The Dark Inevitability Of Zionism

| Educate!

Above Photo: A section of the barrier — erected by Israeli officials to prevent the passage of Palestinians — with graffiti using President John F. Kennedy’s famous quote when facing the Berlin Wall, “Ich bin ein Berliner.” (Photo credit: Marc Venezia)

Google is blocking our site. Please use the social media sharing buttons (upper left) to share this on your social media and help us break through.

Among the growing assaults on freedom of speech is an Israeli-driven campaign to criminalize a campaign to boycott Israel over its racist persecution of Palestinians, writes Lawrence Davidson.

We know where Zionism has taken Israel. The Balfour Declaration of 1917 led the way. In that imperial and colonial document, the British promised the World Zionist Organization a “Jewish National Home” in Palestine. They did so, as Edward Said put it, in “flat disregard of both the presence and wishes of the native majority residents in that territory.”

Right from the start the Zionists understood “national home” to mean an eventual Jewish state. Actualizing that assumption has had enormous implications not only for the Palestinians but also for the Jews. And, as it turns out, for the rest of us as well.

You cannot introduce one people, in this case a large number of Europeans who happen to be Jewish, into a territory populated by hundreds of thousands of non-Europeans, without negative consequences. And, if the incoming Europeans have the goal of creating a state exclusively for their group alone, those consequences are going to be dire indeed. Surrounded by “the other,” the only way you can achieve your exclusive state is through discriminatory practices and laws ultimately producing an apartheid nation. And that is what happened.

While this has meant, and continues to mean, segregation, ethnic cleansing and Bantustans for the Palestinians, for the Jews it means that their religion is tied to a racist political ideology. There is no instance of Israeli prejudice exercised against the Palestinians, no act of violence committed against them, that does not simultaneously dishonor and debase the Jewish religion and people.

In 1948, some Palestinians, uprooted by Israel’s claims to their lands, relocated to the Jaramana Refugee Camp in Damascus, Syria

In 1948, some Palestinians, uprooted by Israel’s claims to their lands, relocated to the Jaramana Refugee Camp in Damascus, Syria

Worldwide Consequences

How about the rest of world? The consequences of Zionism are threatening both security and equality everywhere. Here is how this is happening:


—As the Balfour Declaration indicates, Israel and its society are products of a colonial era. That is an era when the people of both Europe and the U.S. openly practiced racist policies and behavior toward non-Europeans. They regularly trampled of the rights of alleged inferiors. Israel continues to operate in this fashion into the present.

—Following World War II, it became understood that these behaviors and attitudes are morally indefensible and their consequences should be remedied. And so, the United Nations was established, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights issued, and a number of treaties embodying international laws designating crimes against humanity were signed. With this process the world entered a potentially more civilized, post-colonial age.

—When this happened the Zionist project instantly became an anachronism. In fact, Israel became a state that defied the modern norm the moment it was proclaimed.

—However, Israel does not want to be outside the norm. It wants to be accepted as a “normal” nation, particularly within the Western state system. There are only two ways this can happen: either (1) Israel must either give up the racist ideology of Zionism and embrace a form of democracy accessible to all its people regardless of religion or ethnicity, or (2) the world must revert back to an acceptance of at least some of the colonial practices of the Nineteenth and early Twentieth centuries.

You would think that choosing the anti-racist option, and therefore seriously pressuring Israel – as the world had done with white-ruled South Africa – to fundamentally change, would be the obvious choice for today’s statesmen. But it seems not. Why is that?

There is now an ongoing effort, we might call it the updated Zionist project, to move the world backward so as to accept racist past practices as “normal.” It consists of (a) an attack on international law protecting human rights (despite the fact that much of this law was created as a reaction to the anti-Semitic crimes of World War II), (b) an attempt to undermine the International Criminal Court, and (c) an attack on the United Nations and its efforts to protect the human and political rights of Palestinians.

Enter BDS

It is clear that very few of the world’s governments are willing to confront Israel, even though it is an apartheid state existing in an era that claims to detest such racist regimes. This has a lot to do with the financial and special interest strength of Zionist supporters both Jewish and Christian, and the strategic use of such power to corrupt policymaking. This can be seen most plainly in the United States.

There are also Israel’s extensive high-tech and weapons-trading networks in Europe, Africa and South America that lead important political and economic institutions and individuals to support, or at least turn a blind eye to, the Zionist state. And then, of course, there are a growing number of states that themselves have plans to marginalize their own minorities.

Does this mean that there is no defense against the insidious effects of this reactionary regime – one which, according to its own past Prime Minister Ehud Barak, is “infected with fascism”? No, there are options to oppose Israel. However, at present they are to be found outside of the realm of government action and, at least for the moment, outside occupied Palestine as well.

The latter is so because inside Palestine, 70 years of Israeli colonial savagery has worn down much of the indigenous population. This does not mean that resistance from within the Occupied Territories does not continue. It does, but at relatively low levels and at a high cost.

Since the death of Yasser Arafat in 2004, too many of the Palestinian leaders have been co-opted into playing the role of modern-day Quislings. The Palestinians within Israeli-controlled territory are now fragmented into Bantustan-style enclaves, and their own “security forces” often work hand-in-hand with the Israeli oppressors.

As a consequence of these circumstances, right now the greatest pressure can be put on apartheid Israel through the activities of organized civil society. This pressure by itself may or may not be able to force fundamental change on Israel, but it can certainly raise the cost of its racist behavior and impact public opinion.

Here we are talking about the BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) movement that urges both individuals and organizations (be they economic, cultural or intellectual) to avoid interacting with Israel and its state-sponsored institutions and projects. To date this has proved to be an effective weapon against Israeli racism and colonialism. For instance, if you go to the website of the U.S. Campaign for Palestinian Rights, you can find a list of 200 recent victories falling within the Boycott and Divestment categories. State-based sanctions are still in the future.

Israeli Pressure

Success in this regard has, of course, generated a fierce reaction from the Zionists. According to a Huffington Post article, “The Israeli government has reportedly committed tens of millions of dollars, one government ministry and its military and security intelligence assets to the fight.

Israeli Minister of Transport, Intelligence and Atomic Energy, Yisrael Katz, recently called for “targeted civil eliminations” of BDS leaders. Actually, such a reaction reflects not only the fact that the cost of Israeli racism is on the rise, but also that the Zionists have lost the public (if not the governmental) debate when it comes to their behavior toward the Palestinians.

Put broadly, BDS is an effort to help save the positive potential inherent in modern post-colonial society: the civilizing potential to be found in international law, in human and civil rights, in a benevolent and egalitarian rule of law for all of us.

So successful has BDS been to date, and so much potential does it have to help force Israel down the same road as white-ruled South Africa, that Israel and its surrogates in the U.S. and Europe are willing to undermine the very laws and rights that help uphold what freedoms there are within the public realm. For instance, in the U.S., the very right to engage in such a boycott is under Zionist attack, and by extension, so is the constitutional protection to free speech. American Zionists seem willing to subvert their own constitutional protections in order to support a racist foreign state.

Zionism can be seen as a strange twist on the Spanish philosopher George Santayana’s warning that “those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” The Zionists certainly remember the persecutions suffered by European Jews. But they forget that this mistreatment was most often organized by racist states that sought to ethnically cleanse the Jews.

Having forgotten about this state-based aspect of their own past, the Zionist state now commits this same offense against the Palestinians. It also needs the rest of us to forget the sins of past racism if it is to carry on its effort to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians. Our response should be to embrace the motto, “Never Again!” It is time to direct this demand to the shameful behavior of Israel and the Zionists.


  • Helen4Yemen

    Zionism was never about Palestine but about “Greater Palestine”
    which is now referred to as “Greater Israel.

    The author mentioned about Palestine being colonized by European
    Jewry, but according to Shlomo Sand, more than 95% of European
    Jewry do believe that they are not European but Middle Eastern – even
    despite their own DNA revealing that they are 99.9% of European ancestry.

  • DHFabian

    It is regrettable that “Popular Resistance” has consistently allowed only one side of this profoundly complex issue to be presented. We expect much better from “independent/progressive” media.The corporate msm did the same thing in terms of virtually redefining Moslems as terrorists by pointedly excluding the arguments against that notion.

    The bottom line to the extraordinarily long history of the Mideast is that Jews are indigenous to that bit of land known as Israel today. Key points: Israel is the sole Jewish nation, a tiny country (roughly the size of New Jersey), surrounded by vast Arab countries. What we refer to to as “Palestinians” are Israeli Arabs who are recruited to work against Israel, toward the goal of establishing a 100% “pure” Moslem Mideast. It is a racist corruption of justice to claim that a “fair partitioning” of the Mideast would be: 100% for the Arabs, 0% for the Jews.

    As 20th century history so strikingly shows, eras of economic distress come with increased levels of racism. False racial/ethnic/religious stereotypes are dragged out into the public square as people seek simplistic answers to tremendously complex issues. If the goal is to find a way to peace in the Mideast, the solution is to get US oil corporations out of the region.

  • kevinzeese

    People have replied to your constant Zionist postings with facts, yet you persist in posting lies. Popular Resistance publishes the truth about Israel and you just do not like the truth.

  • kevinzeese

    Thank you for posting the facts about Israel, not just in this comment consistently. The US is inundated with false information supporting Israel so the facts must be constantly put forward.

  • Helen4Yemen

    The Ashkenazi (95% of world Jewry) is as much indigenous to Palestine as the Eskimos since the Eskimos and the Ashkenazi are at exactly the same level of Middle Eastern ancestry, which is o% for both. You are a wannabe Israelite, a fake, a pretender!

    The only cousin of an Ashkenazi is another Ashkenazi. It is amazing how the DNA results of the Ashkenazi are almost identical to one another. Watch this video the moment when Larry David and Bernie Sanders were told they are cousins.

    Larry David = 97.7% Ashkenazi

    Bernie Sanders = 97.8% Ashkenazi


  • Helen4Yemen

    According to the “diaspora” myth of Israelite men marrying European
    women and producing hybrids, in a few generations, the Israelite gene
    will totally disappear.

    1st generation: Israelite marries European
    = 50% Israelite-50% European

    2nd generation: 50% Israelite-50% European marries European
    = 25% Israelite-75% European

    3rd generation: 25% Israelite-75% European marries European
    = 12.5% Israelite-87.5% European

    4th generation: 12.5% Israelite-87.5% European marries European
    = 6.25% Israelite-93.75% European

    5th generation: 6.25% Israelite-93.75% European marries European
    = 3.13% Israelite-96.87% European

    6th generation: 3.13% Israelite-96.87% European marries European
    = 1.56% Israelite-98.43% European

  • Helen4Yemen

    For a thousand years, there were no Jews living in Palestne
    and today, there are no indigenous Jews anywhere in the

    “In 1920, the British Government’s Interim Report on
    the Civil Administration of Palestine stated that there
    were hardly 700,000 people living in Palestine. The
    Jewish element of the population numbers 76,000.
    Almost all have entered Palestine during the last
    40 years. Prior to 1850 there were in the country only
    a handful of Jews. In the following 30 years a few
    hundreds came to Palestine. Most of them were
    animated by religious motives; they came to pray and
    to die in the Holy Land, and to be buried in its soil.
    After the persecutions in Russia forty years ago, the
    movement of the Jews to Palestine assumed larger


  • TecumsehUnfaced

    Please tell us how you justify this being done by unwanted European invaders and how is such savagery “profoundly” complex.

    Over 750,000 people (~80%) driven off their ancestral lands

    Over 500 Arab villages and towns BULLDOZED and buried under pine forests

    Please tell us which verses of the Talmud apply to your justification.

  • Helen4Yemen

    Palestine is not your grandmother’s land nor is falafel your grandmother’s recipe.
    It is silly and laughable for a white man to claim to be indigenous to Palestine.
    It simply means you are ashamed of your own Khazar ancestry.

    You are simply a shameless hasbara agent. You peddle
    your hasbara lies but when challenged to explain any of them you
    never answers but simply flee. Your hasbara that you peddles are
    the same, therefore, instead of having to type a brand new
    response to an old and tired comment of yours, I have prepared
    this file which I will use as a response to your future comments.

    1. Jews are indigenous to that bit of land.

    That is like saying Muslims are indigenous to Saudi
    Arabia. Saudi Muslim are but not all Muslims. In the
    case of Jewry, 95% of world Jewry is the Ashkenazi
    who are totally a European people with confirmed
    DNA of 99.9% European and 0% Middle Eastern. How
    a people with no trace of Middle East ancestry are
    indigenous is just hard to understand. In addition, the
    Ashkenazi does claim to be a hybrid of European
    women and Israelite men. Does the Ashkenai also
    consider himself to be equally indigenous to Europe?

    2. Israel is both the historic and modern Jewish nation.

    I do not know what “historic” means. There was no
    nation called “Israel” unless in the biblical stories.
    There is a country that they now call “Israel” which is
    occupied and stolen Palestine. The Jews in Palestine
    are simply colonial settlers like the French in Algeria
    and the British in Kenya.

    3. The anti-Israel rhetoric centers on a notion
    that Jews, like American Indians, should not have any
    power within their own nations.

    The American Indians are indigenous to their soil. The
    Ashkenazi came all the way from Poland, Hungary,
    Germany and his European feet never touched that
    soil until they arrived as colonial settlers in the 1880’s.
    In fact, it is the Palestinians that you need to compare
    with the Native Indians, because both peoples are
    indigenous to their land, both people’s lands were
    salivated by Europeans, in both cases the white
    invaders did not want the people but only the land.

    4. To claim that the anti-Israel rhetoric is not
    anti-Jewish simply denies reality.

    98% of American Jews (Gallup 2014) supported the
    Gaza war and their sympathies were with the killers
    and not those killed.

    5. It’s just that this is the only racial group
    considered “acceptable” to bash.

    The Jews are white Europeans, black Africans, Asians,
    Arabs and how they can all be considered a racial group
    is hard to understand. Imagine the Muslims claiming
    they are a race.

    6. What we call “Palestinians” are Arab Israelis
    who are recruited to work against the Jewish nation,

    The Ashkenazi hatched a scheme: he told the world
    that he was not taking anyone’s land but only a piece
    of uninhabited Arab land. But when the white
    Ashkenazi arrived as a colonial settler in 1882, he
    found 400,000 Arabic speaking Palestinian Muslims,
    40,000 Arabic speaking indigenous Palestinian
    Christians and 15,000 foreign and Yiddish speaking
    Jews from Eastern Europe There were no Jews living
    in Palestine for over 1,000 years before the scheme to
    send indigent European Jewry to live off welfare they
    call “haluka” as a scheme to start planting the seeds
    of Jewish presence on that land ahead of the stampede.

    7. What we call “Palestinians” are Arab Israelis
    who are recruited to work against the Jewish nation,

    You are simply speaking like an idiot. Who was
    working against the British in Kenya, against the
    French in Algeria? Your disgusting hasabara is that the
    land was empty. “A Jewish state would not have come
    into being without the uprooting of 700,000
    Palestinians. Therefore it was necessary to uproot
    them. There was no choice but to expel that
    population”. (Benny Morris)

    8. Many Arabs live and work in peace in
    Israel, and these are separate from those we call

    Palestinian are one people whetehr they are in Gaza,
    the West Bank or what they call “Israel” or outside of

    9. Much of the world does not see the
    fairness of “100% Arabs, 0% Jews.”

    100% of the Jews now in Palestine are of foreign
    origin since there are no more indigenous Palestinian
    Jews left anywhere in the world. The Ashkenazi Jewry
    that makes up 95% of world Jewry was inserted on
    Arab land in order to remove him from Europe where
    he was hated for centuries.

    10. why a “fair partitioning” of the Mideast
    would be: 100% for the Arabs, 0% for the Jews.

    Just because you refer to the Ashkenazi as “Jews”
    does not transform him from European (at confirmed
    DNA of 99.9% European and 0% Middle Eastern) into
    nartive. He is simply a European colonial settler like
    the French in Algeria and the British in Kenya. It is like
    the Japanese saying why is Arab land 100% Arab and
    0% Japanese? The Ashkenazi is in fact as alien to the
    region as the Japanese. But the Ashkenazi likes to hide
    behind the world “Jew”.

    11. The goal, of course, is to wipe out Israel itself.

    How is “Israel” different than the French in Algeria
    and the British in Kenya? “Israel” was created by force
    and “Israel” continues to exist only by the use of
    force. The Ashkenazi is native to Lithuania, Hungary,
    Poland and can easily go home.

    12. Israel is already so tiny

    The Ashkenazi did arrive to grab what they call
    Greater Israel: all of Palestine, all of Jordan, all
    of Lebanon, 2/3 of Syria, 1/2 of Saudi Arabia, Egypt up
    to the Nile and it would displace 70,000,000 people
    who already live in those areas.

    13. that Jews should be denied the right to self-govern

    The Ashkenazi who makes up 95% of world Jewry is
    simply a foreign colonial settler. His ancestry at 99.9%
    is Poland, Hungry, Lithuania, Ukraine … He should
    have been given land in Europe where his ancestry is
    from. Christian Europe simply was looking for lands
    inhabited by non-whites to remove the unwanted
    European Jewry to. Countries they had plans to settle
    these unfortunate European Jewry were in addition
    to Palestine: Argentina, Madagascar, Uganda, Angola,
    Mozambique, Cyprus.

    14. to maintain the sole Jewish nation, the
    nation in which Jews originated?

    DNA has confirmed that that Ashkenazi origin is
    Poland, Hungary, Lithuania, Ukraine at a stunning of
    99.9% with no trace of Middle East ancestry – not
    even 1%. It is ridiculous when white Europeans claim
    to have originated from a land inhabited by non-whites.
    It is even childish.

    15. Besides American Indians, are there any
    other people who, you believe, should not have the
    right to self-determination, as sovereign nations?

    You have it backwards. It is the Palestinians that you
    need to compare with the Native Indians, because in
    both cases, white Europeans arrived on their land and
    stole their land at gun point. In both cases, the white
    Europeans did not want the people but only the land
    and engaged in genocide of the natives.

    16. Israel is a tiny country, the sole Jewish
    nation. It is roughly the size of New Jersey (one of our
    smallest states).

    Every square inch of that land was stolen by the
    Ashkenazi at gun point. Why not give the Ashkenazi
    land in his motherlands of Ukraine or Poland or Russia or
    Lithuania. “Israel” is twice the size of Lebanon and
    simply stolen Arab land.

  • mwildfire

    Come on. You really claim the animosity of Palestinians, living in their constrained Bantustans, is caused by someone propagandizing them? They were supposed to not mind being ripped out of their houses and sent into refugee status so Jews could claim this ancient homeland?

  • mwildfire

    I’m kinda surprised by this comment. I presume DH does not think the things she posts are lies.

  • Helen4Yemen

    Actually, I am glad to have found this forum to expose the disgusting lies of those like DHFabian. He is one silly and coward hasbara peddler who can only vomit his hasbara but is unable to answer questions put to him. The reason Zionism succeeded was because Christian Europe was disgusted with European Jewry and when Herzl came along, Christian Europe smiled! I have read the entire 4-volume diaries of Theodor Herzl and I remember in detail what was discussed. Herzl was boasting how he was received like a king by European kings, prime ministers, emperors; and he was right. Herzl even made the remark how one prime minister had to let him in while a mayor who had arrived earlier was made to wait. The prime minster of Austria invited Herzl to his private home so that they could talk in private. All were willing to help Herzl remove the Jews out of Europe and Zionism was the solution to the “Jewish Question. All were excited about Zionism except for the Pope who replied as:
    January 25, 1904

    “We are unable to favor this movement. We cannot prevent the Jews from going to Jerusalem – but we could never sanction it. The ground of Jerusalem, if it were not always sacred, has been sanctified by the life of Jesus Christ. As the head of the Church, I cannot answer you otherwise. The Jews have not recognized our Lord, therefore we cannot recognize the Jewish people. Jerusalem cannot be placed in Jewish hands.”

  • Helen4Yemen

    “Indigenous peoples, also known as first peoples, aboriginal

    peoples, native peoples, or autochthonous peoples, are ethnic

    groups who are descended from and identify with the original

    inhabitants of a given region, in contrast to groups that have settled,

    occupied or colonized the area more recently. Groups are usually

    described as indigenous when they maintain traditions or other

    aspects of an early culture that is associated with a given region.”

    Please tell me which of your Ashkenazi foods that we never tasted nor can we even pronounce are indigenous to the Middle East

    Chicken matzo ball soup
    gefiltah fish
    Kasha Varnishkis
    matzoh balls.
    Potatoe kasha Knishes
    Potatoe Latkas
    Stuffed cabbage

  • Helen4Yemen


    A rose by any other name is a rose. The European says he is Israelite and “coming back”, but the world knows that he is nothing more than a European colonial settler like the French in Algeria.

    Here are a few quotes from Vladimir Jabotinsky’s “The Iron Wall”, 1923.

    1 Colonization itself has its own explanation, integral and inescapable, and understood by every Arab and every Jew with his wits about him. Colonization can have only one goal. For the Palestinian Arabs this goal is inadmissible. This is in the nature of things. To change that nature is impossible.

    2 Their voluntary agreement is out of the question. Hence those who hold that an agreement with the natives is an essential condition for Zionism can now say “no” and depart from Zionism. Zionist Colonization, even the most restricted, must either be terminated or carried out in defiance of the will of the native population. This Colonization can, therefore, continue and develop only under the protection of a force independent of the local population – an iron wall which the native population cannot break through. This is, in toto, our policy towards the Arabs. To formulate it any other way would only be hypocrisy.

    3 I do not believe that they will be hurt. Except for those who were born blind, they realised long ago that it is utterly impossible to obtain the voluntary consent of the Palestine Arabs for converting Palestine from an Arab country into a country with a Jewish majority.

    4 My readers have a general idea of the history of colonisation in other countries. I suggest that they consider all the precedents with which they are acquainted, and see whether there is one solitary instance of any colonisation being carried on with the consent of the native population. There is no such precedent. The native populations, civilised or uncivilised, have always stubbornly resisted the colonists, irrespective of whether they were civilised or savage. And it made no difference whatever whether the colonists behaved decently or not.

    5 All Natives Resist colonists.There is no justification for such a belief. It may be that some individual Arabs take bribes. But that does not mean that the Arab people of Palestine as a whole will sell that fervent patriotism that they guard so jealously, and which even the Papuans will never sell. Every native population in the world resists colonists as long as it has the slightest hope of being able to rid itself of the danger of being colonosed.

    6 Colonisation carries its own explanation, the only possible explanation, unalterable and as clear as daylight to every ordinary Jew and every ordinary Arab. colonisation can have only one aim, and Palestine Arabs cannot accept this aim. It lies in the very nature of things, and in this particular regard nature cannot be changed.

    7 Zionist colonisation must either stop, or else proceed regardless of the native population. Which means that it can proceed and develop only under the protection of a power that is independent of the native population – behind an iron wall, which the native population cannot breach.

    8 But that does not mean that the Arab people of Palestine as a whole will sell that fervent patriotism that they guard so jealously, and which even the Papuans will never sell. Every native population in the world resists colonists as long as it has the slightest hope of being able to rid itself of the danger of being colonosed.

    9 colonisation can have only one aim, and Palestine Arabs cannot accept this aim. It lies in the very nature of things, and in this particular regard nature cannot be changed.

    10 Let us consider for a moment the point of view of those to whom this seems immoral. We shall trace the root of the evil to this – that we are seeking to colonise a country against the wishes of its population, in other words, by force. Everything else that is undesirable grows out of this root with axiomatic inevitability. What then is to be done?

    11 The simplest way out would be to look for a different country to colonise. Like Uganda. But if we look more closely into the matter we shall find that the same evil exists there, too. Uganda also has a native population, which consciously or unconsciously as in every other instance in history, will resist the coming of the colonisers.

  • Helen4Yemen


    Angola Again Being Discussed As Possible Haven for Jewish Exiles

    May 6, 1934

    Will Angola in Portuguese West Africa prove the dark horse among the corners of the earth which are put forth as likely for large scale Jewish colonization?

    Persistent rumors to that effect have cropped up again. To be sure, League of Nations’ High Commissioner, James B. McDonald, who is in charge of settling ###? wish refugees, when approached, ###mptly disclaimed any knowledge of the existence of such a proposal. When a London daily further intimated that an American relief organization was prepared to contribute some $10,000,000 for such a project and the Joint Distribution Committee was asked about it, it retorted with an equally emphatic denial.

    A report came from Paris referring to the departure of the Portuguese ambassador there with Lisbon his destination. He was to confer with his government on the proposition. It was said that sponsors of the plan are aiming at the ultimate establishment of a Jewish autonomous state in Angola under League protection and since Portugal objects to the League’s overlordship negotiations are afoot for removing such objections.

    On a number of previous occasions Angola was prominently mentioned for the purposes of Jewish settlement. One of the most significant moves in this connection was made in 1912 when the ITO, Jewish Territorial Organization, then headed by Israel Zangwill, sent a commission and an expedition to Angola to examine the territory in question. ITO’s avowed aim was “to procure a territory upon an autonomous basis for those Jews who cannot or will not remain in the lands in which they at present live.”


    Headed by J. W. Gregory, professor of geology at the University of Glasgow, holder of numerous scientific degrees and distinguished for his scholarship the expedition returned in 1913 with a report on the country and conditions. As a supplement to the report, Dr. Gregory made a statement which in part said as follows:

    “I have considered the suitability of Angola rather for refugees who wish to escape poverty and ill-treatment in their own countries and wish to remain in a Jewish community. I assume that such refugees would be willing to work with greater patience than ordinary commercial settlers. I thought the country more hopeful for refugee immigrants than for any other class. I see no reason why such settlers should not in time build up a colony for themselves.”

    Regarding actual figures, Dr. Gregory said:

    “I estimate that 5,000 square miles of moderately good land could be obtained in the one tract. How much more of the lands surrounding that area is suitable I cannot tell. ..I think it probable that the 5,000 square miles could be greatly extended.

    “Each settler should have about 160 acres, or say, four families to the square mile. With an average of six per family that gives you a population of 120,000. In most agricultural countries, the urban population equals the agricultural. So that 5,000 square miles should support, say, fifty people to the square mile, or a quarter of a million.”


    Elsewhere the head of the commission had stated “I should think the land in Angola is decidedly superior to the average in Palestine.” He also suggested that “in generations to come, as people have saved money and begun to live on unearned incomes, the country would carry many more” than fifty per square mile, and that “5,000 square miles is a small tract for a country and will not support a big population unless it has mining and manufacturing industries.”

    Israel Zangwill first became interested in the possibilities of Angola when in June, 1911, he received a letter from a Jew occupying a responsible post in Rhodesia, who described Angola in glowing terms and said that “during the last couple of years many co-religionists have gone up to the Congo territory which is enormously rich.”

    While more Jewish leaders were becoming interested but still hesitated, the Portuguese government made the first move. The Chamber of Deputies passed the Jewish Colonization Bill. But it dealt only with individual settlers. Zangwill himself was not so overenthusiastic about the proposal as not to acknowledge that Angola “was not the paradise which it has been represented in some quarters.” He admitted that “a good deal of the soil was poor.”


    Authorities are agreed however that the high plateaus in the southern part are adapted to the white man and are sufficiently fertile to support him. Angola is the principal Portuguese colony in West Africa, and is wholly tropical. It covers an area of about 500,000 square miles with a total population of some 4,000,000, including probably less than 10,000 Europeans or persons of European descent. The plateau temperatures are moderate; frosts occur in winter. The nature of the climate may be judged by the crops grown-oranges, bananas, Indian corn. Coffee plants have been observed flourishing, as well as European vegetables, including potatoes of high quality.

    The most serious climatic disadvantage is the extreme contrast between the dry and wet seasons, the letter being prolonged and succeeded by the parched conditions of the dry period.

    When Dr. Gregory summed up his conclusions, he declared that the Benguella Plateau was “remarkably salubrious,” going on to say that its climate was pleasant and healthy, scenery beautiful, and it was free of insect pests, dangerous animals and vermin. He was much attracted by that region and felt that life there could be easily made comfortable.

    He went so far as to assert that, considering the cost of clearing, the climate and the political conditions, he could not think of another area as suitable for the ITO aspirations.


    But there were other authorities who took a diametrically opposite stand. Sir Harry H. Johnston, writing on “Angola as a Land of Jewish Settlement,” insisted that “Frankly, from what I know of Angola-and it is, probably, as much as, if not more than what is known by any other non-Portuguese person at the present time-I do not think it offers any single continuous area of sufficient size suited for the establishment of a Jewish colony.”

    Another expert, H. W. Nevinson, declared: “The project of the Portuguese government to settle Jews in Angola is one that requires cautious consideration.” He held that the Portuguese authorities enjoyed but little power and that voluntary labor was extremely difficult to obtain there.

    Among other objections to Angola there has come to the fore from time to time the suspicion of the black population which, some say, is rather warlike. There are still native kings holding sway, medicine men indulge in their mysterious incantations and ritual, queer musical instruments issue forth weird music and some portions of the region readily convey the Occidental conception of the glamor of tropical Africa.


  • Helen4Yemen


    The Madagascar Plan to remove European Jewry

    Germany attempted to send all European Jews to the Island of Madagascar.

    Text of the Madagascar Proposal to remove all European Jews

    The approaching victory gives Germany the possibility, and in my view also the duty, of solving the Jewish question in Europe. The desirable solution is: all Jews out of Europe.

    The task of the Foreign Ministry in this is:

    a) To include this demand in the Peace Treaty and to insist on it also by means of separate negotiations with the European countries not involved in the Peace Treaty;

    b) to secure the territory necessary for the settlement of the Jews in the Peace Treaty, and to determine principles for the cooperation of the enemy countries in this problem;

    c) to determine the position under international law of the new Jewish overseas settlement;

    d) as preparatory measures:

    1) clarification of the wishes and plans of the departments concerned of the Party, State and Research organizations in Germany, and the coordination of these plans with the wishes of the Reich Foreign Minister, including the following:

    2) preparation of a survey of the factual data available in various places (number of Jews in the various countries), use of their financial assets through an international bank;

    3) negotiations with our friend, Italy, on these matters.

    With regard to beginning the preparatory work, Section D III has already approached the Reich Foreign Minister via the Department Germany [interior affairs], and has been instructed by him to start on the preparatory work without delay. There have already been discussions with the Office of the Reichsfuehrer SS in the Ministry of Interior and several departments of the Party. These departments approve the following plan of Section D III:

    Section D III proposes as a solution of the Jewish question: In the Peace Treaty France must make the island of Madagascar available for the solution of the Jewish question, and to resettle and compensate the approximately 25,000 French citizens living there. The island will be transferred to Germany under a mandate. Diégo Suarez Bay and the port of Antsirane, which are [sea-] strategically important, will become German naval bases (if the Navy wishes, these naval bases could be extended also to the harbors – open road-steads – Tamatave, Andevorante, Mananjara, etc.). In addition to these naval bases, suitable areas of the country will be excluded from the Jewish territory (Judenterritorium) for the construction of air bases. That part of the island not required for military purposes will be placed under the administration of a German Police Governor, who will be under the administration of the Reichsfuehrer SS. Apart from this, the Jews will have their own administration in this territory: their own mayors, police, postal and railroad administration, etc. The Jews will be jointly liable for the value of the island. For this purpose their former European financial assets will be transferred for use to a European bank to be established for this purpose. Insofar as the assets are not sufficient to pay for the land which they will receive, and for the purchase of necessary commodities in Europe for the development of the island, the Jews will be able to receive bank credits from the same bank.

    As Madagascar will only be a Mandate, the Jews living there will not acquire German citizenship. On the other hand, the Jews deported to Madagascar will lose their citizenship of European countries from the date of deportation. Instead, they will become residents of the Mandate of Madagascar.

    This arrangement would prevent the possible establishment in Palestine by the Jews of a Vatican State of their own, and the opportunity for them to exploit for their own purposes the symbolic importance which Jerusalem has for the Christian and Mohammedan parts of the world. Moreover, the Jews will remain in German hands as a pledge for the future good behavior of the members of their race in America.

    Use can be made for propaganda purposes of the generosity shown by Germany in permitting cultural, economic, administrative and legal self-administration to the Jews; it can be emphasized at the same time that our German sense of responsibility towards the world forbids us to make the gift of a sovereign state to a race which has had no independent state for thousands of years: this would still require the test of history.

    signed Rademacher
    Berlin, July 3, 1940

    Source: JewishVirtualLibrary

  • Helen4Yemen


    Sir Clement Hill,

    Chief of Protectorate Dept,

    To Mr L J Greenberg,

    Foreign Office

    Sir Clement Hill, Chief of Protectorate Dept, to Mr L J

    Greenbcrg | Foreign Offce


    Mr Chamberlain communicated to the Marquess of Lansdowne the letter which you addressed to him on the 13th ultimo containing the form of an agreement which Dr Herzl proposes should be entered into between His Majesty’s Government and the Jewish Colonial Trust Ltd for the establishment of a Jewish settlement in East Africa.

    His Lordship has also had under his consideration the remarks made by you on 6‘”Just on the occasion of your interview in this office with Sir E Barrington and Mr Hurst.

    I am now directed by His Lordship to say that he has studied the question with the interest which His Majesty’s Government must always take in any well-considered scheme for the amelioration of the position of the Jewish Race. The time at his disposal has been too short to enable him to go fully into the details of the plan or to discuss it with His Majesty’s Commissioner for the East Africa Protectorate, and he regrets that he is therefore unable to pronounce any definite opinion in the matter.

    He understands that the Trust desire to send some gentlemen to the East Africa Protectorate, who ma ascertain personal whether there are any vacant lands suitable for the purposes in question, and, if t is is so he will be happy to give them every facility to enable them to discuss with His Majesty’s Commissioner the possibility of meeting the view which may be expressed at the forthcoming Zionist Congress in regard to the conditions upon which a settlement might be possible.

    If a site can be found which the Trust and His Majesty’s Commissioner consider suitable and which commends itself to His Majesty’s Government, Lord Lansdowne will be prepared to entertain favorably proposals for the establishment of a Jewish colony or settlement on conditions which will enable the members to observe their National customs For this purpose he would be prepared to discuss (if a suitable site had been found and subject to the views of the advisers of the Secretary of State in East Africa) the details of a scheme comprising as its main features: the grant of a considerable area of land, the appointment of a Jewish Official as chief of the local administration, and permission to the Colony to have a free hand in regard to municipal legislation and as to the management of religious and purely domestic matters, such Local Autonomy being conditional upon the right of His Majesty’s Government to exercise a general control.

    There is no need at present to consider the details of the terms upon which the land would be granted, whether by sale or lease, but His Lordship assumes that no portion of the administrative expenses of the settlement would fall on His Majesty’s Government, and the latter would reserve power to reoccupy the land if the settlement should not prove a success.

    I am, Sir,

    Your most obedient humble servant

    (signed) Clement Hill


  • TecumsehUnfaced

    Are you claiming that she is totally brainwashed and obstinately ignorant of the Zionist past? Or that she doesn’t consider the Palestinians human enough to deserve more respect than a cockroach?

  • TecumsehUnfaced

    I thought you were busy.

  • Helen4Yemen

    This DHFabian hasbara peddler has nothing new or original to say. He or she is doing the same stupid copy/paste statements and he/she figures that she might as well copy paste since he/she cannot debate me or anyone else on the hasbara items such as:
    -Israel is the sole Jewish nation,
    -a tiny country (roughly the size of New Jersey),
    -surrounded by vast Arab countries.
    -What we refer to to as “Palestinians” are Israeli Arabs who are recruited to work against Israel,
    -toward the goal of establishing a 100% “pure” Moslem Mideast.
    -It is a racist corruption of justice to claim that a “fair partitioning” of the Mideast would be: 100% for the Arabs, 0% for the Jews.
    Amazing arrogance for European Jewry to act like they belong on that land.

  • TecumsehUnfaced

    Their Babylonian Talmud says that is okay.

    “What a Jew steals from a ‘goy’ he may keep.” (Sanhedrin 57a)

    Talmudists call it a ‘mizvah’, a service rendered to God. (And they try to label all Muslims religious fanatics, instead of just their Saudi Wahhabi brothers.)

    I wonder if DHFabian has ever read any of the Talmud, or is just following orders.

  • kevinzeese

    Diane, or DHFabian, seems ignored and prejudiced against Palestinians. Helen4Yemen has responded to her consistently and repudiated her Zionist Israel statements – my sense is that Diane does not even read them but I am pleased they are posted because Helen makes important, fact-based contributions to the discussion. Sadly, discussion about Israel is often not fact-based in the US, they are much like Diane’s comments — just bias and ignorance.

  • TecumsehUnfaced

    I think that Diane does read the antagonistic responses to her publishing hasbara, but has learned that duplicitous responses to Helen gets a tidal wave back. Helen has gathered a vast collection of well-researched material, and she wields it well, I agree.

    Two days ago she thought to check Hitler’s speeches for references to Jews, and found them virtually devoid thereof, an interesting revelation for which I never even thought to check. It seems to indicate that Hitler was not the disseminator of German Jew hatred. Perhaps it was Himmler (with Hitler’s approval, of course.) After all, I never saw any indication that Hitler ever visited the slave camps, but I have seen photographs of Himmler and his staff with smug, contemptuous smiles interrogating prisoners behind barbed wire. Himmler and his gang were having fun.

  • rgaura

    I rather think that ancestry should be less important than justice. My disgust at the zionist project is similar to my disgust at the US. The way a nation treats its people and other nations and peoples is what validates its existence. Without respect, justice and equal treatment under the law, no nation has the right to exist. Nations are useful fictions, created by people for their well being. How long can massive transgressions to these principles be endured? And more to the point, how do citizens transform their nations?

  • Helen4Yemen

    The Europeans known as the Ashkenazi attempt to deceive the world into thinking that they were not stealing anyone’s land but simply reclaiming their grandfather Abraham’s land. That is the reason that they need to be exposed for who they are – Khazars who converted to Judaism.
    Here is Mileikowsky who goes by a manufactured name of “Netanyahu”.

    1) I’m speaking to you from the land walked by Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. I’m speaking to you from the land once ruled by King David and King Solomon
    2) A hundred years ago, the Balfour Declaration helped pave the way for the
    re-establishment of an independent state for the Jewish people in our ancestral homeland.
    3) And we re-established our sovereign state in our ancestral homeland, the Land of Israel.
    4) But let me first say that the connection between the Jewish people and the Land of Israel has lasted for more than 3,500 years. Judea and Samaria, the places where Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, David and Solomon, and Isaiah and Jeremiah lived, are not alien to us. This is the land of our forefathers.
    5) I feel deeply honored and privileged to stand here before you today representing the citizens of the state of Israel. We are an ancient people. We date back nearly 4,000 years to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. We have journeyed through time. We’ve overcome the greatest of adversities.
    6) In Israel, we walk the same paths tread by our patriarchs Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
    7) It’s not easy, because I recognize that in a genuine peace we will be required to give up parts of the ancestral Jewish homeland.
    8) Now this is not easy for me. It’s not easy because I recognize that in a genuine peace we will be required to give up parts of the ancestral Jewish homeland,
    9) The attacks against us began in the 1920s, 20 years before the Holocaust. And the undeniable historical fact is that the Jewish people and the Land of Israel go back over 3,500 years — when Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, forefathers of all Jews; David and Solomon, ancient Israel’s two greatest kings; and Isaiah and Jeremiah, two of the Jewish religion’s greatest spiritual prophets, all lived in what was then Judea and Samaria, which today is called the West Bank.
    10) The connection of the Jewish People to the Land has been in existence for more than 3,500 years. Judea and Samaria, the places where our forefathers Abraham, Isaac and Jacobwalked, our forefathers David, Solomon, Isaiah and Jeremiah – this is not a foreign land, this is the land of our forefathers. (Applause)
    11) The right of the Jewish people to a state in the Land of Israel does not derive from the catastrophes that have plagued our people. True, for 2,000 years the Jewish people suffered expulsions, pogroms, blood libels, and massacres which culminated in a Holocaust – a suffering which has no parallel in human history.
    12) The right to establish our sovereign state here, in the Land of Israel, arises from one simple fact: Eretz Israel is the birthplace of the Jewish People.
    13) These are part of the ancestral land of the Jewish people, the Land of Israel.
    14) This is the inheritance of our ancestors. This is our land.
    15) We are here to stay forever. There will be no more uprooting of settlements in the Land of Israel. This is the inheritance of our ancestors. This is our land.
    16) We are talking about, in fact, areas that are part of the ancestral Jewish homeland. Judea – that’s where the word Jew comes from, that’s where we have been for thousands of years. The same thing applies to Samaria. These are areas that are very, very precious to us from an historical and national point of view.

  • rgaura

    Yes, Helen, I am aware of the false narrative, the Scofield Bible to push it to christians, and all that nonsense. Still, I stand by my point. My heritage goes back to Catalunia, Poland and Lithuania, via Puerto Rico, New York and Chicago. I was born in the midwest, grew up in California and now call Mexico home. Wherever I live, I try to respect others and the land, and live ethically. The fiction of nations must be seen as serving whoever lives there now, and upholding international law. People get around, they always have. They intermarry. Whatever. Theocracies that privilege one group over another, or nations that war and exploit lose their legitimacy in my book. Nutty-yahoo´s fairytales notwithstanding.

  • Helen4Yemen

    I do not care if they have 1000 international laws that say a bunch of alien Europeans can arrive on Arab land and claim it as theirs because they believe god gave it to them. These Europeans commonly known as the Ashkenazi have 0% credibility when they attempt to make their god their real estate agent. These are colonial settlers who depend on the West to keep them rooted on stolen land. The Arab people will never accept these predators even if 1000 years were to pass by. These aliens feel like a cancer upon the Arab body and if the Arab body is to heal, the cancer must be excised out of the region. The Europeans can safely go home but they choose to stay due to the billions of US$ that rains on their head.

    The examples you give about people moving around in life is not relevant to a deadly colonial settler state that exists only by the use of force.

    Please do not forget that European Jewry was simply hated in the West (including in the US) and my question is what have the Arabs got to do with European Jewry and the West?

  • rgaura

    Actually, international law condemns most of the Israeli apartheid laws, and all of their outrageous human rights violations, and land grabs. I know Israelis and Palestinians who are good, decent people, who want to share the land and live in peace. I know that may be difficult to impossible given the history, but I reject the demonisation of any human being or group of human beings. Ignorance causes suffering, and most humans are educable. There is some wisdom in acknowledging the current situation, and moving in a healthy direction. And better reconciliation than genocide. Some good news;
    Salam Alekum

  • Helen4Yemen

    Well, the foreign Ashkenazi simply arrived and grabbed Arab land. Please tell me why the Ashkenazi cannot go home and live with his own kind – other Europeans? If Palestinians agree to live with foreigners, it is not because it is their choice but the European colonizer has made life a living he!!, right? I am Middle Eastern and we reject this foreign entity in our region. It needs to be excised and thrown back at Europe where it belongs.

  • rgaura

    You seem to be missing my point. Nations are constructs. They should be constructed by their citizens to serve their citizens. You are presenting an argument that actually agrees with the zionist (false) argument based on ethnicity, or (a false) history. Your argument of course has the merit of historical accuracy. I think it more the root of the problem that any ethnicity should claim any land. If we identify as humans, and that nations appropriately and morally constructed should serve all of their citizens, respecting their various cultural needs, it is more a solution to a false paradigm. In a democracy, the Palestinian Arabs would be a majority. Your solution denies the 70 years of europeans being born in palestine, of children born of marriages between peoples, and of the complex mosaic of cultures indigenous to the area over time. It is not compassionate to blame those born into a situation, who have not caused it. We can agree to disagree, and let this rest.

  • Helen4Yemen

    1) Why did the Ashkenazi reject it when Britain offered them Uganda and insisted on Palestine? They believe their ancestry is from no other place on earth but Palestine. An Ashkenazi who did his DNA result posted a message online wondering why his DNA had no trace of Middle East ancestry. He was in shock! Shlomo Sand said that more than 95% of the Ashkenazi do not believe they are European but Israelite. Therefore, that is the reason why I make it my duty to demonstrate via DNA results that the Ashkenazi is totally European.

    2) Whether aliens had been been leeching for 70 or 100 or 1000 years should not matter. If how long a predator had been on a colonized land is what makes him permanent on that land, then future predators can simply grab land and wait their time. Algeria was colonized by the French for 132 years and in a matter of days, 1,000,000 French were shown the exist. In Aden, the British held that land for 160 years and eventually the natives rose up and the British left. What is different about the Europeans now in Palestine?

  • rgaura

    1) You are performing that duty very well.
    2) There are many solutions like reparations, right of return, reconciliation, and legal prosecution for illegal acts. Whether any of these can or will be implemented is the business of people who live in the area, not you or I. I do not defend any of the zionist agenda. I do not know how so many people can recover from PTSD, and massive, intergenerational propaganda. Neither do I know how that can come about in the US. Both countries are armed to the teeth, with madmen at the helm. I rest my hope in justice, truth, compassion, and love to find a way where there is no way. I´m not claiming any part of the lands the yankees stole from my grandparents in the greater Antilles, I´m busy trying to contribute to the town I live in now. Your solution is extreme, and bears the taint of revenge. It is understandable as a first response to a bloody sordid history. Still, I reject it as a solution.

  • Helen4Yemen

    That is the wrong comparison. Why go to ancient history? Why not compare one European colonizer of Arab lands – the Ashkenazi – to other European colonizers of Arab landd, the French and the British? Compare apples with apples? The French colonized Algeria for over 100 years and 1,000,000 French were forced to leave Algeria in 1962 – and the British who colonized Aden, Yemen, for 160 years were forced out by the people of Aden in 1967. Isn’t the Ashkenaz just as European as the British and the French? If foreign people steal land and there are no consequences to their actions, how do you stop others from colonizing other lands and refusing to go home? The Ashkenazi can very safely return home, he chooses not to only because life is comfy there. Remove the American money by the truckloads that gets sent there and you will see these folks heading towards the airports in a matter of hours.