Exchange: Tony Greenstein – More Errors Than Paragraphs, Cont. Previous: Paul Bogdanor -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It is quite clear that Greenstein has not bothered to deal with the substance of my arguments – so what he has done in his latest post is invent new charges – many of which are wholly irrelevant to the wider matter of Perdition, etc., such as Linn on Vrba. Nevertheless, Greenstein has bothered irresponsibly to make his claims here on Harry’s Place, where they can be refuted. ... Mildenstein stayed primarily on kibbutzim and kvutzah such as Givat Brenner. The idea that all the Jews had to do was to colonise Palestine for the Zionist movement, all 6-8 million of them, is absurd... Regarding Mildenstein’s trip and the Zionists aim, Greenstein is very confused. Firstly, he does not want Jews to emigrate to Palestine, because he claims the indigenous population did not want them. He assumes that a) places in the West were open, and b) that the Zionists were opposed to such emigration. He is wrong on both counts. Firstly. the official view of the Jewish Agency on Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany was defined in the 19 January 1939 edition of London’s Zionist Review: “Zionists are anxious to find any place under the sun which will afford Jewish refugees the prospect of escape.” In April 1936, Ben-Gurion himself told the high commissioner, General Sir Arthur Wauchope:           Our weightiest concern is the “no-exit” situation of our people… the Jewish situation that was never good           has now become desperate… Had there been the possibility of bringing Poland’s Jews to the United States           or Argentina, we would have done so regardless of our Zionist beliefs. But the world was closed to us. Source: Shabtai Teveth, Ben-Gurion and the Holocaust (Harcourt Brace & Co, New York, 1996). Regarding his comment that it was possible for “mass immigration to the West,” this is a sheer fantasy of Greenstein. The following facts can be mentioned: at the 1938 Evian conference international delegates discussed the future of Jewish refugees. The Australian delegate, as an example, told the conference, “that as we have no racial problem, we are not desirous of importing one.” Whilst the conference agreed to set up an inter-governmental agency to see what could be done, the restrictions against immigration of Jews grew. Britain, Palestine, and the United States tightened their rules of admission. Argentina, Chile, Uruguay and Mexico severely restricted the number of Jews that could enter; in the case of Mexico to one hundred a year. In this context, on August 13th 1938, fifty-three Austrian Jews who had reached Finland by sea were refused permission to disembark and the boat was ordered to return to Germany. Three of the rejected refugees were so desperate that they threw themselves overboard and were drowned. Source: Martin Gilbert, The Holocaust: The Jewish Tragedy (Collins, London 1986), pp. 64-5. Yes, it’s 1953-8. Is this an issue? Here Greenstein continues to get dates wrong despite the fact that he claimed he knew them. He first commented that the date of the Kasztner trial was 1953-1956 and I pointed out that he was wrong, it was 1954-1958; yet he still cannot get even the simplest thing as a date correct. ... Selectivity was an unchanged policy, up to and including the war... As stated in my previous post, the policy of selective immigration to Palestine was done away with by the time of the war. Greenstein ignores all of this. To comment further on this matter, we can see what the exact situation is by looking at the ruling of the Israeli Supreme Court in the case of Hirsh Bernblat v. The Attorney General. In this case, the Supreme Court declared that it was justified to sacrifice the few in order to save the many. The Supreme Court argued that it would have been justified to choose to save the few from immediate death at the price of subjecting the many to possible death in the future. Source: Asher Maoz, Historical Adjudication: Courts of Law, Commissions of Enquiry and Historical Truth, Law and History Review, Vol. 18, No. 3, Fall 2000, pp. 559-607. Judge Ha’levi even summarised ancient law on the matter in the actual Kasztner trial: “It is… forbidden to save one man, or even many, by turning another innocent man over to a murderer… Even to save the majority of the community, it is forbidden to hand over an innocent minority… to murderers.” Quoted by Tom Segev, The Seventh Million: The Israelis and the Holocaust (Owl Books, Henry Holt and Co., New York, 2000), p. 283. In the appeal of the Kasztner, case Judge Agranat argued that a leader owes a duty to the community as a whole. He specifically stated: “if a leader is to choose between two opposing ways of action, one likely to save the majority, but not all, of the community, the other geared to save each and every one, but likely to only save a few – then his public office requires – and this is also his moral duty – … that he follow the first way.” Quoted by Pnina Lahav, Judgment in Jerusalem: Chief Justice Simon Agranat and the Zionist Century (University of California Press, 1997), p. 140. ... It is quite clear from their speeches that the Supreme (or High) Court of Israel voted 3-2 in overturning the decision of the lower court... Here Greenstein is referring to the Appeal of the Kastzner trial and what the majority decision was. Greenstein is very wrong indeed and does not accept straight facts even when pointed out to him. Let it be known that serious commentators on the Kasztner trial are very aware that the decision was overturned by a 4:1 majority on the point of collaboration, and 5:0 on preparing the ground for murder. Without even bothering to locate what Greenstein might dismiss as a “Zionist source,” he need only look at the anti-Zionist Akiva Orr’s book Israel: Politics, Myths and Identity Crisis (Pluto Press, 1994), p. 108. In fact to this day the Jewish Agency has not withdrawn its name... It is not the job of the Jewish Agency to alter historical documents!!! Regarding Kasztner, the opinion of the majority in the Supreme Court was as follows:           1. During that period Kasztner was motivated by the sole motive of saving Hungary’s Jews as a whole,           that is, the largest possible number under the circumstances of time and place as he estimated could be           saved;           2. This motive fitted the moral duty of rescue to which he was subordinated as a leader of the relief and           rescue committee in Budapest;           3. Influenced by this motive he adopted the method of financial or economic negotiation with the Nazis;           4. Kasztner’s behaviour stands the test of plausibility and reasonableness;           5. His behaviour during his visit to Cluj (on May 3rd) and afterwards, both its active aspect (the plan of           the “prominents”) and its passive aspect (withholding the “Auschwitz news” and lack of encouragement           for acts of resistance and escape on a large scale) – is in line with his loyalty to the method which he           considered, at all important times, to be the only chance of rescue;           6. Therefore one cannot find a moral fault in his behaviour, one cannot discover a casual connection           between it and the easing of the concentration and deportation, one cannot see it as becoming a           collaboration with the Nazis. Source: Akiva Orr, ibid., pp. 109-10. Let me quote Supreme Court Justice Moshe Silberg again... Here Greenstein is providing the minority opinion of 1 out of 5 judges at the Supreme Court. The accusation as implied is that the Jews did not know about Auschwitz. I enclose some facts to counteract that charge: - 5,000 Hungarian Jews, who had been deported in the labour battalions to the Ukraine, returned to Hungary in the summer of 1943 and presumably told their stories back to their families and their communities. - A number of Polish Jews who escaped to Hungary also are likely to have told Jews in their new communities about the horrors they had witnessed. - There were also thousands of Slovakian Jews in Hungary who are likely to have told their Jewish Hungarian friends news from their own families. - In June, July and December 1942, the Hungarian language service of BBC radio, which was widely listened to in Hungary, broadcast information about the mass murder of Jews. As the anti-Nazi German author Thomas Mann put it, “No Hungarian Jews, not even in the remote village, could be unaware of the menace.” Source: Yehuda Bauer, Jews for Sale? Nazi-Jewish Negotiations 1933-1945 (Yale University Press, 1994), pp. 150-1. The view of Professor J. L. Talmon of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem was that by the time those associated with the Jewish Councils “grasped the real aim of the Nazis was, they were no more than helpless and benumbed hostages.” Quoted by Randolph Brahman, The Politics of Genocide: The Holocaust in Hungary, Vol 2., Revised edition (Columbia University Press, 1994), p. 836. When Joel Brand was in Aleppo, his meeting with Shertok for about 2 days from 11th June 1944 was recorded. Brand specifically stated “Hungarian Jews are now aware of the meaning of expulsion. It is clear to them that it means annihilation.” Source: Dina Porat, “Historical Document: The Protocol of the Meeting between Representatives of the Yishuv and Joel Brand in Aleppo, Syria, June 1944,” Yalkut Moreshet, No. 3, Winter 2005, pp. 147-160. ... Not that Kastner’s own Report should be accepted uncritically or at all. But as Mikey says, he was there on behalf of the Vaadah, the Jewish Agency Relief and Rescue Committee, the Hungarian Judenrat and much else besides... I certainly did not say that Kastzner was a member of the Hungarian Judenrat, as he was not. This confusion between the Judenrat and the Relief and Rescue Committee (Vaada) is made not just by Greenstein but also by Jim Allen in his play Perdition. It is simply false. I have dealt with Kasztner’s testimonies in previous post; Greenstein simply ignores the facts. I have never implied that Kasztner’s own report should be accepted uncritically. It does contain some inconsistencies. For full details on the testimonies see the following reference: Shoshana Barri (Ishoni), “The Question of Kasztner’s Testimonies on Behalf of Nazi War Criminals,” The Journal of Israeli History, Vol. 18, No. 2-3, 1997, pp. 139-165. ... it is childish to say that I consider Vrba an anti-Semite... Here Greenstein makes a classic error in relation to the Kasztner rescue train by stating that Kasztner “bartered.” This suggests that a deal was done. This whole matter was dealt with eloquently by the Supreme Court. Kasztner was in no position to “barter” anything. As was made clear in the Supreme Court, Justice Agranat cited the words of Eichmann to Kasztner during one of their meetings: “You seem extremely tense, Kasztner. I am sending you to Theresienstadt for recovery; or would you prefer Auschwitz?” (Quoted by Pnina Lahav, op. cit., p. 135). Consequently Kasztner could hardly be in position to barter anything. For a more detailed explanation of this, see Leora Bilsky, Transformative Justice: Israeli Identity on Trial (University of Michigan Press, 2004), pp. 41-66. Regarding Vrba being an antisemite, I have never said it and nor would I. In fact, as stated above, Greenstein is the first person I have ever seen comment that anyone might think Vrba is an antisemite. Mikey tells us that Arendt’s book was “correctly attacked,” but doesn’t say why. Like any book it has its deficiencies, not least a lack of footnoting, but its general conclusions, viz. that the existence of the Judenrat could not but be of help to the Nazi exterminators cannot be faulted... Regarding Arendt and Greenstein’s view that her general conclusions in Eichmann in Jerusalem “cannot be faulted.” This is laughable. The main argument of Arendt was that Eichmann was just an ordinary man caught up in the totalitarian regime – hence the subtitle of her book, A Report on the Banality of Evil. The author and director of the Yad Vashem archives, Yaacov Lozowick, comments:           When I embarked upon my own research of Eichmann and his colleagues, I had no doubts about the           validity of Arendt’s position... As I delved ever deeper into the documents, however, my unease grew,           until at last I reluctantly had no choice but admit that Hannah Arendt was wrong. There was very little that           was banal about Eichmann or any of his accomplices, and the little that could be found was not relevant to           what they had done. Arendt’s point of departure was wrong. Although she was primarily a philosopher,           she had written a historical analysis – and without checking her facts. Moreover, she had refrained from           taking into account much potentially relevant information. Above all, her position was the result of           ideological considerations, not careful scholarship. This was even more true of most of her followers. Source: Yaacov Lozowick, “Malicious Clerks,” contained in ed. Steven E. Aschheim, Hannah Arendt in Jerusalem (University of California Press, 2001), pp. 214-23. Arendt did not believe that Eichmann was a fanatical antisemite. This is absurd. At the trial, one of the judges asked Eichmann if it was true that “at the time it was considered a glorious act to destroy the Jews? The Jews were looked upon as a germ that had to be destroyed, just like any other disease? And pitilessness was considered a virtue?” The response from Eichmann was, “Yes, that is correct, that I must admit.” Source: The Trial of Adolf Eichmann: Record of Proceedings in the District Court of Jerusalem (Jerusalem, 1992-1995) Vol. 4, p. 1,816, as quoted by David Cesarani, Eichmann: His Life and Crimes (Vintage, 2005), p. 157. The person that Arendt did not think was a fanatical anti-Semite, as late as 1957 in an interview said he was only sorry that he had not succeeded in exterminating all eleven million European Jews. Source: Jacob Robinson, And the Crooked Shall be Made Straight: The Eichmann Trial, the Jewish Catastrophe and Hannah Arendt’s Narrative (Macmillan, 1965), p. 52. Arendt’s view on the Jewish Councils was deeply flawed. As Steven Katz comments in his introduction to a later edition of Trunk’s book, Judenrat:           What Trunk’s detailed researches show is, first, the inescapability, of Jewish “cooperation” with the Nazi           overlord. Subjugated, separated from the general population, and ghettoized in quick order following the           defeat of Poland – without help from either local Poles or the distant Allied nations – there was, ultimately,           no alternative to such interaction – all Arendt-like fantasies of an anarchic Jewish response to the           contrary. Second, all solutions that the Jewish Councils might have pursued or did pursue in their attempt           to save Jewish lives, given the Nazi created situation in which they found themselves and from which           there was no general escape, involved profound moral (and practical) uncertainties and ambiguities. Source: Steven T. Katz, “Introduction to the Bison Books Edition” of Isaiah Trunk, Judenrat: The Jewish Councils in Eastern Europe Under Nazi Occupation (Bison Books, University of Nebraska Press, 1996), p. xii. In fact Arendt was wrong on many things. As Gertrude Ezorsky summed up: “She [Arendt] was wrong about Eichmann, she was wrong about international law, she was wrong about Jewish leaders, she was wrong about Jewish resistance, she was wrong about Jewish cooperation’ with the Nazis… She was wrong, wrong, wrong.” Source: Gertrude Ezorsky, “Hannah Arendt Answered,” Dissent, March-April 1966, pp. 172-182. To make a further point about Greenstein’s inconsistencies, whilst praising Arendt he is complaining that Marek Edelman was not called to the witness stand – yet Arendt specifically argued against the ghetto fighters being called. She thought the temptation should be resisted. Inconsistencies are nothing new with Greenstein. Oh yes, I certainly failed to answer Mikey’s comment about Bauer calling Vrba a “hero.” I assumed I didn’t need to. It was so obviously a sham... I really fail to see what Linn’s attack on Bauer has to do with Perdition. However as Greenstein discusses it – I have already mentioned that Bauer refers to Vrba as a hero and, as a matter of fact, Bauer does discuss Vrba quite frequently. For example, as mentioned previously, in Yalkut Moroshet in 2005, Bauer had a whole paper devoted to the Auschwitz Protocol, and in his 1994 book Jews for Sale? – see pages 70, 72, 156-157 for further discussions. Regarding Vrba’s honorary doctorate that Greenstein states had nothing to do with Bauer – again Greenstein is wrong – Bauer was told that his letter of recommendation influenced the decision to award the honorary doctorate: see Bauer, “The ‘Protocol of Auschwitz,’” Yalkut Moroshet, No. 3, Winter 2005. As I have stated there is a substantial amount of contradictory evidence as the date that Kasztner received the Auschwitz Protocol. Greenstein fails to accept it. ... Bauer praises when he has no options left. But when he could have praised Vrba and mentioned and published him he chose to do nothing other than refer to him obliquely... More of the same from Greenstein – he continues arguing that Bauer and/or Zionist historians do not recognize Vrba – Greenstein should be aware that, for example, on Holocaust Remembrance Day 2004, a study day was held under the joint auspices of Tel Aviv university, Moroshet, the Diaspora Museum, the Museum of Heritage of Hungarian Jewry and the Society of Research of the Zionist Youth Movements in Hungary. This day was devoted to commemorating 60 years since the destruction of Hungarian Jewry. There were numerous speakers, including Yehuda Bauer, Dina Porat, Shlomo Aronson and Yitzhak Kashti amongst them. Vrba and the Auschwitz Protocol were discussed in detail. ... I don’t doubt that Ben Gurion said something once about socialism... Ben-Gurion said something much more than “once” about Socialism. Being 100% Socialist and Zionist is not a contradiction. Consider organizations such as Mapai, Poalei Zion etc., etc. – they all fit into that category. If you also note the setting up of the State of Israel and the Kibbutz movement – the whole concept of the Kibbutz and community was a very socialist idea. Greenstein chooses to ignore the fact that Moses Hess, an early Socialist Zionist thinker, wrote the first draft of Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto!! Regarding the German Zionists not fighting Hitler. Firstly, they were a minority of Jews there; and secondly, but more importantly, the Nazi permanently harassed Jews – they were hardly in a position to obtain arms and overthrow the might of Hitler’s army. In fact, on that point, where was the left??? As Conan Fischer points out, by September 1930, the communist KPD dropped its campaign of Anti-Fascist Action and replaced it with United Action. Fischer states: “Before long, United Action posters appeared, showing Communist, Nazi and Socialist workers standing shoulder to shoulder against the bourgeoisie.” To borrow the same apt Latin phrase that Paul Bogdanor quotes from Vrba above, Res ipsa loquitur [The thing speaks for itself]. Source: Conan Fischer, “Class Enemies or Class Brothers? Communist-Nazi Relations in Germany 1929-33,” European History Quarterly, Vol. 15, 1985, pp. 259-79. I’m aware Vrba didn’t write HVA... I am relieved that Greenstein realises that Shonfeld’s Holocaust Victims Accuse is not a reliable book. It cannot be proved beyond doubt that Kastner dressed up in SS uniform... More absurdity from Greenstein on Kasztner dressing in a SS uniform. Paul Bogdanor above put it perfectly:           By Greenstein’s standards of evidence, since Red Cross workers visited concentration camps with Nazi           permission, “it stands to reason” that they too wore SS uniforms. Or since Greenstein’s anti-Zionist           agitprop regularly appears in the newspaper of the Communist Party of Great Britain, “it stands to reason”           that he likes to dress up as a Cheka torturer or a Gulag camp guard. On the use of the Eichmann quote. This shows exactly how morally bankrupt Greenstein and others such as Brenner and Allen who use the same tactic really are. What next from these people – will they quote Myra Hindley on children’s behaviour? What about quoting the Yorkshire Ripper Peter Sutcliffe on why woman liked to be raped? The depths Greenstein is prepared to sink to know no bounds. As I have now repeatedly said there is contradictory evidence as to the date Kasztner received the Auschwitz Protocols. Krasnianski, who wrote the Protocol, did claim in a testimony that Kasztner received the Protocol on April 26 – in another testimony he said Kasztner saw it on April 28 – Hansi Brand, however, claims that Kasztner was not in Bratislava in April, and as such there is confusion. Greenstein, being irresponsible, makes bold statements as facts without checking contradictions between different accounts. Source: Yehuda Bauer, “The ‘Protocol of Auschwitz,’” op. cit. Yes, well, as Israel Shahak noted, a Holocaust memorial centre that can welcome Nazi supporter and South African Premier, John Vorster, isn’t worth a candle politically... Regarding Greenstein’s comments on Yad Vashem, I am inclined to believe that he should visit the place himself. If he did, he might be less willing to come back and distort so many facts. On Hilberg – it is generally accepted that his book is monumental – and whilst German sources are completely necessary when writing about the Holocaust, so is the language of countries such as Poland, Hungary, Holland etc., etc., as well as Yiddish, which was spoken by large segments of the European Jewish community. Greenstein ignores these points – like he ignores many other points that do not fit in with his thesis. I am indeed aware of all the above prayers. Strange that these prayers, which of course predate, as Mikey says, the 1st Zionist Congress, did not lead to mass emigration to Palestine... Greenstein fails to mention that there has been a Jewish community in Palestine dating back centuries; and Jews did emigrate there prior to the founding of modern-day Zionism. Regarding Greenstein’s comment, “Zion was the idea of the Messiah’s return and of course that couldn’t be rushed or hurried along”: Greenstein knows that that is one view and that there are other views. In fact Greenstein would have been taught a different view, as he was previously a member of B’nei Akiva – a religious Zionist youth movement. Well I’m not aware that Socrates got most of his ideas from his cat. But Zionism did more than share a taste for pets or whatever with anti-Semitism... I have tried to use an analogy of Socrates, but this is clearly above Greenstein, so I will resort to a simpler analogy he may understand. Nazis hate Stalinists and Trotskyists hate Stalinists; ergo Trotskyists and Nazis are similar. This argument has a similar logic to the one Greenstein makes above. ... I recognise the existence of the Israeli State, but like the Apartheid State I want to see it destroyed or deZionised... Readers should be under no illusions – the whole point of Greenstein’s focus on the Holocaust and his distortions of facts are for the reason he states above – he wants to see the state of Israel “destroyed.” Well, he has that in common with the president of Iran, who also distorts the Holocaust – although via other methods. The truth is often offensive. In Israel there are essentially group rights, not equal individual rights. That was the purpose of the 1935 Nuremberg Laws. Arab villages are not recognised, Arabs cannot access 93% of Israeli land... More anti-Zionist falsities from Greenstein here. “Arabs cannot access 93% of Israeli land.” A load of nonsense. What this refers to is that 93% of the land is owned by the State trust – neither Jews nor Arabs can purchase it. The argument makes as much sense as saying that a black person cannot in England purchase land belonging to the National Trust in England; hence the UK is racist. National Trust Land, of course, cannot be purchased by white people either, and so it is with the land in Israel that Greenstein refers to. Greenstein continues to falsely and offensively claim that who is a Jew is determined by Nazi sources. I am going to let Greenstein in a little known secret. The Jewish religion is rather old – in fact in the Jewish calendar it is now the year 5,767. The question of who is a Jew and how it is determined, and how it is determined how someone’s mother is Jew, and how it is answered, somewhat predates the Nuremberg laws of 1935, A.D. To use the phrase again: Res ipsa loquitur. Well, the Union of Jewish Students has tried to ban anything anti-Zionist... I am not particularly in favour of the policy, but the National Union of Students had a policy of no platform for racists and fascists. If that policy is to be upheld then it is quite clear that it should be applied to Holocaust deniers such as David Irving and Holocaust falsifiers such as Greenstein. Regarding the WRP and spying on British Jews, I suggest Greenstein looks up the article by Richard Ellis, John Craig and Andrew Weir, “Far Left Party Paid to Spy by Gaddafi,” Sunday Times, February 7, 1988. A WRP source told the newspaper that the list of those “spied on” by the party included members of parliament such as Leon Brittan and Sir Keith Joseph, Lord Young, then head of the Manpower Services Commission, his brother, Stuart Young, the former chairman of the BBC, and several other unidentified businessmen. Regarding Jim Allen breaking with the WRP, according to Brian Behan, a former chairman of the SLL, a forerunner to the WRP, Allen’s views on Zionism were influenced by the Gerry Healy’s WRP. Source: Brian Behan, Obituary: Jim Allen, The Independent, July 16, 1999. Posted by: Mikey at January 26, 2007 05:34 PM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NB: Another exchange with Tony Greenstein can be found here.