the Israeli State Was Won
By Tom Suarez
December 14, Tom Suárez spoke at The House of Lords,
London, at the invitation of Baroness Jenny Tonge.
Drawing from his recently published book
State of Terror, he addressed the centennial of
the Balfour Declaration and his views on the way
toward ending today’s Israel-Palestine “conflict”.
The following are Suárez’s remarks. The book was
here by David Gerald Fincham.
Good evening, thank you so much for taking time out of
what I know are your busy schedules to be here now. My
thanks to Jenny Tonge for making this meeting possible;
and I would like to thank three people without whom the
book would not exist: Karl Sabbagh, my publisher; Ghada
Karmi, who inspired the book; and my partner, Nancy Elan,
who was my constant alter-ego during my research and
without whom I surely would have given up.
My work is
based principally on declassified source documents in
the National Archives in Kew. When I have had to rely on
published works, I have trusted established historians
who cite first-hand sources. Everything I will say here
tonight is based on such source material.
Our topic is of
course the so-called “conflict” in Israel-Palestine, a
tragedy that has dragged on for so long that it feels
static, indeed almost normalised. But unlike other
deadly conflicts, this one is wholly in our power to
stop—“our” meaning the United States and Europe. It is
in our power to stop it, because we are the ones
We are now
approaching the centennial of the British Original Sin
in this tragedy, the Balfour Declaration. The British
role in Palestine was a case of ‘hit & run’: The Balfour
Declaration, in which the British gave away other
people’s land, was the hit; and thirty years later,
Resolution 181—Partition—was the run, leaving the
Palestinians abandoned in a ditch.
Zionism was of
course among the incarnations of racial-nationalism that
evolved in the late nineteenth century. Bigots were
Zionism’s avid fans—it was the anti-Semites who
championed the Zionists. Gertrude Bell, the famous
English writer, traveler, archaeologist, and spy,
reported, based on her personal experience, that those
who supported Zionism did so because it provided a way
to get rid of Jews.
Standard’s correspondent to the first Zionist
Conference in 1897 I think described Zionism perfectly.
He reported that
degeneration which calls itself Anti-Semitism [bear
in mind that ‘anti-Semitism’ was then a very new
term] has begotten the degeneration which adorns
itself with the name of Zionism.
Jews and Jewish leaders dismissed Zionism as the latest
anti-Semitic cult. They had fought for equality, and
resented being told that they should now make a new
ghetto—and worse yet, to do so on other people’s land.
They resented being cast as a separate race of people as
They had had
quite enough of that from non-Jewish bigots.
For others, the
idea of going to a place where one could act out racial
superiority was seductive. As the political theorist
Eduard Bernstein put it at about the time the Balfour
Declaration was being finessed, Zionism is “a kind of
intoxication which acts like an epidemic”.
By the time the
Balfour Declaration was finalised, thirty-plus years of
Zionist settlement had made clear that the Zionists
intended to ethnically cleanse the land for a settler
state based on racial superiority; and it was the
behind-the-scenes demands of the principal Zionist
leaders, notably Chaim Weizmann and Baron Rothschild.
accounts of Zionist settlement in Palestine had already
painted a picture of violent racial displacement. I will
cite one of the lesser known reports, by Dr. Paul
Nathan, a prominent Jewish leader in Berlin, who went to
Palestine on behalf of the German Jewish National Relief
Association. He was so horrified by what he found that
he published a pamphlet in January, 1914, in which he
described the Zionist settlers as carrying on
of terror modelled almost on Russian pogrom models.
A few years
later, the Balfour Declaration’s deliberately ambiguous
wording was being finalized. Sceptics—and the British
Cabinet—were assured that it did not mean a Zionist
state. Yet simultaneously, Weizmann was pushing to
create that very state immediately. He demanded that his
state extend all the way to the Jordan River within
three or four years of the Declaration—that is, by
1921—and then expand beyond it.
behind-the-scenes meetings, Weizmann and Rothschild
treated the ethnic cleansing of non-Jewish Palestinians
as indispensable to their plans, and they repeatedly
complained to the British that the settlers were not
being treated preferentially enough over the
Palestinians. And they insisted that the British must
lie about the scheme until it is too late for anyone to
do anything about it.
correspondence with Balfour, Weizmann justified his lies
by slandering the Palestinians and Jews—that is, the
Middle East’s indigenous Jews, who were overwhelmingly
opposed to Zionism and whom Weizmann smeared with
classic anti-Semitic stereotypes. The Palestinians he
dismissed as, in so many words, a lower type of human,
and this was among the reasons he and other Zionist
leaders used for refusing democracy in Palestine—if the
“Arabs” had the vote, he said, it would lower the Jew
down to the level of a “native”.
establishment of the British Mandate, four decades of
peaceful Palestinian resistance had proved futile, and
armed Palestinian resistance—which included
terrorism—began. Zionist terror became the domain of
formal organizations that attacked anyone in the way of
its messianic goals—Palestinian, Jew, or British. These
terror organizations operated from within the Zionist
settlements and were actively empowered and shielded by
the settlements and the Jewish Agency, the recognized
semi-autonomous government of the Zionist settlements,
what would become the Israeli government.
There was no
substantive difference between the acknowledged terror
organizations—most famously, the Irgun, and Lehi, the
so-called Stern Gang—and the Jewish Agency, and its
terror gang, the Hagana. The Agency cooperated,
collaborated, and even helped finance the Irgun.
relationship between the Jewish Agency, and the Irgun
and Lehi, was symbiotic. The Irgun in particular would
act on behalf of the Hagana so that the Jewish Agency
could feign innocence. The Agency would then tell the
British that they condemn the terror, while steadfastly
refusing any cooperation against it, indeed doing what
they could to shield it.
nature of the Zionist enterprise was apparent both to US
and British intelligence. The Jewish Agency tolerated no
dissent and sought to dictate the fates of all Jews.
Children were radicalised as part of the methodology of
all three major organizations, and by extension, the
wake-up call regarding the Zionists’ indoctrination of
children came on the 8th of July, 1938. That day, the
Irgun blew up a bus filled with Palestinian villagers.
Now, this was not the first time the Irgun had done
something of this sort, but this time the British caught
the bomber. She was a twelve year old schoolgirl.
boys and girls, were commonly used to plant bombs in
Palestinian markets and conduct other terror attacks.
Teachers were threatened or removed if they tried to
intervene in the indoctrination of their students, and
the students themselves were blocked from advancement if
they resisted, even being taught to betray their own
parents if those parents tried to instill some
moderation. Jews who opposed and tried to warn of the
emerging fascism were assassinated, and indeed most
victims of Zionist assassinations—that is, targeted,
rather than indiscriminate—were Jews.
beginning of World War II through to the summer of 1947,
there were virtually no Palestinian attacks, even though
Zionist terror against Palestinians continued. A British
explanation for the Palestinians’ failure to respond in
kind was that they understood that the attacks were a
trap, intended to elicit a response that the Zionists
would frame as an attack against which they would have
to ‘defend’ themselves. This was a Zionist tactic noted
by the British as early as 1918, and it remains Israel’s
default strategy today, most blatantly in Gaza, but also
in East Jerusalem and the West Bank.
As late as the
fall of 1947, the Jewish Agency was concerned by the
Palestinians’ failure to respond to its provocation, but
when the end of 1947 came and the Jewish Agency could
wait no longer for the civil war it needed, it was
simply a matter of ratcheting up the terror.
Mandate period, the takeover and ethnic cleansing of
Palestine remained Zionism’s unwavering goal. As but one
illustration, I will summarize a key meeting of twenty
people held in London on the 9th of September, 1941.
“To be treated
as most secret” is the red ink heading of the
transcript. Present were Weizmann, who had called the
meeting, David Ben-Gurion, and other Zionist leaders
such as Simon Marks (of Marks & Spencer); and the
prominent non-Zionist industrialist, Robert Waley Cohen.
Discussing the path to the proposed Jewish State, the
conversation ran along the lines of George Orwell’s
still-to-be-published Animal Farm, in which all
animals are equal, but some are more equal than others.
Rothschild began by stressing that there would be no
“discrimination … against any group of its citizens” in
the Jewish state, not even “to meet immediate needs”.
Weizmann and Ben-Gurion also assured the sceptics:
“Arabs”—Palestinians—would have equal rights. However,
they clarified that within that absolute equality,
Jewish settlers would have to have special privileges.
Weizmann’s ‘absolute equality’ included the transfer
of most non-Jews out of Palestine while permitting
“a certain percentage of Arab and other elements” to
remain in his Jewish state, the insinuation being as a
pool of cheap labour.
Rothschild’s vision of equality and non-discrimination
was equally compelling: it “depended on turning an Arab
majority into a minority”, and to achieve this, there
would be “no equal rights” for non-Jews.
Cohen found the
scheme dangerous, submitting that the Zionists were
“starting with the kind of aims with which Hitler had
started”. Cohen did not stop there: he suggested that if
a state with equality for everyone were indeed intended,
the state should be named with a neutral geographic
term. He suggested … ‘Palestine’. The others were
horrified at this idea, arguing that if the state had a
non-Jewish name, “they would never get a Jewish
majority”, in effect acknowledging the use of messianic
fundamentalism as a calculated political strategy.
obvious but rarely spoken admission, Ben-Gurion
clarified that the ‘Jewish state’ was not based on
Judaism; it was, rather, based on being a ‘Jew’, that
is, by the Zionists’ racial definition.
borders of his settler state, Weizmann continued in the
same surreal manner. He replied that he would consider
the partition plan proposed by the Peel Commission four
years earlier, in 1937, but that “the line” (the
Partition) “would be the Jordan”. This was nonsensical:
the Jordan was the Commission’s eastern border for the
two states, and so Weizmann’s ‘partition’ meant
100% for his state, 0% for the Palestinians. He went
further still: he would “very much” like to “cross the
Jordan”, that is, take Transjordan along with Palestine.
At the end of
the meeting Weizmann sought to put his proposals into
effect officially in the name of all Jews worldwide.
Those against his proposals were, in his word, “antisemites”.
World War II was raging. What was the Jewish Agency’s
reaction to the most terrible enemy Jewry has ever
known? From the beginning, it was to lobby the Yishuv,
the Jewish settlers, not to enlist in the
Allied struggle against the Nazis, because doing so
would not serve Zionism—even taking advantage of May Day
1940 to lecture the Yishuv to stay in Palestine rather
than join the war effort. Another reaction was to
conduct a massive theft ring of Allied weapons and
munitions, “as if”, as one British military record put
it, “paid by Hitler himself”.
Much has been
written on the collaboration between the Zionists and
fascists during the war, the best known of course being
the Haavara Transfer agreement that broke the anti-Nazi
boycott. One of the least known was Lehi’s attempted
collaboration with the Italian fascists. In its nearly
concluded ‘Jerusalem Agreement’ of late 1940, Lehi would
help the fascists win the war, and in return the
fascists would uproot any Jewish communities not in
Palestine and force their populations to Palestine.
If this sounds
like a scheme so extreme that only fanatical Lehi could
have conjured it, it is essentially what the Israeli
state ultimately succeeded at in the early 1950s—most
catastrophically, when it conducted a false-flag terror
campaign against Jews in Iraq to destroy that ancient
community and move its population to Israel as ethnic
targeting Jews was, and I would argue remains, a core
tactic of Zionism. In fact, the single most deadly
terror attack of the entire Mandate period was not the
bombing of the King David Hotel in 1946 as is commonly
thought. Even some of the Irgun’s bombings of
Palestinian markets killed more people than the King
David attack. But the most deadly single terror attack
was the Jewish Agency’s bombing of the immigrant ship
Patria in 1940, killing an estimated 267 people, of whom
more than 200 were Jews fleeing the Nazis.
Agency bombed the Patria because it was bringing the DPs
to Mauritius, where the British had facilities for them.
The Agency needed the DPs to be settlers in Palestine
without delay, and was willing to risk the lives of all
aboard in order to get the survivors to remain—which,
indeed, they did.
violence against its Jewish victims, the Agency framed
the dead for the bombing. It spread the lie that the DPs
themselves blew up the vessel, that they committed mass
suicide rather than not go directly to Palestine,
posthumously conscripting the dead to serve the Zionist
This was no
aberration, but the driving principle of the Zionist
project: Persecuted Jews served the political project,
not the other way around.
tactic of violence against Jews by the Jewish Agency and
American Zionist leadership was the sabotaging of safe
haven in order to force them to Palestine. As but one
example, in 1944 US Zionist leaders sabotaged President
Roosevelt’s provisional success in establishing a half
million new homes for European DPs, most of these homes
in the United States and Britain. When Roosevelt’s aide
Morris Ernst visited the Zionist leaders in an attempt
to save the program, he was, in his words, “thrown out
of parlours and accused of treason”— ‘treason’, because
he was Jewish, and the Zionists owned Jews.
Nor were those
already settled safe. In 1946, the Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi
of Palestine, Yitzhak Herzog, conducted a massive
kidnapping operation of Jewish orphans that had been
adopted by European families when their parents perished
years earlier. Removing ten thousand children from their
homes was the number he cited to the NY Times
as his goal. In the National Archives, I found a copy of
his own record of the trip.
against the fierce resistance he met in every country by
horrified local Jewish leaders who tried to protect the
children. But Herzog used his political clout to
circumvent them. In France, for example, facing the
steadfast refusal of the Jewish leaders to betray the
Prime Minister of France from whom I demanded
promulgation of a law which would oblige every
family to declare the particulars of the children it
so that those
of Jewish background could be exposed and put back in
orphanages until they can be shipped to Palestine—quite
a Kafkaesque twist on Passover for these children who
had just been spared the Nazis.
justification for the kidnappings was that for a Jew to
be raised in a non-Jewish home is “much worse than
physical murder”. Yet even this ghastly justification
fails to explain what was actually taking place, because
at the same time Herzog was ‘rescuing’ Jewish orphans
from this fate “much worse than physical murder”, his
Jewish Agency colleagues were sabotaging Jewish adoptive
homes in England for young survivors still in the camps.
The real reason for all of it, of course, was that the
children were needed to serve the settler project as
To that end,
the Jewish Agency had coerced President Truman to
segregate Jewish DPs into Zionist indoctrination camps,
despite objections that it echoed Nazi behaviour. For
these people who had just survived the unthinkable, then
severed from the rest of humanity into these
brainwashing camps, there was no such thing as free
nurtured such fanaticism that it shocked a joint US-UK
committee that visited in 1946. Before these camps, few
DPs wanted to go to Palestine. But now the Committee
found them in a delirious state, threatening mass
suicide if they did not go to Palestine.
Suggestions of new homes in the United States, which had
always been the favored destination, were again met with
threats of mass suicide.
DPs were also
groomed to bring Zionist terrorism to Europe, bombing
Allied trains and Allied facilities. The bombing of the
British embassy in Rome in 1946, for example, was by DPs
brainwashed in these camps, as was a near-catastrophe in
the Austrian Alps in 1947 when DPs nearly blew a train
off a steep trestle into a deep abyss, which would
almost certainly have sent its two hundred civilians and
Allied troops to their deaths.
immigrants to Palestine during war were outraged by the
Zionists’ exploitation of the Nazi horrors they had just
fled. This outrage given voice by, among others, the
prominent journalist Robert Weltsch, editor of Berlin
newspaper until banned by the Nazis in 1938.
that Zionist leaders
yet understood that the enemy seeks the destruction
of the Jews … We who have been here only a few
years, we know what Nazism is.
rather, are “taking part in the crash of European Jewry
only as spectators”, fighting the British and keeping
Jews from joining the Allied struggle while getting
comfortable and rich from their political project in
Palestine. Recent immigrants from Germany and Central
Europe, he said, have no representation among the
Zionist ruling establishment. If they did,
have demanded that the Yishuv should put itself at
the disposal of Britain for the fight against Hitler
But—and I am
still quoting Weltsch—
They do not
want to fight against Hitler because his fascist
methods are also theirs … They do not want our young
men to join the [Allied] Forces … day after day they
are sabotaging the English War Effort.
Jewish immigrants were shunned by the Zionists, their
publications and presses bombed. Even Kiosks were bombed
for selling non-Hebrew papers to German Jewish
In 1943, a man
whom British records describe as “a Jew whose integrity
is not open to question” risked his life to warn the
British about the threat of Zionism. For his safety, he
was referred to only by the code-name ‘Z’.
Zionism as a parallel movement to Nazism. He warned that
the Zionist indoctrination of Jewish youth was producing
a society of extremists who will use any method
necessary to achieve Zionist goals; and he pointed out
that, as fascism in Europe has demonstrated, such a
society is very difficult to undo once it has taken
root. The result, I’m afraid, is what we, or more
accurately the Palestinians, are facing today in the
is this anonymous testimony? I found at the National
Archives a private letter in which Z is identified — he
was J.S. Bentwich, the Senior Inspector of Jewish
Schools in Palestine.
got further towards rescuing the unfortunates in
Axis Europe, had they not complicated the question
by always dragging Palestine into the picture
—so judged a
report by US Intelligence in the Middle East, dated the
4th of June, 1943, entitled “Latest Aspects of the
Palestine Zionist-Arab Problem”. It described “Zionism
in Palestine” as
a type of
nationalism which in any other country would be
stigmatised as retrograde Nazism,
and stated that
anti-Semitism was essential to it. Whereas
Jews in Europe and America are noted for being …
stout opponents of racialism and discrimination,
bred the opposite mentality in Palestine,
closely akin to Nazism, namely, an attempt to
regiment the community, even by force, and to resort
to force to get what they want.
assailed “the crude conception” being spread of the
Palestinian people as “a nomad tent-dweller … with a
little seasonal agriculture”, as being “too absurd to
need refutation”. The report noted the irony that it was
from them that Zionist settlers learned the cultivation
of Jaffa oranges. Whereas the Palestinians were
self-sufficient, the Zionist settlements exist on
massive external financing, and should Jews overseas
ever tire of supporting the settlers, “the venture will
collapse like a pricked balloon”. The conclusion of this
early US intelligence report was however naïve, or at
least premature: now that the world “has seen the
lengths to which the Nazi creed has carried the
nations”, it reasoned that the Zionists “are due to find
themselves an anachronism”.
After the war,
the Jewish Agency discussed its enemies. They were
democracy; the Atlantic Charter, which of course became
the basis for the United Nations; Reconstruction; and
the fall in anti-Semitism, anti-Semitism having always
been Zionism’s drug, without which it would be
irrelevant. The Agency sought to exploit anti-Semitism
and blamed declining anti-Semitism in the United States
on America’s so-called “democratic attitude”.
Nor was this
merely a post-war abuse. Even as Jews were still being
carted off to the death camps, the New Zionist
Organization’s Arieh Altman was typical in arguing that
anti-Semitism must “form the foundation of Zionist
propaganda”, and the Defence Security Officer in
Palestine, Henry Hunloke, reported that it was important
for the Jewish Agency to “stir up anti-Semitism … in
order to force Jews … to come to Palestine”.
when anything approaching this topic is raised, it is
twisted by some into the pejorative misstatement
that the speaker—in this case, me—is blaming Jews for
Rather, it is the simple fact that Zionism requires
anti-Semitism, is addicted to it, and seeks to insure
that it, or at least the appearance of it, never ends.
One need look no further than the satisfaction among
many Zionists today at the true anti-Semitism
of the incoming US administration of Donald Trump, with
Israeli journalists like Yaron London openly applauding
this anti-Semitism as welcome news. More about that in a
mentioned Reconstruction. As one former settlement
member, a man named Newton, explained, Zionist leaders
were afraid that with the improvement of conditions in
Europe the pressure on Palestine would subside. Any
improvement in Europe was an anathema to their plans.
What was the
Jewish Agency’s reaction to Britain’s role in defeating
the worst enemy Jewry has ever known? It saw an
opportunity for extortion. The war had devastated
Britain’s economy; but when Britain turned to the US for
a long term loan to recuperate from its battle against
the Nazis, the Agency tried to pressure Washington to
deny the loan unless Britain acceded to Zionist demands.
The loan was of course ultimately approved, but still in
1948 Zionists assailed US Congressmen for being pro-
Marshall Plan, and the Truman administration itself
dangled the loan in front of British officials when they
tried to bring attention to Zionist atrocities.
Zionist terrorism had become the defining daily
challenge of life in Palestine, and one hundred thousand
British troops proved unable to contain it. Anyone or
anything that kept Palestine a functioning society was a
target of the Zionists. Trains, roads, bridges,
communications, oil facilities, and Coast Guard stations
were constantly being bombed. Utility workers, telephone
repairmen, railway workers, bomb disposal personnel were
murdered. Police were long a favoured target and were
gunned down by the dozens.
smaller terror organizations that popped up was one
specifically dedicated to Zionists’ long-running fear of
Jews befriending non-Jews, the ultimate fear of course
being polluting what for the Zionists was the pure
Jewish race. As a sample of its methods, the terror
group doused a disobedient Jewish girl with acid,
severely injuring her and blinding her in one eye.
was aided by the Jewish Agency’s phenomenal intelligence
network. The Agency had informers all the way to
high-placed sympathetic US officials that fed them
intelligence, such that the British learned not even to
trust direct messages to US President Truman.
When the UN’s
Palestine committee, UNSCOP, visited Palestine in the
summer of 1947, the Agency had replaced the committee
members’ drivers with spies; had replaced the waiters at
the main restaurant they frequented with spies; and most
productively, sent five young women to serve at what was
called a “theatre network” of house attendants at the
building where the members, all men, were being housed.
The young women were required to be smart and educated,
but above all, in the Agency’s word, to be “daring”.
Whatever ‘daring’ meant, they extracted a wealth of
information from the key people who were deliberating
Airborne Field Security, Report No. 54, week ending
19 November 47, regarding Jewish sex workers forced
to be Zionist spies. National Archives, Kew, FCO
workers were involuntarily recruited as spies. They were
told that upon the Zionist victory they would be
executed for ‘sleeping with the enemy’, but might be
spared if they cooperated now. The practice was so
widespread that a standard questionnaire was printed up
that the women were to fill out after each British
customer. [note: see document detail, above]
the degree to which Jewish Agency plants infiltrated the
government and everyday life, a couple of months after
one coast guard station was attacked and bombed by the
Hagana, it blew up again … but the British were baffled,
because this time there had been no attack.
They discovered that the construction crew that had
rebuilt the station after the previous attack were
Hagana, and had simply embedded explosives in the
reconstruction, to be detonated when desired.
But the worst
problem of infiltration was in the military service,
where deadly sabotage by Zionist plants who had joined
the forces led, tragically, to orders to remove all Jews
from service in Palestine, because there was no way to
tell the Zionists from the Jews.
By 1948, this
problem spread to key medical personnel. After the
Jewish Agency poisoned the water supply of Acre with
typhoid in order to expedite the ethnic cleansing of
this city that lies on the Palestinian side of
Partition, the bacteriologist hired by the British
proved to be a Hagana plant or sympathizer, an obstacle
to the availability of the vaccine. [Note: see document
detail, below. For the injection of typhoid into the
aqueduct at Acre, see e.g., Ilan Pappé, Ethnic
Cleansing, pp 100-101, and Naeim Giladi, Ben Gurion’s
Scandals, pp 10-11]
biological warfare and the “obstructionist” attitude
of the bacteriologist. Extract from telegram No.
1293, from High Commissioner Cunningham, “dispatched
1900 hrs. 8.5.48″, and marked “IMMEDIATE. SECRET”.
National Archives, Kew, WO 275/79.
required effective marketing, and for that the Agency
harnessed the plight of European Jews at the same time
it was exploiting them. A very brief look at the iconic
Zionist immigrant story is illustrative—that is of
course the USS Warfield, renamed the Exodus
for the obvious Biblical iconography.
was sold to the world as the desperate attempt of 4,515
Holocaust survivors to reach their last hope of safety
and a new life, their promised land. The British,
instead, forced them back, not just to Europe, but to
their ultimate nightmare: Germany.
That was the
story the US and European public got.
In truth, the
Exodus was a monstrous propaganda event, grand
theatre, not for benefit but at the expense of Jewish
survivors. The Jewish Agency knew that Exodus
passengers would be turned back, for, among other
reasons, their flooding of Palestine with settlers was a
tactic to force its political goals. And remember that
the entire Exodus cargo of immigrants equalled
less than one percent of President Roosevelt’s
resettlement plan that the Zionists sabotaged. The DPs
themselves were products of the Zionist camps and had
been rehearsed to repeat, as one witness described it,
whatever Zionist mumbo-jumbo was demanded of them.
As for the
return to Germany, it was the Jewish Agency, not the
British, that forced the DPs back to Germany. Attempts
were being made to find new homes for the Exodus
passengers elsewhere—Denmark was one possibility—but
this was sabotaged by Ben-Gurion, because it would spoil
the Exodus plot.
There was in
fact already an alternative to Germany. All the Exodus
DPs had the right to disembark in Southern France rather
than Germany, but the Agency used violence to prevent
them from leaving. The Exodus show required the pathetic
spectacle of their forced return to Germany.
decided to call the Agency’s bluff. They visited Golda
Meir (then Meyerson), and spoke as though it went
without saying that the Agency would do anything to
spare the DPs the horrific return to Germany. They said
that perhaps the DPs do not realize that they are free
to disembark in southern France if they wish, or do not
believe the British, and suggested that the Agency send
a representative to tell them. Meir refused. To
paraphrase Israeli Professor Idith Zertal, the greater
the suffering of these survivors of the Holocaust, the
greater their political and media effectiveness for the
A few months
after the Exodus affair, the UN recommended
partition, with the assumption that a Zionist state
would follow. This decision was directly influenced by
the certainty of continuing Zionist terror if they did
not, as was the disproportionately large land area the
UN gave the Zionists.
British Cabinet papers, giving the Zionists so much land
up front was an attempt to delay the Zionists’
expansionist wars. They knew they couldn’t stop Israeli
expansionism, but they hoped to delay it. This
appeasement of course failed: within a few months of
Resolution 181, the Zionist armies were already waging
their first expansionist war, confiscating more than
half of the Palestinian side of Partition.
But in a
consummately Orwellian irony, the fact that the British
were occupying Palestine enabled Zionist leaders to
juxtapose their settler project as a liberation movement
against British colonizers, and thus for their 1948
terror campaign of expropriation and ethnic cleansing to
be spun instead as a war of ‘independence’ or
war of independence was in truth, to quote the British
High Commissioner at the time, “operations based on the
mortaring of terrified women and children”. Its
broadcasts boasting of their successes, “both in content
and in manner of delivery, are remarkably like those of
Nazi Germany”. The Zionists were “jubilant” he reported,
with “their campaign of calculated aggression coupled
intelligence, meanwhile, reported that “the internal
machinery of the Jewish State and all the equipment of a
totalitarian regime is complete, including a Custodian
of Enemy Property to handle Arab lands”.
In the Yishuv
itself, “persecution of Christian Jews”, by which I
assume they meant converts, “and others who offend
against national discipline has shown a marked increase
and in some cases has reached mediaeval standards”.
All this, to be
sure, was before any Arab resistance.
Finally, on the
15th of May, 1948, Britain fled the scene of its crime,
for which the Palestinians have been paying ever since.
The post-statehood period continued full throttle with
the same violent messianic goals, evolving with the new
Now, there is
no point in my having taken up your time here, no point
any tree wasting its paper on this book, unless I
thought that it had some value in the collective effort
toward ending the conflict. So … How do I think that
this book, how do I think my approach, might be
record makes plain what should already have been obvious
from the present reality—that Israel’s and Zionism’s
pretenses regarding Jews and Judaism, and in particular
its pretense of being a response to anti-Semitism and
Jewish persecution, is a fraud. Indeed quite the
opposite, it thrives by exacerbating and capitalizing on
these, and has turned them into a cynical, deadly
this, in my opinion, is Israel’s—and the
conflict’s—Achilles Heel. And this should be a simple
case of the Emperor’s New Clothes—except that every time
the child points out that the Emperor is naked, he or
she is labelled an anti-Semite and silenced.
The US and
other governments empower the conflict for their own
geopolitical reasons, but why do the publics of those
allegedly democratic countries give their tacit
Israel has one
of the world’s largest militaries, but its most powerful
weapon, the one without which all its others would be
impotent, is its Narrative, its creation myth, its
Twilight Zone of this Narrative, Israel is not merely a
political entity like any other nation-state, but is
transformed into the Old Testament kingdom whose name it
adopted for that strategic purpose, striking a powerful
chord in the collective Western sub-conscious.
We all know the
Narrative more or less, but in order for that Narrative
to be ever-present, Israel has crammed it into a 3-word
mantra: ‘The Jewish State’.
phrase—Israel’s self-identity—is a unique construct in
the modern world. It is qualitatively distinct from any
other country’s relationship with any other religion or
cultural group. Judaism is not Israel’s state religion
in the sense of a national faith that any nation might
adopt. Rather, it presents itself as THE Jewish state,
the metaphysical embodiment of Jewry itself, of
Judaism, Jewish history, culture, persecution, and most
cynical and exploitative of all, the Holocaust.
claims it is the Catholic state. Costa Rica,
for example, is a Catholic state; it does not
suggest that it owns Catholicism, Catholics, or historic
Christian martyrdom. We do not have the British
government issuing guidelines as to when criticism of
the Costa Rican government becomes anti-Catholic hate
speech. Norway is a Lutheran state; Tunisia is one of
several nations that maintains Islam as a national
faith; Cambodia is a Buddhist state. Israel, in
contrast, would never acknowledge even the possibility
of another Jewish state because it has body-snatched
everything Jewish, and holds it hostage to empower its
Israeli terror, you will instead hit this three-word
human shield—‘The Jewish State’— that Israel hides
What other country on this earth is permitted this
perverse tribal claim over a religious or cultural
group? This self-proclaimed exceptionalism should strike
us as bizarre—even weird—yet we continue to be party to
We hear a lot
about anti-Semitism these days, and there is of course
anti-Semitism in the world, as there are all varieties
of bigotry. But let’s just blurt out the obvious:
Virtually all of the alleged anti-Semitism we hear about
from the Zionists is a lie, smears calculated to silence
anyone who seeks to end the horror.
campaign has been compared to the McCarthy witch hunt of
the 1950s, but it is in truth much worse, because
whereas Communism is merely a political and economic
theory that one can argue for or against, anti-Semitism
is inherently evil. In other words, with McCarthyism,
one could ultimately respond by saying, Well, let’s say
I am a communist, so what?
of anti-Semitism, its exploitation of Judaism and
historic Jewish persecution for immoral ends, is
profoundly anti-Semitic. Zionism, taken at its word,
makes Judaism complicit in its crimes, and thus—taken at
its word—succeeds where all the conventional bigots
throughout the centuries were powerless.
we are seeing more bluntly than ever in the United
States, true anti-Semitism is embraced by Zionists
because it is invariably pro-Israel.
years ago, MP Edwin Montagu accused the British
government of anti-Semitism for colluding with the
Zionists. History has proven him correct. If Israel is
forced to stop this anti-Semitic abuse, if it is forced
to come out from hiding behind its human shield, the
conflict will be seen for what it is and so could not
continue. Israel-Palestine will become a democratic,
secular country of equals.
And what more
poetic year than the Balfour centennial for that to
In case you
Miko Peled Debunking Jewish Myths
- When Everything You Know Is Not True: “Miko Peled is a
peace activist who dares to say in public what others
still choose to deny."
expressed in this article are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of
Information Clearing House.