Zionism and Nazism, during the early 1930s [was Re: [Marxism] Re: anti-semitism and Israel]

["Nestor Gorojovsky" <nestorgoro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Respuesta a: [Marxism] Re: anti-semitism and Isr
Remitido por: Chris Brady
Fecha: Martes 20 de Abril de 2004 
Hora: 20:31
*****


> Marion:
> 
> "It falls into the realm of Holocaust revisionism to say that 
Zionists -whether left, right or center- would collaborate with 
Nazis. 
> 
> "The underlying agenda of those who make this claim is denomization 
of all  Israelis and all Jews."  

Nestor, now, answers:

Marion, I am a Jew. Moreover, I was a Zionist. And I took Zionism 
seriously. I was the "good cop" in Lou Paulsen's strikingly vibrant 
description: "The nice part about this is that it works just as well -
 maybe even better - if the "good cop" is completely sincere and 
really doesn't like torture and beatings.  He really wants to improve 
the poor prisoner's life!  If he is able to get a confession by 
negotiation, it will "discredit" (he thinks) the policy of violence." 

I feel perfectly depicted by Lou's words.  Yes, in those times I 
honestly believed that "the policy of violence" could somehow be 
"discredited".  I assumed as a basic axiom that we were "the good 
guys", and that our "bad cops" were simply brutish rogues who could 
be "democratically" managed somehow.  I did not understand that _the 
highest expression of violence that could be found in the area was 
the existence of an independent, seudo-democratic and ethnocentric 
Zionist state (a  "State of the Jews") on the Eastern shores of the 
Mediterranean _. Thus, I was a Left Wing, Latin American, Jewish 
Zionist in the late 1960s and earliest 1970s.  Moreover: during the 
early 70s I belonged to the Left wing of Rabin's Labor party and 
during the mid 1960s I had been a member of the youth formations of 
Hashomer Hatzair in Argentina.

So that I feel fully entitled to tell you, dear Marion, that -whether 
you like it or not- not only there werecontacts between Zionism and 
Nazism (and they were fluid indeed) but that they were _a logical 
outcome_ of Zionist practice and theory.  Zionists wouldn't have been 
true to their avowed goals if they hadn't made those contacts. And I 
am not saying that they were Nazis, nor that they were in a common 
struggle with Nazism against the "inferior races", not at all.  

These contacts were the reasonable outcome of their core belief that 
they were the "national liberation movement of the Jewish people"..  
If you come to think of it in these concrete terms, then you begin to 
understand why it was quite reasonable for these contacts to exist.  
Zionists were -and are- politicians, not moralists.  Any serious 
Zionist _policy_ during the 30s was _bound_ to generate those 
contacts. Please follow me along the strictly political reasoning 
behind these assertions.

I think that we agree in that, under the particular conditions of the 
1930s, the Zionists were attempting to save from the danger of a 
holocaust (capitals were added after it _actually_ took place) at 
least the best part of the Jews of Central Europe and bring them to 
Palestine  ["Best part" as understood by the goals of Zionism: 
building up the new (stress on "new"), bold and courageous Jewish 
people as an independent nation under whoever's support, there are 
concrete quotations by Ben Gurion complaining about the "bad 
material" that oftentimes arrived to Tel Aviv from Europe] .  If 
nothing else could be done, this "best part" would be the single 
portion of those Jews that deserved the effort.  But of course, this 
would be a minor prize in an enormous race: the race of the Zionist 
movement, based on its early bridgehead under the British Mandate in 
Palestine, to save the life (not the culture) of many millions of 
Jews in Europe.

Now, come to think about this for a second, Marion: do you realize 
that in order to accomplish this momentous and high-spirited goal  
they simply _must_ work with whoever had a chance to rule over that 
area of the world, whether anti-Semitic or not? 

Yes, this was for them a bitter duty. But serious politicians know 
that the real world out there is not precisely the Garden of Eden.  
Zionists were serious, hard-nosed, politicians, thus used to that 
world, and of course they had already been reaching some kind of deal 
or other with anti-Semitic governments before [the Polish government, 
the Hungarian government, and so on], simply because they wanted to 
alleviate the plight of the Jews under those regimes and eventually 
flock them down to Palestine.  As you may imagine, Marion, this goal 
could not be obtained without some kind of agreement (at least an 
unwritten non-aggression pact) with those regimes.

Now, with that experience in the pockets of their mind, during the 
early 1930s the Zionists faced the rise of Nazis to power.  Please 
keep in mind that by those times a German defeat during the impending 
war was far from granted (ask Anthony Eden, for one, and by those 
times Zionists had their very important reasons to pay attention to 
British politics).  So that, for them, it was simply _sensible 
policy_ to attempt deals with the Germans just in case. And they made 
those deals, as in fact it was their _duty_.  

For example: do you know of the Madagascar project?  The Zionists had 
alredy talked with Germany of a common "final solution" to the 
European Jewish problem: to take all those Jews to Madagascar, not to 
Palestine.   This was a possible deal, which of course encountered 
bitter feelings in London.

But, as I told you, Zionists are serious politicians, which means in 
the end serious strategists.  Even though they might eventually prove 
abortive, his and other moves, were an useful tool in order to press 
the British rulers of Palestine and get advantages that others were 
denied: among other particular benefits, the Zionists obtained full 
operational independence for their WWII troops under British command, 
something not even the Poles of Anders could obtain... This proved of 
the greatest importance when, on this military organization, they 
expelled their -former- British protectors to strike a deal with the -
new- American associates.  By the way, this same move put the non-
Zionist American Jews in the uncomfortable position of political 
hostages of a foreign country, in the name of Judaism, within the 
United States themselves.

So that, you see, Marion, even if we did not have any single material 
proof of the dealings between Zionists and Nazi Germany during the 
30s, we might have a right to assume that they could have existed.  I 
think that the rejection of such possibility stems from, among other, 
the wrong idea that understands Zionism as a pure offshot of American 
imperialism, as if Zionists did not have _their own agenda_.

They do.  And this agenda does not of necessity match the agenda of 
the imperialist core on every point.  [Just think of the help they 
obtained from Soviet Russia during the late 40s, while their main 
associates, Britain and USA, were already on the "Cold War".  
Bullets, like the Roman Emperor's coins, don't stink]  

OTOH, this does not mean that "the Zionists have taken Washington as 
a hostage" and all that stupid, ultimately anti-Jewish, drivel.  But 
this _does_ mean that they will be always pressing on their major 
protectors, because they don't consider them Masters but, Partners.

Am I a Nazi-worshipper, an anti-Semite, because I call your attention 
on these almost elementary considerations, Marion?  Almost all of my 
family, on my mother's side, was murdered by the Nazis. Keep this in 
mind before you answer.

Néstor Miguel Gorojovsky
nestorgoro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 
"Sí, una sola debe ser la patria de los sudamericanos".
Simón Bolívar al gobierno secesionista y disgregador de 
Buenos Aires, 1822
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 



_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism