Haavara FAQs: When the Jewish refugee crisis intensified and 32 countries gathered at Evian to find a solution for them, how did the Zionist movement and American Jewry respond?

When the Jewish refugee crisis intensified and 32 countries gathered at Evian to find a solution for them, how did the Zionist movement and American Jewry respond?

When the Jewish refugee crisis worsened, 32 nations convened at Evian to seek a solution. The natural assumption might be that the Zionist leadership and American Jewry would have supported President Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) and the participating countries.

The Evidence of Opposition

However, evidence, sourced entirely from Israeli and pro-Zionist accounts, demonstrates the exact opposite. The Zionist movement and American Jewry actively opposed any large-scale Jewish resettlement unless the destination was Palestine. This is detailed in The Jewish Trail of Tears, p. 149-50, 264, 267, and 268.

Plotting for Failure and Subsequent Silence

We intend to show that the Zionist leadership, particularly Chaim Weizmann and David Ben-Gurion, hoped and plotted for Evian to fail from its inception. American Jewry, at best, passively accepted this stance. Surprisingly, American Jewry repeated this pattern five years later at the American Jewish Conference in October 1943, remaining silent again on the matter of rescuing European Jewry. The Evian Conference, therefore, served as a potent warning sign of future priorities.

Challenging the Narrative of Evian's Failure

Since the end of WWII, mainstream media and many WWII and Holocaust so-called historians have consistently framed the Evian Conference as a failure, largely blaming FDR. We contend that this is "utter nonsense" for a crucial reason: most German and Austrian Jewry (over 80% survived) had already left Europe before Hitler halted exits in late 1941. By any measure, this outcome was a significant success.

Our research indicates that this distorted framing of Evian emerged well after WWII for political motives. This interpretation views the event through the lens of the Holocaust, which began four years later. This is fundamentally flawed, as the extent of the future catastrophe was unforeseen at the time. We will address this important topic in detail at the conclusion of this section.

Citing Pro-Zionist Wikipedia

To quickly make our case, we are compelled to cite Wikipedia (by far a pro-Zionist platform) directly in the following paragraph, which shows an assessment of the memorandums submitted at the conference by the five leading American Jewish organizations plus the Jewish Agency. Honestly, Wikipedia's articulation is second to none:

According to the JTA, during the discussions, five leading Jewish organisations sent a joint memorandum discouraging mass Jewish emigration from central Europe. Reacting to the conferences' failure, the AJC declined to directly criticise American policy, while Jonah Wise blamed the British government and praised "American generosity".

Zionist leaders Chaim Weizmann and David Ben-Gurion of the Jewish Agency were both firmly opposed to Jews being allowed entry into Western countries, hoping that the pressure of hundreds of thousands of refugees having nowhere to go would force Britain to open Palestine to Jewish immigration. In a similar vein, Abba Hillel Silver of the United Jewish Appeal refused to assist the resettlement of Jews in the United States saying he saw "no particular good" in what the conference was trying to achieve. The guiding principle of Zionist leaders was to press only for immigration to Palestine.

Yoav Gelber [a notorious Nakba denier and a known big Zionist] concluded that

"if the conference were to lead to a mass emigration to places other than Palestine, the Zionist leaders were not particularly interested in its work."

Years later, while noting that American and British Jewish leaders were

"very helpful to our work behind the scenes, [but] were not notably enthusiastic about it in public",

Edward Turnour, who led the British delegation, recalled the "stubbornly unrealistic approach" of some leading Zionists who insisted on Palestine as the only option for the refugees. [Here is the saved Image grab just in case Wikipedia censorship kicks in on high gear.]

[If you are interested in reviewing or verifying Wikipedia's Zionist sources, their presentation is much damning which you can read online for free: Here is Yoav Gelber's presentation, and here is Michael Laitman's. If you have the time, we highly recommend reading what Allan Wells wrote in Tropical Zion as well. Trust us on this one; you shall thank us soon.]

Spoiler Alert: AGAIN, if you think American Jewry's response at Evian was an aberration and it was not done by design, then you are in for a big surprise. Evian was the canary in the coal mine for things to come. At the height of the calamity, American Jewry did the same thing at the American Jewish Conference (Sept. - Oct. 1943) when the last two million were still alive in the ghettos and death camps.

Citing Edwin Black

The renowned ardent Zionist, Edwin Black, wrote a very similar assessment of Zionist leaders' thought processes in the 1930s. Frankly, it can not be clearer:

During the first days after Hitler's boycott against Germany's Jews [early 1933], the Zionist movement's hierarchy in Europe and America was busy trying to plot a course of action. Their objective was not to mobilize Jewish and non-Jewish resources for the preservation of Jewish rights in Germany. Rather, they sought a means of turning the miseries of German Jewry into a new impetus for a Jewish Homeland in Palestine.

Zionist leadership had, in fact, refused to oppose the Nazi expulsion ideology from the outset. (The Transfer Agreement, p. 78-9)

[Actually, David Ben-Gurion described the process of exploiting Jewish pain and suffering while appeasing the Nazis as the LEVER, and that by itself is very telling. Allow that to sink in for a minute and think!]

Oddly, Mr. Black while discussing the Evian Conference at the end of his book, he didn't even allude to offers from Peru, Bolivia, Mexico, British Guiana, Mandano-Philippines, Rodisia, British and Portuguese African colonies, Brazil, and Dominican Republic to receive German and Austrian Jewish refugees, and portrayed Palestine as the ONLY available and viable destination, which was and still is big lie! (The Transfer Agreement, p. 377).

Based on our research, this big lie is very widely spread among Jewish historians, although it is well-known that Latin America alone saved close to 100,000 German and Austrian Jews as of 1939 (see Simone Gigliotti, p. 24-5). On top of that, the Palestinians revolted for three years in the 1930s against Jewish immigration and the British Mandate relented to their demand for full independence in the White Paper of 1939, which in practice reversed the Balfour Declaration. In a nutshell, the indigenous people and the occupying colonial power made it clear that Palestine cannot be a refuge for those who are plotting to replace Palestinians. Thus, Palestine was neither available nor viable, especially to Europe's Jews; period.

Citing David Ben-Gurion

To dig further into the Zionists' mindset just before WWII was underway, you have to contemplate Ben-Gurion's reaction when he heard that Great Britain would accept 10,000 German Jewish child refugees in late 1938 (only four months after Evian and a month after the infamous Kristallnacht pogrom). It was chilling to read Ben-Gurion's infamous antisemitic hate speech in December 1938:

"If I knew it was possible to save all [Jewish] children of Germany by their transfer to England and only half of them by transferring them to Eretz-Yisrael, I would choose the latter --because we are faced not only with the accounting of these [Jewish] children but also with the historical accounting of the Jewish People." (see Righteous Victims by Benny Morris, p. 162 and The Burning Ground by Shabtai Teveth, p. 855-56)

Ben-Gurion was so concerned that the "human conscience" might bring various countries to open their doors to those persecuted German Jews [God forbid]. He saw this as a threat and warned: Zionism is in danger. (The Seventh Million p. 28 & NY Times, July 12th, 1987)

Pay attention

A) How Ben-Gurion used the word "save" before the Final Solution was in the picture, which confirms that Zionist leaders spoke of Shoah in the past tense before it happened. In the Zionists' mind the calamity is happening, and nothing could stop it; therefore, it should be exploited.

B) Hitler's infamous hate speech at the Reichstag on Jan. 30th, 1939, almost immediately followed Ben-Gurion's speech by two months; which leads us to believe that David was speaking to Hitler because he (referring to David) refused to retract his antisemitic hate speech although he was heavily criticized for it.

C) It has been documented that Herr Ben-Gurion said something similar (if not worse) ten days later. If you are interest, here is our complete analysis about this infamous speech!

D) There is a strong evidence that Ben-Gurion's earlier counterfactual scenario happened at least once during WWII, see the case of the Bialystok Children for details. A very similar deal was negotiated with the Nazis, but they agreed to free Jewish children with one condition: the children would not go to Palestine. South Africa was suggested, and JAE objected.

E) It is well documented that Herr Ben-Gurion expressed a similar sentiment after the war ended when he heared that Britain and France might allow in Jewish children as refugees who were living in the DP Camps.

If you care, we did an exhaustive analysis of this infamous hate speech in another section. This hate speech was the canary in the coal mine.

Citing John Quigley On Evian

John Quigley (whom Wikipedia cited earlier) wrote the following jaw-dropping paragraphs. He exposed us to so many details we were ignorant of about Evian; here are the relevant portions. Honestly, we highly recommend reading the whole book; it will prove how much Zionists cared about saving Jews, and how recklessly they endangered Jews to save their skins. We have inserted our comments in brackets and italics to give an added context:

Representing Britain, Lord Winterton (Edward Tournour) noted, “It has been represented in some quarters that the whole question, at least of the Jewish refugees, could be solved if only the gates of Palestine were thrown open to Jewish immigrants without restriction of any kind.” That was an obvious reference to the Zionist view. But Lord Winterton explained that “Palestine is not a large country,” and “there are special considerations arising out of the terms of the mandate.” That was a reference to the need to protect the existing population of Palestine. Lord Winterton told the delegates that “the question of Palestine stands upon a footing of its own and cannot usefully be taken into account at the present stage in connection with the general problems that are under consideration at this meeting.”3

Weizmann’s approach was precisely the opposite of Britain’s. Addressing the Zionist-oriented World Conference for Palestine a few weeks after the Evian conference, Weizmann said that Palestine must be the destination for emigrants leaving Europe. “Our position today has become so acutely critical,” said Weizmann with reference to the Jews of Europe, “we must demand a permanent solution to our problem. That solution can be found only in Palestine the national home of a homeless people.” For Weizmann, the immigration of displaced Jews into Western countries was no solution. [similarly, around the same time, David Ben-Gurion described saving Jews outside Palestine as Witch Doctor's Medicine]

Ben-Gurion feared that resettling Jews outside Palestine would erode support for Zionism among world Jewry. In a December 17, 1938 letter to the Zionist Executive, Ben-Gurion wrote, “If Jews will have to choose between the refugees, saving Jews from concentration camps, and assisting a national museum in Palestine, mercy will have the upper hand and the whole energy of the people will be channeled into saving Jews from various countries.” In that eventuality, Ben Gurion wrote, “Zionism will be struck off the agenda.”[Note how Zionists ONLY cared about their survivor, MOST IMPORTANTLY how Jewish suffering was only the LEVER to save their skins]

In the letter, Ben-Gurion castigated Britain for seeking to deal with the issue of Jewish refugees separately from the issue of Palestine. “Britain is trying,” he wrote, “to separate the issue of the refugees from that of Palestine.” Ben-Gurion feared, “If we allow a separation between the refugee problem and the Palestine problem, we are risking the existence of Zionism.”

A leading Zionist who, after the Second World War, would chair the American Section of the Jewish Agency, Rabbi Abba Hillel Silver, was of the same mind. Shortly after the Evian conference, Rabbi Silver was approached by James McDonald, whom President Roosevelt had appointed to advise him on refugee issues. McDonald asked Rabbi Silver, who then headed the United Jewish Appeal, for help in resettling European Jews in the United States. Rabbi Silver turned him down flat. “I was shocked,” McDonald recounted, by his attitude “toward the Evian effort.” Rabbi Silver told McDonald that he saw “no particular good” in what Roosevelt was trying to do at Evian.

The Economic Bulletin Of The Anti-Nazi-League, Sept. 1934 Report

The refusal to encourage the West to take in Jews at risk in Europe continued even as wartime atrocities unfolded. At the Extraordinary Zionist Conference held at the Biltmore Hotel in New York in 1942, Nahum Goldmann expressed alarm at what the Nazi government might do to the Jews if it were to find itself on the edge of defeat. Goldmann spelled out a doomsday scenario. “Who can foretell what the Nazi regime, once brought into the position of the surrounded killer, will do in the last moment before it goes down to shame?” Like Ben Gurion in 1938, Goldmann focused exclusively on Palestine as a venue for Jews seeking to leave Europe. Historian Aaron Berman (see p. 99-102), recounting Goldmann’s Biltmore speech, commented, “Surprisingly, Goldmann didn’t propose any program to come to the immediate aid of those threatened with annihilation. Instead, he called for the establishment of a Jewish Commonwealth that could absorb two million Jewish refugees in the decade following the war.”[Therefore, although Zionists knew the calamity is near (the Holocaust started just after the Baltimore conference) and actually could happen any moment, still they didn't waver from their fixation on Palestine!]

There was logic to the Zionist Organization’s position if one accepts the premise that Jews would be safe only if they had their own state. [This was the biggest lie Zionists sold to others and to themselves: The mass majority of Jews were saved outside of Palestine even after Palestine was ethnically cleansed out of its people to make room for persecuted European Jews. Despite Zionists' assertion (that "Jews could be only saved in Palestine"), Europe's Jews STILL refused to immigrate in mass to Palestine, which mostly voted with their feet and immigrated to the Americas to live with the Gentiles, not to Palestine. More often than not, Jews only chose Palestine when no other option was available, which is a fact that still persists to this date. That is why Ben-Gurion airlifted Arab Jews after Nakba in early 1950s and 1960s to populate the emptied country] At the Biltmore Hotel conference, a coalition of Zionist groups came out publicly to declare their aim as being a “commonwealth” to encompass the territory of Palestine. This became the position of the Zionist Organization. But Palestine was clearly not large enough to handle more than a small percentage of the world’s Jews, even if they all felt the need to settle there. Even so, the Zionists could argue, a safe haven should be available for Jews.

Shukri al-Jamal's Palace in the Talibiya neighborhood in Jerusalem two days after its completion and just before Zionist Jews looted it from him and his family

At the same time, the position of the Zionist leadership opened them to the criticism that they were leaving Jews to die in Germany, for lack of an immediately available destination for their resettlement. The Zionists purported to be champions of world Jewry, yet their policy arguably left Jews in unnecessary jeopardy. To be sure, the Western governments were not anxious to take in large numbers of Jews, even as the clouds of genocide were gathering in Germany. But the Zionist movement contributed to the reluctance of the Western governments. In upholding strict immigration quotas, those governments could take comfort in the fact that their policy was approved by the Zionists. (The International Diplomacy of Israel's Founders by John Quigley, p. 50-51, 51-52 & 52-53)

[Even in the law of the jungle and in the best-case situation, Zionists' conduct could only be characterized as intentional reckless endangerment. How Jews (especially American Jews) slurp their garbage is truly mind-boggling! How Jews are not anti-Zionists hundreds of times more than Palestinians is surprising. It should be noted that when Trump was the US President, Zionist leaders replicated this dangerous pattern not only with Trump but also with other fascists and known antisemites around the world! Honestly, we wonder:

Which European antisemites Zionists didn't sleep with!

When fomenting antisemitism wasn't good for Zionism!

Thus, why change a winning formula!]

---

Hoarding Resettlement And Rescue Funds

To ensure that Palestine stayed as the ONLY haven for European Jewry, the Zionist leadership had to starve resettlement funds, and to hoard as much as possible of the rescue budget (for the most part, Zionists got their way). Any viable resettlement and rescue had the potential to render their Zionist project mute and useless. This cynical process even continued during WWII, which became evidently clear once JA's rescue budget was examined and how it was spent. For example, in preparation for the Evian Conference, a few Zionists at the Jewish Agency dared to suggest a non-Zionist solution to save German and Austrian Jewry; however, the proposal was nixed immediately by the leadership; here are the details from the Israeli historian Aviva Halamish:

The discussion reveals a clear awareness of the limited potential of Palestine as a destination for German Jews. Having admitted that Palestine was unable to solve the problem of the Third Reich’s Jews, some members of the Executive were willing to have the Jewish Agency be involved in non-Zionist solutions, and proposed to ask the conference to work out an agreement with Germany on the orderly exit of the Jews with some of their property over ten years. One third of these would emigrate to Palestine, one third to the U.S., and the rest to other countries. Most of the members, however, insisted on limiting Jewish Agency involvement to Palestine, leaving other agencies to deal with other destinations.

The discussion also exposes the concerns about the irrelevancy of Palestine as a solution to the crisis of German Jews, not only because of the political restrictions imposed by the British and the severe economic situation, but also because of the Arab Revolt, which had then reached its peak. The chairperson of the Zionist Executive, David Ben-Gurion, phrased it thus: "In the eyes of the world, the situation in Palestine seems similar to that of Spain [afflicted by civil war]. A country experiencing riots, where bombs are thrown every day, people are killed, and the unemployment and economic stagnation prevail -- a country like that is no place for solving the refugee question." Knowing that Palestine could not provide a meaningful answer to the plight of the Jews of the Reich, members of the Executive worried lest the conference might totally eliminate Palestine from the list of immigration destinations, with the result that Jewish organisations would divert the contributions for aiding their refugee brethren to other countries. (Palestine as a Destination for Jewish Immigrants By Aviva Halamish, p. 131-2 and see also Beit-Zvi who provided the JAE's leaked CCed meeting minutes -- which Aviva summarized, it is quite chilling to read, p. 155-58 and the same thing was repeated in late 1941, see p. 222)

[Aviva's earlier assessment referred to some Zionists who dared to suggest non-Zionist solutions for the refugee crisis. After reading Beit-Zvi's work (see chapters 7 & 8), we can safely assume she was referring to Arthur Ruppin who reluctantly executed Weizmann's and Ben-Gurion's evil mission at Evian (e.g. resisting any haven except for Palestine), see page 161 for the details.]

Just in case you think this was a one-off thing and it didn't reflect Zionists' policy during the pre-Nakba period, please think twice. Here again is the renowned big Zionist, Edwin Black, spelling out Zionists' policies in clear English. Please be seated first:

"All of the non-Zionist schemes for relieving the plight of German Jews required vast amounts of donations, which Jews and non-Jews alike were willing to give. But the Zionist movement saw these relief efforts as a threat because the solutions excluded Palestine. More importantly, the donations would divert funds from the Zionist movement. In other words, here was a Jewish crisis, and not only would the answer lie in lands other than Palestine, but the Zionist movement would suffer economic ruin in the process" (p. 90)

Zionist leaders behaved the same way when the Bergson Group attempted to mobilize American public opinion to fight the Nazis and to rescue Europe's Jews. Zionist leaders were worried that the Bergson Group's plans would divert donations and other resources from building their future state (Aaron Berman, p. 130-31 & 118-123). To torpedo the Group's efforts, they even weaponized antisemitism against them.

A similar response happened from Zionists when Great Britain promoted British Guiana as a haven for European Jewry; they ripped it apart because they were terrified that it would divert funds from their colonization activities in Palestine (see Politics of Rescue by Henry L. Feingold, p. 110-111).

Chaim Weizmann's Infamous Letter To Rabbi Stephen Wise In June 1938, Before The Evian Conference

Aviva Halamish's and Edwin Black's earlier assessments (on hoarding resettlement and rescue funds) are in sync 100% with a letter (written in preparation for the Evian Conference) addressed to Rabbi Stephen S. Wise of the World Jewish Congress and distributed to all Jewish Agency Executives (JAE) from Dr. Weizmann (although written by Dr. Georg Landauer the head of ZVfd).

Note how the Zionist leadership's top priorities were: A) how rescue and relief donations to refugees could impede Zionist plans, which explains why the word "rescue" had negative connotations to Zionists in the 1930s and 40s, and B) how to turn Jewish suffrage into a political and media lever to force Great Britain to open Palestine for unfettered immigration. No emphasis whatsoever on Jewish suffrage. Simply, Jewish pain was looked upon as a tool; Jewish plight was only the LEVER:

June 13, 1938

Dear Dr. Wise,

which it is proposed to be held at Evian at the beginning of July in connection with the Jewish refugee problem. Dr. Weizmann knows that you are associated with the preparations that are being made in America for this Conference, and I presume that you yourself are informed of the preparations that are going on in Gt. Russell Street [the office of the Zionist Executive in London], as well as by the Council for German Jewry. Dr. Ruppin is taking a deep interest in the forthcoming Conference and is preparing a memorandum on the role of Palestine vis-à-vis the refugee problem. I am writing this letter to you at the request of Dr. Weizmann, as we are very much concerned in case the issue is presented at the Conference in a manner that may harm the work for Palestine.

Even if the Conference will not place countries other than Palestine in the front for Jewish immigration, there will certainly be public appeals which will tend to overshadow the importance of Palestine. Since our aim is to turn the Conference into a force which would influence the Jews as well as the British Government to do something real for the Jewish people, we must do our utmost to bring Palestine to the fore and stress its importance and its capacity to absorb large numbers of Jewish refugees.

We feel all the more concern as it may bind Jewish organizations to collect large sums of money for assisting Jewish refugees, and these collections are likely to interfere with our own campaigns. It may be that the British delegation to the Conference will receive instructions not to give specific assurances as regards Palestine. Such an eventuality makes it all the more imperative for us to stress the importance of Palestine both during the period of preparation and at the Conference itself. We are convinced that Palestine offers possibilities for the immigration of tens of thousands of Jewish refugees who can be absorbed in agriculture, in new industrial enterprises, and in various public works, provided the necessary number of certificates [entry permits] will be obtained and funds are placed at our disposal. We know that you are watching the situation and would be much obliged to you if you could inform us of the attitude of our American friends towards the Conference, and whether you and any other of our friends from America will be there.

Yours sincerely,

Dr. Georg Landauer (Post Uganda: Zionism on Trial, p. 153-154)

Analysis of Wiezmann's Letter

Mr. Weizmann, Ms. Halamish, and Mr. Black could not have made it clearer: devoting much of the rescue funds outside of Palestine would render the whole Zionist project mute. Think about it: What is the need for the "Jewish state" when European Jewry could be saved somewhere in Europe, the Americas, and Australia? Beit-Zvi's analysis (see p. 154 and 161) is second to none: Zionist leaders hoped and plotted to make Evian an utter failure (note how Arthur Ruppin reluctantly executed Weizmann's and Ben-Gurion's evil mission; see also how Christopher Sykes and others framed it)! Zionist leaders were terrified that European people could become sympathetic to Jewish refugees' plight, which might force European nations to soften their hearts and open their gates to Jewish refugees. As a consequence, Zionists would be deprived of much-needed funds!

There you have it. Saving Jews in countries other than Palestine was considered a disaster to Zionism (actually, David Ben-Gurion worded it as such). As if Dr. Weizmann was trying to say: Zionists are much better off if Evian fails. Well, Ben-Gurion was known to have said something similar around the same time frame as well:

The Jews could have only one destination - Eretz Yisrael. So in June 1938, shortly before Allied representatives met in Evian, France, to seek ways of rescuing Jews, Ben-Gurion frankly voiced his concern to colleagues in the Jewish Agency Executive. He did "not know if the [ Evian] conference will open the gates of other countries [Oh, God forbid]. . . . But I am afraid [ it ] might cause tremendous harm to Eretz Yisrael and Zionism . . . . Our main task is to reduce the harm, the danger and the disaster [Spoiler Alert: Ben-Gurion was referring to harming the yishuv; he was not referring to harming diaspora Jews; that was his LEVER] . . . and the more we emphasize the terrible distress of the Jewish masses in Germany, Poland and Rumania, the more damage we shall cause ." So be silent, Ben-Gurion cautioned his comrades. . . . And in the silence . . . Evian [Conference] failed. (see NY Times -- June 12th, 1987)

[David Ben-Gurion repeated the same argument ten years later when he was so worried that Americans would soften their hearts and let in Jewish refugees in the DP camps. We guess some habits die hard. ]

To our surprise, this policy was implemented to the letter during WWII when half of the rescue fund was diverted to build the state ahead of its time. This letter reflected the Zionists' policies and mindset for decades before the Nakba! It should be noted that this fixation on Palestine persisted even during WWII and after the war was concluded in the displaced persons (D.P.) camps. In Ben-Gurion's terminology, he wanted to orchestrate a Jewish refugee crisis in a way that Zionists could exploit the crisis by turning it into the lever that would turn Palestine into a Jewish majority, thus clearly the path for the creation of the "Jewish state."

If you have the time, we urge the reader to contemplate the Jewish Agency's nine-page Memorandum submitted at the conference. Although it was written in French, it contains valuable statistics (please let us know if there is a translated version); it will prove our main point: Zionists were not interested in any solution except for Palestine as the destination for Europe's Jews! Is this the reaction of an organization that cares about Jewish lives?

We were stunned to find how Zionists in the US were weaponizing antisemitism as a tool to frustrate the reception of Jewish refugees to America by claiming that any further immigration would increase American antisemitism (Alabama Holocaust Education Center: America and the Holocaust, p. 5 )! The same argument was made once Alaska was suggested as a possible haven for persecuted European Jews! On the other hand, they argued to send Jewish refugees to Palestine only, although they knew in advance that neither the British nor Palestine was willing to take them! Palestine had more than it could support!

Spoiler Alert: Dr. Weizmann behaved in the same fashion at the height of the calamity when he met FDR in June 1943. Chaim never brought up rescue whatsoever. He was completely focused on the creation of the "Jewish state" after the war.

Rationing Food Baskets

Much to our surprise, the policy of hoarding rescue funds, as we saw earlier, was extended to a level we could not have imagined during WWII. Not only much of the rescue funds diverted to build the future "Jewish state," but Zionists also argued to disrupt the flow of food parcels entering the ghettos through the Red Cross in early 1943. Haim Greenberg, a prominent American Zionist leader and intellectual, wrote an article titled "Break the Siege" in protest against the Zionists' efforts that contributed to the starvation of Europe's Jewish population during this critical time, see Beit-Zvi, p. 282.

Additionally, Rabbi Abba Hillel Silver advocated a similar evil policy (besides refusing to bomb the death camps and the railroads leading to them) during the infamous American Jewish Conference in late 1943, see Aaron Berman, pp. 114-115. It seems the Zionists' betrayal knew no bounds. Honestly, we had to stretch our imagination! That being said, in their "defense," they have a point. Think about it: Why spend much-needed money on those who were going to die anyhow? We are certain that many Zionists to this date still would rationalize their treason!

In any case, some could be interested that Hayim Greenberg wrote another scathing article about American Jewry's deafening silence at the height of calamity. The article's title shocked us: Bankrupt! Sadly, he has been silent ever since. It seems he got smacked!

---

Was Evian A Failure?

The mainstream media and most WWII historians often judge the Evian Conference as a failure based on WWII's events, which happened several years later. Based on our research below, we found the exact opposite to be true, and such framing only evolved a decade later and way after the Holocaust was concluded! In fact, at the time, the Zionists, Non-Zionists, and the Jewish press all praised the conference after it was concluded, see Post Ugandan Zionism by Beit-Zvi, p. 161-163; pay attention to what Beit-Zvi wrote on p. 163.

To judge Evian fairly, we need to address why the Conference was convened in the first place. And based on its objectives, we should judge it. That being said, be careful not to judge events that happened before WWII from the prism of events that occured during and after the war. If you do, then you fall into the fallacy of judging the past from the present. The Zionists are infamous for exploiting this fallacy. Thus, Evian had to be judged as if the Holocaust didn't happen; the Holocaust wasn't even on the Nazis' minds until late 1941:

A) The Objectives: FDR's main goal for Evian was to increase public awareness of the refugee crisis brewing a year before WWII. Like today in the West, the public was anti-immigration, especially after the Great Depression, and increasing immigration quotas was political suicide. YES, in the late 1930s, the general public didn't approve of increasing immigration to all people, and not just to the Jews (case in point, see how the Americans kicked out over 1.5 million Mexicans, many of whom were US citizens, in the 1930s). That being said, Evian and Kristallnacht helped FDR make the case that resettlement solutions had to be found. FDR (and the British, too) must have known that Evian couldn't solve the refugee crisis. FDR's main objective was to change public opinion, which would give him the political capital to propose concrete solutions (many solutions were pursued after the conference, i.e., the Supplemental Jewish Homeland and Alaska scheme, which were all opposed by Zionist leaders).

On the other hand, the events were evolving much faster than FDR's policies were growing. For more details, please read chapters two and five in Politics of Rescue by Henry Fingold, and you shall find that our assessment is the closest to what happened. In our humble opinion, FDR was trying to do the right thing (sadly, the mainstream media and Zionists portrayed him negatively; see Beit-Zvi's fair assessment of FDR's policies for more details). Unfortunately, the American Jewish community behaved passively in the best of scenarios, which rarely gave FDR a hand. During the war, American Jewry's main focus was on creating the "Jewish state," and rescuing Europe's Jews took a back seat at best. To put it bluntly, any rescue scheme EXCEPT for Palestine was fought tooth and nail by the Zionists, and American Jewry mostly consented. As we have proven here, the Zionist leadership in practice made sure that Europe's Jews were left with two options: either they made Aliyah to Palestine to join the yishuv or go to Auschwitz, and lobbied like hell against any third alternative. Oddly, this cynical policy continued after WWII ended in the DP camps. For completeness, we urge you to read our American Jewish Conference section for more details.

B) Evian Was Praised: When Jewish responses to the conference were examined, we were shocked that many Zionists and non-Zionists were satisfied (see Post Ugandan Zionism by Beit-Zvi, p. 161-163). Even the Jewish press was encouraged by the conference's resolutions. We shall prove soon that their optimism was factually based when we examine the number of pledges from the US, GB, Brazil, the Dominican Republic, Mexico, and many others in Latin and South America.

This fact alone confirms our earlier assessment: Evian aimed to kick the ball, so to speak, to make the public opinion more receptive to receiving refugees. Meaning Evian was only the first step in a multi-stage process that was projected to last five years, see The Intergovernmental Committee. This fact alone proves that Evian was framed as a failure way after the fact by the so-called WWII historians.

Also, keep in mind that it was Zionist leaders who were hoping and plotting to make Evian a failure, as we pointed out earlier. We were shocked to discover that it was the Nazis (along with the Zionist leadership) who were first to recognize Evian as a failure because they were looking for an immediate solution. When that didn't happen, that was one of the main contributing factors that drove the Nazis to formulate the Final Solution four years later. In other words, Evian drove the Nazis to conclude no one cared, which was the prelude to the Kristallnacht pogrom in November 1938. To get a clearer picture, we urge you to contemplate how Beit-Zvi had framed the events and how historians fell into the Zionists' narrative way after the fact by judging the past from the present, which is the fallacy historians are taught not to ignore:

The Zionists, who did not share in the general sentiments, were also not interested in the attainment of the goal the conference had set itself The overwhelming majority of them, with the exception of the leaders at the very top of the movement, hoped for a side-effect--pressure on Britain--which would promote the cause of Zionism and direct to Palestine a flow of refugees which, because of the conditions prevailing in the country, could not possibly assume the dimensions enabling a solution of the problem. Their bitter complaints well reflected their sincere disappointment at an unrealized hope. But their laments concerning the "insult" and the "pain" they felt because the nations of the world were not allowing the Jews into their countries, were remote from truth and from sincerity. It is not difficult to imagine their reaction had those reserved speeches concluded with a call to Britain to open the gates of aliyah to Palestine. In that event the speakers and their governments would have been instantly transformed from indifferent evil-doers into the righteous of the earth.

To adduce the Zionist complaints as the reaction of the Jewish people to the Evian Conference is of course, a complete distortion which perverts reality and rules out any possibility of genuine historical study. As we remarked above, this distortion was abetted in no small measure by the calamitous chain of events which brought about the destruction of German Jewry and which thereby constituted psychological "proof-- a view of the past refracted through the prism of the present. It is a view which is willingly accepted by the preachers of the "all the world is against us" school of thought. Its root source lies in the territorialist fears of post-Ugandan Zionism. (Post Ugandan Zionism, p. 163)

C) Schacht & Rublee Plans: Soon after the Kristallnacht pogrom, a few months after the Conference, the Schacht & Rublee Plans were ironed out in early 1939. Sadly, it didn't materialize, and the window of opportunity wasn't exploited. In fact, the Zionists were against this plan too; see From Boycott To Annihilation, p. 144, and Beit-Zvi, p. 182-96. The international reaction to the 1938 pogrom was so severe that it forced Hitler to present a viable offer that was much more favorable than Haavara (see Beit-Zvi, p. 180-96)! Strangely, the vast majority of American Jewry (Zionists, non-Zionists, and anti-boycott Jews alike) were against it; all dropped the ball. Be free to examine our detailed research on this little-known subject that could have changed history. Sometimes, the truth is much stranger than fiction!

In this regard, it should be emphasized that until August of 1940, Hitler contemplated relocating German Jews to Madagascar. Of course, the simpleton will say: Well, that was before the Holocaust. True, but as we have shown earlier, Zionist leaders NEVER WAVERED from their insane policy, which persisted at the height of the calamity and even after WWII was concluded in the DP camps!

D) Many Countries Were Willing To Take Jewish Refugees: We found many countries that were willing to accept Jewish refugees as long as they were self-supporting, which was very similar to Palestine's Capitalist visa program during the pre-Nakba period. Therefore, it was not just the Dominican Republic that offered to take in Jewish refugees, but also British Guiana, the Mandano-Philippines, Brazil, Rhodesia, British & Portuguese African colonies, former African German colonies, Bolivia, and Peru. Actually, during the conference, Brazil offered to take in 40,000 German and Austrian Jews per year. On top of that, we were shocked to discover that in the critical years between 1938 and 1942, tens of thousands of Europe's penniless Jews (especially from Germany) already found refuge in Mexico, Latin America, and South America. For instance, Bolivia alone accepted 20,000 refugees between 1938 and 1941; Mexico accepted something similar (NPR wrote an excellent article about this in 2015). In fact, Mexico's president, Claudia Sheinbaum, escaped to Mexico from Bulgaria in the early 1942 and 44 and used the US for transit!

Thus, those German and Austrian Jews who were saved in these areas numbered between 9 and 10 times as many as those who made it to Palestine, and the Haavara Agreement played no role in saving them. What was tragic was that when the State Department attempted to find a haven for Europe's Jews in the December 1940s, Rabbi Stephen Wise and Nahum Goldman used their same old tactic (weaponizing antisemitism) to discourage the resettlement of Jews in Latin America and told the state department employees that their activities: "might energize the anti-Semitic feelings" (as if Palestinians were so welcoming of more Jewish immigrants, see Politics of Rescue, p. 101). Just imagine this counterfactual scenario: what if Zionists managed to close Latin and South America to Jewish immigration during those critical years, then the Holocaust would have been much worse! Anyhow, if you are interested in the boring details, we urge you to read Beit-Zvi's account (see p. 223-40) on how the scheme to save Jews in the Dominican Republic (who asked for little financial support in return) was torpedoed via a sham of a so-called study by the Brookings Institution.

We believe it is worthwhile contemplating what Mr. Zvi wrote on page 236. Mr. Zvi made a compelling argument: if the stream of Jewish refugees was arriving in Portugal and Spain during WWII, why were they not directed to the Dominican Republic, especially when the Republic was eager to take them? Since the refugees could not leave fast enough, that impacted how many refugees those two countries would let in. Mr. Zvi indicated that the Jewish Agency functionaries discouraged and obstructed such a route. He didn't let the Joint get off the hook either; it seems all dropped the ball intentionally or unintentionally. It is strongly suspected that the same evil method was also replicated in Turkey. This means that if the Jewish refugees were not heading to Palestine for one reason or another, the Jewish Agency stifled any efforts to find a haven for them. Honestly, it was chilling to read his assessment; this argument has very serious consequences. Mr. Zvi is making the point that many Jews would have been saved if the refugees had been shipped out fast enough.

To further prove our point, notice how Latin America alone absorbed close to 100,000 German Jews as of 1939, despite the restrictions and obstacles, which was slightly more than what the US had taken in the 1930s (Simone Gigliotti, p. 24-5). If we discover soon that Zionists played a big part in scuttling these schemes, would you be surprised? If they did it at the height of the calamity (even to Alaska and in the DP camps after WWII ended), why would you be surprised? If the subject of the Dominican Republic colony of Sosua interests you, we found this news clip after the war in May 1946, which you might find helpful. Also, Tropical Zion by Allen Wells seems to be a well-written book (Google lets you preview many pages for free) about Sosua; on Amazon.com, it has a lot of great reviews from Jews who knew the author. Based on our little research, we found that many of those German Jews immigrated to the US, but it seems a few decided to stay. Here is Sosua's community official website; you may find it helpful.

In a nutshell, many countries felt it was unfair for them to take in German Jews, especially when the Nazis just completely dispossessed them, which was understandable (please note that the Nazis offered to drop much of the flight tax in early 1939, as we've outlined earlier). From these countries' point of view, this was like giving the Nazi war machine a helping hand, which is, of course, understandable (for more detail, see Politics of Rescue, chapter two, especially p. 31 - 34, and p. 39; see also Beit-Zvi on p. 182). Therefore, the policy of not taking in Jews wasn't PURELY based on antisemitism (as the mainstream media and Jewish historians portray it to be), which sadly enforces the Zionist narrative! During the 1930s and 40s, the majority of countries hadn't recovered yet from the great depression, and simply, they were against mass migration unless it was self-sustaining. In other words, it was precisely like nowadays in the West; they had it with migrants and refugees irrespective of their color and religion (you might find it helpful to see how Beit-Zvi framed it; his analysis came to our attention way after we published our work, and both are in sync). At length, we have addressed this subject in depth in another section.

E) Beit-Zvi made a very compelling argument. If we judge Evian using the prism of events as of July 1938 (meaning Evian should be considered as if WWII and the Holocaust didn't happen), then, actually, Evian looked quite promising, which explains why many Jews (Zionists and non-Zionists alike) welcomed it. The proposals at hand from the 32 countries were enough to find a home for the mass majority of German and Austrian Jewry within four to five years. Sadly, Hitler wanted a faster solution; the events were developing at a much faster pace than FDR could react to, and much of Europe became Nazi-occupied within two to three years of Evian:

The conference participants, whose primary concern was to evaluate its results in securing places of refuge for the emigrants, were faced with the need to find 400,000 such places within a period of three to five years-let us say, within four years on the average. The number was daunting, but the prospects for implementing the project were deemed realistic. Those at Evian were conscious of the fact that the conference was largely a preparatory stage leading to the substantive work which would be done by the permanent Intergovernmental Committee. Intensive behind-the-scenes lobbying was known to be in progress, backed by American diplomatic pressure. But even in this preliminary stage, behind the somewhat forbidding exterior of mostly non-committal speeches, as described in the previous chapter, promising initial results were achieved.

First, the United States pledged to admit annually the full joint quota of immigrants from Germany and Austria, a total of 27,370 persons, or about 109,000 in four years. Reinforcing this pledge was the fact, undoubtedly known at Evian, that the American consuls in Germany were issuing entry permits to German Jews at twice the rate of the previous year and four times that of 1936.

The Brazilian delegate at Evian, Helio Lobo, indicated in his speech that his country could accept over 40,000 emigrants a year Although he gave no explicit assurance, there was no reason to think that he had voiced this figure solely in order to impress his audience- Brazil it seemed, genuinely intended to admit refugees on a scale at least approaching this number, if not the entire figure. As we saw, this was also the understanding of Ruppin, who met with Lobo and reported to his colleagues on the Jewish Agency Executive on prospects for substantial Jewish immigration to Brazil.

The Dominican Republic indicated that it would agree to accept 100,000 refugees, and submitted an official proposal to this effect two weeks later in London. But it may be assumed, especially after the highly sympathetic speech of the country's delegate to Evian, that the conference was aware of this general intention, if not of the details. These three pledges, if carried out in full, would have provided for three-quarters of Germany's refugees within four years. To this we can add the more reserved pledges of Uruguay and Argentina, the probability that Palestine, all the difficulties notwithstanding, could absorb a few tens of thousands, and the promises of the Western European countries to go on giving the refugees temporary refuge until they could find permanent homes. Taking into account that all this was meant to be only the commencement of the operation, we must conclude that the satisfaction and optimism expressed by everyone interested in the success of the conference were grounded in reality-the reality of July 1938.

The turbulent events of the months and years that followed showed that some of the assessments had been mistaken, and that some of the expectations were not realized. But a close analysis will demonstrate that the success of Evian was not of an ephemeral character. The outcome of the effort made by 32 countries that convened in order to help the Jews held out rescue possibilities on a large scale, and perhaps also the possibility of averting disaster on a vast scale. But all this was dependent on the non-interference of organizations whose affiliation could have been expected to make them the most interested of all in rescue. (Post-Ugandan Zionism, p. 170)

---

Conclusion

Here is the unvarnished truth: Evian was framed as a failure way after the fact, and it was part of the conspiracy of shifting the blame from Zionists' policy onto others such as FDR, Churchill, and, of course, Zionists' most favorite alibi, Mufti Haj Amin. Instead of praising FDR for bending backward to save the Jews (when many of Zionists did the exact opposite; see also FDR's War Refugee Board that saved 200,000 Jews); Zionists weaponized their hegemony over the mainstream media to pin the blame on FDR (who was known to advocate non-Zionist solutions to the Jewish refugee crisis) and others, which is a complete distortion of the events. To further prove our point, we ask you to contemplate reading how Zionists responded to the Bergson Group's attempts to save European Jewry at the height of the calamity; you might lose your marbles. For added context, we urge you to read Beit-Zvi's assessment, which reached a similar conclusion; see Post-Ugandan Zionism, p. 171-78 for more details.

---

What if the Evian Conference was a resounding success?
What would have been the impact of saving European Jewry on Zionism?

Imagine a successful outcome to the Evian Conference. What would have been the consequence of saving European Jewry on the Zionist project?

Consider this "what-if" scenario: What if Jewish leaders and the international community had signaled, through immediate action, that they cared soon after the Evian Conference? What if they hadn't wasted over a year dithering? What if they had fully utilized the Schacht & Rublee plan? What if they had swiftly responded to Hitler's "generous" concessions (offered after the 1938 Kristallnacht pogrom, as outlined earlier)? What if American Jewry had not misinterpreted Hitler's concessions as weakness?

We hold zero doubt that the Holocaust would have been avoided, or at least significantly milder than what tragically occurred. Hjalmar Schacht (the head of the Reichsbank who engineered the rescue plan ten months before WWII) is known to have reached a similar conclusion at the Nuremberg trials (Post-Ugandan Zionism by Beit-Zvi, p. 202).

As previously outlined, the last thing Hitler desired was genocide; most Holocaust historians agree that, evil as he was, this is the truth. This fact explains why the Final Solution only evolved late in the game, by mid-1942. However, we must also acknowledge that in this alternate reality, nations like Poland, Hungary, Bulgaria, Italy, Czechoslovakia, and Romania would have immediately demanded similar deals to rid themselves of an additional four to five million Jews. In fact, Zionist leaders (many of whom subscribed to the Catastrophic Zionism Doctrine) actually anticipated the catastrophe to strike Poland first, given its much larger Jewish population than Germany's.

Assuming the primary drivers for the Holocaust were removed by early 1942, and alternative havens were available for Jews to solve the "Jewish problem," a crucial implication arises: saving European Jewry would have essentially transferred the catastrophe (Nakba in Arabic) from Europe's Jews to Zionism. Hell YES.

Lest you dismiss this interpretation as a simple anti-Zionist Palestinian rant, please reconsider. While we hesitate to continually cite David Ben-Gurion on this matter, this is precisely how David articulated the situation just before the Evian Conference was convened:

The Jews could have only one destination - Eretz Yisrael. So in June 1938, shortly before Allied representatives met in Evian, France, to seek ways of rescuing Jews, Ben-Gurion frankly voiced his concern to colleagues in the Jewish Agency Executive. He did "not know if the [Evian] conference will open the gates of other countries [Oh, God forbid]. . . . But I am afraid [ it ] might cause tremendous harm to Eretz Yisrael and Zionism . . . . Our main task is to reduce the harm, the danger and the disaster [Ben-Gurion was referring to harming the yishuv; he was not referring to harming diaspora Jews; the was his LEVER] . . . and the more we emphasize the terrible distress of the Jewish masses in Germany, Poland and Rumania, the more damage we shall cause ." So be silent, Ben-Gurion cautioned his comrades. . . . And in the silence . . . Evian [Conference] failed. (see NY Times -- June 12th, 1987)

[David Ben-Gurion repeated the same argument ten years later when he was so worried that Americans would soften their hearts and let in Jewish refugees in the DP camps. We guess some habits die hard. ]

Let us be honest, Herr Ben-Gurion was accurate: saving European Jewry as FDR designed it before WWII would have been a disaster to his Zionist program; the math proves it. Therefore, Zionism would be much better of Evian failed. This pressure cooker of a scenario was precisely the moment Zionists were patiently waiting to exploit for four decades! This pressure cooker was the energy source which David Ben-Gurion often referred to as the LEVER that would create his state (Hannah Arendt compared this process to the steam power that moves a locomotive)! Wasn't that exactly the manufactured Jewish refugee crisis Zionists plotted and hoped for at Evian? Wasn't that exactly how Theodor Herzl envisioned the "Jewish state" would have been created four decades earlier?

Just in case you think these evil thoughts were isolated to a few Zionist leaders, we ask you to contemplate again how Chaim Weizmann framed the catastrophe for Zionism around the same period too just before the conference was held. Actually, Chaim's top concern was how to starve and hoard rescue funds since those were harmful to their project. If you read Chaim's letter (which was leaked via a carbon copy), well, you might lose your mind. Levi Eshkol and Moshe Sharitt were known to have said something similar around the same time window as well. For you are curious and you have the time, here are the meeting minutes of the Jewish Agency Executive (a.k.a. JAE) soon after the Kristallnacht pogrom of Nov. 1938, and here is how Ben-Gurion responded when he heard that British people rescued 10,000 German Jewish children a month after the infamous pogrom.

Here is the unvarnished truth: Hitler’s obsession with antisemitism was no aberration; much of European "civilization" was based on such ideologies and beliefs: Jim Crow, apartheid, genocides, colonization, land theft, ethnic cleansing, concentration camps, reservations, national socialism, Zionism, national socialism, fascism,..etc. didn't evolve out of the blue. In other words, what Hitler did in Europe was only a small dose of what Europeans did in the global south for centuries. Let us be honest: only a few European nations wanted their Jewish citizens to remain, and none of those were in Central and Eastern Europe (examine Winston Churchill's antisemitism on full display as late as July 1937). Now, do you understand why all Europeans eagerly voted for partitioning Palestine in 1947? Why wouldn't they when many of them handed their Jewish citizens to the SS just a few years earlier? What is better than dumping their "Jewish problem" onto Palestine, thus, out of sight out of mind. What is the big deal if Palestinians paid for Europeans' antisemitism with their hopes and dreams? Many indigenous peoples were genocided, and Palestinians fared much better; right? Well, that is what Nakba was to Palestinians.

For those reasons, Zionists of all shades lobbied like against any haven for Jews except for Palestine. Saving Jews outside of Palestine rendered their evil project mute; that is why the catastrophe had to happen to enable Zionism! Think about it: why a "Jewish state" is needed when Jews could have been saved somewhere else? When was antisemitism not good for Zionism? Never!

Some may think that was an afterthought, that wasn't done with bad intentions, and stuff just happened as such. Well, hang on to your seat. Soon after WWII was underway, Zionist leaders of all shades knew well that they cannot fight Hitler and the British White Paper of 1939 at the same time, and one of them had to give. That is why fighting Nazis was avoided to the bitter end; that was left for the Gentiles. Note how Zionist knew well that fighting Hitler was also correlated with rescuing Jews to places other than Palestine. Thus, such rescue schemes must be hindered as much as possible and their funds diverted to the Zionist projects in Palestine. In a nutshell, that precisely Jewish plight was monetized politically and financially. For the love of God, the word "rescue" to Zionist leaders during the pre-Nakba period had negative connotations; poor Ben-Gurion's stomach used to turn when he used such a word! Much to our surprise, much of American Jewry voted in favor of such an agenda at the height of the calamity, and only a vocal minority of them dissented! We are aware that the facts are too much to fathom; but trust us on this one: once you read the details from Israeli and Zionist sources, you may lose trust in humanity.

Ironically, Jews and those who ganged upon them are on "good" terms, and bygones became bygones soon after the Holocaust, although the graves were still fresh! You would think Jews, among all people, have six million reasons not be in the same bed with fascists so quickly! If you believe that Germany was quickly denazified after WWII ended, then you need to get your head examined! Much of Nazism was only rebranded in the name of defeating communism! Fascism didn't appear lately all of a sudden; it has been always simmering under the surface since WWII ended, and its ambers (e.g., copycat version of Father Charles Coughlin) have been flaring up all over the "liberal" West. What happened by the Germans could easily have been done by any European nation plus America (see Rachel Meadow's Ultra series if you care). Just imagine several versions of mini-Hitler but with a hundred nuclear warheads! Well, that is a reality; say hello to Bibi! Fasten your seat belts; the future is not going to be pretty, and the system we have is way more fragile than most people think!

The Critical Questions To Ask

We are obliged to ask: how is honing in on Palestine as the ONLY destination for European Jewry:

 Didn't communicate to Hitler that no one cared about what would happen to Europe's Jews! Even nationalist Jews (a.k.a. Zionists) didn't care!

 Didn't make the "final solution" inevitable and the ONLY solution!

 Didn't push Hitler over the edge! After all, no one cared; therefore, why would anyone care if Europe's Jews disappeared all of a sudden? Ironically, during the war, that was so true, which was apparent when you inspect how the American and Zionist press downplayed the calamity during this period! (Abraham Burg, p. 74). Or that was done on purpose to keep the so-called Yishuvs out of the war to save them from the upcoming battles with their real enemy: The Evil Arabs. Well, here are the boring details if you are interested!

 What is maddening is that when American Jews attempted to investigate these events, their investigation was nixed and defunded midstream (NYTimes, Jan. 4, 1983). This implies that the Jewish communities around the world know the truth, and on purpose, it is being smothered. To do that effectively, they have made Palestinians their alibi to deflect from the Zionists' treasons.

Finally, we would like to share this finding we stumbled upon by accident. As we were researching the NY Times about the Evian Conference, we were stunned to read the ending of this article that Edwin L. James wrote on July 10^th, 1938, that summarized much of the Palestinian struggle for the past century:

Although the Arabs are fighting the British rather than the Jews, that is simply because the British exercise authority in Palestine. The real Arab resentment is against the Zionist State. Which the industry of the Jews has been building well. In the increased of Jews moving to Palestine. The Arabs see further danger to their aspiration to have Palestine for their own. Whether or not they are being stirred up by Italian or other influence, the fact that not only the Arabs in Palestine itself are making trouble, but Arabs from Trans-Jordan and Syria are trying to get into Palestine with obviously hostile intention. indicates a general movement with general direction. There is small doubt that the British will put down the present uprisings. But the serious question arises as to what will be the situation after that has been done. The chances are that the friction between the Arabs and Jews will not end there. (NY Times, July 10^th, 1938, in PDF)

[Now imagine if Mr. James (the one who wrote this article 85 years ago) wrote this article today in the NY Times, do you have any doubts that he will be publicly canceled (maybe fired too) for being "antisemitic"?]

Sadly, 85 years after Evian, we still hear the mass majority of Jews, reminding us how Palestinians don't exist. When they "do exist," Palestinians must be anti-Semitic since they are anti-Zionists! To rub salt into the wound, they made Palestinians collectively liable for Mufti's actions during WWII. They expected them to be the first in human history who should love (rather than hate) those who dispossessed them and threw them out! Of course, Nakba "never" happened, and Palestinians abandoned their homes willingly during the war of Nakba. Palestine (the most critical land bridge) was empty and was romantically waiting for 2000 years for Zionist Jews to populate and bloom its Negev desert. Only in the Zionists' minds could such a twisted sense of reality be tolerated! Don't even dare to expose the Zionists' contradiction! They will skin you!