Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Zionism & Propaganda: In Israel, America, and Germany

Expand Messages
  • World View
    Zionist Ideology and Propaganda: In Israel, America, and Germany Kenneth Lewan www.uruknet.info?p=44057 When we see how Zionist ideology is used and the
    Message 1 of 1 , Jun 7, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Zionist Ideology and Propaganda: In Israel, America, and Germany
      Kenneth Lewan
      www.uruknet.info?p=44057


      When we see how Zionist ideology is used and the purposes it serves
      in Israel, America and Germany, we can obtain a better understanding
      of the deplorable situation in each case and perhaps some
      improvements.

      Theodor Herzl, the leading ideologist and organizer of the Zionist
      movement, wrote in his book Der Judenstaat which was published in
      1895: "No nation in history has had to endure such struggles and
      suffering as ours … because of old prejudices lying deep down in the
      soul/minds (Gemüt) of all other nations … And the longer it takes
      before they appear the more ferocious they break out. Our only hope
      for escaping the persecutors is a state for a Jewish nation."1

      Herzl's assertion about the unique suffering of Jews and the
      prejudices of all other nations cannot be empirically confirmed, but
      that was not his concern. His interpretation of Jewish history was
      likely to convince many Jews and encourage them to take part in the
      struggle for a state. Many others would pay lip service to the
      ideology because they shared Herzl´s goal. The first task for the
      movement was to convince Jews that they were a nation and hinder the
      assimilation that was underway. The leaders of the movement came out
      strongly for the colonization of Palestine, a beautiful country
      where the inhabitants were to a considerable extent well-off and
      could rest their claim to the land on the fact that it had been
      inhabited by Arabs for more than 1000 years. Herzl and the later
      leaders of the movement asserted that all or almost all of the
      indigenous people would have to leave their country.

      The likely outlook on life of the Jews who became convinced of this
      ideology was mistrust, insecurity and fear of non-Jews. Other Jews
      would just pretend. The foreseeable consequences of this outlook
      were bleak: Ruthlessness and a stubborn refusal to admit that they
      had wronged anybody.

      The British newspaper The Economist printed a carricature a few
      years ago which a former mayor of Hamburg, Klaus von Dohnanyi,
      described as follows: "It shows us Germans ducked down fearfully in
      a corner in which a strong arm with the star of David is pointing.
      The reproach for antisemitism shocks, freightens and does not
      strengthen the democratic self-confidence of the Germans. One should
      use the word antisemitism with circumspection and good reasons."2

      Zionism in Israel

      Israeli leaders have declared themselves for the Zionist ideology
      and applied it in matters of great importance.

      The Eichmann trial: During the trial which was held in Israel in
      1961 the prosecutor asserted many times that this case confirmed the
      eternal hatred of Jews. This interpretation of Eichmann has acquired
      enormous significance. Previously the political circles and the
      media in America explained the mass murder in the Third Reich as
      well as in communist countries as consequences of totalitarianism.

      In other words: Hostility toward ethnic groups and classes would not
      have resulted in such cruelty, or would have been extremely
      unlikely, in an open society. The philosopher Hanna Arendt expressed
      herself in this way when she wrote: "He was not antisemitic, not
      even an ideologist, he was a superficial, ambitious henchman of
      totalitarianism."3 If the political circles and media had stayed
      with this interpretation the importance of the holocaust in America
      and perhaps in Germany would have been quite different from what it
      has become.

      The Yad Vashen museum: According to the council of this museum, it
      was erected to proclaim that the lives of Jews outside of Israel are
      built on shifting sand. With this explanation the council ignored
      the fact that the mass murder which the museum calls to mind
      occurred under entirely different circumstances. Unfortunately some
      people were likely to be misled. "You can fool some people all of
      the time." (Abraham Lincoln)

      Nuclear weapons for Israel: The CIA informed President Kennedy in
      1961 that a nuclear power plant was being built in Israel which
      probably would be suitable for the production of nuclear weapons.
      Furthermore, Israel was already militarily much stronger than the
      Arab states and once in possession of such weapons would be even
      tougher toward its neighbors than it had been. The Arabs would
      probably turn to the Soviet Union. Kennedy spoke with Ben Gurion and
      asked for insurance that no atomic weapons would be produced. He
      should also allow the Atomic Energy Commission to inspect the plant.
      In an emergency, America would intervene on behalf of Israel.
      Besides that, he should allow some of the Palestinian refugees to
      return. One could ascertain how many would avail themselves of this
      opportunity. Ben Gurion promised that the plant would only be used
      for research. He then asserted that Nasser's goal was to destroy
      Israel and do to the Israelis what Hitler did to the 6 million Jews
      in Europe. "And if the refugees came back our situation would be
      critical. We are surrounded, they want to kill us." Later the fact
      that Israel had acquired the bomb became an open secret. Israel's
      atomic energy plant has never been inspected by the Atomic Energy
      Commission.4

      The Six Day War (June 1967): It began with the bombing and
      destruction of the entire Egyptian air force while it was still on
      the ground. The Israeli ambassador to the United Nations justified
      the attack saying that it was a matter of life or death. The "final
      solution" confronted us. Before the attack Israel and Egypt had been
      disputing about the passage of Israeli and other ships through the
      straits of Tiran. The US and England were mediating when the attack
      occurred. The Israeli forces occupied East Jerusalem, West Jordan,
      the Golan heights and the Sinai peninsula. 250,000 Palestinians and
      100,000 Syrians were driven out from their homes and lands. Later
      four members of the Israeli general staff admitted that they knew
      that Nasser had no intention to attack Israel. Readers of serious
      newspapers who read the accounts of journalists in the Middle East
      and not just the commentaries would in all likelihood have come to
      the same conclusion.5

      The war in Lebanon in 1982: Israel´s prime minister Begin wrote
      President Reagan that he was marching to Beirut "to liquidate
      Hitler", i.e. Arafat. Israel began the war. Its ambassador to the
      U.N. asserted that the PLO, which at that time was in exile in
      Lebanon, had repeatedly violated the cease-fire which had been
      agreed upon eleven months earlier. The U.N. observers reported,
      however, that the PLO had exercised restraint while Israel violated
      the truce hundreds of times from the air and the sea. The
      Palestinian refugee camps, Beirut and other Lebanese cities were
      extensively bombed. According to hospital reports the bombing
      resulted in at least 18,000 deaths, 90% of them civilians. About
      30,000 were wounded.6

      The comparisons between between Hitler on the one hand and Nasser
      and Arafat on the other were ridiculous and base. The accusers gave
      the impression that the Arab leaders had no legitimate reason for
      opposing Israel, that they were motivated by prejudices against the
      Jews and hoped to kill vast numbers of them and even had the power
      to do so. In this way they attempted to justify wars of aggression,
      conquest and the expulsion of their victims.

      Supplements to the ideology: Successors of Herzl have employed
      supplements to his ideology. They are in some respects similar to
      the antisemitism reproach and serve the same ends. One of them is
      the assertion that Israel´s foes have bad characteristics. Chaim
      Weizman who led the movement at the beginning of the colonization
      said at a meeting of Zionist leaders in 1920: "They (the
      Palestinians, KL) are a corrupt race with which one cannot possibly
      negotiate. The Arabs are treasonable and fickle, they lack moral
      values, one cannot expect that they will stick to principles."7 In
      the 1930s, writers of Hebrew novels and children's books explained
      the Palestinian resistance to the colonization of their land in the
      same way. In line with this explanation the violence of the Jewish
      colonists was always characterized as reprisals.8 After the Camp
      David talks, Barak was criticized for having given a false
      impression of the talks. He replied: "The Palestinians come out of a
      culture in which lying does not result in much disapproval. In
      contrast to Christians and Jews they are not burdened with a bad
      conscience."9 Like the accusation of antisemitism this is an ad
      hominem argument and not a factual one about the issue at stake. It
      is a prejudice against a whole ethnic group, like antisemitism. It
      is used to explain the behavior of the other group and to exonerate
      the Israeli side from guilt. This is also one of several Zionist
      dogmas/political doctrines that detract from the actual
      circumstances in specific cases.

      The assertion that Israel's existence is at stake is another Zionist
      supplement to Herzl's ideology. It too is calculated to cause fear
      among Israeli citizens and to elicit sympathy from outsiders. It
      provides an excuse for atrocities committed by the Israel army. It
      is used where an unbiased person would not agree with the claim.
      This assertion is also ambiguous: It may refer to a specific
      conflict between Israelis and Palestinians or to the conflict as a
      whole. The Zionists have had much success in winning over American
      and German leaders to the characterization of the whole conflict as
      a struggle for Israel's security rather Palestinian resistance to an
      illegal and unjustifiable occupation.

      The last Palestinian uprising: It began in September 2000 after
      Sharon, accompanied by 1000 soldiers on the Temple Mount, asserted
      in his speech that all of Jerusalem belonged to Israel. That was an
      obvious blow below the belt of the Palestinians. The demonstration
      that followed was to be expected. Seven Palestinians were killed.

      During the spiral of violence that followed, the Israeli strikes
      with tanks and bombers were out of all proportion to those of the
      Palestinian fighters. That holds for attacks on civilians, i.e.,
      terror from both sides. Yet Sharon asserted that he used force only
      in retaliation, Israel had no choice, it was fighting for its
      survival. Arafat had called on Sharon to join him in an appeal for a
      cease fire. He was ignored. Sharon said that he was willing to make
      a generous settlement but had no partner for negotiations as long as
      Arafat failed to disarm the terrorists. But the truth is that he did
      not want any negotiations. It is not unusual that negotiations take
      place while fighting goes on. It was unlikely that Fatah would
      defeat Hamas and would dare to try. Hamas' fighters were well
      trained and Arafat had lost the confidence of most of the
      Palestinians and they would have supported Hamas. Sharon's troops
      themselves were not able to silence them. Furthermore, Sharon
      weakened Arafat by means of attacks on his headquarters and his
      security forces. Arafat requested the Security Council of the U.N.
      to send troops to stop the fighting. Sharon was opposed. A draft
      resolution for the sending of troops was vetoed by Bush. In the
      meantime the colonization of the occupied territories continued.10

      Lebanon 2006:The justification for the tremendous destruction in
      Lebanon and the killing of more than 1000 of its civilians by
      Israel's armed forces in response to the capture of two of its
      soldiers was the same: Shimon Peres, who at that time was Israel's
      vice-premier said: "It was a matter of life or death."11 The
      Israelis met with stiff resistance from the Hisbullah fighters, but
      they had a free hand to bomb and destroy.

      In view of the fact that Israel attacks when and where it wishes
      with reckless disregard for lives and property and has never had to
      compensate its victims, it is no wonder that other states in the
      region attempt to acquire nuclear weapons as the best possible
      defense.

      The Palestinian election (January 2006): The Olmert government
      responded to the election of Hamas by the majority of Palestinians
      in January 2006 by refusing to recognize and deal with Hamas as
      their representative. Besides that millions of dollars from taxes
      and duties which belonged to the already impoverished Palestinians
      were withheld — a punishment for not having chosen Israel's
      favorite, Abbas and Al Fatah. This reaction was justified on the
      ground that Hamas had not recognized Israel's right to exist and had
      not renounced violence. In this connection, let us recall that
      Israel's leaders and supporters had characterized Hamas as a
      terrorist organization and emphasized the fact that Hamas' Charter
      in 1988 called for the destruction of the state of Israel. In other
      words: the dogma (political doctrine) that Israel's existence is
      endangered served here, too, as justification for refusing to
      negotiate.

      It is remarkable that Israel was able to determine the terms for
      negotiations concerning the occupied territories and indeed with the
      approval and support of the United States and the European Union: 1.
      Israel occupies the territories in violation of international law.
      2. Israel has never recognized the right of Palestinians to any part
      of their homeland. 3. Israel's violence, including attacks on
      civilians (terror) has been out of all proportion to that of the
      Palestinians. 4. The election of Hamas was entirely free. That
      should have warmed the hearts of our leaders who send young men to
      fight in foreign countries so that other nations can enjoy the
      fruits of democracy.

      Let us suppose that our leaders in America and Western Europe had
      successfully urged the Israeli government to recognize the right of
      the Palestinians to the parts of Palestine which Israel conquered
      during the Six Day War and to withdraw its troops and settlers.
      Would Hamas have reaffirmed its Charter? The portrayal of Hamas by
      Olmert and his supporters surely gives that impression, but it is
      false and Israel's secret service and its political leaders know
      that.

      The characterization of Hamas by Israel and the EU as a terror
      organization is unjustified. Hamas was responsible for many suicide
      attacks on civilians between 1994 and 1997 and 2003 and 2004. But
      during the first seven years after it was founded it fought Israel's
      military forces. The first series of its suicide attacks was in
      response to the massacre of Muslims who were praying in a mosque by
      a Jewish settler. The second series began during the intifada after
      the Israeli forces killed numerous Palestinian civilians. It is also
      noteworthy here that Hamas observed a cease-fire for 18 months
      between January 2005 and mid-2006. The Israeli side ignored that,
      although a fundamental change in Hamas' goals was underway. It was
      expressed in the campaign speeches of Haniya and other leaders of
      the party and in their program for the election. Hamas sought a
      political solution and was willing to recognise Israel, but in
      contrast to the PLO under Arafat, who recognized Israel without
      getting anything of significance in return,12 Hamas demanded an
      advance concession: Israel must withdraw completely from the
      occupied territories and allow the Palestinians to build a state
      there. The Palestinian state and Israel would then recognize one
      another. For the time in between Hamas suggested a truce.13

      Israel's leaders have always managed to avoid negotiations that
      might have led to a withdrawal from the territories and the
      establishment of a Palestinian state. They put the blame on the
      Palestinians for the lack of a solution or claimed that more time
      was needed. At the present time (October 2007) it seems that the
      much heralded peace conference in November will turn out to be
      another futile gathering. According to the latest reports the
      disputed issues — borders, Jerusalem and refugees — will not be
      discussed for the purpose of reaching a solution. This is the
      Israeli view and Foreign Minister Rice apparently agrees. Putting
      off such decisions enables Israel to confiscate more land and bring
      in more settlers. Furthermore, there is no indication that Hamas
      will be invited or that the people in Gaza will, be represented.
      A map of the UN shows the present extent of the Zionist
      colonization. 40 % of West Jordan is exclusively for Israeli
      citizens and military. The rest is divided into cantons/bantustans.

      Movement between them is severely restricted by road blocks and
      check points. Jews are now settling in Hebron and Palestinians are
      leaving. The Jordan valley is also becoming Jewish. A leading member
      of Sharon´s cabinet has admitted that the withdrawal of Israeli
      troops from Gaza was not intended to be the first step in a
      significant withdrawal from the territories. It was done to get
      Bush's consent to Israel keeping the large Jewish settlements in
      West Jordan. Bush generously agreed.14 It seems likely that Gaza
      will become another bantustan. In view of the miserable living
      conditions for the Palestinians considerable emigration is to be
      expected. The Zionist dream may soon come true.

      Zionism in America and Germany

      Three topics will be dealt with in this section: 1. The so-called
      wave of antisemitism during the recent Palestine uprising. 2. The
      obsession with the mass murder of Jews during the Third Reich and
      the question whether it was unique. 3. The Zionist goals in America
      and Germany.

      1. The "wave of antisemitism"

      The assertion that antisemitism was widespread began in April 2002
      when the bombing of Palestine cities and refugee camps reached its
      peak and was followed by severe criticism in Europe and elsewhere.
      Thus 59% of the Europeans expressed the opinion in a poll that the
      greatest danger to world peace came from the state of Israel. What
      do these findings have to do with antisemitism? In ordinary and
      scholarly usage it is a prejudice against the Jews as a whole. A
      prejudice is an attitude which is not factually based. A negative
      statement about Israel or its leaders, even if it is a prejudice
      against them, is not about "the Jews."

      The reproach of antisemitism during the intifada was propagated by
      the large Jewish organizations in America, by the Council of Jews in
      Germany and some Jewish journalists and academicians. Because of
      their close affiliation with Israel it is appropriate to refer to
      them as Zionists. Here are some examples: The editor of the
      Commentary, one of the leading Jewish journals in America,
      wrote: "We are past the Kristallnacht in America and well on the way
      to the final solution … Jews in the United States are being targeted
      for murder." The leader of the Anti Defamation League, Abraham
      Foxman, asserted that "the survival of the Jewish people might once
      again be at risk." Elie Wiesel, a prominent stimulator for high-
      lighting the holocaust, spoke at a conference on antisemitism in
      Berlin and at the United Nations. In Berlin he said: "There are too
      many cities in the world plagued by vocal and violent hatred toward
      the Jewish people … extreme left-wing banners unashamedly slandering
      Israel…mass incitement to hysterical violence disguised as anti-
      Israel propaganda." In New York: "Sixty years after the worst
      tragedy in human history Jew — hatred is once again in the rise."15

      The response of Jewish leaders in Germany to the criticism of Israel
      was the same. The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung printed an article
      by Salomon Korn, a member of the Council of Jews in Germany, in
      which he wrote: "All Jews are held responsible for every offense of
      Israel against the Palestinians. The debate about the Middle East
      conflict exposes the prevailing antisemitism. That old question
      hangs over the heads of the Jews like the sword of Damocles: 'Was it
      right to stay in Germany?'" It is noteworthy that the German foreign
      minister Josef Fischer, endorsed Salomon's assertion shortly
      thereafter in the FAZ: "Why is Israel being so sharply criticized?
      Why this one-sidedness? In these months many German Jews feel
      themselves abandoned." Michel Friedman, a former member of the
      Council, said in a television interview while soliciting donations
      for Israel: "Antisemitism is the greatest problem of the Western
      World. It is quite acceptable in all circles to run down the Jews."

      In answer to the question whether philosemitism existed in Germany
      he said: "The philosemites are worse than the antisemites. They
      always expect thanks from us."16 The Israeli ambassador to Germany,
      Shimon Stein: "Antisemitism in Germany is obviously a chronic
      illness. Now it is concentrated on Israel as the collective Jew."17

      This accusation was also made against individuals. The chairman of
      the Council of Jews in Germany, Paul Spiegel, spoke in June 2002 at
      a meeting of the Christian Democratic Party. He warned the party
      against participating in a coalition government with the Free
      Democrats. He said that "a leader of the FDP" — he meant Jürgen
      Möllemann — had made antisemitic remarks. "Antisemitism would
      probably be part of official politics again." None of the
      politicians who were present asked which remarks were meant or what
      Spiegel considered antisemitic. Möllemann, a former minister of
      education and president of the German — Arab society had accused the
      Israeli government of committing state terrorism. The word terror in
      our cultural area means attacks on unarmed civilians. That certainly
      includes attacks with helicopters on individuals who have not been
      tried by a court and found guilty, whereby other persons too are
      hit. This happened more than 100 times during the intifada.

      Möllemann also said: "the aggressive — arrogant treatment of
      Sharon's critics by Michel Friedman is unfortunately likely to lead
      to anti-Israeli and antisemitic responses." None of these statements
      is a derogatory statement about "the Jews." Another former minister,
      Norbert Blüm, got similar treatment after he said the charge of
      antisemitism "was being used as a club to sweep criticism of
      Israel's disregard for human rights under the carpet."Spiegel
      responded with the remark that Blüm's statement was "racism."18

      The comments of leaders of the most important parties in the German
      parliament are remarkable. Chancellor Schröder, the leader of the
      Social Democratic party, accused Möllemann's party of "playing with
      antisemitism." His vice chairman said: The FDP wants to win
      over "antisemitic currents" in Germany for their purposes. A speaker
      for the Green Party which was in the coalition government, said that
      Möllemann was a "mean antisemite." Another speaker for the Greens
      said: "Anyone who holds the Jews responsible for antisemitism
      legitimizes antisemitism." The chairman of the Christian Social
      Party (CSU) added: "The FDP provoked leading Jewish representatives
      to win votes from the die-hard reactionaries." A speaker for the
      Christian Democratic Party: "Blüm's remark is 'useful for the die–
      hard reactionaries.'"19 None of these parlamentarians breached the
      question what was meant by the word "antisemitism." In this respect
      too, they resembled the Zionist spokesmen.

      So the Zionist leaders have performed a stunt across the stages in
      America and Germany which reached a peak in the antisemitism
      conferences in New York and Berlin: Criticism of Israel or, as some
      of them say, sharp critique, is symptomatic of antisemitism. This is
      another political dogma which the chorus of leaders preach one after
      the other without offering evidence. One ardent promoter of this
      dogma, Alan Dershowitz, professor of criminal law at Harvard, wrote
      in 1991. "It is impossible to understand why Israel receives the
      attention — most particularly the criticism — it does receive
      without recognizing that Israel is 'the Jew' among nations."20 There
      are, however, other possible explanations. Since the beginning of
      the colonization of Palestine in 1920, it has been the center of an
      earthquake area, and that concerns all of us. Furthermore, millions
      of people are appalled by the deplorable way Israel has behaved
      toward the Palestinians and other neighbors. Perhaps many critics of
      Israel have developed hostile attitudes toward Jews generally while
      observing Israel and its unconditional support by Jewish leaders in
      America, Germany and elsewhere who purport to represent Jews.
      [Actually, more hostility is caused by the knee-jerk reactions of
      ordinary Jews when an acquaitence or loved one is attempting to
      discuss Israel's crimes. -WVNS] That would be unjust, but it is
      unfortunately a fact that wrongs done by some individuals in a
      nation often result in prejudices against the whole nation. But here
      another Zionist dogma turns up: Jews can never be responsible for
      anti-Semitism.21

      2. The obsession with the holocaust

      Americans and Germans look back repeatedly on one great atrocity
      while the other ones remain in the shadow. In America the obsession
      with the Jewish tragedy is the work of large Jewish organizations
      and Jews (by no means all Jews) in key positions in newspapers,
      journals, television, book publishing, in Hollywood and in the
      academic world.22 Here is a brief sampling of what they have
      accomplished: There are holocaust museums not only at a prominent
      place in Washington but also in every big city. In some of them
      other victims of the Third Reich are remembered but only marginally.

      At the place in New England which is dedicated to the heroes of the
      American Revolution there is also a monument for the Jewish victims
      of the Third Reich. In many American states, teachers are obliged to
      instruct students about the holocaust. For this topic, there are
      professorial chairs at colleges. The nine hour film Holocaust was
      viewed entirely or for the greater part by 110 million viewers.
      Jewish organizations published Schindler's List with 110 million
      copies of a 16-page brochure and worked over the most important
      newspapers to persuade them to print the book in series. The
      National Council of Churches named the first day of the showing
      Holocaust Sunday. Yellow stars of David were distributed. Between
      the years 1996 and 2000 the New York Times printed 3,500 articles
      with references to the holocaust. Politicians find it useful to have
      themselves photographed in Yad Vashem.23

      The holocaust was not brought into prominence in America until the
      1960s. After World War II, the cold war was under way, it lasted
      until the end of the 1950s. Political circles and media were
      fighting communism, comparisons between the crimes under communism
      and the National Socialists were commonplace and not frowned upon.
      But with the end of the cold war the interest in emphasizing
      communist crimes died out. The explanation of the Eichmann case by
      the prosecutor gave a powerful stimulus for the change. When the
      trial began many Jewish leaders doubted whether it was good for
      Jews. Objections were made to it in some of the media, because Jews
      were both prosecutors and judges and because it was a show trial.
      The leaders of two of the most important Jewish organizations
      explained the Eichmann case as a consequence of totalitarianism. But
      during the trial which lasted for four months the viewers saw
      terrible pictures and heard horrid stories and the criticism died
      out. The path for the holocaust as a long-standing success was
      levelled.24

      In Germany, the struggle against communism did not interfere with
      the emphasis on the Jewish victims of National Socialism. Already in
      the early 1950s the government, the parliament, media and educators
      made considerable efforts to throw light on the Third Reich.
      Prominent persons often urged the public not to forget what had
      happened, especially the suffering of Jews. This development was
      furthered by the trial of persons accused of war crimes, the stage
      adaption of The diary of Anne Frank (there were 1420 performances)
      and the sale in 1957 of 700,000 copies of the pocket book edition.
      In 1959 some young men devastated a synagogue in Cologne. There were
      numerous expressions of sympathy for the congregation and the
      culprits were punished. But the media in Germany played up the event
      and Jewish organizations in America and England claimed that the
      crimes during the Third Reich were being played down, Hitler's ideas
      were still lurking in German minds. Public opinion polls and sundry
      investigations resulted in an entirely different portrayal.

      Nevertheless, this event and the Eichmann trial, which was treated
      for two years in German media, were the immediate causes of the
      obsession with the holocaust in Germany.25 The "remembrance" is kept
      fresh in the public mind with memorials, commemorative speeches,
      often by Israelis, reviews of books by or about Jewish victims,
      American and German films and so forth. Characteristic of the
      attitude of the Council of Jews in Germany is the statement of the
      recently elected chairwoman, Charlotte Knobloch, that one of her
      main tasks was to ensure that the "remembrance" continues. Certain
      political parties have frequently accussed other parties of
      suppressing the history of the Third Reich, especially the
      persecution of Jews.

      In this connection, two recent events concerning the Yad Vashem
      museum in Jerusalem are noteworthy. First: Germany has contributed
      more than two million euro for the identification and copying of a
      documentation of the museum about the persecution of Jews. The
      German minister of justice, Brigitte Zypries, gave the director a
      check in 2005 and said: "Our duty as Germans is to keep the
      remembrance of the crimes of the Nazi regime alive because this is
      necessary to prevent such crimes ever occurring again.26 The
      minister simply parroted a reason which many Jewish leaders have
      used over and over again in spite of the many mass murders that have
      occurred meanwhile. The minister might well have mentioned one of
      the purposes for which the remembrance actually is used. Second: The
      museum offers seminars on "Education after the holocaust" for
      teachers. German teachers take part with support from German
      provinces. In 2006 the German ambassador to Israel, Rudolf Dressler,
      invited the German teaches who participated to a reception. He said
      in his speech: Sixty years after Auschwitz there can never be enough
      teaching about the holocaust. Even after forty years of diplomatic
      relations there cannot be normal relations between Germany and
      Israel."27

      Was the holocaust unique? When the "remembrance" is insisted upon,
      it is often said that it was "unique." The statement that an event
      is unique is, of course, ambiguous. It can mean that it has
      characteristics that cannot be found with other events, which is
      true of all events. But those who advocate the uniqueness of the
      holocaust aim to convince others that it was the worst crime in
      human history. This intention becomes clear where comparisons with
      other major crimes are said to be playing down the holocaust. The
      statement that some crime was the worst in history is not
      empirically verifiable, it is neither true nor false, it is a matter
      of opinion. To clarify this point it is worthwhile to examine the
      most frequent reasons that have been given for the uniqueness of the
      holocaust.

      First: The killing was done by organized factory-like gassing. But
      killing by other means, e.g., by torture or burning, could be
      regarded as just as bad or worse. Furthermore, the Roma and others
      in extermination camps were killed in the same way as Jews were.28

      Second: It is often asserted that Hitler intended to kill all the
      Jews and, indeed, for ideological reasons. The evidence for that is
      lacking. According to his ideology, the Aryans, above all others,
      had the mission to develop their capacities in matters of culture
      and statecraft. For that purpose, opposing forces were necessary to
      resist and stimulate the Aryans. (This is in line with social
      Darwinism). The Jews were, he claimed, the opposing party, they were
      destructive and must be resisted.29 In light of his further
      statement that "something bad must exist to stimulate what is good,"
      one may conclude that the interaction with Jews would always be
      necessary for the self-realization of the Aryans. In January 1939,
      he said in a speech: "If the Jews in international financial circles
      again succeed in plunging the nations of the world in a world war,
      the result will be the destruction of the Jewish race in Europe." In
      January 1941, he said: "If America is forced into a general war by
      the Jews, all of the Jews in Europe will have played out their role
      in Europe." These were sharp and unjustifiable warnings but not an
      unconditional statement of intent and did not refer to all Jews. The
      agreement between the Hitler government and the Zionist leadership
      which lasted from 1933 until 1938 "to further the emigration of
      German Jews to Palestine" is evidence that the intention was to
      force Jews to leave Germany. According to Ludwig Pinner, whose study
      was published by the Leo Baeck Institute in Berlin, the
      implementation of the agreement brought about the rapid advance of
      the Jewish economy in Palestine to an industrial economy.30

      But even if the killing of all Jews was intended, the claim of
      uniqueness does not hold water. The wiping out of whole peoples has
      been intended and the intention has been carried out.31 Whether such
      cases are the worst of all is also a matter of opinion. Finally, it
      can be argued that the number of innocent persons actually killed is
      decisive. That would presumably mean that the worst crime was
      committed in communist China. In the mean time the last two
      chancellors have said what is politically wise in Germany namely
      that the holocaust was unique." http://www.uruknet.de/?
      s1=1&p=44057&s2=16#footnote_31_1991

      3. Zionist goals in America and Germany

      First: Like Herzl, their primary goal is to convince Jews that they
      belong to the Jewish nation and that Israel is their "mother
      country." Katzav said in a speech in the German parliament that he
      spoke in the name of the Jewish nation. This remark may have led
      some people to believe all Jews or Jews in general profess loyalty
      to Israel. That is not so, even in America where Zionism has its
      strongest base outside of Israel. Numerous Jews reject Israel's
      claim and oppose it vigorously. No doubt Katzav's intimation holds
      with rare exceptions for the leaders of the major Jewish
      organizations in America and the Council of Jews in Germany. Their
      attitude may well have been expressed in Michel Friedman's
      remark "Israel gives us our identity and our self-image."

      Like Herzl his successors strive to keep Jews together and separate
      from others by spreading fear and mistrust among them. Alarms have
      been sounded in America like these: "If you know history at all, you
      have to presume not that it could happen again, but that it will.
      It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when." "A holocaust-
      consciousness is necessary, so that the Jews are ready to leave
      America." But these assertions were deliberate deceptions. Peter
      Novick, professor of history at the university of Chicago has shown
      that the panic-mongers were trying to stop mixed-marriages and
      assimilation. In the 1960s, 40% of the Jewish men and 30% of the
      Jewish women married non-Jews. That led to these counter measures.
      There was talk about a "bloodless holocaust." But anti-Semitism was
      of no significance in America, and Jews held influential positions
      in the media, in politics and on universities. A distinguishing
      feature of Jews as a group was their extraordinary wealth.33

      In this connection, the account of a German diplomat who over many
      years in Washington and New York tried to improve Germany's image
      and the German-Jewish relations is of considerable importance. Dr.
      Wolf Calebow, having come to the conviction that the portrayal of
      the holocaust in America was conveying the impression that Germany
      today was dangerous for Jews held numerous conversations with the
      largest Jewish organizations, editors of Jewish newspapers and
      others, whereby he asked them to supplement their depiction of the
      holocaust with information about the German resistance, the
      compensation paid to the victims and their families, support for
      Israel and an accurate portrayal of Germany as it is today. His
      requests were turned down in almost every instance. The Council of
      the holocaust memorial in Washington even refused to discuss the
      topic.His efforts were not entirely in vain, however. Together with
      the Amonk Institute, which also was dedicated to improving German-
      Jewish relations, he brought about some changes in the teaching of
      the holocaust in some of the states where it is obligatory.

      Calebow's conclusion was that the frightful impression of Germany
      which the holocaust portrayals gave was not accidental, it was
      intended. It was aimed at strengthening Jewish consciousness and
      ties to Israel. This in turn facilitated efforts to keep the
      holocaust in the limelight. He underlined his opinion with numerous
      details. For example: The Journal of the Anti Defamation League
      referred to a study "by a German partner" as follows: "New anti-
      Semitism: Alarming report from Germany."34 The ADL gave no
      information about the partner. It was very likely the institute at
      the Technical University of Berlin which specializes in research on
      anti-Semitism. Like the Zionists it ignores the ordinary definition
      of anti-Semitism and purports to find an abundance of it.35

      In my treatment of the so-called wave of anti-Semitism I have shown
      that Zionist leaders in Germany, too, sounded fearful alarms for
      Jews which were unfounded. If the Council really believed that the
      Germans constituted a threat to Jews, it certainly would not have
      lobbied for the immigration of 200,000 Jews from the former Soviet
      Union. The frightening sounds they make are not intended to cause a
      flight to Israel, but to strengthen Jewish national consciousness
      and ties to Israel. This task gives the leaders a purpose in life
      and material rewards, too. More about that below.

      It is remarkable that this Zionist goal is supported financially by
      the German state. A so-called "international treaty" between the
      German government and the Council has recently become a law. The
      government promises to pay the Council three million euro yearly.
      These payments are apart from the financial support which Jewish
      religious communities receive. The preamble to the "treaty" contains
      this statement: "The German nation has a historical responsibility
      for Jewish life in Germany." The money is to be used for "common
      interests of the Federal Republic and the Council", namely for the
      development of the Jewish community and the "integration tasks" of
      the Council. Besides that it is to be used for tasks "which go
      beyond the region" and for administration costs. The Ministry of the
      Interior refers to the Jews from the former Soviet Union
      as "contingent refugees." But in one passage, it states: The
      admission of an applicant depends upon his being of Jewish
      descent. "Persecution or discrimination are not criteria for the
      admission." This agreement is only ostensibly a contract, it is in
      fact a gift. No quid pro quo is required. The flabby description of
      the tasks of the Council means in plain English that the Council
      should use the funds for purposes it wishes to pursue.

      The "integration" task is not understood by the Council to mean that
      Jewish immigrants should be assimilated in the German nation.
      Friedman has said that he plans a Jewish lobby in Europe like the
      one in America. The great majority of the German population wants
      the various ethnic and religious groups to strive primarily for
      common ends and not for what keeps them apart. During the last
      Ramadan the German president expressed the wish that the Muslims
      regard Germany as their homeland. Should this be addressed only to
      Muslims?

      A second goal: Support for Israel. Its image and financial,
      diplomatic and backing from outside are enormously important for its
      success. The Zionist leaders in America and Germany occupy wide
      fields in the public eye where they can make their view about Middle
      East affairs known and exert considerable influence. They assert
      obstinately that Israel is only defending itself and fighting for
      its existence. Dershowitz, for example: "The great moral issue
      facing the world at the dawn of the millennium is whether Israel's
      attempt to protect itself against terrorism will result in a massive
      increase of world-wide antisemitism."36 Paul Spiegel expressed
      himself along the same line after a helicopter attack on Hamas'
      headquarters, where eight civilians, including some children, were
      killed: "They are declaredly terrorists … self-defense — a matter of
      life or death."37 Criticism of Israeli actions by Zionist leaders is
      a rarity. When a member of the Council of Jews in Germany, Professor
      Paul Verleger, criticized Israel's practice of assassinations
      without any judicial hearing and the ruthless destruction of large
      parts of Lebanese cities, the Council leadership accused him of
      using anti-Israeli "clichés" and expelled him from the Council.

      Besides protestations of innocence Israel's image is varnished in
      America and Germany by unfounded accusations of anti-Semitism
      against its critics and by repeatedly calling the holocaust to mind.
      During the recent intifada the wave of anti-Semitism accusations,
      including the conferences in New York and Berlin, served to divert
      the public from the deaths and destruction the Israeli army was
      causing. The reproaches against individuals were clearly aimed at
      disparaging them and their critique and deterring others, especially
      public figures, from speaking frankly about Israel´s atrocities.

      That holds also for the attacks on the German minister for
      development aid Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul after she referred to the
      danger from the numerous blind shells that still lay around in
      Lebanon after the war. Knobloch reproached her for having
      spoken "one-sidedly to the detriment of Israel and thereby supported
      antisemitic attitudes." Apparently no other political leader who was
      a member of the government during the intifada or the recent war in
      Lebanon risked criticizing Israel. More recently several Catholic
      bishops visited the occupied territories and made frank statements
      about what they experienced. One bishop apparently spoke of
      a "Ghetto in Ramallah." Mrs. Knobloch said that this was a
      comparison with the ghettos during the Third Reich and accused him
      of "moving close to the border of antisemitism."38 But a ghetto in
      ordinary usage is a quarter in which Jews are compelled to live and
      from which they are not allowed to go out at night. Furthermore,
      instead of getting to the factual issue — comparisons can throw
      light on events — she resorted to an ad hominem argument. The
      accusation of being on the verge of anti-Semitism may not ruin ones
      reputation in Germany and America, but it throws a shadow on the
      person attacked. If the presidents or some other prominent persons
      in America and Germany had clarified what is meant by prejudices
      against ethnic groups, including anti-Semitism, they would have done
      a good deed for their countries.

      The constant calling to mind of the holocaust in connection with
      Israel is likely to give the impression that, in spite of all
      appearances, Israel is the victim or at least that critics should
      allow for extenuating circumstances. After the Israeli army
      conquered the rest of Palestine in the Six Day War and then "for
      reasons of security" began settling Jews there, Israel's image
      became tarnished world-wide. The idea then turned up among Israel
      supporters in America that this was due to a lack of holocaust-
      consciousness. Various remedies were used. Holocaust novels were
      sent to all members of Congress. In films and novels Palestinians
      and the Nazis planned the destruction of Israel. The director of the
      ADL wrote: "The Palestinians, or many of them, were Hitler's little
      helpers."39 During the last intifada the president of the Council of
      Jews in Germany, Paul Spiegel, and Israel's ambassador, Shimon
      Stein, demanded better holocaust-instruction in the schools
      ostensibly for the purpose of fighting anti-Semitism. Spiegel also
      recommended that the ministers of culture in the German states turn
      to Yad Vashem for advice on holocaust-instruction.

      The Zionist leaders justify the claims they make against America and
      Germany in favor of Israel in quite different ways. Support from
      America is said to be in America's interest, whereas support from
      Germany is characterized as part performance of a moral obligation
      of the German people. For an elaboration of the US-Israel relation I
      confine myself here to recommending the recent study by John
      Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt about the Israel lobby and some
      critical and affirmative reviews of the book.40

      Zionist and German political leaders assert again and again that the
      Germans are morally obliged to secure Israel´s existence and that
      the state must fulfill this obligation. Thus, Israel's president
      Katzov said last year in a speech before the German
      parliament: "There can never be forgiveness or pardon for the shoa."

      This hard remark was clearly meant to burden the consciences of all
      Germans, even the unborn, although in our cultural area and not only
      here only those who have done wrong have need for forgiveness.

      Michel Friedman said: "The heirs of the Jew-killing state have no
      choice but to accept this historical obligation." At the beginning
      of the recent intifada Israel's prime minister Barak said to
      Chancellor Schmidt who was visiting Israel: "Because of the shadows
      of the past, Germany has a special obligation to Israel." While the
      Israeli army was employing force out of all proportion to that of
      the Palestinian fighters, Germany's foreign minister, Josef Fischer,
      declared that the Islamic terrorists wanted to destroy Israel.
      Israel had a right to exist. "We are obliged to use all means
      available to prevent the destruction of Israel."41 The employment of
      the German marine to patrol the Lebanese coast during and after the
      Lebanese war was explained by the speaker of the government as
      follows: "First, there is the historical obligation to secure the
      existence of the state of Israel and second the interest in
      stability in the Middle East." In this connection Angela Merkel
      declared: "Our reason of state is above all to secure Israel's
      existence."42

      These statements are objectionable for at least three reasons. 1. If
      one has swallowed enough of Zionist ideology, one can talk without
      any compunctions as if Israel's existence and not that of the
      Palestinians and the Lebanese state was at stake. 2. Let's turn the
      tables: If all Jews were held to be morally responsible for the past
      wrongs of some Jews, we would rightly call this a prejudice against
      the Jews, anti-Semitism and a defamation. It is noteworthy that
      leading German politicians persist in defaming their own nation. 3.
      When the head of a state declares that "our reason of state" is to
      defend some other country and no public figure objects, it is high
      time to think about emigrating.

      Even if we assume that all of the Germans are responsible for wrongs
      done to individual victims by some of the Germans during the Third
      Reich, the question would still remain whether the obligation would
      extend to the state of Israel. A former German ambassador to Israel,
      Klaus Schütz, has argued that the Germans are responsible to secure
      Israel's existence because the holocaust was the spark for the
      establishment of Israel. He did not clarify what was meant
      by "spark" or why it should be decisive. His assumption, however,
      that the obligation must be grounded in a causal relationship is
      worth examining. The all-important cause for the establishment of
      Israel was doubtless the alliance between the government of England
      and the Zionist leaders and what they did in Palestine. England held
      the key to Palestine. Beginning in 1920, the government supported
      the Zionist colonization for 17 years. The British army suppressed
      the first Palestinian Uprising (1936-1939). It is has been estimated
      that about 3000 rebels were killed, 100 were hanged and the leaders
      were exiled. The Zionists were allowed to build an army which with
      Jewish terror organizations expelled 750,000 Palestinians. (Half of
      the Arab population of mandatory Palestine became refugees). The
      expulsions began while Britain was still responsible for law and
      order. The only (relatively small) causal connection between Germany
      and the establishment of Israel was the fulfillment of the agreement
      which the Hitler government made with the Zionist leaders. Were the
      British people obliged to secure Israel's existence? The answer is
      obviously "No," and there are two reasons for that. First, only
      individuals are guilty and responsible for wrongs committed. Second,
      England did not harm Israel, it enabled the Zionists to get what
      they wanted. The Palestinians were harmed. The members of the
      English government, the Zionist leaders and their supporters were
      guilty and responsible for the harm they caused the Palestinians.

      Israel's only possible claim against Germany was for compensation
      for the costs it might have incurred by integrating Jewish victims.
      But a very substantial part of these costs were covered by the
      Palestinians whose lands and homes were given to Jewish settlers.
      These consequences were pointed out by Arab embassies but Chancellor
      Adenauer said he had no right to take a stand on the relation
      between Jews and Arabs. This statement contradicted the almost
      unanimous opinion among philosophers of ethics — and our common
      sense — that the probable consequences must be taken into
      consideration in judging whether an agreement is morally good.
      Israel claimed compensation for integrating 500,000 Jews and the
      German government paid it.

      Since then the German governments along with other Western
      governments have aided and abetted the Israeli wars of aggression,
      expulsion and exploitation. Some of the deliveries of weapons have
      been kept secret, some were paid entirely or in part by Germany,
      i.e. by the taxpayers. Thus, Germany paid 80% of the costs of three
      submarines which could be equipped with nuclear weapons.43 It is
      noteworthy that the last delivery was made soon after the brutal
      suppression of the last Palestinian uprising. The fact that there is
      a causal relation between Germany's support for Israel and the hard
      fate of the Palestinians and other Arabs is never mentioned. This
      reality — and the guilt and moral responsibility of the countries'
      leaders — is glossed over with the dogma that the Germans are
      obliged to secure Israel's existence.

      The dire consequences of what Israel has done in the Middle East
      with the support of western governments goes against the grain of
      the majority of the European people. I have already referred to the
      results of the public opinion poll that was taken during the
      intifada. During the war in Lebanon, two questions were asked in a
      poll in Germany. The first: "Israel is attempting to stop attacks by
      the radical Islamic Hisbullah. Do you regard the Israeli attacks on
      Lebanon as justified as a defense measure, or does Israel have no
      right to do that? 22% answered with "Yes," 63% with "No," and 15%
      had no opinion. The second question: "Should Israel forgo attacks on
      big cities to avoid causing civilian victims, even when Hisbullah
      also attacks cities in Israel with missiles?" 72% answered
      with "Yes," 18% with "No," and 10% had no opinion.44 The majority of
      the population called a spade a spade and showed its sympathy for
      the victims.

      It is hard to believe that the German leaders themselves are
      convinced that their nation is morally responsible to secure
      Israel's existence. Suppose the Zionists had not conquered a part of
      Arabia which was unable to defend itself but some part of America
      and driven out its inhabitants. Would they have supported the
      Zionists or the Americans? It is also noteworthy that one rarely
      hears about the murder of non-Jews, Roma, and others in the
      concentration camps, and the assertion of an obligation to them is
      hard to find. The most recent example of the indifference to non-
      Jewish victims is the new memorial at a prominent place in Berlin
      which is dedicated only to the Jewish victims. Finally, the treaty
      between Adenauer and Ben Gurion, whereby Germany was to provide
      Israel with goods and services in the value of 3 billion German
      marks during the following 12 years, had been made after America,
      England, and France suggested that Germany give Israel economic
      support. At that time, Germany was eager to join the western
      alliance, have its debts limited and obtain support in its dispute
      with East Germany over Berlin. Adenauer wrote in his memoirs that
      his success at the London Claims Conference depended upon his
      satisfying Jewish banking circles in regard to the terms of his
      treaty with Ben Gurion.

      3. The third goal of Zionists in America and Germany is to maintain
      a privileged position for the remembrance of the Jewish tragedy.
      There are other ethnic groups who want the past sufferings of their
      groups to be recognized. A draft resolution in Congress for the
      erection of a museum in remembrance of what black slaves had to
      endure from Americans was rejected. Blacks have never received
      compensation. Just recently, however, the state of Virginia did
      express its regrets. A draft resolution in Congress in remembrance
      of the extermination of a large part of the Indian population fell
      through.

      A draft resolution for the recognition of the Armenian tragedy was
      fought successfully by Israel and Jewish organizations.45 They
      argued that the Jewish tragedy was unique because there was no
      rational reason for it. This statement is ambiguous. It can mean
      that there was no just reason for the murder of the Jews, but that
      holds for the killing of the Armenians, too. It can mean that the
      act was done for no reason at all which in the case of Hitler is
      unproved. He might have been moved by the belief that "Jews in
      international financial circles" plunged America into the war, as he
      said in 1939. Whether his reason was right or wrong is not the issue
      here.

      The holocaust memorial in Washington was originally intended to be
      built in remembrance of all the victims of the Third Reich. At that
      time, President Carter's party feared that his sympathy for the
      Palestinians would cause the loss of Jewish campaign funds and some
      important electoral districts. Elie Wiesel, who spoke for interested
      Jewish groups, objected to Carter's plan. He insisted that only
      Jewish victims should be remembered, because their suffering was
      unique. If it were dedicated to other groups, too, the Jews would
      not support it. Carter gave in.46 The Council of the holocaust
      museum in Washington explained its purpose as follows: "The memorial
      belongs at the center of American life, because America, as a
      democratic civilization, is the enemy of racism and the most radical
      form of genocide". The Nazis have violated the deepest belief of the
      American people in word and deed. There are some ethnic groups in
      America who surely are not convinced of this interpretation of
      American history. The privileged position of Jews in America has led
      to much tension between them and weaker minorities, especially the
      blacks.

      The huge monument in Berlin which is dedicated only to the Jewish
      victims of the Third Reich was advocated in public by two Germans
      who were not Jewish, but Paul Spiegel spoke at the dedication
      ceremony. The fact that other victims were overlooked was justified
      by the two advocates with the following assertions:

      1. The mass murder of the Jews was unique.

      2. "According to some sources," the number of Roma killed was much
      smaller than what the Roma have claimed. But the number of Jews who
      were killed has also been disputed.

      3. The Roma were killed in different ways and for different reasons.
      But Roma were also gassed in the concentration camps, and why should
      the killing of innocent people for one reason be less deplorable
      than the killing for some other reason.

      4. A fourth goal: It is in the very own interest of thousands of
      people to spread the Zionist ideology and dogmas. They can be
      awarded with money, prestige and influence. Among them are the
      largest Jewish organizations in America, the Council of Jews in
      Germany, the Jewish Claims Commission against Germany, Councils and
      employees of holocaust museums, film producers, publishers of Jewish
      newspapers and journals, journalists, writers, lawyers and others.47

      Conclusion

      The distinguishing feature of Zionist ideology and its dogmas is
      fear and insecurity. They give distorted pictures of reality. Like
      some other ideologies its employment has brought the promoters a
      great deal of success but also tragedy for the Palestinians and
      other Arabs and suffering for many Jews, too. The dogmas are:

      1. Jews can only be secure when they live in a Jewish state,
      because anti-Semitism is anchored in the minds/souls of all other
      nations and will never end.

      2. Dishonesty, fickleness and dangerousness are characteristics
      of the Arabs.

      3. Israel merely defends itself, it is fighting for its
      existence. Israel´s security is the crucial issue in the Middle East
      conflict.

      4. Criticism of Israel is proof of anti-Semitism. For some
      Zionists this is only true when the criticism is sharp.

      5. Jews are never responsible for anti-Semitism.

      6. The holocaust was purely and simply a consequence of anti-
      Semitism, totalitarianism could not have been a necessary condition.
      In this connection, two more dogmas: The holocaust was the worst
      crime in human history. And all Germans, even the unborn, are
      morally obliged to do what is necessary to secure Israel's existence.
      All of this speaks for the abolition of the lurid and narrow–minded
      Zionist ideology and its dogmas. It would be good for all concerned
      if it were replaced with a guideline which is closer to reality and
      open to the spirit of respect and reconciliation. My wife recommends
      the words of Zarastro in The Magic Flute: "Life begins where fear
      ceases." This can also be said about pretenses of fear and
      insecurity. Such a change will not be easy, but "The world is not a
      stinking pond. It is a river. What isn't now, may well still be."
      (Ole Bienkopp, Erwin Strittmatter).


      Prof. Kenneth Lewan was an infantry soldier in WWII, wounded in
      Germany. He is a graduate of Harvard College and Harvard Law School,
      PhD at the University of Munich. He has taught law and politics in
      America and Germany and written numerous articles and several books
      on legal and political issues.

      He can be reached at: hannah_lewan @ web.de.


      NOTES
      Theodor Herzl, Der Judenstaat (1895), quoted in Julius Schoeps,
      Zionism (Wiesbaden 1983, p. 87. Schoeps gives a portrayal of the
      Zionist movement and its historical background. For a very different
      version see Allan Taylor, The Zionist Mind (Beirut 1974). #
      Klaus von Dohnanyi, Zivilcourage contra Political Correctness
      (Munich 2003) pp. 12, 32/33. #
      Hannah Arendt, Report on the Banality of Evil, quoted in Peter
      Novick, The Holocaust in American Life (Boston, New York 1999) p.
      134. #
      Avi Slaim, The Iron Wall (London 2000) pp. 208-216. #
      See eg., Kenneth Lewan, Der Nahostkrieg in der westdeutschen Presse
      (Cologne 1970). #
      Noam Chomsky, The Fateful Triangle (London 1999) p. 227. #
      Simha Flapan, Zionism and the Palestinians (New York 1979) p. 82. #
      Lewan, Ist Israel Südafrika? (Tossens 1993) p.71. #
      New York Review of Books (2005). #
      Lewan, Die Zweite Intifada - Zwiespalt in der Frankfurter Allgemeine
      Zeitung (Frankfurt November 2002) pp. 23-43. #
      Süddeutsche Zeitung, July 26, 2006. #
      The Oslo negotiations dealt with increases in the autonomy of cities
      in the occupied territories but not with the withdrawal of Israeli
      troops and settlers from the territories. This matter is explained
      in detail in Ludwig Watzal, Feinde des Friedens (Berlin 2001), p. 75
      ff. Robert Malley, a close advisor of President Clinton at Camp
      David, remarked later that Barak had carefully avoided making any
      offer. New York Review of Books, 2006. There was no written record
      of the proceedings. A former member of the German Foreign Office,
      Joachim Koch, has informed me that during the 25 years in which he
      engaged in international negotiations serious offers were always
      made in writing. #
      For detailed accounts of Hamas' development see Helga
      Baumgarten, "Hamas," Materialien der Gesellschaft für
      österreichisch – arabische Beziehungen, January 2007, pp. 5-15 and
      Khalid Hroub, "A 'New Hamas' Through its Documents," Journal of
      Palestine Studies, Summer 2006, pp. 6-27. #
      Henry Siegman, "The Great Middle East Peace Process Scam," London
      Review of Books, August 16, 2007. #
      Norman Finkelstein, Beyond Chutzpah (Berkeley 2005) pp. 39, 33 and
      81. #
      "Israel ist unser Rückgrat," Interview with Michel Friedman on SAT
      1, quoted in Tacheles, January 4, 2005. #
      Tribüne, March 5, 2005. #
      Lewan, Die zweite Intifada, pp. 126-134. #
      Ibid., p. 130. #
      Finkelstein, Beyond Chutzpah, p. 33. #
      Finkelstein, Ibid., p. 78-81. #
      Novick, The Holocaust in American Life, pp. 208-210. #
      Novick, Ibid., pp. 207, 208; Juncker, "Die Amerikanisierung des
      Holocausts," Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, September 9, 2000. #
      Novick, Ibid., pp. 85-102, 127-125. #
      Manfred Kittel, Die Legende von der Zweiten Schuld (Berlin 1999)
      passim. #
      Press Release of the German Ministry of Justice, May 23, 2005. #
      Newsletter of the Israeli embassy in Berlin, in www.Jüdische, August
      31, 2005. #
      Guenter Lewy, Rückkehr nicht erwünscht (Berlin 2001) pp. 372-378). #
      Frank Kroll, Utopie als Ideologie (Paderborn 1988) pp. 44-46. #
      Ludwig Pinner, "Die Bedeutung der Einwanderung aus Deutschland" in:
      Werner Feilchenfeld, Dolf Michaeli and Ludwig Pinner, Havara-
      Transfer nach Palästina (Tübingen 1972) pp. 89-106. #
      Immanuel Geis, Geschichte griffbereit (Gütersloh 2002) vol. 4, p.
      1009. #
      Stéphane Courtois and others, Communist Crimes, Terror and
      Repression (Paris 1997) p. 16. The publication of this book in
      Germany led to several reviews in newspapers, whereby stands were
      taken on the question whether the crimes in the Soviet Union were
      comparable to the holocaust. These reviews along with articles by
      French authors were published in Der Rote Holocaust, edited by Horst
      Möller, the director of the Institut für Zeitgeschichte in Munich.
      But this matter has not been debated by the parties in the
      parliament. In the mean time the last two chancellors have said what
      is politically wise in Germany namely that the holocaust was unique.
      #
      Novick, The Holocaust in American Life, pp. 170-188. #
      Wolf Calebow, Auf dem Wege zur Normalisierung (Berlin 1999). #
      The director of the institute has asserted that the distinguishing
      feature of anti-Semitism is different from the definition of other
      prejudices against ethnic groups. He did not explain why that is the
      case or wherein the distinction lies. See Newsletter, Zentrum für
      Antisemitismusforschung, March 2005. During the intifada a study of
      this institute about anti-Semitism in Europe was commissioned by the
      European Monitoring Commission on Racism and Xenophobia. It was
      rejected, however, on the ground that it was "biased" and "lacking
      in empirical evidence". For further details see Finkelstein, Beyond
      Chutzpah, pp. 35-38. #
      Finkelstein, Ibid., p. 46. #
      Lewan, Die zweite Intifada, p. 132. #
      Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, March 10, 2007. #
      Novick, The Holocaust in American Life, p.156ff. #
      John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, The Israel Lobby (New York 2007).
      Short versions of the book have appeared in London Review of Books,
      March 10, 2006, and Journal of Palestine Studies, Spring 2006. The
      JPS added several reviews. #
      The remarks of Barak, Friedman and Fischer are quoted in Lewan, Die
      zweite Intifada, pp. 112-120. #
      Süddeutsche Zeitung, September 7, 2006. #
      Christopher Steinmetz, German-Israeli Armaments–Cooperation, Berlin
      Information Center for Security, November/December 2002. #
      TNS Infratest for the magazine Spiegel, July 18-20, 2006. #
      Novick, The Holocaust in American Life, pp. 178, 179. #
      Novick, Ibid., 16-22. #
      Finkelstein gives numerous examples of the use of the holocaust-
      remembrance for profit in The Holocaust Industry (London, New York
      2000). #

      *********************************************************************

      WORLD VIEW NEWS SERVICE

      To subscribe to this group, send an email to:
      wvns-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

      NEWS ARCHIVE IS OPEN TO PUBLIC VIEW
      http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/wvns/

      Need some good karma? Appreciate the service?
      Please consider donating to WVNS today.
      Email ummyakoub@... for instructions.

      To leave this list, send an email to:
      wvns-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.