The consistent theme running through all 3 articles is that we are facing a resurgence of anti-Semitism and, further, that this is linked to opposition to Israel and Zionism. In the words of Frank Furedi:

‘Anti-Israel sentiment is morphing into anti-Jewish sentiment, as more and more people project their disdain for the modern world on to ‘the Jew’... anti-Israeli sentiments have often mutated into anti-Jewish ones.’

One would therefore expect that some attempt would be made to define this new anti-Semitism, how it differs from its more traditional variant and how the identity of what it means to be Jewish has changed.

Anti-Semitism today is primarily a marginal prejudice rather than state sponsored. As even Furedi admits, there is an ‘unfortunate habit of labelling criticisms of Israel as a form of anti-Semitism’. Yet nowhere, in the 3 articles is there any attempt to explore this any further. Instead anti-Semitism is taken for granted as a constant, timeless phenomenon. Instead we are offered the politics of dubious opinion polls amidst a sea of subjectivism. Yet anti-Semitism today is used not only to exonerate Israel and Zionism but to deflect any awkward criticism. When an outspoken supporter of Israel, Professor Michael Wolffson at the University of the German Armed Forces was rebuked by the Defence Minister for supporting the use of torture against terrorist suspects, he responded with a full page advert headed ‘J’Accuse’, mimicking Emile Zola’s famous charge against the persecutors of Dreyfus, in the Frankfurther Allgemeine Zeitung (25.6.04), alleging attacks on him were anti-Semitic!¹

Instead Furedi alleges, without offering the slightest evidence, that on Palestine demonstrations slogans such as ‘Kill the Jews’ or ‘Jews to the oven’ have been shouted. It is strange that I have never heard any such slogans as someone who has attended more than a few.

As Norman Finkelstein noted, classical anti-Semitism in the United States, which targets Jews because they are Jews no longer exists. Instead we have a ‘New Anti-Semitism’. ‘Practically this meant pinning the epithet ‘anti-Semitic’ on domestic challenges to Jewish class privilege and political power as well as on global challenges to Israel’s hegemony.’² In practice this has meant, domestically, labelling the challenge of Black people to white Jewish teachers in their schools and the racism their children experience, a form of anti-Semitism. Nathan and Ruth Perlmutter say regarding the statement of the then leader of the Southern Baptist Convention, Rev. Bailey, that god does not hear Jewish prayers, that what matters is not ‘their measures of anti-Semitism but their political postures.’³

Brendan O’Neill describes Abram Leon’s The Jewish Question: A Marxist Interpretation as ‘perhaps the finest twentieth-century text on the predicament of the Jews’. I agree. Leon, leader of the Fourth International in Belgium, was deported to Auschwitz, where he was murdered by gas when he was no longer fit to work. To the last he never gave up organising with illegal workers’ committees in Liege and Charleroi. Not for him the glib assertion that ‘working-class solidarity with Jews had declined, and even morphed into new forms of anti-Semitism’.

Leon recognised that it was only the workers’ movement that had stood up to and opposed fascism and anti-Semitism. Whether it was Belgian railwaymen who ‘could not even be trusted to leave deportation trains alone’⁴ or the general strike of Dutch workers in Amsterdam and Zaandam in February 1941, organised by the Communist Party.⁵ Raul Hilberg describes how when military formations of the Dutch Nazi Party NSB attacked the Jewish quarter of Amsterdam they were ‘attacked by Dutch workers and "hordes of youthful Jews who were equipped with all sorts of weapons... On February 25, 1491, a wave of strikes began to paralyse transport and industry in the provinces of North Holland and Utrecht.’⁶ Holland was the only German-occupied European country to organise a general strike as a protest against German anti-Jewish measures.⁷ The organisers were sent to Mauthausen where they were murdered whereas the Zionist-led Judenrat (Jewish Council) condemned the strikes.⁸

Furedi says that ‘the saddest example of this accommodation to anti-Semitism comes from Denmark’ and describes how a trade unionist Desiderati observes that ‘for 50 years we have been concerned for the Jews because of what they suffered in the Holocaust, but now it is time be concerned for the Palestinians, who are the Jews of today’. This is truly amazing. In October 1943 all bar 500 Danish Jews were transported by fishing boats to Sweden to avoid deportation to the concentration camps. The Gestapo were forbidden to break down doors on the night of the roundup on 1^st October for fear of provoking a fight with the Danish police. In Italy the next highest proportion of Jews (85%) survived the war as non-Jews hid them.

The late Lucy Dawidowicz, a right-wing Zionist, describes how this was ‘the consequence of the repudiation of anti-Semitism and the commitment to unconditional equality’⁹ of non-Jews. What a magnificent achievement of Zionism that these two countries, whose record was second to none during the Nazi Holocaust, are now amongst the most anti-Semitic today if Furedi is right. In fact it is clear from Desiderati’s quote that it is the Palestinians who are seen as the Jews of today and Jews are identified as the oppressor.

In fact Brendan O’Neill’s grasp of Leon’s thesis is both superficial and undialectical. He avoids commenting on the principle thesis of Leon, without which his analysis of Zionism itself becomes merely impressionable:

‘It is not the loyalty of the Jews to their faith which explains their preservation as a distinct social group; on the contrary, it is their preservation as a distinct social group which explains their attachment to their faith.’¹⁰

Without understanding this one understands nothing in The Jewish Question. The identity of the Jews changed and so did anti-Semitism. Just as feudal and Christian anti-Semitism gave way to the racial anti-Semitism of Nazism, so today what is described as ‘anti-Semitism’ is a reaction to Israel’s atrocities and the identification of Jews with that barbarism. To fail to recognise these changes and how anti-Semitism has been redefined is to repudiate Leon’s People-Class theory. As Leon wrote:

‘Zionism transposes modern anti-Semitism to all of history and saves itself the trouble of studying the various forms of anti-Semitism and their evolution.’¹¹

So when Furedi writes about people projecting their disdain on to Jews he is 150 years too late. This was indeed an important component of Adolf Stocker’s ‘Christian socialism’ and the reaction of the peasantry to the changes they faced in Eastern Europe of the mid-19^th century.

Engels described anti-Semitism as ‘a reactionary movement of decaying, medieval social groups against society... it is a variety of feudal socialism’. And likewise Marx described what he called feudal socialism as ‘half lamentation, half lampoon, half echo of the past, half menace of the future’.¹² In the words of Abram Leon:

‘The Jewish masses find themselves wedged between the anvil of decaying feudalism and the hammer of rotting capitalism.’¹³

No one can seriously maintain that the situation of Jews today bears any resemblance to that of the Jews of the Czarist Pale of Settlement.

When Furedi argues that ‘anti-Israeli sentiments have often mutated into anti-Jewish ones.... the traditional distinction between anti-Zionist and anti-Jewish sentiment has become confusing and blurred’ he avoids the question of the changing role and identity of Jews today and makes the very error that he, Rothschild and O’Neill accuse others of, namely making simple ahistorical comparisons between Jews today and yesterday.

His examples are hardly convincing. The picketing of Marks & Spencer and Starbucks is not because they are Jewish owned (M&S is not) but because the former has a policy of sourcing produce from Israel and the Chairman of Starbucks, Howard Shultz, is an active Zionist who received the ‘Israel 50th Anniversary Friend of Zion Tribute Award’ for his services to the Israeli state for ‘playing a key role in promoting close alliance between the United States and Israel’. (http://www.inminds.co.uk/boycott-starbucks.html)

Likewise the allegation that anti-Zionists are reluctant to ‘challenge explicit manifestations of anti-Semitism’ is simply untrue. Jewish anti-Zionists and Palestine solidarity activists have continually criticised and marginalised a small group of anti-Semites that Furedi seems unaware of, grouped around the Deir Yassin Remembered group. People such as Gilad Atzmon, Israel Shamir and Paul Eisen.¹⁴

Furedi explain that this apparent resurgence in anti-Semitism is because ‘Muslim youth who protest against Israel are relatively uninfluenced by European cosmopolitan ethics that criminalise overt expressions of anti-Jewish sentiment’, which is another way of saying they are not as enlightened as us. The obvious question might be why they are uninfluenced by ‘European cosmopolitan ethics’.¹⁵ Perhaps the answer is racism. As Furedi admits in passing, ‘Opinions about Muslims in almost all of these [European] countries are considerably more negative than are views of Jews’.

Furedi tells us that, according to a survey of the Anti-Defamation League, unfavourable views of Jews have more than doubled from 21 per cent in 2005 to 46 per cent in 2008 and that 47 per cent of Spaniards have stated ‘probably true’ to at least three out of four anti-Semitic stereotypes presented to them. ADL is not, however, a neutral source. Apart from its long-term spying operation on the American Socialist Workers Party,¹⁶ anti-apartheid and Arab American organisations, it is virulently pro-Zionist. Its National Director, Abraham Foxman, tried to block publication of Norman Finkelstein’s critique of Daniel Goldhagen’s Hitler’s Willing Executioners on the grounds that Finkelstein’s ‘anti-Zionist stance ... goes beyond the pale’¹⁷ although, when Ronald Reagan proclaimed at Bitburg cemetery that German soldiers (including the Waffen SS) were ‘victims of the Nazis just as surely as the victims of the concentration camps’ this did not prevent Foxman honouring Reagan with ADL’s ‘Torch of Liberty’ award!¹⁸

Furedi’s assertion that Spain’s Socialist government ‘is profoundly hostile to Israel’ does not ring true. They seem to have been remarkably silent over Gaza.

Another example of anti-Semitism Furedi gives is references to the influence of the Jewish lobby. Now I agree that the idea of a Jewish Lobby is anti-Semitic. The problem is that it is the leaders of Zionism who talk about it more than most! Whether it is Alex Brummer complaining that ‘Jewish power is not what it once was’¹⁹ or J.J. Goldberg, Executive Direction of Forward, the oldest Yiddish newspaper in the USA, informing us that ‘The Jewish lobby ... is actually more than just a dozen organizations.’²⁰ The problem is that if Zionist spokespersons behave like caricatures from Czarist police forgery, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, is it any wonder that some people believe them?

Furedi, O’Neill and Rothschild object to the comparison between the actions of the Israeli state and that of the Nazi regime. This is symptomatic of a ‘growing tendency to detach the Holocaust from its historical context’. On the contrary. It is through the use of analogy and comparison that the Holocaust can be placed in its historical context. What possible purpose does education and literature about the Holocaust have if parallels cannot be drawn? The Holocaust is unique in the same way as all acts of genocide are unique but it is not a sacred artifact or above debate. Have not other peoples, from the African slaves to the people of the Belgian Congo, suffered millions of dead? Was Rwanda not an example of an attempt to annihilate a whole people? As Boaz Evron, a writer for Israel’s Ha'aretz and Yediot Aharanot papers wrote:

‘holocaust awareness is an official, propagandistic indoctrination, a churning out of slogans and a false view of the world, the real aim of which is not at all an understanding of the past, but a manipulation of the present.’²¹

Comparisons with the Holocaust originated with the demonisation of the Palestinians. They were the new Nazis, seeking to drive the Zionists into the sea (only the Palestinians in Haifa in 1948 were actually driven into the sea).²² Israeli Prime-Minister Menachem Begin’s, during the siege of Beirut in 1982, compared Yassir Arafat to Hitler in his bunker.²³ The Nazi extermination of Jewry has been the consistent justification for Zionism’s war against the Palestinians. The real complaint of liberal imperialists is that it is wrong for Palestinians to draw their own comparisons from European history against the colonists. Holocaust analogies are confined to the very Zionist movement that turned its back on European Jewry.

It is ironic that Zionism, throughout the Holocaust, was more preoccupied with building the Jewish state than rescuing Jews. As David Ben Gurion, leader of the Jewish Agency said, ‘In these terrible days of the beginning of the disaster that threatens European Jewry, I am still more worried about the elections of the [Mapai] branch in Tel Aviv’.²⁴ The obstruction of the rescue attempts of others and even collaboration with the Nazis are well documented, not least because of the Kastner trial in Israel from 1954-8 which brought down the Sharrett government.²⁵

Brendan O’Neill repeatedly asserts that attacks on Zionism as expansionist and racist are ‘historically illiterate’. He never explains why. Zionism has historically subscribed to the concept of ‘Eretz Israel’ the Biblical Land of Israel, which stretches from the Euphrates to the Nile and up to the Litani in Lebanon. Israel is a state whose guiding ideology has, from its inception, had an expansionist justification – after all god gave it to us, as he did so many other colonial projects. The facts speak for themselves. The UN Partition Plan of 1947 gave approximately 58% of Mandate Palestine to the Zionists. They have swallowed the lot. It is in the very nature of settler colonialism to settle and dispossess the indigenous population.

Livia Rokach, who translated the diaries of Moshe Sharrett, Israel’s second Prime Minister, quotes then President Yitzhak Ben Zvi as exclaiming ‘...how wonderful it would be’ if there could be a war with Egypt (10.11.53; 27). Defence Minister, Pinhas Lavon believed there was ‘...a historical opportunity...’ to occupy Syria (2/25/54; 374) and ‘The Chief of Staff [Dayan] supports a plan to hire a [Lebanese] officer who will agree to serve as a puppet so that the Israeli army may appear as responding to his appeal to liberate Lebanon from its Muslim oppressors...’ (5/28/54; 1024).²⁶ The latter, of course, came about with the creation of the ‘security zone’ in Lebanon from 1979-1990.

The idea that Zionism today is ‘defensive’ will come as somewhat strange to the Palestinians of the Gaza and West Bank. On the contrary Zionism shows every sign of wishing to consolidate its hold on the latter, hence the Separation Wall. A country that is the armed watchdog of western imperialism is hardly likely to live in peaceful co-existence with its neighbours.

As for being racist, Zionism sought from the very start to first exclude Palestinians from the land (Jewish Labour) and then from the land altogether. A Jewish state means exactly that. A State which is either purely Jewish or one which tolerates non-Jews at best. Only Jews can lease, rent or buy 93% of the land, half of Israel’s Arab villages are ‘unrecognised’ liable for demolition at a moment’s notice because it is state policy to ‘Judaise’ the Negev and Galilee. Popular attitudes are no different. According to Roee Nahmias in Yediot Aharanot, over half of the Jewish population in Israel believes marriage between a Jewish woman and Arab man is national treason, over 75% oppose apartment buildings being shared between Arabs and Jews and 60% would not allow an Arab to visit their home. 40% agreed that Arabs should have their right to vote for Knesset revoked, 62% of Israelis want the government to encourage local Arabs to leave the country and 55% said ‘Arabs and Jews should be separated at entertainment sites’.²⁷

O’Neill claims that ‘across Europe, some university student unions and radical left-wing groups demand “No Platform For Zionists”’. The citing of the Zionist Alliance for Workers’ Liberty’s paper as his source suggests that this is untrue. In fact the truth is the exact opposite. It is anti-Zionist Jews who have been subjected to repeated attempts to ban them speaking on British campuses.

At the London School of Economics when I was invited to speak the Zionist Union of Jewish Students sought to prevent this. When the Labour Club investigated the allegations and found them wanting they too were accused of anti-Semitism! A letter to the Student Union newspaper described how a member of their Executive ‘was approached in Houghton St. by several members of the UJS, who proceeded to insult him publicly, calling him a racist, anti-Semitic fascist. He was deeply distressed and grossly insulted as he has been involved in anti-fascist groups for nearly 10 years’ (The Beaver, 10.11.86).²⁸ A witness described how, when he stepped in to support the person being attacked, he too was labelled a fascist! ‘To accuse someone who has fought so clearly and consistently against racism of being a racist naturally causes great distress.’ This has happened repeatedly to me and others, whereas attempts to ban Jewish student societies have always been opposed by Palestine solidarity groups. In fact it is Palestinian societies who have faced an uphill struggle to be recognised at for example Birmingham University.

O’Neill caricatures demands for the withdrawal of the British ambassador to Israel as calls on Western governments ‘to teach the Zionists a lesson’. Quite the contrary. It is a call for the British government to stop giving support and supplying arms to the Israeli state. Perhaps Mr O’Neill could say what he would propose instead to prevent another barbaric attack on Gaza by Israel. No doubt a call for the government of William Pitt to put an end to the slave trade would have been considered an attempt to ‘whitewash (its) own colonialist and racist past(s)’. In so far as Israel is dependent on the military and economic support of Western states it is legitimate to demand that they withdraw that support.

O’Neill is wrong to claim that Zionism was a national movement. What is the nation that it represented? It was the anti-Semites who claimed that the Jews were a separate nation. Zionism began from the premise that anti-Semitism could not be fought but was inherent in the Gentile. It accepted the anti-Semitic claim that Jews did not belong in non-Jewish society. As Theodore Herzl, founder of Political Zionism wrote, in the wake of the Dreyfus trial:

‘In Paris ...I achieved a freer attitude towards anti-Semitism, which I now began to understand historically and to pardon. Above all I recognise the emptiness and futility of trying to “combat” anti-Semitism.’²⁹

This was the basis on which Herzl sought a de facto alliance with the Czarist government, which was responsible for the Kishinev pogroms in April 1903. In August of the same year he met Interior Minister Count von Plehve and agreed that in return for support for the Zionist movement in Russia there would be no Zionist criticism of the regime.

Contrast this with the self-defence units organised by the Bund, the Jewish General Workers Union of Russia, Poland and Lithuania which led the resistance in the Warsaw Ghetto. Zionism was reactionary, anti-socialist and nationalist but it was not a national movement. Ironically the Bund, whom O’Neill never once mentions, has a good claim to being just such a movement. The Jews of Eastern Europe had their own language, Yiddish, and customs, and were concentrated in the Pale of Settlement.

O’Neill accuses anti-Zionists of historical illiteracy whilst erroneously placing Moses Hess, who died in 1875 alongside Nordau and Herzl in the leadership of the Zionist movement at the end of nineteenth century. Hess was a good example of the reactionary origins of Zionism for whom ‘Race struggle is primary; class struggle is secondary’.³⁰ As he wrote in the pamphlet that marked the beginning of Political Zionism, ‘should it prove true that the emancipation of the Jews is incompatible with Jewish nationalism, then the Jew must sacrifice emancipation’.³¹

Zionism hated what it termed ‘assimilation’. It stood for a state based not on common citizenship but race. Hence Israel today claims to represent the ‘Jewish people’ as opposed to being a state of its own people. This was identical to the Nazi concept of the State for whom nation and race were intertwined. Herzl outlined the position the Zionist movement was to follow: ‘the anti-Semites will be our most dependable friends ... our allies.’³²

Zionism was the most reactionary of Jewish reactions to anti-Semitism. Most Jews fought anti-Semitism alongside non-Jews, as the Dreyfuss case demonstrated. Herzl preferred to seek out Eduard Drumont, editor of the anti-Semitic paper, La Libre Parole, to obtain a favourable review of his pamphlet The Jewish State (which he got). Almost all the early Zionists were believers in eugenics and the idea of Jewish racial improvement and superiority.

This was not academic. It was defeat for the Army and Church over Dreyfuss, on the back of Emile Zola’s famous ‘J’Accuse’ article in L’Aurore which helped ensure that nearly 50 years later 75% of French Jews, a quarter of a million, survived the Nazi occupation. Anti-Semitism in France had been defeated and the Zionist-led Jewish Council was impotent to enforce the deportations.

Nor is it true that by the ‘late 1920s, working-class solidarity with Jews had declined, and even morphed into new forms of anti-Semitism’. The example given, that Jews could not speak for the German Communist Party from 1930 onwards, and also that none of its 100 Reichstag members were Jewish, is unconvincing. Ever since the ‘Third Period’ in 1928, the political approach of Stalinism was marked by sectarianism and opportunism. It was indeed shameful but even Stalinism did not actively pursue an anti-Semitic road.³³ Up to 1.5 million Jews escaped the Holocaust by fleeing into the Soviet Union. Niewyk is right that although it wasn’t intended to further anti-Semitism it could not have helped but strengthen the stereotype of Jews as exploiters of the masses.³⁴ What is remarkable is that 13.2 million Germans voted for the socialist and communist parties in November 1932, more than in the 1920 elections and 1.4 million more than the Nazis. As Ian Kershaw shows³⁵ most Germans did not support the Nazis’ anti-Semitism and most disapproved of the Krystalnacht pogrom in November 1938.

It is equally untrue that Zionism ‘was further popularised by the intensification of anti-Semitism and the decline of the left in the 1920s and 30s’. Quite the contrary. In Poland in the 1920s the Zionists had a mass base but their refusal to fight anti-Semitism led, in 1938, to the Zionists gaining precisely one seat, compared with 17 for the Bund in elections to 20 Jewish Council seats. As Isaac Deutscher noted:

‘the great majority of East European Jews were, up to the outbreak of the second world war, opposed to Zionism... The most fanatical enemies of Zionism were precisely the workers, those who spoke Yiddish... the anti-Zionists saw an abdication of their rights, a surrender to anti-Semitism. To them anti-Semitism seemed to triumph in Zionism which recognised the legitimacy and the validity of the old cry “Jews get out”. The Zionists were agreeing to get out.’³⁶

It is also untrue that ‘European Jewry effectively adapted to anti-Semitism rather than seeking to defeat it’. The point was that fascism triumphed in the Europe of the 1930s.

O’Neill finds the idea of British, French and German leaders making demands of the Zionist state to rein in its activities ‘nauseating’. I’ve seen no evidence that it has even occurred, quite the opposite. I find their support for Israel’s attack on Gaza ‘nauseating’. And I find even more nauseating bombing UN sanctuaries, clinics and schools with phosphorous. Yet neither Furedi, O’Neill or Rothschild has anything to say about this. I also find the massacre of 48 members of one family in Zeitoun and the daubing of slogans such as ‘Arabs need to die’, ‘1 down, 999,999 to go’ even more offensive.³⁷

O’Neill demonstrates his acceptance of Zionist self-justification when he says that Zionism is guided by ‘the necessity of halting ‘future Holocausts’. Nothing could be further from the truth. When Argentina’s Junta under General Videla took power (1976-1983), left-wing Jews were targeted, some 3,000 of whom died under torture, despite Jews being less than 1% of Argentine’s population.

Marcel Zohar, Yediot Aharonot correspondent in Argentina, described how the Israeli government ‘refrained from processing immigration applications from Jews with left-wing background, in order to preserve Israel’s good business and political links with the ruling junta. In the same period, arms sales worth about one billion dollars were concluded between Israel and Argentina.’³⁸

Far from anti-Zionism representing ‘the apportioning of guilt for Western wrongs on to the Jews’, it is an anti-racist response to a settler colonial state in Palestine which acts in the name of all Jews. It is for that reason that more and more Jews are opposed to Zionism in the Jewish diaspora.

Nathalie Rothschild decries comparisons with the Warsaw Ghetto as being ‘ignorant and opportunistic’. Were not Gaza and Warsaw sealed off, deprived of food, subject to bombardment from an overwhelming military power? Rothschild argues that ‘Israel is not dotted with labour camps and gas chambers’. True, but nor do I want to await further catastrophes. The fact that Zionist settlers daub ‘Arabs to the gas chambers’ on walls should be warning enough,³⁹ as should the fact that ‘Israeli Soldiers Called Themselves the Mengele Unit’ and the Auschwitz 10.⁴⁰ To say nothing of the existence of overtly neo-Nazi gangs.⁴¹

Far from ‘rehashing a worn-out conspiracy theory, while defiling the memory of the Jews who suffered at the hands of the Nazis and denigrating Palestinians by turning them into objects of a vicarious Western pity’, by comparing the people of Gaza to the Jews in Warsaw I was expressing basic solidarity with Palestinians who were the targets of high tech US weaponry. It seems that solidarity is not a word much in evidence in Spiked. By demonstrating, marching and picketing we sought not that Palestinians should be turned into objects of pity but to mobilise people to oppose the policies of the present British government. Ms Rothschild would prefer we did nothing. Marek Edelman, the last surviving leader of the Warsaw Ghetto Resistance certainly understood the analogy. He was a bitter opponent of Zionism until he died. As did Rudolf Vrba, the Jewish escapee from Auschwitz who denounced the Zionist collaborators with Zionism.

Yes it is true that Israel’s leadership says their enemy is Hamas, not the Palestinian people, but does Ms Rothschild really believe them? They have always defined their enemy as ‘terrorism’ whilst murdering Palestinians. It was civilians who were deliberately targeted with various anti-personnel weapons, exploding bullets and chemical weapons. Or are we seriously to accept the propaganda that Israel’s is the most moral army in the world, leaflets and mobile phone messages and all?

The comparison I made with the Warsaw Ghetto was appreciated above all by Palestinians in the demonstration. Because this is an anti-racist analogy it is fitting that Palestinians identify with Jewish heroes rather than seeing Zionism as integral to Jewish identity.

Notes

1. Norman Finkelstein, Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History, Verso 2005, pp.47-8.
2. Ibid. p.27.
3. Nathan and Ruth Ann Perlmutter, The Real anti-Semitism in America, New York 1982, p.114, cited in Finkelstein op. cit. p. 30.
4. Hannah Arendt, Eichmann in Jerusalem – The Banality of Evil, Penguin 1992, p.166.
5. ‘Anti-Jewish Policy and Organization of the Deportations in France and the Netherlands, 1940–1944: A Comparative Study’, Holocaust and Genocide Studies, Vol.20 No.3, Winter 2006, p.447.
6. Raul Hilberg, The Destruction of the European Jews, Yale University Press, Vol.2, p.613.
7. Lucien Steinberg, Jews Against Hitler (Not as a Lamb), 1974, p.156.
8. Jacob Presser, Ashes in the Wind and Werner Warmbrunn, The Dutch Under German Occupation.
9. Lucy Dawidowicz, The War Against the Jews, Penguin 1987, p.428.
10. Abram Leon, The Jewish Question – A Marxist Interpretation, Pathfinder Press 1974, p.73.
11. Ibid. p.247.
12. Marx and Engels, Selected Correspondence, Lawrence & Wishart 1943; Selected Works, Vol.1, pp.55-6, Manifesto of the Communist Party.
13. Leon, p.226.
14. http://www.nigelparry.com/issues/shamir/originalletter.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/feb/19/greenstein
http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/cgi-bin/blogs/voices.php/2007/11/18/there_are_no_gatekeepers_just_anti_racis, http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=1559
15. An accusation that in itself is a mirror reflection of the old charge that Jews were rootless cosmopolitans!
16. See Robert Friedman, Village Voice, 11 May 1993 http://www.webshells.com/adlwatch/news22.htm
17. Finkelstein, pp.55-6.
18. Ibid. p.73.
19. Jewish Chronicle, 27 March 2007.
20. Speech before the Los Angeles World Affairs Council, March 22, 2004, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_lobby#cite_note-GoldbergLawac-3
21. Norman Finkelstein, The Holocaust Industry, Verso 2003. See also Evron’s ‘The Holocaust: Learning the Wrong Lessons’, Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 10 No. 3, Spring 1981, pp.16-26.
22. Ilan Pappe, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine.
23. Robert Fisk, Pity the Nation, OUP 1991, p.393.
24. Tom Segev, The Seventh Million, Hill and Wang 1993, p.105.
25. See for example Lenni Brenner’s Zionism in the Age of the Dictators and Ben Hecht’s Perfidy.
26. Livia Rokach, op. cit., 14, 19, 29. Livia Rokach, Sharrett Diaries, AAUG, Massachusetts, 1980, 29.
27. http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3381978,00.html 27 March 2007.
28. See ‘Vetting in practice’ http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/may/31/vettinginpractice
29. Ibid. p.6.
30. Moses Hess, Rome & Jerusalem, Philosophical Library, New York 1958, p.10. Cologne May 1862.
31. Ibid, p.27. This was a common theme among all wings of Zionism such as the socialist Zionist, Syrkin.
32. J.B. Agus, The Meaning of Jewish History, p.423, cited in Zionism & Racism, p.24. Humphrey Walz, Contrast in Perspectives and Perceptions.
33. Donald Niewyk, The Jews in Weimar Germany, Manchester UP 1980, p.32. Incidentally O’Neill references this source as Weinstock. I can find no trace of such a reference in the book. It would be helpful if references also had a page number.
34. Ibid. p.69.
35. Hitler Myth, OUP 1980. See also Popular Dissent in the 3rd Reich.
36. Isaac Deutscher, The Non-Jewish Jew & Other Essays – The Russian Revolution and the Jewish Question, pp.66-7.
37. Rory McCarthy in the Guardian 20 January 2009.
38. ‘Israel Denied Shelter to Left-wing Argentine Jews During Junta Rule’ Hadashot (Israeli Hebrew newspaper), 28 September 1990.
39. ‘Breaking silence over the horrors of Hebron’, The Independent 23 June 2004. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/breaking-silence-over-the-horrors-of-hebron-733173.html
40. Al Hamishmar 24 July 1989, Ha'aretz 21 July 1989. Ha'aretz 21 July 1989 and Hadashot 25 July 1989.
41. ‘Jews are capable of acting like neo-Nazis’, Ha'aretz 16 September 2007 http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=903972&contrassID=2&subContrassID=4