charge he strongly denies.

“He doesn’t take care of victims,” said Nuchem Rosenberg, a rabbi who says he was ostracized for speaking out about abuse. “He takes care of those in power, so they can all keep power.”

Genut said the accuser is ready to testify. Her family, though, is looking for a higher judgment than criminal court.

“They believe that God’s going to take revenge on him,” she said. “They’re suffering a lot and they say one nice day God’s going to show us that he did stick up for us.”

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook


Monday, April 30th, 2012

Poland has shared the tragic fate of Hungary. The men who dominated Poland in the years just after WW2 were the Jews, Mine, Skryesiewski, Modielewski, and Berman. The first three are of cabinet rank, while Jacob Berman’s official position was that of Under-Secretary of State – a minor office, Yet it was actually Jacob Berman who was the undisputed boss of Poland. Berman, a product of the Warsaw ghetto, had lived in Russia, and was installed as dictator over Poland when the Russian armies took over the country. He preferred to work behind the scenes as much as possible – a device frequently used to hide the Jewishness of communism, Poland’s Jewish bureaucracy was perhaps the largest of any Iron Curtain country outside of Russia proper. Although Jews comprised less than 3% of the total population behind the Iron Curtain, they occupied virtually every position of authority.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook

Positive Christianity

Sunday, April 29th, 2012

Positive Christianity was a religious philosophy supported by Alfred Rosenberg, the man seen as being the intellectual heavyweight of the Nazi Party. Positive Christianity had existed prior to the rise of the Nazi Party but Rosenberg believed that the party should adopt it as the religious way ahead. The party did adopt it in 1920 in its ‘25 Point Programme’. However, Rosenberg never clearly explained what he meant by Positive Christianity as his ‘version’ differed from the accepted historic version. One ofAdolf Hitler’s main criticisms of Rosenberg was that he was never particularly clear as to what he believed, or that he was unable to put his ideas into terms that the less intellectual could understand.


However, it seems that in his version Rosenberg wanted the complete rejection of Catholicism and Protestantism.


Rosenberg saw Positive Christianity as a way of purifying the German Nordic race and to harmonise the belief in Christ with “the laws of blood and soil”.


Combined with this, Rosenberg saw the way ahead as restoring the old pagan Nordic values and “substitute the spirit of the hero for that of the Crucifixion”.


Positive Christianity also rejected what it called “Jewish materialism”, which gave an obvious anti-Semite slant to it. Rosenberg believed that Christ had actively fought against the “institutionalised Judaism” of the day and that this alone was enough to support why Positive Christianity should be anti-Semite. Rosenberg believed that Christ was an Aryan hero.


Rosenberg saw Positive Christianity as Norse paganism being at one with Christianity. Rather than have the cross as the symbol of Positive Christianity, Rosenberg wanted the sun in the form of a sun cross.


Hitler never gave his public approval to Positive Christianity but he was sympathetic towards it and gave Rosenberg his private support. While the concept had been accepted into the Nazi Party’s official party doctrine in 1920, Rosenberg spent a number of years developing what he felt was an appropriate version for Nazi Germany which he explained in his book “The Myth of the Twentieth Century”.


After Hitler became Chancellor in January 1933, Rosenberg could put into practice what he believed in. In 1934 the German Faith Movement started led by Jakob Hauer, which emphasised the beliefs of Positive Christianity. Hauer wanted to ban prayers being said in schools along with nativity plays.


To what extent Positive Christianity was important inNazi Germany is difficult to know. It is known that Rosenberg was not the most influential of the senior Nazis within the regime. It is also known that Hitler wanted the whole nation to follow a path of coordination (Gleichschaltung) and within the sphere of religion this was within the Reich Church or German Evangelical Church initially led by Reich Bishop Ludwig Műller. However, the extent of the influence of the Reich Church is open to question as many pastors objected to it. Hitler never pushed hard for the Reich Church to succeed and he viewed rebel pastors such as Martin Niemőller primarily as ‘enemies of the state’ as opposed to a religious threat.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook

SA Jews call for firing of pro-Nazi banker

Wednesday, April 25th, 2012

PRETORIA, South Africa – The South African Israel Public Affairs Committee (SAIPAC) called on Sunday for the director of the South African Reserve bank to be fired from his post because of his pro-Nazi opinions.

In interviews and articles last week Stephen Goodson expressed his admiration for the Nazi regime, and claimed that the Holocaust was a “huge lie.”

Speaking at the Holocaust Remembrance Day ceremony held in Pretoria on Sunday, David Hersch, head of SAIPAC, called on the South African Reserve Bank to release Goodson immediately from his public position.

“Goodson should be fired immediately or made to resign immediately. The Reserve Bank should be ashamed to have someone like this on their board of directors and now that he has been exposed, they should act immediately,” he said. Hersch emphasized that the bank’s reaction to the issue, stating that Goodson’s mandate would end this July, “is not good enough.”

Hersch also called upon the South African government to issue a clear statement “condemning Goodson and distancing them from him and his statements, opinions, his denial of the Holocaust and adherence to anti-Semitic hate speech and complete falsehood.”

The South African Mail and Guardian revealed last week that Goodson has written articles depicting an “historical analysis of banking history,” according to which Jewish bankers invented the Holocaust just to extract money from Germany. In an interview with an extreme-right American radio station two years ago, Goodson refers also to “ritual murder” executed, so he claimed, by Jews in the early centuries.

The South Africa Jewish Board of Deputies assured the Jewish community on Monday that they are following up very closely on the issue, as they systematically do on all anti-Semitic incidents.

David Jacobson, executive-director of the board in Cape Town, stated that the community was “shocked” over the “grossly anti-Semitic and racially inflammatory views” propagated by Goodson, and that the community welcomed the fact that the Reserve Bank has distanced itself from the opinions expressed by him. This adds to the statement made by the Board’s chairman, Mary Kluk, last week, condemning Goodson’s “hurtful and offensive” views.

Members of the Jewish community emphasized that although they identify with the call to fire Goodson, they understand that legally the Reserve Bank cannot do so, as he is serving as a non-executive director, representing the Reserve Bank’s shareholders, and is not employed by the bank.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook

Fallen Pillars

Wednesday, April 25th, 2012

At the end of the Nineteenth Century, Palestine emerged as an issue engaging the attention of world Jewry and the State Department. The rising interest in this eastern Mediterranean province of the Ottoman Empire resulted from the official establishment of the new political creed of Zionism in 1897 at Basle, Switzerland. The delegates, 204 Jews from fifteen countries, agreed that “Zionism aims at the creation of a home for the Jewish people in Palestine to be secured by public law” and to that end they would encourage emigration to Palestine. At the time, Arabs represented 95 percent of Palestine’s roughly half-million people and they owned 99 percent of the land.

That same year, 1897, the first Zionist Federation was established in the United States. It attracted few followers, either from the established Jewish community in America or among the hundreds of thousands of new Jewish immigrants flocking to east coast cities to escape East European anti-Semitism and pogroms. The settled and prosperous upper class Jews of German origin believed in social assimilation. Their social position and wealth proved to them that the American melting pot worked. The last thing they wanted was to embrace an ideology that advocated establishment of a foreign country specifically for Jews, thereby bringing into question their loyalty to the land that had brought them a comfortable and secure life.

By contrast, Zionism openly rejected assimilation and the whole melting pot metaphor. As explained by Theodore Herzl when he first formulated its purpose and aims in early 1896 in his seminal pamphlet Der Judenstaat: “We have sincerely tried everywhere to merge with the national communities in which we live, seeking only to preserve the faith of our fathers. It is not permitted U.S.”

At its heart, this was the fundamental rationale of Zionism: a profound despair that anti-Semitism could not be eradicated as long as Jews lived among gentiles. Out of this dark vision came the belief that the only hope for the survival of the Jews lay in the founding of their own state.

Such stalwart leaders of the U.S. German-Jewish establishment as financier Jacob Schiff and Rabbi I.M. Wise instantly denounced Zionism. Wise pronounced: “Zion was a precious possession of the past…but it is not our hope of the future. America is our Zion.” Schiff thought it was a “sentimental theory.” It came as no surprise, then, that uptown New York Jews founded in 1906 the American Jewish Committee (AJC). While not specifically formed to oppose Zionism, its establishment offered a different vision. It was an organization designed to assure that its kind of American Jews would be urbane, well educated and socially assimilated.

In this quest the elitists of AC would try to deal with the huge problems posed by the massive influx of often illiterate and isolated Eastern European Jews in a subtle and soft-spoken way. Its central strategy was to employ the medieval Jewish tradition of the shtadlan, the “court Jew” who served as adviser to goyim (non-Jewish) governments and powerful families. These were wealthy and talented Jews who had earned the trust of gentile masters and in turn could influence them on behalf of the Jewish community. This determinedly low profile approach was typified at the Jewish-owned New York Times, where Jewish-sounding bylines were disguised by substituting initials.

AJC depended on the social standing and influence of its well connected members to pursue its vision rather than on a mass membership. When one AJC officer was asked how many members the group had, he replied: “We don’t count AJC members…we weigh them.” Opposition to Zionism in America extended to Jewish socialists and workers, who disdained it as a form of bourgeois nationalism, while ultra orthodox religious groups considered Zionism “the most formidable enemy that has ever arisen among the Jewish people” because it sought to do God’s work through politics.” Not even the new immigrants streaming out of Eastern Europe were immediately attracted to Zionism, as was obvious from the fact that most of them chose to bypass Palestine in favor of going to the United States and other Western countries.

With the Jewish community so divided, the State Department dismissed Zionism as merely a minority political group and essentially an internal Jewish affair. But as Zionism gained ground in Europe in the first decade of the century, it also began attracting a select group of new converts in the United States. Though small in number, probably less than 20,000 of the 2.5 million Jewish community before World War I, the new Zionists began counting among their ranks lawyers, professors and businessmen. They were slowly becoming a group that Congressmen, particularly in the eastern cities, began to listen to, if not yet closely.

Still, up to World War I, American Zionism remained, in the words of a pro-Zionist wanted, “a small and feeble enterprise. It provided an outlet for some thousands…who met in their societies like votaries of some bizarre cult….The movement remained an ‘East Side affair,’ which meant that it had no money or influence or social prestige.”’

The State Department established a Near East Division in 1909. This was not because of an especially acute interest in Palestine and Zionism but because of America’s world-view at the time. The new division had as its bailiwick an enormous region that included Russia, Germany, Austria-Hungary, the Balkans and the Ottoman Empire plus far-flung areas stretching from Persia to Abyssinia. Among such nations and the problems they posed for the United States, Palestine was not highly visible. If anything, it was becoming an annoyance. Rising Zionist demands for support of a Jewish nation were increasingly resented among U.S. diplomats, who saw such requests “as an illustration of the purely Hebraic and UN-American purposes for which our Jewish community seek to use this government,” in the words of one U.S. diplomats.

The State Department defined its chief function as protecting and promoting American interests abroad, not in endorsing or encouraging the efforts of a small group of Americans to help found another nation in a foreign land. In the eyes of the State Department, this would be interfering in another country without any obvious U.S. interest at stake and with a good chance of worsening relations. This was especially so with the Ottoman Empire, where relations were never easy and Zionist agitation against Ottoman rule in Palestine raised suspicions in Constantinople about broader U.S. policies and goals, complicating the State Department’s daily chores.

Nor did reports over the decades about the Jewish community in Palestine incline the State Department to encourage Jews to go there or to support their effort to do so. The Jews living in Palestine in the last half of the nineteenth century and the early twentieth century-about 25,000 among 500,000 Arabs-were generally poor, living in squalid, crowded city housing and dependent for their sustenance on donations from Jews living abroad. After small groups of Jews fleeing the Russian Pale of Settlement began arriving in the early 1880s, they tried setting up agricultural settlements but these often proved unsuccessful. A report on one settlement by the U.S. Consul in Jerusalem, Selah Merrill, who served in Palestine, with intervals away, between 1882 to 1907, said that in 1891 he found one of the largest settlements with “houses broken…and patched, windows were stuffed with rags, yards were covered with litter, outhouses and fences were neglected, crops were poorly cultivated and weeds were growing abundantly everywhere.”

Merrill’s conclusion was that “Palestine is not ready for the Jews. The Jews are not ready for Palestine.” He reported that conditions were so difficult in Palestine that at times as many Jews left as arrived.

Although Merrill regarded the Jews of Palestine with coolness, his reports were not unique. Other consuls and travelers reported on the harshness of life in Palestine, the filth and poverty of the cities and the destitution of the Jewish community. Moreover, from the State Department’s view, Palestine was foreign territory over which America had no control and in which there was already an indigenous population far surpassing in number and longevity of residence the Jews. Why create more problems with the Ottoman Empire than necessary?

Among all of its challenges around the globe, the State Department had little reason to devote much attention to Zionism or, when it did, to support Zionist goals. The aloof tone of the State Department’s attitude was illustrated in 1912 when the Zionist Literary Society sought a public endorsement from President William Howard Taft. Secretary of State Philander C. Knox turned it down by replying that “problems of Zionism involve certain matters primarily related to the interests of countries other than our own…and might lead to misconstructions.”

Paradoxically, that same year Zionism received its greatest boost in its short history in America, an event that was to become pivotal in the founding of Jewish state in Palestine. Louis Dembitz Brandeis, son of middle class immigrants from Prague, a brilliant attorney who had graduated at the top of his law class at Harvard, converted to Zionism. The date was August 1912. Brandeis was 56 years of age, a wealthy Bostonian, a political progressive, a tireless reformer and one of the most famous lawyers in the country, known as the People’s Attorney because of his successful litigation against the major financiers and industrialists. He was disliked heartily by the business establishment, including the wealthy Jewish communities of New York and Boston.

What made Brandeis’ conversion so surprising was that he was a nonobservant Jew who believed firmly in America’s melting pot and had grown up “free from Jewish contacts or traditions,” as he put it. It was not until he was in his fifties that Brandeis began paying attention to the Jewish experience. Rising anti-Semitism in America, exposure to Zionists and the new immigrants, and estrangement from the Brahmin society of Boston because of his espousal of populist causes all combined to sharpen his sense of ethnic kinship. Then in August 1912 Brandeis met Jacob de Haas, editor of the Boston Jewish Advocate and, a decade earlier, an aide to Zionism’s founder Theodore Herzl. Intrigued by de Haas’ tales of Herzl and the beginnings of Zionism, Brandeis hired de Haas to instruct him in Zionism over the 1912-13 winter.

Within two years, on 30 August 1914, Brandeis became head of the Provisional Executive for General Zionist Affairs, making him the leader of the Zionist Central Office, which had been moved from Berlin to neutral America just before the outbreak of World War I. At the time, Zionism in America was described by a historian of the movement as still “small and weak, in great financial distress, and low in morale. “To invigorate Zionism, the great man, as Brandeis was considered by many, especially among young law students, attracted to the movement a brilliant group of professionals, especially from the Harvard Law School.

With his conversion came changes in Brandeis’ idea about the American melting pot. He now embraced the “salad bowl,” a belief in cultural pluralism in which ethnic groups maintained their unique identity. Brandeis explained:

America…has always declared herself for equality of nationalities as well as for equality of individuals. America has believed that each race had something of peculiar value which it can contribute….America has always believed that in differentiation, not in uniformity, lies the path of progress.

As for the nagging question of dual loyalty, a central concern of many Jews and the gentiles’ supreme suspicion about Zionism, Brandeis insisted there was no conflict between being an American and a Zionist:

Let no American imagine that Zionism is inconsistent with patriotism. Multiple loyalties are objectionable only if they are inconsistent…. Every American who aids in advancing the Jewish settlement in Palestine, though he feels that neither he nor his descendants will ever live there, will likewise be a better man and a better American for doing so….There is no inconsistency between loyalty to America and loyalty to Jewry. The Jewish spirit, the product of our religion and experiences, is essentially modern and essentially American.

He linked Zionism with the early New England Puritans, declaring that “Zionism is the Pilgrim inspiration and impulse over again. The descendants of the Pilgrim fathers should not find it hard to understand and sympathize with it.” To Jewish audiences he said: “To be good Americans, we must be better Jews, and to be better Jews, we must become Zionists.”

Brandeis’ Zionism, clearly, was different from the passionate and messianic Zionism of Europe, driven as it was by pessimism about the enduring anti Semitism of the world against Jews. His was an ethnic philanthropic vision, a desire to help needy Jews set down in a kind of New England town in the Middle East-but with no intention of going to Palestine to live among them. This concept remained a central tenet of American Zionism and helps explain why through the years so few Jewish Americans have emigrated to Israel.

To European Zionists, it was a pale and anemic version of their life’s passion, “Zionism without Zion,” they grumbled. However, Brandeis would achieve what probably no other Zionist could have-exerting major influence in gaining the support of the United States for a Jewish state in Palestine. Brandeis accomplished this feat by using his friendship with President Woodrow Wilson to advocate the Zionist cause, and by serving as a conduit between British Zionists and the president. Wilson was a ready listener. He was the son of a Presbyterian minister and a daily reader of the Bible. Although not particularly interested in the political ramifications of Zionism, he shared the vague sentiment of a number of Christians at the time that there would be a certain biblical justice to have the Jews return to Palestine.

Wilson thought so highly of Brandeis that he appointed him to the Supreme Court on 28 January 1916, thereby enormously increasing Brandeis prestige and his influence in the White House. In turn, Brandeis resigned from all the numerous public and private clubs and organizations he belonged to, including, reluctantly, his leadership of American Zionism.

His resignation, however, did not mean Brandeis had deserted Zionism. Behind the scenes he continued to play an active role. At his Supreme Court chambers in Washington he received daily reports on Zionist activities from the New York headquarters and issued orders to his loyal lieutenants now heading American Zionism. When the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) was newly reorganized in 1918, Brandeis was listed as its “honorary president.” Through his lieutenants, he remained the power behind the throne.

In the same year as Brandeis ascended to the high court, David Lloyd George became prime minister of Great Britain and Arthur James Balfour foreign secretary. It was a change as advantageous for the Zionists in Britain as Brandeis’ appointment was in the United States. Both Lloyd George and Balfour favored Zionism though neither of them was Jewish. Balfour once had confided to Brandeis that “I am a Zionist,” while Welshman Lloyd George was a firm believer in the Old Testament’s claim to the right of the Jews to Palestine.

Both men shared a common concern for gaining U.S. entry into the war and support of Britain’s post-war goals in dividing up the Ottoman Empire, including the ambition of taking over Palestine as part of Britain’s security zone for protecting the Suez Canal, the lifeline to its colony in India. In this, they were advised by the British embassy in Washington that Britain could be helped in achieving U.S. backing by finding favor with Jewish Americans: “They are far better if organized than the Irish and far more formidable. We should be in a position to get into their good graces.”

Although that advice failed to reflect the rifts and competing power centers within the Jewish community, it was not as misleading as it might seem. There was emerging a growing consensus among Jews and other Americans in support of a Jewish homeland in Palestine, if not for Zionism as such, and thus a British declaration favoring such a homeland was certain to be popular among a sizable number of Americans. For instance, the Presbyterian General Assembly passed a resolution in 1916 favoring a Jewish homeland in Palestine and the American Federation of Labor endorsed the idea. These supporters in turn could be expected to add their influence for closer relations between London and Washington.

But there was a major problem. The State Department and its secretary, Robert Lansing, remained distinctly cool toward Zionism but not to the plight of Jews in general. Although the department was scrupulous in expending efforts to protect the rights of Jews in Palestine who were American citizens, it avoided all association with Zionists. Moreover, in the spring and summer of 1917, Lansing and his department were focused on trying to arrange a separate peace with Turkey. The thorny question of the post-war status of the empire’s various minorities was not high on their priority list.

Lansing was a proud, upright attorney from New York who had become an expert on international law before being appointed secretary of state by Wilson in June 1915. He had neither a close relationship with Wilson nor shared the confidence the president placed in Edward M. House, a reserve colonel from Texas who had no title or staff but wielded considerable influence as Wilson’s closest adviser.

At this point, the behind-the-scene actions of a Russian-born Jewish chemist living in Britain became pivotal. He was Chaim Weizmann, a persistent and persuasive leader of Zionism in Britain who later would become Israel’s first president. He was a tireless toiler for Zionism and enjoyed easy access to both Lloyd George and Balfour. Aware of their desire for U.S. support, Weizmann sought a backdoor past the State Department to the White House via Brandeis. On 8 April 1917, Weizmann cabled Brandeis, advising that “an expression of opinion coming from yourself and perhaps other gentlemen connected with the Government in favor of a Jewish Palestine under a British protectorate would greatly strengthen our hands.”

A month later, following America’s entry into World War I, Brandeis had a forty-five minute meeting with Wilson on the president’s views of Palestine. Afterwards, Brandeis was convinced that Wilson was “entirely sympathetic to the aims of the Zionist Movement” and favored a British protectorate in Palestine. However, he concluded Wilson did not want to make a public declaration because of the international complications such a statement would cause, not least of them the futile hope that Turkey still could be persuaded to quit the war.

Another attempt in mid-September by London to gain from Wilson support of a declaration backing the Zionist movement, this time of a specific draft statement endorsing a Jewish homeland in Palestine, similarly was rebuffed. Wilson ordered Colonel House to tell the British that “the time was not opportune for any definite statement further, perhaps, than one of sympathy, provided it can be made without conveying any real commitment.”

In desperation, Weizmann cabled Brandeis that it “would greatly help if President Wilson and yourself would support the text. Matter most urgent. Please telegraph.” 36 Brandeis was able to use his access to the White House to meet with Colonel House and together they assured Weizmann that from talks I have had with President and from expressions of opinion given to closest advisers I feel I can answer you in that he is [in] entire sympathy with declaration quoted in yours of nineteenth as approved by the foreign office and the Prime Minister. I of course heartily agree.

Weizmann felt more was needed to counteract anti-Zionist sentiment in Britain, where there was strong opposition to Zionism, particularly from the only Jew in the Lloyd George Cabinet, Edwin Montagu, the secretary of state for India. Montagu had weighed in with a strong anti-Zionist assessment by one of the greatest Arabists of the time, Gertrude Bell, a colleague of T.E. Lawrence and currently involved in British intelligence in Cairo. She wrote that

two considerations rule out the conception of an independent Jewish Palestine from practical politics. The first is that the province as we know it is not Jewish, and that neither Mohammedan nor Arab would accept Jewish authority; the second that the capital, Jerusalem, is equally sacred to three faiths, Jewish, Christian and Muslim, and should never, if it can be avoided, be put under the exclusive control of any one location, no matter how carefully the rights of the other two may be safe guardedly.

To appease the anti-Zionists, the British Cabinet drafted a revised declaration. It specifically addressed Montagu’s concerti about non-Zionist Jews living outside of Palestine by adding a final clause that said the establishment of a Jewish national home would not prejudice the “rights and political status enjoyed in any other country by such Jews who are fully contented with their existing national.

Once again, Weizmann turned to Brandeis to help get Wilson’s endorsement of the new text. In a long letter on 7 October, Weizmann wrote that “I have no doubt that the amended text of the declaration will be again submitted to the President and it would be most invaluable if the President would accept it without reservation and would recommend the granting of the declaration now.[Italics in original.]

When the British Foreign Office sent the draft to Wilson at about the same time, he turned it over to Brandeis for his comments. The Justice and his aides redrafted it in slightly stronger and cleaner language, substituting “the Jewish people “for the Jewish race”-thereby muting the vexing question of who’s a-Jew-and making the final clause read that there would be no prejudice to the “rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country,” thus assuaging the concern of assimilated Jews about dual loyalty.

Colonel House sent the revision onto Wilson, but, in the midst of world war, he felt no urgency about the matter. It was not until 13 October that he sent a memo to House saying: I find in my pocket the memorandum you gave me about the Zionist Movement. I am afraid I did not say to you that I concurred in the formula suggested by the other side [Britain]. I do, and would be obliged if you would let them know it.

Thus, in the most off-handed way possible, Wilson lent the enormous weight of the United States to supporting the Zionist dream of a Jewish state in Palestine. He did this without informing Lansing or seeking the advice of the State Department, a snub they were not soon to forget. Although Wilson declined at the time actually to make a public endorsement, his private agreement provided Lloyd George the backing in the cabinet that he needed to issue a declaration. Wilson’s seemingly casual action was to have a profound effect on Middle East history and on the daily lives of Palestinians.

Its immediate result came on 2 November 1917, when Britain issued the fateful statement that was to become known as the Balfour Declaration. It came in the form of a personal letter from Foreign Secretary Balfour to a prominent British Jew, Lionel Walter, the second Lord of Rothschild:

Foreign Office, November 2nd, 1917 Dear Lord Rothschild,

I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty’s Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet: “His Majesty’s Government view with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.” I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.


Arthur James Balfour

Arabs and anti-Zionists could not help noting the totally pro-Zionist content of the declaration. It failed to mention Christians or Muslims, Arabs or Palestinians, even though they remained by far the majority population in Palestine. At the time, there were about 55,000 Jews and nearly 600,000 Palestinians in Palestine. Yet, the Balfour Declaration spoke of a Jewish homeland, which was widely understood to mean a Jewish state, although many Zionists continued to deny that was their goal. Also, it pledged actively to help Jews while merely promising to protect the rights of “the non-Jewish communities.”

Lansing and the State Department had been humiliated by being bypassed. Insult was added when Wilson waited until 14 December to inform his secretary of state of his support of the Balfour Declaration. The occasion was prompted by a letter Lansing had sent the day before to Wilson reporting that there was mounting pressure from Zionists for the United States to issue its own declaration supporting a Jewish homeland. Lansing included a detailed analysis of the issue:

My judgment is that we should go very slowly in announcing a policy for three reasons. First, we are not at war with Turkey and therefore should avoid any appearance of favoring taking territory from that Empire by force. Second, the Jews are by no means a unit in the desire to reestablish their race as an independent people; to favor one or the other faction would seem to be unwise. Third, many Christian sects and individuals would undoubtedly resent turning the Holy Land over to the absolute control of the race credited with the death of Christ.

For practical purposes, I do not think that we need go further than the first reason given since that is ample ground for declining to announce a policy in regard to the final disposition of Palestine.

The next day Wilson handed back to Lansing his letter. Lansing filed it with a note: “The President returned me this letter at Cabinet Meeting. December 14, 1917, saying that very unwillingly he was forced to agree with me, but said that he had an impression that we had assented to the British declaration regarding returning Palestine to the Jews.”

Nonetheless, Wilson continued to refuse to make a public endorsement of the Balfour Declaration, with the result that Lansing continued to act as though the president’s private support had no weight. On 28 February 1918, Lansing wrote to Wilson opposing a request by the Zionists to be issued passports to take part in a Zionist commission sponsored by Britain to tour Palestine. In his letter, Lansing wrote that the United States never had accepted the Balfour Declaration and should not sponsor an organization with distinctly political goals. Wilson agreed with his secretary of state.

By this time Wilson was being hailed among Jews around the world as a lover of Zion on the basis of leaks about his private support of the Balfour Declaration. But, in fact, pro-Zionism was not official U.S. policy nor had Wilson yet uttered a single public word of support. It was only after a personal meeting with crusading Zionist Rabbi Stephen S. Wise in August 1918 that Wilson finally took the plunge, albeit in a very circumspect way. It was in the form of a Jewish New Year’s greeting to the Jews praising the work of a Zionist commission currently investigating conditions in Palestine.

I have watched with deep and sincere interest the reconstructive work which the Weizmann Commission has done in Palestine at the instance of the British Government, and I welcome an opportunity to express the satisfaction I have felt in the progress of the Zionist Movement in the United States and in the Allied countries since the declaration by Mr. Balfour on behalf of the British Government, of Great Britain’s approval of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and his promise that the British Government would use its best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of that object, with the understanding that nothing would be done to prejudice the civil and religious rights of non-Jewish people in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in other countries.

While Zionists exultantly hailed this letter as America’s commitment to the Balfour Declaration, the State Department denied that it expressed official policy. The department had not taken part in its drafting and therefore in its view the letter was little more than an expression of Wilson’s personal sentiments. As diplomatic historian Frank E. Manual observed: “[Such presidential letters] have a peculiar status in American foreign policy. They are expressions of [presidential] attitude, and the degree to which they may be formal commitments of any sort, especially when they do not pass through the State Department, remains dubious.”

As late as 26 May 1922, the head of the Near East Division, Allan W. Dulles, later to become one of America’s spymasters, wrote: “Ex-President Wilson is understood to have favored the Balfour Declaration, but I do not know that he ever committed himself to it in an official and public way.”

Such divisions and confusion between the State Department and the White House and Congress as well were to remain a distinct feature of U.S. policy toward Palestine. While the politicians over the decades were quick to issue vague letters and declarations of support for various Zionist enterprises, the experts of the State Department resisted change and clung to a strict interpretation of policy. The resulting confusion more often then not left all sides in doubt about what U.S. policy at any one time actually was.

The final achievement of Brandeis and American Zionism in the post-war period was the passage by Congress on 11 September 1922 of a joint resolution favoring a Jewish homeland in Palestine. The words of the resolution practically echoed the Balfour Declaration.

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of tile United States of America in Congress assembled That the United States of America favors the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of Christian and all other non-Jewish communities in Palestine, and that the Holy places and religious buildings and sites in Palestine shall be adequately protected.

The Zionists loudly trumpeted the resolution as another Balfour Declaration, evidence that their quest had official support. After all, it had been sponsored by Senator Henry Cabot Lodge and Representative Hamilton Fish and signed by President Warren G. Harding. However, during the debate leading up to passage of the resolution, a number of speakers had emphasized that it was merely an expression of sympathy by the Congress and that the resolution in no way would involve the United States in foreign entanglements. This was the interpretation adopted by the State Department. Like Wilson’s 1918 letter endorsing Balfour, the department simply ignored it. When an Italian diplomat directly asked a State Department officer whether the resolution represented the official policy of the United States Government, the diplomat merely smiled.

Passage of the congressional resolution was the height of Brandeis’ brand of American Zionism, and also the end of its heroic period. Under Brandeis the Zionist membership had burgeoned tenfold, reaching around 200,000 after the heralded victory of the Balfour Declaration. The momentum of that historic event carried over into the halls of Congress and resulted in the joint resolution. But a year before the resolution became a reality, Brandeis himself was swept from power in Zionist councils in a showdown with Weizmann. Brandeis’ tepid form of Zionism was simply too emotionless and sterile for the crusader from Pinsk. the Russian town Weizmann called his birthplace. In a final confrontation in the spring of 1921, Weizmann declared: “There is no bridge between Washington and Pinsk.”

Under Weizmann’s assault, Brandeis’s leadership was repudiated by the American Zionist Organization at its 24th convention in Cleveland in June 1921. Brandeis quit the movement, taking with him some of his most brilliant lieutenants, among them his protégé Felix Frankfurter, who was to become a justice on the Supreme Court. Brandeis’ participation in the internecine politics of Zionism was at an end, although not his avid interest in the goals of Zionism. He remained committed to a Jewish home in Palestine until his death at age 84 in 1941.

The blow to American Zionism caused by Brandeis’ ouster was devastating. By 1929, there were no more than 18,000 members left in the ZOA. It was not until the rise of Hitler and then the horrific stories of his “final solution,” which began leaking out of occupied Europe in the early 1940s, that American Zionism again became a potent force, this time far stronger and more influential than Brandeis-much less the experts at the State Department-ever could have envisioned.


Zionists were quick to impute anti-Semitism to explain the enduring opposition to Zionism by the State Department and succeeding secretaries of state, both Democratic and Republican, during the first half of the twentieth century. While no doubt some American diplomats reflected a distrust of Jews prevalent among the genteel society of the time and some few even might have harbored anti-Semitic emotions, the department’s attitude was grounded in rational geopolitical reasons beyond racism.

Foremost, the State Department believed it had no business supporting the narrow political platform of a small sect that sought foreign territory. In effect, the Zionists were pursuing their own foreign policy. To take two major examples: It was not in U.S. interests to anger Constantinople during the war years when Washington was seeking a separate peace with Turkey. Nor, as the economic importance of oil grew, was it in Washington’s interests to anger the Arabs. Yet, the Zionists not only pressed ahead with their program to establish a Jewish state in Palestine but they repeatedly sought to pressure through flattery or threat the president, the Congress and the State Department to support them.

There was also the question of Americans sending money overseas to aid a foreign project. As State Department lawyers observed: “It requires little discussion” that the proper function of government does not include “encouraging its nationals to deplete the national wealth by contributions of funds or investment funds in foreign countries.” Implicit in this observation was the troubling question of dual loyalty.

Clustered with the issue of dual loyalty was the romance of the American melting pot. As the Civil War brutally had proved, the majority of Americans believed their nation was indivisible and should share a common cultural milieu. Religious diversity was a right, but ethnic exclusivism was widely perceived as a threat to the common fabric holding together a nation of immigrants. The Zionists’ desertion of the melting pot for a salad bowl of ethnic groups was an affront to many Americans, including the traditionalists who guided the State Department.

Finally, there were the troubling facts about Palestine. The Arabs were the majority community, and had been for well over a millennium. Palestinians were a recognizable separate people with their own institutions, traditions and cultural uniqueness. Yet, Zionists were proposing not only to deny Arabs their Wilsonian right of self-determination-a cherished U.S. ideal-but to displace them as the major ethnic group. It was clear to nearly all observers that this could happen only by force, yet it was equally obvious that war and instability in the region were not in America’s interests.

It was from these analyses that the State Department’s coolness to Zionism derived. Policymakers were not necessarily anti-Semites, as Zionists charged, just because they believed support of Zionism was not in U.S. interests. Nonetheless, the Zionists were not mistaken in feeling a resentment and even hostility against them in the State Department.

Simply in terms of human relations, shorn of all questions of anti-Semitism, the department had ample reason to distrust the Zionists. The success of Brandeis and the Zionists in gaining the ear of the president and the Congress for projects opposed by the department was at best irritating. The diplomats did not consider it gentlemanly or fair for the Zionists to go behind their back and manipulate vote conscious political leaders. As in the case of Wilson’s support of the Balfour Declaration, this often occurred without the department even knowing what was going on until after it had already happened. Such tactics raised the ire of the proud diplomats, who perceived the Zionists as meddling in their elitist preserve, which of course it was.

Probably no tactic employed by the Zionists caused greater resentment than their efforts directly to intimidate the State Department and its staff. One such effort serves to demonstrate the Zionist technique. It was a highly effective tactic, and continues to be, and it goes far in explaining why the professionals at the State Department and successive secretaries of state harbored various degrees of animosity towards the Zionists.

The case involved an urbane and highly successful diplomat, Hugh Gibson. At the age of 36 in 1919 he was the newly installed ambassador to Poland, or to use the grandiose title of the day, the envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary. Post-war Poland was home to one of the largest and least assimilated Jewish communities in Europe and their troubles were trumpeted by the Zionists as an example of ruthless anti-Semitism. In fact, anti-Semitic incidents were common, but not as common in Gibson’s view as claimed by American Zionists. To his mother he wrote: “These yarns are exclusively of foreign manufacture for anti-Polish purposes.”

Gibson’s skeptical reports to the State Department about the troubles of Polish Jews came to the attention of Brandeis. On 24 June 1919, Gibson was called by Colonel House to a meeting with the fabled justice and his protégé, Felix Frankfurter. Gibson not only was at a disadvantage because of Brandeis exalted status but also because his appointment as ambassador to Poland had yet to be confirmed by the Senate.

In Gibson’s words, the two Zionists opened what the young diplomat later called the “prosecution” by saying that

I had done more mischief to the Jewish race than anyone who had lived in the last century. They said…that my reports on the Jewish question had gone around the world and had undone their work….They finally said that I had stated that the stories of excesses against the Jews were exaggerated, to which I replied that they certainly were and I should think any Jew would be glad to know it.

Frankfurter claimed that Gibson “had no right to make reports to the department in regard to Jewish matters and should have ‘refused’ on the ground that I could not possibly learn enough about them to make even general observations.” Frankfurter then hinted that if Gibson continued his reports that Zionists would block his confirmation as ambassador to Poland by the Senate.

Gibson was so furious by the confrontation that he wrote a twenty-one page letter about it to his friends in the State Department, including Frankfurter’s claim that Gibson should not report on Jews. Nothing is more disconcerting or insulting to a diplomat than to have his reporting questioned, much less to be advised that he had no “right” to report on certain matters. Reporting is the secret heart of the diplomat’s art, a talent especially valued in Washington where officials in those pre-television days depended on it as their window to the world beyond.

Frankfurter could hardly have raised a more sensitive question or one more certain to raise the hackles of diplomats. Gibson went further in his letter than just describe his encounter. He also shared his suspicions of what the Zionists were trying to accomplish-a conscienceless and cold-blooded plan to make the condition of the Jews in Poland so bad that they must turn to Zionism for relief.” The State Department in those days was a far more closed and clubby establishment of upper class scions than after 1945. This attack on one of its own was highly resented. A rising star of the foreign service had been humiliated and threatened by a justice of the Supreme Court acting as a spokesperson for a narrow Jewish group not even accepted by most Jews. Rancor was particularly strong in the Warsaw embassy, where it lingered for years. In 1923, Vice Consul Monroe H. Kline reported: “It is common knowledge that this race of people [Jews] are continually and constantly spreading propaganda, through their agencies over the entire world, of political and religious persecution.” He added: “The Jew in business oppresses the Pole to a far greater extent than does the Pole oppress the Jew in a political way.”

One of the consequences of the Gibson case, and similar if less dramatic ones over the years, was that Zionism would have few good friends, high in the State Department until Henry A. Kissinger became Secretary of State in 1973. As for Gibson, he went on to serve honorably as an ambassador in various posts until his retirement on the eve of World War II. Despite his early promise, however, he never became one of the department’s principal officers.


American Zionism awakened from its long slumber in 1935 with Stephen S. Wise’s assumption of the leadership of the Zionist Organization of America. An immigrant from a notable family in Budapest, Wise was a tireless reformer, a crusading liberal and a rabbi well respected among Christians. In his youth he had met Theodore Herzl and been inspired by his vision. But when Brandeis left the Zionist organization in 1921 Wise was one of the brainy members who went with him. Wise’s return to organized Zionism marked a period where American Zionism again began regaining respect and influence, although most of America’s four million Jews still rejected the political creed. Wise was very much in the Brandeis mode in terms of quietly promoting the cause with influential political leaders. In this he was highly successful because he enjoyed the friendship President Franklin D. Roosevelt and, like Brandeis before him, had easy entree into the White House.

The State Department in the pre-war years remained opposed to Zionism, although Roosevelt himself was a supporter for most of his presidency until his ideas changed toward the end. Roosevelt actively encouraged the British to remain committed to the Balfour Declaration and not to cut back on Jewish immigration into Palestine. In the late 1930s and early 1940s, he even considered a plan to place all of Palestine under Jewish control and move the entire Palestinian population to Iraq. In a February 1940 meeting with Weizmann, Roosevelt reportedly said to the world leader of Zionism: “What about the Arabs? Can’t that be settled with a little baksheesh?” Weizmann took his meaning to be that the Palestinians should be paid off as an incentive to leave the land.

At about the same time, a voice harsher than Wise’s began to be heard in American Zionism. It was Abba Hillel Silver, a former protégé of Wise, who began speaking out in uncompromising words demanding Jewish rights. In 1940 he declared a “maximalist” Zionist position: “We’ll force the President to swallow our demands! The gentle, patient and personal diplomatic approach of yesterday is not entirely adequate for our days.” He also advised: “Put not your faith in princes.” It was a tone usually missing from the rhetoric of American Zionists and it soon caught attention, propelling Silver into the national realm of Zionist politics.

Silver was an aggressive and pugnacious native of Lithuania who arrived in America at age nine, son of a rabbi and a future rabbi himself in the prestigious Congregation Tifereth Israel in Cleveland. He was a fierce foe of assimilation and, in fact, preached the opposite creed-to be “more” Jewish rather than less: “We are going to respond to every attack upon our people, to every libel and every slander, by more Jewishness, by more schools and synagogues and by more intensive and loyal work in Palestine.”

While Silver’s stirring oratory and defiant ways brought Zionism great victories, it left him largely unloved even among his followers. Roosevelt did not like him and Truman despised him so much that he barred him and all Zionists from the White House. As Nahum Goldmann, one of world Zionism’s leaders, said: “He was an Old Testament Jew who never forgave or forgot….He could be extremely ruthless in a fight, and there was something of the terrorist in his manner and bearing.” Silver’s belligerent, in-your-face Jewishness strongly contributed to the emergence of Zionism’s “loud diplomacy” that has since marked the ugly.

The cheering delegates gave Silver a standing ovation, broke into the Zionist anthem of atikvah and endorsed the Biltmore Declaration by a vote of 480 to 4 with others abstaining Silver emerged the hero of the meeting and a power in American Zionism challenging the dominance that only Wise had enjoyed in recent years. When Wise encountered Silver in a corridor, he pleaded: “Rabbi Silver, I am an old man, and have had my moment in the sun. You are a young man, and will have your proper share of fame. It is not necessary for you to attack me.” Silver walked away without a word.

While Silver was not loved and “rarely recognized peers,” in the words of one of his employees, he was considerate of his staff and a superb organizer, as the emerging Jewish lobby proved. Silver’s spurt in prominence brought him to the co-chairmanship with Wise of the American Emergency Committee for Zionist Affairs (AECZA), an umbrella group representing the Zionist Organization of America, Hadassah and two smaller groups representing religious and labor Zionists. Silver immediately became the dominating force, changed AECZA to AZEC, the American Zionist Emergency Council, and energetically embarked on what his public relations aide Si Kenen called without exaggeration “a political and public relations offensive to capture the support of congressmen, clergy, editors, professor, business and labor.”

In the process he created the modern Israeli lobby, the most pervasive and powerful special interest group in foreign affairs in the United States. AZEC’s budget soared from $100,000 to $500,000 and activists were instructed that “the first task is to make direct contact with your local Congressman or Senator.” Others were targeted too: union members, wives and parents of servicemen, Jewish war veterans. Form letters were provided so local activists could commend, or condemn, newspaper articles and editorials. Schedules of anti-Zionist lecture tours were provided so the events could be picketed or otherwise opposed.

Zionist action groups were organized at the grassroots with more than 400 local committees under seventy-six state and regional branches. These volunteers carried out the local campaigns and even funded groups to visit Washington where they met with Congressmen. When called on, they flooded with letters the White House and State Department. Millions of leaflets and pamphlets poured out of the Zionist offices. Books, articles and academic studies, often by non-Jews, were funded by the AZEC, including Walter Clay Lowdermilk’s Palestine, Land of Promise, which became a bestseller in 1944. Massive petition and letter-writing campaigns were undertaken. One such petition, supporting the Baltimore Declaration, was signed by more than 150 college presidents and deans and 1,800 faculty members from 250 colleges and universities in forty-five states.

Christian support was actively enlisted. The American Palestine Committee, an elitist Protestant group, was revived with secret Zionist funds, eventually reaching $150,000 in 1946. “In every community an American Christian Palestine Committee must be immediately organized,” ordered Silver’s headquarters. Another group, the Christian Council on Palestine, was formed among clergymen. It grew to 3,000 members by the end of the war. The aim of both groups was to “crystallize the sympathy of Christian America for our cause,” in the words of an internal AZEC memo. How completely they were controlled by the Zionists became clear when the Christians felt it necessary to complain that AZEC was making statements in their names without prior consultation.

The support of American labor also was enlisted through the founding of the American Jewish Trade Union Committee for Palestine. Its honorary chairmen were the heads of the CIO and AFL and the vice chairmen numbered nearly every important labor leader in America. The chairman was Max Zaritsky, president of the Hatters Union, who later would testify before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs: “American organized labor-twelve million strong-unreservedly and unequivocally supports the aspiration of the Jewish people for the establishment of their homeland in Palestine.”

Newspaper ads were taken out to support the cause, massive demonstrations held-including at New York’s Madison Square Garden-and even pageants produced. Playwright Ben Hecht, a radical Zionist who thought Silver too moderate, wrote a 1943 hit called We Will Never Die. He enlisted Billy Rose to produce, Moss Hart to direct and Kurt Weill to do the music and such stars as Edward Robinson and Paul Muni to act in it as well as a young upcoming actor, Marion Brando. The play toured the country, drawing in big crowds; in Washington Eleanor Roosevelt and most of the Supreme Court justices attended. Such activity was not exclusively the work of Silver and his AZEC group but all of it was motivated by the broad spectrum of American Jewry supporting a homeland. Membership in major Zionist groups soared, more than doubling to 400,000 by 1945. The results of their efforts were impressive. By 1944 more than 3,000 non-Jewish organizations ranging from the Elks to the Grange passed pro-Zionist petitions and backed them up with petitions and letters to Washington. Such distinguished Protestant theologians as Paul Tillich and Reinhold Niebuhr actively supported the Zionists. Statements of support came from 411 of the 535 members of the Senate and House.

In 1944, for the first time, both political parties had planks endorsing a commonwealth in Palestine. The Republicans called for unlimited Jewish immigration and the establishment of “a free and democratic commonwealth” while the Democrats were more specific and mentioned a “Jewish commonwealth.”

Zionism, fueled by the horrors of the holocaust against European Jews, had come of age in American domestic politics. Yet this development appears to have had little impact on President Roosevelt’s ideas about Palestine and the Jews. It was the broader strategic realities that captured his attention. As the war years went by and the support of the Arabs, particularly Saudi Arabia and its oil, became more important, Roosevelt’s concern about the negative geopolitical implications of Zionism grew. By 1943 he appears to have deserted the Zionist platform in favor of a scheme by which the holy land would be controlled jointly by Arabs, Christians and Jews. A report to the State Department from Colonel Harold B. Hoskins, a presidential agent who served as Roosevelt’s private adviser and intelligence gatherer on the Middle East, said Roosevelt told him:

This concept to be successful would, he realized, have to be presented as a solution larger and more inclusive than the establishment of an Arab state or of a Jewish state. He realized that this idea, of course, required further thought and needed to be worked out in greater detail, but at least that was the line along which his mind was running.

That same year Roosevelt privately assured Saudi Arabia and other Arab nations that the United States would not act on Palestine’s future without consulting with both Arabs and Jews. These assurances were not leaked by any of the Arab countries or Washington. It was not until after Roosevelt’s meeting with Saudi King Abdul Aziz ibn Saud on 14 February 1945 in the middle of the Suez Canal aboard a U.S. warship, the cruiser Quincy, that he repeated his promise of prior consultation. He officially put it in writing in a letter to his “great and good friend” the king on 5 April 1945:

Your majesty will recall that on previous occasions I communicated to you the attitude of the American Government toward Palestine and made clear our desire that no decision be taken with respect to the basic situation in that country without full consultation with both Arabs and Jews. Your Majesty will also doubtless recall that during our recent conversation I assured you that I would take no action, in my capacity as Chief of the Executive Branch of this Government, which might prove hostile to the Arab people.

The letter was made public six months later by the State Department at the urging of Saudi Arabia.

Unfortunately for anyone trying to make sense of U.S. policy on Palestine, only the month before, on 16 March, Roosevelt had bowed to Zionist complaints about his meeting with Ibn Saud and authorized Rabbi Wise to issue a public statement that the president continued to believe in both unlimited Jewish immigration and establishment of a Jewish state. Now, with Roosevelt’s pledge to Ibn Saud, the State Department was left trying to reconcile Roosevelt’s contradictory pledges. An internal State Department memorandum written on 6 April, the day after Roosevelt’s letter to Ibn Saud, laid out the problem:

We secured the President’s approval to a message to our Near Eastern posts explaining that while the President did authorize Rabbi Wise to make this statement, it referred only to possible action at some future date and that the President of course had in mind his pledges to the Arabs that they as well as the Jew would be consulted. This reply will probably not satisfy the Arabs, but it seemed to be the only constructive course of action open to us. In our opinion the situation is so serious. and the adverse effect upon our long-term position in the Near East so likely, that we should reconsider the entire position, adopt a definite policy on Palestine, and obtain the President’s concurrence, with the hope of averting any future misunderstandings as to what our policy actually is…Of course, if we were actually to implement the policy which the Zionists desire, the results would be disastrous.

The memorandum reflected a pattern of conciliation by an anxious bureaucracy trying to wed presidential political statements to statecraft and American interests. For the diplomats this was an essentially hopeless effort, because the reality was that presidents did not understand the true dimensions of the Palestinian question and, moreover, were blinded to it by the lures of domestic politics. They treated the Zionist dream at best as a ticket to election and in some cases overladen, as with Wilson, with a Christian sympathy for the Jewish association with the holy land. They failed to understand the enormous complexities of Zionism’s international ramifications, and certainly none of them understood or sympathized with the unique predicament of the Palestinians.

Despite his sophistication, Roosevelt, like the presidents before and after him, suffered this myopia. For Roosevelt, his eyes were opened to Arab concerns during his meeting with Ibn Saud. It was the first meeting between a U.S. president and an Arab leader, and it shed a new light onto the issue.

Roosevelt came away from the session deeply impressed by the profound hostility of the Arabs to Zionism and the certain belief that a Jewish state could not be founded without force. On the way home, Roosevelt confided to Secretary of State Edward R. Stettinius that he “must have a conference with Congressional leaders and re-examine our entire policy in Palestine.” In an address to Congress, he said that “I learned more about that whole problem, the Muslim problem, the Jewish problem, by talking with Ibn Saud for five minutes than I could have learned in the exchange of two or three dozen letters.” He summoned Judge Joseph Proskauer of the American Jewish Committee and told him to try to dampen Jewish hopes for a homeland because such an effort would certainly lead to war or a pogrom. In the circumstances, he added, a Jewish homeland was absolutely impossible at the present time.

On the last day of his life, l2 April 1945, Roosevelt sent telegrams to both Iraq and Syria repeating his pledge about consultation. A similar message was sent by the secretary of state to Lebanon. Three hours after his last telegram was cabled, Roosevelt was dead at age 63.

Now the vice president, Harry S. Truman, not only would inherit the presidency but also the attention of a Zionist lobby determined to marshal all of its vast resources and energies to secure a Jewish homeland in Palestine.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook

Communists in the Democratic Party

Tuesday, April 24th, 2012

Sen. Howard Metzenbaum (D-Ohio) served as the Secretary of the National Lawyers Guild (NLG) in 1936. It was named by the House Committee on Un-American Activities as a Communist Front. The NLG was started in 1925 as a branch of International Red Aid.

They provided free lawyers to members of the U.S. Communist Party and such notorious Jew spies as Martin Sobell and Judith Coplon.

In 1944, the Jew Metzenbaum was one of three men who incorporated the Ohio School of Social Sciences, later revealed to be another Communist Front.

Metzenbaum promoted the Communist Party’s goals as a member of both the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees of the US Senate. Most of the anti-gun agitation there has been his handiwork and Ohio voters should make sure that his son-in-law Joel Hyatt does not carry on his sinister mission upon his retirement this year.

Former Rep. Bella Abzug, a Jewess from Brooklyn, was a feminist leader in the Democratic Party. She was a member of the board of directors of the NLG and was a leader of the Communist front. Women’s Strike for Peace, during the Vietnam War.

Anne Braden, of Louisville, KY is a life long member of the Communist Party and one of their most important organizers for Southern States. In November, 1988 she was an elector in Kentucky for Gus Hall for President.

Braden worked in the South as an aide to Martin Luther King. At one time she bought a home in a Louisville neighborhood. The home was then bombed and Anne Braden and her husband Carl were charged in the incident. The motive given by the District Attorney was that she was attempting to recruit Blacks into the Communist Party by blaming Whites for the bombing. In 1980 and 1984 Braden was a delegate to the Democratic Party national conventions.

The Soviet formed “World Peace Council” had as its President, Romesch Chandra, head of the Communist Party of India. He visited the U.S. in 1978. A committee of Congressmen was organized to host the event. They included John Burton (CA), Don Edwards (CA), Charles Rangel (NY), Ted Weiss (NY), John Conyers (D-MI), Mervyn Dymally (D-CA), George Crockett (D-MI), and Mickey Leland (D-TX).

What all this means is that the Democratic Party has become the new Communist Party!Original Founders of Communism Were All Jews

“The Jews in Russia, in their total mass, were responsible for the Revolution.” -Angelo S. Rappaport, ‘The Pioneers of the Russian Revolution’, P. 250, Stanely, Paul and Co., London 1918″There is much in the fact of Bolshevism itself, in the fact that so many Jews are Bolshevists. The ideals of Bolshevism are consonant with many of the highest ideals of Judaism.” -‘Jewish Chronicle’, London, April 4, 1919

The Bolshevist revolution in Russian was the work of Jewish brains, of Jewish dissatisfaction, of Jewish

planning, whose goal is to create a new order in the world. What was performed in so excellent a way in

Russia, thanks to Jewish brains, and because of Jewish dissatisfaction and by Jewish planning, shall also,

through the same Jewish mental and physical forces, become a reality all over the world.” -‘The American

Hebrew’, Sept 10, 1920

“Bolshevism is a religion and a faith. How could those half- converted believers dream to vanquish the ‘Truthful’ and the ‘Faithful’ of their own creed, those holy crusaders, who had gathered around the Red standard of the prophet Karl Marx, and who fought under the daring guidance of those experienced officers of all later-day revolutions – the Jews?” -Dr. Oscar Levy, Preface ‘The World Significance of the Russian Revolution’ by George Pitt-Rivers 1920″It is often said that Judaism is the driving force of communism; but this does not prove anything beyond that which is expected and only natural… It is surprising that Judaism should become the fermenting and destructive element in countries which have always despised and persecuted it? That peculiar faculty for intrigue, stratagem, conspiracies, and that patient, almost uncanny waiting for the hour of never-failing revenge, are all characteristics of the chosen people.” -Prof. F.A. Ossendowski, ‘The Nineteenth Century and After’, (London), p. 29, Jan 1926

Historians have long held that while a majority of the founders of the Communist movement in Russia were Jews its head was the Gentile, Vladimir Lenin. Today it has been revealed that Lenin was a secret Jew. He spoke fluent Yiddish, was adopted by a Jewish family and his wife was a Jewess.

The Broward Jewish Journal of 2/25/92 revealed that the story of Lenin’s heritage was discovered in the secret files of the Communist Party in Moscow. Linin’s grandfather, Alexander Blank, had been born to Jewish parents. When the parents died, Lenin and his brother were adopted by a Jewish family.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook

Talks called over ‘anti-Semitic’ Malmö mayor

Tuesday, March 27th, 2012

In an interview published last week in the liberal-leaning magazine, Reepalu alleged that the Sweden Democrats, a political party with a clear anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim line which has its roots in Sweden’s neo-Nazi movement, had “infiltrated” to foster anti-Muslim sentiments.

While Reepalu later said he had “no basis” for the remarks, the interview riled Sweden’s Jewish community and prompted the Official Council of Swedish Jewish Communities (Judiska centralrådet i Sverige – JC) to send a letter to Löfven blasting Reepalu’s “anti-Semitic” rhetoric.

Speaking with the TT news agency following the release of the Jewish community’s letter, Reepalu once again defended himself.

“I’ve never been an anti-Semite and never will be,” he said.

In response to the letter, Löfven and Social Democrat party secretary Carin Jämtin have agreed to meet with Jewish community leaders to discuss the comments and actions of the Malmö mayor, who has now also come in for criticism from his own party colleagues.

“I still have confidence in Ilmar, but these comments are extremely unfortunate. It doesn’t help that he says that he’s not an anti-Semite,” Heléne Fritzon, chair of the Social Demcrats’ party chair in Skåne to the Dagens Nyheter (DN) newspaper.

She explained that she has received a number of letters from party members expressing their disappointment.

Katrin Stjernfeldt Jammeh, a Social Democrat and deputy chair of the Malmö municipal council, also expressed her frustration over Reepalu’s comments.

“His comments create mistrust. And damage relationships which we must now try and rebuild,” she told DN.

While some party colleagues are have expressed concerns of Reepalu’s statements, no prominent Social Democrats have openly called for him to be removed from office or formally disciplined over the issue.

“There have been statements that can give one cause for reflection. But on the whole, Ilmar is a good and worthy representative for social democracy,” Anna Johansson, Social Demcrat party chair in Gothenburg, told the paper.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook

The “Greatest” Jews are the Greatest Corrupters

Tuesday, March 20th, 2012

People have allowed themselves to be blinded by Jewish intellectuals, and do so even today. How much was said in Germany about the abilities of Jewish attorneys. We need only recall the “great defender Dr. Alsberg.” What praise there was for the “great” philosopher Einstein, “the Newton of our day,” for the “great” doctors Freud and Hirschfeld. How much praise people attempted to heap up for the many Jewish university professors, for the whole so-called “intellectual world.” A look at the influence of the Jews and Jewry on German literature gives opportunity to see how the much-praised Jewish intellectualism was nothing more than the most bitter and painful expression of the destructive Jewish spirit on its host people, even when one looks at less well-known writers such as Maximilian Harden, Arthur Schnitzler, or Emil Ludwig.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook

Dislike of Physical Labor

Tuesday, March 20th, 2012

One of Jewry’s particular characteristics is a dislike of physical labor. His physical appearance alone did not predestine him to physical labor. But as the result of generations of inbreeding and of his racial mixture, the Jew made this his goal. He would rather trade, leaving work to others. His Talmud doctrines assisted him. In Germany, we hardly ever saw a Jew among miners, farmers, masons, and earth workers, or other professions that involved heavy labor. When a Jew did work, there was some sort of “big business” involved. Then he could work for quite a period. The decisive factor, however, is that the Jew has no ethical relationship to labor, as we do. For him, labor is one of various possibilities for exploitation. He does not create value, but rather his goal is to heap up money.


Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook

Aggravating Pressures

Tuesday, March 20th, 2012

It is exactly the opposite with the Jew. As long as he, with the help of lies, is striving for full equality with his host people, attempting to deceive them about his drive for absolute rule, he exerts himself to the fullest to resist his own drives, in order that he may behave as expected. But at the very moment that these pressures, for whatever reason, disappear, he sinks back into the filth, even if he has seemed to be a cultivated Jew for decades. In a way we cannot understand, he stops taking care of his body and manner. After perhaps only a few days, and certainly after a few weeks, he reveals once more the original appearance of his race: the stooped little filthy and greasy Jew. It had only been a facade. Even over decades, he had been unable to change his real nature, nor had he wanted to. Never has a Jew, if he was honest, had any real interest in learning from his host people. After all, he was firmly convinced that he would one day be lord of his host people, and that he could then impose his law on them, also in the physical realm.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook

Special Rules for Jews in Other Areas

Monday, March 19th, 2012

Jews are prohibited from owning or bearing firearms and ammunition, as well as daggers or swords.

Driving motor vehicles of any type, as well as cars and motorcycles, is also prohibited.

The Reich Minister has authorized the police departments of the provinces and their subordinates to establish regulations for Jews with German citizenship, or those with no nationality, that ban them from certain areas or limit them to certain times. For example, they may be banned from certain districts, or not be allowed in public at certain times.

Jews may not serve as attorneys. A limited number of legal advisers are available to represent Jews. Jews may also not practice medicine.

The legal situations of Jews as tenants or landlords is legally regulated. There may be no contact between German people’s comrades and Jews. Bringing Jews together in exclusively Jewish apartment buildings is to be encouraged and sped up.

If a Jew needs assistance, he must depend on his racial comrades.

Jews may only have names that are typically Jewish. If Jews have other names, they must add and use an additional name (Israel for men, Sara for women).

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook

Measures against the Jews in the Cultural Arena

Monday, March 19th, 2012

Jews are prohibited from attending German theaters, concerts, film theaters, etc.

Jew may not attend German schools. They may only attend Jewish schools.

Jews are restricted to their own Jewish artistic and cultural activities, which have been greatly expanded since the summer of 1933. The “Jewish Cultural Federation” has affiliates in all major cities, incorporating no fewer than 134 Jewish cultural organizations in every area of artistic life.

The regulations implementing the Reich Citizenship Law bring Jews together in the “Reich Federation of Jews in Germany,” for which Jewish religious congregations serve as the local branch office. It has the purpose of encouraging Jewish emigration. It is also responsible for Jewish education and Jewish charity. It is responsible for educating the Jews by establishing the necessary number of public schools and secondary schools, as well as job training schools and courses that will assist in Jewish emigration. Jewish schools are supervised by the Ministry for Science, Education, and Public Education. Jewish clubs, organizations, and foundations can either be dissolved or incorporated into the Reich Federation.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook

Legal Measures to Solve the Jewish Problem

Monday, March 19th, 2012

Excluding the Jews from the German Economy

Jews are prohibited from owning shops, mail order firms, or branches, and from owning an independent craft firm. They are further prohibited from offering goods or business services at markets, exhibitions, or trade fairs of any kind. A Jew can no longer be a factory director, a leading official, or a member of a cooperative.

Shops, mail order firms, and branches owned by Jews are to be closed down and eliminated. Only in particular cases can Jewish firms be aryanized. The same is true for Jewish craft firms.

The Jews were excluded from six branches of industry in the summer of 1939 (security, information, real estate, housing and mortgage services, marriage services, foreign travel).

Jewish commercial firms and the associated property, as well as wholesale operations and industry that are Jewish because of the degree to which they are under Jewish ownership, can be de-Jewdified. Important patents and commercial secrets must be transferred to non-Jewish control.

Jews in the German Reich may no longer own or control property. Jewish stocks must be turned in.

Jews with German citizenship, or Jews without a nationality, are prohibited from acquiring, selling or disposing of items of gold, platinum, or silver, as well as precious gems and pearls.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook

The Jewish Problem

Monday, March 19th, 2012

The Jewish Question is as old as the history of Jewry itself. From the days of antiquity to the present, the peoples have always risen up to defend themselves against Jewish parasitism. The defense was often bloody. Greater Germany is the first country in the world to find a legal way to separate from the alien Jewish people. In contrast to the views of the last century, and of the so-called democrats of today, National Socialism sees the Jewish Question not as a religions problem, but rather as a racial question. After Jews had been removed from the civil service, and after the press and cultural life had been cleansed, the most important step was the Nuremberg racial laws (see pages 36-47!). The world paid attention. It saw that it was no longer a matter of theory, that it was not merely the anti-Semitism of an earlier age, but rather that the final reckoning with Jewry had begun. World Jewry also realized the inescapable fate faced the Jewish people. For the first time in their history, the Jews faced a movement that transcended all borders and oceans, one that could no longer be stopped — regardless of whether other peoples resisted or hesitated. The world-wide boycott movement against National Socialist Germany, the war agitation of the world Jewish press, and the gunshots by Jewish murders that killed Wilhelm Gustloff and Ernst vom Rath, proved that. National Socialism fights its battles to a victorious end with iron determination. It will solve the Jewish Question in a way it thinks right for the German people, regardless of the deadly enmity and songs of hatred on the part of the Jews and their democratic friends. It will do this legally, but without compromise, and finally. It is no accident that the German people was called to do this. No other people gave the Jews such opportunity to carry out their drives as did the German people in the midst of its deepest need. No other people is strong enough to give the Jews the fate they deserve as is the German people! As in so many other areas. National Socialist Germany has given the rest of the world the example of how to deal with the Jewish Question, as is shown by the racial laws of our ally Italy, and by the spread of the Jewish Question to many other countries.

The murder of Ernst vom Rath did not slow legal measures aimed at solving the Jewish Problem, but rather sped them up. The Jews living in Germany had to pay a fine of a billion marks to discourage them from repeating the cowardly murder. Jewish-democratic voices abroad complained about the “poor” Jews. Yet after six years of a National Socialist government, the 700,000 Jews in Germany were worth 8 billion marks, while the nearly 80 million German citizens were worth only 200 billion marks. Each Jew on average had 4.57, or four-and-a-half times, as much as the average German. Jewish net worth, which had been 4 billion marks in 1918, had doubled, at the expense of the German people. Jews also owned substantial property (for example, more than half — about 60% — of Berlin belonged to the Jews, although they were only 3.8% of the population). That proves the extent to which Jewish parasites had exploited the German people. Truly, it is only a small bill that the National Socialist leadership of the German people gave to the Jews. The series of laws and regulations laid out on the following pages bring us nearer to a solution of the Jewish Question in Germany in every regard.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook

If the Jews never existed can you think of how wonderful the world would be?

Saturday, March 10th, 2012

The Roman Empire would probably not have fallen, there wouldn’t have been any crusades or jihads, Christianity and Islam would never have been created. There wouldn’t be anyone killing each other over who’s sky daddy is better. (or at least a significant amount less)

And the worst books in the history of mankind would have never of been written, I am of course talking about the Torah, the Bible, and the Quran. Absolutely horrible reading material.

Yes I think it is safe to blame the Jews for a lot of the mishap in the world today

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook

Newborn dies after reportedly contracting herpes from controversial circumcision ritual (Filthy Jews)

Wednesday, March 7th, 2012

A two-week-old infant died at a Brooklyn hospital in September after contracting herpes through a controversial religious circumcision ritual, the New York Daily News reported.

A spokeswoman for the city Medical Examiner told the newspaper that the unidentified baby boy died September 28, 2011, at Maimonides Hospital. The official cause of death was listed as “disseminated herpes simplex virus Type 1, complicating ritual circumcision with oral suction.”

As part of the ultra-orthodox Jewish circumcision ritual—known as metzitzah b’peh—the rabbi or mohel removes blood from the wound with his mouth.

The brit milah (pronounced bris), otherwise known as circumcision, is a rite of passage in the Jewish faith, though different groups follow different sets of procedures. The Rabbinical Council of America endorses the practice of using a sterile glass tube between the mohel’s mouth and the baby’s wound for the more orthodox metzitzah b’peh procedure. For less conservative Jews, the baby’s skin only comes into contact with surgical tools.

It is unclear who performed the circumcision, according to the Daily News.

In 2004, another baby died after contracting herpes from a rabbi in Rockland County, N.Y.  City health officials have denounced the ritual, saying it carries “inherent risks” for babies.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook

Bishop Eddie Long apologizes to Jewish group

Sunday, February 5th, 2012

Bishop Eddie Long has apologized for last Sunday’s service at New Birth Missionary Baptist Church that drew the ire of Jewish groups and religious scholars.

“The ceremony was not my suggestion, nor was it my intent, to participate in any ritual that is offensive in any manner to the Jewish community,” Long wrote in a letter sent Saturday to Bill Nigut, Southeast Regional Director of the Anti-Defamation League.

Footage of the service, viewed by nearly 600,000 people on YouTube, showed Long being wrapped in a sacred Torah scroll and carried upon a throne.

“He’s a king. God has blessed him,” said Colorado Rabbi Ralph Messer before covering Long in a scroll “[that] may still have the dust of Auschwitz and Birkenau.” Messer referred to the Nazi extermination camps in Poland where millions of Jews were murdered during the Holocaust.

In his letter to the Anti-Defamation League, Long “[denounced] any action that depicts me as a king, for I am merely just a servant of the  Lord.”

Nigut, who said he was “horrified” by the service, told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution Sunday he appreciated the bishop’s apology.

“For the ADL it’s a real wake-up call that a lot of people do not understand our liturgies and practices,” Nigut said. “Guys like Messer are troubling to us because they appropriate real ritual or, in this case, make one up.”

Jamal-Dominique Hopkins, associate professor of Biblical studies at Interdenominational Theological Center, said the ceremony was “something I’ve never seen or read within the Judeo-Christian tradition.”

Messer, who has no formal rabbinical training, is active in the Messianic Judaism movement, which fuses evangelical Christian beliefs with elements of Jewish tradition.

On Sunday the New Birth service was played in its entirety for Messer’s congregation at Simchat Torah Beit Midrash in Parker, Colorado.

“You’d be incredibly, incredibly proud of your rabbi,” said Nicole Martin, a pastor at Simchat. “I’m so excited about what happened [at New Birth]. The spirit was so thick, so tangible.”

Messer’s sermon makes reference to recent troubles that have beset Long, sued in Sept. 2010 by four former church members who alleged he used his influence, trips, gifts and jobs to coerce them into sexual relationships. The suit was settled in May.

“God wants to get your focus,” said Messer, adding “crisis produces opportunity.”

“You have to go through a descent before an ascent,” he said.

In a statement released by New Birth on Thursday Messer contended his message “was about restoring a man and to encourage his walk in the Lord. It was not to make Bishop Eddie L. Long a king,” he said.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook

LSE Nazi games in context

Wednesday, January 25th, 2012

It has emerged that students from the London School of Economics, while on a skiing trip last December, played a Nazi-themed party game. It was the same game that, when promoted on Facebook by students from Huddersfield University in 2009, won 12,000 followers. And it was similar in theme to the game that eventually lost the Tory MP Aidan Burley his job last year. Anyway, a Jew who was present objected and his nose, a significant organ under the circumstances, was broken.

We do not know what nationality the nose breaker was, so I cannot suggest it was British Tories enjoying a transgressive sexual thrill by pretending to be Nazis – although the joy young Conservatives, particularly in Oxford, take in these games has always amazed me. I am sad the nerdy Jew lost the fight with the fake Nazi, but successful Jewish violence usually creates nastier headlines than more usual Jewish passivity. Some would say this is no big deal. Who wouldn’t prefer a Nazi-themed party game to a Nazi-themed genocide? Some people (some Jews) are just no fun at all. Let the swastikas flap. We be Vikings.

Non-murderous antisemitism usually does not bother me, and I merely giggled when a drunk John Galliano was exposed for shouting “I love Hitler”, and wearing a pirate hat. It feels essential, however, to place this game in context because Jews are becoming afraid. We sniff the air and feel a change because antisemitic discourse is more acceptable now than at any time since the 1930s.

I would love to dismiss this incident as high jinks with a genocidal motif, but paranoia and Judaism walk together; our history demands it, and no people is as conscious of its history as the Jews. The word antisemitism is newish, with the first known usage occurring in 1879, but the violence is old. The general ignorance of the history of the Jews in Europe is also amazing – a vague, fuzzy mistrust of the other is what we ordinarily have – so I will briefly reiterate it.

This tribe, exiled from what is now called Israel/Palestine by the Romans in 70AD, has been chased from country to country in the millennia since, longing for what we call the return to Zion, saying every Passover “next year in Jerusalem”, or – if I am allowed a gag under the circumstances – “but please God, Miami”. The harassment and murder of Jews is a constant in European history – born, if you seek a simple answer, from Christianity’s deicide myth, and always exploited by those who needed a scapegoat.

It is a sickness that emerges from generation to generation, always with a new resentment to prosecute – the murder of the Christ, well poisoning, usury, the Jewish invention of communism or its opposite libel, Jewish world domination through capitalism, and now a Jewish state that defends itself, kills Palestinians, and is corrupted. The crimes are different, but the criminal is always the same. It is just a shame the Jew from the LSE didn’t have bigger fists, but I would always suggest that Jews avoid the Alps.

Antisemitic discourse is now mainstream and to say it all comes from the crimes of the Jewish state feels disingenuous and a denial of the past. Antisemitism is too old to sprout anew from nothing. Leftwing antisemites despise Israel, but are less vocal on the crimes of other oppressive states (China, Russia, Saudi Arabia). They call it “whataboutery”, and say that any defence of Israel is propaganda.

The incidents mount up – the heckling of an Israeli orchestra, the graffiti on university walls, the demand that Jews denounce Israel if they wish to be accepted in polite society, the plays and TV films written without context, the violence against Orthodox Jews (visible Jews), the sale of antisemitic toys in Poland, the terrible fact that 12,000 Facebook users think to mock the Holocaust, not lament it.

The broken nose of the boy from the LSE is, in the end, a tiny act of violence on top of an enormous cultural inheritance. A cynic would say that we know what Europe thinks of the Jews, and if you believe that, a party game does not surprise.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook

A Jewish genetic disease

Wednesday, January 25th, 2012

If you do a search on google, along with predispositions, you’ll find more than 20 medical diseases affiliated with aberrant genes possessed within a segment of the Jewish people. One which is omitted but equally malicious is Jewish antisemitism. A rampant flu, this disease is spreading wildly throughout a vocal sector of this population, threatening to do more internal damage than outside factors have done since the 1940s. A generational scourge so great that famed Zionist labour founder Berl Katznelson asked back in the 1930s: “Is there another people on earth so emotionally twisted that they consider everything their nation does despicable and hateful, while every murder, rape, robbery committed by their enemies fill their hearts with admiration and awe.”

Under the guise of anti-Zionism, antisemitism has reared its ugly head in a relatively new incarnation, Jews joining the chorus of those disparaging Israel. In high schools, on college campuses and classrooms throughout Canada, the United States and Israel the propagandist delegitimization of the Jewish state is becoming pervasive. Likewise, concurrence of the Palestinian narrative amongst so-called progressive Jews can also be seen in broadcast, print media, and writing what you are reading now. At first blush, one might assume Jewish antisemitism would afflict only the uneducated but research and personal experience have proven otherwise. If ever there was a uniting factor for the left, right, educated, and uneducated amongst Jews that despise Israel, it’s Jewish antisemitism.

In writing the Israeli Advocate to a weekly, mostly Jewish readership now exceeding 7,000, my responses both pro and con usually total 30-50. But the anti-Israel vehemence of those opposed to the Jewish state – and I’m sure this article will garner a lot more – is most striking.

One very pragmatic ‘intellectual’ Jew, a PhD and MD from North Carolina is obsessed with Palestinian refugees from Israel’s 1948 War of Independence. Despite conclusive evidence to the contrary, he dogmatically sticks to the mantra that Israel is solely responsible for the plight of the Palestinian refugees and only their suicidal repatriation into Israel proper for them and millions of their descendants can rectify their situation. He cares little for facts such as the Palestinians and Arab world choosing war against Israel over acceptance of UN-sanctioned partition or having left their homes not as Jewish policy but as in all wars; victims of war itself. Neither does he or those that think like him recognize the denial of citizenship by their fellow Arabs in the countries which they left for during Israel’s War of Independence in 1948. Nor do they have empathy for the 800,000 to 1 million Jewish refugees stripped of their land and possessions, disenfranchised from homes their families lived in for hundreds of years in Muslim countries throughout northern Africa and the Middle East during the 1920s; long before the re-creation of the state of Israel and lasting until the mid 1950s.

The difference being, Israel repatriated their refugees into full-fledged citizens while the Arabs chose to allow theirs to wallow in wretched squalor, as political pawns till this very day. To these Jewish Quislings, the only remedy of the Palestinian refugee problem is the destruction of the Jewish character of Israel from within by an influx of people sworn to her delegitimization and destruction. In other words these Jews seek demographically to attain for the Palestinians and their descendants what their ancestors failed to do militarily 64 years ago.

He’s far from alone. As mentioned, Jew-on-Jew hatred can be found on both sides of the political-religious spectrum. One fanatical religious sect is an ultra-Orthodox group called the Neturei Karta. This lovely group of right-wing zealots – wined and dined by none other than that upstanding, Holocaust-denying leader of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad – believe the Jewish state is blasphemy since it preceded the Messianic era. Like their far-left fellow loonies, these vehement, Israeli bashers are not just opposed to Israeli policy, but to her very existence itself. The movement’s supporters believe that the Jewish exile – begun when the Second Temple was destroyed some 2,000 years ago – exists by Divine decree and can be reversed only through Divine intervention. To be sure, they’re not the only Jew bashers swinging from the right side of the plate. Astonishing as it may seem, in September 2007 police in Petah Tikvah, Israel broke up a neo-Nazi gang of 8 naturalized Russian Jews giving Nazi salutes and carrying out mob attacks on homosexuals, non-whites and observant Jews. To be sure there are many more. However, all this notwithstanding, receiving the lion’s share of attention and by far the most malicious aggregation and individuals disparaging of the Jewish state are from the left of the political spectrum.

Professors, writers, students, left-leading media, and clergy particularly from the reform movement denounce what they see as the ill’s of Zionism – the right of Jews to their historic ancestral homeland. They seek to draw a boundary between Judaism the religion and the right to such a homeland.

‘Progressives,’ as many Jews within the anti-Zionist camp deem themselves relish any action of repudiation of the Jewish state, some going as far as renouncing their rights under the law of return. At a ritual circumcision a Jewish couple made the following pronouncement to their yet to be cognizant newborn: “We are thrilled to pronounce you a Jew without the Right of Return. Your name contains our deep hope that you will explore and celebrate your Jewish identity without confusing it with nationalism.”

Hopefully the child once recovered from the ordeal of circumcision will be circumspect enough to ask the parents why people of other religions can have national homelands but he as a Jew couldn’t.

On a daily basis you pick up a newspaper or google the Web and find inaccurate condemnations of alleged Israel human rights violations, along with ideologue professors denigrating her while leading their wards in divestment and boycott campaigns.

Why, some might ask, should anti-Zionism be considered antisemitism? The answer is simple. None of these idealistic individuals or activist groups equally denounce years of Palestinian atrocities such as the killing and maiming of innocent men, women and children in buses, restaurants, or murdering babies sleeping in their cribs.

During the Al-Aqsa intifada, which began in September 2000 and lasted about 5 years, 1,100 Israeli citizens and 5,500 Palestinians were killed. In 10 months alone, Bashar al-Assad has massacred 5,400 of his own people. Has anyone heard a peep of outrage or denunciation from these sanctimonious ‘progressives?’ Quite clearly, the term anti-Zionism as used by these people is nothing short of subterfuge for antisemitism.

In their continuing effort of delegitimizing Israel and casting her as a pariah state they disguise their motives in lofty terms such as peace, reconciliation and justice.

Unfortunately, if they had their way, none of this would apply to Israel whose sovereignty would no longer exist upon the dissolution of the Jewish state. The Jews still therein, they most assuredly would return to the protective status; dhimmitude, as long as they paid the poll tax; the humiliating jizzia – a tax Jews were forced to pay their Arab masters for hundreds of years during a degrading ceremony made to acknowledge their debasement. All this for the honour of being permitted to live amongst the Arabs as second-class citizens.

Pointing out this reality to the previously mentioned Jewish, MD, PhD I had been corresponding with, his matter of fact reply was: “Muslims paid zakat, non-muslims paid jizza. So what. Do you have a problem with people paying taxes?”

No I don’t, but I do have a problem with antisemites, particularly Jewish ones.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook

German anti-Semitism ‘deep-rooted’ in society

Tuesday, January 24th, 2012

A neo-Nazi rally in Berlin (May 2010)

Anti-Jewish feeling is “significantly” entrenched in German society, according to a report by experts appointed by the Bundestag (parliament).

They say the internet has played a key role in spreading Holocaust denial, far-right and extreme Islamist views, according to the DPA news agency.

They also speak of “a wider acceptance in mainstream society of day-to-day anti-Jewish tirades and actions”.

The expert group, set up in 2009, is to report regularly on anti-Semitism.

The findings of their report, due to be presented on Monday, were that anti-Jewish sentiment was “based on widespread prejudice, deeply-rooted cliches and also on plain ignorance of Jews and Judaism“.

They added that far-right slogans at football matches were a regular occurrence.

The report’s authors put Germany midway in their assessment of other European countries in relation to the spread of anti-Semitism.

They see extremely high levels of anti-Jewish sentiment in parts of Poland, Hungary and Portugal.

Germany’s Jewish population has experienced something of a revival since the fall of the Berlin Wall.

Before 1989, the population was below 30,000 but an influx of Jews, mainly from the former Soviet Union, has raised the number to 200,000.

Speaking on Friday to mark the anniversary of the 1942 Wannsee conference, when the Nazis’ murder of millions of Jews was mapped out, President Christian Wulff pledged that Germany would keep the memory of the Holocaust alive and would never abandon the Jewish people.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook


Saturday, January 14th, 2012

MADONNA opted to address historical gossip suggesting KING EDWARD VIII and his wife WALLIS SIMPSON were Nazi sympathisers in her directorial debut W.E. – because she wanted to dismiss the allegations once and for all.

The pop superstar, who is a fervent follower of Jewish faith Kabbalah, admits she did consider sidestepping the issue and not mentioning it in the film, but felt she owed it to the couple to go there.

Appearing on news show Nightline on Thursday (12Jan12), Madonna said, “I think it was something that was a real shadow that they had to live under. That’s a huge libellous accusation.

“I do not believe they were Nazi sympathisers. He (Edward) did have a meeting with Hitler but so did a lot of heads of states, and that didn’t make them a Nazi sympathiser.

“I think people started to spin this tale and this yarn and it was easy for a lot of people to put that label on them.”

And Madonna also dismissed FBI reports suggesting the infamous couple was close to Hitler and the Nazis.

She added, “First of all, the FBI are notorious for lying and second of all there is actually no empirical evidence that can prove that they were Nazis or Nazi sympathisers.”

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook