Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews, Volume 1 (30 page)

As a concession to the Zionists, the 1939 White Paper also stated that Britain would permit a total of 75,000 more Jews to enter Palestine over the next five years, which would take the Jewish population of Palestine to approximately one-third of the whole.

This continuing Jewish immigration was to be at the rate of 10,000 a year for each of the five years. In the same period (taking the total to 75,000) an additional 25,000 Jews were to be allowed into Palestine as “a contribution” to the solution of the Jewish refugee problem then in the making as a consequence of the unleashing of anti-Semitism by the Nazis. (At the time of the unveiling of the MacDonald White Paper, the extermination of Jews in Europe was not underway; but by 1939, and in fact earlier, the violence against Jews in Germany was the clearest possible indication that the Jews of continental Europe were in extreme peril, and would most likely be, in very large numbers, in need of refuge).

After five years Britain was not intending to allow any more Jews to enter Palestine without the consent of the Arabs. Since it was predictable that the Arabs would not agree to further Jewish immigration, the 1939 White Paper was effectively announcing the end of it after five years.

In addition the 1939 White Paper pledged that Britain would check the ever-increasing illegal immigration into Palestine. It also announced that the High Commissioner would be given powers to regulate the sale and transfer of land.

The White Paper’s explanation of Britain’s policy options was as follows. His Majesty’s Government did not read any previous British policy statements as implying that it was required “for all time and in all circumstances to facilitate the immigration of Jews into Palestine subject only to consideration of the country’s economic absorptive capacity.” (That had to be a correct and true statement because of the pledge in the Balfour Declaration that nothing would be done to prejudice the rights of the “non-Jewish community.”) “Nor do they find anything in the Mandate or in subsequent statements of policy to support the view that the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine cannot be effected unless immigration is allowed to continue indefinitely.”

So, said the official explanation, the alternatives before His Majesty’s Government had been:

either, (i) to seek to expand the Jewish national home indefinitely by immigration, against the strongly expressed will of the Arab people of the country; or (ii) to permit further expansion of the Jewish national home by immigration only if the Arabs are prepared to acquiesce in it.

Therefore:

His Majesty’s Government, after earnest consideration, and taking into account the extent to which the growth of the Jewish national home has been facilitated over the past 20 years, have decided that the time has come to adopt in principle the second of the alternatives referred to above.

Zionism rejected the White Paper and accused Britain of betraying the Jews. And it was pleased to note that when the House of Commons approved the White Paper and the new policy it represented, Churchill was among those who opposed it.

In Palestine itself Ben-Gurion’s Jewish Agency, the government-in-waiting of the Zionist state-in-waiting, issued an immediate statement. It said:

The White Paper denies to the Jewish people the right to reconstitute its National Home in its ancestral land. It hands over the government of the country to the present Arab majority and places the Jewish community of Palestine at the mercy of that majority... It sets up a territorial ghetto for Jews in their own homeland. The Jewish people regard this breach of faith and as a surrender to Arab terrorism.
¹⁴

As I write I find myself wondering if the authors of that statement stopped to consider how absurd it might appear to those who believed that handing the government of the country to the “Arab majority” was the natural, right and proper thing to do; all the more so because of the proposed power-sharing safeguards for the Jewish minority.

From this point every act of legitimate Palestinian resistance to the Zionist enterprise would be defined by Zionism as terrorism. It was a definition that, in time, the Zionist state persuaded the governments of the Western world to accept, at least in their public statements. It did not matter to Zionists, then and still today, that all peoples have the right to use all means including violence to resist occupation.

Ben-Gurion himself declared “We will fight with the British against Hitler as if there were no White Paper; and fight the White Paper as if there were no war.”
¹⁵

In the Zionist mind the root cause of all the trouble in Palestine was Arab violence, an analysis for propaganda purposes which took no account of the fact the Arab violence was (then as now) the consequence of Zionist provocations—the violation of Arab rights that was implicit in the very nature of the Zionist enterprise, and the creation by the Zionists of facts on the ground.

A different perspective on why, really, things had gone so badly wrong in Palestine was offered by Sir John Hope Simpson. He was the British expert sent to Palestine in 1930 to report on the serious disturbances of the previous year. His analysis, which did not find its way into public print until 1944, included this observation: “Had the Jewish authorities been content with the original object of settlement in Palestine—a Jewish life without oppression and persecution in accordance with Jewish customs— the national home would have presented no difficulty.”
¹⁶

In support of this view he pointed to the successful way in which new Jewish immigrants had settled in communities such as those founded by Sir Moses Montefiore and funded by Baron Rothschild. The point was, he said, that those Jewish immigrants had been determined to have a friendly relationship with their fellow Arab citizens and to be loyal citizens of Palestine.

“The unfortunate fact”, Sir John Hope Simpson went on, “is that the Jewish immigration of today is not composed of Jews who, on religious grounds, wish to return to the land of Zion in order to lead a Jewish life without oppression and persecution in accordance with Jewish customs. Rather it is composed of Jews, largely devoid of religious conviction, animated by a spirit of political nationalism, and determined to secure domination in Palestine…No effort has been made to coalesce with the existing population. On the contrary, there is extreme divergence between the virile occidentalism of the immigrant and the conservative orientalism of the mass of the resident population.”
¹⁷

With the White Paper of 1939 Britain admitted it had been wrong to seek to dispose of even a part of Palestine without the consent of the Arabs. But it also has to be said that the British government of the day decided to try to right the wrong its predecessors had done only because it was terrified—of the prospect of the Arabs supporting Nazi Germany on the basis that the enemy of their enemy was their friend.

But it was too late.

By 1939 Zionism had established enough of a presence in Palestine, and sufficient lobbying power in America, to turn the dreadful thing about to happen, the Nazi holocaust, to its advantage.

The UN partition plan proposed that 56.4 percent of Palestine should be given for a Jewish state to people (many of them recently arrived alien immigrants) who constituted 33 percent of the population and owned 5.67 percent of the land. It was a proposal for injustice on a massive scale.

As Ben-Gurion had hoped, war enabled the unilaterally-declared state of Israel to take more land by fighting—more land than had been allotted to it by the vitiated United Nations Partition Plan.

For any Jew there cannot be more spine-chilling words than those that were the names of the death camps in which the extermination of six million European Jews happened:
Belsen, Buchenwald, Dachau, Flossenberg, Grossrosen, Mittlebaudora, Sachsenhausen, Ravensbruck, Neuengamme
and
Stutthof
in Nazi Germany;
Vught
in Nazi-occupied Holland;
Mathhausen
in Nazi occupied Austria;
Theresienstadt
in Nazi- occupied Czechoslovakia;
Treblinka, Chelmno, Sobibor, Majdanek, Belzec
and
Aushchwitz
in Nazi-occupied Poland.

If the tide of war had not turned against Nazi Germany, all of Europe’s Jews might well have been exterminated. A total of about 11 million. That was the number of Jews marked for slaughtering by General Reinhard Heydrich, the Head of Reich Security Central Office and the man entrusted by Hitler with the task of planning and implementing the “Final Solution” to the “Jewish problem”.

The blueprint for the Final Solution was discussed and approved at a meeting of 15 top Nazis chaired by Heydrich. The date was 20 January 1942. The place was Wannsee, a picturesque suburb of Berlin. The meeting, arranged by Lt. Colonel Adolf Eichmann, took place in a magnificent mansion that had been the home of a German Jew. Heydrich informed the participants that he would live in it when the war was over.

Always in a hurry—he piloted himself from place to place—Heydrich was pressed for time and insisted on a working lunch. So the details of how they could actually exterminate up to 11 million Jews were discussed over the finest wine, the best food and the most expensive cigars.

Among the issues they discussed was why shooting Jews was not the answer. As one of the participants said, ordinary German soldiers would not have the stomach for it. Not on such a scale. And, anyway, it would take far too long. Shooting the Jews was simply not a practical proposition. There was also the problem of disposing of the bodies. The answer was in the application of the industrial process and science. The Jews would be gassed in purpose built chambers and their bodies burned in purpose built ovens. By such methods Eichmann calculated they could make 60,000 Jews a day “disappear”.

Heydrich did not live long enough to see his plan implemented. In the spring of the same year he was assassinated by two Czech resistance fighters and his place as managing director of the Final Solution was taken with enthusiasm by Eichmann. After the collapse and defeat of Nazi Germany he escaped to Argentina. There in 1960 Israeli agents caught up with him. They spirited him back to Israel where he was tried for war crimes and, at 11.58 p.m. on 31 May 1962, hanged.

There are anti-Semites who deny that the Nazi holocaust happened, either at all or on the scale it actually did. Holocaust denial is something I cannot get my Gentile mind around. It strikes me as evil on a par with the commissioning of the slaughter and the slaughtering itself.

In this book I do not use the term The Holocaust because the holocaust experience—being the victims of genocide—is not a uniquely Jewish one. In terms of the number of Jews slaughtered, and because of the planning and the systemic nature of the slaughtering, what happened in Nazi Europe was the single most terrible act of genocide in all of human history. But the Nazi holocaust was neither the first nor the last example of man’s inhumanity to man on a scale that made use of the term genocide appropriate. (Since the end of World War II there have been to date 250 conflicts and 70 genocides)

At the core of Zionist mythology about what happened after Hitler came to power is the assertion, sometimes stated, always implied, that Zionism did what it did in Palestine because it had no choice—because the world refused to give sanctuary to European Jews who were fleeing from the Nazi terror and became refugees or displaced persons (DPs in the official jargon). That is far from the truth.