The Slave Trade - Quotes From Jewish Historians

In addition to what is written below, please see this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this. 

Now, of course, I am not saying that "every Jew was involved in slavery" or something ridiculous like that.  But, I do want to get at the root of what caused this. Why were Jews overrepresented in the slave trade? I honestly believe that it comes back to the Talmud and their interpretation of the Old Testament. To learn more about this see here and here. Most people do not understand what the New Testament is about, nor what it means in the Gospel of John when Jesus is "modifying the law." Even in the Quran, (not the Hadith,) they talk about "freeing the slaves" and the problems of usury. The historical fact is less than 4% of non-Jewish whites in the South of the United States owned slaves. Less than 2% of the whites in all of pre-civil war America, while 40% of Jewish households owned slaves.  Notice how guilt is only ascribed to "white people" - while Jews were 2000% more likely to own slaves than Gentile whites. Why are black and white Americans not allowed to know who the primary slave traders were?

Here are Some Quotes from Jewish Historians:

American Jewish Historical Society - New World Jewry- 1493-1825: Requiem for the Forgotten - Seymour B.  Liebman

"They came with ships carrying African blacks to be sold as slaves. The traffic in slaves was a royal monopoly, and the Jews were often appointed as agents for the Crown in their sale."

"The Jews were the largest ship chandlers in the entire Caribbean region, where the shipping business was mainly a Jewish enterprise."

"The ships were not only owned by Jews, but were manned by Jewish crews and sailed under the command of Jewish captains."

Jews and Judaism in the United States: A Documentary History - Marc Lee Raphael

"Jewish merchants played a major role in the slave trade. In fact, in all the American colonies, whether French (Martinique,) British, or Dutch, Jewish merchants frequently dominated."

"This was no less true on the North American mainland, where during the eighteenth century Jews participated in the "triangular trade" that brought slaves from Africa to the West Indies and exchanged them for molasses, which in turn was taken to New England and converted into rum for sale in Africa."

"Isaac Da Costa of Charleston in the 1750's, David Franks of Philadelphia in the 1760's and Aaron Lopez of Newport in the late 1760's and early 1770's dominated Jewish slave trading on the American continent."  

Jews in Colonial Brazil: Arnold Wiznitzer- Pages 72 & 73: 

"The buyers that appeared at the auctions were almost always Jews, and because of their lack of competitors they could buy slaves at low prices." "If it happened that the date of such an auction fell on a Jewish holiday the auction had to be postponed."

The Jewish Encyclopedia: Vol. 10, Page 48: 

"The trade in slaves constituted the main source of livlihood for the Roman Jews"

A History of the Jews: From Babylonian Exile to the end of World War II - Solomon Grayzel: 

"Jews were among the most important slave dealers in European society."

Jacob Marcus, the author of United States Jewry: 1776-1985 wrote in the Encyclopedia Britanica: 

" In the dark ages the commerce of western Europe was largely in the Jews hand, in particular, the slave trade."

United States Jewry: 1776-1985  Jacob Marcus - pg 586 

"All through the eighteenth century, into the early nineteenth, Jews in the North were to own black servants" 

"In 1820, over 75% of all Jewish families in Charleston, Richmond, and Savannah owned slaves" 

"Almost 40% of all Jewish householders in the United States owned on slave or more"

United States Foreign Policy, Hillary Clinton And The Syrian Shoah

Note: Regarding the current United States Presidential election and the importance of Israel and Jewish interests --- I previously made a post about Donald Trump, now equally, I think it is time to post information about Hillary Clinton. To give the article below a bit more context, it is important to see this, this, this, this, and this.


By Gilad Atzmon


From: Sidney Blumenthal To: Hillary Clinton Date: 2012-07-23

Quoting an Israeli security source Sidney Blumenthal wrote:

“[I]f the Assad regime topples, Iran would lose its only ally in the Middle East and would be isolated. At the same time, the fall of the House of Assad could well ignite a sectarian war between the Shiites and the majority Sunnis of the region drawing in Iran, which, in the view of Israeli commanders would not be a bad thing for Israel and its Western allies.”

(https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/12171)

In 1982, Oded Yinon an Israeli journalist, formerly attached to the Israeli Foreign Ministry, published a document titled ‘A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties.’  The strategic plan later named ‘The Yinon Plan’ suggested that for Israel to maintain its regional superiority, it must break its neighboring Arab states into smaller sectarian units engaged in endless tribal wars. The Yinon Plan implied that Arabs and Muslims killing each other was an insurance policy for Israel.

Most commentators on the Middle East and American foreign affairs now realise that the chaos in the Middle East has a lot to do with Israel and its supportive Jewish lobbies around the world. However, thanks to the newly leaked Clinton email archive we may have a document that provides confirmation that the Yinon Plan was, de facto, an Israeli strategy to create sectarian chaos in the Middle East.

According to the Wikileaks archive of former US Secretary of State Clinton, it appears that in 2012 the Israeli intelligence service considered a potential Sunni-Shiite war in Syria a favorable development for the Jewish State and the West.

In an email sent by Sidney Blumenthal to Hilary Clinton, an Israeli source is quoted suggesting that Iran would lose "its only ally" in the Middle East if the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad collapses. Such a development in the view of Israeli commanders “would not be a bad thing for Israel and its Western allies,” Blumenthal wrote.

It is crucial to point out that in his email to Clinton, Blumenthal also quotes an alternative view that is more reasonable and is far less enthusiastic about the escalation in Syria. “Israeli security officials believe that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is convinced that these developments (expanding Arab civil war) will leave them [Israelis] vulnerable, with only enemies on their borders.”

This email allows us to look at a vivid Israeli political debate that occurred back in 2012. The Jewish State had to decide whether to destroy the Syrian people just to weaken Iran or, alternatively, to destroy Iran for the sake of destroying Iran. History suggests that a decision was taken to destroy the Syrians first.  And the outcome must be disappointing for Israel —Iran is now stronger than ever.

Shockingly, in late 2015, after three years of disastrous Syrian civil war with hundreds of thousands of fatalities and millions of displaced people, Clinton, so it seems.  still clung to the formula that Israel’s concerns with Iran should be fought on the expense of the Syrian people. In an email that US presidential candidate Hillary Clinton sent to an unknown account on 11/30/2015 Clinton wrote:

“The best way to help Israel deal with Iran’s growing nuclear capability is to help the people of Syria overthrow the regime of Bashar Assad.”

Israel is not the only one to blame for the Syrian shoah; Hilary Clinton shares some of the responsibility. I suggest that Ms. Clinton consider inviting at least a few Syrian refugees to settle in Clinton’s suburban home. Such a move would prove that she can be empathic, merciful and hopefully regretful.

How Israel was Founded on Racial Eugenics—and How That Policy Continues to the Present-day

In addition to reading the following article, please see here and here.

The state of Israel was founded upon the science of Jewish racial eugenics and continues with that policy to the present day, as a series of articles published in Jewish newspapers shows.

According to a new report in the Jewish Daily Forward magazine, titled “Israel’s Uncomfortable History of Racist Engineering,” (Jewish Daily Forward, April 21, 2014), written by the opinion editor of the Jerusalem Post, Seth J. Frantzman, even the founder of Tel Aviv’s Department of Sociology and leading Zionist was an outspoken eugenicist.

According to the Daily Forward, the Zionist Arthur Ruppin—who, among other things, was the founder of the city of Tel Aviv, head the Jewish Agency from 1933 to 1935, and “father of Jewish Sociology” called for the “purification of the “Jewish Race” and expressly stated that it was “desirable that only the racially pure come to the land [of Israel].”

Ruppin was a major figure in the Zionist narrative, and he is honoured in Israel to the present day, with a building at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem named in his honor.

Many cities in Israel named streets after him, and the city of Haifa has a prize in his name awarded for “extraordinary works” in thinking, philosophy and politics.

According to the Daily Forward, however, Ruppin, was a believer in eugenics. 

In 1919 he argued that the Jewish race should be “purified” and that it was “desirable that only the racially pure come to the land.”

As head of the Palestine Office of the Zionist Executive (later the Jewish Agency for Israel), he put his purity schemes into practice, arguing that Ethiopian Jews should not be permitted to immigrate, because “they have no blood connection,” and arguing that Yemenite Jews should be brought only for menial labor. (“Israel’s Uncomfortable History of Racist Engineering,” Jewish Daily Forward, April 21, 2014).

This Jewish eugenics program designed to “purify their race” continues to the present day.

In 2007, for example, Benjamin Netanyahu bragged that the cuts he’d made to child subsidies had brought a “positive” result, which he identified as “the demographic effect on the non-Jewish public, where there was a dramatic drop in the birth rate.”

In 2010 it was revealed that the Israeli government had an officially sanctioned sterilization policy directed at “Ethiopian Jews.” The policy saw Jewish doctors deliberately give female Ethiopian Jews long-lasting contraceptive drugs like Depo-Provera.

When the sterilization policy was exposed, the Israeli government denied it, but continued media coverage on why the birth rates among the “Ethiopian community” in Israel had fallen dramatically, forced the Israeli Health Ministry’s director-general to admit that Depo-Provera has been used without telling the women involved.

The Zionist state was therefore founded on the policy of ensuring Jewish racial purity—and ever since then, this policy has been continued under different names (“the “Jewish state”; the Jews-only immigration policy; the outlawing of marriages between Jews and non-Jews; and many other measures).

All of this proves the important fact that no matter what the Jewish Supremacists might tell the outside world, they know that they are a race and have continually sought to prevent mixing with non-Jews.

Jews Must Breed with Jews Only to Keep the Chosen Race Pure or Face Prison

Though this video is from 2010, it is still going on now. In addition to the video below, see here. (Be sure to check out all of the links on that article when you click through on it.)

The Unspoken Alliance: Israel's Secret Relationship With Apartheid South Africa

When reading this, this and this post about Israel and its traditional relationship with the British Empire and the United Nations, I want to make it clear that this fits right into the mentality of the right wing nuts that are running the state of Israel. Don't think so? See this, this, this, here, this, this, this and this.  But just as important, everyone should know the relationship that Israel had with apartheid South Africa. Read this article to find out more. (To learn the history of Jewish involvement in the Slave trade see here and here. )

The Unspoken Alliance: Israel's Secret Relationship With Apartheid South Africa

Thought Crimes in Trudeau’s Canada

In addition to the article below, I suggest that you read this and this. 

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau meets with his Israeli counterpart Benjamin Netanyahu in Paris in November 2015. (Amos Ben Gershom.)

By Davide Mastracci

The Liberal Party of Canada, which is led by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and came to power in October 2015, brands itself as a progressive alternative to the Conservatives.

When it comes to Israel and the Palestinian-led campaign for boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS), however, the Liberals have continued down the Conservatives’ troubling path, violating Canadians’ wishes and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms along the way.

On 22 February the House of Commons passed a motion by an overwhelming margin of 229-51 votes in condemnation of the BDS movement.

The Liberals have a majority in the House of Commons and the motion, introduced by two Conservative members of parliament, would not have passed without them. Only two of 184 Liberal MPs voted against the motion.

The motion emphasizes the “friendship,” economic and diplomatic relations between Canada and Israel and claims that the BDS movement “promotes the demonization and delegitimization of the State of Israel.”

Expanded political ties

Canada certainly does have a deep relationship with Israel, both politically and economically, which was significantly expanded when Stephen Harper was prime minister.

The Harper government isolated Canada from the the world when it came to Israel. His government voted against United Nations motions for Palestinian statehood, opposed UN motions demanding that Israeli nuclear facilities be opened for inspection, and cracked down on charities providing relief to Palestinians.

Lauding Israel as a “priority market” for Canada, Harper updated the free trade agreement between Israel and Canada in July 2015 to reduce tariffs and broaden investment links with Israeli businesses, including allowing goods from Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank to be exported to Canada duty free.

The two-way trade relationship between Canada and Israel now amounts to at least $1.6 billion.

Boycott as threat

The recent motion, then, is clearly a step toward crushing BDS, a movement that could threaten Israel’s status as a “priority market” for Canada. This goal has existed for years but has recently been intensified, and the Liberals aren’t willing to reverse the trend.

In 2014, the Canadian government added “national origin” into the list of identifiers covered by hate speech laws, in order to criminalize those advocating boycotts against the state of Israel.

Then, in January 2015, the Canadian government agreed to strengthen ties with Israel even further. At the announcement, then foreign affairs minister John Baird said the country would “fight any efforts internationally to delegitimize the State of Israel, including the disturbing BDS Movement.”

This message was reinforced shortly afterwards at a United Nations General Assembly meeting when then public safety minister Stephen Blaney said that Canada takes a “zero-tolerance approach to anti-Semitism,” listing the BDS movement as a form of discrimination, borrowing the tactic used by Israeli government and Israel advocacy groups to undermine BDS by portraying it as being motivated by anti-Semitism.

The effort to combat BDS became more explicit by May 2015, when a government spokesperson responded to a journalist’s questions on what the government’s zero-tolerance policy response would entail by stating that “hate crimes” would not be allowed to undermine the Canadian way of life, explicitly equating human rights-based Palestine solidarity activism to criminal acts.

No divergence

These events, which have led some to fear the government will eventually move to ban BDS, took place under Conservative rule. Still, the Liberal Party’s recent vote in support of condemning BDS shouldn’t come as a surprise.

An early indicator for the Trudeau-ruled Liberals’ uncritical support of Israel came in July 2014, during Israel’s 51-day attack on Gaza, when the party released a statement claiming that “Israel has the right to defend itself and its people. Hamas is a terrorist organization and must cease its rocket attacks immediately.”

The statement failed to criticize Israel’s mass slaughter of Palestinians.

BDS specifically came under fire shortly thereafter. In March 2015, Trudeau tweeted in response to an upcoming vote to support BDS at McGill University that “The BDS movement, like Israeli Apartheid Week, has no place on Canadian campuses. As a @McGillU alum, I’m disappointed. #EnoughIsEnough.”

Rejecting rights

Trudeau became prime minister on 19 October. Within a week, he called Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, giving an assurance that Canada would continue to be a good ally. Israel’s ambassador to Canada, Rafael Barak, said the call “left his country assured that relations between Canada and the Jewish state will remain strong” since Trudeau had been consistent in supporting Israel throughout his campaign.

“I’m sure maybe the style will change,” the envoy added. “But I don’t feel there will be a change on the substance. I’m really reassured.”

This has been exactly the case as Trudeau has continued to offer Israel uncritical support. At the November 2015 UN General Assembly, a month after Trudeau had come to power, the Canadian government voted against all proposed resolutions supporting the rights of Palestinians.

The vote, which saw Canada reject 16 resolutions, was the exact same as the vote a year earlier when the Conservatives were ruling. The recent vote condemning BDS appears to be an extension of this willingness to support Israel.

Out of touch

The Liberals portrayed the vote as a necessary step in combating anti-Semitism and furthering the economic relationship with Israel, as well as a reflection of Canadian values. The reality is, however, that when it comes to BDS the Canadian government is out of touch with the people it represents.

BDS has been widely supported at Canadian universities. The undergraduate student society at McGill University, representing approximately 30,000 students, passed a motion to support BDS on 22 February, the same day the government condemned the movement (though the McGill vote ultimately failed to be ratified through an online process).

The vote at McGill was a first for the university, but only the latest in a wave of BDS votes on campus throughout the country. In the last three years alone, undergraduate student unions at McMaster University, theUniversity of Windsor, Ryerson University, York University and the University of Toronto Scarborough all passed votes endorsing BDS.

Several graduate student unions have also done the same. University students, as represented by their student societies, hold different views of Israel than the government, seeing the state as a force of oppression in the world as opposed to a friend for Canada.

The Canadian populace at large is also less supportive of Israel than the government would like to acknowledge. No polls specifically measuring support for BDS in Canada have been conducted, but there are several other indicators that Canadians are at least split on the issue at large.

A May 2014 Forum poll found that Canadians are evenly split on who is responsible for the hostilities between Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories. A 2011 BBC World Service poll, meanwhile, found that 46 percent of Canadians surveyed support the recognition of a Palestinian state, with only 25 percent opposed.

Free speech violation

Regardless of public opinion, however, the recent string of anti-BDS motions appears to violate the enshrined Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada. The National Council on Canada-Arab Relations issued a statementnoting that the suppression of BDS activism violates freedom of speech.

The leader of the New Democratic Party, the third major party in Canada, also expressed shock with the motion, and most of his party’s MPs voted against it (though the NDP has also cracked down on pro-Palestinian protesters in the past).

Tom Mulcair, the NDP’s leader, said “This goes against the freedom of expression we hold so dear in our society,” adding that BDS can be opposed. “But to call upon the government to condemn someone for having that opinion, that’s unheard of.”

Mulcair said the motion “makes it a thought crime to express an opinion.”

It’s a shame that the Canadian government, whether Liberal or Conservative ruled, is insistent on uncritically supporting Israel. The Liberals could have taken a strong stance against Israel’s human rights violations when they got into power, as they won by a wide enough margin to throw their weight around. Instead, they’ve prioritized perceived economic and political benefits over justice, thereby undermining their claim to be more progressive than the Conservatives.

Davide Mastracci is an associate editor at the Islamic Monthly. He has written for a range of publications including Al Jazeera America, Alternet’s Grayzone Project, The Globe and Mail, and the National Post. Website: davidemastracci.com.

US and Israel Rewrite History of UN Resolution that Declared Zionism is Racism

“Zionism is a form of racism and racial discrimination,” reads UN General Assembly Resolution 3379. The measure was adopted 40 years ago, on Nov. 10, 1975, and the majority of the international community backed it. 72 countries voted for the resolution, with just 35 opposed (and 32 abstentions).

Although little-known in the US today (it is remarkable how effectively the US and its allies have rewritten history in their favor), UN GA Res. 3379, titled “Elimination of all forms of racial discrimination,” made an indelible imprint on history.

The geographic distribution of the vote was telling. The countries that voted against the resolution were primarily colonial powers and/or their allies. The countries that voted for it were overwhelmingly formerly colonized and anti-imperialist nations.

Map of the votes on UN GA Res. 3379 (CREDIT: Wikimedia Commons)

The resolution also cited two other little-known measures passed by international organizations in the same year:

• the Assembly of the Heads of State and Government of the Organization of African Unity’s resolution 77, which ruled “that the racist regime in occupied Palestine and the racist regimes in Zimbabwe and South Africa have a common imperialist origin, forming a whole and having the same racist structure”; and
• the Political Declaration and Strategy to Strengthen International Peace and Security and to Intensify Solidarity and Mutual Assistance among Non-Aligned Countries, which called Zionism a “racist and imperialist ideology.”

When the resolution was passed, Israeli Ambassador to the UN Chaim Herzog — who later became Israel’s sixth president, and the father of Isaac Herzog, the head of Israel’s opposition — famously tore up the text at the podium.

Herzog claimed the measure was “based on hatred, falsehood, and arrogance,” insisting it was “devoid of any moral or legal value.” Still today, supporters of Israel argue UN GA Res. 3379 was an anomalous product of anti-Semitism. In reality, however, the resolution was the result of international condemnation of the illegal military occupation to which Palestinians had been subjected since 1967 and the apartheid-like conditions the indigenous Arab population had lived under as second-class citizens of an ethnocraticstate since 1948.

In 1991, resolution 3379 was repealed for two primary reasons: One, the Soviet bloc, which helped pass the resolution, had collapsed; and two, Israel and the US demanded that it be revoked or they refused to participate in the Madrid Peace Conference.

At the UN on Nov. 11, US Ambassador to the UN Samantha Power and Secretary of State John Kerry eulogized the late Herzog and forcefully condemned the resolution on its 40th anniversary.

In his 2,500-word statement, Kerry mentioned Palestinians just once, and only then as an extension of Israelis. In her remarks, Power did not mention Palestinians at all.

The “right” kind of “national liberation movement”

In his speech, Kerry smeared resolution 3379 as “anti-Semitic” and “absurd.” Kerry called it “a bitter irony that this resolution against Zionism was originally a resolution against racism and colonialism” and lamented that “reasonableness was detoured by a willful ignorance of history and truth.”

Sec. Kerry insisted “we will do all in our power to prevent the hijacking of this great forum for malicious intent” — a fascinating claim, considering how incredibly often the US itself hijacks the UN against the will of the international community, in the interests of both itself and Israel.

Kerry warned about “the global reality of anti-Semitism today” (he made no mention whatsoever of the global reality of rampant, rapidly accelerating, and viciously violent anti-Muslim, anti-Arab, and anti-Black racism), and implied that the “terrorist bigots of Daesh [ISIS], Boko Haram, Al Shabaab, and so many others” are part of this larger anti-Semitic trend. One could argue Sec. Kerry downplayed the severity of the present political situation by characterizing these fascistic groups’ violent extremism as rooted in anti-Semitic bigotry, rather than in radicalization under conditions of intense oppression, bitter poverty, and brutal tyranny.

The US secretary of state extolled “Zionism as the expression of a national liberation movement.” The national liberation movements of Vietnam, Korea, China, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Colombia, Congo, South Africa, Burkina Faso, and so many more nations, however, did not get such approval from Washington; au contraire, they were mercilessly crushed under the iron fist of American empire. Traditionally, only right-wing and settler-colonial “national liberation movements” have garnered the US’s official approval.

“Why do we Americans care so much about the rights of others being respected?” Kerry asked unprovoked. “Because, in an interconnected world, injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” He should tell that to the victims of US-backed dictatorships in Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, Egypt, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Thailand, Brunei, Rwanda, Ethiopia, Uganda, and, once again, so many more nations.

“Times may change, but one thing we do know: America’s support for Israel’s dreaming and Israel’s security, that will never change,” Kerry proclaimed.

“Legitimacy” and imperial hubris

In her speech at the UN, Power, like Kerry, conflated the heinous Nazi attacks on Jewish civilians in the Kristallnacht with UN GA Res. 3379. Both speakers cited the abominable horrors of the Holocaust several times as reasons to support Zionism, glossing over the fact that Zionism was created in the late 19th century and that the Balfour Declaration dates back to 1917, decades before World War II.

Amb. Power — a serial warmonger and veteran blame-dodger — did what she did best: rewrote history in the favor of US imperialism. She called the resolution “1975 smearing of Jews’ aspirations to have a homeland” and insisted multiple times that resolutions like 3379 “threaten the legitimacy of the UN.”

Like Kerry, Power conveniently forgot to mention that, when it comes to the halls of the UN, there is no other rogue state as blunt as the US, which regularly spits in the face of the international community, defying UN resolutions, violating the UN Charter, and breaking international law when it sees fit.

Power’s speech exposed the fault lines in the contentious (to put it mildly) relationship between the US and the UN — that is to say, between the US and the international community. Such tensions are not the fault of the UN; the blame rests squarely on the shoulders of Washington, with its doctrinal “American exceptionalism” and the flagrant disregard for international law that so frequently accompanies such imperial hubris.

UN machinations

In their speeches, both Kerry and Power also thanked Israeli UN Ambassador Danny Danon, who was described by an Israeli Labor Party lawmaker as “a right-wing extremist with the diplomatic sensitivity of a pit bull” and who proposed legislation that would, in his own words, have the Israeli government “annex the West Bank and repeal the Oslo Accords.” Amb. Danon insists that God gave the land of historic Palestine to the Jewish people as an “everlasting possession” (while forsaking the US). He also told the Times of Israel that the “international community can say whatever they want, and we can do whatever we want.”

Netanyahu addressed the session with a video message. He claimed that Israel, which has for years led the world in violating UN Security Council resolutions, “continues to face systemic discrimination here at the UN.” In a January 2013 statement submitted to the UN Human Rights Council, the Russell Tribunal calculated Israel had defied a bare minimum of 87 Security Council resolutions.

The Russel Tribunal also crucially noted “that Israel’s ongoing colonial settlement expansion, its racial separatist policies, as well as its violent militarism would not be possible without the US’s unequivocal support.” The tribunal pointed out that Israel “is the largest recipient of US foreign aid since 1976 and the largest cumulative recipient since World War II” and that, between 1972 and 2012, the US was the lone veto of UN resolutions critical of Israel 43 times.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon joined Kerry, Power, and Netanyahu in the echo chamber, albeit with a bit more subtlety. “The reputation of the United Nations was badly damaged by the adoption of resolution 3379, in and beyond Israel and the wider Jewish community,” he said. Unlike the others, Ban condemned not just anti-Semitism, but also “wide-ranging anti-Muslim bigotry and attacks [and] discrimination against migrants and refugees.”

Although the Israeli government accuses the UN of bias, the evidence demonstrates the opposite. Secret cables released by whistleblowing journalism organization WikiLeaks revealed that the US and Israel worked hand-in-hand with the UN and Sec.-Gen. Ban in order to undermine investigation into and punitive action on Israel’s war crimes in Gaza.

“Something colonial”

The real victim of the 40th anniversary event was the truth — and, of course, as it was four decades ago, the Palestinians. Yet, while UN GA Res. 3379 was repealed, the truth cannot be revoked. Zionism was and remains an unequivocally racist movement — just like any other hyper-nationalist and ethnocratic movement.

None other than the founding father of Zionism, Theodor Herzl, recognized this elementary fact. In a 1902 letter to Cecil Rhodes — a diamond magnate and white supremacist British colonialist with oceans of African blood on his hands — Herzl, writing of “the idea of Zionism, which is a colonial idea,” requested help colonizing historic Palestine.

“It doesn’t involve Africa, but a piece of Asia Minor, not Englishmen but Jews… How, then, do I happen to turn to you since this is an out-of-the-way matter for you? How indeed? Because it is something colonial,” Herzl wrote. “I want you to… put the stamp of your authority on the Zionist plan.”

About Ben Norton

Ben Norton is a journalist and writer based in New York City. His work has been featured in a variety of publications. You can follow Ben on Twitter at @BenjaminNorton. His website is BenNorton.com.