Excerpt for Gaza and the Language of Genocide by , available in its entirety at Smashwords

Gaza and the Language of Genocide

by Michael Buergermeister

Copyright Michael Buergermeister

Smashwords Edition

"A Nazi is a Nazi be he a Jew or otherwise, and it is false sentiment of the Jewish people to condemn Nazism and condone Jewish fascism."

Protest by the Jewish socialist group Hashomer Hatzair, March 13, 1946, at a secret meeting of the Hagana

"Defining Jews by blood descent is consistent with the Nazi definition of a Jew, rather than the traditional concept of a Jew as someone who follows Judaism."

Thomas Suarez

"If I knew that it would be possible to save all the (Jewish) children in Germany by bringing them over to England, and only half of them to Eretz Israel, then I would opt for the second alternative."

Ben-Gurion, 1938

"Naturally, the common people do not want war [...] But in the end it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy and it is always easy to bring the people to join in, whether it is a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. [...] That's easy. One just has to tell the people they're being attacked, and accuse the pacifists of lack of patriotism and claim that they're exposing the country to danger. This method works in any country." Hermann Goering 1946

"When 2.5 million people live in a closed off Gaza, it's going to be a human catastrophe. Those people will be even bigger animals than they are today, with the aid of an insane fundamentalist Islam. The pressure at the border will be awful. It's going to be a terrible war. So, if we want to remain alive, we will have to kill and kill and kill. All day, every day."

Arnon Soffer May 2004

"The respect that we owe other people is therefore not one single commandment, not a commandment among commandments. Instead, recognition of one's neighbor represents the entire content of morality, the whole richness of that which God demands from us for the sake of our God-given human dignity. It is the very essence of obligation. Hillel, and Akiba later, already emphasized this significance. They found in the sum of the Torah, the all-encompassing principle."

Das Wesen des Judentums, Nathansen & Lamm, Berlin 1905


I was profoundly disturbed when, as a teenager in the early 1980s, I watched documentaries about the Holocaust. How was the Holocaust possible? Who was responsible? Was not the entire German populace implicated? Was human nature inherently evil?

At the time Thatcher was methodically destroying Britain and killing Argentinians, Reagan was murdering thousands in El Salvador and the Israelis were directly involved in the massacres of Sabra and Shatila. I became disillusioned with the entire human race and suffered from a deep and enduring depression. Everything seemed surreal.

Most surreal of all was what I learned from several books I found in my local library. I don't recall who wrote them but to a certain extent that doesn't really matter. They left an indelible impression.

One concerned a Hungarian, of English descent, who fled Hungary in 1956 (he literally fought his way out of the country) and who subsequently devoted his life to the fight against Communism. He arrived in Vietnam to discover (much to his horror) that the war had little to do with combatting the "Red Menace".

The war was a farce. The Viet Cong made a fortune on the black market; built bunkers with American concrete while US oil companies paid them protection money. Gradually it became clear that the conflict was merely about profit. One VC officer even told the author: "We couldn't have won the war without you."

Earlier I'd read more conventional books about Vietnam. I remember one in particular, a beautifully illustrated volume, with a forward by the commanding general in Vietnam: William C. Westmoreland. He complained that the military was forced to fight with its hands tied behind its back. If there was failure it was due to the lack of purpose on the part of the civilians. He even quoted Sun Tzu. I was appalled and (how young and foolish I was!) shared Westmoreland's sense of indignation.

One thing about the tome puzzled me. The VC losses, which were usually rounded up, were invariably enormous but very few weapons were ever found. How could one explain this discrepancy? Regardless of how many VC were killed, it seemed to make no difference whatsoever to the course of the war. This too seemed odd. I couldn't bring myself to believe that the dead were civilians; it was simply out of the question. After all: I'd been brought up on Hollywood movies and the heroes had always been Americans.

Another book I happened upon in that self-same library was a volume about the Palestinians. I was horrified when I read about the massacre of Deir Yassin, where Zionists slaughtered over two hundred defenseless men, women and children. I became acutely aware of the injustice done to the Palestinians.

At university I remember having an argument with a fellow student, a Jewish girl from Manchester. The dominant narrative of the time: that the Palestinians had left of their own accord, I argued, must be wrong; it simply didn't make sense. Deir Yassin couldn't have been an isolated incident. Yet I had no evidence to support my argument. Needless to say: we never became friends.

Everything remained a mystery: the Holocaust, the war in Vietnam and the question of why Israelis were involved in mass murder.

One might regard this book as an attempt to answer the questions of my younger self. Whatever the outcome I dedicate it to the librarian who encouraged me to read such books.


In the same way that Brueghel depicts the Fall of Icarus as being a mere detail in the background so the death of 27-year-old Omar Samour, a Palestinian farmer killed when he went to collect parsley east of Khan Younis on March 30 2018, was treated as a mere detail by much of the media. The Jerusalem Post reported: "A farmer was killed and a second person was wounded by an Israeli tank shell on Friday, a Gaza health ministry spokesman said, as tensions rose on Friday ahead of planned protests by Palestinians along the border with Israel." (1)

Yasser Samour, a cousin, told AFP: "Around 4-5 a.m. they were hit by a rocket. It struck directly. He was not related to any organization, not even Fatah or Hamas. He was just an employee. He was 27 and he had two daughters." (2)

How we think about and perceive the world invariably impacts on our actions. The aim of this book, and this must be stressed again and again, is not to criticize, which is all too easy, but to try to understand a highly complex state of affairs.

Focusing on the language used by the media is important because it doesn't merely mirror events. It alters the reality reported in much the same way that an observer changes an event by virtue of observing it in the field of Quantum Mechanics or anthropology.

That the media is a captive and often merely a slave of the Establishment and frequently simply echoes the views of governments and commercial interests shouldn't surprise anyone. This is a fact of life in any country. That the media struggles to appear free and independent, and by doing so: deceives its viewers and readers, is part of a deeper problem. Objective reporting always was an impossibility. The sooner people are aware of this state of affairs the better. It is ultimately the responsibility of each and everyone to do research on their own. Blaming publications or individual journalists for bias is no longer an option while screaming: "fake news" is the ultimate folly.

One publication that figures prominently in this book is the "The Jerusalem Post". It was chosen because of the high quality of its reporting and because it, although frequently representing a plurality of views, is the quintessential Establishment newspaper. One has to add that reporting in Israel, whether in "The Jerusalem Post", "Haaretz" or "The Times of Israel", tends to be of an extremely high standard.

By studying the "The Jerusalem Post" one attains a considerable degree of understanding as to why things happened in the way that they did and more importantly: what the Establishment wanted the public to think at certain points in time. It thus helps explain why a large portion of the Israeli citizenry acted in the way that they did. Of additional interest is the fact that the newspaper occasionally draws on the ruminations of think tanks, whose reflections are sometimes quite fascinating.

"In philosophy," Wittgenstein stated, "one must not only learn in each case what is to be said about an object, but how to speak about it. One always has to learn the method of how to tackle it." (3)

In the 1880s Francis Galton devised a technique of registering human faces by means of multiple exposures on the same photographic plate. This was a technique taken up by Wittgenstein in his "Lecture on Ethics" in 1930 and the one that will be adopted for the purpose of this book. (4)

The aim of this volume is to throw a light on the plight of the Gazans in the months of March, April and May 2018 and how this situation was reflected, falsified and distorted in the language used by the media at the time. This is however by no means an exhaustive media study. The use of sources will be extremely selective indeed.

The objective of this tome is to recognize the features that are common to reports about Gaza in the months of March, April and May 2018 so as to get a rough idea of what actually happened. It also aims to clarify by eliminating what Wittgenstein refers to as "nonsense" (Unsinn) and "empty wheels" (leerlaufender raeder).

Another method employed will be that of Paolo Sarpi: "There are four modes of philosophizing: the first with reason alone, the second with sense alone, the third with reason and then sense, and the fourth beginning with sense and ending with reason. The first is the worst, because from it we know what we would like to be, not what is. The third is bad because we many times distort what is into what we would like, rather than adjusting what we would like to what is. The second is true but crude, permitting us to know little and that rather of things than of their causes. The fourth is the best we can have in this miserable life." (5)

Theory is vitally important. To quote Einstein when speaking to Heisenberg: "But from the basic point of view, it is quite wrong to want to base a theory only on observable quantities; because it is in fact exactly the opposite. Only the theory decides what one can observe." (6)

Four theories will be adumbrated by this book: that the West doesn't abide by its own moral and legal standards, that economic interests, especially arms, gas and oil, play a key role in events, that Israel was created by the West for strategic reasons and fourthly: that Zionism has been a means to this end.

Not only has Zionism been a useful tool of imperialism, Islamic Fundamentalism has been one too. Few ideologies have served Western interests better than Islamic Fundamentalism. Thus one should not be surprised to discover that Jamal Eddine al-Afghani, the ideological great-great-grandfather of Osama bin Laden worked for British Intelligence. (7)

The dichotomy between "Western democracy" and Islamic Fundamentalism is a false one for a number of reasons, not least of which is the fact that the West is anything other than democratic. The EU is the most obvious example of this but the voting irregularities in recent UK and US elections are also proof perfect. In addition to this, as John Stockwell pointed out in 1988: America has long been a one party state with an A Team and a B Team. (8)

The aim of this book is not to provide definitive knowledge. Schopenhauer wrote: "Everything objective is imagination, hence appearance, a phenomenon of the brain." (9)

The sources used, quoted and referred to will not always be ones belonging to the "orthodox canon" or the mainstream media and might well be attacked as "conspiracy theory" or "fake news". This shouldn't surprise anyone. The existence of an "orthodox canon" is part of the problem, not the solution. Likewise: terming alternative viewpoints as "fake news" and "conspiracy theory" isn't terribly helpful either.

An example of this is "Hidden History, The Secret Origins of the First World War" by Gerry Docherty and Jim Macgregor, which explains the First World War in terms of the aims, ambitions and fears of the British Empire, an empire moreover, which, as F. William Engdahl points out in "A Century of War", was on the verge of bankruptcy.

What needs to be stated is that there is no plausible, convincing or logical official narrative for the start of the First World War. This fact alone, one hundred years on, is extraordinary and should worry, shock and frighten everyone. Neither Martin Gilbert nor Niall Ferguson nor any other mainstream historian this author has ever read has provided an adequate or cogent explanation. Everybody is at a loss. Everything is cloaked in mystery. Befuddlement, puzzlement and confusion reign supreme.

Both Barbara Tuchman's "1914" and Christopher Clark's "The Sleepwalkers" come extremely close but only provide one with clues rather than satisfactory models of reality. The central fact remains, and cannot be denied, that it was the Russians who mobilized first. How, exactly, this came about is the key question of the First World War and "Hidden History, The Secret Origins of the First World War" by Gerry Docherty and Jim Macgregor provides an extremely plausible explanation for it. The fact that both Gerry Docherty and Jim Macgregor had to work very much outside of the system and suffered as a direct consequence says much about the deficiencies of academia. Sadly academia cannot be trusted. That one of the foremost scholars in America, Norman Finkelstein, has long been treated so shabbily is simply scandalous.

Similarly, the paucity of information and the narrowness of the remit of the contemporary mainstream media make it imperative to resort to "alternative" sources. Official instances, which use the mainstream media as channels for propagating the views of governments and other institutions, howl in anguish at the superabundance of "fake news". This shouldn’t surprise anyone. It is the wailing of the monopolist who sees that he's faced with stiff competition.

The aim of this tome is to profit from this competition, to benefit from these different perspectives, in the manner adumbrated above.

This book will be immediately attacked as being critical of Israel, biased and, of course (what else?) anti-Semitic. The question of anti-Semitism is ultimately irrelevant. As Norman Finkelstein pointed out in the documentary "American Radical": something is true or it isn't. Thus, for example, it is perfectly plausible for someone to say: "You only claim that the Holocaust happened because you hate Germans," or "You only claim that the Holocaust happened because you are a self-hating German." Whether a particular person actually hates Germans or is a self-hating German is ultimately irrelevant to the fact of the Holocaust. We know that the Holocaust happened, and isn't merely a figment of someone's imagination or "conspiracy theory", because there are a sufficient number of witnesses to attest to the fact. The historical weight of evidence is simply overwhelming.

If read correctly this book might help Israel. This though is not the author's intention. To quote Sophocles in "Antigone": "evil appears as good in the minds of those whom gods lead to destruction". Reading Israeli publications one often has the impression that their proprietors, journalists and readers live in a universe of their own. Their world is so far removed from reality as to make them seem quite mad. To them evil does indeed seem to appear as good and good as evil. This must be borne in mind when critics of Israel are attacked. If anyone is to benefit from criticism it is the Israelis themselves.

At the same time the intention of this book is not to single Israel out as unique. Israel isn't the only example of the phenomenon of ethnic cleansing or genocide. The aim is to link the events in Gaza to others that can be readily studied in a historical context. This is not to say that all examples of genocide in history will be dealt with. For the purposes of this study only the crimes of the Nazis and those of the Americans in Vietnam will be used for the purposes of comparing and contrasting.

One of the theories, which will be elaborated by this work, is that the West (by which the US, UK, and EU are meant) ignores its own stated legal and moral norms. These norms, as enunciated by the US, UN and the EU, simply don't, for essentially strategic reasons, apply to Gaza. Rather than accept the fact of duplicity, double standards and moral bankruptcy the truth about what is really happening in the Middle East has been deliberately and systematically distorted. It is this distortion, denial and downright mendacity, which is the subject of this book.

One example of western moral norms is the much-vaunted idea of the "responsibility to protect" or R2P enunciated by the UN. "In 2004, the High-level Panel on Threats, Challenges and Change, set up by Secretary-General Kofi Annan, endorsed the emerging norm of a responsibility to protect – often called "R2P" – stating that there is a collective international responsibility, "exercisable by the Security Council authorizing military intervention as a last resort, in the event of genocide and other large-scale killing, ethnic cleansing and serious violations of humanitarian law which sovereign governments have proved powerless or unwilling to prevent." The panel proposed basic criteria that would legitimize the authorization of the use of force by the UN Security Council, including the seriousness of the threat, the fact that it must be a last resort, and the proportionality of the response." (10)

In 70 years the UN has done little to prevent genocide and other large-scale killing, ethnic cleansing and serious violations of humanitarian law in Palestine. It hasn't even bothered to implement its own resolutions, such as those calling for Palestinian refugees to return to their homes.

Resolution 194 of December 11th 1948 states: "that the refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible…" Resolution 242 from November 22nd 1967 calls for the "withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict" and a "just settlement of the refugee problem". In all these years nothing has happened. The UN hasn't launched an armed attack on Israel once. Not once.

Nor has the UN done enough to dispel the myth that it created Israel in the first place. As Walid Khalidi pointed out in 1996: "In retrospect, and in the light of half a century of contemplation, what is most striking about the Zionist version of the background, nature, circumstances, and aftermath of the 1947 partition resolution is the extent to which it has become the paradigm or lens through which the entire history of the Palestine problem and the Zionist-Arab conflict prior and subsequent to the resolution itself is viewed and judged. To verify this proposition, one has only to recall how consistently and how often in books, articles, conference papers, editorials, op-eds, readers' letters, group discussions, or even private conversations relative to the Palestine problem – and nowadays the Middle East peace process – the UN 1947 partition resolution is explicitly or by implication (if only prefatorily) assumed to be the defining moment in which a legal, moral, fair, balanced, pragmatic, practicable (albeit with minor blemishes and flaws) "compromise" formula for the resolution of the conflict was accepted by one party in a statesmanlike and accommodating mode and brusquely rejected by the other for reasons difficult to fathom but assumed to be rooted in the arcane realms of religious or cultural atavism." (11) Even more damning was his statement: "No, the UN 1947 partition was not the legal, moral, fair, balanced, pragmatic, practicable "compromise" formula that it is made out to be. That it was
legal at all is moot. The UNGA altogether failed to address the very serious
legal challenges posed by the Arab delegations in the form of draft resolutions submitted to the UNGA meeting to discuss the Palestine problem. The
Arab delegations requested that before a decision be taken, the International
Court of Justice be asked for its opinion on the following subjects: (a)
whether or not Palestine was included in the Arab territories that had been
promised independence by Britain at the end of World War I; (b) whether
partition was consistent with the objectives and provisions of the Mandate;
(c) whether partition was consistent with the principles of the UN Charter;
(d) whether its adoption and forcible execution were within the competence
or jurisdiction of the UN; and (e) whether it lay within the power of any UN
member or group of members to implement partition without the consent of
the majority of the people living within the country. The voting on the issue
of UN competence to partition Palestine-a combination of (d) and (e)-is
particularly instructive. The draft counter resolution that said that the UN did have the authority was carried by only 21 votes to 20 in the Ad Hoc Committee whose total membership was 57."

"Nor is there much evidence that moral considerations played a significant role in the pro-Zionist votes of the member states or that these were genuinely motivated to alleviate the plight of European Jewry. In the spirit of UN- SCOP's above-mentioned recommendation of international responsibility for the Jewish plight, the Arab delegations had proposed a draft resolution to the effect that "Jewish refugees and displaced persons . . . should be absorbed in the territories of members of the UN in proportion to their area, resources, per capita income, population, and other relevant factors." The resolution in the UNGA, again meeting as an ad hoc committee, was not carried. The voting was 16 to 16, with 25 abstentions." (12)

Another example of Western irrationality is the schizophrenia of the EU, which pays lip service to "shared values" of democracy and human rights, while ignoring the reality on the ground.

In March 2018 Omar Barghouti told the European Parliament: "Despite Israel's descent into unmasked, right-wing extremism, particularly with the current escalation of its brutal military occupation and repression and its rhetoric notwithstanding, the European Union (EU) has failed to uphold its legal obligations under international law vs. Israel's settlement enterprise and remains largely complicit in enabling and maintaining Israel's occupation and violations of Palestinian rights. Only effective European civil society pressure can bring this EU complicity to an end, thus contributing significantly to the pursuit of a just and comprehensive peace in our region." (13)

Israel continually ignores international law, and gets away with it: "Israel began construction in 2002 of a physical barrier that encroached deeply into the West Bank and took a sinuous path incorporating the large settlement blocs," Norman Finkelstein recently wrote. "The UN General Assembly requested that the International Court of Justice (ICJ) clarify the "legal consequences arising from the construction of the wall being built by Israel." In 2004, the Court rendered its landmark advisory opinion. In the process of ruling that the wall was illegal, the ICJ also reiterated key elements of the juridical framework for resolving the Israel-Palestine conflict. It inventoried these "rules and principles of international law which are relevant in assessing the legality of the measures taken by Israel": "No territorial acquisition resulting from the threat or use of force shall be recognized as legal"; and "the policy and practices of Israel in establishing settlements in the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967" have "no legal validity." (14)

Fourteen years on the territorial acquisitions and settlements remain in place. In fact the latter have been increasing at a prodigious rate.

B'Tselem reported in May 2017: "As of the end of 2015, there are 127 government-sanctioned Israeli settlements in the West Bank (not including East Jerusalem and settlement enclaves within Hebron)."

"In addition, there were approximately 100 "settlement outposts" located throughout the West Bank. The outposts do not have official government recognition, although many of them were established with governmental assistance. Outposts are generally smaller than recognized settlements."

"Fifteen large Israeli neighborhoods were built in areas that Israel annexed to the Jerusalem Municipality after 1967. These neighborhoods are also considered settlements under international law. In addition, settler enclaves have been built in the heart of Palestinian neighborhoods in these annexed areas, with aid by the Israeli government and the Jerusalem Municipality."

"There are an estimated 588,000 settlers in the West Bank. This figure is derived from two sources: According to data provided by Israel’s Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS), at the end of 2015, 382,916 people were living in the settlements of the West Bank, excluding East Jerusalem. According to data provided by the Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies, the population of the Israeli neighborhoods in East Jerusalem numbered 205,220 people at the end of 2014."

"According to the CBS, the annual growth rate for the settler population (excluding East Jerusalem) in 2015 was more than two times higher than that of the overall population in Israel: 4.1% and 2% percent, respectively. Furthermore, approximately 25% of the increase in the number of settlers was the result of relocation by Israelis and of the arrival of new immigrants to Israel who chose to live there." (15)

Fake History

In order to deal with the Israel/Palestine question one first needs to address the legacy of the British Empire. "Winston Churchill famously remarked in the House of Commons during an exchange with the Prime Minister in the 1930s," Max Hastings wrote in the Telegraph (02 Nov 2004), "that he was confident history would find Baldwin wrong – huge grin – "because I shall write that history". He said something of the same to Stalin during the war, and of course he meant it."

"The six-volume History of the Second World War to which Churchill gave his name, published between 1948 and 1954, came to dominate Western thinking about the conflict for a generation. It is hard to overstate the work's impact, the reverence with which it was received by reviewers and a huge readership on both sides of the Atlantic."

If one takes Churchill's history under the microscope however one soon finds out that it is far from reliable. There are notable discrepancies between his own accounts and those of his contemporaries but that is one particular academic question, which shan't interest us here. Suffice to say: "Once considered definitive, it has since been corrected, superseded and to some extent discredited, yet it still colors our memory of the war." (16)

Another example of fake history is Hugh Trevor Roper's account of Hitler's end in his bunker in 1945: "The Last Days of Hitler" (1947). This still remains an enduring myth. Hugh Trevor Roper, it ought be remembered, attained notoriety when he confirmed the authenticity of Hitler's diaries. He also worked for British intelligence. The aim of the diaries was to exonerate Hitler.

The simple fact is that the Russian footage shows a body of a man who resembles but clearly isn't Hitler. The Russians soon affirmed that Hitler wasn't dead. This is why the FBI investigated the matter and found that he'd fled to Argentina. As later interviews confirmed, (17) this was in fact what had happened. Once in Argentina he spent a lot of time with his fellow dictator Ante Pavelic. That Pavelic escaped to Argentina with British help is well documented. (18)

Interestingly enough Goering willingly surrendered because he didn't think himself guilty of war crimes. (19) Above all else he knew that he'd done his utmost to prevent the war. (20) This however didn't correspond to the narrative of Nazi aggression Churchill had long been weaving. It might explain why Churchill wanted to kill the top Nazi leaders. Only, ironically enough, Stalin's intervention prevented this and led to Goering and others being put on trial at Nuremberg. (21) There are serious questions about the manner of his death, as well as the deaths of Himmler and Hess but that is beyond the scope of this volume. What didn't take place at Nuremberg however was the trial of the key business leadership of Nazi Germany, the ones who'd been pulling the strings all along. Also those Nazis, such as Karl Wolff, who were deemed useful were spared and subsequently re-employed. (22)

The usual argument is that the Allies helped the Nazis on account of their fear of Communism. Given the fact that Wall Street and the City of London helped create the Bolshevik Revolution in the first place: it is hard to believe this. (23) It is also an interesting footnote of history that the French and British were planning the invasion of the Soviet Union on the eve of the German attack on France. (24)

Kai Moltke convincingly argues that the investment of American capital in Germany and British lending to Japan had one aim and one aim only: the conquest of the Soviet Union. The Japanese invasion of Manchuria in 1931 was the first step in this plan (25) while a year earlier an academy had been set up in Paris to train White Russian officers. (26)

Only now, thanks to the efforts of Antony Sutton, Kai Moltke, Guido Preparata and others is the real background to the rise of the Nazis coming to light and only now, thanks to books such as: "The Blood Never Dried" by John Newsinger, "An Era of Darkness" by Shashi Tharoor and "The Venetian Conspiracy" by Webster Tarpley is more light being shed on the true nature of the British Empire.

Thanks to works such as "Hidden History: The Secret Origins of the First World War" and "Prolonging The Agony" by Gerry Docherty and Jim MacGregor the origin and artificial prolongation of the First World War is also being illuminated.

There are those who argue, such as Jonny Cirucci, that the real center of power is Rome and there is undoubtedly an argument to be made for the theory that Israel is one of the key areas where the interests of London (oil, Mackinder etc.) and Rome (Jerusalem, the center of a future one world government) coincide. Indeed, if the letter by Albert Pike to Manzini from 1871 is to be given much credit, it was the creation Israel, which was the main motivation for the Second World War. Yet, without wishing to get into these discussions the case for one of the theories of this book, that the West ignores its own stated legal and moral norms, needs to be made.

Perhaps the best witnesses for the prosecution are Matt Kennard and F. William Engdahl. For many who read the FT or The Economist or any other Western publication which proclaims the mantra that we are living in a Panglossian best of all possible worlds thanks to freedom, scientific progress, capitalism, free trade, democracy and enlightenment it comes as something of a shock if one reads books like "A Century of War", "Manifest Destiny", "The Racket", "The Globalization of Poverty", or "Big Oil & Their Bankers In The Persian Gulf: Four Horsemen, Eight Families & Their Global Intelligence, Narcotics & Terror Network".

The first witness to be called is Matt Kennard. He wrote in "The Racket": "In a small house in the hills of East Jerusalem, I witnessed a microcosm of the slow-burn murder of a people. No American who reads the mainstream newspapers or watches the corporate TV news would have had any idea this was happening. But seeing it upfront there was no way to dispute the huge crime that was being perpetrated with American taxpayers’ dollars and diplomatic support." (27)

He continues: "Israel is – by any definition of international law – a rogue, terrorist state that practices colonial policies and serial war crimes against the Palestinians and has done so for decades, all supported by the US taxpayer." (28)

Furthermore: "The US propaganda runs that the Palestinians have been offered the West Bank and Gaza many times and rejected it. From the Oslo Accords in 1993 to the Camp David Summit in 2000, this is simply not true. The Palestinians have consistently been offered a deal which breaks up the West Bank into small, South African-style Bantustans with the right of return always denied." (29)

Kennard also calls his own witness, one who will be called repeatedly in the course of this book: Norman Finkelstein. According to Finkelstein: the Israel-Palestine conflict is "remarkably uncomplicated…The stark truth is an unpleasant truth…An occupation is wrong, building a wall around these people is wrong, shooting children for throwing stones is wrong, stealing people's land is wrong – that is not very complicated at all." (30)

Kennard provides a revealing insight into why the mainstream Western media is so docile and uncritical of Israel: "When I was at Columbia Journalism School my professor, who worked for the New Yorker, told me outright when I mentioned I wanted to do a piece critical of Israel not to do it. His words were: "Do it if you want, but criticizing Israel in the US is like railing against Mother Theresa: you'll never work in the American media."" (31)

The next witness: F. William Engdahl provides an explanation for why this is the case and why Israel was created in the first place. But before he can be called it is necessary to take a few steps back and destroy a widespread myth: that Germany was responsible for the First World War.

"Hidden History, The Secret Origins of the First World War" by Gerry Docherty and Jim Macgregor corrects this error: "The history of the First World War is a deliberately concocted lie. Not the sacrifice, the heroism, the horrendous waste of life or the misery that followed. No, these were very real, but the truth of how it all began and how it was unnecessarily and deliberately prolonged beyond 1915 has been successfully covered up for a century. A carefully falsified history was created to conceal the fact that Britain, not Germany, was responsible for the war. Had the truth become widely known after 1918, the consequences for the British Establishment would have been cataclysmic." (32)

One of the reasons England went to war was the Middle East and its strategic position.

When discussing the Balfour Declaration Engdahl writes: "But more relevant than the evident hypocrisy in the Balfour – Rothschild exchange was the British Great Game, which lay behind the Balfour note. It is not insignificant that the geographical location for the new British-sponsored Jewish homeland lay in one of the most strategic areas along the main artery of the enlarged post-1914 British Empire, in a sensitive position along the route to India as well as in relation to the newly won Arab petroleum lands of Ottoman Turkey. The settlement of a Jewish minority under British protectorate in Palestine, argued Balfour and others in London, would give London strategic possibilities of enormous importance. It was, to say the least, a cynical ploy on the part of Balfour and his circle." (33)

He continues: "The idea of a Jewish-dominated Palestine, beholden to England for its tenuous survival, surrounded by a balkanized group of squabbling Arab states, formed part of this group's (Grey, Toynbee, Wells & Milner) concept of a new British Empire. Mackinder, commenting at the time of the Versailles peace conference, described his influential group's vision of the role a British protectorate over Palestine would play in the Great Game of British advance toward a post-1918 global empire, to be shaped around a British-defined and dominated League of Nations."

"Mackinder described how the more far-thinking of the British establishment viewed their Palestine project in 1919:"

"If the World-Island be inevitably the principal seat of humanity on this globe, and if Arabia, as the passage-land from Europe to the Indies and from the Northern to the Southern Heartland, be central to the World-Island, then the hill citadel of Jerusalem has a strategical position with reference to world-realities not differing essentially from its ideal position in the perspective of the Middle Ages, or its strategical position between ancient Babylon and Egypt."

"He noted that the Suez Canal carries the rich traffic between the Indies and Europe to within striking distance of an army based on Palestine, and already the trunk railway is being built through the coastal plain by Jaffa, which will connect the Southern with the Northern Heartland."

"Commenting on the special significance of the thinking behind his friend Balfour's 1917 proposal to Lord Rothschild, Mackinder noted: "The Jewish national seat in Palestine will be one of the most important outcomes of the war." (34)

Interestingly enough one of the most important outcomes of the Iraq War in 2003 was the reestablishment of the strategically vital Mosul-Haifa pipeline.

Gary Vogler, a former senior oil consultant for US Forces-Iraq, wrote in May 2018: "The oil agenda I discovered and experienced was to supply Iraq oil to Israel. The players were the neoconservatives in the Bush Administration, their favorite Iraqi – Dr Ahmed Chalabi and the Israeli government. One of the motives was because Israel was paying a huge premium for its oil imports and this premium had just started in the late1990s. The agenda called for the reopening of the old Kirkuk to Haifa pipeline and its significant expansion." (35)

The Question of Zionism

According to Thomas Suarez the "conflict" between the Israelis and the Palestinians isn't a conflict at all. Conflict assumes a degree of equality. What the world is facing is an occupation. (36) His argument is that the "entire tragic history" is "the single story of the political movement known as Zionism and its determination to expropriate all of Palestine for a "Jewish" settler nation..." (37)

Much of the confusion is due to language. "Today, armed Israelis invading Palestinian land, commandeering the homes of non-Jews and expelling or killing their inhabitants, are not terrorists, indeed not even infiltrators, but "settlers", a term that is particularly benign to the American public…" (38)

But what is Zionism and where exactly does it come from? The fourth theory propounded by this book is that Zionism has always been in alignment with the aims and objectives of the West. Thus, ultimately, Zionism has nothing to do with Judaism at all but is ultimately a Christian ideology. Indeed this theory argues that Zionism is inherently anti-Semitic and has been used to destroy Judaism for over a century. It mirror images Islamic Fundamentalism, which has been consciously used as a tool to destroy Islam. (39)

It is thus no surprise that Christian Zionists outnumber all of the Jews in the world, let alone the Jewish Zionists: "The conservative estimate of Christian Zionists in America is around 15 million, a third of the Evangelical population". (40)

It is also no surprise that many Zionists, such as Arthur Balfour, were and are anti-Semitic. "In 1905, (Balfour) pushed legislation aimed at preventing Jews fleeing persecution in Russia from entering Britain on the grounds they were "undesirable." One reason why Balfour may have been in favor of establishing a Jewish state in Palestine was that he disliked having Jews as neighbors. He once described Zionism as a "serious effort to mitigate the age-old miseries created for western civilization by the presence in its midst of a body which is too long regarded as alien and even hostile, but which it was equally unable to expel or absorb."" (41) It is Judaism and Zionism that are mutually exclusive and antithetical, not Zionism and anti-Semitism.

By the 1920s the project of creating a "Jewish Ulster" in Palestine looked set to be failing. (42) This might provide part of the explanation for why the British supported the rise of the Nazis. (43)

An interesting footnote of history is the fact that Britain had an extremely close economic relationship with Nazi Germany. (44) More interesting still is the fact that the British and American economic cooperation with Nazi Germany continued during the war. (45) It is one of the ironies of history that American companies produced Nazi propaganda films and tanks. (46) This was not the first time American or British companies made a tidy profit from war.

Very soon after Hitler attained power the framework for what was later to be the "Transfer Agreement" or Haavara was in place. Interestingly enough the agreement was so important to the British that they were willing to sacrifice their economic interests in Palestine. German products, not British ones, were given preference.

"When on April 5 (1933) the British embassy questioned the various Reich offices, it unexpectedly learned that Jews emigrating to Palestine could remove 1,000 pounds to satisfy the British entry prerequisite." (47)

A month later, on May 11, the British Ambassador, Sir Horace Rumbold, told Hitler that: "the treatment of German Jews might be described as "internal affairs" by Germany." (48) This was clearly a green light for the continued persecution of the Jews in Germany.

The Transfer Agreement facilitated the move of some 60,000 Jews and $100m from Germany to Palestine during the pre-War years. (49)

"During the period of British administration, which lasted about 30 years (1919-1948), the population of Palestine almost trebled itself, passing from some 676,000 at the beginning of 1919 to about 1,970,000 at the end of 1947…the Jewish population…multiplied itself more than eleven times, growing from about 56,000 at the beginning of 1919 to 650,000 in May 1948…the proportion of the Moslems decreased from about 81% in 1919 to 60% in 1947 — while that of the Jews increased from 8% to 32%." (50)

This dovetailing of interests between the Zionists and the Nazis explains the enthusiasm with which the ascendancy of the Nazis was greeted by the Zionists.

On June 21, 1933, the Zionist Federation told the Nazi regime: "Zionism believes that a rebirth of national life, such as is occurring in German life through adhesion to Christian and national values, must also take place in the Jewish national group. For the Jew, too, origin, religion, community of fate and group consciousness must be of decisive significance in the shaping of his life. This means that the egotistic individualism which arose in the liberal era must be overcome by public spiritedness and by willingness to accept responsibility."

"Our conception of the nature of Jewry and of our true position among the European peoples allows us to frame proposals on the regulation of the situation of the Jews in the new German state which are not considerations based on accidental constellations of interests, but which pave the way for a real solution of the Jewish question that will satisfy the German state. In this we are not concerned with the interests of individual Jews who have lost their economic and social positions as a result of Germany's profound transformation. What we are concerned with is the creation of an opportunity for the existence for the whole group, while preserving our honor, which is our most precious possession. On the foundation of the new state, which has established the principle of race, we wish so to fit our community into the total structure so that for us, too, in the sphere assigned to us, fruitful activity for the Fatherland is possible."

"We believe it is precisely the new Germany that can, through bold resoluteness in the handling of the Jewish question, take a decisive step toward overcoming a problem which, in truth, will have to be dealt with by most European peoples—including those whose foreign policy statements today deny the existence of any such problem in their own midst."

"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 do not wish to falsify these fundamentals, because we, too, are against mixed marriage and are for maintaining the purity of the Jewish group and reject any trespasses of the cultural domain, we—having been brought up in the German language and German culture—can show an interest in the works and values of German culture with admiration and internal sympathy. Only fidelity to their own kind and their own culture gives Jews the inner strength that prevents insult to the respect for the national sentiments and the imponderables of German nationality; and rootedness in one’s own spirituality protects the Jew from becoming the rootless critic of the national foundations of German essence. The national distancing which the state desires would thus be brought about easily as the result of an organic development."

"Thus, a self-conscious Jewry here described, in whose name we speak, can find a place in the structure of the German state, because it is inwardly unembarrassed, free from the resentment which assimilated Jews must feel at the determination that they belong to Jewry, to the Jewish race and past. We believe in the possibility of an honest relationship of loyalty between a group-conscious Jewry and the German state." (51)

Perhaps it should surprise nobody, given this historical background, that Wolfgang Eggert should make the startling assertion that many key players in the Holocaust, such as Hans Frank, Reinhard Heydrich and Adolf Eichmann had Jewish backgrounds. (52)

That the Zionists were both close allies of the Nazis and the main beneficiaries of the Holocaust remains beyond dispute. Without the Zionists the Nazis couldn’t have remained in power and without the Holocaust Israel couldn't have been created.

The Holocaust seems eerily in keeping with Theodor Herzl's apocalyptic vision: "Whoever can, will, and must perish, let him perish. But the distinctive nationality of the Jews neither can, will, nor must be destroyed…Whole branches of Judaism may whither and fall, but the trunk remains…" (53)

Herzl noted in his journal: "Anti-Semitism has grown and continues to grow — and so do I. I can still recall two different conceptions of the Question and its solution, which I had in the course of those years. About two years ago I wanted to solve the Jewish Question, at least in Austria, with the help of the Catholic Church. I wished to gain access to the Pope (not without first assuring myself of the support of the Austrian church dignitaries) and say to him: Help us against the anti-Semites and I will start a great movement for the free and honorable conversion of Jews to Christianity. Free and honorable by virtue of the fact that the leaders of this movement — myself in particular — would remain Jews and as such would propagate conversion to the faith of the majority. The conversion was to take place in broad daylight, Sundays at noon, in Saint Stephen's Cathedral, with festive processions and amidst the pealing of bells. Not in shame, as individuals have converted up to now, but with proud gestures. And because the Jewish leaders would remain Jews, escorting the people only to the threshold of the church and themselves staying outside, the whole performance was to be elevated by a touch of great candor. We would still have adhered to the faith of our fathers. But we would have made Christians of our young sons before they reached the age of independent decision, after which conversion looks like an act of cowardice or careerism." (54)

Later he wrote: "It would be an excellent idea to call in respectable, accredited anti-Semites as liquidators of property. To the people they would vouch for the fact that we do not wish to bring about the impoverishment of the countries that we leave. At first they must not be given large fees for this; otherwise we shall spoil our instruments and make them despicable as "stooges of the Jews." Later their fees will increase, and in the end we shall have only Gentile officials in the countries from which we have emigrated. The anti-Semites will become our most dependable friends, the anti-Semitic countries our allies. We want to emigrate as respected people." (55)

This seems to be very much in keeping with what happened later. The Zionists acted on these ideas: "In 1921, Jabotinsky signed an agreement with Symon Petliura, a Ukrainian anti-Semite whose soldiers had carried out pogroms with tens of thousands of Jewish victims." (56)

Not only did the Zionists act on these ideas before the war they also acted on them after the foundation of Israel. Thus the Zionists helped foster anti-Semitism in the Middle East as a means of forcing the Sephardi or Mizrahim Jews to come to the "promised land". (57)

Ella Habiba Shohat points out that: "Zionism claims to be a liberation movement for all Jews, and Zionist ideologists have spared no effort in their attempt to make the two terms "Jewish" and "Zionist" virtually synonymous. In fact, however, Zionism has been primarily a liberation movement for European Jews (and that, as we know, problematically) and more precisely for that tiny minority of European Jews actually settled in Israel. Although Zionism claims to provide a homeland for all Jews, that homeland was not offered to all with the same largess. Sephardi Jews were first brought to Israel for specific European-Zionist reasons, and once there they were systematically discriminated against by a Zionism which deployed its energies and material resources differentially, to the consistent advantage of European Jews and to the consistent detriment of Oriental Jews." (58)

As she and Naeim Giladi make clear Ben Gurion, following Herzl's concept adumbrated above, implemented the same strategy he'd implemented in Nazi Germany, and with equal success. Of course some of the Mizrahi emigrated to Israel willingly but many didn't.

Judaism is not a nation, as Shlomo Sand states unequivocally; nor can it ever be one. It is a religion. (59)

The fact that a "Jewish" national consciousness needed to be formed and that the army has always been the prime means of doing so, has meant that the IDF has always played a key role in Israeli society. It literally helps mold Israel. It also helps facilitate the discrimination against the Mizrahi by putting a lid on social tensions. This has been especially important in the last thirty years, as Israel has gone from being one of the countries with the highest degree of income equality to one of the ones with the greatest degree of income inequality in the world. (60)

War has made this possible and war is, indeed, perhaps the essential glue that holds the country together. Without it Israel would most probably fall apart.

As everyone who has followed politics in the Middle East knows, Israel facilitated the rise of Hamas, and it did so quite openly. Whether or not the Israelis directly control Hamas or not is ultimately irrelevant. What Hamas does, by virtue of its tactics and statements, is to provide a justification for huge military expenditure and legitimizes the state of interminable war. Hamas is the bogeyman used to frighten the children of Israel and that particular fear has long been the principle means of governing the country. When it wasn't Hamas it was the PLO and the PLFP or some other terrorist organization. Without terror Israel could never have been created and without terror it couldn't exist.

In the same way that the Zionists made use of Palestinian terror after the war so they made use of Nazi terror before it.

"In 1935, Jewish existence continued to contract as fewer Jewish people could even survive in the Reich. Getting out was the only alternative to inevitable starvation."

"As Jewish existence was dismantling in Germany, however it was reconstructed in Jewish Palestine. The Haavara brought in many of the fundamentals: coal, iron, cement, fertilizer, seed, hammers, saws and cultivators. Haavara also brought in the capital: cash, loans, mortgages, deposits, and credits. All this produced an economic explosion in Jewish Palestine, requiring companies to be formed, investments to be made, and most of all, jobs to be filled."

"Palestine's economic absorptiveness tripled, perhaps quadrupled, within a year or so of the Transfer Agreement. Economic opportunity translated into a dramatic increase in immigration certificates under the twice-yearly "worker quota". Most of these certificates were awarded to Mapai's halutzim, the young worker pioneers eager to plant the seed, dig the ditches, and trowel the cement. As more buildings were erected, more kibbutzim established, and more small factories founded, ever more job openings were created for halutzim. The spiral of economic expansion increased the flow of worker immigrants from just a few thousand yearly before the Transfer Agreement to more than 50,000 during the two years following. Most were Mapai halutzim, and only about 20 percent of them were from Germany." (61)

The worker pioneer camps in Nazi Germany played a key role in this system. "The occupational retraining of German Jews going to Palestine was taken up seriously by German Zionists almost immediately after Hitler's appointment as chancellor in 1933. By 1936, an extensive system of retraining centers, run by Hechaluz and sponsored by various Zionist groups and relief agencies, was functioning throughout Germany." (62)

This was very much welcomed by the British: "Zionist retraining efforts also enjoyed the encouragement of the British Embassy in Berlin. A British Embassy memorandum of April 3, 1936, asserted that the Umschulungslager run by Hechaluz enabled the Jewish Agency to select suitable candidates for admission to Palestine, better prepared for absorption into the economic life of the country." (63)

Neither the British nor the Germans seemed interested in the boycott movement, which, as Edwin Black's "The Transfer Agreement" makes abundantly clear, was the only hope of saving the German Jews from annihilation. Again, as Edwin Black shows: it was the Zionists who saved Nazi Germany. This was one reason for German cooperation: "The anti-boycott success of the German delegation and its allies at the Lucerne Congress strengthened the relatively positive attitude of cooperation with Zionism on the part of the SD." (64) German support included providing the Hagana with weaponry. (65)

One thing should become slowly, but surely plain: Zionism was not really a friend of the Jews. Nor were Britain or America friends of the Jews. It shouldn't be forgotten for example that neither Britain nor America did anything to save the German Jews; on the contrary. When a conference was held in Bermuda in April 1943 it was decided to leave them to their fate. And this was at a point in time when their suffering was perfectly well known. (66)

Other Zionists, such as Moses Hess, writing in the 1860s, were more explicit than Herzl, who was writing in the 1890s, in their desire to see the religion of Judaism abolished: "Judaism, in fact, like Christianity, would have to dissolve in consequence of the Enlightenment, if it were no more than a dogmatic religion, if it were not a national worship. The Jewish reformers, who still give their theatrical performances in some German communities, know so little about the importance of Judaism, that they are careful to eliminate everything that is reminiscent of the Jewish nationality from teaching and worship." (67)

Instead of being a religion, Judaism was, for Hess, the starting point of a nationality: "As a matter of fact, Judaism, as a nationality, has a natural basis which can not be supplanted by another as a creed. A Jew, according to his descent, always belongs to Judaism, regardless of whether he or his ancestors became apostates. – That may seem paradoxical to modern concepts of religion. In practice, at least, I have found this view proven. Even the baptized Jew remains a Jew, no matter how much he resists it. Today there is hardly any difference between the enlightened and the baptized." (68) That many, such as Klemperer, saw no difference between the Zionists and the Nazis should hardly surprise.

The key point of course is that Judaism always was a religion and never a nation. After all: how could it be? Judaism and Christianity, like Islam, are to be found in many nations spread across the globe.

The question as to whether Hess was involved in a project of cultural and intellectual engineering in the service of the powers that be will not be discussed within the framework of this book, as the question is simply too large, too complex and there is, as yet, insufficient information about this particular topic. What is well worth mentioning is the fact that Zionism was mentioned in the Pike letter to Manzini of 1871. In fact it plays a leading role in it.

"The Second World War must be fomented by taking advantage of the differences between the Fascists and the political Zionists. This war must be brought about so that Nazism is destroyed and that the political Zionism be strong enough to institute a sovereign state of Israel in Palestine. During the Second World War, International Communism must become strong enough in order to balance Christendom, which would be then restrained and held in check until the time when we would need it for the final social cataclysm."

"The Third World War must be fomented by taking advantage of the differences caused by the "agentur" of the "Illuminati" between the political Zionists and the leaders of Islamic World. The war must be conducted in such a way that Islam (the Moslem Arabic World) and political Zionism (the State of Israel) mutually destroy each other."

War and other Crimes

In 1935 Brigadier General Smedley D. Butler wrote: "War is a racket. It always has been." (69) It remains one. According to Andrew Feinstein: "Global military expenditure is estimated to have totaled $1.6tn in 2010, $235 for every person on the planet. This is an increase of 53% since 2000 and accounts for 2.6% of global domestic product." (70)

This invaluable insight will help inform the second theory propounded by this book: that events in Gaza are largely dictated by economic imperatives, most particularly by the oil, gas and arms industries. That huge gas fields lie off the coast of Gaza is no coincidence. As Michel Chossudovsky points out: "The issue of sovereignty over Gaza's gas fields is crucial. From a legal standpoint, the gas reserves belong to Palestine." (71) The last thing the Israelis want is a situation in which the Palestinians are able to lay claim to their own resources. Peace would be a disaster.

As Jeff Halper makes clear: "Without an occupation and an interminable conflict, how would Israel sustain its strong international standing? The Occupation represents a resource for Israel in two senses: economically, it provides a testing ground for the development of weapons, security systems, models of population control and tactics without which Israel would be unable to compete in the international arms and security markets, but no less important, being a major military power serving other militaries and services the world over lends Israel an international status among the global hegemons it would not otherwise have." (72)

Yotam Feldman shares this view: "Israeli products and methods are used in America’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the conflict with the FARC in Colombia, wars against drug lords in Mexico, ethnic conflicts in Kashmir, as well as economic conflicts, embodied by gated communities for the affluent in South Africa, Latin America and the US. This has a tremendous effect on Israel. Its military exports have tripled from $2 billion annually at the beginning of the 2000s to $7 billion annually last year (2012), and Israel has become the world's fourth-sixth military exporter throughout this past decade." (73)

Purchase this book or download sample versions for your ebook reader.
(Pages 1-27 show above.)