By Craig Murray | April 20, 2017
Unless the BBC takes firm disciplinary action against Nick Robinson for this, they cannot keep pretending that the UK any longer holds free and fair elections. For a state broadcaster to show this level of venom and bias against the opposition leader is utterly unacceptable.
It is indisputable that Robinson’s history is as a high ranking Conservative Party activist. They dominate BBC News, as a plain matter of fact. They have changed the culture of the BBC so they no longer feel any need to disguise their Tory cheerleading.
This is an Uzbek style election.
- Attorney General launched legal bid to throw out attempt to haul Blair to court
- Tory MP Jeremy Wright, the government’s top law officer, launched intervention
- Judge ruled last year ex-Prime Minister had immunity from criminal prosecution
Britain’s top law officer has intervened to try to stop an attempt to haul Tony Blair to court over the Iraq War.
Attorney General Jeremy Wright has formally asked for the bid to prosecute Mr Blair to be rejected.
The private case is being brought by General Abdul-Wahid Shannan ar-Ribat, former chief of staff of the Iraqi army.
He wants the former Labour prime minister to be convicted of the crime of ‘aggression’ for taking part, alongside the US, in the invasion of his country under the false pretext that Saddam Hussein’s regime harboured weapons of mass destruction.
Mr Ribat, who is now living in exile, also wants then foreign secretary Jack Straw and Lord Goldsmith, the attorney general at the time, to be tried in a British court.
A judge ruled last November that Mr Blair had ‘immunity’ from criminal prosecution over the 2003 conflict and that any case could ‘involve details being disclosed under the Official Secrets Act.’
Mr Ribat is now seeking a judicial review of district judge Michael Snow’s decision.
But Attorney General Mr Wright, a Tory MP, has formally asked to join future hearings and for the bid to prosecute to be rejected.
He claims the case is ‘hopeless’, partly because the crime of aggression does not exist in English law. This position has been backed by the law lords.
But that argument appears to be undermined in a document written by Lord Goldsmith himself.
In his 2003 memo on the legality of the Iraq war, Lord Goldsmith appeared to concede the key point of those now seeking his prosecution
He wrote: ‘Aggression is a crime under customary international law which automatically forms part of domestic law.’
In papers submitted to the court, Mr Wright said it was for Parliament to decide what counts as a criminal offence in the UK, not the courts.
Mr Ribat is basing his private prosecution on Sir John Chilcot’s damning 2.6million¬word report, which last year blasted Mr Blair for rushing to war on the back of flawed intelligence, and failing to plan for the aftermath. The conflict cost the lives of 179 British troops.
Mr Ribat’s lawyer Imran Khan said: ‘My client wants those responsible held to account and prosecuted using the full force of the law.
‘He is baffled as to why it is that despite the Chilcot report making it very clear that the war was illegal, attempts are now being made to prevent those responsible from entering a court, let alone being prosecuted.’
In their pleading for the private prosecution, Mr Ribat’s lawyers add: ‘If ever there was a case which required the actions of public officials to account for their alleged criminality, we cannot conceive of any better one than this.
‘There is no doubt that there is significant public interest in these present proceedings and there should have been the concomitant application of the law to all decisions relating to it by the district judge. It would appear that there was not.’
A spokesman for Mr Wright said: ‘It’s not unusual for the attorney general to intervene in cases in order to represent the public interest. He has sought to intervene in this case because it raises important issues about the scope of the criminal law.’
Separately, barristers working for bereaved relatives of British troops killed in the conflict have concluded there is a strong case Mr Blair misled Parliament to justify the invasion.
On April 16, UK’s Jewish-owned online newspaper Daily Mail reported that Rabbi Shneur Odze burned a copy of the New Testament (Christian Bible canonized by Roman Emperor Constantine in 325 CE) in public as his Chametz (burning of useless or left-over food). He then posted images of it on social media on Good Friday.
Shneur Odze is a candidate for the mayor of British city of Manchester which has second largest Jewish community in the country after London. He is contesting the election as member of pro-Israel, anti-Muslim White Supremacist UK Independence Party (UKIP). Earlier this year, UKIP’s former leader Nigel Paul Farage (2006-2016) supported Donald Trump’s visa ban against seven Muslim-majority nations – claiming that there are several Muslim countries which have banned Israeli Jew tourists.
Shneur Odze claims that he found the Hebrew language copy of the New Testament in his synagogue left by some proselytizing Christian missionary.
Rabbi took it out into the street and set it alight, according to the report. He then posted photos of the book burning and wrote on Twitter: “Was wondering what I’d burn my Chametz with.”
Rabbi told reporters that he felt he had no choice but to burn the book because he did not want to pass on what he believes is false religion to someone else and said that throwing a religious text in the garbage was distasteful, especially because it also contains the Five Books of Moses (Torah).
No religious or political Jewish group condemned or apologized for Rabbi Shneur Odze’s anti-Christian act nor Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby dared to ask Manchester police to arrest the rabbi for insulting Church of England.
UK’s press called the Bible burning an act of a lone radical Orthodox Jew for whose action the world Jewry don’t need to apologize. I bet my Canadian Looney if the religious fanatic had been a Muslim – every Jewish-owned newspaper and all British lawmakers would had demanded an apology from UK’s Muslim leaders and condemnation of the jihadi.
Christians, Jews and Hindus have a long history of burning religious scriptures of other faiths, especially Holy Qur’an. In Islam such action is considered blasphemy, a sin and serious crime.
On June 16, 1242, two dozen carloads of Jewish Talmud were burned in Paris on the orders of Pope Gregory IX and King Louis IX of France (here).
Christian Crusaders burned tens of thousands of copies of Holy Qur’an in Jerusalem (1099) and during the Spanish Inquisition (1492).
In December 2015, a Danish Jew, 42, was charged over burning a copy of Holy Qur’an and posting the image on his Facebook page with message: Yes to freedom – no to Islam. Consider your neighbor: it stinks when it burns.
On May 20, 2008, the Associated Press reported that Jewish students in Israeli town of Or Yehuda burned several hundreds copies of New Testament in Hebrew.
Talmud commands Jews to destroy Christian religious books which is fully practiced in the only democracy in the Middle East.
In order to hide Talmud’s hateful teachings towards non-Jewish people and especially Christians – Rabbis have resisted its translation into languages other than Hebrew. In 2012, when Talmud was published in Arabic language for the first time – several pro-Israel Jewish groups lead by Abraham Foxman urged Jordanian government to take action to ensure that the Arabic translation of Jewish Talmud shouldn’t become a source of hatred of Jews and Israel among the Arabs.
Below is a sickening open letter issued by The Jewish Labour Movement (JLM).
The JLM is asking former and current Labour members and supporters, from across the Jewish community to sign for publication in a major newspaper.
I added my reflections on the letter along the text.
We are former and current Labour members and supporters, from across the Jewish community and all sides of the party. We may disagree on policy, both domestic and international, but we are united by our unwavering commitment to anti-racism.”
GA: Surely what they really mean is ‘antisemitsm.’ You want to ask yourself how a political body that is defined by race can be ‘anti-racist’? Needless to mention that we are yet to see the JLM ‘united’ against Israeli racism.
“Last night we collectively felt a sense of disgust and frustration at the decision by the NCC to not expel Ken Livingstone from the party.”
GA: I tend to agree. It is in indeed disturbing that hero socialist Livingstone is allowed to maintain his Labour party membership despite telling the truth.
“Livingstone’s comments betray a party that was founded on the values of equality and inclusivity. His history of inflammatory remarks against our community, be it his suggestions that our community’s ‘wealth’ determines our vote, or his recent smears of victims of the Holocaust, surely have no place in a progressive party.”
GA: Needless to mention that Livingstone told the absolute truth: The bond between Jewish donors and the Labour party has been disclosed by Michael Foster. Telling the truth about Zionism collaboration with Hitler’s regime is not a ‘smear’ unless being ‘progressive’ means lying compulsively and institutionally.
Last night’s decision to allow him to remain a member presents us with an immediate dilemma about our future in the party. Despite pledges of ‘zero tolerance’ on anti-Semitism, Labour has been found wanting when it truly mattered.
GA: I tend to agree. Here is the ‘immediate dilemma.’ British Jews can either buy the Labour Party and expel the Goyim or, instead, form a new Bund party so they can celebrate their unique form of socialism that cares for one tribe only.
The Jewish community has a proud history with Labour, but this decision has thrown its future into jeopardy. We are sick of the complacency shown towards the prejudice we face. Enough is enough.
GA: What is it they have enough of? Prioritizing truthfulness over tribal political interests?
We fully support the Jewish Labour Movement’s proposal to initiate a debate at Labour Party Conference in September 2017 promoting the expulsion of Mr Livingstone from the Labour Party.
G: No kidding
We also support calls for an immediate review of the decision by the NEC.
GA: The people who initiated this letter seem to believe that the Labour Party is an internal Jewish affair. Sadly enough, Jeremy Corbyn, doesn’t really go out of his way to prove them wrong.
Lastly, we would like to thank those in the Labour Party who have offered us messages of solidarity, and would urge those who disagree with this decision to call on their representatives to speak out against it publicly.
G: for those who don’t understand British-Yiddish dialect, I will offer a brief translation. The JLM basically offers to look after its Sabbos Goyim within the party and in general.
Ken Livingstone faces Labour’s Star Chamber as the Witch-hunters Change the Charge
Iain McNicol Avoids Discussing Livingstone’s Accusation of Zionist Collaboration with the Nazis
It is remarkable, after all the spurious indignation and outrage, not least John Mann’scameo performance for the cameras last year, when he accused Ken Livingstone of being a Hitler apologist, that Ken Livingstone’s remark that Hitler was a supporter of Zionism was not the subject of his disciplinary hearing last week. Instead the offence he was charged with was that he supported Naz Shah when she jokily suggested that the best solution for Israel’s war mongering was to transfer Israel to the territory of its benefactor, the United States.
Naz Shah’s quip was made in the context of Israel’s 2014 Operation Protective Edge when 2,200 Palestinians were butchered in Gaza and when 551 children were also slaughtered. It was in the context of the very real and existing threat of transfer of the Palestinians living in Israel and the West Bank/Gaza. A plurality of Israeli Jews, some 48%, support the Nazi solution of the forcible expulsion of the Palestinians from where they live. What we are seeing in Jerusalem today and elsewhere is the slow transfer and ethnic cleansing of the indigenous Palestinians.
During the attack on Gaza, which was allegedly in self-defence, we had Israeli mobschanting that ‘There’s No School In Gaza, There Are No More Kids Left’. We had the disgusting spectacle of Israelis taking their armchairs and even a coffee machine to neighbouring hills overlooking Gaza in order that they could get a better view of the death and destruction that Israel was causing in Gaza. [Israelis gather on hillsides to watch and cheer as military drops bombs on Gaza]
This is the reality that Labour’s witch hunters avoid mentioning. It says something about the timidity of Corbyn that he has not condemned the witch-hunt of Ken Livingstone or the false anti-Semitism campaign in the Labour Party. Corbyn above all should know, because he himself has experienced false anti-Semitism allegations. Corbyn has also followed Theresa May in endorsing the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of anti-Semitism which conflates Zionism and anti-Semitism.
Iain McNicol — Desperate to avoid discussion of ‘historical facts’
Labour’s witch hunters are desperate to avoid any debate about the content of what Livingstone said. We were told a year ago that what Livingstone said about Hitler supporting Zionism and whether the Zionist movement collaborated with the Nazis was a heinous example of anti-Semitism. Now it is reported that:
‘Labour’s general secretary, Iain McNicol made it clear in a letter to the former mayor that the case against him was not about the historical facts but whether his conduct was “grossly detrimental” to the party, especially given his defence of anti-Semitic Facebook posts by Bradford West MP Naz Shah.”
We should bear in mind that the ‘anti-Semitic Facebook posts’ by Naz Shah included a map of the United States with Israel transplanted to it. The map first appeared on the site of the Jewish Virtual Library, which isn’t known to be an anti-Semitic site!
The catch-all charge, favoured by McCarthyites, of bringing the Labour Party into disrepute, is of course entirely subjective. It is a matter of opinion depending on where you stand. Some of us think that if anyone brought the Labour Party into disrepute it was Tony Blair’s support for the Iraq war, but clearly being a war criminal is not seen as disreputable by crooked McNicol.
Most people will be under little doubt that Ken Livingstone’s almost certain expulsion will be because of what he said about the Zionists collaborating with the Nazis. The truth is also ‘anti-Semitic’. So it is useful to look at the argument of Professor Rainer Schulze, an academic apologist for Zionism, to understand why McNicol fought shy of tackling the substance of what Livingstone said.
Professor Rainer Schulze — Court Historian to the Establishment — Defends Nazi-Zionist Collaboration
Livingstone was attacked a year ago by Professor Schulze, who is Professor of Modern European History at the University of Essex in Labour antisemitism row: there was nothing Zionist about Hitler’s plans for the Jews. The article was reprinted in The Independent as Hitler and Zionism: Why the Haavara Agreement does not mean the Nazis were Zionists. Unfortunately being a professor of history doesn’t mean you have to know much about your subject and this is often the case with Holocaust professors eg. Deborah Lipstadt.
When the Nazi government was put in power by Germany’s conservative and military in January 1933, world Jewry reacted by setting in motion an economic boycott of Nazi Germany. Given that it was completely unorganised and spontaneous, it was remarkably successful.
By mid-April England had supplanted Germany as the largest exporter to Denmark and Norway. German exports were 10% down in April. For June the export surplus was down by 68% compared to May. For the entire first half of 1933 exports were down 51%. ‘That six month loss would have been greater except that the anti-Nazi boycott had not really commenced until late March.’  German exports to France decreased by 25%. Egypt had an almost complete Boycott. Exports were down 22% to America compared with 1932 levels.
Even in Palestine in the first few days of April thousands of orders for German goods in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem were cancelled. However the ‘socialist’ Zionists of Mapai, the Israeli Labour Party, were furious. They wanted to do business with the Nazis, not campaign against them. They immediately launched a campaign against the Boycott of Nazi Germany. On Kol Yisrael, on May 18th, they broadcast that ‘Screaming slogans calling for a boycott… are a crime… We are all anxious about our brethren in Germany, but we have no quarrel with the representatives of the German government in Palestine.’
At the 18th World Zionist Congress in Prague in 1933 Mapai, which controlled the Congress, refused to put forward a motion condemning the Nazi regime.
Schulze puts forward the establishment view of Ha’avara which is that there was nothing wrong in a trade agreement with the Nazis. Similar arguments were used by those who opposed a Boycott of South Africa in the 1970’s. Thatcher and Reagan then argued that ‘constructive engagement’ with Apartheid was the best policy. Rainer Schulze is in essence arguing that the Zionist policy of constructive engagement with the Nazis was the best policy.
In the 1930’s the same establishment worthies who today are opposed to the Boycott of Israel as ‘anti-Semitic’ were equally opposed to the Boycott of Nazi Germany. The Board of Deputies of British Jews voted on July 23 1933 by 110–27 to oppose a Boycott of Nazi Germany. It was the occasion for the coming together of the previously anti-Zionist bourgeois leadership under President Neville Laski and the growing Zionist contingent on the Board. As Black observed, ‘in July 1933 influential Anglo-Jewish leaders committed themselves to the Zionist solution of the German Jewish crisis.’ 
In the United States the Roosevelt administration justified its opposition to a Boycott of Nazi Germany on the ludicrous grounds that it undermined Hitler! Hitler was seen as the ‘element of moderation’ in the Nazi state!  The definition of a ‘moderate’ has always been flexible.
Rainer Schulze is however correct on one thing. Hitler wasn’t a Zionist. Nor did Ken Livingstone claim he was. It is however indisputable that the Nazi regime supported and favoured the Zionist movement.
Reinhardt Heydrich, Himmler’s Deputy and leader of the Reich Security Main Office which combined the Security and Criminal Police, the Nazi Security Service and the Gestapo, issued on the 28th January 1935 an order which stated that
The activities of the Zionist-oriented organisations… lies in the interest of the National Socialist state leadership’ before going on to say that these organisations ‘are not to be treated with that strictness that it is necessary to apply to the members of the so-called German-Jewish organizations (assimilationists).
Nicosia, who is a Zionist and Professor of Holocaust Studies at Vermont University, wrote:
Throughout the 1930’s, as part of the regime’s determination to force Jews to leave Germany, there was almost unanimous support in German government and Nazi party circles for promoting Zionism among German Jews, Jewish emigration from Germany to Palestine.
If Schulze isn’t aware of this then he has no business trumpeting his professorial credentials on the subject. If he is aware of the above then he is an academic liar, an establishment poodle. The above quotes can be found in books by two Zionist historians, the late Lucy Dawidowicz’s War Against the Jews and Francis Nicosia’sZionism and Anti-Semitism in Nazi Germany. The SS, which was the most pro-Zionist of all the components of the Nazi state and which went on to implement the Final Solution, saw in the Zionists the ‘volkish’ Jews who accepted that Jews should play no part in the affairs of Germany.
Jews were, according to the Zionists, not German but Jewish nationals. The Zionists alone amongst German Jews welcomed the Nuremburg Laws of 1935, which stripped the Jews of German citizenship. This is not even a matter of serious dispute. On 21stJune 1933, the German Zionist Federation [ZVfD ]sent a memo to Hitler:
On the foundation of the new state, which has established the principle of race… fruitful activity for the fatherland is possible. Our acknowledgement of Jewish nationality provides for a clear and sincere relationship to the German people and its national and racial realities. Precisely because we don’t wish to falsify these fundamentals, because we too are against mixed marriages and are for maintaining the purity of the Jewish group…. Boycott propaganda… is in essence fundamentally unZionist, because Zionism wants not to do battle but to convince and to build. Black, who is himself a Zionist historian observed:
‘It became that much harder for German Jews to defend against Nazi accusations of illegitimate citizenship when a loud and visible group of their own continually published identical indictments … as Nazi philosopher Alfred Rosenberg made clear … ‘If an organisation inside the state declares that the interests of the German Reich do not concern it, it renounces all its civil rights.’ Zionism had become a tool for anti-Semites.’  (my emphasis)
Ha’avara and the Saving of Jewish Refugees
Ha’avara had nothing to do with saving Germany’s Jews. No one in 1933 envisaged that the Nazis would embark on a policy of extermination nor did the Nazis themselves plan for it. That came later with Operation Barbarossa and war imperialism. The ZVfD and George Landeur, its Director, ‘fought for German regulations that would prevent German Jews from saving their wealth by any means other than investing it in Palestine.’  Zionism was only interested in building the Jewish state. Saving the Jews was secondary to this. ‘By late July, transfer activists spoke increasingly of ‘saving the wealth’ and ‘rescuing the capital’ from Nazi Germany. The impact on German Jews themselves seemed to be a subordinated issue.’
The other question is, why did Nazi Germany agree to a trade agreement whereby German goods were exported but they were paid not in hard currency but German Reichsmarks? The answer is simple:
Without the worldwide effort to topple the Third Reich, Hitler would have never agreed to the Transfer Agreement.
Zionism only supported the rescue of Jews if they went to Palestine. David Ben-Gurion, Chairman of the Jewish Agency was quite explicit about this. Ben Gurion argued that:
‘Zionism… is not primarily engaged in saving individuals. If along the way it saves a few thousand, tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of individuals, so much the better.’ But in the event of a conflict of interest between saving individual Jews and the good of the Zionist enterprise, we shall say the enterprise comes first.’
Saul Friedlander, a Zionist Holocaust historian noted that ‘the Palestine leadership refused to extend any help to emigrants whose goal was not Eretz Israel (Land of Israel).’ 
When Britain proposed the Kindertransport which saved 10,000 German Jewish children after Kristallnacht in November 1938, the Zionist movement opposed it. Ben Gurion wrote:
If I knew that it would be possible to save all the children in Germany by bringing them over to England, and only half of them by transporting them to Eretz Yisrael, then I would opt for the second alternative. For we must weigh not only the life of these children, but also the history of the People of Israel.
Ha’avara was condemned by virtually the whole of world Jewry for placing the interests of the Zionist movement and a future Jewish state above the interests of Germany’s Jews. Even the Jewish Chronicle, paper of the Jewish Establishment, opposed it:
we object to the transfer of their assets in the form of the products of German factories and German employment. We say that that is aiding and comforting one of the most savage oppressions, even in Jewish history…. It breaks the united Jewish boycott front, a front let it not be forgotten, with which non-Jewish sympathisers were also aligned.
Between 1933 and 1939 Ha’avara accounted for 60% of total capital investment in Jewish Palestine. Over RM100 million of German goods were exported from Germany to Palestine. Less than 20% of German Jewish emigrants went to Palestine and only a minority of them came via Ha’avara. Those German emigrants who did utilise Ha’avara were the richest German Jews, because you needed the equivalent of £1,000 in cash in order to qualify for entry to Palestine as a capitalist. The émigrés themselves received a fraction of what they paid for those goods.
Not once did Schulze even mention the Boycott of Nazi Germany. This is academic dishonesty. You cannot understand the opposition from the overwhelming majority of Jewish people to Ha’avara without understanding the Jewish Boycott of Nazi Germany.
Israeli historian Tom Segev explained why the Zionist movement opposed a Boycott of Nazi Germany.
The purpose of the boycott was to force the Nazis to halt their persecution, so that Jews could continue to live in Germany. Ben Gurion and his associates, by contrast, wanted German Jews to settle in Palestine and they saw Ha’avara policy as a means toward that end.
In other words, this was the old Zionist policy of welcoming anti-Semitism as an inducement to Jews to emigrate to Palestine. The Zionists didn’t want Jews to live in the diaspora. They saw the persecution of Jews in Germany as the inevitable outcome of Jewish ‘homelessness’ — living in other peoples’ countries. As Nicosia observed some Zionists ‘even believed that the Nazi triumph represented, as Berl Katznelson stated “… an opportunity to build and flourish like none we have ever had or ever will have.’ 
Contrary to their rhetoric about ‘anti-Semitism’ today, when anti-Semitism was at its height in the Nazi era, Zionism sought to exploit the tragedy of German and European Jewry. Not once did it seek to combat or oppose Nazism.
The Nazis were frantic in their desire to destroy the Boycott. By agreeing to Ha’avara, the Zionist movement helped the Nazi regime survive. As Black notes, there was a real possibility that without Ha’avara the Nazi regime might have cracked in the winter of 1933.
Ha’avara, far from being a rescue scheme for Jews was a rescue scheme for the Nazi state. That the Zionist movement was guilty of collaboration cannot be doubted, even if the tame establishment historian Rainer Schulze suggests otherwise. One of the consequences of Ha’avara was that:
‘The German economy would have to be safeguarded, stabilized and if necessary reinforced. Hence the Nazi party and the Zionist Organisation shared a common stake in the recovery of Germany. If the Hitler economy fell, both sides would be ruined.’ 
The idea that the Zionist Organisation or the Jewish Agency were concerned with rescuing German Jews in their own right is for the birds. Their primary goal was the building up of Jewish Palestine and everything had to be seen in that light. Werner Senator, a member of the Zionist Executive told the Jewish Agency office in Berlin that if it did not improve the ‘human material’ of those it was sending, the Agency would cut the number of Palestine certificates for Berlin Jews. Indeed it was decided that those above the age of 35 would receive certificates, ‘only if there is no reason to believe that they will not become a burden here.’ Tom Segev noted that Eliahu Dobkin, a member of Mapai and the Jewish Agency Executive considered that those German Jews who were ‘merely refugees’ were ‘undesirable human material.’  The Zionists even used the same terminology as the Nazis. German Zionism was a Jewish volkish current.
Zionism as Jewish Self-determination or Settler Colonialism
Rainer Schulze argued that ‘Zionism was a movement based on the right of self-determination. It originated as a national liberation movement…’ A question I have often asked Zionists is when they first decided that Zionism was a national liberation movement? I have never received an answer. The founders of Zionism, from whatever political persuasion, described Zionism as a colonial movement at a time when colonialism was still respectable.
The founder of Political Zionism, Theodore Herzl when he wrote to Cecile Rhodes, the British colonialist and white supremacist in southern Africa explained thus:
‘How, then, do I happen to turn to you since this is an out-of-the-way matter for you? How indeed? Because it is something colonial.’ 
Vladimir Jabotinsky, the founder of Revisionist Zionism (the equivalent of Likud today) in his famous essay ‘An Iron Wall’ which was a polemic against his opponents in Labour Zionism argued that:
‘There can be no voluntary agreement between ourselves and the Palestine Arabs…. it is utterly impossible to obtain the voluntary consent of the Palestine Arabs for converting “Palestine” from an Arab country into a country with a Jewish majority.
My readers have a general idea of the history of colonisation in other countries. I suggest that they consider all the precedents with which they are acquainted, and see whether there is one solitary instance of any colonisation being carried on with the consent of the native population. There is no such precedent.
There isn’t even one instance of any reference to a ‘national liberation movement’ in the writings of the founders of Zionism. Zionism only became a national liberation movement when colonialism got a bad name! Today’s Zionists have decided to disguise what even the Zionists themselves used to admit was a colonialist movement in the apparel of the oppressed in order to deceive the innocent. Rainer Schulze’s history lessons are in reality an act of deception.
Rainer Schulze finished his article by indulging in a piece of straw man rhetoric:
‘Any claim that Nazis and Zionists ever shared a common goal is not only cynical and disingenuous, but a distortion of clearly established historical fact.’
That is, of course, true. But no one has claimed that they shared common goals. Clearly the Zionists didn’t support the mass genocide of European Jewry. Marshall Petain collaborated with the Nazis but that doesn’t mean he supported the aims of the Nazis. He collaborated because he didn’t want a Nazi occupation of France. When a weaker party collaborates with a stronger party they rarely if ever share the same goals. Unfortunately Professor Schulze, having very little knowledge or understanding of the topic he wrote about decided to engage in an old debating tactic. Attack something your opponent hasn’t said!
 Edwin Black, The Transfer Agreement, Brookline Books, New York, p.223.
 Black, pp.265, 273. This gives the lie to the myth about Arab support for the Nazis.
 Black p. 144.
 Black, p. 212.
 Edwin Black, The Transfer Agreement, p.19. Brookline Books.
 Lucy Dawidowicz, War Against the Jews, p.118, Pelican.
 Francis Nicosia, Zionism and Anti-Semitism in Nazi Germany, p.119, Cambridge University Press.
 Nicosia, p. 79.
 Lucy Dawidowicz, A Holocaust Reader, p.150–153.
 Black p. 173.
 Black, p. 258.
 Black p. 288.
 Black xxiii.
 Shabtai Teveth, ‘The Burning Ground 1886–1948’, Houghton Mifflin, Boston, 1987 p. 855, speech to the Mapai Council 1933.
 Saul Friedlander, Germany and the Jews — 1933–1945, p. 57, Phoenix, London, 2009.
 Zionism and the Holocaust, http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/631/zionism-and-the-holocaust, Yoav Gelber, ‘Zionist policy, p.199, Segev, p.28. Ben-Gurion at the Mapai CC, 7.12.38, Teveth, p.855.
 JC, The Unclean Thing, 27.12.35.
 David Rosenthall, Chaim Arlosoroff 65 Years After his Assassination, Jewish Frontier, May-June 1998, p. 28, New York http://www.ameinu.net/publicationfiles/Vol.LXV,No.3.pdf.https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/0B-DwJUnaW0sMb3dxRzd5NkExaEE accessed 13.11.15. In 1937 over 31m RM was transferred. Nicosia, The Third Reich, p.213.
 Francis Nicosia, The Third Reich and the Palestine Question, p. 213, Hilberg fn9. p. 139, Saul Friedlander p. 26.
 Nicosia, Zionism and Anti-Semitism in Nazi Germany, p. 91 citing Friedlander, pp 15, 63–4.
 Black p. 189.
 Black, p. 253.
 Tom Segev, The Seventh Million, p.44, Hill and Wang, New York.
 Diaries of Theodor Herzl, Vol. 4, page 1194.
 Vladimir Jabotinsky, “The Iron Wall (We and the Arabs),” Rassvyet (Berlin),
November 4, 1923. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/quot-the-iron-wall-quot
By Gilad Atzmon
In a previous piece, I noted how the British Labour Party had departed from its traditional values. But if it is no longer truthfulness or ethics that motivate the Labour Party, what is it that drives the current crusade against Ken Livingstone?
Karen Pollock, chief executive of the Holocaust Educational Trust provides a possible answer.
“Even when it has been made blatantly clear that his comments have caused deep hurt and offence to Jewish people, and in particular to Holocaust survivors, still Ken Livingstone has persisted down this route – repeatedly invoking the Holocaust, promoting a misleading and misinformed version of history to further his agenda.”
For Karen Pollock, a true Holocaust industry apparatchik, truth and historicity or any other recognised value are all subservient to Jewish sensitivities. For Karen Pollock and the Holocaust Educational Trust, only what is Jewish is to be embraced – it is the universal which is the enemy.
But Ken Livingstone deals in the universal. He has been telling the truth. His vision of the Holocaust is accurate and consistent with scholarly work, both Zionist and revisionist.
So Livingstone’s crime is obvious. Refusing to subscribe to the primacy of Jewish suffering, Livingstone, an old-style Lefty, aims at the universal, in this case, the truth.
So the question we need to ask ourselves is, why does the Labour Party now subscribe to the primacy of Jewish suffering? When and why did the Labour Party drift away from ethics, truth, the universal and the worker?
We need to know when and why our Labour Party and the Left closed the door on Athens and opened the door to Jerusalem?
With Jonathan Hoffman in the Train- An expose of Zionist hooliganism at the heart of British academia. What you are about to see is disturbing, it is violent, it is vile, it is totally foreign to Western culture. Beware…
Filed under: AngloZionist Empire, anti-semitism, AZZ, British Jews, Friends of Israel, Gilad Atzmon, Hate, holocaust industry, Jewish Lies, Jewish Lobby, Jewish Power, Jewishness, Jews Only | Tagged: Richard Falk | Comments Off on British Academia Faces Zionist Hooliganism (must watch)