Gregory Baum – Israel’s creation depended on Hitler and the Holocaust

Corrupt History II – Gregory Baum on Pre-Independence Zionism

  1. The Hitler/Holocaust Thesis

by

Howard Adelman

Gregory Baum wrote, “If there had been no Hitler and no Auschwitz, Zionism would have remained a small movement.” In yesterday’s blog on Orthodox opposition and support for pre-independence Zionism, I pointed out a number of factors which suggest that, although Hitler, and to a minor extent, the Holocaust itself, had an impact on the creation of Israel, both were relatively minor factors with mixed effects, a position much against the widespread beliefs in both those critical of Zionism and its defenders, though not among most scholars.

One positive, if horrific fact, supporting the thesis is that 80% of the ultra-Orthodox – who strongly opposed secular political Zionism – were killed in the Holocaust. The slaughter of the Hasidim reduced a major source of diaspora opposition to Zionism and may even have increased the percentage of Jews supporting Zionism.  Of course, this is not generally what is meant when writers claim that without Hitler, there would have been no Israel. They really refer to enhancement of the motivations of Jews and guilt created by the Holocaust among bystanders. (“Understanding for Zionism and sympathy for its cause has waned in Western countries as the memory of the Holocaust has receded” – the Herzl Institute.) However, there is only miniscule evidence for this thesis. Nevertheless, the historical facts offer some data to suggest why the thesis could possibly be correct.

Though Ken Livingstone (Mayor of London 2000-2008) claimed that Hitler had supported Zionism, this is false news. However, there is a second argument that might suggest that Hitler enhanced the Zionist cause. On 25 August 1933, Nazi Germany and Zionist German Jews signed the very controversial Haavara (transfer) Agreement. The Anglo-Palestine Bank under the direction of the Jewish Agency had been part of the negotiations. Allowing German Jews to use a portion of their assets for Jewish businesses in Palestine to purchase German goods permitted German Jews, if they resettled in Palestine, to be compensated by those Palestine businesses. In six years between 1933 and 1939, Germany was able by this means to export about US$35,000,000 worth of goods. Jews who went to Palestine were able to recover about $US100 million of their assets. However, while a significant injection, this represented a very small part of the productivity in Palestine between 1933 and 1939. Far more than that was lost as a result of the 1936-1939 Palestinian uprising.

The deal also facilitated the migration of 60,000 Yekkes from Germany to Palestine under what today is known as an immigration investor program. Whatever the support for Zionism in Eastern Europe, among German Jews, there had been very little support in 1933 for Zionism. Their numbers represented about 2% of the German Jewish population and this is a significant source of the belief of Gregory Baum that Zionism was a small movement.

The Haavara Agreement strengthened Zionism on the ground in Palestine. However, it also set a precedent for breaching the anti-Nazi worldwide Jewish boycott imposed on Germany, a boycott instigated by the persecution of Jews with the firing of Jews from the government, the boycott of Jewish businesses, and the quotas imposed on Jewish enrolment in schools and universities. While the agreement led to the rescue of a significant number of Jews, it also created a deep chasm within the Zionist movement, a rift that some would argue seriously weakened it because of this schism. As Edwin Black wrote, “The Transfer Agreement tore the Jewish world apart, turning leader against leader, threatening rebellion and even assassination.” My interpretation is that the damage caused was more significant than the benefits, but it is a claim that is hard to make, for most of the 60,000 Jews might not have otherwise been saved.

Supporters of the H/H thesis also claim that Hitler and the Holocaust greatly increased the sympathy for Zionism. However, the reality was that the general antisemitism prevalent throughout Europe before Hitler even came to power had made Zionism a much stronger movement in Eastern Europe than most of its competitors even though it had an insignificant impact among German Jews. Zionism was NOT a small movement in 1933.

Further, the evidence seems to be clear that in 1933 there was already a movement among Orthodox Jews to support Zionism. This movement initially opposed  the community establishment and prominent rabbis that culminated in 1937 in Agudat Israel, an Orthodox political movement, formally shifting from an anti-Zionist to a non-Zionist position. On the other hand, even after Hitler, even after the Holocaust, Agudat Israel opposed the United Nations motion in November 1947 recommending partition and the creation of a Jewish state. If Hitler and the Holocaust had been so consequential in the creation of the State of Israel, then a major political party representing certainly the leadership in the Orthodox community would have shifted to support the creation of Israel. But they did not. So at least in this area, there is clear evidence that the rise of Hitler and the Holocaust had no major influence on Agudat Israel’s support for Israel.

One argument supporting the claim that without Hitler there would have been no Israel is based on the fact that WWII so weakened the British economy and military capacity after the war that Britain was unable to defeat the Zionist rebellion. On a broader scale, this position really credits Hitler for the dissolution of the British Empire, ignoring the worldwide forces behind the principle of self-determination quite independently of both Hitler and British power.

There is another argument that claims that the Holocaust benefitted Israel. As a result of the Holocaust, Germany paid Israel reparations and those reparations helped Israel to grow economically. But this happened after Israel was created and may indeed have played a role in ensuring the economic viability of the state. But it is not an argument supporting the claim that the Holocaust helped bring Israel into being. It is difficult to understand why the claim is so widely accepted that, “the Holocaust motivated large numbers of immigrants to move to Palestine” thereby creating a critical population mass. I will deal with this latter claim, namely that the Holocaust motivated large numbers of Jews to move to Palestine, in a separate blog on migration.

Further, roughly half the population of Israel came from Arab and other Middle East states. Their move to Palestine started before the Zionist movement developed tracks and mostly continued without formal Zionist help. But the really large movement came after the creation of the State of Israel. If Hitler and the Holocaust were the major sources for this movement, then the effort of Jews from Arab lands and other Middle East countries (Turkey, Iran) would have increased enormously after the war and put enormous pressure on the British attempt to limit Jewish immigration into Palestine. There was no significant pressure from Jews in Arab lands and in Iran and Turkey. The push came after the state was created, suggesting strongly that the creation of the state, for various reasons, stimulated the large migration from these sources. Migration pressure from this source did not result from the rise of Hitler and the Holocaust to influence the creation of Israel. Quite the reverse! The creation of the State of Israel instigated the mass migration.

Even within the major denomination of Jews in the New World, the sympathy for Zionism in Reform Jewry only took off well after WWII, well after the Holocaust. The latter two may have had an influence, but the evidence suggests that the Six Day War was really the turning point. The reason is that, in the build up towards that war, Jews who did not identify with Zionism identified with their fellow Jews under threat of annihilation and even feared that Israel would lose and the Jews would be slaughtered. Thus, solidarity with live Jews under threat acted as a much greater catalyst than the dead Jews murdered by the Nazis in the Holocaust, though the Holocaust had begun to haunt world Jewry as well as the rest of the world. But by then, Israel was already nineteen years old.

What about the effects of the rise of Hitler and the Holocaust on the sympathies of non-Jews? Hitler rose to power in the 1930s. Was there any dramatic effort to stop Hitler from persecuting Jews? Were there strong government boycotts? Did countries open their borders to Jews in flight? If the rise of Hitler had such an impact, why was that impact not translated into some significant action then? There were a number of options available to countries which, at the very least, they could have considered.

During the Holocaust, and certainly afterwards, the West was chastised for not bombing the railroads transporting the Jews to the extermination camps. There is now ample evidence that those in positions of power knew about the transports. I happen to believe, based on my reading, that bombing the railroads leading to the camps by the West was not realistic since the fighter escort craft guarding the bombers would not have had enough fuel to get to places like Poland and back to Britain. But when I was reading documents in the British archives providing background for my research on Jewish refugees after WWII, I never read any evidence that there was a serious study of the alternatives available to interfere with the murder machine, quite aside from whether any of the alternatives was realistic.

Most significantly, immediately after the war, when the Anglo-American Committee visited the refugee camps in 1946, the concern was how to get rid of the refugees. Try to find any significant evidence of guilt over the rise of Hitler and the Holocaust influencing the decision to recommend that Britain allow the entry into Palestine of 100,000 Jews. If countries felt guilt about Hitler and the Holocaust, surely they would either have pressured Britain, a country on the economic ropes at the time, to change its policies and/or resettle the refugees. No significant pressure was applied. By 1947, the Jewish refugees collected in European camps totalled about 250,000.

When I read both the minutes of the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine as well as the archival files and memoirs of some of the members, I could not find a hint of guilt about Hitler or the Holocaust, let alone some discussion of both. Instead, a very major concern was again the disposition of the refugees, by then increased to 250,000. I would argue that this problem, as well as the difficulties of any other solution, would lead both the Majority Report that recommended partition and the creation of a Jewish state, and the Minority Report recommending a federation, to see Palestine as a repository for the Jewish refugees.

In 1946, when a survey was undertaken of the Jewish refugees about where they wanted to resettle, the majority indicated Palestine. However, there is plenty of evidence to indicate that representatives of the Jewish Agency manipulated both the refugees and the vote to ensure that outcome. In 1946, though Zionism was certainly a significant movement by then, in spite of Hitler, in spite of the Holocaust, a majority of Jewish refugees did not prioritize Palestine as a place to resettle.

However, this changed by the time UNSCOP visited the camps in 1947. The numbers had more than doubled. But genuine support for Zionism in the camps was now almost overwhelming. Why? Neither Hitler nor the Holocaust held positions as intervening causes. The reason was the recognition that Jews still were unwanted by the nations of the world. Without Palestine, the Jews might remain warehoused in camps for years. They did not anticipate that the West would begin to unlock the gates, especially in North America.

In sum, the evidence suggests that both Hitler and the Holocaust were reasons why the pressures among Jewry decreased in Europe because there were far fewer Jews, both to oppose and to support Zionism. Hitler and the Holocaust did not give Zionism a boost, but severely undermined its efforts by slaughtering 95% of the populations from which it drew its main base of support.  There is no significant evidence that either the Holocaust – which in the 1940s was still little discussed outside legal circles – or Hitler enhanced the Zionist movement in any way. The dedication of Zionists to converting more of the Jewish masses to their cause, their efforts in diplomacy with nations from whom they could get potential support, the military preparations on the ground, and, most importantly of all, the effect of the military victory in the War of Independence after the state had been created, had the most profound influence on support for the nascent state both among Jews in the diaspora and among non-Jews.

Why then the myth that Zionism became a significant movement only because of Hitler and the Holocaust. After all, even Nahum Goldmann, once president of the World Jewish Congress, claimed that “without Auschwitz there would be no Israel.” I will try to answer that question by the time I finish reviewing the other six theses that Gregory Baum put forth. In the interim, the preponderance of evidence undermines the thesis that the rise of Hitler and the Holocaust provided Israel with the resources, the population, and the approval of other nations to come into existence and subsequently thrive.

Yom Hashoah – Contemporary Anti-Semitism

Yom Hashoah – Contemporary Anti-Semitism

by

Howard Adelman

Today is Yom Hashoah, the day to commemorate the Holocaust and the six million Jews murdered. Over seventy years ago, WWII ended and the world became aware of the worst genocide in human history, that deliberate mass murder, mostly, but not only, by Nazi forces especially tasked to carry out the operation even when the activities undermined the Germen war effort.

Anti-Semitism was endemic in the United States and Canada at the time, but it never approached the genocidal version of Nazi Germany. In my youth, I was made acutely aware of anti-Semitism as an integral part of everyday life. There were streets to avoid in the route to my mother’s cousin’s huge Passover seder. I risked being beaten because I was a Jew if I took the wrong route. When I attended university, there were fraternities that did not accept Jews and a separate medical fraternity for Jews and others. I was in the medical class of ’61 and the Jewish medical students, who constituted 25% of the class, though Jews made up less than 3% of the Ontario population, knew that at that time they would not get appointments to what was then called The Toronto General Hospital though after the war, Jewish doctors were granted privileges at THG..

However, in 1961 Dr. Charles Hollenberg, a 1955 graduate of the University of Manitoba Medical School and in Internal Medicine at McGill University, moved from being a very young professor at McGill, a university with a much older and longer tradition of tolerance towards Jews, to Toronto to become the first Jewish appointment at the Toronto General. By 1970, this outstanding medical scientist had become Chair of the Department of Internal Medicine and Physician-in-Chief at Toronto General. In ten years, for Jews in Toronto, the world had been turned upside down. When I started university in 1955, Nathan Phillips had become the first Jewish mayor of the City of Toronto. The politics of my home city would never again be under the control of the Protestant Orange Order. By 1961, Mt. Sinai Hospital would no longer be the only place to acquire a medical specialty in Toronto.

Anti-Jewish sentiments were polite. In the thirties, my mother worked at the Toronto Club. Her employers never knew that she was Jewish and she deliberately made sure that they did not know. The Granite Club openly did not accept Jews as members and I refused to attend the wedding of a fellow member of the executive of the University of Toronto Student Council because she was getting married in the Granite Club. Yet, my wife’s grandfather, a truly dear and terrific man, had been a member of the Granite Club and of the Orange Order all his adult life.

But the world was rapidly changing. Ezekiel Hart, though elected to the legislature of Lower Canada at the beginning of the nineteenth century, could not take his seat because he would not take an oath that he was a member “of the faith of a Christian.” But the discrimination for over one hundred and fifty years of life in Canada was not just religious; it was racial. We are now all aware that the Canadian government had the worst record of resettling Jews fleeing Nazi Germany, not only because Prime Minister Mackenzie King believed that Jewish immigrants would pollute the Canadian bloodstream, but, in the words of the Deputy Minister of Immigration, Frederick Blair, even the intake of one Jew would be one too many. “None Is Too Many,” was the slogan for denying Jews entry as we now all know.

The world was, however, changing. Whereas, Harold Innis, a great Canadian political economist, could campaign against the appointment of a new applicant to the department because he was Jewish, whereas in my history course I would read Godwin Smith and Abbé Lionel Groulx and never learn of their rabid anti-Semitism, when I studied T.S. Eliot in English Literature and wrote about the connection between his loquacious anti-Semitism, his theory of literary criticism and his poetic style, I could receive an A+. In Canada, anti-Semitism had not just been the prerogative of extremist right-wing nationalists, but permeated the intellectual, professional and political establishment. However, when I was in graduate school, Louis Rasminsky’s signature would appear on every Canadian dollar bill as he served as the Governor of the Bank of Canada from 1961 to 1973. The times they were a’changing.

Are they changing once again? B’nai Brith in its annual audit of anti-Semitic incidents, reported this year that, although those incidents fell into the expected range of 1,200 per year, the numbers held relatively constant because, although anti-Jewish vandalism declined in Canada in general, it had gone up by 30% in Quebec. And anti-Semitism was now unequivocally associated in most cases with expressions of anti-Israel attitudes. Had anti-Zionism become the predominant form and expression of the new anti-Semitism?

In the university where I taught for 37 years, in the latest series of incidents, a controversy arose over an anti-Israel mural hanging in the Student Centre. B’nai Brith Canada wrote President Dr. Mamdouh Shoukri expressing its disappointment that his promise to combat bigotry on campus and the growing alienation of Jewish students was totally undermined when half the members appointed to an inclusion committee to advise on the matter were either supporters of BDS or vocal critics of Israel.

How can that be? In the United States, the main challenger to Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nominee as president was openly a Jew from Brooklyn. On the Republican side, Donald Trump not only has, but boasted that he has a daughter who converted to Judaism and is a practitioner of modern Jewish Orthodoxy. Jews pervade the professional, political and intellectual establishment in both countries. But incidents keep re-occurring reminding us all, not only that anti-Semitism is not dead, but in its association with anti-Israel stances, is often much more virulent. Of course, one can be critical of Israel and even be anti-Zionist and object to the Jewish people having a right of self-determination without being anti-Semitic. But listening to Israel’s critics often suggests otherwise.

Three months ago, at Vassar College, Jasbir K. Puar, an Associate Professor of Women’s and Gender Studies at Rutgers University, gave a lecture entitled, “Inhumanist Biopolitics: How Palestine Matters.” Her lecture was defended in the name of academic freedom as well as by the right to free speech, According to Mark G. Yudof and Ken Waltzer, who obtained a transcript of the talk, though Puar had requested that no one record the talk, she claimed that Israel had used dead Palestinians from the Gaza War to mine “for organs for scientific research.” She accused Jews of deliberately starving Palestinians to stunt their growth. Puar received widespread support, sometimes based on suspicions about Israeli activities and at other times simply in defence of academic freedom. Evidently, it was quite intellectually kosher to speculate on the possibility that Israel practiced “weaponized eugenics.” But why not defend such a brazen anti-Semitic lecture? If the research indeed does reflect serious scholarship and the highest academic standards, there is a right to express and publish one’s views no matter how controversial.

Why not indeed? Because, research exists within a context. Given that context, it is triply important to ensure that those standards are observed, that the research can be replicated and that the claims can be tested. But Puar threatened to sue anyone who publicly recorded or repeated her claims, inherently breaching academic standards. It is not as if she has not published on the topic and has not already advertised her forthcoming book– see the outline of her third book entitled, Inhumanist Biopolitics: The Prehensive Occupation of Palestine. When someone is a known advocate for the BDS movement, a known critic of the existence of Israel, it is incumbent on academics upholding standards of scholarship to ensure that scholarly conclusions are not merely expressions of political and personal bias. However, in a postmodernist age, it is much more difficult to uphold such objective scholarly standards.

The charge has been widely made that anti-Zionism is the new anti-Semitism. Britain’s former chief rabbi, the very esteemed Lord Jonathan Sacks, has not only made such a charge, but cites the exodus of Jews from Britain and continental Europe as a response. Almost half of the Jewish citizens of France and Britain experienced at least one anti-Semitic incident last year. Anti-Semitism has been compared to a virus that mutates into new forms in the desire to get around established defences. Is political anti-Zionism largely a new form of racial anti-Semitism and the religious anti-Semitism of the last two millennia? Just as religious anti-Semitism in the Middle Ages was defended by the highest esteemed source, the Church, just as racial anti-Semitism used science to back up its charges and give them legitimacy, do the rights to free speech and academic freedom now provide a new solid foundation for justifying political anti-Semitism? So Israeli soldiers are described as the new Nazis and Palestinians in the theology of victimization have become the Jews.

Britain has allegedly become a centre for the expression of this new political anti-Semitism. The Islamic Tarbiyah Academy in Dewsbury, which teaches 140 primary age children in after-school classes and offers a full-time program for over-16s, lists the Protocols of the Elders of Zion as reading material on its curriculum. The extreme fundamentalist, Mufti Zubair Dudha, teaches his students that Islam is under attack in a modern religious war with Jews behind the campaign. Dewsbury has developed a reputation as a breeder of extreme terrorism. This small town gave birth to one of the 2005 attackers against the London transit system. The youngest suicide bomber and youngest convicted terrorist in Britain both came from Dewsbury.

The problem in Britain, unlike in France, goes well beyond the extremist stream of Muslim political life. Naseem Shah, a Labour member of parliament from Bradford, and Ken Livingstone, the former mayor of London and member of Labour’s National Executive Committee, were both suspended from the party for their anti-Semitic remarks. Shah had advocated the relocation of Israel to the U.S. Livingstone defended Naseem Shah by claiming that Hitler had been a Zionist. So it is not simply a matter of Jews becoming paranoid and equating anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism; two prominent Labour officials in Britain had identified with a campaign, not simply for Palestinian self-determination, not even just for the elimination of Israel and the denial of the right to self-determination, but ethnic and religious cleansing by relocating Jews away from the Middle East, including those who could trace their families back two thousand years in the Middle East and in Israel in particular. The Oxford University Labour Club was forced to suspend some council members and activists for similar reasons. The National Union of Students President, Malia Bouattia, accused the international media of being “Zionist-led” and openly advocated violence against Israel.

Racism permeates British political life to this day. Boris Johnson, the Conservative current mayor of London, dismissed Barack Obama’s support for Britain remaining in the EU by claiming that this “part-Kenyan” president was displaying a traditional anti-British bias and an ancestral dislike of Britain by former African colonies. But the animus of anti-Zionism that has unequivocally crossed over into outright anti-Semitism seems to have infiltrated left wing politics in Britain quite deeply. As in all cases, it is not simply the outspoken views of the few that are the problem, but the dismissal of critics and the tolerance of such outrages by the many. Mehdi Hasan, a British political journalist who happens to be Muslim, has insisted that such expressions of anti-Semitism not only frequently emerge in his community, but are not confronted. They are even tolerated by the majority. “It pains me to have to admit this but anti-Semitism isn’t just tolerated in some sections of the British Muslim community; it’s routine and commonplace.”

As identity versus cosmopolitan ideas had once come to the fore in politics where the rights of some are defended in terms of universal rights, in the new era, the victimization of some are brought to the fore because of their special victimization and the shared responsibility of the majority to redress those particular historical sources of victimization. History would have to be corrected even at the cost of making another group pay the costs. Further, the rhetoric of anti-capitalism easily gets intermingled into this antipathy as the bankers in the world are held responsible for growing inequalities and once again identified with Jews.

Anti-Semitism, unfortunately has once again arisen from a relatively short sleep and become a significant part of international politics, not always but most frequently associated with attacks against Israel. Gideon Behar of Israel’s Foreign Ministry has outlined in briefings Israel’s determination to lead the efforts to fight anti-Semitism around the world as an integral part of Israeli foreign policy. On the 80th anniversary of the Nuremberg trials and the 70th anniversary of the Nuremberg laws which used the mask of justice to disguise gross injustice and set off the trajectory that would lead to the Holocaust, it is well to remember how the mask of one cause can be used to deliver a deep and venomous hatred wrapped in an ostensibly merely controversial political package.