Haavara FAQs: When the Zionists negotiated and implemented the Haavara Agreement with Hitler for nine straight years, were their actions driven by an urgent desire to "save" German Jewry, or were other factors at play?

When the Zionists negotiated and implemented the Haavara Agreement with Hitler for nine straight years,
Were their actions driven by an urgent desire to "save" German Jewry, or were other factors at play? 

Let's challenge the common narrative by engaging in a "mental gymnastic game" that involves several questionable assumptions:

Judging the Past by the Present: We "assume" we can judge the past from the present and accept that the Haavara Agreement was signed with Hitler nine years before the Holocaust simply to save lives.

Using Loaded Language: We use loaded words like "save" or "rescue" to describe events that occurred nine years before the calamity happened.

Ignoring Historical Context: We pretend Hitler wasn't willing to ship German Jewry anywhere, even on luxury ships, until late 1941.

Assigning Foresight: We judge the Zionists' non-stop dealings with the Nazis as if they foresaw the Shoah and were simply making the "best out of a hostage situation."

The Jewish Agency's Bankruptcy: We pretend that the Jewish Agency and its Zionist enterprises (such as JNF and Keren Hayesod) were not on the verge of bankruptcy due to the Great Depression, and signing the Haavara Agreement on August 25th, 1933, was not done to bail it out from imminent financial collapse.

---

If we accept the premise that David Ben-Gurion & Co. were so concerned with saving Jewish lives, how do we explain the following:

Immigration Priorities: They allocated UNDER 16% of the immigration quotas (Labor Certificate visa program) to poor German Jews (who could not qualify as Capitalists with P£1,000) and prioritized other Eastern European Jews over them. Here is the data and the calculation methodology, all sourced from the British Mandate's primary sources. We shall prove soon that the 16% statistic was inflated by 200% if not more, and a more appropriate number is 8% or less. Stay tuned.

It is crucial to remember that these Labor Certificate immigration visas were granted to the Zionists by the occupying colonial power (England), and the Palestinian people never approved of them. Like all native peoples, Palestinians feared imminent danger from a settler-colonial movement that threatened to result in their replacement and dispossession.

---

The Zionist leadership, through the Jewish Agency, rejected two-thirds of the poor German Jews who requested immigration permits between the critical years of 1933 and 1935, the period of the bulk of Jewish immigration, see Abraham Margaliot, pp. 559-660, and 561-562. This shocking discovery reveals a stringent selection process, which we shall address shortly.

Israeli Holocaust historian Aviva Halamish further found that the Zionist leadership rationed the rescue of German Jewry, prioritizing Eastern European Jewry, despite two key factors:

A) The British Mandate made it four times easier for German Jews to immigrate.

B) The British Mandate demanded that 10% of all Labor Certificate visas be allotted to German Jews (Jewish Agency's 1933 Memorandum for the League of Nations, p. 5). This demand for affirmative action was instituted before the Haavara Agreement.

The British enacted this affirmative action because they correctly anticipated that the Zionists would favor other Jews more dedicated to Zionism (halutzim) over German Jewry.

Profound Ramifications and British Role: More than 9,000 German Jews (out of 16,000 saved via Labor Certificates) were saved due to this British affirmative action, meaning they would have been saved with or without the Haavara Agreement. This drops the Zionist "saving rate" attributed to Haavara from 16% to a mediocre 8% (saving only 7,000 German Jews over seven years).

In fact, Romanian and Greek Jewish communities, which were not endangered, received comparable or more Labor Certificates than German Jewry during the same period.

Despite the British making it four times easier for poor German Jews to immigrate, the Zionist leadership, particularly under Dr. Weizmann's cruel selection criteria, was keen to tighten the selection criteria for these poor German Jews (who didn't qualify as Capitalists) compared with Eastern European Jews.

We are compelled to ask: Why did Zionist leaders reduce the immigration chances of German Jewry by two-thirds, knowing the existential danger they faced? Was this a deliberate choice by David Ben-Gurion & Co. to reward Jews who were more ideologically aligned (halutzim) with their political movement? For more details, see Palestine as a Destination for Jewish Immigrants by Aviva Halamish, pp. 126, 129, and 146.

A Striking Comparison: For perspective, consider the Kindertransport event: The British people saved 10,000 German Jewish children in under a month after the Kristallnacht pogrom of November 1938.

This simple fact is staggering: the British people saved one and a half times as many as the Zionists allegedly saved over seven years of the Haavara Agreement's life.

Ask yourself: Did the Zionist leadership ever thank the British people for this monumental rescue? We urge readers to think twice about this historical context.

---

It is tragically comical that the German Jews allegedly "saved" by Haavara would have been able to immigrate even without the agreement. As articulated by Yad Vashem's most senior historian, Yehuda Bauer, in Jews For Sale? (p. 17), wealthy Jews (with P£1,000 or more) could have easily moved to Palestine or other countries using Capitalist Certificates. Meanwhile, the British made it easier for poorer German Jews to obtain Labor Certificates, essentially providing an affirmative action advantage over other groups. See for yourself how this point is made.

Another compelling detail is that 246,000 German Jews (most of whom were penniless by then) left Germany during Haavara's seven-year lifespan (59% of them in under 10 months in 1939). Once those who went to Palestine are excluded, this number is over 14 times the number of Labor Certificate visas allotted by Zionists to German Jewish heads of households, as noted by Yehuda Bauer in Jews For Sale?, pp. 17, 35.

Given these facts, a critical question emerges: If the Zionist leadership was truly "keen" on saving German Jewry, why did they provide so few Labor Certificates to poor German Jews over an eight-year period? Was the Zionist leadership motivated by cynical intentions in limiting these Labor Certificates?

Furthermore, nearly 80% of German and Austrian Jewry were saved, and Haavara played ZERO role in their rescue. Our math, all sourced from Yad Vashem, supports this claim.

---

A closer examination of the Jewish Agency's budget during the Great Depression reveals a surprising narrative: American Jewry withdrew funding during this critical period, plunging the Jewish Agency in Palestine into an existential financial crisis in the early 1930s. For instance, three-fourths of the Agency's budget was in deficit, and the yishuv's population growth stalled or declined. This crisis threatened not only the Jewish Agency but all Zionist communal enterprises, including the Jewish National Fund (JNF), which faced imminent bankruptcy and near foreclosure by banks on its assets, such as land.

The signing of the Haavara Agreement with the Nazis in August 1933 completely reversed the Zionists' fortunes. Shamefully, many Jews today often conceal this crucial fact when the Haavara Agreement is discussed.

The undeniable truth is that without Adolf Hitler's timely bailout of Zionism, the entire Zionist movement would likely have collapsed by the mid-to-late 1930s or earlier.

Spoiler Alert: Two decades later, Zionism faced an even graver existential crisis in the early 1950s, with the specter of famine hanging over the yishuv shortly after the Nakba. Once again, were it not for "Hitler's children," the "Jewish state" would have been relegated to a minor historical footnote, leading some historians to label this period "Haavara V2.0."

In essence, the Germans saved Zionism twice between 1933 and 1952. The Haavara Agreement was ultimately signed to save Zionism, not the Jews.

---

The Zionist leadership's choice of collaboration or appeasement with the Nazis, rather than confrontation, is deeply concerning. This policy is arguably worse because it entailed prior knowledge of the impending genocide, yet the Zionists still chose to enable and appease the 'devil.' In fact, the very argument that this collaboration "saved lives" is self-incriminating, especially considering how little the Zionists did beforehand to mitigate the catastrophe they knew was coming.

It is noteworthy that Nahum Goldmann, one of the founders of the "Jewish state," reached the same conclusion --though he only documented his remorse and regrets decades after the fact. Despite isolated boycott campaigns, the majority of Jews, particularly the Zionists, adopted a policy of appeasement instead of confronting the antisemites. Based on our research, only Trotskyist Jews held clear anti-fascist policies from the outset. This, whether one likes it or not, remains the truth.

The unvarnished truth is this: The Zionist leadership foresaw the possibility of a genocide, which is why they spoke of the Holocaust in the past tense in the 1920s and 30s. The Zionists even invented a term to describe this apocalyptic vision: Catastrophic Zionism. Instead of confronting evil head-on --an evil the Zionists foresaw decades before the Final Solution-- they chose to make deals with the architects of antisemitism. Dear Jews: Please acknowledge this questionable "gift" to humanity!

---

In July 1933, a month before the Haavara Agreement, the German currency and the Nazi economy were collapsing. Surprisingly, instead of seizing this opportunity to pressure the Nazi regime, the Zionist leadership quickly convened an emergency meeting with the intent of stabilizing the Reichsmark and averting a financial disaster for both the Nazis and themselves. The ardent Zionist Edwin Black documents this extraordinary action in The Transfer Agreement, p. 253.

---

Another example of their priorities occurred in June 1939 with the MS St. Louis Ship. Were the Zionist leaders generous enough to GRANT even a single immigration certificate to any of those DAMNED passengers? The answer is a big surprise: no. Sadly, hundreds of the DAMNED passengers were forced to return to Europe, where many perished in the Holocaust four to five years later.

---

The Zionist leadership's actions following the late 1938 Kristallnacht pogrom raise serious questions about their priorities. If saving Jewish lives was paramount, one would expect them to collaborate with Great Britain to swiftly evacuate German Jewry. Instead, the Zionists not only attempted to scuttle a British proposal to expedite the departure of German Jews, but they also vehemently opposed the suggestion of former German colonies, such as Namibia, as a haven for refugees. This opposition occurred despite the country having been the site of the Herero Genocide by Germany two decades earlier, see Politics of Rescue, p. 44.

David Ben-Gurion, the founder of the "Jewish state," made a tragically criminal statement a month after the 1938 pogrom, favoring death for the 10,000 Jewish children who had been saved. Ben-Gurion never retracted his infamous antisemitic statement, nor has the Jewish leadership ever condemned this blatant antisemitism. Adding insult to injury, Ben-Gurion never thanked the British people for their quick and generous response, unlike Albert Einstein and his colleagues at Princeton University, who were quick to do so.

Ben-Gurion's pre-WWII antisemitism translated into policy during the war. The Zionists lobbied with tooth and nail to block any potential haven except for Palestine, particularly in the US (see the American Jewish Conference for details). Are these the actions of leaders concerned with the plight of European Jewry? Notably, the ten thousand children saved in one month after Kristallnacht is almost as many as those allegedly "saved" by the Haavara agreement --if any-- over seven years of normalizing trade with Hitler; more details are available here.

Consider this counterfactual: Had the situation following Kristallnacht been replicated five years later during WWII, would David Ben-Gurion & Co. have acted differently? HELL NO. In fact, the opposite happened with more severe consequences, see Dina Porat, pp. 138 - 39.  In the summer of 1943, when a proposal was made to exchange Polish Jewish children for German citizens interned by the British (mostly Templers from Sarona and Welhema near Jaffa City), the Zionist leadership vehemently protested because Palestine was not the destination. Predictably, these children were likely the 1,200 from the Bialystok ghetto immediately sent to Auschwitz. To conceal the Zionists' treason, Jewish historians and their Western allies pinned the blame on their usual scapegoat: Mufti Hajj Amin. Connecting these facts took months of work. The detailed evidence is here.

To understand the rationale behind the Zionist policy of focusing ONLY on Palestine as the Jewish haven, we must ask: wouldn't a successful rescue of Europe's Jewry and the avoidance of much of the Holocaust have rendered the Zionist project moot? This counterfactual scenario has been explored in depth in another section.

Spoiler Alert: What little we shared is an open secret in Jewish communities around the world, but it is a big taboo to discuss!

---

The Zionist leadership's actions during WWII raise serious questions about the priority they placed on rescuing European Jews. A critical analysis reveals a startling lack of financial commitment from Zionist institutions, while the remaining three million individuals were still alive in the ghettos and the death camps:

Zero Rescue Funds from Zionist Enterprises: Despite the crisis, the Jewish Agency allocated ZERO funds from its budget to rescue Jews. Furthermore, they refused to use funds from Zionist enterprises, many of which were financed by the prior decade's Haavara Agreement. Even the Jewish National Fund (JNF), which was financially bailed out by Haavara in 1933, made zero contributions from its budget. Please keep in mind that all Zionist enterprises were enriched tremendously because of the British war efforts. Actually, the yishuv's assets and profits tripled as of 1944 compared to 1940.

External Funding and Diversion: Any funds used for rescue came not from Zionist enterprises but from external sources, primarily the Joint Distribution Committee (JDC) or direct donations from diaspora Jewry.

The Incompetent Rescue Committee: The head of the so-called United Rescue Committee, Yitzhak Gruenbaum, is cited by Wikipedia for his infamous quote, and his "gang of four" remained in charge throughout the war despite their alleged incompetence. Gruenbaum's son was also a Kapo.

Adding Insult to Injury: The Diversion of Donor Funds

Much of the money donated by diaspora Jewry for rescue was diverted away to build the "Jewish state" instead of being used for its intended purpose.

Of the minimal funds that were allocated (from non-Zionist enterprise donations), only half was actually spent on rescue.

Furthermore, a big fat zero was spent on rescuing Jews to any country other than Palestine.

A Telling Comparison: Valuing Lives vs. Political Goals

The Jewish Agency's spending on rescue during the last two and a half years of the Holocaust (P£669k) is starkly contrasted by a later political expenditure:

In early 1948, the Jewish Agency committed to a $4 million-per-year, five-year commitment (a bribe) to King Abdullah of Transjordan to neutralize his opposition to the new state, see Simha Flapan, p. 138. This sum --almost a million Palestinian Pounds (P£) at the time-- was 600% of what the Agency spent on rescuing Jews during the height of the Holocaust.

These facts provide a clear, if painful, baseline for how the yishuv leadership valued Jewish lives in relation to their political goal of state-building.

---

To paint a picture of how the Zionists thought about rescuing Europe's Jewry in the 1930s and 40s, we urge you to read how David Ben-Gurion's biographer, Shabtai Teveth, described how the Zionists created a kind of newspeak language, where words such as rescue had negative connotations. This by itself sheds light on the Zionists' mindset during WWII. Hang on to your seat 

Like the concepts "disaster" and "destruction," "rescue," too, took on new meaning. In Zionist thinking, the word rescue had always carried a negative connotation, as it was taken to mean the antithesis of redemption --the code word for Zionism's ideal-- implying that there were solutions to the Jewish problem other than Palestine, or that individual distress could be alleviated while ignoring the problem of the people as a whole. Ben-Gurion considered such a rescue as something that undermined Zionism; it was the duty of every Zionist to reject this temptation at all costs. He gave the highest priority to a rescue that would function as a lever to advance the Zionist cause and as a source of strength. In November 1935 he had said,

Our movement will be doomed unless it exerts the greatest effort to salvage the absolute maximum of Jewish assets for Palestine, in the absolute minimum of time ... To the disaster of German Jewry we must offer a Zionist response, namely, we must convert the disaster into a source for the upbuilding of Palestine, we must save both the lives and the property of German Jewry for Palestine's sake. This rescue takes priority over all else. (The Burning Ground by Shabtai Teveth, p. 854)

---

 When the Jewish Agency (JA) faced the British White Paper of 1939, which severely limited Jewish immigration, we were told that JA moved heaven and earth to smuggle the Jews into Palestine through the clandestine "Aliyah Bet" program.

However, a forensic audit of the Jewish Agency’s own budgets during the most critical phase of the Holocaust (January 1943 – May 1945) reveals a devastatingly different reality. By early 1943, the scale of the Holocaust was confirmed. Yet, precisely when European Jewry was hanging by a thread, the Jewish Agency’s priorities shifted further away from immediate rescue, see the Biltmore Program.

During the first years of the war, approximately 15,000 Jews were brought to Palestine via Aliyah Bet. But in the critical last 29 months of the war, the operation was, according to historical records, "virtually paralyzed."

• 1943: Zero successful Aliyah Bet ships arrived from Europe.
• 1944: Only a single convoy operation succeeded, saving approximately 700 people (while hundreds more died when the Mefküre was sunk).
• 1945 (War’s End): No arrivals until after V-E Day.

While Aliyah Bet was failing to move people, it was succeeding in consuming funds. According to the Jewish Agency’s own records, analyzed by the Holocaust Israeli historian Dina Porat, the total expenditure on Aliyah Bet during these 29 months was P£523,500 (Palestine Pounds). For more details, see Dina Porat's book, pp. 91, 92, and Table 2 on pp. 104.

Consider the math of this allocation:

1. The Political Expense: The Agency spent P£523,500 on a political operation that managed to bring fewer than 1,000 people to Palestine, see Dina Porat, pp. 92.
2. The Humanitarian Expense: In the exact same period, the total amount JA spent on actual rescue measures in Europe (food, forged papers, hiding places, and bribes to save the remaining millions in the ghettos) was approximately P£669,500 --much of it donated by diaspora Jewry, see Dina Porat, Table 2 on pp. 104.

The Scandal: The Jewish leadership spent nearly as much on a symbolic, political operation to defy the British White Paper (saving ~700 people) as it did on the desperate attempts to keep millions of Jews alive in Hitler’s Europe. 

---

Did Kastner "Save" or Betray Jews? You Decide.

The central question surrounding Dr. Rezso Kasztner is the moral cost of his actions: Did his deception, which concealed the fate of 437,000 Hungarian Jews sent to Auschwitz in mid-1944, justify "saving" a select 1,600 "Jewish elite," including his family and Zionist associates? While the saved were undoubtedly grateful, who speaks for the dead? The analogy has been drawn to framing rape as consensual sex, a "counterfactual scenario" that, arguably, played out decades later on a grander scale.

The actions of the Zionist leadership in Palestine during the Holocaust invite similar scrutiny. They are accused of:

Foresight and Suppression: Speaking of the Holocaust in the past tense decades before it happened, yet later suppressing and downplaying news of the atrocities in Zionist and American presses during the war.

Self-Serving Agendas: Fomenting antisemitism when beneficial to their cause and diverting rescue funds to build their future state, prioritizing political power, and leveraging the pain of Jewish refugees in DP camps post-war.

Minimal Contribution: Making a "mediocre contribution" to fighting the Nazis at the war's end, leaving the main fight to the "Gentiles."

Limited Rescue: Like Kastner, the Zionists "saved" approximately 53,000 out of six million, many of whom might have been saved regardless of the Haavara agreement, a figure even senior Holocaust historian Yehuda Bauer framed critically in Jews For Sale?, pp. 17.

Both Kasztner and the Zionist leadership --two sides of the same coin-- survived the Holocaust and painted themselves as heroes. Had circumstances been different (e.g., if Erwin Rommel had reached Palestine-- which was plausible in 1941-42), both might have been branded traitors (Kapos).

The Unvarnished Truth

The case of Polish Zionist activist Chaim Rumkowski, who was killed by fellow Jews in Auschwitz after abusing the concept of "saving lives," highlights the inherent risks of such actions. Both Kasztner and the Zionist leadership are accused of using "saving lives" to deflect from potential "treason" and promote their own "heroism," which critics argue is a classic example of "Zionist Hasbara" turning genocidal.

A disturbing comparison is drawn between David Ben-Gurion's "infamous hate speech" inciting the murder of German Jewish children shortly after the Kristallnacht pogrom of 1938, and Rumkowski's "give me your children" speech in the Lodz Ghetto. The critical difference was not moral intent but simply luck, geography, timing, and how each man died. Throughout the critical years of 1942-1944, the Zionist leadership's focus was not primarily on rescuing European Jewry but on garnering political support for their state, notably at the Biltmore and American Jewish Conferences. This behavior explains why only a few of the yishuv saw little action at war's end, and defeating the Nazis was left for the Gentiles!

The Post-War Scandal: Kastner's Defense of Nazis

Adding "salt to injury," the Jewish Agency dispatched Dr. Kasztner to the Nuremberg Trials in 1947 to defend former SS officers--direct subordinates of Adolf Eichmann-- including Kurt Becher, Hermann Krumey, Hans Juttner, and Dieter Wisliceny. Apparently, this defense was not altruistic but part of a quid pro quo:

Recovering Looted Treasure: Securing the "looted Jewish treasure", a.k.a. the "Becker Deposit". This Deposit is one of the most important smoking guns concerning the quid pro quo between the Nazis and the Zionists. At length, we have addressed the Becker Deposit in another section.

Suppressing Information: Hiding Nazi-Zionist ties.

Splitting Assets: Splitting the recovered treasure with Kurt Becher, which may explain Becher's post-war wealth. Becker became one of the richest men in Germany soon after his release.

Denazify the Nazis: This arrangement with the Nazis was integral to a larger denazification strategy. Faced with an existential financial crisis in the early 1950s, Israel secured a second major bailout from Germany-- in essence, "Haavara V2.0." The steep indulgence fee paid by Germany resulted in the Nazis being "denazified" and granted a clean bill of health.

Contemplate This Counterfactual: The suggestion is that had Eichmann been captured sooner, Kastner would have logically been sent to defend him as well, all under the guise of "saving Jews' lives" and recovering "Ali Baba's stolen treasures."

The Jewish Agency's Utter Contempt For World Jewry

Contemporary Jewish outrage at the Jewish Agency's decision to send Kastner to defend Nazis confirms that this "treason" was an "open secret" within Jewish communities, exposing the Zionists' "utter contempt" for world Jewry. The massive scale of "gaslighting" surrounding these events is questioned, as is the longevity of the relationship between Zionism and world Jewry.

The Assassination and Cover-Up

The defense of Kasztner by Ben-Gurion & Co. is viewed as self-preservation. To accept treasonous charges against Kasztner (the infamous Kapo) would implicate the entire Zionist leadership, suggesting they were equally complicit. This leads to the logical assumption that Kasztner was "liquidated" to silence him, especially given that the assassin was a Shin Bet "informant" and the security service knew of the plot in advance. The ongoing refusal by the Israeli Supreme Court to open Kasztner's files (especially the Shin Bet's) due to supposed threats to "national security" is seen as a key piece of evidence. Critics question what information could be more damning than the already released Zionist archives, which have already "destroyed much of Israel's founding myths," particularly regarding Palestinian replacement and dispossession.

For those interested in the detailed accounts, works by Lenni Brenner, Faris Yahya, Ruth Landau, and Tony Greenstein (p. 200-208) are recommended. Additionally, you may also find this discussion with Google AI to be helpful.

In a nutshell, for the Zionist leadership to maximize their political leverage, they worked hand over fist to close all windows and doors in a burning house. and left one exit (Palestine) for Europe's Jews. That was their plan to defeat the White Paper of 1939. Actually, David Ben-Gurion referred to such a process as the LEVER that would create his "Jewish state". Ironically, Ben-Gurion used to compare saving the Jews outside of Palestine to taking "Witch Doctor's Medicine"! In layman's terms, those Jews who saved themselves in countries other than Palestine were doomed anyhow; therefore, that was a waste of resources and money. As will be proven shortly, Zionist leaders 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 feverishly like hell against any viable third alternative.

Sadly, this evil policy continued even after WWII ended in the DP camps. Just in case you think our characterization is over the top, wait until reading it from ChatGPT (who framed the two options as: land or coffin), or reading it from Ben-Gurion himself when the Holocaust was in its infancy:

At the Biltmore Conference in May 1942 Ben-Gurion said: “The meaning of these two ships [Patria and Struma -- both were sunk during WWII with Jewish refugees onboard] is simple: Eretz-Israel or death-- and as soon as the war ends, many ships like these will stream to Eretz Israel.” (Beit-Zvi, p. 259)

[Two important points to keep in mind:

A) When Ben-Gurion said this statement, he knew that Patria was sunk by the Haganah based on Moshe Sharett's orders in November 1940 (almost 16 months earlier). That by itself was very telling.

B) The vast majority of Europe's Jewry after WWII ended immigrated to the Americas and preferred to live with the Gentiles even after Palestine was emptied of its people.]

Ladies and Gentlemen, there you have it. What you just read was Catastrophic Zionism in its ugliest form: The Jews will survive antisemitism ONLY in Palestine. Thus, why spend precious resources on those who were doomed anyhow!

---

When the Russian Tsar started persecuting the Russian Jewish community in the early 1900s, you would think the Zionist leadership at the time was quick to approve an urgent rescue scheme. Oddly, that is exactly what happened. The early founders of the Zionist movement, Theodor Herzl, quickly lobbied the Zionist Congress, which approved his proposal by a significant margin in Basel, Switzerlan on August 26, 1903. Herzl even managed to gain British approval to colonize Uganda. That being said, the founders of the "Jewish state" (i.e., David Ben-Gurion, Chaim Weizmann, Ze'ev Jabotinsky, etc.) quickly torpedoed the Uganda Scheme after Herzl died in 1904, which had the potential of saving millions if it succeeded. Ever since the Uganda Scheme, Zionist leaders of all shades resisted any rescue scheme EXCEPT for Palestine.

Yes, ladies and gentlemen, if Herzl hadn't died early on, Israel might have been created in Uganda and not in "empty" Palestine!

---

By mid-1943, it became clear to the yishuv (especially in the Histadrut's leadership) that little was being done to rescue Europe's Jewry. Actually, the Jewish Agency Executive (JAE) said it in plain English: we are not in the business of rescue; we are in the business of building a state, implying that rescue efforts are the responsibility of other Jewish organizations! On the other hand, the same JAE insisted on hoarding as much of the rescue funds as possible to make sure the collected money would be spent only on their future state!

Thus, in practice, literally Europe's Jews were left high and dry! When the records and the budget were examined, it became crystal clear: spending any penny on rescuing the Jews outside of Palestine rendered the whole Zionist project mute! Therefore, un-saving those unfortunate Jews, in practice, was good for Zionism!

Such logic explains how and why much of the rescue budget during WWII was diverted to building the "Jewish state," wouldn't it? Inspect the case of the War Refugee Board and see for yourself how the Zionist leadership fought it tooth and nail! To Zionist leaders' chagrin, up to 200,000 Jews were actually saved! From the Zionists' point of view, the 20 million dollars (which were spent on those fortunate Jews saved by the WRB) were diverted from their pool of funds!

---

As Hitler rose to power and persecution of German Jews increased, Australia, the Soviet Union, and Japan offered to resettle German Jewry. You would the Zionists welcomed such generous proposals? On the contrary, they were vehemently against:

But the Australian, Russian, and Manchurian settlement opportunities were rejected by the Zionist Organization. Resettlement meant further dispersion and little more than another scenario for persecution, as Jews would again become guests of a host nation. A return to their own land in Palestine constituted the only end to centuries of catastrophic nomadism.

The Zionist stance made it clear: Palestine or nothing. Now or never. (The Transfer Agreement, p. 260).

---

If saving the Jews was paramount to the Zionist leadership, as we've assumed, you would not think they could lobby Nazis to make Palestine the only destination for German Jewish wealth existing in Germany? To prove how the German Jewish wealth (valued at 10-12 billion Reichsmarks) was front and center on the minds of the Zionists when Hitler rose to power, the Zionist leadership lobbied the Nazis to make sure that if German Jews wished to save their wealth, then their wealth must be invested in Zionist communal enterprises in Palestine only:

The attitude of the Histadrut officials was typical of Mapai leadership and their allies, who saw the wealth of German Jews as the most precious hostage held by the Third Reich. As part of this thinking, Georg Landauer and the ZVfD fought for German regulations that would prevent German Jews from saving their wealth by any means other than investing it in Palestine.
Landauer recommended that ZVfD certification of emigrants be contingent upon purchasing land in Palestine, extending a loan to Nir [some Zionist communal enterprise], or participating in any approved Palestinian investments. Landauer's words: "therefore I would like to suggest that Emigrant Advisory Office....receive instructions whereby emigrant applications based on contracts with Palestinian colonization companies [better known as the Jewish Colonization Trust Ltd.] receive priority status" (The Transfer Agreement by Edwin Black, p. 258-59).

A fun fact: German Jews were left with only a fraction of their assets in cash upon their arrival in Palestine after being milked by both the Nazis and the Zionists. Here are boring details. Much of their capital was locked for decades in the form of long-term bonds invested in Zionists communial enterprises like the JNF, Histadrut, and Keren Hayesod.

---

If saving the Jews was paramount to the Zionist leadership, as we've assumed, you would never think they ever objected to similar rescue schemes that saved five times as many, but within less than two years, vs. seven years for Haavara? It should be noted that between 1938 & 39, a minimum of 250,000 German and Austrian Jews emigrated, and over 90% of them left without Haavara saving them, see Jews For Sale?, p. 17, 35. Well, here are the boring details!

We wonder: who should take credit for "saving" five times as much within 18 months? Could it be Eichmann & Co., who terrorized those poor Jews into leaving before murdering them? Please watch Eichmann just for two minutes using the Zionists' argument in his defense at his trial in the early 1960s. Or, should the countries that were forced to receive those penniless refugees take the credit?

Sweet lord: why would the Zionists ever object to saving other Jews, irrespective of the location, at a time of need? For the love of God, even the father of antisemitism, Adolf Hitler, was willing to ship the Jews anywhere, at his own expense, until late 1941?

---

If a genocide was a possibility and the Zionists foresaw it a decade before it happened, then why did the Zionist and Jewish organizations insist that Jewish refugees should only be directed toward Palestine? Why did Zionists lobby against opening any other safe havens? You would think that while the Zionists were busy marketing Nazi goods all over the Middle East and North Africa, they had bothered themselves to secure some safe havens for European Jewry! Of course not.   

Is it possible that increasing Jewish suffering was used as the lever (using Ben-Gurion's sinister terminology), which could force England to open Palestine for unfettered Jewish immigration? Read the evidence from the NY Times, Jan. 4th, 1983, Palestine as a Destination for Jewish Immigrants by Aviva Halamish, p. 128-9, and The American Zionist Lobby, 1943-1945 by Aaron Berman, p. 140-41. If you have the time, please contemplate reading the Zionists' presentation to the US Committee on Foreign Affairs in early 1944 (yes, when the last million plus were still alive). You will read nothing whatsoever was said about saving Jews anywhere EXCEPT for Palestine; see for yourself how David Wyman assessed this period. Oddly, it was Professor Philip Khouri Hitti of Princeton University (YES, the Gentile Arab) who was one of a handful who dared to ask US lawmakers to open American gates to save European Jewry, that is, if they cared!

What was even more tragic was that the Zionists' agitations, in support of the creation of their "Jewish state" starting from the 2nd half of 1943, were so dangerous to the war efforts to the point that it prompted the British and the Americans to consider walking away from the Balfour Declaration. You won't believe it until you read it from the NY Times' Peter Grose wrote on this little-known subject, p. 178-9, and see how Rabbi Abba Hillel Silver treated President Truman on p. 229.

It should be noted that Palestine was enshrined in Haavara as the ONLY destination for German Jewry. As we pointed out earlier, the Zionists lobbied the Nazis to make Palestine the only destination if German Jews wished to retain much of their assets, see it in 51 Documents, p. 49, The Yishuv In The Shadow Of The Holocaust, p. 98,  The Transfer Agreement by Edwin Black, p. 258-59, and Jewish Daily Bulletin Sept 3rd, 1933.

You might ask yourself: Did this fixation on Palestine (as the ONLY destination for Jews) continue even at the height of the calamity and AFTER WWII ended in the DP camps? Here are the boring details.

Remind us, please: How many Jews were murdered due to Haavara? Excuse our typo, we meant: How many Jews were "saved" due to Haavara? Only in the Zionist mind, saving lives is equated with intentional reckless endangerment!

---

In 1943, at the peak of the Holocaust, the largest assembly of American Rabbis marched in Washington, D.C. --the only such Jewish protest in the city during WWII-- to implore President Franklin D. Roosevelt to rescue European Jewry. Surprisingly, the Zionist leadership did not join this crucial effort to save Jewish lives.

Instead of supporting the march, the Zionist leadership actively worked against it. Those geniuses weaponized Americans' fear of rising antisemitism to pressure FDR not to meet with the Rabbis, even though days earlier, the President was prepared to receive them. Adding insult to injury, the Zionist leadership attempted to appeal to FDR's racist inclinations, describing the Rabbis as "low-class" Eastern European immigrants.

Does this pattern of action explain why most Jewish religious establishments petitioned the UN against the creation of a "Jewish state" in late 1947? For those who are curious, the Orthodox community was mostly pro-Zionist until mid-1943, and ever since, they flipped on Zionism. The rift is for real, and it continues to this date. In detail, we have addressed this topic in another section.

We must ask: how many Jews were murdered because of such policies and actions during WWII? The dead cannot speak or defend themselves, so let us instead focus on those who were "allegedly saved" --a much easier count! Notice how this same tactic has been employed against Palestinians for the past eight decades. Some old habits die hard!

For those interested in the boring details (as if Wikipedia wasn't sufficient), more details from primary sources are available. We have also discussed the earlier evidence with Google's AI Gemini, and here's its analysis. But first, please hang on to your seat.

---

If saving the Jews consumed the yishuv during WWII, you would think the Zionist leadership did anything meaningful to fight the Nazi? What was tragically comical was that the Zionist leadership made sure that their boys would see tiny itsy-bitsy of action(s) at war's end, and by far ten thousand times as many Indians, Muslims and Arabs fought and died saving real lives compared with the impostering heroes of the so-called yishuv, please be free to examine our sources The Seventh Million, p. 83-4, 86-89 & 113, see also JVL.

The Zionist leadership was keen that their boys wouldn't be wasted in any meaningless side battles (like the meat grinders on the Libyan, Tunisian, & the Italian fronts) and to save them against their real enemy: Those Indigenous Arabs, see The Seventh Million, p. 113. To put things into perspective, a couple of years after WWII ended, the Zionist leadership deployed more than twenty times as much to fight their real enemy: Those "Evil Arabs" who now replaced Nazis and Fascists as the villains. On the other hand, those antisemitic Europeans (who murdered millions of Jews whose graves were still fresh) quickly got a free pass just a few years after the Shoah ended.

Don't you find it odd how every European nation eagerly voted for partitioning Palestine two years after the Holocaust ended in late 1947, and of course, bygones became bygones! Please don't take our word for it; here are the boring details from Zionist and Israeli sources. Only in the Zionist mind did the Zionist Jews become Warsaw Ghetto Uprising heroes who "defended" Jewish honor! Only in the Zionist mind can the coward easily become the hero. Ask yourself:

A) How many of the so-called Yishuv were killed while fighting Nazis, vs. th yishuv killed while fighting Arabs just 2-3 years after WWII ended! Now compare those with the Yishuv who got killed during the battle of Latrun!

B) How many of the so-called Yishuv were killed while fighting Nazis vs. those killed while fighting the Arabs (including Palestinian, Jordanian, and North African Arabs)?

C) How many of the so-called Yishuv were deployed (not just enlisted) and saw action while fighting Nazis, vs. Arabs who were deployed and saw action while fighting Nazis too?

D) How many of the so-called Yishuv were decorated while fighting Nazis, vs. Arabs who were decorated while fighting Nazis too?

Note that we have omitted South Asian Muslims and non-Zionist Jews who served honorably at most meat grinders within the Allies' armies (especially in the Soviet Army); otherwise, the comparison would not be fair at all.

---

If the Jews' lives were endangered and saving them was paramount to the Zionists, you would think they worked hand in hand with the Dominican Republic, which agreed to receive 100k German Jews, see Evian Conference for more details. On the contrary, the evidence shows that Zionists did the exact opposite by discouraging any German Jewish emigration except for Palestine! See for yourself Evian Conference's page at Wikipedia, Edwin Black's The Transfer Agreement, p. 377, and The Jewish Trail of Tears, p. 147-150. 

What was odd was how Edwin Black didn't even allude to Peru's & Dominican Republic's offers to receive German and Austrian Jewry and portrayed Palestine as the ONLY available and viable destination, see The Transfer Agreement, p. 377. This big a lie is widely spread among Jewish historians, especially the Zionist ones.

On this note, we would like to point out that often, the mainstream media paints the Evian conference as a failure. Based on our detailed research on this topic, this conclusion cannot be further from the truth. Here is a hint: The Evian Conference wasn't intended to solve the Jewish refugees crisis that evolved after the war; it was designed to change public perception to become receptive to taking in all types of refugees. Here are the boring details. Historians often make the mistake of judging Evian based on what happened during WWII, which distorts their worldview!

To prove our point, contemplate this single fact: by late 1939, Latin America alone had already absorbed close to 100,000 German Jews, and that was larger than what the US took in during the same period, see Simone Gigliotti, p. 24-5. If you are interested in the details, we urge you to examine what Beit Zvi wrote in Chapter 9, see Post Uganda: Zionism On Trial, p. 211-240; pay attention to Charles J. Rosenbloom's article at the end of p. 222.

To dig further into the Zionists' mindset at the time, we ask you again to contemplate Ben-Gurion's reaction when he heard that Great Britain would save 10,000 German Jewish children a month after the Kristallnacht pogrom of late 1938; this event was the canary in the coal mine. Just in case you are curious, here is how the Zionists responded to the Alaska scheme that aimed to resettle thousands of European Jews in Alaska during the same period. What we shared was only the tip of the iceberg; here is the complete list.

---

When the Nazis occupied half of Poland in Oct. 1939 (the other half was left to Stalin), the Jewish population under the Nazis' control increased eightfold overnight. Such a fact terrified the FDR administration since it signaled an imminent refugee crisis that dwarfed what anyone had imagined a year earlier at Evian, which prompted policymakers to come up with a much bigger solution. In late October, FDR proposed the "Supplemental Jewish Homeland" to solve the Jewish refugee crisis, which sidestepped Palestine (an idea that was started by President Hoover a few years earlier), and Zionists were up in arms against it.

You would think that at least the Zionists had contemplated FDR's proposal! On the contrary, they fought it with tooth and nail, see Politics of Rescue, p. 85-86, and more details on p. 102-109. A similar response happened when Great Britain promoted British Guiana as a haven for European Jewry; Zionists ripped it apart, who were terrified that it would divert funds away from their colonization activities in Palestine, see Politics of Rescue, p. 110-111.

When the State Department attempted to find a haven for Europe's Jews in the late 1940s, Rabbi Stephen Wise and Nahum Goldmann used their same old tactic (weaponizing antisemitism) to discourage the settlement of the Jews in Latin America, who told the state department employees that their activities: "might energize the anti-Semitic feelings". The Zionists give us the impression that the Palestinians were so welcoming of more Jewish immigrants, see Politics of Rescue, p. 101.

To further prove how Zionist leaders were cynically criminal, here's an excellent case in point. Rabbi Stephen Wise lobbied the State Department to grant entry visas to his buddies (officials in the World Jewish Congress) from Nazi-occupied territories, while at the same time he was also lobbying to further restrict immigration quotas into the US (Politics of Rescue, p. 145-146, and 131).

Remind us, please, how many Jews were murdered because of the Zionists' policies during WWII? Who speaks for the dead? The Palestinian.

---

Since the Holocaust wasn't in the picture until mid-1942, is it possible that lobbying to close all possible safe havens had pushed Hitler & Co. to explore "extreme solutions" to the "Jewish question" which they avoided for nine years? How such a policy didn't make the "final solution" inevitable!

It should be noted that, as late as August 1940, Hitler was contemplating shipping the Jews to Madagascar!

You would think the Jews were the first to investigate these fateful decisions and their ramifications? Well, actually, they did, but their investigation was nixed early on. Examine it yourself at the NY Times, Jan. 4th, 1983. Are you surprised it was nixed? God forbid, that can't be an anti-Zionist conspiracy, can it?

Now it is time to ask: what if the six million were saved, how saving Europe's Jewry could have impacted the Zionist project?

---

If the Zionist leadership's intention was all about saving Jewish lives, you would not think they argued for boycott and anti-boycott simultaneously? As Haavara was being negotiated in mid-1933, the Zionists threatened the Nazis with scuttling another similar deal (i.e., Haavara V1.0 with Sam Cohen, who was a Revisionist) if the Nazis would not go along with their scheme. God forbid, would Zionists hijack the same argument (of saving Jews) to argue for boycotting Nazi goods and against it simultaneously, depending on their interests? See it yourself in The Transfer Agreement, p. 231, and in Jews For Sale?, p. 16. 

What was tragically funny was that the Zionist leadership used this argument again to arm-twist Nazis after the German economy fully recovered in 1936, and the Nazis' Reichsbank reply was: Go ahead, as we see it, you need Haavara far more than we do! (Jews For Sale?, p. 16) By the way, if an Aryan spoke as such to Nazi officials at the time, he or she would have gotten a visit (maybe a spanking and invitation to Dachau, too) from either the SS or the Gestapo! Anyhow, the same gaslight of an argument was replicated with the Austrian antisemitic regime (pre-Anschluss), who were threatened with a boycott if they didn't comply with the Zionists' demands. However, the timing coincided with Zionists breaking up the anti-Nazi boycott, and by then their bargaining power vastly diminished! (The Yishuv In The Shadow Of The Holocaust, p. 104)

Only in the Zionists' minds, the same argument of boycott and its anti could be simultaneously articulated and justified, and in both cases, saving Jews' lives is weaponized as THE tool! How the Jews continue consume and produce their own garbage is still a mystery!

---

We hate to keep re-emphasizing Yehuda Bauer's earlier point. Mr. Bauer made a very compelling argument: many of those who immigrated to Palestine from Germany (especially those who immigrated via the Capitalist Visa program) could've easily done so via the Labor Certificate visa program, see Jews For Sale?, p. 17, 35. On top of that, even if Palestine wasn't their destination and its gates were completely shut in the 1930s-40s, those who immigrated to Palestine in the 1930s from Germany could've easily immigrated to other areas that would've welcomed them with much fewer restrictions on capital requirements.

In other words, countries didn't object to the Jews per se; so many countries welcomed them as long as they had the cash. Such immigration policy was a common practice, as they are common nowadays, especially after the Great Depression. Sadly, to this date, many Jews still conflate many nations' anti-immigration policies with antisemitism, which is completely wrong. In the case of Palestinians, they feared replacement, and they made that clear on many occasions; Palestinians' fears of replacement have been proven to be justified. Palestinians' objections to unfettered Jewish immigration had nothing to do with antisemitism. It is unfair and unjust to expect Palestinians to approve of those who openly plotted to replace them. Palestinians were no fools; they foresaw their Nakba coming decades before it happened.

Here is a fun fact: despite Haavara, the vast majority of German and Austrian Jewry during the 1930s voted with their feet and immigrated to areas other than Palestine. YES, the vast majority of them favored living with the Gentiles, which continues to this date. They still did that, although German Jewry paid a hefty Reich Flight Tax, to which Haavara had limited exposure.

Another important fact, which is often overlooked: Two-thirds of the German Jews who immigrated to Palestine were able to do so because of the occupying power, Great Britain, which overruled Palestinians' objections at great risk to its blood and treasure. You would think Zionists appreciated such a gesture! On the contrary, two of Israel's future PMs, Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir, bombed the Allies' war efforts during WWII while their families were being gassed in Poland!

Therefore, the credit goes to the occupying power and not to the impostering heroes (a.k.a. the Yishuv) who cared the least about "saving" Jews' lives. We hate to keep bringing it up, the so-called yishuv did the obsolete minimum to fight the Nazis, who saw little action at war's end! On the other hand, we admit it: Zionists were way ahead of their time, taking heroic selfies at the front! Mazeltov, dear Jews; now give yourselves a big hand!

---

Since the Haavara Agreement was signed in 1933, Nazi repression only increased, and Zionists didn't even contemplate pausing it during its nine years of life, not even after the Nuremberg Race Laws and Kristallnacht pogrom of 1938! You would think the Zionists would've reassessed their appeasement policies. On the contrary, they doubled down on the Haavara Agreement as if there was no tomorrow! It is worth noting that the British stopped the trading portion of Haavara in early 1940, but the financial portion of Haavara continued until late Dec 1941, when FDR shut it down. Thus, if it weren't for Great Britain and FDR, Haavara would've continued unabated!

On this point, we are forced to ask: How wasn't Haavara the FIRST willing passenger on the appeasement train that ended up destroying much of Europe? How did the Zionists manage to monetize the Jewish plight? Is it possible that similar tactics were used to nudge Arab Jews to force them into immigrating to Israel soon after Nakba? God forbid, you would not think the Zionists fomented antisemitism (hoping it would create a refugee crisis) that would act as a political lever in the service of creating the "Jewish state"? (Palestine as a Destination for Jewish Immigrants By Aviva Halamish, p. 128-9) Here are the boring details.

---

When Irgunists in the US (a.k.a. the Bergson Group) attempted to mobilize public opinion and the American Jewish community to fight Hitler between 1941 & 43, you would think Ben-Gurion and Co. gave them a helping hand. On the contrary, you cannot be further from the truth. To discredit the Bergson Groups, Rabbi Stephen Wise and his buddies were quick to point out that those Irgunists were neo-fascists (which was true) and that the collected funds were stolen. Actually, Rabbi Wise and his buddy Nahum Goldmann lobbied the US government to have the IRS conduct a financial audit of the group and to draft their leaders into the US army, see Wikipedia for boring details. Although Rabbi Wise and his cohorts provided zero evidence about the Bergson Group's financial improprieties, actually, it was Rabbi Wise's buddies in Palestine who diverted much of what was donated to rescue the Jews to build their future state!.

When the archives have been examined, it becomes clear that the Zionist leadership was terrified that the Irgunists' plans could divert donations from building their future state, see Aaron Berman, p. 130-31 & 118-123. Honestly, how could you argue that such policies and actions didn't murder Jews? If you are interested in the boring details, all sourced from primary sources (as if Wikipedia wasn't good enough), here are the boring details. You may lose your religion; you have been warned

Concerning those Irgunists, please keep in mind that although their policy and actions were honorable, they pursued conflicting policies. On one front, they mobilized the public against the Nazis, and on the other, the geniuses advocated bombing the Allies' war efforts in the Middle East. Imagine yourself hungry, thus, you decide to eat a couple of your fingers! These policies were the perfect display of cognitive dissonance on steroids, especially when we factor in that Zionist leaders' families were being gassed in Poland during this period!.

---

If Haavara "saved” Jews, then according to this preposterous logic, then:

A) England exterminated Europe’s Jewry since England halted the trading portion of Haavara in late 1939 (after the Nazi occupation of Poland)! (The Transfer Agreement, p. 378).

B) The same ridiculous logic could be applied to the US shutting down the money transfer portion of Haavara in December 1941!

C) Let us see where this preposterous argument ends: Should the Jews thank Hitler for bailing out the Jewish Agency when it was almost bankrupt during the great depression? Wasn't American Jewry who cut off funding to the Zionists in Palestine during the Great Depression, which triggered a liquidity crisis at the Jewish Agency? Wasn't it Hitler, the father of antisemitism, who kept Europe's doors open for Jews to leave until late 1941 and offered to ship Jews anywhere in luxury liners? Wasn't it Hitler's terror during Kristallnacht that pushed a third of Germany's Jews to leave in early 1939? Well, love it or hate it, based on this morally farce of an argument, the Nazis "saved" six to eight times as many Jews in comparison with Haavara! These gaslighting arguments are akin to equating rape with consensual sex!

What was tragically funny was that Adolf Eichmann used such an argument in his defense, in the early 1960s, to prove that he "saved" Jews' lives when he coordinated with Aliyah Bet between 1938 and 1941! Did Eichmann "save lives"? Technically, the answer is yes. On the other hand, he willfully murdered hundreds of thousands, too. To judge Eichmann, his motives at the time should be examined, and this is how Haavara and the Zionists should be judged!

Shamelessly, so many Jews have the habit of abusing the English language to the extreme, where words, such as saving lives, valor, or even peace, have been flipped on their heads. Reckless endangerment of Jewish lives is equivalent to "saving" them! As we have seen earlier, such an excuse was also used by the infamous Dr. Rezo Kastner (the head of Kapos in Hungary during WWII) to paint himself as a hero instead of being a sellout! This is Orwell's Ministry of Truth, but on steroids.

As you contemplate the earlier arguments and facts, please keep in mind that Jewish Agency offices in Germany were only closed as late as May 1941, see Zionism and Anti-Semitism in Nazi Germany, p. 276! On this note, don't you find it odd how the Zionists and the Nazis wanted to continue Haavara even after the invasion of Poland? On top of that, the Zionists never waste a moment to remind us how Chamberlain appeased Hitler, although it was the Zionists who did far worse FIRST and continued to appease the Nazis for 7-9 years with no interruptions!

This warped sense of reality can only exist and be justified in the Zionist mind! There is no logic, no sense of humanity. All that matters is to win at all costs; that is their bottom line from day one. Always risk it all, even when it is not a life-or-death situation!

---

What's truly tragically criminal is that many Zionist Jews look back in the rear-view mirror with little regret, even when they know in advance that enabling the devil resulted in the genocide of millions of Jews and other Europeans! (The Transfer Agreement, p. 250) All this risk-taking was done to build a genocidal apartheid state (which borrowed much of its racial laws from National Socialism) to "save" 53,000 Jews, many of whom would have left Germany anyhow. In return: A) tens of millions perished, B) the "Jewish state" ended up dispossessing and ethnically cleansing millions, C) and most importantly, ended up locking Jews and Arabs into an eternal struggle! D) Already committed a genocide and more to come. F) How this enterprise wasn't a high-stakes poker game at its worst! Is it hard to admit it: The Haavara Agreement was signed to serve Zionists' goals irrespective of the risks?

---

You would think the Zionist leadership had softened their hearts after WWII was concluded, and they stopped weaponizing Jewish pain and suffering as a lever that could be used to create their "Jewish state"? On the contrary, the Zionist leadership doubled down on closing off any possible safe havens for Jews in the displaced persons' camps, except for Palestine. Don't take our word for it; here it is from the NY Times' editor and publisher (Arthur Ochs Sulzberger, one of the most prominent American Jews in New York City) who stated on October 27th, 1946:

"it is unfair to carry on this political controversy at the expense of the miserable tenants of the D.P. Camps," Mr. Sulzberger emphasized.
"Nor will the philosophical and political ideal for Jewish statehood die by reason of delay if it deserves to live; but refugees will die if humanity too long delays their rescue" "I cannot rid myself of the feeling," he added, "that the unfortunate Jew of Europe's D.P. Camps are helpless hostages for whom statehood has been made only acceptable ransom."
 

"I acknowledge," he continued," that those who view Jews as a race instead of as faith and faith only, as I do, have reasons for national aspirations which I don't share."
"I acknowledge that those to whom a Jewish state has been a life-long goal can be expected to pursue it even when the costs are high, but it seems to me that the cost of statehood today in terms of human suffering is greater than people can be asked to bear." [Click here for the full article. Well, you may learn a thing or two about Zionists' fake valor!

[If the subject of the DP camps after WWII is of any interest, then we recommend reading James D. Clowes 1988 thesis, you might learn how Polish Jews were nudged into leaving as the Iraqi Jews have learned after Nakba!]

---

It is stunning how Zionist Jewry argue both sides of the argument: On one hand, the Zionists can deal with the father of antisemitism and enable the devil to "save the Jews," but on the other hand, the same twisted logic can't be applied to Mufti's collaboration with Nazis when he wanted to save Palestinians from Nakba, which he correctly foresaw! Of course, in the Zionist mind, Palestine, the most important land bridge in human history, was conveniently empty and romantically waiting for 2,000 years to return and bloom its Negev desert (for the first time since the ice age), and above all, Palestinians never existed who willingly abandoned their homes, farms, businesses, and lands!

Once you drag yourself with such fantastic lunacies, it becomes much easier to justify genocides and Nakbas. Do you understand from where this ideology was borrowed from? Do you understand why Zionists didn't condemn the Nuremberg Race Laws? Do you understand why Zionists welcomed wearing the Yellow Star of David with the slogan of "Wear it with Pride"? What pride were these people talking about? Only in the Zionist mind: shame is equated with pride; dishonor is equated with honor! Anyhow, in return for their Uncle Tom's loyalty, Hitler showered Zionists with privileges that Aryans dreamed of! Mazeltov, dear Jews, for this wonderful gift to humanity!

---

If "saving German Jews" was paramount to the Zionists, you would think they would speak openly about Haavara; you would think they were so proud of their deeds! On the contrary, they attempted to hide its details from the start, and the Zionist leadership rarely spoke of it; that is why it is a taboo subject. Labor Zionists (Ben-Gurion's party) denied they had anything to do with the deal during the 18th Zionist Congress (despite Nazi leaks to the German press), and only the 19th Zionist Congress adopted Haavara two years after it was signed. Ben-Gurion ensured his name didn't appear with Haavara, although he had already approved it, see The Transfer Agreement, p. xxi-xxii, p. 300-306. On the other hand, Zionists never waste a moment without reminding us that Palestinians (not Europeans who ganged upon them) are collectively liable for the Holocaust (as the Nazis) because of Mufti Haj Amin's actions, which he did nine years after Haavara was signed!

We hate to keep reminding the readers that the yishuv, in the best-case situation, AVOIDED fighting the Nazis to the bitter end, and two of Israel's PMs (Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir) BOMBED WWII war efforts when Palestinians CEASED fighting the British. Yes, ladies and gentlemen, the Zionists' fake valor continued when they knew well that the Nazis were gassing their own families in Poland! Such a twisted argument, such a wrapped sense of reality could only exist in the Zionist mind!

---

Does this explain why the Zionist press downplayed and suppressed news of the Holocaust as it was happening? (Abraham Burg, p. 74). Zionist leadership knew of the mass killing as early as mid-1942 (Rabbi Wise knew way before FDR informed him). From our investigation, Zionist leaders ONLY reacted to public pressure once the news enraged the Jews (especially in Palestine and the US), and only then did they bother themselves to release statements to the press (see the first five to six chapters in Dina Porat's book). In Palestine, we've found a few demonstrations that were led by the Zionist leadership during WWII.

On the other hand, when the British High Commissioner in Palestine refused to issue Immigration Certificates to Jewish refugees, they didn't hesitate to demonstrate and ask for his head! Why did they go the extra mile to keep news of the calamity out of the press? What more harm could have been done by warning Jews of the calamity heading towards them? Does this explain why Ben-Gurion & Co. kept the so-called Yishuv out of the war? Does this explain why only a few of the yishuv saw action at the war's end? Why enrage the public, who could end up forcing them to risk creating the "precious state"? (such as fighting Hitler). Just imagine if public opinion forced them to deploy their precious so-called yishuv in defense of Jewish honor at the meat grinder on the Italian, Tunisian, and Libyan fronts! How many would have been left to fight the real enemy: That Indigenous Arab who doesn't exist! Here are the boring details!

---

Do you think Ben-Gurion would've "saved" 53,000 Jews via Haavara if there were ZERO incentives? Does that explain why Ze'ev Jabotinsky was against Haavara? Revisionists got ZERO incentives out of it, especially after Haavara V1 (which was initiated first by a Revisionist-- Sam Cohen) was stolen from them.

Keep in mind that the Jewish Agency was on the verge of going bankrupt between 1931 and 1933 due to the Great Depression! All Zionist enterprises were on the ropes! The noose was around their necks! We wonder: Who bailed them out? A hint: it was a man with a funny mustache!

---

Do you think Ben-Gurion would've "saved" 53k Jews via Haavara if the financial, political, and military foundations of the "Jewish state" were already in place? All these were absent before Haavara; the Jewish Agency was on the verge of bankruptcy, as we have pointed out earlier!

---

Can you honestly name one rescue scheme that was engineered to save Jews to any haven other than Palestine that Zionists didn't attempt to either destroy, torpedo, annihilate, or frustrate? You cannot. To rub salt into the wound, Zionists portray themselves as the hero who fought Nazis and saved Jewish honor at Warsaw's Ghetto Uprising. Of course, the train of big lies continues and is passed on from generation to generation! Ladies and Gentlemen, that is Gramchi's "Cultural Hegamony" but on steroids.

---

We were stunned to find a JTA article published Feb. 16th, 1943, which cited the Jewish Agency had anticipated the defeat of the Axis powers by the end of the year! Therefore, the Jewish Agency had allocated 10% of its annual budget ($4,608,000 eq. P£1,000,000) to help transition the yishuv's life and economy from war to peace footing! To put this number in perspective, this insane amount, P£1,000,000, was times and a half of what the Jewish Agency spent on rescuing Jews in the last two and a half years of the war! Spoiler Alert: this amount, P£1,000,000, is three times what was allocated for rescue (not spent) for the entire year of 1943! For more details, see Dina Porat's book, pp. 91, 92, and Table 2 on pp. 104.

Just think about it for a minute: why spend a lot of money to rescue Europe's Jews when the war will be over soon? Remember, this happened when the last two million were still alive! Since the war ended two and a half years after the budget was approved, may we know what happened to this money? How many Jewish lives were lost because of such policies?

---

To prove that Zionists knew what they were doing from day one and the risks their policies entailed, it is worth quoting Lenni Brenner, who cited Rabbi Stephen Wise in a speech he made at a World Jewish Conference at Geneva in 1934 (yes, eight years before the Final Solution). Wise attacked the Labourites (a.k.a. Labour Zionists or MAPAI) who had become the dominant force in Palestinian Zionism:

One leading Palestinian put it over and over again at Prague: Palestine has primacy. This conference must clearly state that while Palestine has primacy over all other factors in the equation, its primacy ceases when it comes into conflict with a higher moral law. (Dr. Stephen Wise on Policy of World Jewry, World Jewry, London, 24 August 1934 -- p. 395)

Wise had identified the rot in the World Zionist Organization (WZO): the land of Israel had become far more important than the needs of the people of Israel. Labour Zionism had become, in the fullest sense, a utopian cult. They saw a new Jew in the old Jewish land as the only way for a Jewish nation to continue to exist. The real Jewish people, the millions of Jews of the Diaspora, were no more than a reservoir from which they would pick young immigrants to build their state. The Diaspora, as such, was doomed: either the Jews would be driven out, as in Germany, or assimilated as in France. With this strange perspective that Jewish survival stood or fell with them in Israel, the Zionists were driven to seek more from the Nazis to make their vision a reality.

Ladies and Gentlemen, what Mr. Brenner and Rabbi Wise described was Catastrophic Zionism on steroids. Mazeltov, dear Jews, on this wonderful gift to humanity

---

If prior arguments and facts haven't dismantled this big lie yet, please contemplate how Zionist Edwin Black described Zionists' mindset before Shoah and during the 1930s as follows:

"In the minds of Zionists, Jewish life in Germany could not be saved, only transferred. Even if Hitler and the German economy were crushed, Jewish wealth in Germany would be crushed with it...[as if Mr. Black implies that crushing Nazi Germany early on doesn't serve the Zionist cause!] ..The wealth had to be saved. Through the speedy liquidation and transfer of that wealth, the Jewish homeland could be built, thus creating the refuge needed for a mass transfer of the people. Zionism had declared from the moment of Herzl that antisemitic regimes were to be opposed. They [antisemitic regimes] were to be cooperated with in the transfer of Jews and their wealth." (p. 226)

Note how Mr. Black contradicted himself on pages 379-380 when he claimed that Zionists in the 1930s had no way of anticipating a genocide of German Jews. However, here he assumed that Zionists thought that German Jews' lives couldn't be saved, although the majority of them left! Tom Segev (p. 102-104) has found that Zionists used to talk about the Holocaust in the past tense (see for yourself how many Zionist leaders subscribed to Catastrophic Zionism which was a kind of apocalyptic cult); way ahead of its time in the 1930s (actually, Ben-Gurion called Kindertransport that saved ten thousand Jewish kids useless "Witch Doctor's Medicine" which was a month after the 1938 pogrom). Therefore, very little could be done to save Europe's Jews! In the Zionist mind, the Holocaust had already happened, and there was one thing left for them to do, which was to exploit the calamity to be in the service of building the "Jewish state"! What was tragic and criminal was that when Ben-Gurion recognized that German Jews were voting with their feet and immigrating to countries other than Palestine (that was a month after the Kristallnacht pogrom), he was so angry and hoped they would drop dead. That said, this analysis is in sync 100% with Aviva Halamish's finding too (Palestine as a Destination for Jewish Immigrants, p. 128-9); as if they wanted the Shoah to happen, therefore converting Jewish suffering into a political lever (by creating a refugee crisis using Ben-Gurion's sinister terminology) that will enable them to achieve their goals! If Jews were already dead in their minds, then fomenting antisemitism would make little difference; they were dead anyhow!

Here is another proof proving that what you read already was only the canary in the coal mine: Two years way before the 1938 pogrom, Ben-Gurion spoke forcefully in defense of the Haavara Agreement on December 11th, 1935. Note how he spoke of the destruction of German Jewry six years before the fact. Despite Ben-Gurion's assertion, he and other Jewish Agency Executives (JAE) allocated under 16% of the immigration certificates to German Jewry, many of those certificates were granted by the British Mandate in the first place:

Only Eretz-Israel can serve as a cure for German Jewry, even if not for all of them; any other "cure" is a false hope [Ben-Gurion was known to use another more expressive term: "Witch Doctor's Medicine"]. We cannot topple Hitler; perhaps he will be toppled some other way. We must be concerned with the fate of the children and women, who are choking in this destructive hell. There is one way to rescue them-- to bring them to Eretz-Israel, with their capital. Their capital -- that is, merchandise, and by this I do not mean French or English merchandise. The only question is whether the money will return to Germany. This is not German merchandise; this is Jewish capital, belonging to Jews who are going to their destruction ... we have no other honor except by rescuing Jews and bringing them to Eretz-Israel.'" (The Yishuv In The Shadow Of The Holocaust, p. 104)

[In a nutshell, those Jews who didn't immigrate to Palestine and chose to be saved somewhere else were as good as dead. Actually, in the Zionist literature, there is a name for this apocalyptic phenomenon: Catastrophic Zionism! Thus, what Ben-Gurion wrote in late 1935 was the canary in the coal mine and the prelude for what the Zionists did during WWII. In practice, the Zionists spent almost nothing on rescuing European Jewry! We examined the Jewish Agency's budget!]

If you are still convinced that Haavara was signed with the Nazis to save Jews' lives, we urge you to contemplate Baruch Vladeck's (editor of Forward) rebuttal to this deal, which he wrote in January of 1936.

We hate to reiterate it again and again: the vast majority of German Jews were assimilationist, liberal & socialist BUND who were anti-Zionist and considered Zionists to be the enemy from within. You won't believe it until you read the details.

Here is the unvarnished truth: all the prior facts and arguments prove that this ridiculous argument (that Haavara "saved" lives) was concocted as a gaslight (a.k.a. the art of Hasbarah in Hebrew) way after the fact, especially when it doesn't correlate with the actual events! 

Only in the Zionist mind could reality be warped to such a degree where murder, cowardliness & treachery are equated with heroism! 
Only in the Zionist mind are the meanings of saving & endangering synonymous!

God forbid, if you still give Zionists the benefit of the doubt, and you feel that we have not made the case against Zionism; we urge you to watch Johnny Harris (the famous YouTuber who is a known supporter of the "Jewish state") for two minutes explaining how Zionism has been a failure and how it has created a state that provided the opposite of the security and safety it promised the "Jewish people":


How is Mr. Harris' conclusion not in sync 100% with Albert Einstein's prediction (a day after the Deir Yassin massacre) when he predicted that Zionists would bring a Nakba upon Jews? Let us hope Mr. Harris won't get canceled for telling the truth to the powerful.

Zionism: What a terrible disease of the mind!