Zionist Conspiracy

1. From ALEF WATCH courtesy of Isracampus.org.il :

The following material is being disseminated via the ALEF list that
operates under the auspices of the University of Haifa

(Tont Greenstein is a British Jewish anti-Semitic communist; Shraga Elam
is an ex-Israeli supporter of David Irving living in Switzerland)
[alef] New Israeli study: Not more than 5 million Jews were exterminated
by the Nazis (Shraga Elam).
From: alef-bounces@list.haifa.ac.il on behalf of tony greenstein
(tonygreenstein@yahoo.com)
Sent: 14 May 2008 01:13:18
To: alef@list.haifa.ac.il

In fact the 6 million figure has never been accepted uncritically and
indeed it is impossible to know exactly how many died. Raul Hilberg
estimated that 5.1 million died. Hannah Arendt I think went as low as 4
million. The reality is that noone knows how many hundreds of thousands,
possibly as much as 1.5 million, Russian Jews escaped to or were taken
into the Soviet heartland. Certainly whole Jewish villages were evacuated
as the Nazis began Operation Barbarossa. Likewise the number of those who
were hidden or otherwise survived may have been larger than is recognised.

To those for whom the Holocaust is primarily an ideological weapon to be
employed against the Palestinians then of course 6 million is a symbol
that cannot be abandoned. But noone seriously believes you can make an
estimate within a million and claim absolute accuracy. Rudolph Vrba
believed over 2.5 million died in Auschwitz and this was what Hoess, the
Commandant also came up with. Hilberg estimates it as little more than 1
million.

Differences as to how many died have nothing to do with holocaust denial
because as Shraga says, it is immaterial whether it was 5 million or 6
million. It was a crime against humanity regardless. The holocaust
deniers do indeed use such differences to build a case, but that is
because the case they build is so threadbare that they have to seize on
such 'inconsistencies'. The fact is that noone even knows how many
Germans died in the 'Euthenasia' campaign. 80,000 says Henry Friedlander
in his From Euthenasia to Final Solution. Noone even knows whether it was
1/4 or 1/2 million Gypsies who were murdered.

What matters is that members of different religious or ethnic groupings
were deliberately singled out and targetted for extermination. It is that
intentionality that marks the difference between the claims that the Jews
and others were war victims as opposed to the targets of deliberate
annihilation. It is though interesting that those who deny the Nakba also
claim that the Palestinian refugees were not deliberately expelled but
merely the unfortunate victims of war.

Tony Greenstein

In response to message from Shraga Elam who wrote:
I wonder if the known Israeli demographer Prof. Sergio DellaPergola
figures mean that around 5 million Jews were murdered by the Nazis.
In a new publication to be found in the Hebrew University website he
claimed that before WWII there were16.5 million Jews worldwide and after
the war there were11.5 million. Theses figures are to be found in the
Hebrew version. In the English translation it says:
Approximately 11 million Jews remained worldwide in the aftermath of
World War II and the Holocaust, compared to 16.5 million before the war.
(http://www.huji.ac.il/cgi-bin/dovrut/dovrut_search_eng.pl?mesge121057565332688760.

Considering that some Jews, like DellaPergola himself, were born during
WWII but for sure they were not a million and that that probably even more
died at this period not through the Nazis or as soldiers, DellaPergola..s
newest publication means that he considers 5 million to be the utmost
figure of Jews exterminated by the Nazis during WWII.

In 1996 DellaPergola wrote: At this stage it would appear that the
definitive figure [of victims] may fall in the range between 5.6 and 5.9
million victims.

Obviously he has now new data which compels him to reduce the figure,
which might be reduced further as e.g. of the total half-million of the
Jewish soldiers in the Red Army who fought against the Nazis, 216,000 fell
in action..

I have to emphasize that as such the discussion about the exact Jewish
Nazi victims is rather unnecessary, as from the moral point of view it
doesn..t make a real difference if 3 millions or 6 millions were murdered
by the Nazis. It was one way or another a crime, a genocide. The UN
definition of genocide from 1948, which is still accepted, does not
mention any minimal figure of victims necessary to define a genocide.
If the number of the slaughtered Jews were lesser, would the Nazi crimes
be less dreadful?

The problem is that the figure 6 million Jewish Nazi victims got a
religious status and it is considered to be almost a denial of the Nazi
Judeocide if the ..holy.. number is questioned. At the same time there is
actually not enough reliable information about all those that the Nazis
considered to be Jew and also murdered them for this reason.

Shraga Elam

2. Israel's 'doom' could also be Europe's
By Mark Steyn

JWR | Almost everywhere I went last week . TV, radio, speeches . I was
asked about the 60th anniversary of the Israeli state. I don't recall
being asked about Israel quite so much on its 50th anniversary, which, as
a general rule, is a much bigger deal than the 60th. But these days
friends and enemies alike smell weakness at the heart of the Zionist
Entity.

Assuming Iranian President Ahmadinejad's apocalyptic fancies don't come to
pass, Israel will surely make it to its 70th birthday. But a lot of folks
don't fancy its prospects for its 80th and beyond. See the Atlantic
Monthly cover story: "Is Israel Finished?" Also the cover story in
Canada's leading news magazine, Maclean's, which dispenses with the
question mark: "Why Israel Can't Survive."

Why? By most measures, the Jewish state is a great success story. The
modern Middle East is the misbegotten progeny of the British and French
colonial map makers of 1922. All the nation states in that neck of the
woods date back a mere 60 or 70 years . Iraq to the Thirties, Syria,
Jordan, Lebanon and Israel to the Forties. The only difference is that
Israel has made a go of it.

Would I rather there were more countries like Israel, or more like Syria?
Israel is the only liberal democracy in the Middle East (Iraq may yet
prove a second), and its Arab citizens enjoy more rights than they would
living under any of the kleptocrat kings and psychotic dictators who
otherwise infest the region.

On a tiny strip of land narrower at its narrowest point than many American
townships, Israel has built a modern economy with a GDP per capita just
shy of $30,000 . and within striking distance of the European Union
average. If you object that that's because it's uniquely blessed by Uncle
Sam, well, for the past 30 years the second-largest recipient of U.S. aid
has been Egypt: their GDP per capita is $5,000, and America has nothing to
show for its investment other than one-time pilot Mohamed Atta coming at
you through the office window.

Jewish success against the odds is nothing new. "Aaron Lazarus the Jew,"
wrote Anthony Hope in his all but unknown prequel to "The Prisoner Of
Zenda," "had made a great business of it, and had spent his savings in
buying up the better part of the street; but" . and for Jews there's
always a "but" . "since Jews then might hold no property . ."

Ah, right. Like the Jewish merchants in old Europe, who were tolerated as
leaseholders but could never be full property owners, the Israelis are
regarded as operating a uniquely conditional sovereignty. Jimmy Carter,
just returned from his squalid suck-up junket to Hamas, is merely the
latest Western sophisticate to pronounce triumphantly that he has secured
the usual (off-the-record, highly qualified, never to be translated into
Arabic and instantly denied) commitment from the Jews' enemies,
acknowledging Israel's "right to exist." Well, whoop-de-doo. Would you
enter negotiations on such a basis?

Since Israel marked its half-century, the "right to exist" is now
routinely denied not just in Gaza and Ramallah and the region's
presidential palaces but on every European and Canadian college campus.
During the Lebanese incursion of 2006, Matthew Parris wrote in The Times
of London: "The past 40 years have been a catastrophe, gradual and
incremental, for world Jewry. Seldom in history have the name and
reputation of a human grouping lost so vast a store of support and
sympathy so fast. My opinion . held not passionately but with little
personal doubt . is that there is no point in arguing about whether the
state of Israel should have been established where and when it was" .
which lets you know how he would argue it if he minded to.

Richard Cohen in The Washington Post was more straightforward: "Israel
itself is a mistake. It is an honest mistake, a well-intentioned mistake,
a mistake for which no one is culpable, but the idea of creating a nation
of European Jews in an area of Arab Muslims (and some Christians) has
produced a century of warfare and terrorism of the sort we are seeing now.
Israel fights Hezbollah in the north and Hamas in the south, but its most
formidable enemy is history itself."

Cohen and Parris, two famously moderate voices in the leading newspapers
of two of the least anti-Israeli capital cities in the West, have
nevertheless internalized the same logic as Ahmadinejad: Israel should not
be where it is. Whether it's a "stain of shame" or just a "mistake" is the
merest detail.

Aaron Lazarus and every other "European Jew" of his time would have had a
mirthless chuckle over Cohen's designation. The Jews lived in Europe for
centuries but without ever being accepted as "European." To enjoy their
belated acceptance as Europeans, they had to move to the Middle East.
Reviled on the Continent as sinister rootless cosmopolitans with no
conventional national allegiance, they built a conventional nation state,
and now they're reviled for that, too. The "oldest hatred" didn't get that
way without an ability to adapt.

The Western intellectuals who promote "Israeli Apartheid Week" at this
time each year are laying the groundwork for the next stage of Zionist
delegitimization. The talk of a "two-state solution" will fade. In the
land between the Jordan and the Mediterranean, Jews are barely a majority.
Gaza has one of the highest birth rates on the planet: The median age is
15.8 years. Its population is not just literally exploding, at Israeli
checkpoints, but also doing so in the less-incendiary but demographically
decisive sense. Arabs will soon be demanding one democratic state . Jews
and Muslims . from Jordan to the sea. And even those Western leaders who
understand that this will mean the death of Israel will find themselves so
confounded by the multicultural pieties of their own lands they'll be
unable to argue against it.
Contemporary Europeans are not exactly known for their moral courage: The
reports one hears of schools quietly dropping the Holocaust from their
classrooms because it offends their growing numbers of Muslim students
suggest that even the pretense of "evenhandedness" in the
Israeli-Palestinian "peace process" will be long gone a decade hence.

The joke, of course, is that Israel, despite its demographic challenge,
still enjoys a birth rate twice that of the European average. All the
reasons for Israel's doom apply to Europe with bells on. And, unlike much
of the rest of the West, Israel has the advantage of living on the front
line of the existential challenge. "I have a premonition that will not
leave me," wrote Eric Hoffer, America's great longshoreman philosopher,
after the 1967 war. "As it goes with Israel so will it go with all of us."

Indeed. So, happy 60th birthday. And here's to many more.

3. Thanks Israel

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=FD08C9C9-E259-444A-B663-E4F3AE5EBAF5

4. No Peace Now

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=9C34B06C-BFE3-4A83-BDD3-8F7BED747C92

5.
STATE OF THE UNION

Funding Israel's Detractors
By GERALD M. STEINBERG
FROM TODAY'S WALL STREET JOURNAL EUROPE
May 6, 2008
Jerusalem
In the 60 years of Israeli independence, relations with Europe have gone
through phases of cooperation as well as conflict. Some of the recent
friction results from hidden European Union funding for anti-Israel "civil
society organizations." While supposedly promoting peace and coexistence,
these groups often preach division and confrontation. The secrecy of the
NGO funding process also stands in sharp contrast to the EU's pious claims
of transparency and accountability. There is no central database on NGO
funding and many EU officials contacted proved unwilling or unable to
provide any information.
Among the recipients are a number of Israeli political groups that focus
on allegations of human rights abuses, such as Machsom Watch and B'tselem.
They diligently take down every Palestinian complaint at face value and
write inflammable reports castigating Israel as the aggressor. They do so
by leaving out essential context, such as the constant Palestinian terror
attacks that prompt the criticized Israeli policies, including road blocks
and incursions, in the first place.
Even more radical are Israeli Arab NGOs, such as Adalah, Mossawa, the Arab
Association for Human Rights (HRA), and HaMoked. Their titles and mission
statements use the language of human rights and peace and they receive EU
money in this guise. But actually they do the opposite. These groups
poison any reasonable dialogue by demonizing Israel, for example by
drawing parallels to the apartheid regime. Their advocacy for a single
state, where Jews would quickly become a minority, is just another way of
calling for the end of Israel as a Jewish state.
The EU was also one of the main funders of the infamous NGO Forum of the
2001 Durban conference. Designed to fight racism, it turned into one of
the most despicable displays of modern anti-Semitism. The Forum accused
Israel of ethnic cleansing and genocide, and called for "a policy of
complete and total isolation of Israel as an apartheid state" through
boycotts, divestment and sanctions. After leading the Forum, the
Palestinian NGO Network became the primary sponsor of the academic boycott
and divestment campaigns against Israel. Under the guise of promoting
peace and understanding, the EU thus indirectly funds campaigns to ban
Israeli academics from international conferences.
In justifying support for groups which oppose the EU's own policies,
officials claim that their funding is narrowly confined to specific
projects that supposedly don't contradict EU positions. But given the fact
that money is fungible, this is a rather weak excuse. Apart from funding
Israel's critics, the EU is also surreptitiously trying to manipulate the
Israeli democratic process.
The EU's Partnership for Peace program, with an annual budget of over .8
million, lists a number of mysterious recipients, such as the H.L.
Education for Peace Ltd. This organization has no Internet site, and a
check at the Israeli government registry for non-profit organizations
failed to turn up any trace of this group. Our research found that H.L.
Education for Peace was a cover for the Geneva Initiative -- a
controversial attempt to bypass the Israeli government and negotiate a
private peace agreement between former (left-wing) Israeli officials and
Fatah members.
Furtively funded by the EU, this NGO bombards Israelis with exhortations
to attend rallies and takes out expensive newspaper ads extolling the
virtues of the initiative, while attacking the government's policies. It
is hard to imagine the EU interfering in such blatant ways in the
political process of any other democratic country.
Among the numerous and highly confusing EU funding frameworks for NGOs
claiming to promote democracy and peace, the European Commission's
Directorate-General for Humanitarian Aid (DG ECHO) is both the wealthiest
and the most secretive. ECHO's 2006 budget was approximately .700 million,
of which over .80 million was allocated to the West Bank and Gaza,
including an unspecified amount for NGOs. As elsewhere, there is no public
record of which NGOs receive the funds, the projects for which they are
allocated, or the evaluation process, if any.
However, many recipients advertise the fact that they receive EU support,
thereby increasing legitimacy and visibility. In this way, we uncovered
details of funding for groups such as Medical Aid for Palestinians, which
received over .1 million in 2004-2006. Its full-page ad published in The
Times in January proclaims: "After two years of sanctions, the cutting-off
of fuel supplies, repeated military incursions and the closure of its
borders, Gaza is in the grip of a humanitarian crisis." There is no
mention of terror attacks, corruption, or Hamas.
With the Durban review conference and another round of vitriolic NGO-led
attacks against Israel scheduled for 2009, Jerusalem is watching for a
change in European policy. Canada, for example, already said that it won't
participate in Durban II because it's likely to become another
anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli hate fest. Ottawa has also barred government
funding for NGOs participating in the conference.
Both Canada and the U.S. practice full transparency by providing details
for their NGO funding. They have strict guidelines designed to prevent
grant recipients from using the money for hostile campaigning instead for
humanitarian projects. The EU could do worse than follow this example.
Mr. Steinberg is executive director of NGO Monitor and chairman of the
Political Studies Department at Bar Ilan University.
See all of today's editorials and op-eds, plus video commentary, on
Opinion Journal1.
And add your comments to the Opinion Journal forum2.
URL for this article:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121003096750769111.html

Hyperlinks in this Article:
(1) http://online.wsj.com/opinion
(2) http://forums.wsj.com/viewtopic.php? t=2416

5. Haaretz: On April 29 Haaretz ran a front page news story on the
responses of the Israeli pre-state media to the rise of Hitler in Germany.
It claims that the media saw Hitler in favourable eyes. As it turns out,
the only Israeli medium cited in the article that saw Hitler in positive
eyes in the 1930s was Haaretz itself. Haaretz' correspondent in Germany
in the early 1930s wrote a series of articles on Hitlers rise. He looks
handsome, is a bachelor, self-assured, wrote the Haaretz correspondent.
'I like him,' he added. The correspondent dismissed Hitler.s
anti-Semitism as unimportant because Germany was such a civilized country.
So the Haaretz romance with anti-Zionism and Post-Zionism is not exactly
something new for the Palestinian newspaper published in Hebrew.