26 thoughts on “שקרי שואה – Tikun Olam תיקון עולם إصلاح العالم
Comments are published at the sole discretion of the owner.

  1. As a born and raised Israeli, son to a Religious-Zionist family, going through some of the most rigorous zionist education systems, I have never more then half of the ‘lies’ Dr. Sadeh present in this his article claiming their were made up by Zionists.
    For example, I’ve never heard that the Ghetto uprising was a zionist act or that zionist movement did everything in it’s power to save the Jews of Germany. The claim ‘Israel is the only safe heaven for Jews’ is obviously political and can’t be labeled as a lie.
    Dr. Sadeh makes some claims about the current care the state of Israel gives some survivors and he might have a good point. It would be a lot more constructive if he didn’t paint those facts as ‘lies’, add them to other ‘lies’ he made up but rather make his criticism heard in a voice someone might actually listen to. He has done so in the past. I guess this article just meant to be provocative and gain traction through that, just like SodeStream did in the last Super-Bowl.

    1. @Ariel: First you argued Amalek wasn’t Palestine, now you argue against well-known claims of Zionist history. Let’s let the dominoes in your Zionist education fall:

      Warsaw Ghetto Uprising – Revolt against the Nazis led chiefly by Zionist groups in 1943, by Mordechai Anielewicz of Hashomer Hatzair. This was one of several Zionist resistance operations organized during the Holocaust…

      Your second argument doesn’t really make sense or correspond to any argument offered by Sadeh or me. He says that the Zionists warned German Jews of the Holocaust and that the Jews ignored the warnings. On that, we have only to consult Tom Segev’s book on the subject, which quotes Moshe Sharett (a kosher Zionist source, no?) saying:

      Zionists do not mean to exploit the horrible tragedy of the Jews of Europe, but they cannot refrain from emphasizing…that events have totally proven the Zionist position on the solution of the Jewish problem. Zionism predicted the Holocaust decades ago.

      As Sadeh correctly notes, Zionism didn’t predict the Holocaust. It did claim that Jewish life could never be safe or normal except in a Jewish state (which itself is debatable). But that’s different than predicting the Holocaust.

      As for the Zionist movement’s claims about rescuing the Jews of Europe: why do you think Hannah Senesh has been turned into a mythical Zionist heroine? Because she is one of the few tiny glimmers showing Zionists cared about rescuing or even helping European Jews. In truth, the interests of the Yishuv and Jewish Diaspora rescue groups were not just different, but hostile. Historical sources prove this authoritatively.

      Your Zionist education appears to have been wanting. Or weren’t you listening during the lessons?

      1. Richard – It is very impressive how you and other ‘liberals’ put words into ‘less liberal’ mouths and then charge them for it.
        @”First you argued Amalek wasn’t Palestine” – I argued A. Amalek is just another one of a gazillion Jewish subjects that were learnt for millennia and is not necessarily connected to Palestinians. B. Even when connected to Palestinians, isn’t a call for genocide just like an imam calling people ‘infidels’ or calling for ‘jihad’ isn’t a call for genocide.
        @”As Sadeh correctly notes…” – Maybe all the lies he counts were said one time or another by a zionist leader but they are defiantly not a ‘narrative’ (Great ridiculous word) that is taught and barely worth repeating again. But then, for someone bringing from the past a libel about ‘Amalek’… who and I kidding.

        P.S. No… I listened in class (for the most part), I was in school before the iPhone turned mankind into zombies forever.

      2. Sadeh said that, “JDC refused to help save Europe’s wretched Jewry”.


        Sadeh is totally wrong.

        The most comprehensive work on the subject is Friling’s two volume set, ‘Arrows in the Dark’, which was published in Hebrew in 2003 and which Sadeh should have read before putting his foot in his mouth.


        1. @ Figg: The key point he made is correct, that the Yishuv Zionist groups were opposed to spending money on rescuing Jews that would’ve gone to the Yishuv itself. The highest priority for Yishuv Zionism was the Yishuv; & nothing outside that, including saving European Jews, mattered much.

          1. @RS

            Sadeh’s key point is incorrect.

            Tuvia Friling’s book describes several rescue operations conducted by the Yishuv: including the plan for the rescue of children (end of 1942 until the end of the war); Adler-Rudel’s efforts from Sweden; the Transnistria Plan (end of 1942 until February–March 1943); the Slovakia Plan that eventually developed into the Europa Plan (end of 1942- Ocotboer 1943); the “Blood for Trucks” proposal that Joel Brand and Bandi Grosz brought from Hungary (spring 1944 – summer 1944); the clandestine collaboration with Allied intelligence services, including the Paratroopers Plan, and others.

            Most scholars, such as Yehuda Bauer, Shabtai Teveth , Shlomo Aronson and Dina Porat exonerate the Yishuv.
            Friling, however, distinguished his research from other scholars by looking for documentation in two additional sources: the archives of the British intelligence services, such as the SIS (Secret Intelligence Service), SOE (Special Operations Executive), and of the American agencies, such as the OWI (Office of War Information) or the OSS (Office of Strategic Services). These agencies kept track of the operations of the Yishuv and its emissaries and used them for their intelligence gathering, sabotage operations, etc.

            Friling also investigated the cooperation of the Jewish Agency with other Jewish organizations, such as the Joint Distribution Committee and the World Jewish Congress. He uncovered, among others, much information about the transfer by Jewish organizations of funds for rescue activity to enemy countries.

          2. I dispute your claims this passage from primary and distinguished secondary sources completely refutes them. Note, I offered a link to this to you yet you refused to consult it before posting your hasbara. Read this:

            Wasn’t the main goal of Zionism to save Jews from the Holocaust?

            “In 1938 a thirty-one nation conference was held in Evian, France, on resettlement of the victims of Nazism. The World Zionist Organization refused to participate, fearing that resettlement of Jews in other states would reduce the number available for Palestine.” John Quigley, “Palestine and Israel: A Challenge to Justice.”

            “It was summed up in the meeting [of the Jewish Agency’s Executive on June 26, 1938] that the Zionist thing to do ‘is belittle the [Evian] Conference as far as possible and to cause it to decide nothing…We are particularly worried that it would move Jewish organizations to collect large sums of money for aid to Jewish refugees, and these collections could interfere with our collection efforts’…Ben-Gurion’s statement at the same meeting: ‘No rationalization can turn the conference from a harmful to a useful one. What can and should be done is to limit the damage as far as possible.'” Israeli author Boas Evron, “Jewish State or Israeli Nation?”

            “[Ben-Gurion stated] ‘If I knew that it was possible to save all the children of Germany by transporting them to England, but only half of them by transporting them to Palestine, I would choose the second—because we face not only the reckoning of those children, but the historical reckoning of the Jewish people.’ In the wake of the Kristallnacht pogroms, Ben-Gurion commented that ‘the human conscience’ might bring various countries to open their doors to Jewish refugees from Germany. He saw this as a threat and warned: ‘Zionism is in danger.'”Israeli historian, Tom Segev, “The Seventh Million.”

            “Even David Ben-Gurion’s sympathetic biographer acknowledges that Ben-Gurion did nothing practical for rescue, devoting his energies to post-war prospects. He delegated rescue work to Yitzak Gruenbaum, who [stated]…’They will say that I am anti-Semitic, that I don’t want to save the Exile, that I don’t have a varm Yiddish hartz…Let them say what they want. I will not demand that the Jewish Agency allocate a sum of 300,000 or 100,000 pounds sterling to help European Jewry. And I think that whoever demands such things is performing an anti-Zionist act.’

            “Zionists in America…took the same position. At a May 1943 meeting of the American Emergency Committee for Zionist Affairs, Nahum Goldmann argued, ‘If a drive is opened against the White Paper (the British policy of restricting Jewish immigrants to Palestine) the mass meetings of protest against the murder of European Jewry will have to be dropped. We do not have sufficient manpower for both campaigns.'” Peter Novick, “The Holocaust in American Life.”

            “The Zionist movement…interfered with and hindered other organizations, Jewish and non-Jewish, whenever it imagined that their activity, political or humanitarian, was at variance with Zionist aims or in competition with them, even when these might be helpful to Jews, even when it was a question of life and death…Beit Zvi documents the Zionist leadership’s indifference to saving Jews from the Nazi menace except in cases in which the Jews could be brought to Palestine…[e.g.] the readiness of the dictator of the Dominican Republic, Rafael Trujillo, to absorb one hundred thousand refugees and the sabotaging of this idea—as well as others, like proposals to settle the Jews in Alaska and the Philippines—by the Zionist movement…

            “The obtuseness of the Zionist movement toward the fate of European Jewry did not prevent it, of course, from later hurling accusations against the whole world for its indifference toward the Jewish catastrophe or from pressing material, political, and moral demands on the world because of that indifference.” Israeli author Boas Evron, “Jewish State or Israeli Nation?”

            We have now heard enough on this subject & your last comment has been posted in this thread. Move on.

          3. @ Figg: Wait, you’re using CAMERA to support a claim the quotation is false? CAMERA? The king of hasbara lies?? Read my comment rules: CAMERA is not a credible source for anything, except proof that it & hasbara lies.

            And when I tell you you’ve had your last comment in a thread, do not presume that gives you license to publish another. The last means precisely that.

    1. I assure you that the fashlot of Ofer Winter which led to the deliberate murder of Hadar Goldin are not play. They attest to the IDF’s continuing dysfunction on and off the battle field. I also assure you that what happens here is not play either. If you believed it was you wouldn’t be here. You’re here for a (hasbara) purpose, and play isn’t it.

      1. The ‘fog of war’ descended on the IDF commanders that morning; insufficient information, malfunctioning equipment, garbled orders, missing personnel, adrenaline.

        Even with these recordings, I can’t say for sure what’s happened. Hopefully the CID will discover the truth, or a close approximation.

        Actually, Commander Winter comes across as calm, measured and cautious. It sounds to me like the soldiers in the field lost their heads. I could be wrong on both counts.

        1. ‘Deliberate murder’ of Goldin?

          How was Lt. Goldin murdered by the IDF? Certainly not in the tunnels. There was no live fire in the tunnels.
          Lt. Goldin was probably shot and wounded in the same firefight that claimed his comrades lives. Being dragged through the tunnels injured would only make his injuries worse. Did Goldin succumb in the tunnels, in the mosque, or somewhere else. We don’t know where, much less how.

          1. @ Figg: You come late to the discussion. I wrote many posts about Hannibal during the summer and exposed it much more thoroughly than any other reporter, including Israelis. Before commenting any further here read all those posts. I refuse to rehash old arguments.

            He was murdered by his own. My own Israeli source confirmed it.

        2. @ Figg: The fog of hasbara descended on you as you wrote this comment. Blah, blah, blah. Winter is anything but calm and measured. He’s a raving lunatic Jewish supremacist ideologue.

          As for being ‘wrong,’ yes you are.

          1. Are you saying that nothing on these tapes adds to, or subtracts from, your conclusion that Lt. Goldin was deliberately murdered? Hard to believe.

    2. @ Figg

      Mentioning the Brand-mission in this context is a chutzpah. Those who are conversant with the details know that he got more obstruction than help from the Yishuv.

  2. RS: Thank you for breaking open the true events during the Gaza Attacks and the Hannibal Directive. You were cautious but gave an excellent account of the possible IDF war crimes.

    From the Ynet linked article:

    In those critical hours – from the moment of the encounter which led to Sec.-Lt. Goldin’s capturing at 9:16am and until midday – the IDF implemented the Hannibal Directive which states that at the time of a capture of an IDF soldier the main mission becomes ending the kidnapping – even if that means injury to Israeli soldiers, including the one captured.

    The commanders in charge of the operation, who could be targeted by a military police investigation, were Lieutenant Colonel Eli Gino (commander of Givati’s reconnaissance company) and Colonel Ofer Vinter (Givati Brigade’s commander).

    The audio recordings were published with permission from the IDF censor.

  3. Another misuse of the Shoah has been the attempt to implicate the Palestinians in it through myths about the role of the Grand Mufti during the war. I have written about this elsewhere.

    If there hadn’t been a Grand Mufti the Zionists would have had to invent him. In fact they seem to have partly succeeded in doing so. Let us have a look at his case.
    The evidence that somehow he “helped participate in the holocaust” is, at best, a matter of double hearsay, the kind of thing that would be thrown out in any decent court.
    Dr. Rudolf Kasztner, a Zionist leader, allegedly testified that Dieter Wisliceny, a deputy of Eichmann, had told him that he ‘was convinced’ that the Mufti ‘had played a role in the decision to exterminate the European Jews…’ (Wikipedia)
    Now this Kasztner was, in fact, a rather controversial character who eventually got involved in a libel case in Israel concerning his wartime past and was subsequently murdered (by an Israeli Jew).

    There was, as is well known, another Zionist leader, Joel Brand, who in his – doomed – effort to save the lives of one million Hungarian Jews, was in contact with Wisliceny and Eichmann at roughly the same time and place as Kasztner. Since he, contrary to Kasztner, came out of that affair with an unsullied reputation, his testimony on the role of the Mufti, if any, might be slightly more interesting. I have, however, not been able to find anything on this.

    It has also been claimed that Wisliceny repeated, at Nuremberg, this accusation regarding the Mufti’s role in the ‘final solution’. However, the testimony he gave at Nuremberg on 3rd January 1946, as a witness for the prosecution, on what he knew of the ‘final solution’ makes no mention of the Mufti at all. Wisliceny wasn’t high up enough in the Nazi hierarchy anyway to know at first hand what went on at the Wannsee Conference (where neither he, nor, needless to say, the Mufti, were among the 15 participants – who, themselves, belonged to the second echelon of Nazi leaders).
    Yet the role of the Mufti in this all, has, mainly on the basis of this shaky 2nd or 3rd hand testimony of Kasztner, assumed mythical proportions.

    Peter Novick, whose reputation as a scholar has probably largely saved him from that easiest of accusations, to be a ‘self-hating Jew’, wrote in his path breaking study ‘The Holocaust in American life’:
    “The claims of Palestinian complicity in the murder of the European Jews were to some extent a defensive strategy, a preemptive response to the Palestinian complaint that if Israel was recompensed for the Holocaust, it was unjust that Palestinian Muslims should pick up the bill for the crimes of European Christians. The assertion that Palestinians were complicit in the Holocaust was mostly based on the case of the Mufti of Jerusalem, a pre-World War II Palestinian nationalist leader who, to escape imprisonment by the British, sought refuge during the war in Germany. The Mufti was in many ways a disreputable character, but post-war claims that he played any significant part in the Holocaust have never been sustained. This did not prevent the editors of the four-volume ‘Encyclopedia of the Holocaust” from giving him a starring role. The article on the Mufti is more than twice as long as the articles on Goebbels and Goering, longer than the articles on Himmler and Heydrich combined, longer than the article on Eichmann – of all the biographical articles, it is exceeded in length, but only slightly, by the entry for Hitler.”

    Spurred on by this I checked this Encyclopedia for a few things myself. I looked, first of all, for an entry on Hans Albin Rauter, the Austrian SS-General, who during the war years was the highest SS and police leader (like Heydrich he had the SS rank of ‘Obergruppenfuehrer’) in occupied Holland and played a crucial role in the destruction of more than one hundred thousand Dutch Jews (the Dutch executed him in 1949). To my surprise there was no entry for him at all.
    Then I checked up on Seyss-Inquart, Hitler’s deputy in Holland (executed at Nuremberg), and Anton Mussert, the leader of the Dutch Nazis (executed in Holland). These both had entries but together they only mustered about 60 % of the space allocated to the Mufti.
    It seems to me plain what has happened here. A man, who in the Nazi scheme of things, was probably no more than a pawn, has, exactly for the reasons suggested by Novick, been transformed into a main player.
What seems to be clear is that the Mufti sought to prevent the transfer to Palestine of any such Jews who the Nazis might decide to expel. He has also been accused of having played a role in the formation of regiments of Bosnian (not Palestinian!) Muslims who fought on the side of the Germans.
    All in all his role doesn’t seem to have been very much different from that of another nationalist leader who organized fighting units (in his case of his countrymen) on behalf of the Germans: Subhas Chandra Bose, president of the Indian National Congress. I think that both the Mufti and Bose acted on the same motto: the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
I cannot recall, however, that the British ever argued that Indian rights to independence should be curtailed because of Bose’s wartime role; because here is a point that holds for both Bose and the Mufti and needs to be made most explicitly: one cannot claim that the Indians, respectively the Palestinians, were implicated collectively in the wartime deeds of these leaders.

    To focus on the Mufti again: even if he committed the dire deeds he is being accused of he did not receive instructions on these points from a representative body of his countrymen. It can even be questioned to what extent he could at that stage still be regarded as a ‘national leader’ at all.
    In one of the most important pre-war decisions for instance, the acceptance, or otherwise, of the 1939 British White Paper, he found, according to Rashid Khalidi, ‘most of the rest of the Palestinian leadership’ (which was in favour of acceptance) against him. The Mufti, assisted by some ‘younger and more militant advisors’, carried the day, but in exile, says Khalidi, he ‘was increasingly out of touch with events on the ground, and his policies became more and more unrealistic in the years that followed’.

    1. The Mufti wasn’t the only one involved in the Zionist drama who acted on the principle “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”. There is a pre-war proposal by the Irgun Zvai Leumi to fight on the side of Nazi Germany. The relevant document has been published by Lenni Brenner (who, like Ariel, hails from an orthodox Jewish family but prefers to have his eyes open a bit more widely) in his ”Zionism in the Age of the Dictators” and
      “51 Documents: Zionist Collaboration With The Nazis”. One can find the document here:

      1. @Arie Brand – “There is a pre-war proposal by the Irgun…” Such double standards!!! You minimize the Mufti’s action for so many reason (some of which are valid) but hang on to a pre-war proposal.
        Unlike god who (supposedly) “מחשבה טובה מצרפה למעשה… מחשבה רעה אין הקדוש ברוך הוא מצרפה למעשה”, on this website when it comes to Israel it is the exact opposite. Any lame proposal or document that even remotely smells bad, Israel is convicted of wrongdoing. But any good action is dismissed as opportunistic, PR stunt etc’.

        1. “…remotely smells bad…” Well your olfactory nerve must be different from mine. The document shocked me at first time reading. Here it is:

          “The evacuation of the Jewish masses from Europe is a precondition for
          solving the Jewish question; but this can only be made possible and
          complete through the settlement of these masses in the home of the
          Jewish people, Palestine, and through the establishment of a Jewish
          state in its historic boundaries….

          The NMO, which is well-acquainted with the goodwill of the German Reich
          government and its authorities towards Zionist activity inside Germany
          and towards Zionist emigration plans, is of the opinion that:

          1. Common interests could exist between the establishment of a new
          order in Europe in conformity with the German concept, and the true
          national aspirations of the Jewish people as they are embodied by the

          2. Cooperation between the new Germany and a renewed folkish-national
          Hebraium would be possible and,

          3. The establishment of the historic Jewish state on a national and
          totalitarian basis, bound by a treaty with the German Reich, would be
          in the interest of a maintained and strengthened future German position
          of power in the Near East.

          Proceeding from these considerations, the NMO in Palestine, under the
          condition the above-mentioned national aspirations of the Israeli
          freedom movement are recognized on the side of the German Reich, offers
          to actively lake part in the war on Germany’s side.

          This offer by the NMO… would be connected to the military training
          and organizing of Jewish manpower in Europe, under the leadership and
          command of the NMO. These military units would take part in the fight
          to conquer Palestine, should such a front be decided upon.

          The indirect participation of the Israeli freedom movement in the New
          Order in Europe, already in the preparatory stage, would be linked with
          a positive-radical solution of the European Jewish problem in
          conformity with the above-mentioned national aspirations of the Jewish
          people. This would extraordinarily strengthen the moral basis of the
          New Order in the eyes of all humanity.”

          The Sternists declared that “The NMO is closely related to the
          totalitarian movements of Europe in its ideology and structure.”

          1. Arie – You and Richard have a special gift of focusing on whatever interest you and totally discard the rest. Taking words and actions out of their context is a great propaganda tool and when someone tried to clear those fogs s/he is blamed for being hasabaridiot who is unwilling to see the whole picture. Well, facts matter but the context is probably more important.

            The focus of the letter was NOT on helping the Germans as one would read in your comment but on bringing Jews from Europe to Israel and was written (if I understand correct) before the mass killings were known. Helping the Germans in return, is a deal. Yes, you might get up with fleas but WALLA, you saved 6,000,000 people. Let me think – 6M in return for a few 100s (the whole militant wing of Irgun was probably less than 1,000), sounds to me like a much better deal then we got for Gil’ad Shalit.

          2. @ Arie Brand
            Thank you, I’ll read it once again, little by little.
            Yes, the role of the Grand Mufti in the Holocaust is a major Hasbara point, and it’s my impression it’s growing year after year.
            I predict another major scoop; that Hitler in reality was Palestinian. He was rather dark, dark hair, and a moustache. Palestinians are big lovers of moustache. He spoke German with a weird accent. In fact, he was born in the “German Colony”, a neighbourhood in West Jerusalem neighbouring Talbiyeh and Katamon. There he went to kindergarten with the Grand Mufti, and they developed the Nazi ideology while playing in the sandbox. There is absolutely no holes in my theory ……

  4. You speak with extreme levity and ignorance about these matters. Admittedly there was then no knowledge about the ultimate toll of the holocaust. But according to Brenner the Sternists tried, as late as December 1941 (when later PM Shamir had already joined them) to send Nathan Yalin-Mor to Turkey to contact the German ambassador there with the same proposal.

    Look at this timeline what by then had already happened to the Jews in Nazi Germany and Nazi occupied Europe:


    Do you believe that these matters were totally unknown to the Sternists?

    You reckon that saving the European Jews was the main focus. For me the focus can be found somewhere else in the document where it says:

    “This offer by the NMO… would be connected to the military training
    and organizing of Jewish manpower in Europe, under the leadership and
    command of the NMO. These military units would take part in the fight
    to conquer Palestine,..”

    Conquering Palestine, where Jews were then still greatly outnumbered by Arabs, by military means was the dream.

    The Sternists were considered a fringe group then. But how much of their thought is now found back in contemporary Israel? There where they speak of “a renewed folkish-national Hebraium” – an idea in accordance with the Nazi “Blut und Boden” (blood and soil) ideology. – there where they talk about “the establishment of the historic Jewish state on a national and totalitarian basis”, there where they seem to believe that their
    “participation … in the New Order in Europe …would extraordinarily strengthen the moral basis of the New Order…” ?

    According to Brenner the Sternists declared that “The NMO is closely related to the totalitarian movements of Europe in its ideology and structure.”

    Professor Leibowitch saw the realisation of these ideas in post war Israel way back. Matters have gotten worse since then.

  5. The truth in this regard – what the Zionist movement and leadership in Palestine at the time did – is kind of middle-way. The key point is their ethos of the creation of a “new Jew”, as starkly contrasted with the doomed Galluth (diaspora) Jew, where in some tragic sense the Holocaust was a kind of justification for their stance. Numbers also matter – there were only hundreds of thousands of Jews here then, in an embryonic pre-state form that was still struggling, while the mission was seen as historic: the materialization of a one-off miraculous chance for a reunion of the Jewish people with its ancient homeland. That grand visIon and the fear that it may still slip out of hand overshadowed anything else.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Share via
Copy link