re Omar Barghouti, on German Culpability for Palestinian Distress

  1. VIDEO re BDS — Omar Barghouti and German Jewish prof. Micha Brunlik, in Germany, arguing merits of BDS.  (speaking of video —)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=618sECmymLY
    A number of very important points were driven home, and Barghouti held his ground, or, should say, repeated the arguments he has vetted. 
    For the most part,   Barghouti does a good job — certainly more than I do; I’m fearful of putting my name & face in the public spotlight for fear of the zionist establishment coming down on me like a ton of bricks.
     
    BUT –
    It must be said, Barghouti’s history is wildly distorted, which gives him leave to heap opprobrium on Germany, thereby give ‘aid and comfort to zionists.”
    Specifically, at 1:09 in the video, Barghouti says:
    “The boycott against Germany [1933-1941] hurt many innocent Germans but it was worth it bcause it stopped the genocide.”
    This is not only factually incorrect, it is ludicrous.
    The facts as they are opens a can of worms that, in my opinion, should be fed to zionists at every opportunity.
    The Jewish boycott of Germany, which the Jewish boycotters called “Hitlerite Germany,” was called for, by Louis Brandeis, between Jan. 30, 1933, when Hitler was appointed chancellor, and Feb. 14, 1933.  In that two-week timespan, Brandeis declared to Rabbi Stephen Wise, “All Jews must leave Germany.”
    Hitler’s appointment as chancellor was not ratified until Mar. 5, 1933; Brandeis jumped the gun with his pre-Feb. 14 diktat. Why did Brandeis declare that All Jews Must Leave Germany?
    That’s an important point, but not the largest point.
    The claim is oft made that, beginning the moment Hitler became chancellor, “Jews were persecuted.”  What does “persecution” mean; does “persecution” amount to “genocide,” as Barghouti asserted, and IF genocide occurred, in what time frame did it occur, and what was its relation to the Jewish boycott of Germany?
    1. According to Breitman & Lichtman in “FDR and the Jews,”
    “Upon gaining power in 1933, Adolf Hitler and other leading Nazis targeted for persecution alleged blood enemies of the German race.   Yet before the war Nazi oppression of German Jews followed a jagged trajectory.  SOME NAZI ACTIVISTS PHYSICALLY ASSAULTED JEWS IN THE EARLY exuberant DAYS of Hitler’s semilegal revolution.  Once secure in their authority, NAZI OFFICIALS CURBED PERSONAL VIOLENCE, but ENACTED A SERIES OF DISCRIMINITORY LAWS and decrees, what contemporary observers called Hitler’s “cold pogrom” against Jews.  ONLY IN LATE 1938 did central authorities instigate the violence known as Kristallnacht – . . .  FOR THE FIRST TIME, [i.e. not until 1938]  the Gestapo imprisoned tens of thousands of German Jews in concentration camps that also held other alleged enemies of Hitler’s new Reich.”
    That is, after “Judea Declare[d] War on Germany” on March 24, 1933, by means of economic boycott intended to destroy Germany economically, not only did the “Hitlerites” NOT retaliate against Jews with physical violence, they actually worked to “curb” anti-Jewish violence that, as Goering argued repeatedly and on the record, well up from the populace — it was NOT imposed from above.  The US Holocaust Museum implicitly validates Goering’s claim, when USHMM says that Kristallnacht was an action against Jews that was authorized by Nazi leadership. (That claim is specious, but the argument is for another day.)
    So for five years, Jews prosecuted an economic boycott against the German people, which Barghouti says “harmed many innocent Germans,” and for not merely imagined offenses by “Hitlerites” against Jews, but, as Breitman & Lichtman say, for “curbing”  violence against Jews, clearly not a “genocidal” agenda.
    What did the Jews who imposed boycott hope to accomplish, and what did they, indeed, accomplish?
    First of all, it should be recognized that by the end of 1932, the zionist project in Palestine was going broke; it was in danger of collapse without an infusion of cash that only wealthy Jews — GERMAN Jews — could provide.  German Jews were not willing to migrate to Palestine:  it was undeveloped, wild, risky, and not nearly as comfortable as their homes in Berlin, Frankfurt, and Hamburg. 
    The Judean Declaration of War against  Germany published in London newspapers on March 24, 1933 had two major purposes:
    1. To provoke Germany into harsh actions towards German Jews in order to frighten them to flee to Palestine (with the overflow migrating to US);
    AND, as this little nugget buried in Judean Declaration of War states:
    “Another petition was handed in at the British Consulate-General   requesting that Palestine should receive refugees from Germany
      without restriction. “
     
    aha.
    After all of Chaim Weizmann’s mendacious efforts at getting Great Britain, and that sap Balfour, to hand over Palestine to Jews; and after all the efforts of Brandeis and the 120-member strong zionist ‘team’ at Versailles to undercut Woodrow Wilson; betray Wilson’s promise to the Arabs; and toss Germany under the bus [yes, Jews DID stab Germany in the back], now Great Britain was having second thoughts about riling those millions of Arabs who controlled all that oil.  Britain imposed limits on the number of Jews who might migrate to Palestine.
    Did the NSDAP force Jews to leave Germany? No, they did not.  According to documents aggregated in 1933-1934 by Leonard Stein, titled “Persecution of the Jews in Germany,” Jews confronted job discrimination in Germany, but were not subjected to systematic, government-directed physical violence.  It was a time of exceedingly high unemployment in Germany (and elsewhere); Jews were dominant in Weimar, which had mismanaged the economy to the extent that many Germans starved to death in the post-war years, a follow-on to the 800,000 German civilians who starved to death during the Great War. (Chaim Weizman played a key role in supporting the British blockade on Germany that caused the famine/starvation that claimed so many German lives. Weizman’s ‘reward’ for his efforts was the Balfour Declaration.)
    What DID the Judean Declaration of War on Germany/ Economic Boycott accomplish? Did it have anything to do with “genocide of Jews,” as Barghouti claimed?
    Firstly, let’s lay to rest any connection between “genocide” and the 1933 – 1941 boycott.  As late as June 11, 1944, David Ben-Gurion, as head of the Jewish Agency Executive in Palestine, delivered the consensus of the JAE that “Auschwitz is just a labor camp.”  Eleven years after the Judean Declaration of War on Germany, the leaders of the zionist project had no evidence of genocide.
    On the other hand, by 1936, so much wealth had flowed into Palestine that it became the most prosperous locale on the globe, in the midst of a worldwide depression.
    By 1937, Erich Mendelsohn, “the Jewish architect,” began construction on major buildings of Hebrew University. (One of Sam Untermyer’s most vitriolic, anti-German speeches, in which he declared, “Jews are the aristocrats of Germany,” and “Germans are barbarians,” was delivered at a fund-raiser for the construction of Hebrew University.
    [continued]
    -
     
     
     
     

  2. Solon May 14, 2013 at 6:14 am – Reply

    rant re Judea Declares War on Germany, Mar 1933, continued:
    In addition to over-correcting the financial distress experienced by the zionist project in Palestine, the atrocity propaganda that accompanies the Judean Declaration of War on Germany in 1933 eventually persuaded FDR’s administration to open immigration to the US for Jews.  In a year when 300,000 European immigrants were admitted to USA, 200,000 of them were German Jews.
    There were plenty of other places where Jews could have gone.  Dominican Republic set aside half of the island for Jewish settlement, and even pledged generous financial support; it could have accommodated as many as half-a-million.  Five thousand Jews migrated to DR.
    What else, besides the financial stabilization of the zionist project in Palestine, did the Jewish boycott of Germany “accomplish?”
    -It enraged Polish leaders, with whom both the US and German leaders were attempting to nonviolently negotiate accommodation for the thousands of German national who were ‘trapped’ in Polish territory as a result of Versailles treaty territorial divisions.
    -It threw sand in the gears of FDR’s efforts to non-violently disarm Europe while guaranteeing Germany’s security.  FDR delivered a speech proposing terms to settle European and German financial and security claims. The next day, Hitler delivered a speech acquiescing to FDR’s proposals;  FDR boasted that he had achieved the greatest possible agreement.  Jews threw sand in the gears of the proposals, and the negotiations came to naught.  Germany eventually withdrew from disarmament talks.
    (If any of this sounds like AIPAC and zionist actions regarding US-Iran relations, it’s probably not mere coincidence.  This morning (May 13, 2013) Jay Solomon of Wall Street Journal was on C Span Washington Journal.  Match up his mendacious presentation with the passage about Chaim Weizman’s negotiating tactics (that I posted in an earlier comment), and you will see where today’s zionists get their tactics and ideological mindset.
    So, did the Jewish boycott of Germany “stop” the genocide?
    No, most likely it CAUSED a genocide, not of Jews, but of millions of Germans, Russians, Arabs, and thousands of Italians, French, British, and Americans.
    And Slavic Jews.
    Arthur Ruppin was educated in Germany as a lawyer.  In 1907 he began work in Palestine to establish the Jewish colonization of that land.
    According to Etan Bloom’s biography of Ruppin, he was deeply committed to the principles of eugenics.  He applied those principles to the selection of “human material” to create the “new Jew” who would populate the Jewish colony.  Slavic Jews were the least desireable of “human material.”  Both Ruppin and Vladimir Jabotinsky were repulsed by the “dirt and filth” of East European Jews, as he observed in the second aliyeh.  http://www.tau.ac.il/tarbut/tezot/bloom/EtanBloom-PhD-ArthurRuppin.pdf (Compare Ruppin’s observations w/ those of Hitler, when he encountered E. European Jews in Vienna.)
     
    Relatively few German Jews died in the war in Europe 1939-1945.  The largest cohort of Jews who died were Slavic Jews.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Omar Barghouti, Mika Brumlik (German Jew) on BDS, Right of Return

1. Person w/ British accent says Why is Germany proscribed from criticizing Israel, or engaging in BDS; isn’t that racism?

Barghouti: “Palestinian situation is byproduct of holocaust. …”

–> I DISAGREE. Jewish colonization of Israel began in 1881. Chaim Weizmann made a bet on Britain, that Britain would support Jewish colonization of Palestine, in 1914 +- (see “The Balfour Declaration,” Leonard Stein; see summary of “Balfour Declaration” in “The Commentary Reader.” )

2. Woman: What is role of Israeli academy in supporting apartheid, violation of international law?

Micha: “It is stupid to boycott Israeli academy.”

Barghouti: Israeli academy makes major contribution to Israeli war crimes. Encamps IDF on campus; produces military doctrine and military weapons.

Woman: I am an Israeli Jew; I belong to the occupier. My ID card says I am a Jew, and that gives me certain privileges.
I am the occupier. It is not for me to say Israel should not be boycotted.

Solon May 11, 2013 at 6:58 am – Reply

” . . . Writing in The [British] Guardian newspaper . . .” = = = The British have been a soft touch for zionist manipulators for nearly two centuries.

Pardon the length, but check out this passage from “The Commentary Reader,” (pub. 1966) a collection of articles/events originating in Norman Podhoretz’s Commentary Magazine.

The passage is from “Gentile Zionism and the Balfour Declaration,” by R H S Grossman, (1962). In eleven pages, Grossman summarizes a 660-page book, “The Balfour Declaration,” by Leonard Stein, published in ~1960.

Crossman wrote: “Here it may be well to pause in our narrative and ask what it was that made so many British politicians in World War I susceptible to Jewish pressure. One can, I think, trace three motives, represented by three of the most prominent Gentile Zionists of the period — Lloyd George, A. J. Balfour, and Winston Churchill. What inspired Lloyd George was, first and foremost, the belief of a Welsh Nonconformist, brought up on the Bible, that Britain was the right country to liberate Palestine from the Turks and that, under British protection, the Jews of the Bible were the right people to inhabit it. Lloyd George was not a philosophical Zionist but, thanks to his Bible reading, he knew more about Palestine than about any country save his own, and his sense that it was Britain’s destiny to plant the Jews there grew with his premiership.

A rather different type of Gentile Zionism was represented by Winston Churchill. I doubt whether he was ever deeply influenced by the Bible or by any romantic desire to help small nations. For Churchill, the key question was imperial convenience, and he saw in the support of Jewish claims in Palestine an effective method of limiting French expansion in the Middle East and simultaneously safeguarding the Canal. For Churchill, the essential point was the security of Suez; and the support of Zionism was a convenient moral justification for this imperial requirement to obtain control of Palestine.

A third and very different kind of Gentile Zionism was represented by A. J. Balfour. Mr. Stein appears surprised that Balfour, like so many other staunch supporters of the National Home, revealed strong anti-Semitic tendencies. He seems to have forgotten Weizmann’s doctrine that anti-Semitism is endemic in the Gentile world and that the justification of Zionism lies precisely in this fact. It is because the Jews of the Diaspora must always, by definition, remain in danger of homelessness that a Jewish State is a necessity of Jewish survival.

From this central doctrine Weizmann drew one important practical consequence. Instead of being shocked by the fact that many of the Gentiles he dealt with felt strong anti-Semitic prejudices, he assumed that the most reliable support for his cause would be drawn from those Gentiles who were ashamed of their hostility to the Jews and from those Jews who were ashamed of their fear of the goy . As far as we know, neither Lloyd George nor Churchill ever worried about anti-Semitism, but Balfour certainly did, and Mr. Stein, in one fascinating passage of his book, reminds us that the famous first meeting between Balfour and Weizmann, during the general election of 1906, originated from the fact that, whereas Churchill’s conscience about the Jews was clear, Balfour’s was not.

A few years before the election a Conservative government, under Balfour’s premiership, had introduced an odious immigration bill, chiefly designed to make difficulties for Jews entering Britain from Eastern Europe. The bill had been opposed by the Liberal opposition, not least by Churchill himself. When the government went to the country, Churchill and Balfour were both fighting seats in Manchester, and Churhcill, who had a large Jewish vote in his constituency, was advised to ask Dr. Weizmann to intervene on his behalf.

Anxious not to involve himself in British politics, Weizmann refused. Then Balfour’s political managers got cold feet and suggested that it might be useful for their candidate to see the Zionist leader in order to reduce Jewish hostility. Because Balfour was Prime Minister, Weizmann agreed, and the famous conversation took place in which, by playing on Balfour’s uneasy conscience, Weizmann converted him to a Zionism more altruistic than that of Churchill or Lloyd George. Feeling within himself the emotions from which the pogrom rises, Balfour dedicated himself to removing the cause of anti-Semitism by creating a Jewish State. Whereas his colleagues had to be persuaded that the British Empire would gain from Zionism, Balfour treated the creation of the Jewish State [not the upper-case S] as an end in itself and, indeed, by 1921 was pressing that America, not Britain, should have the mandate.

Weizmann showed himself a maestro in the art of playing on these three species of Gentile Zionism. Precisely because he was not an assimilated British Jew but an East European who combined his foreignness with a deep sense of loyalty to the country whose passport he had obtained; [*** see Eli Lake, C Span May 8, '13: "In the Middle East, people are not bought, only rented."] precisely because he was proud and not subservient; precisely because he wanted to lead the Jews out of the ghetto of finance and back to the wholesome life of the farm, Weizmann appeared to the British ruling class not as the kind of “Yid” they disliked but as a representative of the Jew they had learned to admire in their reading of the Bible. There is not another Jewish leader with whom Weizmann can be compared. Only Thomas Masaryk, the founder of Czechoslovakia, revealed the same powers and exerted the same magical attraction upon hard-headed Anglo-Saxon politicians.” [pp 290-291]

Video | Posted on by | Leave a comment

Empire Jewishness, and the Inheritance of Abraham — Marc Ellis

Exile and the Prophetic: Leaving Palestine behind represents the victory of Empire Jewishness

 

by on May 9, 2013 1

0sharesFacebook
6tweetsTwitter
0stumbledStumbleUpon
0sharesReddit
0recommendGoogle

This post is part of Marc H. Ellis’s “Exile and the Prophetic” feature for Mondoweiss. To read the entire series visit the archive page.

We all know what it feels to be passed over. It’s a strategic decision. The person passed over is a past best left behind. Such is life.

Over the years we come to understand that most of these decisions are illusions of forward movement. Our past is always close at hand.

On the collective front, we see this in the immigration debate in the United States. Obviously immigration policy or the lack thereof is important. Living in the shadows is difficult and demeaning. Yet surrounding immigration are other questions of American history.

For some it’s comforting to welcome Hispanics and leave the great unresolved question of race behind us. Sure, we have an African-American president but the masses of African-Americans are increasingly off the radar screen.

As a country we’ve moved on. Or is the emphasis on immigration a strategic choice to bury a more disturbing part of our history?

The fate of Palestine brings this to mind. Leaving Palestine behind is a strategic choice to keep the lid on Israel’s history vis-à-vis Palestinians and the dubious part Middle Eastern states have played in their history as well.

Leaving Palestine behind has something to offer everyone in the Middle East – except Palestinians. Israel gets over its ethnic cleansing. The Arab world gets over their defeats, complicity and collaboration in its ongoing relationship with Israel. Wipe the slate clean and begin again.

Obviously, this is an illusion. Palestine is always close at hand.

Passing over Palestinians, like passing over Jews, is likely to backfire. Palestine is a symbol, sure. At the same time, Palestine is a reality that isn’t going away.

Palestine remains a moral and political challenge for the international community, for Israel and the Arab world. Palestine is a religious challenge for Muslims, Christians and Jews.

Palestine is not about Jerusalem in and of itself. Or the Abrahamic inheritance. It’s better to leave the “We-All-Believe-In-One-God” sentiments for the liberal clergy of the three faiths. Most of this symbolism lacks political bite. Bumper sticker sloganeering rarely adds up to much.

When the world is trying to forget the unforgettable, declarations, conferences and peace processes become the norm. The verbal and aid-to-the-needy tourniquets have a short window of usefulness. Sure, something can be saved – it’s worth the effort – but when the larger issue is abandoned that which survives is diminished.

Speaking as a Jew, what does this mean?

Leaving Palestine behind represents the victory of Empire Jewishness.

Leaving Palestine behind represents the end of Jewish history as we have known and inherited it.

Leaving Palestine behind represents the most serious challenge to the Jewish prophetic since the Biblical prophets.

For Jews, leaving Palestine behind is the ultimate attempt to bury the Jewish prophetic. Are Middle Eastern leaders increasingly co-enablers in this venture of burying the Jewish prophetic?

If you ask what stake Middle Eastern leaders have in the Jewish prophetic take a moment to reflect. Translate the prophetic beyond Jewish.

Since the Arab Spring had its own prophetic elements on public display, is leaving Palestine behind a determined effort by the powers in the Middle East to leave behind the Arab Spring?

We need to think these issues through. The political agenda of the powerful isn’t always what it seems.

Isn’t it strange that whatever power wants to bury – Palestine, the Jewish prophetic, the Arab Spring – is close at hand?

About Marc H. Ellis

Marc H. Ellis is an author, liberation theologian, and Distinguished Visiting Professor, University for Peace, Costa Rica.

{ 1 comment… read it below or add one }

W.Jones says:

“Palestine is not about… the Abrahamic inheritance.”

Perhaps the reverse is also true? The Abrahamic inheritance might not really be able a physical piece of land in the eastern Mediterranean. If according to the ancient scriptures Abraham becomes the father of many nations and the whole world praises the Lord, where does the Promised Land start and where does it end?

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Dana, Univ of Md coed who went to school in Israel: “We were lied to”

http://mondoweiss.net/2011/12/beinart-says-israel-must-give-citizenship-to-palestinians-under-occupation.html

“Beinart says Israel must give citizenship to Palestinians under occupation.”

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

27 Rue de Fleures

http://c.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f9?isVid=1&isUI=1

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Steins Collect Apr 29 2012 event

http://c.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f9?isVid=1&isUI=1

Steins Collect
Program Information

Sunday at the Met: The Steins Collect: Matisse, Picasso, and the Parisian Avant-Garde (on view February 28–June 3, 2012)

Recorded April 29, 2012

Discover how four Americans living in Paris during the first years of the early twentieth century shaped the development of Western art. Gertrude Stein, her brothers Leo and Michael, and Michael’s wife, Sarah, were patrons and friends of Matisse and Picasso before these artists became famous. Learn about the formation, dispersal, and lasting importance of the Steins’ art collections.

Program Information

“I am having the time of my life”: Leo Stein in Paris, 1903–6
Rebecca Rabinow, Curator, Department of Modern and Contemporary Art

The Stein Salons in Context
Emily Braun, Distinguished Professor, Hunter College and the Graduate Center, The City University of New York

Portraiture and the Making of Gertrude Stein
Wanda M. Corn, Robert and Ruth Halperin Professor Emerita in Art History, Stanford University

“So I went on looking at pictures all the time”: Gertrude Stein’s Last Decade
Edward M. Burns, professor of English, William Paterson University

Gertrude Stein: The Inheritance
Richard L. Feigen, Richard L. Feigen & Co

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment