I was a little concerned about derailing the thread and given the close scrutiny that is observed on this board did not wish to unduly antagonise
anyone. I have nothing to add to the 9/11 debate but I am concerned that the 'Anti-Zionist' Left are attempting to white wash the Zionist movement.
For my part one fundamentalist religious group is no better than any other and I hope that my comments as contentious as they may be will be taken in
Firstly and with some relevance I wanted to comment on this;
Originally posted by rich23
Legal assassination disguised as an accident or secretly pinned on someone else might also fit the second definition because it’s not
just secret, but actively deceptive. But no definition of conspiracy, however broad, includes everything secret.
HUH? Assassinations are never legal. True, Israel regularly assassinates inconvenient Arab politicians, and Pinochet was responsible for thousands
of deaths... but in this small, busybody world, what they do is illegal somewhere. I mean, even Saint Donald of Rumsfeld is wanted in
Germany... oh! the humanity!
In the UK a "legal" Assassination, is one that has been approved by the Joint Intelligence Council. An assassination that is carried out with the
knowledge of any member of the government, privy council or Military Intelligence service without approval of the JIC is therefore illegal. An
example of an illegal assassination would therefore be the assassination of Reinhard Heydrich. Heydrich was assassinated with the full knowledge of
the Head of SOE1 Hugh Dalton but there is no evidence and record of it having been approved by the JIC.
Chomsky claims that as a young man that he did not believe that Zionism meant the creation of a Jewish sovereign state and that this intention was not
made public until 1942. It may be that this is the case, however, in retrospect he should now know that the intention existed many years before that.
Why does he choose not to discuss the origins of militant Zionism? This is surely as an important issue in the dispute in Palestine as any other
country’s foreign policy.
Again, I am aware that this may be construed as derailment but….one of the authors of the article that Rich23 dissects also wrote the following
article, which though unrelated to 9/11 does demonstrate a pattern of behaviour from this writer and I would therefore like discuss one of the points
that Stephen R Shalom discusses.
What was the impact of World War Il?
As war approached, Britain shrewdly calculated that they could afford to alienate Jews-who weren't going to switch to Hitler's side-but not Arabs,
so they restricted Jewish immigration into Palestine. This was precisely when the need for sanctuary for Europe's Jews was at its height. Many Jews
smuggled their way into Palestine as the Western nations kept their borders closed to frantic refugees.
This of course is true, the Britons were eager to retain the good will of the Arabs, however Shalom fails to mention that this was largely due to
civil unrest between the emigre Jews and the Arabs. The Hebron Massacre precipitated any acts of violence perpetrated by the Arabs against Jews and
this is a factor that led to British SIS boarding and turning away any vessel that was suspected of carrying illegal immigrants. The native Jewish
population, the native Muslim population and the native Christian population were all opposed to further immigration, not just the British. At no
time was it the consideration of the British that they could afford to antagonise the Jews and this is, IMO, deliberately misleading.
At war's end, as the enormity of the Holocaust became evident, for the first time Zionism became a majority sentiment among world Jewry. Many
U.S. Christians supported Zionism as a way to absolve their guilt for what had happened, without having to allow Jews into the United States. U.S.
Zionists, who during the war had subordinated rescue efforts to their goal of establishing a Jewish state, argued that the Holocaust confirmed the
need for a Jewish state: Had Israel existed in 1939, millions of Jews might have been saved. Actually, Palestine narrowly avoided being overrun by
the Nazis, so Jews would have been far safer in the United States than in a Jewish Palestine.
The British did everything in their power to prevent the Nazis reaching the Middle-East, Operation HHHH's sole purpose was to redirect Hitler towards
an invasion of Russia as Churchill feared that Nazis would cut off the Middle-Eastern resources vital for the war effort AND it would represent a
threat to India.
During the war many Jews in Palestine joined the British army. By war's end, the Jewish community in Palestine was well armed, well-organized,
and determined to fight. The Palestinians were poorly armed, with feudal leaders.
This though takes the biscuit, I am in no way defending Britain, we have much to answer for but this is directing all the blame towards Britain for
the creation of Jewish militantcy. I find it hard to believe that Shalom is so short of information. This is where Heydrich comes back in.
In 1937 Heydrich entered into negotiations with members of the Haganah Defense Organisation via Fiefel Polkes. Haganah were effectively acting as
security against Arab attacks on Jewish Settlers which were precipitated by illegal land purchases and the failure of the settlers to understand the
system whereby you could purchase land but not own the Olive groves planted on the land. Naturally, by denying access to crops and therefore
livelihood tensions were inevitable.
Heydrich sent his “Jewish Expert” Adolf Eichmann to meet with Polkes in Palestine to discuss ways in which the illegal immigration of Jews could
The results was that Pino Ginzburg and Moshe Auerbach (who would both later become members of the newly formed Mossad) went to Berlin. There in
conjunction with Heydrich’s SD and the Gestapo, Haganah set up a training camp and ‘recruited’, forceably and voluntarily young men to join in
the defence of Jewish settlements in Palestine. On average 400 men were rounded up, trained and then smuggled into Palestine on a WEEKLY basis.
By late 1939, Heydrich had developed a route in conjuction with his former mentor, Admiral Canaris, Head of the Abwehr (German SIS) to take an even
greater number of ‘emigrants’ directly via Hamburg and Emden under German Naval protection. This plan was cut short however with the invasion of
Poland and the declaration of war from Britain. Heydrich had more pressing problems and the training camp, and emigrations petered out. 70,000
German, Czechoslovakian and Austrian Jews though had made it safely to Palestine, many of those young males, trained by the Haganah aided by Reinhard
I may be wrong to say this but is it fair that the US and the UK should be the only ones pointed to in the debate as to how militant Zionism
originated given the above. Why do Chomsky and Shalom feel the desire to point fingers everywhere other than at Israel?
I am in no way suggesting that Chomsky’s and Shalom’s reluctance to enter into the Conspiracy theorists arena is motivated by an understanding
that Israel is to blame for the attacks of 9/11, but shouldn’t Israel be subject to the same scrutiny that the US, UK and Palestinians have faced?
Sadly, as is often the case, I am left with more questions than answers. But if as Chomsky asserts the US foreign policy is largely to blame, does
this mean that in his eyes Israel will perpetually be a victim and therefore not responsible for its own actions of which the above, IMO, is a