Professor Yehuda Elkana wrote (Ha'aretz) that two very important lessons are to be learned from the Holocaust. That it "should never happen again" and that "it should never happen again to us."

A "Zionist Ethos" had to be created that even while Jews abhorred violence the sometimes use of force had to become acceptable as part of the national psyche in order to form an army and provide for the self defense of the Jewish nation. Jews had to become emancipated from their past. Israel was reborn out of Jewish disappointment for not being accepted in the national cultures of countries where Jews often lived longer than the prevailing and dominant culture of the newly emergent nation-states. Jews tried to assimilate but the local cultures rejected them and continued to treat them like foreigners.

This French post-revolutionary world of "Enlightenment" was full of distortions. The dream of the century was progress; liberty, equality and fraternity - for all but the Jews.

New post revolutionary freedoms merely gave rise to those inclinations in man which were not yet benevolent. The old ways were full of prejudice and xenophobia but were restrained by authoritarian regimes. The new norm was unbridled freedom which unleashed these passions and prejudices and antisemitism erupted with an intense fury and was shared by the political left and political right.

We learn from the diaries of Theodore herzl (1880s Europe) as related here by Anita Shapira (Dean of Tel Aviv University),

"What distressed the Jews most deeply were not events in the political sphere (although, from a long-term perspective, these were the most dangerous) but, rather, the trivial, direct incidents of everyday life, like the accidental encounter with abusive language, drunken derisive laughter, and discriminatory behavior on the street..." From Shapira, "Land and Power", Stanford University Press (99)

In 1881 there was a serious of horrible pogroms (which were massacres carried out by the masses) in many cities and towns in Russia which resulted in the slaughter of many Jews and the worst anti-Jewish massacre since the slaughter of Jews in Poland in 1648 to 1649.

The word Pogrom is a Russian word meaning massacre. It passed from Russian into the English language at about the late 1800s with specialized meaning of massacre of Jews....

One sees an unleashing of anti-Jewish invective and hate on the internet in this century which is also particularly disturbing as a microcosm of feelings which has not been this visible since the 1930s.

It is little wonder with the rise in antisemitism at the turn of the 20th century that many Jews should develop an interest in Zionism. Jews were by no means welcome in Palestine. Muslims had their own reasons for despising the Jews but also adopted the libels and other hate myths of the Christians.

But Christians also suffered at the hands of the Muslims. Whalid Phares, an Arab-Christian political scientist tells us that few people seem to be aware of the size of the Christian communities in the Middle East. They were not just a few groups in Arab countries. In Egypt, the Copts, which were Orthodox, Catholics and Protestants are 10 to 11 million throughout Egypt.

"They (Egyptian Copts) claim descent from the ancient Egyptians living under the Pharaohs. Their numbers shrank after the Arab invasion in AD 640. Much later, they enjoyed a temporary flowering under the British in the nineteenth century. One million copts live in the Diaspora, principally in the United States." Phares, in "The Forgotten Millions" - edited by Malka Hillel Shulewitz (99). Whalid Phares was a professor at FAU in Florida

Lebanese Maronite Christians who controlled Lebanon prior to the civil war between them and mostly Palestinian Muslims, were on the brink of exchanging an agreement of recognition with Israel. The Christian president of Lebanon was assassinated by Palestinian Muslims which then led to the massacre of Palestinians in the refugee camp at Sabra and Shatilla by the Christian Phalanges - which Arial Sharon was blamed for because some thought he should have anticipated it and stopped it.

"There are about 1.5 million Christians in the Land of Cedars -- Maronites, Orthodox, and other communities including Protestants. As a result of the 1975 war, hundreds of thousands were displaced and exiled. There are around seven million Lebanese Christians in the diaspora and more than 1.5 million Americans are of Lebanese descent." [Phares]

In the Sudan there are about 7 million Black Christians, who are Anglicans, Protestants and Catholics. A million Sudanese Christians were exiled as a result of the civil war there and have not been repatriated. About a million Christian Assyrians (Orthodox) and Chaldeans (Catholics) live in Iraq. About a million Christians of Iraqi descent live in America, Scandinavia and Australia. And in Iran there are about half a million Evangelicals and Catholics, as well as Assyrians and Armenians. There are about 20,000 Christians in Turkey.

Most of the Christians in the Middle East are not Arabs. They are Assyro-Chaldeans, Copts, Aramaeans, etc. All of these Christians have also been repressed by the Muslim conquerors.

All non-Muslims have been subjected to the dhimmi condition. Jihad is a war of conquest and Arab-Muslim expansionism is based on the Koran and the hadith, which are the words and acts attributed to Muhammad, the prophet. The dhimmi relationship is belligerent, hostile and subjects must be submissive to Muslim rule. A Jewish state in a Muslim dominated Middle East is to them intolerable. Many religious/legal treatises and sermons have been written by Muslim clerics about this relationship.

"According to this doctrine (dhimmi and Jihad), the right to rule the world belongs only to the umma (the Islamic community of Allah) because it is elected above all others (Koran III, 106: "You are the best nation ever brought forth to men"). It allows what is good, forbids what is wrong and possesses the divine revelation transmitted by Muhammad, the Apostle of God and his last messenger. Islam is Allah's religion (Koran III, 17). Muslim theologians expounded that JIHAD is a collective, religious obligation (fard 'ala al-kifaya) binding the community and each individual (far 'ala al-ayn) in different ways according to situations and circumstances." Bet Ye'or - born in Egypt. Since 1971 she has written numerous articles and scholarly works on non-Muslim peoples and minorities under Islam - and many books. This quote is from "The Dhimmi Factor in the Exodus of Jews from Arab Countries" - in "The Forgotten Millions" (99)

Joan Peters has also done extensive research on the dhimmi condition. In the new edition to her book, "From Time Immemorial" (2001), which she wrote to prove the Palestinian case and ended up disproving their case against Israel, she writes that,

"Throughout the centuries, the Jews were the first to suffer persecution in times of economic turmoil or political upheaval, and the cumulative effect of the sporadic mass murders left their mark on the Jews even in period of relative quiescence. In Syria, the infamous blood libel of 1840 brought about the death, torture, and pillage of countless Jews falsely accused of murdering a priest and his servant to collect the blood for Passover matzoth! Before the Jews were finally vindicated of this slander, word of the charges had spread far from Damascus, causing terror in numerous Jewish communities." [Shapira]

"The scurrilous blood libel has not been purged from Arab literature, however. In fact, the Arabs seem in the past two decades to have seized upon this primitive old calumny with renewed vigor. In 1962 the UAR (Egyptian) Ministry of Education published "Human Sacrifices int he Talmud" as one of a serious of official "national" books. Bearing on its cover the symbol of the Egyptian Institute for Publications, this modern book is a reprint of an 1890 work by a writer in Cairo. In the introduction, the editor shares his discovery: `conclusive evidence...that this people permits bloodshed and makes it a religious obligation laid down by the Talmud.' The editor's description becomes more vile as it purports to become more explicit regarding the `Indictment.' [Peters]

"Two years later, in 1964, a professor at the University of Damascus published his own affirmation fo the nineteenth-century blood libel, stating that the wide attention given the story served a valid purpose: to warn mothers against letting their children out late at night, `lest the Jews...come and take their blood for the purpose of making matzot for Passover.' Still another version, also published in the 1960s, `The Danger of World Jewry to Islam and Christianity,' alleges that thousand of children and others disappear each year, and all of them are victims of guess who?" [Shapira]

Even NOW there are similar libels published in official newspapers and in books and taught in schools in those countries surrounding the little state of Israel. No wonder it is proving impossible to achieve peace with these countries. Before there can be peace there must be an effort to eliminate their myths and to stop terrorism.

People make many false assumptions - like the reason there is no peace between Palestinians and Israelis is because of the settlements or because Israel has more power or a myriad of other reasons. None of those reasons are why Israel and the Palestinians are not at peace with each other. Settlements were never a deterrent to peace. The crux of the problem is Islamic and specifically anti-Jewish. When Jews were outnumbered, long before there was a state of Israel, Arabs rioted and there were pogroms against the Jews. It happened in 1914 when Jews were also expelled from towns in Palestine by the Turks pre-WWI and in 1921 when the Arabs went on a killing spree and again in 1929 and in 1932 and Jews were not a threat. Jews were developing land and investing in the infrastructure and Arabs were benefiting from these improvements.

When Jews feel the age old threat of antisemitism the Jews are accused of crying wolf -- only it isn't because they don't see the wolf. The wolf has been there before so Jews are well acquainted with antisemtism.

When leftist Counterpunch Mag (http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn08132003.html) says "join the ever growing crowd" of those accused of antisemitism, it is akin to blaming the Jews for being victimized - like it is their fault and they can't tell when there is genuine antisemitism. Counterpunch Mag has joined the army of antisemites. A credible left would be opposing antisemitism, not excusing it.

When the philosopher Honderich complains that he has been accused of antisemitism for supporting Palestinian terrorism in his new book and his publisher pulls the book he feels he has been wronged by the Jews because how could he be antisemitic when his wife is Jewish? Well to philosopher Honderich, I say: "There are Jewish antisemites too and when you advocate killing Jews by supporting Palestinian terrorism you epitomize the worst of antisemitism" - Killing Jews is certainly antisemitic.

Antisemitism is a political instrument of the Left. It might be a reaction of the new left because of professional jealousy --- considering that socialism more successful with Zionism than it ever was in the Soviet Union after the great Marxist/Leninist revolution. By supporting Islamic opposition to Zionism, the left is not supporting an underdog or a minority; it is supporting fascism. Islam is dictatorial, undemocratic, totalitarian, and definitely fascist. So fascist, as a matter of fact, that Arabs were overwhelmingly on the side of Hitler and the fascist governments during WWII.

The didn't just make deals with the fascists, they promoted the fascist, Nazi cause and the Mufti appealed to Hitler to exterminate the Jews and offered his cooperation. Zionist leaders made a different kind of deal with the Nazis. They offered not to boycott German products in order to get Jews out of Germany. The boycott and French and Polish preparation for war against Germany and planned dismemberment was a motive for Germany's _pre-emptive_ invasion of Europe. The Zionists cautioned against the boycott (which was in effect a caution against Germany's pre-emption) in order to save Jews. Antisemitism was not something new to Jews and Zionists knew well what to expect. Privileged Germany Jews were also against the boycott because they expected antisemitism to run its course and they realized a boycott would make it worse. Zionists wanted Jews in Israel and knew it would get worse and their reason for opposing the boycott was not so German Jews could stay in Germany but to get as many out as they possibly could.

German Jews were Germans first and Jews second in Germany. At times they did very well in Germany. Some of the greatest Jewish scientists, doctors, lawyers, generals, philosophers, musicians, were German.

"Although Jewish communities flourished along the Rhine as early as the year 300 C.E., it was not until the eleventh century, as far as we know, that they became a force in the economic life of the land. Jews were such desirable settlers that aspiring communities invited them to dwell in their midst and accorded them special privileges. By virtue of these privileges, they were enabled to live an autonomous Jewish life, guiding their inner life by rabbinic law. In the medieval state with its classes of nobles, clergy, burghers, and peasants, the Jews formed a privileged class." •"The Rise and Destiny of the German Jew", by Jacob R. Marcus; Union of American Hebrew Congregations, 1934

"This status was shortlived, however. Religious bigotry, encouraged by the Church and inflamed by the Crusades, became increasingly prevalent and soon led to a series of persecutions and massacres. The tradition of Jew-killing and hatred began as early as 1096 and continued in increasingly violent form down into the fifteenth century. As the German burghers turned more and more to commerce and trade, the growing economic competition heightened their antipathy to the Jew. Many Jews, forced out of commercial enterprises, then turned to money-lending, but were hated and persecuted even more as usurers..." (ibid)

Not to attribute the sometimes interrupted but ongoing persecution of Jews in Germany as conditioned on antisemitism is to argue, as socialists often do, that Jews were singled out because they were capitalists, which falsely ignores the state of alien existence and religious animosity which existed since the time there were Christians in Germany. Jews were always an easy scapegoat.

The British did all they could to keep those German Jews from escaping from Germany and emigrating to Palestine. Severe quotas were kept in force in spite of the knowledge that Jews would be persecuted and were being killed. Zionist leaders were aware of the problem also. The British allowed unrestricted Arab immigration to Palestine - an influx which incidentally was encouraged by Jewish development there. Jewish development in Palestine made conditions better for Arabs.

A financial requirement was imposed on all incoming Jews to Palestine in addition to the quota. Germany wanted to rid itself of the Jews there but would not let them take anything with them. If Britain had lifted the monetary requirement on immigration and raised the quota there would have been no need for Zionist leaders to go to the Nazis to negotiate with them to let these (wealthier Jews who could afford the entry fee) to leave with enough to pay their way into Palestine. As part of the transfer agreement Zionist leaders would ask for twice the entry fee from the sale of Jewish property to help with their absorption. The Nazis were so concerned about economic strangulation and they were also anxious to get rid of the Jews that they agreed to these conditions and turn over to the Zionists that money for resettlement. Afterall, it was a way to get rid of the Jews and the Nazis were going to confiscate all Jewish property anyway. This way Israel got part of it back.

Some Anti-Zionists argue that the Zionists undermined the boycott. They disagree over the effectiveness of the boycott but it didn't really matter. There was a total lack of action taken by governments to ease the condition of the Jews. The boycott was not organized by the government. The first organization to lead the boycott effort, at least in the U.S. was the Jewish War Veterans, of which I am a member and a past post commander. Boycotts make people feel good and may cause some hardships, but overall policy doesn't change very much from this type of blackmail.

The boycott would not have been effective enough to stop the Nazis. It most likely had the opposite effect of causing the Nazis to react with a greater degree of persecution _sooner rather than later_ but the real objective which never changed was Hitler's intention to purify Germany and purge the Jews. It didn't matter whether he expelled them or killed them.

Countries bordering Germany were preparing to attack Germany and the Germans knew it. Their objective was to finish what was started with the Treaty of Versailles" - which were nonnegotiable terms from which Germany could not recover and ultimately would lead to WWII. It was just a matter of when, not if there would be a war.

It is also very clear from a study of events that Hitler and his Nazi party intended to persecute the Jews, come what may, boycott or no boycott, and would have been satisfied to be rid of their Jews without the Holocaust if Europeans and the U.S. has been willing to accept them. Zionist leaders knew this and knew as we know also know now that antisemitism will eventually erupt somewhere and Israel is an insurance policy for world Jewlry against the outbreak of this cancer.

The Zionists would have taken all 6 million Jews if they could. They did manage to save 60,000, which was more than 10% of Jews in Germany.

The threat of boycott and the perception that Germany was being choked off economically by it's enemies influenced the Nazis to enter a "Transfer Agreement" with Zionist leaders.

The author of "The Transfer Agreement", Edwin Black, writes:

The boycott unnerved the Nazis, who believed that Jews wielded supernatural international economic power. They knew that in the past Jews had used boycotts effectively against Russian Czar Nicholas II to combat his persecution of Jews, and automaker Henry Ford to halt his anti-Semitic campaign. Whether or not this new boycott actually possessed the punishing power to crush the Reich economy was irrelevant; what mattered was that Germany perceived the Jewish-led boycott as the greatest threat to its survival--and reacted accordingly." (Edwin Black Re: Boycott)

"Those who would condemn the Zionist decision to enter into a pact with Hitler have the luxury of hindsight. In 1933, the Zionists could not have foreseen the death trains, gas chambers, and crematoria. But they did understand that the end was now at hand for Jews in Europe. Nazism was unstoppable. The emphasis now became saving Jewish lives and establishing a Jewish State." Edwin Black

"Roosevelt himself had shown little official concern for the plight of Germany's Jews. Shortly before the inauguration in the first week of March, one of (Rabbi Wise was a major leader of American Jewry) Wise's friends, Lewis Strauss, tried to convince the outgoing President Hoover and President-elect Roosevelt to send a joint message of alarm to the German government. Although Hoover sent word of his concern through the American ambassador in Berlin, FDR refused to get involved." Quoted from Morton Rosenstock, "Louis Marshall, Defender of Jewish Rights (65) by Edwin Black, "The Transfer Agreement" (84) p16)

"Yet Nazi atrocities intensified, as bannered each day in the press: Midnight home invasions by Brownshirts forcing Jewish landlords and employers at gunpoint to sign papers relenting in tenant or employee disputes. Leading Jewish physician s kidnapped from their hospitals, drivn to the ougskirts of town and threatened with death if they did not resign and leave Germany. Dignified Jewish businessmen dragged from their favorite cafes, savagely beaten and sometimes forced to wash the streets." (ibid)

Hitler wanted to get rid of the Jews

Everyone knows that Hitler wanted to get rid of the JEWS, but his first plan was not extermination, it was expulsion. He was willing to send all the Jews away from Germany if the rest of the world would just take them - and he said he would do it even on luxury liners if they would just take these Jews from him. The world refused and there was the Holocaust. The transfer of 60,000, arranged by the Zionists was only a partial payment. If the British had opened the gates up to "Palestine" they could have had hundreds of thousands of Jews. If America had lifted the quotas, Hitler would have given to America as many Jews as transportation could have been arranged for - but it didn't happen. There were antisemites in America and in Britain who refused to take the Jews.

Hitler said:

"I can only hope and expect that the other world, which has such deep sympathy for these criminals, will at least be generous enough to convert this sympathy into practical aid. We, on our part, are ready to put all these criminals at the disposal of the countries, for all I care, even on luxury ships." (Adolf Hitler, 1938)

The foreign minister of England was less inclined to do anything for the Jews. He even wanted to nullify the Mandate in "Palestine". Anthony Eden said:

"If we must have preferences, let me murmur in your ear that I prefer Arabs to Jews." In Bernard Wasserstein, "Britain and the Jes of Europe---1939-1945 (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1979) , pp 5-6 --- and --- Martin Gilbert, "Exile" (several citations),

Germany's "enthusiasm for Jewish emigration" led its government to "facilitate some 40,000" German Jews' emigration to Palestine between 1933 and 1938... Wasserstein writes: "The German government "remained anxious to encourage Jewish emigration," and "expressed dissatisfaction with...the slow progress" in getting rid of unwanted "non-Aryans." In October of 1938, "more than fifteen thousand" Polish born Jews who had "long" been living in Germany, were "rounded up," expelled from the Reich, and dumped at the Polish border, one of many "similar" actions.

If the world took the Jews perhaps there would not have been a Holocaust. We don't know that, but it is entirely possible that it would have been different that way.

The Arabs didn't want Palestine as a state. The wanted Palestine and Jordan and everywhere to be Islamic. Nationalism wasn't the issue. MOST Arabs were nomadic and ALL Arabs were tribal.

I am not convinced that Arabs have been successful in the court of public opinion and the natural tendency for people to be antisemitic is the crux of the reason behind the popularity of the Arab cause? Libels have an appeal and the lies and slanders are as convincing as logic. We, many times lose the battle to win hearts and minds when we should not. But why?

I think there are many reasons for this and no one answer seems to fit everything but the most persuasive arguments seem to be those which are based on things you can't prove. Like conspiracies. People have a tendency to believe in fairy tales and conspiracies because they can dispense with logic and reason and base their views on speculation and faith.

The allegations against Israel over the USS Liberty incident is an example which never seems to want to go away - even after US Air Force tapes have been released (just recently) which show the confusion over the incident by the Israels and seem to dispel any hint of intent to attack the ship on purpose. The same with various allegations of Israeli massacres. Without going back too far, the Jenin "refugee" camp incident comes to mind. This so-called "refugee camp" is a terrorist enclave. It was fortified and a battle took place there. There was no massacre but Israelis soldiers were ambushed and died and so did some Arabs but it was no planned massacre, nor did a massacre take place there. Still Israel had difficulty proving its case and there are still many who do not believe Israel.

The media has a complicity when it jumps on any hint of a massacre or any Israeli wrongdoing and blows it out of proportion to the act. Any news coming from the Arab side is doubtful which has been proven over and over again, yet each new charge against Israel is believed. The charge that Israelis murdered Rachel Corrie who fell under the bulldozer was believed even though it was an accident and one that could have been prevented if she had not been in a very dangerous place at the wrong time.

Israel must keep on telling the truth and the truth always wins in the end. It is unfortunate that sometimes those who believe the lies never hear the truth and the "propensity of the oft-repeated lies" tends to become the accepted wisdom.

Another big lie is how well the Arabs and Jews got along until the Jewish state was declared. This story is utterly false but it keeps on being told and I think there are Arabs who believe it - and many on the Left will believe it.

Arabs learned about nationalism late - long after they already got their Palestinian state in Jordan. And then there is the claim that they were there first. The Arabs in the region that was set aside for the Mandate by the League of Nations was always Jewish and Arabs came and went in nomadic waves just as they did all over the region. When you have so many deserts and so much of it is barren, it becomes necessary to keep on moving in order to survive. When Jews started to redevelop in Palestine as farmers and industrialization came to the area it also attracted in-migration of Arabs from other Arab territory. But not because the area was Palestine nor because of any sense of nationalism.

"There was never a "Palestinian Arab" nation. To the Arab people as a whole, no such entity as Palestine existed. To those of them who lived in the neighborhood, its lands were suitable object for plunder and destruction. Those few who lived within its bounds may have had an affinity for their village (and made war on the next village), for their clan (which fought for the right of local tax-gathering), or even for their town. They were not conscious of any relationship t a land, and even the townsmen would have heard of its existence as a land, if they heard of it at all, only from such Jews as they might meet. Palestine is mentioned only once in the Koran, as the "Holy Land" -- holy, that is, to Jews and Christians.) [Samuel Katz, "Battleground" page 116 (73)]

"Arab officials have fabricated a historical narrative that has gained wide acceptance. It justifies Arab aggression, even terror, as an understandable response to cruel Israeli "occupation" and to the "stealing of Palestinian lands." The charges often stick, even though they are based on falsehoods." "Palestinian Lies, Western Duplicity, (8/21/2002) By Daniel Doron])

-Hank Roth-

###