see also: Free Speech on Israel
Submission to the Chakrabarti Inquiry from members of Riverside CLP, Liverpool
Tony Greenstein spoke at a public meeting, Free Speech on Israel, organised by Liverpool Friends of Palestine on 14 June.
I would like to emphasise one thing before I start. The suspensions and witch hunt in the Labour Party have nothing whatsoever to do with anti-Semitism. Apart from one woman who is alleged to have said that Hitler is her god, I have not seen any evidence of anti-Semitism. As the two articles - How Israel lobby manufactured UK Labour Party’s anti-Semitism crisis and Instigator of anti-Semitism scam kicked out of Labour - by Asa Winstanley of the Electronic Intifada demonstrated, not only is there no substance to the allegations but there has been a deliberate attempt by the Tory blogger, Paul Staines, of Guido Fawkes to fit the evidence around the allegations.
For example most of us thought it was an open and shut case when Vicky Kirby was suspended for saying that Jews have big noses. Surely in this day and age no one can hold to such crude stereotypes? In fact she was quoting from a 2010 comedy film, The Infidels, which contained the lines about Jews having big noses.
The film’s writer David Baddiel is Jewish and the film describes itself as ‘An identity crisis comedy centred on Mahmud Nasir, successful business owner, and salt of the earth East End Muslim who discovers that he's adopted - and Jewish.’ Hardly the equivalent of the Nazis’ Jud Suss!
If we cast our minds back to last summer and the election of Jeremy Corbyn you will remember that Jeremy was accused, by the Daily Mail, Jewish Council and Guardian, of associating with holocaust deniers, to wit one Paul Eisen. There was no truth in this either so this allegation has fallen by the wayside, though the execrable Jonathan Freedland has raised it in passing a couple of times.
What then is this about? What we are seeing is the old Zionist trope that anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism. Logically this can only mean that Israel, Zionism and the Jews are one and the same. When the Chief Rabbi, Ephraim Mirvis, states that ‘One can no more separate it [Zionism] from Judaism than separate the City of London from Great Britain’ no other conclusion can be drawn other than that Jews are synonymous with the Israeli state.[1]
But if we look at the Zionists favourite definition of anti-Semitism, the European Union Working Definition of anti-Semitism we are told that it is anti-Semitic to blame Jews for the actions of Israel. I agree but who is most guilty of this if not the Zionists?
The suspension this week of Marlene Ellis of Black Connexions for referring to Zionist criminals and defending Ken Livingstone, is a a good example of Labour’s new McCarthyism.[2] How else do you describe Israel’s practice of shackling Palestinian (but never Jewish) children as young as 12 in the West Bank, bringing them to a court whose language they cannot speak, preventing them seeing their parents or a lawyer and remanding them indefinitely in detention? How else do you describe the beating and torture of young children? Is it not criminal? Are the perpetrators not criminals? Are they not Zionists?
The use of ‘anti-Semitism’ as a means of curtailing criticism of Israel is an outrage and I would expect a committee chaired by Shami Chakrbarti, who led Liberty for over 12 years, to be the first to condemn a system whereby the accused are systematically leaked against by the Compliance Unit to the press, whilst those suspended are kept in the dark.
However there is such pressure on the Chakrabarti Inquiry and there have been attacks both on her and Professor David Feldman of the Pears Institute, who doesn’t agree with the weaponising of anti-Semitism, that I believe that Baroness Janet Royall, will prevail on this Committee. It is not logic that wins in these cases but who is the stronger.
This Inquiry has been put under considerable pressure to conform to the received wisdom that the Labour Party is riddled with anti-Semitism. In Another shameful episode, Jewish Chronicle editor Stephen Pollard wrote of ‘the unsuitability of the inquiry’s vice-chair, David Feldman’ because he was ‘a signatory to Independent Jewish Voices whose evidence to last year’s All Party Inquiry Into Antisemitism insouciantly dismissed almost all accepted definitions of antisemitism.’ The only member of the Inquiry not to have been criticised by the Zionist lobby and right-wing media has been Baroness Royall who has been welcomed by Joan Ryan, Chair of Labour Friends of Israel [LFI].
What we are seeing is an unholy alliance between the Progress Right in the party and the Zionists of the Jewish Labour Movement using anti-Semitism as its chosen weapon. Why?
Suspended
I am a Jewish member of the Labour Party. I rejoined the Labour Party in November 2015 after an absence of 22 years. On March 18th I was suspended by the Compliance Unit. No reason was given for my suspension other than that it was for remarks I was alleged to have made. No indication was given as to the nature of these alleged remarks.
I learnt what the reasons for my suspension were on April 2nd 2016 when I read two articles in the Daily Telegraph Activist who derides critics as 'Zionist scum' admitted to Labour in latest anti-Semitism scandal to hit Party and The Times Labour welcomes back blogger who compares Israelis to Nazi. Both articles made it clear that I had been suspended as a result of the ‘anti-Semitism’ controversy within the Labour Party. The Compliance Unit, which refused to inform me of the details of my suspension, had no hesitation in leaking the same to the Tory press.
Following the issue of Letters before Action, both The Times and Telegraph retracted any suggestion that they had been implying that I was anti-Semitic.
Not until I was given a date for an investigation meeting, over two months after my suspension, did the Labour Party agree to provide me with some of the alleged statements or reasons that had led to my suspension. Many of these statements occurred after I had been suspended. A number of tweets and things I was alleged to have said were only produced on the day of my investigation hearing.
I have been active in the fight against fascism and racism all my life. I am a founder member of the Brighton and Hove Anti-Fascist Committee, former Secretary of Brighton Anti-Nazi League and ex-member of the Executive of Anti-fascist Action. I am the author of a book published by Brighton History Workshop‘Fighting Fascism in Brighton and the South Coast’.
I am a Jewish anti-Zionist and a supporter of the Palestinians. The lesson I drew from the holocaust was that if racism and genocide was wrong when perpetrated against people because they were Jewish, then the same principle applied to other peoples. It is particularly abhorrent that the holocaust is used to justify Israel’s dispossession and discrimination against the Palestinians. Millions of Jews did not die at the hands of the Nazis in order that mobs in Israel can chant ‘death to the Arabs.’
If the present concern about ‘anti-Semitism’ in the Labour Party was genuine or had any factual basis, then I would be the last person to have been suspended.
The Royall Inquiry
If we have a look at Royall’s so-called Inquiry into Oxford University Labour Club then we see that it is strong on rhetoric and short on facts. An example of her afactual approach is her statement that ‘For many years, Jews of all ages have strongly supported Labour, sharing our values and vision for society.’ She is simply wrong and the facts belie her rhetoric. Geoffrey Alderman, the Jewish Chronicle columnist proved that British Jews had by the 1960’s moved decisively into the Conservative camp. This was not surprising since, by 1961, more than 40% of Jews were located in the upper two social classes compared to less than 20% of the general population.[3] William Rubinstein, the former President of the Jewish Historical Society, wrote of: ‘the rise of Western Jewry to unparalleled affluence and high status’ which ‘has led to the near-disappearance of a Jewish proletariat of any size; indeed, the Jews may become the first ethnic group in history without a working-class of any size.’ [4]
This gives a clue to why ‘anti-Semitism’ has been chosen as a weapon of war by the Right. It also explains why the majority of those suspended are either Black or Muslim members of the Party. You see there are some forms of racism which are more acceptable than others.
Anti-Semitism is not a state form of racism. Jews don’t get subjected to stop and search disproportionately. They don’t experience being locked up out of all proportion to their number. Unlike in the 1930’s when the Jews of the East End did indeed experience state racism and Police violence, today Jews are a privileged and prosperous section of the community. That is, as Rubinstein says, a fact.
The fact that Royall posted on the JLM site undermines any pretence that her inquiry was unbiased.[5] The JLM is a highly partisan group. It is the British branch of the Israeli Labour Party. It is affiliated to the World Zionist Organisation, the Jerusalem Program of which speaks of ‘the centrality of the State of Israel and Jerusalem, its capital, in the life of the [Jewish] nation.’[6] If British Jews constitute a separate nation owing a loyalty to the Israeli state then this means they have dual loyalties. The dual loyalty concept is one of those anti-Semitic tropes that the good Baroness was supposed to root out.
The Israeli Labour Party is as racist as Likud. It was the party of the Nakba, military rule over Israel’s Arabs until 1966, the settlements on the West Bank and Golan Heights and establishing the framework for a state based on systematic discrimination. It is a party whose election campaigns play to the Jewish demographic fear of an Arab majority. As its leader, Yitzhak Herzog explained at a conference in Herzliya last Sunday:
In about a decade, the Arabs between the Jordan and the Mediterranean will be a majority and the Jews a minority. The Jewish national home will become the Palestinian national home. We will be again, for the first time since 1948, a Jewish minority in an Arab state. I want to separate from the Palestinians. I want to keep a Jewish state with a Jewish majority. I don’t want 61 Palestinian MKs in Israel’s Knesset. I don’t want a Palestinian prime minister in Israel. I don’t want them to change my flag and my national anthem. I don’t want them to change the name of my country to Isra-stine.[7] [ my emphasis]
It was the Zionist claim that Jews form a separate nation which was responsible for the opposition of Sir Edwin Montagu, the only Jewish member of the Lloyd George war cabinet, to the 1917 Balfour Declaration: Montagu wrote to Lloyd George that:
If you make a statement about Palestine as the National Home for Jews, every anti-Semitic organisation and newspaper will ask what right a Jewish Englishman... has to take a foremost part in the government of the British Empire... England, the country for which my family have fought, tells me that my national home, if I desire to go there, therefore my natural home, is Palestine...[8]
Lucien Wolf, who was the de facto foreign minister for the Board of Deputies of British Jews wrote regarding the Zionist idea that Jews formed a separate nationality:
I have spent most of my life in combating these very doctrines, when presented to me in the form of anti-Semitism, and I can only regard them as the more dangerous when they come to me in the guise of Zionism. They constitute a capitulation to our enemies...[9]’
In what was an astounding remark in her JLM post, Royall stated that ‘I know that you will share my disappointment and frustration that the main headline coming out of my inquiry is that there is no institutional Antisemitism in Oxford University Labour Club.’ Most people would welcome the fact that there was no institutional anti-Semitism, whatever that means, in Oxford University Labour Club. Why should anyone be frustrated and disappointed? Would she have welcomed it if it had existed?
If Royall or her co-thinkers were seriously concerned about anti-Semitism, then they would turn their attention to the regular abuse that anti-Zionist and non-Zionist Jews, inside and outside the Labour Party experience at the hands of Zionists.
This abuse consists of accusations of being a ‘traitor’ a ‘self-hating Jew’ a ‘kapo’ and this even extends to wishing that Jewish critics of Zionism had perished in the holocaust.
I will deconstruct these terms because Royall in her Report gives sustenance and support to them. The accusation of being a ‘self hater’ echoes what the Nazis called anti-fascist Germans. They literally hated their race and nation. Fascist ideology holds that a person exists to serve the state and the nation, hence they were therefore self-haters.
Likewise the accusation that an anti-Zionist Jew is a ‘traitor’ only makes sense if you believe that the first loyalty of a British Jew is to the Israeli state.
The term ‘kapo’ refers to the Jewish inmates of the concentration and extermination camps who collaborated with the Nazis. It is clearly abusive.
Royall’s assertion that ‘We should not rest until we can be confident that Jews once more feel comfortable in all parts of our Party and Movement’ begs the question which Jews is she talking about. If Jews or indeed non-Jews who defend the Israeli state, a state whose Culture Minister, Miri Regev describes refugees as a ‘cancer’, [10] whose Defence Minister Eli Dahan describes Arabs as ‘animals’[11] and whose Prime Minister Netanyahu goes on Facebook to complain about ‘droves’ of Arabs voting, feel uncomfortable when Israel is criticised, maybe that is a good thing. Free speech often offends people. That is the lesson of the Charlie Hebdo murders. That is what democracy is all about. Perhaps we should not say anything that offends white supremacists either? If someone, regardless of religion, feels uncomfortable when Israel or Zionism is criticised, maybe they shouldn’t be a member of a political party?
I and many other Jews feel uncomfortable about the fact that if we criticise the racist nature of the Israeli state we may be subject to arbitrary bureaucratic measures, suspended and threatened with expulsion for extending solidarity to the Palestinians. Royall seems blind to penalising people for exercising the right of free speech.
I particularly object to Royall’s description of the ‘virus of antisemitism’ in her report. It is an example of the racism she purportedly opposes. Perhaps it was unintentional but it is racist nonetheless. Anti-Semitism is not a virus. This is the language of the Nazis, for whom the Jews were a bacillus. Anti-Semitism is not a pathology but a product of economic, political and social forces. Contrary to the Zionist myth of eternal anti-Semitism, which was a reflection of the anti-Semitic myth of the eternal Jew, anti-Semitism has changed its contours and shape over the centuries. Medieval and religious anti-Semitism gave way in the 19th century to racial anti-Semitism. Racism was put on a ‘scientific’ racial footing by people like Francis Galton and Houston Stewart Chamberlain, as a means of justifying colonisation and explaining the moral degeneration of the working-classes. To suggest that anti-Semitism is a virus is to suggest that it is an incurable disease that can never be eliminated. It is quintessentially a Zionist idea. It suggests that anti-Semitism is inherent in non-Jews and cannot be fought. The answer therefore is for Jews to leave the countries they are born in and emigrate to Israel.
Pollard and Kaminski
One of the main protagonists in this battle is Stephen Pollard, a far-right member of the Henry Jackson society and a Conservative. He is very worried about Corbyn’s ‘anti-Semitism’. Barely a week goes by without Pollard penning another article about anti-Semitism. But Pollard is a typical Zionist. He doesn’t object to anti-Semitism per se, just ‘anti-Semitism’ of the anti-Zionist variety which isn’t anti-Semitism at all.
Stephen Pollard has played the part of Torquemada in Labour’s anti-Semitism witch-hunt. He is a good example of Zionist anti-Semitism. Pollard has no quarrel with anti-Semites who are pro-Zionist and pro-Israeli. When a controversy arose in 2009 over the invitation to Michal Kaminski, MEP for Poland’s Law & Justice Party, a former member of the neo-Nazi National Rebirth of Poland, to address a Conservative Friends of Israel meeting at the Tory Party conference, Pollard was prominent in defending him against the criticism of Labour’s then Foreign Secretary, David Miliband.
Kaminski, was MP for Jedwabne which prior to the holocaust had a large number of Jewish residents. In 1941, under the eye of the SS, Polish fascists rounded up Jews in the village and herded them into a barn which was then set alight. Up to 900 Jews were burnt alive. The story is told by Thomasz Gross in “Neighbors: The Destruction of the Jewish Community in Jedwabne, Poland” and Anna Bikont in ‘The Crime and the Silence’. Kaminski not only opposed the proposal of the President of Poland in 2001 to establish a memorial to the Jews of Jedwabne and to issue a national apology but he argued that it was the Jews, those few that weren’t murdered in the final solution, who should apologise to the Polish people.
Pollard wrote that ‘Kaminski is... one of the greatest friends to the Jews in a town [Brussels] where antisemitism and a visceral loathing of Israel are rife.’ [12] Support for Israel cancelled out Kaminski’s anti-Semitism. Pollard wasn’t alone.
When the then President of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, Vivian Wineman, wrote to David Cameron querying whether the Tories had checked out Kaminski’s political record,[13] Kaminski’s Zionist allies rushed to his defence.[14] Wineman’s innocuous letter caused a rift with the Jewish Leadership Council [JLC], an organisation of the Zionist bourgeoisie in Britain. One JLC member described colleagues as “livid” at the timing of the letter. Another was “incandescent”.[15]
The Israeli state is happy to entertain visiting fascists and neo-Nazis. Herr Strache, leader of Austria’s far-Right Freedom Party, a party founded by neo-Nazis, was recently invited to Israel by the Likud Party.[16] He also paid a visit to the Yad Vashem holocaust memorial museum. He was following in the footsteps of John Vorster, the Prime Minister of white South Africa, who was interned during the war for Nazi sympathies.
Anti-Semitism and Zionism
Despite the absurd belief in sections of the Labour Party that Israel is a progressive cause, support for Israel is greatest amongst the parties of the Right and the far-Right in Europe. Anti-Semitism is entirely compatible with support for the Israeli state. In Britain, both the British National Party and the English Defence League are avidly pro-Zionist. As Ruth Smeed of the Board of Deputies noted: ‘‘The BNP website is now one of the most Zionist on the web — it goes further than any of the mainstream parties in its support of Israel’.[17] Israel is rightly seen by Islamaphobic fascists as a state which shares their bigotry. That is why the parties of Gert Wilders, Marine Le Pen and Heinz Christian-Strache are all ardently pro-Israel.
Anti-Semitic support for Zionism is not a new phenomenon. Arthur Balfour, after whom the Balfour Declaration is named, was a confirmed anti-Semite. In 1905 as Prime Minister he introduced the Aliens Act, which was designed to keep Jewish refugees from the Russian pogroms out of Britain. Chaim Weizmann, President of the Zionist Organisation, described a conversation with Balfour.
‘He told me how he had once had a long talk with Cosima Wagner at Bayreuth and that he shared many of her anti-Semitic postulates. I pointed out that we, too... had drawn attention to the fact that Germans of the Mosaic persuasion were an undesirable and demoralising phenomenon...’[18]
Adolph Eichmann was one of a number of Nazis who were pro-Zionist. Eichmann declared that if he was a Jew ‘I would have been a fanatical Zionist’ [19]
Zionism was the political movement formed by Theodor Herzl at the end of the 19th century. Its aim was to found a Jewish state as a solution to the Jewish Question. From the start Zionism had a symbiotic relationship with anti-Semitism. In his pamphlet, Der Judenstaat, (the Jewish State), Herzl wrote that ‘Great exertions will hardly be necessary to spur on the movement. Anti-Semites will provide the requisite impetus.’[20] It was but a short step from this to seeing anti-Semitism as possessing the ‘divine will to good’.[21] Zionism saw ‘assimilationism’ not anti-Semitism as its main enemy.
In recent weeks, Ken Livingstone has been suspended for mentioning the relationship of the Nazis to the Zionists, David Watson has been suspended for claiming that Zionism is racist and I have been suspended for, among other things, claiming that Zionism is a Jewish form of anti-Semitism.
The latter is a question of fact. Although Zionist supporters today claim to oppose anti-Semitism, no historian of Zionism can be unaware that both anti-Semites and Zionists shared the same prejudices against diaspora Jewry. As Jacques Doron notes in Classic Zionism and Modern Anti-semitism: Parallels and influences (1883-1914) (Journal of Israeli History, no. 8, 1.9.83., p.171)
‘It cannot be denied that the Jewish self-criticism so widespread among the German Zionist intelligentsia often seemed dangerously similar to the plaints of the German anti-Semites.’.
Far from being a movement of the Jewish people, Zionism was regarded with hostility by most Jews. Zion was a spiritual and religious concept, not a political creed. Orthodox Jewry in particular was hostile to Zionism. The first Zionist Congress was held in Basel, Switzerland in 1897 because the Jewish community in Munich rose up in arms at the prospect of it being held in their city.
Zionism was a settler colonial movement, not unlike similar movements of the time. Herzl admired Cecil Rhodes and wrote to him on 11th January 1902 asking for the ‘stamp of his authority... because it [Zionism] is something colonial.’[22] Zionism has not disappeared. To this very day the World Zionist Organisation and the Jewish National Fund, which owns and controls 93% of the land in Israel, is responsible, for the practical implementation of Israeli apartheid. JNF land is barred to Israel’s Arab population. The WZO is established as a non-governmental agency through the 1952 WZO-Jewish Agency (Status) Law. The WZO’s Settlement Division funds and builds settlements in the West Bank.
When Janet Royall, who is a member of the Chakrabarti Inquiry panel, states that the use of the word ‘Zio’ is ‘obviously anti-Semitic’, without even attempting to justify her assertion, my response is no, it is not obvious.[23] ‘Zio’ is short for Zionist. If Royall believes ‘Zionist’ and ‘Jew’ are synonymous then she is herself guilty of the very anti-Semitic trope she accuses others of.
Nazi-Zionist collaboration
Perhaps a word about Nazi-Zionist collaboration. It is a fact that the Zionists worked with the Nazis. Most notably the negotiations between the Zionists and the Nazis which concluded in August 1933 with the Ha’avara transfer agreement.
The Labour Zionists were eager to conclude a trading agreement with Nazi Germany even if it meant that pressure was lifted from the Nazis. It was the Boycott, which forced the Nazis to call off their siege of Jewish shops on April 1st 1933 after one day.
No less than 60% of investment capital in the Jewish Palestine economy between 1933 and 1939 came from Ha'avara. The Zionist movement wasn’t interested in saving German Jews. Zionist activists spoke of ‘saving the wealth’ and ‘rescuing the capital from Nazi Germany.’[24] What mattered, as the Jewish Chronicle noted,, was not the loss of wealth to Germany so much as the need to keep the economic wheels turning.[25]
During a a debate between Berl Locker of PZ [Poale Zion, forerunner of the Jewish Labour Movement] and Baruch Vladeck, a Bundist and editor of the Yiddish Forward and Chairman of the Jewish Labor Committee, Vladeck described how ‘The whole organized labor movement and the progressive world are waging a fight against Hitler through the boycott. The Transfer Agreement scabs on that fight.’ Vladeck contended that ‘The main purpose of the Transfer is not to rescue the Jews from Germany but to strengthen various institutions in Palestine.’ Vladeck termed Palestine ‘the official scab agent against the boycott in the Near-East’ because ‘without the worldwide effort to topple the Third Reich, Hitler would have never agreed to the Transfer Agreement.’[26]
The Boycott ‘forced the Third Reich to vigilantly restrain anti-Jewish violence in Germany since each incident helped intensify the anti-Nazi movement.’[27] The Boycott had the potential to destabilise Hitler in the early period when he had not consolidated his strength. Ha'avara came to the rescue of the Hitler regime.
As Zionist historian Edwin Black, who has written the most comprehensive book on the Boycott wrote Ha’avara was directly responsible for preventing the anti-Nazi crusade succeeding.[28] The actions of the ZO had allowed Hitler to drive a wedge into the world-wide boycott of German goods.[29]
The leaders of Germany realized that the anti-Hitler boycott was threatening to kill the Third Reich in its infancy, either through utter bankruptcy or by promoting an imminent invasion of Germany...’ [30]
There were many other examples of collaboration. In Hungary which was the last Jewish community to be untouched, the Nazis invaded what was an Axis ally on March 19 1944. Most Hungarian Jews were assimilated and therefore difficult to find. Rudolph Kasztner, the leader of Hungarian Zionism did a deal with Eichmann. A train out of Hungary for the Zionist and Jewish elite and they the Zionists and the bourgeois Jewish Council would cooperate in rounding up Jews for deportation. There is no doubt about this as it all came out in a 4 year trial involving Kasztner in Israel between 1954 and 1958.
So what Livingstone said may be right or it may be wrong but it isn’t anti-Semitic.
The message
What we are facing though is a concerted attack on anti-Zionists and opposition to the Israeli state led by the mass media and reflected inside the Labour Party.
The message is that you can criticise Israel’s policies but not the very nature of the Israeli state. It is that which we must reject.
Thank you
Notes
1 Ken Livingstone and the hard Left are spreading the insidious virus of anti-Semitism
2 Momentum activist suspended by Labour over 'Zionist criminals' blog supporting Ken Livingstone Jewish Chronicle 6.6.16
3 The Jewish Population in British Politics, p. 137, G Alderman, Clarendon Press, 1983.
4 W.D. Rubinstein, ‘The Left, the Right and the Jews’, p.51, Croom Helm, London 1982.
5 Blog: Baroness Royall on her report: "There is too often a culture of intolerance where Jews are concerned and there are clear incidents of antisemitism"
6 www.wzo.org.il/The-Jerusalem-Program
7 Who needs the Right when we have Isaac Herzog? Edo Konrad, +972 Magazine
8 Leonard Stein, The Balfour Declaration, p. 500, London 1961.
9 B Destani (ed) The Zionist movement and the foundation of Israel 1839-1972 Cambridge 2004, Vol 1, p727.
10 52% of Israeli Jews agree: African migrants are ‘a cancer’
11 New deputy defense minister called Palestinians ‘animals’
12 Guardian, 9 October 2009, Poland's Kaminski is not an antisemite: he's a friend to Jews, Times of Israel, 12.4.16.
13 Is Michal Kaminski fit to lead the Tories in Europe?
14 15 October 2009, see Howard Cooper on how the JC has defended this tie up with Kaminski.
15 ‘Leaders split over David Cameron's Euro allies’ 8.10.09.
16 Far-right Austrian party chief visits Israel, tours Yad Vashem
17 BNP seeks to bury antisemitism and gain Jewish votes in Islamophobic campaign, The Guardian, April 10th 2008
18 Leonard Stein, p. 154, 14.12.14.
19 Interview Life Magazine, 28.11.60. 'I Transported them to the Butcher' Eichmann's Own Story.’
20 Theodor Herzl, The Jewish State, p.57, H Pordes, London, 1972.
21 The Diaries of Theodor Herzl, p.231.
22 Ibid. p. 1194.
23 Blog: Baroness Royall on her report: "There is too often a culture of intolerance where Jews are concerned and there are clear incidents of antisemitism", 17 May 2016.
24 Edwin Black, The Transfer Agreement: The Dramatic Story of the Pact Between the Third Reich and Jewish Palestine. pp. 257-258. Macmillan, New York, 1984.
25 ‘The Unclean Thing’ JC, 27.12.35.
26 Lenni Brenner, 51 Documents: Zionist Collaboration with the Nazis’, pp. 92-93, Barricade Books, 2002.
27 Black, pp. 250, 372.
28 Black, pp. xiii, 181-2.
